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

Qantas Emergency Return KSFO, Explosion in Engine?

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 Emergency Return KSFO, Explosion in Engine?

Old 31st Aug 2010, 13:39
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: East of There
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Qantas Emergency Return KSFO, Explosion in Engine?

Qantas jet makes emergency landing at SFO after engine explosion

"Explosion" is likely typical press distortion of facts.
Here's a decent look at the external damage:


Last edited by Checkerboard 13; 31st Aug 2010 at 16:42. Reason: add photo
Checkerboard 13 is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2010, 18:51
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,569
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Well it probably made a decent noise as those parts tore through.

So they will replace the donk and get on their way again
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2010, 19:42
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Benelux
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes on 3 Posts
Boeing 747s have four engines and "are designed to actually lose three of four engines and still be able to get back," said pilot and aviation consultant John Nance.
Perhaps when the a/c is relatively light, but would it really fly on 1 if it lost 3 dongs at the kind of weight they would have departed at? (Answer from a qualified B747-400 pilot please).
BRUpax is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2010, 19:44
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It appears to have been an 'uncontained engine failure' which is no laughing matter. In this instance it appears to be the outside of No.4 engine and so on the side away from the passenger cabin, fortunately.

Nonetheless, the engines are meant to contain bits on an explosion.
TopBunk is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2010, 19:45
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: NE of LON VOR
Age: 54
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If close to MTOW, a 747-400 is not capable of flying on one engine and there would be an awful lot of drag on the side of the aircraft where the 2 engines have failed.
Aviophage is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2010, 19:51
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I've heard that at lighter weights, flight on one engine is possible...provided it is one of the inboard engines sustaining flight.

good job QANTAS crew...the GAP departure out of KSFO takes you near mountains/hills and over part of San Francisco proper. United almost lost a 747 with much less damage in that area...flying so low as to set off car alarms.
protectthehornet is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2010, 20:01
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: on the edge
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ho hum,
Not another 3 engine landing!!!
gimmesumvalium is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2010, 20:06
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Confusio Helvetica
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In my uneducated opinion, the press is perfectly legitimate calling any IFSD with a partial containment failure an "Explosion". Yeah, an IFSD is a "non-issue", but a partial containment failure makes it a non-issue with issues.

The crew only ended up calling panpanpan at 073712Z, when they finished dumping, so calling it an "Emergency Return" is a bit of a stretch, but permissible in the US (where, apparently, such expressions have no meaning).
(and that makes it 231 SOB and 72 T after dumping)
Oh, and check out this bit of fun:

ZOA (072310Z): Qantas 74, we're in communications with your Dispatch now and they're uh wondering if you know the reason for the engine failure at this time.
QA74 (072317Z): Uh Qantas uh 74 uh, look uh that sort of information we don't know the reason, the exact reason, and uh tell Dispatch that we're not in a position to pass that sort of information at this stage.
ZOA (072330Z): Qantas 74, wilco.

(kudos to both parties for their professionalism, here and in the whole exchange. Both parties operated at a level of precision beyond what was necessary, even for a non-event)
Other fun facts from the tapes:
The QA74 crew, in addition to declaring SOB and fuel left, tried to declare to Approach that they had no hazmat on board. After three attempts, they gave up.


note: the ATC clips (from tower to landing; although the nerds could extract from Clearance delivery to Tower, if there were a point) are now available at Live ATC. Enjoy and
DingerX is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2010, 20:50
  #9 (permalink)  

the lunatic fringe
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Everywhere
Age: 67
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
tried to declare to Approach that they had no hazmat on boar
Is that an Oz requirement?

What's that all about?
L337 is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2010, 21:18
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Gweriniaeth Cymru
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Edelweiss Trent 700 IPT Disc Failure - Look Familiar?

https://ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_i...28X00693&key=1
N1 Vibes is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2010, 21:38
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Pan Am 707 SFO

Pan Am flight 843 experienced an explosive disintegration of the third stage turbine disk of the No. 4 engine. The accident occurred shortly after takeoff from San Francisco, at an altitude of about 800 feet above the ground.
Disintegration of the turbine disk was followed by a fire in the No. 4 engine area and an explosion in the outboard
reserve fuel tank. The No. 4 engine and approximately 25 feet of the right outer wing separated from the aircraft.
The fire was extinguished and a successful emergency landing was accomplished at Travis Air Force Base, California, with no injuries to the 143 passengers or 10 crewmembers aboard the flight
Spooky 2 is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2010, 21:53
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
pan am 707

I knew the son of the captain who flew that plane. you never know when you have to be a hero.
protectthehornet is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2010, 22:37
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
A more proficient sounding F/O on the radio for the latter half.
Standby Scum is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2010, 22:40
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: LPPR
Age: 66
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Pan Am 843

Captain Charles Kimes

Aviation: On a Wing & a Prayer - TIME
costamaia is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2010, 23:16
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: A Marriott somewhere
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Pan

A pan or mayday is totally acceptable in the US, but since most of here speak English of some sort we can actually communicate by conveying actual information. As opposed to something you think is cool because you heard it in a movie.

I still don't know what the heck Charlie-Charlie means, what movie did that come from????? I hear that in Europe and Asia all the time.
DA50driver is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2010, 23:24
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 68
Posts: 365
Received 7 Likes on 1 Post
I suspect he's not quite as busy in the latter part of the recording...
mrdeux is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2010, 23:49
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Wood's Hole (N4131.0 W07041.5)
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Show me!

Somebody, please, show me in any FAA, JAA, ICAO or other aviation related document where "Charlie Charlie" is accepted and/or approved term for "WILCO" or even "AFFIRM".
Please!

A legacy from the days of radio telegraphy is: "K" (meaning "over") or "R" (meaning "roger"). Never used "CC" EVER!
Weapons_Hot is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2010, 00:04
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Wood's Hole (N4131.0 W07041.5)
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ah, yes, I remember those days (such as yesterday's flight), but I still haven't used "charlie charlie" in a mere 35 years of flying/communications.
Weapons_Hot is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2010, 00:10
  #19 (permalink)  
jtr
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: .
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Quote:tried to declare to Approach that they had no hazmat on board

Is that an Oz requirement?

What's that all about?
It's procedural stupidity (IMO) based around the concept that somehow PM/PNF telling Appch, Tower, or Ground that they have 200kg of Cat 4 DG will get the info to the Fire Commander who is now already rolling and flat out with his job, and that he will have no problem working out where cargo position 42A is.

Following a close second is reporting the fuel on board AND position. 160T.... 60T... does it make that much difference? "Oh its only 60T we wont send all the trucks....."
jtr is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2010, 01:17
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK/OZ
Posts: 1,889
Received 7 Likes on 4 Posts
Reports and video

ABC radio Australia reporting that an "explsion tore a hole in the aircraft"

Interview with passenegr indicates cabin crew did good job but once on the ground they were "left outside in the cold for 5 hours" shifted to a hotel then a few hours later went back to the airport to get on a delta flight where no tickets had been issued, so it was a free for all with the elderly left to "fend for themselves"


Channel Nine Australia has video of the sparks.

Qantas engine explodes mid-air



Mickjoebill
mickjoebill is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.