I've flown an airplane equipped with the very first model of G.E high bypass engine for over twenty years now. Just last week in a simulator we practiced an engine failure as a result of catastophic engine failure. It happens, but statistically it's rather insignificant. Every single wide body aircraft ever built, with the possible exception of the L-1011, has had the majority of it's deliveries equiped with the General Electric CF-6 engine. Most of the uncontained failures are never noticed by the mainstream media, since they result in nothing more than the aircraft making a precautionary landing at a location other than the destination. The only true accident I can think of that was a result of an uncontained failure was the United DC-10 in Iowa. The reason this incident is making news is the availibility of the site and it's easy access to news coverage. As strange as it seems, had the same aircraft had every seat filled on a flight half way between Hawaii and LAX when the distentigration occured, there would have been no coverage at all- no injuries, and no pictures usually means no interest. But take an empty airplane being run by maintenance on the ground, and the fact that the fire and disruption to airport operations can be covered live makes it a story. With several thousand of these engines operating ten hours a day every day of the year they really do have a remarkable safety record.

Actually, almost all 747-100/200/300/SP aircraft and most 767s and some DC-10s were delivered with the Pratt & Whitney JT9 engine. The CF-6 is an "also ran" to the JT9 in terms of widebody deliveries.

What part failed? Obviously it was some part of the rotating mass, and not the engine shell. The Iowa crash was a flaw in the titanium compressor disk. Any info if similar part on this engine?

Details would be welcome. At least it was on the ground and zero injuries.

OK, this was one of the most serious events -- an 'uncontained' failure. Just to put it in perspective, let's look at similar (or worse?) failures of other manufacturer's 'today' engines. As for the pathetic reference to the archaiic JT9, for goodness sake GET REAL!!

I am no by any means an expert in what this story is about, however what I am, and probably another 300+ persons are,is an eye witness to a pretty good cover-up. I was on an Air NZ Flght #006 arriving at LAX that morning. We had just landed and were taxing to our terminal when we heard this loud explosion and our plane (a 747) was rocked. I looked out my window and saw the plane exploding less than 100 yards away from us. The flames were everywhere and I could see pieces of the plane flying up in the air. We then saw the fuel from the plane running on the tarmat toward us, at which point our pilot proceeded to 'step on the gas' and very quickly move us away from there. My question is "what kind of idiots are testing whatever they are doing so close to commercial planes?" Between the explosion and the fuel we were fortunate not to have a much more serious problem. Interestingly, it was never picked up by the media until now! Lax spokesperson Nancy Castle said " It was pretty fortunate that no one was hurt and that NO PLANES WERE TAKING OFF OR LANDING AT THAT TIME" I think the FAA should know the truth!