Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Qantas 747 emergency landing

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Qantas 747 emergency landing

Old 3rd May 2007, 05:22
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ireland
Posts: 98
Qantas 747 emergency landing

Anyone know why the QF26 747 made an emergency landing at LAX last night ?
F900EX is offline  
Old 3rd May 2007, 06:17
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Down Under
Posts: 124
Rolls Royce engine failure.
Nepotisim is offline  
Old 3rd May 2007, 16:01
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 797
Was it declared as an emergency, or was it simply a landing with one engine inop?
old,not bold is offline  
Old 3rd May 2007, 16:08
  #4 (permalink)  
jetsy
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: US for now
Posts: 524
ABC:

A Qantas flight from Los Angeles to Auckland has been forced to turn around after engine trouble over the Pacific.

Qantas flight 26, a 747-400 service out of Los Angeles with about 300 passengers and crew on board, was just 20 minutes into its flight to Melbourne via Auckland when a vibration developed in one of the aircraft's four engines.

David Cox, the airline's director of engineering, says the pilot shutdown the engine and returned to Los Angeles, where the plane landed safely without incident.

Passengers were taken to nearby hotels while Qantas made arrangements for them to be transferred to other transpacific flights.
jet_noseover is offline  
Old 3rd May 2007, 17:06
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto, Canada
Age: 69
Posts: 55
We know it was the #2 or #3 donk: a passenger on the flight was quoted by the Sydney Morning Herald as saying, "Sparks came out of the front engine..."
Clearly no risk here, as a Qantas spokesman said, "a Boeing 747 can fly on one engine if necessary."
Michael
boaclhryul is offline  
Old 3rd May 2007, 17:36
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Leeds
Posts: 682
Oh, well done.

For christ's sake don't let Gordon Brown see that last post.

Imagine the cash saving projects he'll hatch for the RAF's Brize fleet when he finds out big jets don't need all their engines.

Think before you post next time, eh?

Tsk.
harrogate is offline  
Old 3rd May 2007, 20:52
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: US
Posts: 896
It was more like "over the harbour" than over the Pacific.
Flightaware
Check 6 is offline  
Old 3rd May 2007, 21:04
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,975
"a Boeing 747 can fly on one engine if necessary."

If the last one fails, it still has the APU.

No sweat!
hetfield is offline  
Old 3rd May 2007, 21:19
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,637
All getting a good run in the D&G forum.

Mods - candidates for a thread merge??

Was VH-OJI, apparently.

All walked away, nothin' to see here, move along folks...
Taildragger67 is offline  
Old 4th May 2007, 08:12
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: North of London
Posts: 371
So why didn't he continue on to Auckland with only three engines, then? I guess he must have used common sense!
Colonel Klink is offline  
Old 5th May 2007, 13:49
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 32
OMG

The dreaded three engine approach.......please!!!!!
VHF1 is offline  
Old 6th May 2007, 11:35
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: London & Edinburgh
Age: 34
Posts: 646
Colonel Klink -not making any guesses, but to see the debate on 3 engine long flights, I suggest you do a search for the BA 3 engine flight LAX-LHR.

Jordan
Jordan D is offline  
Old 6th May 2007, 19:37
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: North of London
Posts: 371
Thanks, Jordan but even the simplest, most junior pilot amongst us would realise that it was the BA incident I was referring to and that I believe the Qantas crew excercised judgement and airmanship under similar circumstances to the BA flight which did not. I am extremely conversant with the argument with all the pros and cons and therefore why should I look at it again?
Colonel Klink is offline  
Old 6th May 2007, 19:59
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: London & Edinburgh
Age: 34
Posts: 646
I'm SLF, I misread your comment, and your comment didn't have any particular reference to your knowledge. Maybe errors on both sides?

Anyway, let's keep it clean, and let the thread stay in R&N, instead of being shipped to Jet Blast.

Jordan
Jordan D is offline  
Old 7th May 2007, 03:16
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 67
Angel

CK

A little pompous in your reply to JD!

Without starting the 3 engine fly-on debate again you are NOT comparing apples with apples. It is a bit different to go across miles and miles of ocean on three with only one alternate than flying LAX to LHR. Plus it mentions "vibration"!!!!!!!! It does not always stop when you shut it down!!!
electricjetjock is offline  
Old 7th May 2007, 13:21
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FNQ ... Still!
Posts: 3,438
The Regulation in Australia

Continuation of Flight by Multi-engine Aircraft with One or More Engines Inoperative

Unfortunately, what the Pilot In Command deems as safe and operationally acceptable, to what the Lawyers representing the company and the passengers deems to be safe and operationally acceptable after the fact, is where the problem begins (or sometimes ends!)

In these days of almost guaranteed Police involvement in any incident, perhaps it's prudent to err on the conservative side!
Capt Fathom is online now  
Old 7th May 2007, 21:34
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: buderim australia
Age: 54
Posts: 43
turn backs are required by the company. If for instance you departed on a 3 hour sector overflying numerous airports we would have continued on most days with an engine failure however I am told that did not sit well with CASA and so a note was made in our manuals " if an engine fails, or is required to be shutdown during climb, the primary consideration should be to return to the departure airport. The only exceptions to this policy would be weather precluding a return or a suitable airport being available within close proximity." On a seperate note the aircraft will easily fly a long sector on 3 engines however within the last 3 hours there needs to be a heap of airports available to meet your needs on two engines if a susequent engine fails and that is where you can find yourself in between nowhere and no where. Fine in practise returning to europe or asia overland but on a pacific route. no way withour rerouting and the plan and fuel carried would not allow this.
vwreggie is offline  
Old 8th May 2007, 11:26
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 627
Did the crew preserve the PAX and the aircraft 100%? Answer = YES

End of discussion.

Now talk about the engine failure in detail as much as you like....RR again!

J
J430 is offline  
Old 8th May 2007, 18:24
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: HIMALAYA
Posts: 3
Qantas747 emergency landing was just abnormality

If you loose only one engine on a 747 you dont even have to open up the red pages. Its fortunately just an abnormality not an emergency.
atr_in_himalaya is offline  
Old 9th May 2007, 00:49
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 12
Airmanship defeated by FAA Media Fears

As a 744 P2, it seems that since BA's sensible continuation on 3 engines LAX-UK the 'journo' factor has changed the game somewhat, viz:
Airmanship-based decisions to continue to/near dest via oceanic/remote route (surely the whole point of having 4 motors in the first place) are now the subject of ill-informed media pressure on National Regulator (eg FAA - next time use some bloody common - you lot certificated the jet in the first place!)
BA are to be respected for supporting the Commander's decision in the public domain.
Just as valid is the QF Crew's decision to return to LAX in the light of new CASA guidance (another regulator buckling in public?). Just wonder if the Crew would have preferred, in the absence of such overbearing regulation, to continue across part/all of the ocean, assuming fuel etc permitted...
GZip is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.