It certainly doesn't help anyone to make it sound more dramatic. Seems quite dramatic enough already.SMH reporting it as an 'explosion' , which I guess is technically what happened, but reporting it as an engine failure isn't going to get clicks like explosion...
‘One of the engines appeared to have gone’: Qantas drama at Sydney Airport
The Boeing 737 was taking off for Brisbane when passengers heard a “bang”. The engine failure ignited a blaze near the third runway.www.smh.com.au
“Energetic disassembly”SMH reporting it as an 'explosion' , which I guess is technically what happened, but reporting it as an engine failure isn't going to get clicks like explosion...
AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements
Not a good day to be flying particularly after the issue with the Smartgates earlier in the day !Scoot didn’t hang around long, abandoned the approach and went to Melbourne, must be tight on gas.
I don't know that the likelihood of an engine failure is all that much lower with a new aircraft, or even a new engine. It's interesting that it has thrown bits on to the grass.Certainly is one the older 737s. A321s can’t come soon enough.
I’m struggling to find the tapes if anyone has themThey called a Pan Pan Pan climbing out due engine failure. ATC advised parts over the runway.
About 30 degrees in temp, blowing 15 knots so certainly good conditions for a grass fire.
Certainly is one the older 737s. A321s can’t come soon enough.
I feel like I’ve read a stat somewhere that engine failures are in fact more likely with a new engine. Lemme see if I can find itI don't know that the likelihood of an engine failure is all that much lower with a new aircraft, or even a new engine. It's interesting that it has thrown bits on to the grass.
Those first few flying hours act as final manufacturing QC checks…I feel like I’ve read a stat somewhere that engine failures are in fact more likely with a new engine. Lemme see if I can find it
Qantas are saying it was a contained engine failure according to engineers, the fire could of been the result of fod being ejected after ingestion.Would be interesting to know if the burning debris on the runway was indeed an uncontained failure of the engine?
Well, you've just taken away half of the power, so it stands to reason that it won't climb all that well.@AviatorInsight it was said by a couple of observers (including one on board ) that after the failure, the aircraft markedly didn’t climb very much, certainly not like the usual climb. They expressed surprise, especially as the aircraft headed over Sydney city.
I guess restricted climb makes sense, but if there observers were correct, is that what you would expect the performance of the aircraft to be in this circumstance?
Contained doesn't mean that it didn't throw bits of metal, only that they came out of the exhaust.Qantas are saying it was a contained engine failure according to engineers, the fire could of been the result of fod being ejected after ingestion.