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

 Actions

B747 Series

From SKYbrary Wiki

Article Information
Category: Aircraft Family Aircraft Family
Content source: SKYbrary About SKYbrary
Content control: EUROCONTROL EUROCONTROL

Description

Long range, high capacity, widebody airliner. The Boeing 747 "Jumbo Jet" family includes the following variants:

Aircraft Family Members
ICAO Type Designator Name Length (m)
BOEING 747-100 BOEING 747-100 70.6 m
BOEING 747-200 BOEING 747-200 70.6 m
BOEING 747-300 BOEING 747-300 70.6 m
BOEING 747-400 (domestic, no winglets) BOEING 747-400 (domestic, no winglets) 70.6 m
BOEING 747-400 (international, winglets) BOEING 747-400 (international, winglets) 70.6 m
BOEING 747-8 BOEING 747-8 76.25 m
BOEING 747SP BOEING 747SP 56.3 m
BOEING 747SR BOEING 747SR 70.6 m

Specification

Aircraft 747-100 747-200 747-300 747-400
(domestic, no winglets)
747-400
(international, winglets)
747-8 747SR 747SP
Overall Length 70.6 m231.627 ft
70.6 m231.627 ft
70.6 m231.627 ft
70.6 m231.627 ft
70.6 m231.627 ft
76.25 m250.164 ft
70.6 m231.627 ft
56.3 m184.711 ft
Wing Span 59.6 m195.538 ft
59.6 m195.538 ft
59.6 m195.538 ft
59.6 m195.538 ft
64.4 m211.286 ft
68.45 m224.573 ft
59.6 m195.538 ft
59.6 m195.538 ft
Engines 4 x P&W JT9D-7A (209.9 kN) or
4 x P&W JT9D-7F (213.5 kN) or
4 x GE CF6-45A2 (206.8 kN) turbofans.
4 x P&W JT9D-7RG2 (243.5 kN) or
4 x GE CF6-50E2 (233.5 kN) or
4 x R-R RB211-524D4 (236.5 kN) turbofans.
4 x P&W JT9D-7R4G2 (243.2 kN) or
4 x GE CF6-50E2 (235.2 kN) or
4 x R-R RB211-524D4 (236,3 kN) or
4 x GE CF6-80CB1 (252,2 kN) turbofans.
4 x PW 4062 (282 kN) or
4 x GE CF6-80C2B5F (276 kN) or
4 x RR RB211-524H (265 kN)
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.
4 x GEnx-2B67 (296 kN). 4 x P&W JT9D-7A (209.9 kN) or
4 x P&W JT9D-7F (213.5 kN) turbofans.
4 x P&W JT9D-1AW (218.4 kN) or
4 x GE CF6-45A2 (206.8 kN) or
4 x R-R RB 211-524B (222.8 kN) or
4 x R-R RB 211-524D4 (230 kN) turbofans.
Passengers (3 class config.) 366 366 412 568 416 467 498-550 331
Max. Range 5,300 nm9,815,600 m
9,815.6 km
32,203,412.097 ft
6,865 nm12,713,980 m
12,713.98 km
41,712,532.839 ft
6,691 nm12,391,732 m
12,391.732 km
40,655,288.744 ft
7,200 nm13,334,400 m
13,334.4 km
43,748,031.528 ft
7,260 nm13,445,520 m
13,445.52 km
44,112,598.457 ft
8,000 nm14,816,000 m
14,816 km
48,608,923.92 ft
5,000 nm9,260,000 m
9,260 km
30,380,577.45 ft
6,650 nm12,315,800 m
12,315.8 km
40,406,168.009 ft
Maximum takeoff weight 333.4 tonnes333,400 kg
374.85 tonnes374,850 kg
374.85 tonnes374,850 kg
378.182 tonnes378,182 kg
396.89 tonnes396,890 kg
447.696 tonnes447,696 kg
340.19 tonnes340,190 kg
304 tonnes304,000 kg

Accidents & Serious Incidents involving B747 Series

  • B741, en-route, East Moriches NY USA, 1996 (On 17 July 1996, a Boeing 747, operated by TWA, experienced an in-flight breakup and then crashed into the Atlantic Ocean near East Moriches, New York, USA.)
  • B741, en-route, Gunma Japan 1985 (On August 12, 1985 a Boeing 747 SR-100 operated by Japan Air Lines experienced a loss of control attributed to loss of the vertical stabiliser. After the declaration of the emergency, the aircraft continued its flight for 30 minutes and subsequently impacted terrain in a mountainous area in Gunma Prefecture, Japan.)
  • B741, en-route, Pacific Ocean, 1997 (On 28th December 1997, a Boeing 747-100 being operated by United Airlines, which had departed from Tokyo for Hawaii, encountered severe turbulence thought to have been associated with a Jet Stream over the Pacific Ocean.)
  • B741, vicinity London Heathrow UK, 1997 (On 6 December 1997, a British Airways Boeing 747-100, departing from London Heathrow airport, had an engine bird strike just after take off, causing substantial damage and falling debris.)
  • B742 / B741, Tenerife Canary Islands Spain, 1977 (On 27 March 1977, a KLM Boeing 747-200 began its low visibility take-off at Tenerife without requesting or receiving take-off clearance and a collision with a Boeing 747-100 backtracking the same runway subsequently occurred. Both aircraft were destroyed by the impact and consequential fire and 583 people died. The Investigation attributed the crash primarily to the actions and inactions of the KLM Captain, who was the Operator's Chief Flying Instructor. Safety Recommendations made emphasised the importance of standard phraseology in all normal radio communications and avoidance of the phrase "take-off" in ATC Departure Clearances.)
  • B742 / A320, Frankfurt Germany, 2006 (On 12 January 2006, an Air China Boeing 747-200 which had just landed at Frankfurt failed to correctly understand and read back its taxi in clearance and the incorrect readback was not detected by the controller. The 747 then crossed another runway at night and in normal visibility whilst an A320 was landing on it. The A320 responded by increased braking and there was consequently no actual risk of collision. The controller had not noticed the incursion and, in accordance with instructions, all stop bars were unlit and the RIMCAS had been officially disabled due to too many nuisance activations.)
  • B742 / B741, Tenerife Canary Islands Spain, 1977 (On 27 March 1977, a KLM Boeing 747-200 began its low visibility take-off at Tenerife without requesting or receiving take-off clearance and a collision with a Boeing 747-100 backtracking the same runway subsequently occurred. Both aircraft were destroyed by the impact and consequential fire and 583 people died. The Investigation attributed the crash primarily to the actions and inactions of the KLM Captain, who was the Operator's Chief Flying Instructor. Safety Recommendations made emphasised the importance of standard phraseology in all normal radio communications and avoidance of the phrase "take-off" in ATC Departure Clearances.)
  • 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.)
  • B742, Brussels Belgium, 2008 (On 25 May 2008 a Kalitta Air B747-200F, which was departing Brussels on a cargo flight to Bahrain, overran Runway 20 at Brussels Airport, Belgium during a rejected take-off. The aircraft came to a stop 300m beyond the end of runway 20 and broke into three parts. The crew of four and one passenger safely evacuated from the aircraft and suffered only minor injuries.)
  • B742, Düsseldorf Germany, 2005 (On 24 January 2005, an Atlas Air Boeing 747-200F overran the end of the landing runway at Düsseldorf after runway braking action notified just prior to landing as medium due to snowfall unexpectedly deteriorated after the snowfall intensified. The overrun led to collision with ground obstacles and engines 2 and 3 caught fire. Escape slide malfunction at the forward left hand door led to an alternative non standard crew evacuation route being used. Significant damage to the aircraft resulted in it being declared a hull loss. The Investigation took almost 8 years to complete and publish.)
  • B742, Halifax Canada, 2004 (On 14 October 2004, a B742 crashed on take off from Halifax International Airport, Canada, and was destroyed by impact forces and a post-crash fire. The crew had calculated incorrect V speeds and thrust setting using an EFB.)
  • B742, Montreal Canada, 2000 (On 23 July 2000, a Boeing 747-200 being operated by Royal Air Maroc on a scheduled passenger flight from New York to Montreal overran the temporarily restricted available landing runway length after the aircraft failed to decelerate sufficiently during a daylight landing with normal on-ground visibility. It struck barriers at the displaced runway end before stopping 215 metres further on. Shortly before it stopped, ATC observed flames coming out of the No. 2 engine and advised the flight crew and alerted the RFFS. However, no sustained fire developed and the aircraft was undamaged except for internal damage to the No 2 engine. No emergency evacuation was deemed necessary by the aircraft commander and there were no occupant or other injuries)
  • B742, Stockholm Arlanda Sweden, 2007 (On 25 June 2007, a Boeing 747-200F being operated by Cathay Pacific on a scheduled cargo flight from Stockholm to Dubai had completed push back for departure in normal daylight visibility and the parking brakes had been set. The tow vehicle crew had disconnected the tow bar but before they and their vehicle had cleared the vicinity of the aircraft, it began to taxi and collided with the vehicle. The flight crew were unaware of this and continued taxiing for about 150 metres until the flight engineer noticed that the indications from one if the engines were abnormal and the aircraft was taxied back to the gate. The tow vehicle crew and the dispatcher had been able to run clear and were not injured physically injured although all three were identified as suffering minor injury (shock). The aircraft was “substantially damaged” and the tow vehicle was “damaged”.)
  • B742, en-route, Mount Galunggung Indonesia, 1982 (On 24 June 1982, a British Airways Boeing 747-200 lost power on all four engines while flying at night at FL370 en route from Kuala Lumpur to Perth. During the ensuing sixteen minutes, the aircraft descended without power from FL370 to FL120, at which point the flight crew were able to successfully restart engines one, two and four after which an en route diversion was made to Jakarta.)
  • B742, en-route, Penghu Island Taiwan, 2002 (On 25 May 2002, a China Airlines Boeing 747-200 broke up in mid air, over Penghu Island Taiwan, following structural failure as a result of an improper repair in 1980, which had not been detected by subsequent inspections.)
  • B742, vicinity Stansted UK, 1999 (On 22 December 1999, a KAL Boeing 747 freighter crashed shortly after take-off from Stansted UK, following an ADI malfunction.)
  • B743, Dhaka Bangladesh, 2008 (On 25 March 2008, an Air Atlanta Icelandic Boeing 747-300 was decelerating after landing at Dhaka when a fuel leak in the vicinity of the No 3 engine led to a fire which could not be extinguished. An emergency evacuation was accomplished with only a few minor injuries. The cause of the fuel leak was traced to mis-assembly of a fuel feed line coupling during a ‘C’ Check some six months previously. The failure to follow clear AMM instructions for this task in two specific respects was of concern to the Investigating Agency.)
  • B743, vicinity Jeddah Saudia Arabia, 2008 (On 5 May 2008, a Saudi Arabian Boeing 747-300 being positioned for maintenance to include investigation of degraded power output from the no 1 GE CF6-50 engine experienced an uncontained failure of the same engine shortly after take off from Jeddah followed by an uneventful air turn back. The failure was attributed to the vulnerability of the engine design to high pressure turbine blade loss.)
  • B743, vicinity Tehran Mehrabad Iran, 2015 (On 15 October 2015 a Boeing 747-300 experienced significant vibration from one of the engines almost immediately after take-off from Tehran Mehrabad. After the climb out was continued without reducing the affected engine thrust an uncontained failure followed 3 minutes later. The ejected debris caused the almost simultaneous failure of the No 4 engine, loss of multiple hydraulic systems and all the fuel from one wing tank. The Investigation attributed the vibration to the Operator's continued use of the engine without relevant Airworthiness Directive action and the subsequent failure to continued operation of the engine after its onset.)
  • B743, vicinity Won Guam Airport, Guam, 1997 (On 6 August 1997, Korean Air flight 801, a Boeing 747-300, crashed at night at Nimitz Hill, 3 miles southwest of Won Guam International Airport, Agana, Guam while on final approach for runway 6 Left. Of the 254 persons on board, 228 were killed, and 23 passengers and 3 flight attendants survived the accident with serious injuries.)
  • 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, New 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.)
  • B748, Amsterdam Netherlands, 2017 (On 13 January 2017, a Boeing 747-8F arriving at Amsterdam at night in turbulent conditions initially touched down just short of landing runway 36R destroying runway threshold lights and causing minor damage to the aircraft which was subsequently observed after the aircraft had parked. The Investigation determined that a high rate of descent had developed towards the end of a previously stable approach and after this had led to EGPWS Glideslope and Sink Rate Alerts, a go-around was required under operator procedures but was not flown and an insufficient flare then led to a premature hard landing and bounce.)
  • B748, Prestwick UK, 2017 (On 30 March 2017, a significant amount of fuel was found to be escaping from a Boeing 747-8F as soon as it arrived on stand after landing at Prestwick and the fire service attended to contain the spill and manage the associated risk of fire and explosion. The Investigation found that the fuel had come from a Bell 412 helicopter that was part of the main deck cargo and that this had been certified as drained of fuel when it was not. The shipper’s procedures, in particular in respect of their agents in the matter, were found to be deficient.)
  • B74S, Stockholm Arlanda Sweden, 1996 (On 14 June 1996, a Boeing 747SP being operated by Air China on a scheduled passenger flight from Beijing to Stockholm was arriving on the designated parking gate at destination in normal daylight visibility when it collided with the airbridge. None of the 130 occupants of the aircraft suffered any injury but the aircraft was “substantially damaged” and the airbridge was “damaged”.)
  • B74S, Stockholm Arlanda Sweden, 2006 (On 11 December 2006, a Boeing 747SP being operated by Syrian Air on a scheduled passenger flight from Damascus to Stockholm was arriving on the designated parking gate at destination in normal visibility at night when it collided with the airbridge. None of the 116 occupants of the aircraft suffered any injury but the aircraft was “substantially damaged” and the airbridge was “damaged”.)
  • B74S, en-route, Anchorage AK USA, 2004 (On 5 December 2004 a Boeing 747-100SP experienced a rapid depressurisation and subsequent minor damage after reaching cruise level near Anchorage, Alaska. The crew elected to return to Ted Stevens International Airport, Anchorage where the aircraft landed without further incident.)