QF emergency landing at LAX ???
 

Qantas Airlines Plane Makes Emergency Landing at LAX
Los Angeles, CA (CNS) -- A Qantas Airlines plane made an emergency landing at the Los Angeles International Airport Tuesday night, but no one was injured, authorities said.
The Los Angeles Fire Department received a call at 11:16 last night responding to a Boeing 747 passenger plane that was making an emergency landing at LAX, according to a dispatcher who declined to give his name.
Firefighters had cleared the scene by 11:40, he said.
A witness at the scene said the plane landed on runway 25R.
It was not immediately clear where the plane was arriving from, or the nature of the problem that prompted the landing.


http://www.knx1070.com/pages/409633....ntentId=459982

Captain left his Duty Free in the lounge???:confused:

F/O: But i want to take off.........its not fair!!! you always take off
Capt: If you dont stop sooking like a little :mad: i'll turn this plane right around and no one is going home.
F/O: I dont care i didnt want to go any way!

Guess the captain carried out his threat.

LOL had to laugh at CBS's article

Quantas Flight Makes Emergency Landing At LAX
(CBS) LOS ANGELES A Qantas Airlines plane made an emergency landing at LAX Tuesday night, though there were no reports of injuries.

The L.A. Fire Department received a call at 11:16 p.m. that a Boeing 747 passenger plane would make an emergency landing at Los Angeles International Airport, according to a dispatcher who did to give his name.

The plane landed safely on runway 25R.

By 11:40 p.m., firefighters had cleared the scene.

Authorities are not sure where the plane was coming from or what caused the emergency landing.


(© 2007 CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report. )

http://cbs2.com/topstories/local_story_122034737.html

:ugh: :ugh:

Qantas emergency landing LAX
 

http://http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/vibration-issue-forces-qantas-jet-to-land/2007/05/03/1177788264337.html
A Qantas plane carrying 288 passengers was forced to return to the tarmac after a mid-air engine problem in Los Angeles.
The Boeing 747-400 took off from Los Angeles International Airport just before 10pm Tuesday [LA time] and was heading to Auckland when it had to turn around and land back in LA about 11pm.
Executive General Manager of Qantas Engineering, David Cox, said it was not an emergency landing.
"After take-off, the aircraft conducted what we call an 'air return' following indications of a vibration issue with one of the aircraft's four engines," Mr Cox said.
"The pilot shut down the engine as a precaution and the aircraft landed without incident. No emergency was declared and there was no safety issue at any time," he said.
However, an smh.com.au reader who wished to remain anonymous, gave a different account.
"Sparks came out of the front engine and the back and would have lit up the night sky near LA," he said.
Passengers on the flight, QF26, were accommodated in Los Angeles and were booked on Qantas and Air New Zealand flights to Auckland on Wednesday [LA time].
"It's possible there may have been sparks eminating from the engine as a result of the vibration," a Qantas spokesman said.
"They were flying at night and if there was some sparking that would have been very visible."
He said a Boeing 747 can fly on one engine if necessary.
No one was injured in the incident.


My question is, at the the kind of weights they would be out of LAX can they fly on one engine? How about only either 1&4 or 2&3.

It can fly on One engine :E ....... time may be an issue though

of course it can fly on one engine. it's just the direction that it goes that would concern me

Ok ok.

Can it maintain altitude with only one engine operating.

Not successfully.:eek:

On one egine operating?

Yes - for a short time until it reaches VMCA.

A more interesting consideration/guess would be - How far could you likely fly at its typical departure weight to a landing with one engine at max continuous from, say, FL300?

My WAG would be about 200 nm.

Incidently - There has to be a more serious condition than vibration to produce sparks front and rear.

Departure weight, say 385 tonnes at TOC F300 .. single engine .. dumping fuel, driftdown altitude probably about 5,000ft, maybe a bit less. Return for ILS 7L. Tricky, but doable. Would also depend on whether you have an inner or outer engine as your plaything.

Depending on where you lose the engines on departure, 2 engines is doable. At 397 tonnes, you'd probably want to be 1,000 ft just starting flap retraction (you might even get away with it a bit earlier). Daylight is a big factor if you want to use ground effect.

You wouldn't want any obstacles, they stuff you right up.
N

There have been some QF26 services operated by B743s recently - does anyone know which aircraft was involved?

United did it into Narita many moons ago.... that was on landing however and many, many tonnes less than this would have been.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...13X25661&key=1

The United Aircraft was a 100/200 series - the fuel system decided to put all the fuel in No 2 main tank. Landing weight would have been probably 230t ? Engine thrust 45000 lb.

400 series landing weight about 260 t engine thrust 58000 lb. Don't forget this was from TOC, so have time to dump fuel. One Engine generator would mean some load shedding (cabin).

Single engine RB211 has sufficient thrust to drive the aircraft round a circuit at 260 tonnes. A couple of other variables, but I reckon it'd work. No excess thrust, though - you'd need to get it right.

Project for company training next Sim .... :(


N

G,day Slezy..Qf26 is usually operated by a two class jumbo. Max Zfw is 249475kg and mtow is 397210kg. Fuel uplift around 140000kg giving t/off weight approx 390000kg. Lax air return was VH-OJI. Cheers

The Burning Question is I guess :confused:

Was the engine cleaned by prisoners from Changhi ? :E

Of course it wasn't Cox would've dismissed it as innuendo and here say,

I mean sparks flying out of an engine day or night are no real concern, are they ? :eek:

At MTOW the reality is if you lose 2 engines below 1000ft on takeoff you'd be struggling. Above 1000ft you may just have the height to accelerate and retract flaps depending on terrain of course. Just hope you dont have a catastrophic engine failure just after liftoff that blows shrapnel into the adjoining engine! :eek: Of course at light weights you can fly on 1 engine but in the high weight range typical of takeoff's from lax, well no chance. IMHO it is the most critical time of any flight the takeoff and initial climb to 1000ft.

Qantas did that many moons ago as well. Multiple birdstrikes on takeoff in a Pratt powered 747-200 out of Sydney. Captain did a sterling job, but I am unaware of the exact details.

Nice quote from Qantas "It's possible there may have been sparks eminating from the engine as a result of the vibration," a Qantas spokesman said.
"They were flying at night and if there was some sparking that would have been very visible."
Engines dont spark because of vibration. It is the problem that caused the sparks that causes the vibration (i.e. blades destroying themselves).

QF engineering in safe hands....
 

Cox continues to impress with his aviation expertise. This week it's "a B747 can fly on one engine". His last gem was to explain no crew oxygen in an A330 was not a problem because "there's a spare oxy bottle on the flight deck"!