Air Macau aborts flight from Suvarnabhumi after passengers revolt

[MarkmBha]

Don't you HATE it when people LIE to you !

[Chao Lao Beach]

Somthing doesn't ad up here, so the skipper was about to take off in 2 mns when it required parts for be airworthy?

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

THEN THIS

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.

[hawker9000]

"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.

There is a difference between MTOW and Max Landing Weight, but there's a procedure in the QRH (Quick Reference Handbook) for overweight landings with prohibitions to such landings only in certain situations, e.g., flight control problems.

[Ricardo]

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

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

Or unless the buildings are standing on one of the mountains in northern-Thailand, which the flight would be routed across heading for China, and which go up to 8,000 feet ?

Perhaps the aircraft was unable to climb higher, if the engine having problems was the one which supplies pressurised-air, to the cabin ?

It will be interesting to see further details, as they emerge.

[gyrosman]

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

Remained at 4100 feet for duration of flight.

Good view of the countryside for the Chinese tourist.

[Ricardo]

Don't you HATE it when people LIE to you !

Yes, especially in a situation where many passengers are already nervous, not having flown a lot before.

It doesn't inspire confidence, does it ?

[Somtamnication]

The passengers were revolting!!

[Grouse]

Air Macau is a full service airline with excellent record.

Their Airbus fleet is pretty new including this Airbus A321

We DO NOT KNOW what the problem was. Better wait for more info before passing judgement

Recent diversions from Macau were due to weather. ( localiser approach minimums)

There is nothing on Pprune as no big deal. Don't know why captain didn't keep everybody informed.

[gigman]

Thanks to passengers action..,,,

They just prevented them sefls and us to read about another disaster in media...

[emilymat]

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

Remained at 4100 feet for duration of flight.

Blimey Fritzz that's clever. Thanks very much.

From you link it seemed the plane didn't get far and, I assume, it had to circle (To dump fuel?) before landing.

The OP appears to suggest it was an hour into the flight (maybe 4-500 miles) but you helpful link seems to indicate the 'problem' arose very quickly and it would have been quite normal for the pilot to abort.

Still can't figure out why some announcement was not made.

[Jim walker]

Just above roof tops that is a little low then.

[dotpoom]

The airplane wanted to take off again knowing the engine needed new parts?????

[Jonmarleesco]

How stupid are AM staff? Or are they under orders? We've had Malaysian Air losing planes, problems with Thai Air, Lufthansa's no-frills Germanwings being flown into a mountain, etc. All within the last year. Do they seriously expect to encounter a problem, and to be able to get away with telling the paying customers bugger-all about it?

[chainarong]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

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"?

That's the good part, Macau admitted it had an engine trouble so in fact they were going to try and get it back home with Engine trouble, (Band-aid repairs) save on cost sending engineer and new ??? motor , the only thinkers in this out fit of misfits is the passengers, unless the airline has IATA or ICPO on the bottom of their promo's or tickets, just ask when booking , don't use them.

[wabothai]

Clear is that the captain did not fulfill his duty.

He is responsible for scaring the living daylights out of his passengers, no matter the circumstances and he should be fired or only fly freighters.

[chainarong]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

The airplane wanted to take off again knowing the engine needed new parts?????

It was okay, the main R/H engine thrust bearing had shattered, cutting the hydraulic lines to the rudder and electric power to first class entertainment and a slight rupture in the R/H fuel tank and the biggest problem the coffee machine had fused, hard to get good workers these days.

[diehard60]

all asian airlines are having problems. They do not have a qualifies QA program and a qualified maintenance progam.

[ggt]

The passengers were reassured of their safety...when they were issued parachutes...

[scorecard]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

"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!

Questions for the aviation experts:

1. Are the Thai aviation authorities (all countries - tower and more) required to monitor flights after they leave an airport and until they are outside of the sovereign territory to ensure they are following the designated flight plan re altitude etc?

2. If that's true then is there a regulation that after observing for some time (surely less than 2 hours) the aircraft is flying at 4,000 feet the said authority should have already and proactively asked some serious questions and taken some action to insist the aircraft fly at the planned altitude or land?

Please share.

[Praematura]

What's interesting is only the Thais revolted. Chinese will follow their flag carrier/tourist guide to the end.[emoji19]

[Traveller45]

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 .

"Joe, do we need this thing...?"

[F4UCorsair]

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.

Aircraft components fail, simple as that. They're machines, and machines, no matter how sophisticated, do fail.

The most likely time for a jet engine to fail is when take off power is applied, and the first power redu tion after take off, usually 600 feet above airport elevation.

[F4UCorsair]

Don't you HATE it when people LIE to you !

In my view, that's the worst part, not that there was an engine problem, but that the pax weren't informed.

But......if an engine had failed on a previous flight, been repaired, and pax not told, is that any different. Things break, they're repaired, and nobody is any wiser.

[RigPig]

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.

Read the OP AGAIN......

[ExpatOilWorker]

The captain could probably not speak English, hence the lack of any information from the cockpit:

[kinmaew]

Sounds like a parachute is needed for Air Macau, I bet the owners fly Emirates. I remember after flying Phuket Airways years ago to Burma, I noticed at Don Muang on our return that some fluid was leading from the wings.

[marko kok prong]

Sheep are like that,when one panics it spreads to the rest of them.

[Muzarella]

Looks to me that the pilot saw trouble after taking off, decided to return but need it to burn fuel to land safely. But, he didn't announce that and let the passengers figure out that something wrong was happening....on the air...and later on land. The passengers waited to long to react, buy probably was necessary sharing opinions with the all group before revolt. Anyway, smart passengers, very bad pilot and airline.

[Benmart]

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"?

The wording leaves many questions, but then, I wasn't there and can only imagine the anxiety on the part of the passengers.

[sweatalot]

"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.

may be you are right - but no explanation to the passengers?