World

Passenger Captures Emergency Landing After Engine Explodes

Posted on November 4, 2010 at 2:03pm by Jonathon M. Seidl
Print »
Email »

A Qantas superjumbo jet made an emergency landing Thursday in Singapore with 459 people aboard, after one of its four engines failed over western Indonesia and following witness reports of a blast that sent debris hurtling to the ground.

Video from one of these passengers captures the landing, including plenty of smoke and emergency crews dousing the plane with foam:

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (36)

Eyeball
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 10:08pm
Well! This was a no fun video. There was no fire or someone hanging out of the wing acreaming.
Report Post » Log in to Reply Reply
timej31
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 9:07pm
The crew is top notch, elite. Hero’s
Report Post » Log in to Reply Reply
cal757driver
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 8:24pm
I just want to add one more little piece of statistical truth to my comments earlier:

Even as I type this right now someone is being injured or killed on America’s highways. Yet, you all get fearlessly into your cars each and every day. I can imagine it is the feeling of control of that vehicle that makes you think it is safer because you can avert disaster personally.

While I don’t have the exact number in my head, I can also attest to the fact that Doctors kill many more people with malpractice than are ever killed on airplanes each year.

I know that when something serious happens with us in the sky it creates headlines…And big ones. I also don’t expect everyone to have a degree in aeronautics to understand why these amazing machines do what they do. All I can say is that the testing, certification, and design of these aircraft falls nothing short of amazing proportions. While we are not perfect, and yes we do make mistakes, think for one minute that we fly each and every day, in all types of weather from good to bad, and in all corners of the world, and our problems are so few and far between that when they occur they are noteworthy in the news. Overall your drive to the airport will always be exponentially more dangerous than the flight you are about to take.
Report Post » Log in to ReplyReply
- RightPolitically
  Posted on November 4, 2010 at 9:06pm
  Well said my friend………..Living as I do, just miles from a MAJOR American airport and watching flights arrive and depart one after the other year in and year out WITHOUT INCIDENT convinces me of just how safe flying really is. DO THE MATH folks, millions of flights depart and take off without incident each and every year almost and we hear about only two or so catastrophic situations during the same period of time. People are afraid of WHAT THEY DON’T understand. My suggestion folks, go LEARN TO FLY!
  Report Post »
heavyduty
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 7:04pm
I am with you snowleopard: I am with you, you crash in a car and you have a seat belt on you stand a pretty good chance of getting out of it alive. But when you crash in a plane the seat belt is just going to slow you down a little.
Report Post » Log in to Reply Reply
heavyduty
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 6:58pm
I don’t care what anyone says: When plane quits flying, gravity takes over. End of story. Besides I thought the pilot was smoking in the cockpit again.
Report Post » Log in to Reply Reply
heavyduty
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 6:52pm
I bet they are going to have to change out all the seats in that aircraft. Because they all have permanent creases in the middle of them.
Report Post » Log in to Reply Reply
BeckFan1964
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 6:08pm
I’ve flown across the US, to Australia, Japan, Ireland and England. While I still have some fear, it’s a lot less then it used to be. But if an engine caught fire while I was on a plane, I’d be doing some serious praying. Glad everyone was safe! Great job pilots!
Report Post » Log in to Reply Reply
bbquizzle
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 4:55pm
That engine is a metaphor for what happened to the Progressive machine on Tuesday. They can still fly, but they’re now in trouble.

Glad that everyone on this plane was okay.
Report Post » Log in to Reply Reply
joseph Fawcett
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 3:15pm
didn’t seem to be too bad of a landing.

http://www.josephfawcettart.com western artist
Report Post » Log in to Reply Reply
cal757driver
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 3:08pm
First:
Bing a Boeing pilot I can unequivocally tell you that I am no Airbus fan..

Now:

For those of you with no aviation experience I might point out the fact that the engine on that airplane was NOT made by Airbus. Large commercial manufacturers produce the airframe. They are not usually Engine manufacturers. They do produce and fabricate their aircraft with specific power plant specifications in mind.
In the case of the A-380 it is the Rolls Royce Trent series of engines or the Engine Alliance series of engines (With it’s roots in the GE-90 spec). A catastrophic uncontained failure of this type is rare, but it is of concern as these engines are tested very extensively and destructively in design to avoid this situation. But remember..It is a piece of mechanical engineering and anything can fail.
Furthermore, IATA and FAA regulations specifically discuss minimum performance standards with the loss of more than one engine in four engine aircraft. As to weather the A-380 can fly on one engine only..I can only speculate that it would probably not be able to sustain the simultaneous failure of three engines and stay at any altitude, especially at the weights that aircraft operates at. It would most likely start it’s way down one way or another.
Twin engine aircraft are required to be able to fly on one engine and we routinely train for that event. Just because you lose an engine DOES NOT mean that you are going down…Period.
It is amazing to me to listen to the ignorance of someone like Snowleopard who obviously has no clue what the Aviation industry is about trying to equate their fear of flying to the reality of the industry and it’s safety record. Remember..In this situation, those pilots did exactly what should have been done and it was brought home safely with every bit of man and machine intact. There are professionals like myself out there every day whose primary mission is to see that you get there safely…your fear of flying notwithstanding.
Report Post » Log in to ReplyReply
- snowleopard3200 {mix art}
  Posted on November 4, 2010 at 3:44pm
  No offense intended, but dead is still dead, at least on the ground I still have a chance to avoid some of the fatality-inducing situations around me, gravity induced descent due to failure of airplane parts does not give many options on the avoidance tables.
  Report Post »
- RightPolitically
  Posted on November 4, 2010 at 4:02pm
  Yeah, ignorance by the non-aviation public is the main cause for “FEAR OF FLYING.” Their biggest misconception is that engines make it fly!
  Report Post »
- ichbin
  Posted on November 4, 2010 at 4:35pm
  Snowleapard3200, you are far more likely to die in a car crash than in an airplane. You should reconsider your stance on flying.
  Report Post »
- OK3Wire
  Posted on November 4, 2010 at 4:56pm
  “If it ain’t a Boeing, I ain’t going …”
  Report Post »
- free2bme1961
  Posted on November 4, 2010 at 8:24pm
  @CAL757DRIVE; I see no reason to insult anyone about their lack of knowledge, about aviation and flying an aircraft. It seems to me, even if I were a pilot, if such an event happened, it would be normal to be concerned. Maybe some of the new technology, to screen humans thoroughly, should be put into use for the aircraft, to detect anything unusual, before take-off?
  
  The movie “Twighlight Zone” comes to my mind here; the creature that tore off the engines, the one passenger (John Lithgow) saw it, but nobody else did….lol.
  Report Post »
- MONEY_FOR_NOTHING
  Posted on November 4, 2010 at 9:37pm
  I have been a passenger on flights across the Pacific Ocean and never feared for my safety. If Congress demonstrated even a little of the professionalism of the designers, builders and operators of these aircraft I would have no reason to fear for my country. However,…
  Report Post »
Amerigo Vespucci
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 2:50pm
Say whatever you want. Quantas is STILL the only major airline company that has never had a plane crash…
Report Post » Log in to Reply Reply
TheBees
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 2:30pm
Not going to lie, I think i would have crapped my pants to see that much smoke coming out of the wing. Especially, if I’m not wrong, that’s where all the FUEL is stored! Glad everyone is safe!!
Report Post » Log in to Reply Reply
fdonnino
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 2:28pm
Please turn off all electronic devices until the Capt tells you it’s ok.
Report Post » Log in to Reply Reply
Carl McPherson
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 2:25pm
It could easily land on one engine.
Report Post » Log in to ReplyReply
- fobama
  Posted on November 4, 2010 at 2:40pm
  how so, not being a wise ass here, just never flown, an would like knowledge of how it could, thank you in advance…
  Report Post »
Melvin Spittle
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 2:13pm
another in a series of Airbus critical flaws. You get what you paid for.
Report Post » Log in to Reply Reply
john seven eighteen
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 2:10pm
That’ll sure make you pucker up. I’m glad everyone was alright.
Report Post » Log in to ReplyReply
- ILFarmer
  Posted on November 4, 2010 at 3:00pm
  good thing all transoceanic flights are 4-engine planes just for that reason. The exception being the Boeing 777 which can fly with only one of it’s behemoth engines.
  Report Post »
- hammer09
  Posted on November 4, 2010 at 4:08pm
  not true – we’ve flown across the pond 12-13 times over the last 2 years. Only 2 of them were 4-engine jets. Makes my sphincter tighten up a bit.
  Report Post »
OK3Wire
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 2:10pm
Oh, no … the dreaded “three-engine landing”.
Report Post » Log in to ReplyReply
- snowleopard3200 {mix art}
  Posted on November 4, 2010 at 2:19pm
  At least they had three engines to land on; this whole landing could have been much worse in the outcome indeed. Of course, I now have one more reason why to never fly again in my life.
  Report Post »
- snowleopard3200 {mix art}
  Posted on November 4, 2010 at 2:20pm
  Just noticed on the wire listings, to the right side of the Blaze, china is planning on buying 102 airbuses for $14 billion dollars. Wonder if they might be getting ready to change their minds after this.
  Report Post »
- MAULEMALL
  Posted on November 4, 2010 at 2:36pm
  Being an A&P and having done numerouse test cell runs on jet engines I can say that when an engine goes,If you are nearby you will poop your pants…
  Report Post »
- MAULEMALL
  Posted on November 4, 2010 at 2:41pm
  Here are some
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7afNaRQyOxs
  
  http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2360794/jet_engine_test_blade_off_test/
  Report Post »
- john seven eighteen
  Posted on November 4, 2010 at 2:42pm
  @SNOW
  
  For China this would be an upgrade.
  Report Post »
- OK3Wire
  Posted on November 4, 2010 at 2:49pm
  No, just don’t fly on a ScareBus …
  Report Post »
- snowleopard3200 {mix art}
  Posted on November 4, 2010 at 3:41pm
  @Maulemaul
  
  Thanks, understand indeed. Ouch.
  
  I remember the day the power transformer at Palo Verde nuc plant went boom, was on the hill when it went up. Noisy, spetacular, and expected to be shortly reading books at night while I glowed in the dark.
  Report Post »
- Bruiser
  Posted on November 4, 2010 at 4:00pm
  The guy taking this video should be happy to be alive. From the photos I’ve seen, it looks to be an uncontained turbin failure. Where he’s sitting, he’s lucky not to have eaten a couple of pieces of high speed turbin parts!
  Report Post »
- Rock Knutne ND
  Posted on November 4, 2010 at 4:07pm
  Not bad. Check out the video enclosed of an F-15 landing with only 1 wing!
  Report Post »

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.