QF Flight returns to SFO after engine blows up

[MarcB]

Speaking of hyperbole - Channel 10 news (Aus) reported on the story before crossing back to the newsreader who asks "wasn't there a similar incident recently with Qantas?". The scripted reply then draws a parallel to the Manila incident - of course never mentioning the actual cause but talking up safety concerns with offshore maintenance. Can someone explain to me how engine failure and exploding oxygen tanks are "similar"? Because they both left holes in the plane?? Come on!

[samh004]

My dad would have been on the prior flight, to SFO.

[Flashware]

Have I died overnight? A news report that is level headed telling the facts instead of the usual hyperbole we hear? What is happening?



munitalP

Yet the incident with the flight DRW-ADL which the Victorian Bushrangers + JBT was on was made out to be bigger than Ben Hurr! There was a big thing on the news about it last night ; silly really.

[MelUser]

Note that this has resulted in aircraft changes so skybeds are not available in Premium (and premium seating not available in economy) for Platinum passengers for a while.

[straitman]

Note that this has resulted in aircraft changes so skybeds are not available in Premium (and premium seating not available in economy) for Platinum passengers for a while.

Now that is probably the most distressing part of the whole event

[yohy?!]

Footage of the sparks from onboard here

Qantas engine explodes mid-air

[docjames]

Glad all on board are Ok.

Two questions:

1. Is this considered an "uncontained failure" and if so, are there any implications for the engine/aircraft manufacturer? I realise the 744 is well and truly flight proven, but thinking given the RR in testing on the 787 had an "uncontained failure" and the implications for the certification. I presume the affected ac was a RR powered 744. Also thinking good thing it was the outer (#1) and not inner (#2) that failed if it's an uncontained failure.

2. Will this incident be subject to an NTSB investigation, an ATSB investigation, neither, or both?

Thanks.

[NM]

Expect to see an interesting sight this morning as Qantas will likely deliver the replacement engine using the "5th pod" capability of another of the RR-engined 744s. Not all 744s have the pylon mountings for the 5th engine, so may require some shuffling of operating aircraft.

[markis10]

Glad all on board are Ok.

Two questions:

1. Is this considered an "uncontained failure" and if so, are there any implications for the engine/aircraft manufacturer? I realise the 744 is well and truly flight proven, but thinking given the RR in testing on the 787 had an "uncontained failure" and the implications for the certification. I presume the affected ac was a RR powered 744. Also thinking good thing it was the outer (#1) and not inner (#2) that failed if it's an uncontained failure.

2. Will this incident be subject to an NTSB investigation, an ATSB investigation, neither, or both?

Thanks.

The hole would indicate something (ie turbine blade) was uncontained.
And yes both ATSB and the NTSB will investigate, QF73 this afternoon will operate with 5 engines attached http://eu.airliners.net/aviation-pho.../4/0289429.jpg!

[NM]

QF73 this afternoon will operate with 5 engines attached

But of course only 4 of those 5 attached engines will be "operating"