If you wish to contribute or participate in the discussions about articles you are invited to join SKYbrary as a registered user

BOEING 747-400 (international, winglets)

From SKYbrary Wiki
Name 747-400 (international, winglets)
Manufacturer BOEING
Body Wide
Wing Fixed Wing
Position Low wing
Tail Regular tail, mid set
WTC Heavy
Type code L4J
Aerodrome Reference Code 4E
RFF Category 9
Engine Jet
Engine count Multi
Position Underwing mounted
Landing gear Tricycle retractable
Mass group 5

Manufacturered as:

BOEING 747-400 (international, winglets)

BOEING 747-400 (international, winglets)

BOEING 747-400 (international, winglets) BOEING 747-400 (international, winglets) 3D


Long range, high capacity wide-body airliner. In service since 1989. The first 747 which did not require a flight engineer as part of the flight crew and as such the 'second generation' of the B747 family.

Technical Data

Wing span 64.4 m211.286 ft
Length 70.6 m231.627 ft
Height 19.4 m63.648 ft
Powerplant 4 x R-R RB211-524 G/H (258 kN) or
4 x P&W PW4056 (252.4 kN) or
4 x GE CF6-80C2B4 (257.5 kN) turbofans, and more.
Engine model General Electric CF6, Pratt & Whitney PW4000, Rolls-Royce RB211

Performance Data

Take-Off Initial Climb
(to 5000 ft)
Initial Climb
(to FL150)
Initial Climb
(to FL240)
MACH Climb Cruise Initial Descent
(to FL240)
(to FL100)
Descent (FL100
& below)
V2 (IAS) 185 kts IAS 215 kts IAS 300 kts IAS 300 kts MACH 0.75 TAS 510 kts MACH 0.85 IAS 300 kts IAS kts Vapp (IAS) 160 kts
Distance 3300 m ROC 1500 ft/min ROC 1500 ft/min ROC 1500 ft/min ROC 1500 ft/min MACH 0.85 ROD 1000 ft/min ROD 3000 ft/min MCS 250 kts Distance 2130 m
MTOW 396890396,890 kg
396.89 tonnes
Ceiling FL450 ROD ft/min APC D
WTC H Range 72607,260 nm
13,445,520 m
13,445.52 km
44,112,598.457 ft

Accidents & Serious Incidents involving B744

  • A306 / B744, vicinity London Heathrow UK, 1996 (On 5 April 1996 a significant loss of separation occurred when a B744, taking off from runway 27R at London Heathrow came into conflict to the west of Heathrow Airport with an A306 which had carried out a missed approach from the parallel runway 27L. Both aircraft were following ATC instructions. Both aircraft received and correctly followed TCAS RAs, the B744 to descend and the A306 to adjust vertical speed, which were received at the same time as corrective ATC clearances.)
  • A319 / B744, en-route near Oroville WA USA, 2008 (On 10 January 2008, an Air Canada Airbus A319 en route over the north western USA encountered unexpected sudden wake vortex turbulence from an in trail Boeing 747-400 nearly 11nm ahead to which the pilots who then responded with potentially hazardous flight control inputs which led to reversion to Alternate Control Law and aggravated the external /disturbance to the aircraft trajectory with roll up to 55° and an unintended descent of 1400 feet which with cabin service in progress and sea belt signs off led to cabin service carts hitting the cabin ceiling and several passenger injuries, some serious.)
  • A343 / B744, London Heathrow UK, 2007 (On 15 October 2007, an Airbus 340-300 being operated on a scheduled passenger flight by Air Lanka with a heavy crew in the flight deck was taxiing towards the departure runway at London Heathrow at night in normal visibility when the right wing tip hit and sheared off the left hand winglet of a stationary British Airways Boeing 747-400 which was in a queue on an adjacent taxiway. The Airbus 340 sustained only minor damage to the right winglet and navigation light.)
  • A343 / B744, en-route, south of Newfoundland Canada, 1998 (On 20 July 1998, after an ATC error south of Newfoundland, an Air France A340 and an Air Canada 747-400 were on directly converging tracks and at the same level. Collision was avoided by the correct actioning of coordinated TCAS RAs by both aircraft.)
  • B733 / B744, Chicago IL USA, 2006 (On 23 July 2006, a Boeing B737-300 operated by United Airlines executed an early rotation during a night take off when a Boeing 747 operated by Atlas Air was observed on a landing roll on an intersecting runway at Chicago O’Hare Airport. The occurrence is attributed to ATC error.)
  • B738 / B744, Los Angeles USA, 2004 (On 19 August 2004, a Boeing 747-400 operated by Asiana Airlines, was given a landing clearance for runway 24L at Los Angeles (LAX). At the same time, a Boeing 737-800 operated by Southwest Airlines was given line up and wait instruction for the same runway. The B744 initiated a go-around as the crew spotted the B738 on the runway.)
  • B742 / B744, Chicago O'Hare IL USA, 1999 (On 1 April 1999, an Air China Boeing 747-200F which had just landed on and cleared runway 14R at Chicago O’Hare failed to follow its correctly read back taxi-in clearance and crossed the landing runway at night ahead of a Boeing 747 taking off. The latter rotated abruptly and banked away from the taxiing 747, missing it by an estimated 75 feet. It was found that the Air China aircraft had realised it was going the wrong way but had slowed rather than stopped taxiing with the nose of the aircraft past the runway centreline as it was overflown.)
  • B744 / A306, vicinity London Heathrow UK, 1996 (On 15 April 1996 a significant loss of separation occurred when a B744, taking off from runway 27R at London Heathrow came into conflict to the west of Heathrow Airport with an A306 which had carried out a missed approach from the parallel runway 27L. Both aircraft were following ATC instructions. Both aircraft received and correctly followed TCAS RAs, the B744 to descend and the A306 to adjust vertical speed, which were received at the same time as corrective ATC clearances.)
  • B744 / A321, London Heathrow UK, 2004 (On 23 March 2004, an out of service British Airways Boeing 747-400, under tow passed behind a stationary Airbus A321-200 being operated by Irish Airline Aer Lingus on a departing scheduled passenger service in good daylight visibility and the wing tip of the 747 impacted and seriously damaged the rudder of the A321. The aircraft under tow was cleared for the towing movement and the A321 was holding position in accordance with clearance. The towing team were not aware of the collision and initially, there was some doubt in the A321 flight deck about the cause of a ‘shudder’ felt when the impact occurred but the cabin crew of the A321 had felt the impact shudder and upon noticing the nose of the 747 appearing concluded that it had struck their aircraft. Then the First Officer saw the damaged wing tip of the 747 and informed ATC about the possible impact. Later another aircraft, positioned behind the A321, confirmed the rudder damage. At the time of the collision, the two aircraft involved were on different ATC frequencies.)
  • B744 / A321, vicinity London Heathrow UK, 2000 (On 28 April 2000, a British Airways Boeing 747-400 on go around at London Heathrow Airport, UK, had a loss of separation vertically from a British Midland A321 stationary on the runway waiting for take-off.)
  • B744 / B763, Melbourne Australia, 2006 (On 2 February 2006, a Boeing 747-400 was taxiing for a departure at Melbourne Airport. At the same time, a Boeing 767-300 was stationary on taxiway Echo and waiting in line to depart from runway 16. The left wing tip of the Boeing 747 collided with the right horizontal stabiliser of the Boeing 767 as the first aircraft passed behind. Both aircraft were on scheduled passenger services from Melbourne to Sydney. No one was injured during the incident.)
  • B744 / MD90, Chitose Japan, 2008 (On 16 February 2008, during daylight and in poor visibility, a Boeing 747-400, operated by Japan Airlines, was holding on a taxiway next to runway 01R of New Chitose Airport, Japan. A Douglas MD-90-30 operated by the same airline landed on the same runway and was still on the runway when the B747 was cleared to line up and wait. Shortly after lineup the B747 began its takeoff roll without receiving such clearance and subsequently was instructed to abort the takeoff. The crew of the B747 successfully rejected the takeoff.)
  • B744 / Vehicle, Luxembourg Airport, Luxembourg 2010 (On 21 January 2010, a Cargolux Boeing 747-400F was in collision with an unoccupied van whilst about to touch down on runway 24 at Luxembourg airport in thick fog following a Cat 3b ILS approach. It was subsequently established that a maintenance crew and their vehicle had earlier been cleared to enter the active runway but their presence had then been overlooked. Comprehensive safety recommendations to rectify deficiencies in both ATC procedures and prevailing ATC practices were made by the Investigation.)
  • B744, Bagram Afghanistan, 2013 (On 29 April 2013, a Boeing 747-400 freighter departed controlled flight and impacted terrain shortly after taking off from Bagram and was destroyed by the impact and post crash fire and all occupants were killed. The Investigation found that a sudden and significant load shift had occurred soon after take off which damaged hydraulic systems Nos. 1 and 2 and the horizontal stabilizer drive mechanism components as well as moving the centre of gravity aft and out of the allowable flight envelope. The Load shift was attributed to the ineffective securing techniques employed.)
  • B744, Bangkok Thailand, 1999 (On 23 September 1999, a Boeing 747-400 being operated by Qantas on a scheduled passenger service from Sydney Australia to Bangkok overran Runway 21L during an attempted night landing in normal visibility and came to a halt substantially intact 320 metres beyond the runway end. There was no fire and a precautionary evacuation of the aircraft was not begun until 20 minutes after it came to rest. Only minor injuries were sustained by 38 of the 410 occupants, some during the initial runway excursion, others as a consequence of the evacuation. The aircraft remained substantially intact during the overrun although the nose landing gear and one main landing gear separated. The picture below, taken from the Official Accident Report, shows the aircraft in its final stopping position.)
  • B744, Gardermoen Norway, 2004 (On 21 September 2004, a Korean Air Boeing 747-400F experienced handling difficulties on take off due to the Centre of Gravity (CofG) being aft of the limit as a result of misloading.)
  • B744, Johannesburg South Africa, 2009 (On 11 May 2009, a British Airways Boeing 747-400 departing Johannesburg came close to stalling following a stall protection system activation during night rotation which continued until landing gear retraction despite immediate appropriate crew response. Subsequent investigation found that loss of lift on rotation had resulted from the unanticipated effect of a design modification in respect of thrust reverser unlocked signals with the aircraft in ‘ground’ status. The Investigation found that the potential effects of this on the transition from ‘ground’ to ‘air’ status including the lower stalling angle of attack in ground effect had not been foreseen.)
  • B744, Johannesburg South Africa, 2013 (On 22 December 2013, a Boeing 747-400 taxiing for departure at Johannesburg at night with an augmented crew failed to follow its correctly-acknowledged taxi clearance and one wing hit a building resulting in substantial damage to both aircraft and building and a significant fuel leak. The aircraft occupants were all uninjured but four people in the building sustained minor injuries. The accident was attributed to crew error both in respect of an inadequate briefing and failure to monitor aircraft position using available charts and visual reference. Some minor contributory factors relating to the provision of airport lighting and signage were noted.)
  • B744, Montreal Canada, 2008 (During the landing roll in normal the aircraft veered to the right and stopped with the nose landing gear off the side of the runway.)
  • B744, Mumbai India, 2009 (On 4 September 2009, a Boeing 744-400 being operated by Air India on a delayed scheduled passenger flight from Mumbai to Riyadh was awaiting take off in normal daylight when ATC advised that there was a fuel leak from the left side, that a fire had started and that the engines should be shut down. An emergency cabin evacuation was carried out using exits on the right hand side and there were 21 minor injuries to the 213 passengers with all 16 crew escaping without injury. The fire on the left hand side was quickly extinguished by the RFFS and aircraft damage was confined to that area.)
  • B744, Paris CDG France, 2003 (On 18 January 2003, a Boeing 747-400F being operated by Singapore Airlines Cargo on a scheduled cargo flight from Paris CDG to Dubai taxied for departure in darkness and fog with visibility less than 100 metres in places and the right wing was in collision with a stationary and unoccupied ground de/anti icing vehicle without the awareness of either the flight crew or anybody else at the time. Significant damage occurred to the de icing vehicle and the aircraft was slightly damaged. The vehicle damage was not discovered until almost two hours later and the aircraft involved was not identified until it arrived in Dubai where the damage was observed and the authorities at Paris CDG advised.)
  • B744, Phoenix USA, 2009 (On 10 January 2009, a Boeing 747-400 being operated by British Airways on a scheduled passenger flight from Phoenix USA to London had been pushed back from the gate in normal daylight visibility and the engines start was continuing when fumes and smoke were observed in the cabin and flight deck. The aircraft commander decided to return to the stand but there was some delay while the tug was reconnected and the movement accomplished. The intensity of the fumes increased and as the aircraft came to a halt on the stand an emergency evacuation was ordered.)
  • B744, Sydney Australia, 2007 (On 15 April 2007, a Qantas Boeing 747 flew through a microburst as it began to flare for a daylight touchdown at Sydney and a hard touchdown accompanied by activation of the onboard reactive windshear warning followed. A go-around was flown to an uneventful further approach and landing. The Investigation noted the absence of an LLWAS, that the ‘dry’ microburst involved would not have triggered an onboard predictive windshear alert had such a system been fitted and the failure of ATC to fully communicate relevant wind velocity information. The hard landing was judged to have been inevitable.)
  • B744, Taipei Taiwan, 2000 (On 31 October 2000, the crew of a Singapore Airlines Boeing 747-400 taxiing for a night departure at Taipei in reduced (but not 'low') visibility with an augmenting crew member present on the flight deck failed to follow their correctly-confirmed taxi instructions and commenced take off on a partially closed runway. The subsequent collision with construction equipment and resultant severe post crash fire destroyed the aircraft killing over half the 170 occupants and injured 71 others. All three flight crew survived.)
  • B744, en-route NNW of Bangkok Thailand, 2008 (On 7 January 2008, a Boeing 747-400 being operated by Qantas on a scheduled passenger flight from London Heathrow to Bangkok was descending through FL100 about 13.5 nm NNW of destination in day VMC when indications of progressive electrical systems failure began to be annunciated. As the aircraft neared the end of the radar downwind leg, only the AC4 bus bar was providing AC power and the aircraft main battery was indicating discharge. A manual approach to a normal landing was subsequently accomplished and the aircraft taxied to the designated gate where passenger disembarkation took place. None of the 365 occupants, who included two heavy crew members who were present in the flight deck throughout the incident, had sustained any injury and the aircraft was undamaged.)
  • B744, en-route, Alaska USA, 1989 (On 15th December 1989, a KLM Boeing 747 encountered a Volcanic Ash cloud over Alaska, USA. the ingestion of ash led to compressor stall of all engines; the engines were subsequently relighted successfully and the aircraft landed safely.)
  • B744, en-route, East China Sea, 2011 (On 28 July 2011, 50 minutes after take off from Incheon, the crew of an Asiana Boeing 747-400F declared an emergency advising a main deck fire and an intention to divert to Jeju. The effects of the rapidly escalating fire eventually made it impossible to retain control and the aircraft crashed into the sea. The Investigation concluded that the origin of the fire was two adjacent pallets towards the rear of the main deck which contained Dangerous Goods shipments including Lithium ion batteries and flammable substances and that the aircraft had broken apart in mid-air following the loss of control.)
  • B744, en-route, South China Sea, 2008 (On 25 July 2008, a Boeing 747 suffered a rapid depressurisation of the cabin following the sudden failure of an oxygen cylinder, which had ruptured the aircraft's pressure hull. The incident occurred 475 km north-west of Manila, Philippines.)
  • B744, vicinity Bishkek Kyrgyzstan, 2017 (On 16 January 2017, the crew of a Boeing 747-400F failed to successfully complete a night auto-ILS Cat 2 approach at Bishkek and the aircraft crashed and caught fire. The 4 occupants and 35 others on the ground were killed and another 37 on the ground seriously injured. The ongoing Investigation has found that although the ILS localiser was captured and tracked normally, the aircraft remained above the glideslope throughout and flew overhead the runway before crashing just beyond it after initiation of a go around at DH was delayed. No evidence of relevant airworthiness issues has yet been found.)
  • B744, vicinity Dubai UAE, 2010 (On 3 September 2010, a UPS Boeing 747-400 freighter flight crew became aware of a main deck cargo fire 22 minutes after take off from Dubai. An emergency was declared and an air turn back commenced but a rapid build up of smoke on the flight deck made it increasingly difficult to see on the flight deck and to control the aircraft. An unsuccessful attempt to land at Dubai was followed by complete loss of flight control authority due to fire damage and terrain impact followed. The fire was attributed to auto-ignition of undeclared Dangerous Goods originally loaded in Hong Kong.)
  • B763 / B744, Amsterdam Netherlands, 1998 (A Boeing 767-300 departing from runway 24 at Amsterdam made a successful daylight rejected take off upon seeing a Boeing 747-400 under tow crossing the runway ahead. It was found that the crossing clearance had been given by the same trainee controller who had then cleared the 767 for take off after assuming that the towing traffic had cleared based on an unverified assumption based upon incorrect information which had been received earlier from an Assistant Controller. The conflict occurred with LVP in force and with visual surveillance of the runway from the TWR precluded by low cloud.)