Air Macau aborts flight from Suvarnabhumi after passengers revolt

[webfact]

Air Macau aborts flight after passengers revolt



BANGKOK: -- Air Macau Airbus plane with 175 Thai and Chinese passengers forced the pilot to abort its flight to Macau yesterday after they felt unsafe for the second take-off from Suvarnabhumi airport.

The NX885 flight took off from Suvarnabhumi yesterday but returned to the airport an hour later after encountering trouble.

No explanation was given to the passengers after the plane touched down the airport an hour after take-off.

The 175 passengers, 36 of them are Thais from two tour groups, were left inside the plane waiting for two hours and were not explained by either the pilot and the hostesses.

When asked by a Thai passenger Bundit Emanukul, a hostess just said poor weather condition forced the plane to return.

But others were also explained that the plane returned to the airport to refuel, according to a passenger telling Channel 3’s “Ruang Lao Chao Nee” morning news programme.

After two hours in the plane, passengers were heard again from the pilot that the plane would take off in two minutes.

Upon hearing the plane would take off again in two minutes, all the Thai passengers reacted with uncertainty and some even feared for their safety.

They rose up to their feet and refused to fly again.

A brief chaos reined the plane when all passengers decided to walk out.

One passenger said he felt something unusual when the plane was airborne for almost an hour but still was flying at low altitude, or just above rooftop.

Another female passenger also told Channel 3 that the plane should have flown at high altitude if it was on a long trip.

But it stayed at same low altitude for an hour and later returned to the airport, she said.

She also said there was no explanation from the pilot only a hostess reasoning of poor weather.

Another passenger also felt the plane might have trouble when he heard the engine was escalated all the time like starting a motorcycle.

Besides he felt the plane was tossing and shaking and flying unusually low as rooftops could be seen, he said.

Contacted by Channel 3 this morning Air Macau Bangkok supervisor Ekkachai Veerawat admitted that the plane had engine trouble, and now spare part has been sent to replace.

He said repair was expected to be finished and ready for fly again at 1 am tonight.

He said all passengers were arranged to stay at hotels.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/air-macau-aborts-flight-after-passengers-revolt

-- Thai PBS 2015-04-22

[Stradavarius37]

I'd have gotten off too...

[fritzzz25]

http://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/nx885/#60e96a4

Remained at 4100 feet for duration of flight.

[BSJ]

"One passenger said he felt something unusual when the plane was airborne for almost an hour but still was flying at low altitude, or just above rooftop." For one hour! Jesus christ!

They should have declared an emergency and been given priority to land. They could have flown over open land to dump fuel.

Maybe the Thai aviation regulator should be looking at other airlines as well!

[bdenner]

Another Airline on my ever growing list to avoid.

Probably a good reason for the aircraft to be flown the way it was BUT there is no excuse for aircrew arrogance.

Edited April 22, 2015 by bdenner

[DM07]

I don't get it: they waited patiently inside the plane and when it was announced, the plane would take off in 2 minutes...they started to "revolt"?

[kotsak]

That was one expensive carousel

[Thaddeus]

Did the plane have a ''How's my flying'' sticker on the tail.

[Caveat Emptor]

Isn't this something of a godsend for LoS as in ' look it's not just our airlines ' that have problems.

A major complaint to Air Macau on the cards ? A nice distraction.

[richard_smith237]

After flying for 1 hour at low altitude I'd have been rather concerned...

Once offered a flawed explanation of weather, only after complaining its understandable that many became suspicious.

As a collective it appears the passengers did well in requesting disembarkation rather than continuing with their journey. With the benefit of hindsight spare parts were required and the passengers decision justified.

What alarms me here is the apparent risk the airline / pilots were prepared to take in continuing their journey. I wonder what part was required, whatever it was it prevented the aircraft from reaching altitude .

[Jangot]

"One passenger said he felt something unusual when the plane was airborne for almost an hour but still was flying at low altitude, or just above rooftop." For one hour! Jesus christ!

They should have declared an emergency and been given priority to land. They could have flown over open land to dump fuel.

Maybe the Thai aviation regulator should be looking at other airlines as well!

I believe this flight is operated by an A321, which does not have fuel dumping capability.

As the Max Landing Weight is about 14 tons less than the Max Takeoff Weight, they would have had to go into a holding pattern to burn off fuel down to a safe landing weight...

Or, land overweight, which is not a good option unless a real emergency that requires getting on the ground as a priority.

[kevc]

I'd like to know how it was ok to take off yesterday but the are sending a spare part today to repair it.

[Bluespunk]

"Contacted by Channel 3 this morning Air Macau Bangkok supervisor Ekkachai Veerawat admitted that the plane had engine trouble, and now spare part has been sent to replace.

He said repair was expected to be finished and ready for fly again at 1 am tonight."

So they were going to take off before this had been done?

[Artisi]

Sounds like "Mickey Mouse Airlines incorporated".

[smedly]

It is becoming increasingly obvious that lies are being told by these Asian operators when they have problems, something that should never ever happen in the aviation industry no matter how bad the problems are, aviation issues should be open honest transparent investigated and findings always reported to the public no matter what

[taony]

Isn't this something of a godsend for LoS as in ' look it's not just our airlines ' that have problems.

A major complaint to Air Macau on the cards ? A nice distraction.

I don't think so. The problem is the Thai oversight, not individual airlines, although without the proper oversight, the symptons you will see will involve individual airlines. This is a really scary story if true. The plane should never have been allowed to take off if it was inspected properly during the layover.

[lee b]

Sounds like "Mickey Mouse Airlines incorporated".

Just like most of them around this part of the world really....

[simon43]

I wonder what part was required, whatever it was it prevented the aircraft from reaching altitude .

Perhaps the bungee cord failed to release...

[Usual Suspect]

This story seems typical of any form of transportation in this part of the world...

...Departing on it's flight despite needing the part fitting is a bit like the 100's of tour buses here that leave the depot/base knowing full well the vehicle has dodgy brakes or sleep-deprived driver.

[ezzra]

The gods of revenues, schedules and profit are mightier than the gods of sense, caution and safety....

[Rykbanlor]

I don't get it: they waited patiently inside the plane and when it was announced, the plane would take off in 2 minutes...they started to "revolt"?

Makes better news than the usual revolting Chinese tourists we keep hearing of

[Maestro]

Nothing on pprune.org about it. I believe a couple of Thaivisa members are on that forum and wonder if they could ask about it there.

The same flight of Air Macau but different aircraft was diverted to Hong Kong on 18 April.

Image source: http://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/nx885/#6084747

[bongoz]

http://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/nx885/#60e96a4

Remained at 4100 feet for duration of flight.

There are TWO diverted flights for Macau in the last three days!

[mikemac]

I don't get it: they waited patiently inside the plane and when it was announced, the plane would take off in 2 minutes...they started to "revolt"?

................."After two hours in the plane, passengers were heard again from the pilot that the plane would take off in two minutes.

Upon hearing the plane would take off again in two minutes, all the Thai passengers reacted with uncertainty and some even feared for their safety."..................

Where did you read that they waited "patiently" ?

And being Chinese and Thai people, waiting for two hours on the tarmac in those uncertain conditions, it would have been anything but patient waiting.

[WitawatWatawit]

Are the pilots and crew under that much pressure that they, too, have to take a risk on their lives? Normally, the captain would have the final say on whether to fly if he suspects something wrong - yet in this case, he surely must have known, but did nothing until the passengers revolted. I find this disturbing.

[bongoz]

I don't get it: they waited patiently inside the plane and when it was announced, the plane would take off in 2 minutes...they started to "revolt"?

Makes better news than the usual revolting Chinese tourists we keep hearing of

But they were Chinese!

175 Thai and Chinese passengers

[F4UCorsair]

"One passenger said he felt something unusual when the plane was airborne for almost an hour but still was flying at low altitude, or just above rooftop." For one hour! Jesus christ!

They should have declared an emergency and been given priority to land. They could have flown over open land to dump fuel.

Maybe the Thai aviation regulator should be looking at other airlines as well!

Most modern aircraft don't need to dump fuel and can land at maximum weight.

Additionally, fuel dumping is only permitted above 6000 feet unless a crash is imminent. Engine failure doesn't qualify unless the aircraft can't maintain altitude on the remaining engine/s, which is most unlikely, but it's the Captain's call.

A little knowledge is more dangerous than none at all, but I'm sure the Captain has taken notice of the TV 'experts' Suggestion that he should have declared and emergency and been given priority to land.

4100 feet is not 'just above rooftops'.....incidentally, unless of course the buildings are veeeery tall.

Don't believe half of what you read in the press, and discard the other half

Edited April 22, 2015 by F4UCorsair

[mikemac]

"Contacted by Channel 3 this morning Air Macau Bangkok supervisor Ekkachai Veerawat admitted that the plane had engine trouble, and now spare part has been sent to replace.

He said repair was expected to be finished and ready for fly again at 1 am tonight."

So they were going to take off before this had been done?

Yep, cheaper and easier to just fly the dodgy plane to Macau and fix the engine there.

[godden]

A friend told me he flew internal chinese aiways 3 years ago and how nice the plane was as they had just repainted the inside, you could see the brush strokes!!!

[outsider]

Thank heavens nothing worse happened. I'm no aviation expert, but shouldn't the pilot turn around and land if all he could do was climb to a mere 4,100 feet - for an hour at that??? Surely, that's a black-bold-underlined sign that there's trouble if the plane can't reach cruising altitude - for an hour?