This one's unbelievable. A Japan Airlines 747 sucked a cargo container into the number one engine from a nearby baggage carrier tow cart. It didn't quite fit in the opening although it probably damaged the main fan. Somebody goofed and I bet the passengers were ######!http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30690757/

Someone's head will roll for this :( .. thanfully no serious damage was done!

This one's unbelievable. A Japan Airlines 747 sucked a cargo container into the number one engine from a nearby baggage carrier tow cart. It didn't quite fit in the opening although it probably damaged the main fan. Somebody goofed and I bet the passengers were ######!http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30690757/

Someone should investigate as to whether the said cargo container contained caviar, escargot, or some other exotic food. Or, since this was JAL, perhaps Sushi?-John

The cargo container belonged to LAN, so I doubt there would be exotic food in there.This reminds me of the Delta incident a few years back.

Saw that earlier today on the BBC. You'd have to assume it was ATCs fault really, since they control the movement of all vehicles on the airport, and presumably that includes baggage trucks with LD3 containers on them.Not that surprising it could be lifted in by the big intake flow of a 747's engine, especially if the container was empty or contained light items, LD3s are fairly strongly-built, but they only have either thin alloy or canvas sides, to keep their weight down. Presumably with it making the news they'll have to have the engine off the jet, just to be seen to be checking it thoroughly.Does anyone know if 747-400's can carry a fifth spare engine on the wing by the way, or is that only the old ones that could do that?Al

Does anyone know if 747-400's can carry a fifth spare engine on the wing by the way, or is that only the old ones that could do that?

Yes, I have seen photos of 747-400s carrying a 5th engine.Here is one (since A.net links don't work I put the URL in a code box):

http://www.airliners.net/photo/South-African-Airways/Boeing-747-444/0136725/M/

Saw that earlier today on the BBC. You'd have to assume it was ATCs fault really, since they control the movement of all vehicles on the airport, and presumably that includes baggage trucks with LD3 containers on them.

No they don't control the vehicles on the ground. That would be a funny frequency if they did. Just think a 747 will need up to 15 support vehicles just for one turn. Now imagine there are just 20 747's on the ground not counting all the other aircraft there, that would be at least, 300 vehicles which would have to make at least 2 movements which would warrant two radio calls making that 600 transmissions. Now if you extrapolate that out to all ground vehicles and aircraft taxiing on the ground that would make for quite a crowded frequency. Many large airports already have several ground frequencies just for airplanes. There would have to be quite a few more controllers just for ramp vehicles.

Not that surprising it could be lifted in by the big intake flow of a 747's engine, especially if the container was empty or contained light items, LD3s are fairly strongly-built, but they only have either thin alloy or canvas sides, to keep their weight down. Presumably with it making the news they'll have to have the engine off the jet, just to be seen to be checking it thoroughly.

Well they are supposed to be clamped down. Most likely some ramper is going to be losing his job.

This reminds me of the Delta incident a few years back.

That one was actually blown into the engine of the L1011. At the time the engine wasn't spooled up.

Airlines can do nothing right in people's eyes. They always get accused of losing luggage. Now, they find a way to make sure it stays with the plane and they get criticized for that too. :(

No they don't control the vehicles on the ground. That would be a funny frequency if they did.

Oh yes they do. In case you don't believe me, I just scanned this article from the May 2009 issue of Airliner World, which was about ATC at EGCC:If you can't make out the caption, it says: 'ATC involves the control of ground vehicles as well as aircraft'. In fact, I often hear vehicles on ATC asking for permission to move somewhere on the airfield, and have even done that myself when driving vehicles on airfields. It is true not every movement is controlled (I've towed aircraft on airfields without having to get on the radio when on the perimeter track for example), but anything near where an aircraft would be taxying for departure when there is limited visability from the cockpit almost certainly would be (or at least should be), for rather obvious reasons, as in the case of the subject of this thread.Al

I can imagine this."Captain, the N1 on Engine #1 is down.""What the heck!?""Oh my gosh, there is a cargo container in Engine 1!"

Airlines can do nothing right in people's eyes. They always get accused of losing luggage. Now, they find a way to make sure it stays with the plane and they get criticized for that too. :(

My luggage is in that container! If they don't get it within 30 minutes, I am going to sue them! :(

I can imagine this."Captain, the N1 on Engine #1 is down.""What the heck!?""Oh my gosh, there is a cargo container in Engine 1!

ROFL! You darn near made me spit my coffee all over my computer with that one! If I was a passenger in a left seat with a view of #1 engine, it would have entertained me just long enough to laugh once before I realized I was going to be VERY late getting to my destination! :(

My luggage is in that container! If they don't get it within 30 minutes, I am going to sue them! :(

Local news just reported the container was empty.

Local news just reported the container was empty.

*Alakazam, your memory of what I said is erased!*I'm just playing, I haven't been on a plane in real life even once. :( I will soon though!!