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

DA50driver
You have obviously forgetten the Avianca B707 incident near New York when plain english failed to convey the extreme nature of the situation. A mayday call is the clearest phrase possible

On the Channel 9 news clip in Australia this is the announcement from the flight deck, recorded on someone's video:

"Ladies and Gentlemen as you can appreciate we are a tad busy on the flight deck at the moment and we'll come back to you with some more information. In the mean time you must be assured that we are trained for this situation - normally in a simulator of course but we are trained for it so rest assured everything is under control."

The pictures don't show any slides deployed.

Gotta love this gem from the channel 9 reporter:
Those QF pilots must be well practiced with their glide approaches.

If aviation journalism is this bad and inaccurate all over, how reliable are their other stories in all other fields? It makes you wonder!

dream747,

I don't think anyone would describe Channel 9 as "Aviation Journalism". More like Fox News with lots of:

"Oh My God! The pilot circled for about an hour, he had to dump all the fuel that he had. And now, a story about a 2 headed sheep from New Zealand"

The serious aviation journalists of this world are still relatively sober and not sensationalist.

Brgd's

N1 Vibes

Replacement engine 5th-podded to SFO this afternoon from SYD :)

I may well be wrong but I believe that "Charlie Charlie" in the days of the morse key was the quick way of saying "Correct/Affirmative" or whatever.

I thought Charlie shot Roger and took over, unofficially. Something to do with certain Asian tongues having difficulty with their RRRR's ?? Certainly Charlie suddenly seemed to be around in certain areas. Could be wrong of course.

We've been wondering for years - but then weren't we told that five loaves and two fishes fed about 10 million once ? nothing new under the sun.

I wonder if the QF Tech crews and LAMEs' have nice wet pockets after the following quote from Mr Epstein, the $300k motormouth. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/01/2999463.htm?section=justin

Apropos nothing at all, I believe 'charlie charlie' was from Morse days for 'c c' = 'Message Correct'

That's because they landed, normally, off a 3-engine approach (which is really NOT a big deal in a 747) and then made their way to a normal parking stand. There's no need to evacuate the aircraft just because you've had an engine failure, hence the lack of slides.

Not having much luck with their 74's are they.....

.Air passengers' mid-flight terror as hole is blown in Qantas 747 fuselage - Times Online

explosion?
 

I see no mention of an explosion in the report linked in the first message of the thread so just where did the sensationalism come from?

explosion ?
 

mm, that's what I thought too, but then If you read the small print caption underneath the photo, apparently "...authorities said" !!!!! :ugh:

An uncontained failure means the engine case was breached.

It takes a LOT of energy to do that. Think a piece of a rotor, with the mass and velocity of a cannonball, ripping through a steel case.

If you ever experienced one, YOU would certainly call it an explosion. The media get plenty of aviation stories wrong, but DON'T criticize them for calling this an explosion. :eek:

Quote:

---

Not having much luck with their 74's are they.....

---

Both very different stories, and after all the media hysteria settles down we will find that this incident was handled very well indeed by the crew as it was with QF30 at RPLL.

The same can be said for QF 30 taxied all the way to the gate! B744s are tough birds!

August was a bad month at R-R for uncontained failures!

Video here.

Hmm, IMHO, a little economical with the actualité. :hmm:

Pax speaking:
To be pedantic it could be written, "The engine failed with explosive force" but the 'bang' would have sounded like an explosion. They were fortunate that it blew out so early in the sector and neither earlier nor later. I hate to say it but - gimme four of the beasties.

Pretty lucky, dumping fuel with that source of ignition!