AMSSpotter From Netherlands, joined Feb 2005, 271 posts, RR: 1 Posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2213 times:
I came across this ATSB Accident and Incident Report. Quote: "Following take-off from Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), the crew of the B747-438 aircraft noticed a severe airframe jolt while conducting a climbing left turn. The cockpit instruments indicated that the number-1 engine exhaust gas temperature was rising through 900 degrees C. Passengers also reported flames emanating from the number-1 engine tailpipe.
The crew shut down the number-1 engine and returned the aircraft to LAX for a one- engine inoperative landing."
Maybe I'm comparing apples and oranges (unfortunately, I do not have a technical background) but this incident reminded me of what happened to BA recently (yes: the so-maniest thread regarding this subject).
However, my question is: is this incident similar at all to what happened to BA (supposing that, while still airborn, nobody could have exactly known what was going on inside that engine)? And if it was similar (and I think I read in Flight magazine that the BA744's troubled engine suffered an unusual rise in exhaust gas temp. as well), why did this crew make a different decision than BA's (ok, I realise I might be putting some oil on the fire here)?
N1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 25869 posts, RR: 79 Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2203 times:
Well, given that there are very few places to divert if they did need to between Los Angeles and Australia, QF probably thought it would be best to stop. Plus, they have planes coming in more often and probably had a better chance at getting an engine change faster. BA had more options if they lost a second engine on the way.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
LTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12365 posts, RR: 12 Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1983 times:
Maybe in this case the pilots decided, especially as the passangers did see flames and a definite problem with the failed engine, that it was in their best interest to return to LAX and not continue to JFK. Also, even though it was going to JFK, if this was a QF a/c, they probably had better connections for repairs at LAX vs. JFK, or any other airport along the way if the situation worserned.
Sponsor Message: 
From Netherlands, joined Feb 2005, 271 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 25869 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
