Scoot flight horror: Technical fault sparks panic among passengers on Singapore to Bangkok route

[Moonlover]

12 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

10 hours ago, Moonlover said:

 

No, not at all. If a competent aerospace engineer says the aircraft is safe to fly and the captain agrees, then who am I to question them?

 

I'd be very happy to be on my way.

 

12 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

How many competent aircraft engineers travel on the flight?  You talk as if the panic was over nothing.  It appears that the fault turned out to be a minor one but looking at the photo, I'm not at all surprised that people were very worried.

No I would not have been concerned if I had been board. I know enough about aircraft systems to recognize a minor issue when I see it.

 

And no, I would not have had any qualms about reboarding once a  competent aircraft engineer had declared the aircraft fit to fly. And it would appear that neither did any of the passengers.

 

This whole has been blown up by sensationist reporting as is so often the case.

 

Edited May 10, 2023 by Moonlover

[Eleftheros]

11 hours ago, ezzra said:

fuel to be dumped over a body of water or an uninhibited area

Over Pattaya, perhaps? Or Soi Bangla?

[DJ54]

Guessing it wasn’t one of these loops …555

[treetops]

13 hours ago, ezzra said:

If an emergency was not declared that it was a minor issue, otherwise the pilot must dump fuel before commencing emergency procedures and landing.

There is no fuel dump capability on an Airbus A321.

[billd766]

12 hours ago, ezzra said:

If an emergency was not declared that it was a minor issue, otherwise the pilot must dump fuel before commencing emergency procedures and landing.

The "loops" were most probably circles made horizontally whilst dumping excess fuel, rather than vertical loops as in aerobatics. Probably badly written or translated from the original Thai.

 

As for panicking, the cockpit or under its more "polite" designation, the flight deck is where the aircrew fly the aircraft from and where all the controls and alarms are situated.

 

The flight crew monitor them and are trained in emergency responses. As none of them have parachutes and aircraft generally (when they do) crash nose first, it is in the pilots own self interest and that of the passengers to land it as quickly and safely as possible, which is what they did.

 

They must have made a "Pan" call indicating a problem that they were dealing with rather than a "Mayday" which usually start with Christian aircrews say ing "Our Father....." or Oh (deleted).

 

Unless there were any currently qualified aircrew on board just leave it to the driver and his mate to sort out, and DON"T PANIC.

[billd766]

7 minutes ago, treetops said:

There is no fuel dump capability on an Airbus A321.

Thank you. I did not know that.

[Moonlover]

13 hours ago, VocalNeal said:

14 hours ago, ezzra said:

If an emergency was not declared that it was a minor issue, otherwise the pilot must dump fuel before commencing emergency procedures and landing.

 

13 hours ago, VocalNeal said:

By doing four loops around Ko Si Chang

The Airbus A320 series, including this one are not equipped to dump fuel.

 

https://simpleflying.com/what-happens-when-aircraft-dump-fuel/

[herfiehandbag]

12 hours ago, wwest5829 said:

I did experience an air conditioning condensation issue on a domestic Chinese flight in 1997. Think it was a DC-3 because you literally walked up the aisle. We left the airfield where it was unbearably hot and humid. As we gained altitude rolls of fog began to pour into the cabin from overhead (no smell of smoke so of little concern). It was like the "Twilight Zone" as the Stewardess walked toward the front of the plane and disappeared into the fog!!!

If it was a DC3 why didn't they just open a window?

[bignok]

17 hours ago, daveAustin said:

Like how the comments nonchalantly dismiss it as trivial, like they wouldn’t be pooing their pants flying with this bunch, then this happens (‘it’s not normal, probably aircon condensation’ etc…) and the plane turns back!

Was looking at alternatives from Europe a while back and this Scoot popped up. Ok if you fly with absolutely no weight (and don’t breathe probably) but with all the add ons ad nauseam—which made AirAsia look good even—and all the ‘extras’ one would typically get with a standard flight with a NORMAL airline, it worked out about the same lol. Mickey Mow airline. 

No need to buy extras. 

[KhaoYai]

11 hours ago, Moonlover said:

 

No I would not have been concerned if I had been board. I know enough about aircraft systems to recognize a minor issue when I see it.

 

And no, I would not have had any qualms about reboarding once a  competent aircraft engineer had declared the aircraft fit to fly. And it would appear that neither did any of the passengers.

 

This whole has been blown up by sensationist reporting as is so often the case.

 

On your first point, I think you'd be very much in the minority there. I can fully understand the concerns of other passengers.

 

On your second point, I never mentioned anything about reboarding, I would also be happy to board if an engineer had certified the plane was fit to fly.

[bignok]

11 hours ago, Moonlover said:

 

No I would not have been concerned if I had been board. I know enough about aircraft systems to recognize a minor issue when I see it.

 

And no, I would not have had any qualms about reboarding once a  competent aircraft engineer had declared the aircraft fit to fly. And it would appear that neither did any of the passengers.

 

This whole has been blown up by sensationist reporting as is so often the case.

 

Yes it looks minor. All reporting is misleading these days.