Qantas jet collides with baggage trolley in LAX???
Evertonian
Thread Starter
Qantas jet collides with baggage trolley in LAX???
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...
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...
Nunc est bibendum
Heard the same thing on the cage this morning. This was posted on news.com.au about twenty minutes ago.
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! 
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.
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.
Evertonian
Thread Starter
I don't know what suprises me the most. That this happened, or that Keg listens to the Cage!!!
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!)
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!)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canberra Aust
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
I bet the ground handling agent is seeking some urgent legal advice. Could be an expensive payout.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....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....."
.....i can hear the old boys say.."if it had of been Ansett/virgin CASA would ground them, but not the skygods....."
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Standing at P37
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 466
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by Spanner Turner
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
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?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Standing at P37
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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)
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!
Originally Posted by Taildragger67
But would any old CF6 nose cowl do (eg. off a DC10 or MD11)?
The same engines are also fitted to A300 and A310 aircraft but not too sure how many of these there are in the states.
Originally Posted by Taildragger67
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?)
Originally Posted by Taildragger67
As for lots of RB211s - most 757s have 'em, don't they?
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!
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, but will they find one the right colour???
