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:

http://i52.tinypic.com/2uzs7k7.jpg

Well it probably made a decent noise as those parts tore through.

So they will replace the donk and get on their way again

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).

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.

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.

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.

Ho hum,
Not another 3 engine landing!!!

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

Is that an Oz requirement?

What's that all about?

Edelweiss Trent 700 IPT Disc Failure - Look Familiar?
 

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

pan am 707
 

I knew the son of the captain who flew that plane. you never know when you have to be a hero.

A more proficient sounding F/O on the radio for the latter half.

Pan Am 843
 

Captain Charles Kimes :D

Aviation: On a Wing & a Prayer - TIME

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.

I suspect he's not quite as busy in the latter part of the recording...

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!

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. :=

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....."

Reports and video
 

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

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