Go tell the injured people on the ground that the failure was "contained". Just a matter of vocabulary

It's a technical term concerning the energy and direction of the fragments that leave the engine. It is of crucial importance for certification and also important to the integrity of the rest of the aircraft, and we should not misuse the terms just because there is a hazard to people on the ground.

A good way to put it is to call it a "catastrophic engine failure", which is both technically accurate and sufficiently alarmist to suit the press.

Not really a matter of vocabulary. An uncontained engine failure is when engine parts penetrate and exit via the engine casing. This looks like an LP turbine failure where the parts exit via the exhaust.

And these blades were not hollow. A different kettle of fish.

Turbine blades have been hollow for a very long time, much longer than fan blades. For different reasons (cooling), but still.

A few years ago it was General Electric CF6-50 engines that were having turbine failures (HP2 disc IIRC).
All engine makers have problems at times.

It's being reported on the Boeing 777 engine failure thread (though not relevant to that event) that the Japanese CAA has banned operations by aircraft powered by the PW4000-94 (B744, B762/3, MD11).

One wonders what the Japanese know that the FAA and EASA don't.

The Japanese have been very concerned for several years with engine parts possibly injuring folks on the ground. I'm guessing because of high density populations under flight paths.

Agreed. The only commonality is the engine manufacturer and its regulator (Pratt & Whitney / FAA). Obvious lack of confidence.

The trend for countries to ban overflight on safety grounds for aircraft not on their own register started with the 737Max. It was a big step from the past, where under ICAO rules there was automatic acceptance of aircraft registered in other countries. Importation was a different story, with validation required.

FAA really needs to get things back in order.

The PW4000/94" engine has been in service for over 30 years with over 150 million flight hours - it's a big, heavily used fleet. The odd turbine failure that spits blades out the back when you have an engine with such a history is generally not that big of deal. Every engine type has the occasional 'metal in the tailpipe' incident - it happens. Sometimes things break.
I haven't had access to the PW4000/94" reliability statistics for over four years, but when I retired it was considerably less than one IFSD/100,000 flight hours standard that's used for extended ETOPS.
Combined with Longtail being a small time freight operator, me thinks this is a pretty dramatic over reaction by the Japanese authorities.

Following an engine change, the Longtail aircraft in question departed Liege some 10 minutes ago. That would, I presume, confirm that there was no significant (if any) damage to the fuselage.

That was quick! It probably helps that there are lots of PW engines for 744s lying around from retired passenger aircraft...

procede, The spare engine was brought in by their other 747 'WS' on Monday. It then took 'WT's cargo to JFK.