Qantas jet collides with baggage trolley in LAX???

[Buster Hyman]

Just heard on the radio about this, but as yet, there is nothing on the news sites.

According to the radio, the jet was taxiing after landing and ground equipment strayed into its path damaging an engine. Pax were then evacuated onto the tarmac...

:confused:

[Keg]

Heard the same thing on the cage this morning. This was posted on news.com.au about twenty minutes ago.

ALMOST 300 passengers were evacuated from a Qantas jet in Los Angeles after it collided with a luggage cart early today.

The accident, involving a Boeing 747-400 from Sydney, happened about 11.10am LA time (4.20am AEST).

A Qantas spokesman said the 288 passengers on board left the plane via stairs onto the runway.

The spokesman said engineers were inspecting the aircraft, but the cause of the mishap was unknown.

One of the engines is believed to have been damaged.



Hmmm. I wonder if the QF spokesman really said they left via stairs '...onto the runway'! If they left via the stairs then it wasn't an 'evacuation' in the aviation sense of the word! :ugh:

[Buster Hyman]

I don't know what suprises me the most. That this happened, or that Keg listens to the Cage!!!:eek:

That's exactly where I heard it as well, but I'm sure they mentioned taxiway in the report (and I very much doubt there would be a trolley on the runway as well!):rolleyes:

[Raider1]

Just saw the video coverage on 9 News tonight. Appeared to be damage to one engine... seems like it might be an expensive layover!! ouch.
I bet the ground handling agent is seeking some urgent legal advice. Could be an expensive payout.

:)

[WalterMitty]

....and the engineers pushed one back into some ground equipment just recently. Thats three for QF -400's...what up!

.....i can hear the old boys say.."if it had of been Ansett/virgin CASA would ground them, but not the skygods....."

[airbusthreetwenty]

When I was watching the news tonight they reported that no passengers were going to be delayed.

Somehow I don't think that a/c won't be going anywhere anytime soon.

I wonder where they're going to reaccomodate the 288 pax.

[twiggs]

When I was watching the news tonight they reported that no passengers were going to be delayed.

Somehow I don't think that a/c won't be going anywhere anytime soon.

I wonder where they're going to reaccomodate the 288 pax.

If it was an arriving aircraft, as the report seems to suggest, the only delay would be if they couldn't fix it before the evening departures, and the only disruption for the 288 pax would be the walk down the stairs to get to the terminal, the wait for luggage and any missed connections.

[Spanner Turner]

Twiggs, you are quite correct. This happened to the arrival service of the QF011 which is a terminating service. It arrives at LAX at 0945 and doesn't depart until the evening as the QF012 back to SYD. The scheduled departure time is 2230 which gives a ground time of 12hours 45 minutes. Allowing the usual couple of hours on bay(say 4-5) for cargo load/unload, fuelling, towing, etc this would leave a good 6-7 hours to rectify the damage. Word at the Base late this arvo(1600 15-Aug) was that the damage was limited to one nose cowl. Providing a new one can be sourced, this can easily be replaced in the time avail (and probably could do it 3 or 4 times if so inclined). It's just held on with a ring of bolts, a few elec plugs and an anti-ice duct. Lucky for Qantas that the aircraft involved was fitted with General Electric CF6 engines (the majority of the QF -400 Fleet are Rolls Royce powered). This is important, as in the good old US of A there are literally thousands of aircraft fitted with these engines and consequently there will be someone,somewhere with a spare nose cowl available-At the right price of course! Rolls Royce engines however are rare as hens teeth in the US these days (especially of the variety fitted to the 747-400) As this happened at what could be considered a fairly convenient time of the day (i.e 10 in the morning) a few phone calls and one can be Fed-Exed to LAX before the sunsets! The word was a cowl was coming from Kentucky. Qan have plenty of engineers stationed at LAX so manpower to replace it wouldn't be a problem either.
A broken aircraft is a broken aircraft - whilst some parts are larger than others and can be seen by the public and it may look all horrendous and makes for "sensational" news footage, in reality, damage of this nature is a 'known' quantity and can be fixed easily provided the correct parts are available and the damage is not structural to the wings or fuselage. Once you damage these bits (for example the Qantas wing into the fence at JFK) then yes, you're up for substantial amounts of time on the ground and hefty hotel bills for delayed passengers.

[Redstone]

The Spanner Turner is correct, no big deal. And with those Lean Sigma guys stationed over there, the nose cowl will be changed quick sticks!!! Faster than a speeding baggage trolley!!!

[Taildragger67]

Lucky for Qantas that the aircraft involved was fitted with General Electric CF6 engines (the majority of the QF -400 Fleet are Rolls Royce powered). This is important, as in the good old US of A there are literally thousands of aircraft fitted with these engines

But would any old CF6 nose cowl do (eg. off a DC10 or MD11)?

If not, doesn't that kind-of limit options given the relatively few CF6-powered 744s based in the US (can't think who runs CF6 744s there - UA are PW, not sure about NW... but maybe raid some spares off non-US CF6 744 carriers' stores at KLAX?)

As for lots of RB211s - most 757s have 'em, don't they?

[company_spy]

RR fitted to 757's are a diferent model, plenty of 767 CF6 powered a/c though in US as long as they are 80C2.

[Bolty McBolt]

Spy and Red are correct.
Just find a Nose cowl from a GE powered 767

Bobs your uncle

[Spanner Turner]

Gee, you do have to be accurate here don't you! (and there's nothing wrong with that) I'll add some further for clarification-I hope.
But would any old CF6 nose cowl do (eg. off a DC10 or MD11)?
As long as it's an CF6-80C2 it will be compatible. Yes, the nose cowl off a CF6 powered MD-11 is the same. However, when the cowl is fitted to the #1 or #3 position on the MD-11 it is fitted with a 'chine' on both sides of the cowl at the 10 and 2 'o' clock positions. These are easily removed and there you go-bolt straight on. Same engines fitted also to 767's and there has to be stacks of these getting around the skies in the US. Once again when the engine is fitted to a 767 it is fitted with a 'chine' but only on the inboard side.
The same engines are also fitted to A300 and A310 aircraft but not too sure how many of these there are in the states.
If not, doesn't that kind-of limit options given the relatively few CF6-powered 744s based in the US (can't think who runs CF6 744s there - UA are PW, not sure about NW... but maybe raid some spares off non-US CF6 744 carriers' stores at KLAX?)

Yes Taildragger, you are quite correct-there are relatively few CF6 powered 744's in the states although Canadian Air/Air Canada/Canadair (whatever they're called these days) do run a fleet of CF6 powered 744's. I can think of at least one US based operator of CF6-80C2 powered 747's. That is the good old United States Air Force! Have you ever seen those nice skyblue jumbo's that get around with the tail numbers 28000 and 29000? Sometimes you may hear one of them referred to as 'Airforce 1'. I've seen them quite often on the television news - usually with some bloke walking down the stairs who executes a poor salute to the guard when he gets to the bottom and steps onto a red carpet. Not sure who he is but he must be quite high up the food chain to have not one, but two jumbo's at his disposal! These two aircraft are maintained by the 89th Military Airlift Wing at Andrews Airforce Base near Washington and are designated as VC-25A's. Whilst actually based around a 747-200 they are fitted with CF6-80C2's which is the only application of the 80C2 on a -200. With what would seem the unlimited resources allocated to these aircraft I think they would have a spare cowl or two kicking around the hangar that I'm sure if Qantas asked really nicely with sugar on top they could get a lend of!! (tell 'em they're dreaming)
As for lots of RB211s - most 757s have 'em, don't they?
Yes, alot of 757's are fitted with Rollr Royce RB211 engines but these are of the RB211-535 model - a fair bit smaller and thrust of around 40-44,000lbs as opposed to the RB211-524 model (56-58,000lbs) which are fitted to the 744.
P.S. For the record, the aircraft in question was repaired in time and made it back to sydney as scheduled on wednesday morning(16 Aug). The maintenance guys did do the required inspections of the engine and strut as called out in the maint manual "Conditional Inspection-Aircraft Contact with Ground Equipment) This involved the inspection of the strut to wing fuse pins and general inspection of strut/engine. No damage found.
Hope I've got it right - sorry for long post!

[drshmoo]

Spanner turner, your long informative posts are more than welcome. :D

[Buster Hyman]

Ah, but will they find one the right colour???:}

[HotDog]

Ah, but will they find one the right colour???
Who cares? I'm sure you have seen several different coloured radomes after an off base lightning strike; I have.

[B A Lert]

It's Friday HotDog...time to chill out mate!:*

Buster - you didn't say if they are safe for children>:ok:

[hotnhigh]

The replacements orange. It'll fit in fine.

[Buster Hyman]

Yes, orange is good for children...blue ones on the other hand....:uhoh:

[company_spy]

Spanner, sorry to be picky but the chine on 767 GE engines in on the fan cowl not the nose cowl. On P&W JT9's the chine is on the nose cowl.

[Spanner Turner]

Spanner, sorry to be picky but the chine on 767 GE engines in on the fan cowl not the nose cowl. On P&W JT9's the chine is on the nose cowl.
Oh damn, wrong again. True,true, true.Company Spy is 100% correct. (and I tried my best to be accurate) I actually do know both the engines very well - yet haven't seen a Pratt & Whitney on a 767 since Qantas retired their 767-200's -some turned into freighters and some turned into Coke cans. It's been a while , please forgive my tardiness.

[Johhny Utah]

uh oh razzamatazz - rumours have it that the loading vehicle had stalled on the taxiway, and couldn't get going again; only to be run into by the 744 captained by a former assistant manager....

D'Oh!

[sydney s/h]

I was onboard that flight as a pax and watched the whole thing unfold infront of me.

Here's the facts - we left Syd 2hrs late due to the a/c coming out of maint and having a new engine installed (as advised in the Capts welcome onboard PA).

We arrived in LAX at 1115hrs local and were taxiing into the terminal when the aircraft came to a slow halt. I looked out my window and saw a bagage loader (on the right hand side) sitting on the edge of the taxiway on a side road and this little dude giving the thumbs up and rolling his hand to indicate it was okk to go and would clear. The aircraft proceeded forward then hit #4 engine.

We sat onboard for a further 40mins then left the aircraft through L1 by stairs and into a fleet of buses. We were advised our bags would be delivered to us asap. I got mine 24hrs later.

The QF12 was cancelled out of LAX that same night and friends of mine coming out of Syd on Wed (2days later) on the QF73 to SFO were delayed for 9hrs and advised it was due to the LAX incident.

Well done to the crew - both cabin and tech. The PA's were good and the situation handled well.

I did notice 2 Capt's, 1 FO and 1 SO onboard.

So there's the facts. When i get home i'll post the pics i took out the window.

[frangatang]

Gawd l have read some drivel on this post and it makes me laugh.Ba had a cracked windscreen on a 400 arriving in seattle some years ago. It was stuck for days awaiting another..and they build the aircraft there.The nut and bolt man is absolutely correct in how to fix it but you cant beat the system.You might be looking at one 100m away sitting in a crate but the PROCEDURE will take days to sort out Bulls..t rules ok at all times .How long was the QF 400 stuck in jfk for?

[max autobrakes]

Why is it that the history of stuff ups in Qantas are littered with the names of management types?
Keep 'em in the office. The travelling public will be safer for it, so it would seem. :\

[onya]

Well done to the 'spanner throwing' types on this thread. It's refreshing to see such informed and well composed threads on here for a change. :ok:

[Chequebook]

not the "C " word again!