Air Macau aborts flight from Suvarnabhumi after passengers revolt

[F4UCorsair]

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.

If terrain is 8000, a turn back would have been initiated long before tbere, but single engine capability is well above 8000 feet provided they have the distance to achieve Iit.

[Lupatria]

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

Probably the usual one: "How is my flying? Call 1-800 and eat <deleted>."

[Prbkk]

Could have been anything: pressurization indicator, weather at destination and if sufficient fuel for alternates ( Hong Kong, Guangzhou assuming weather ok there)

[Rod Wallop]

I took a flight to HCMC with Lufthansa a few years ago and fell asleep during take off. I awoke some time later and look at the TV screen which indicated we were flying over Phnom Penh at 10,000ft, so assumed we were making an early approach. The plane then started to turn around and return to Bangkok, and the engineer walked through the plane looking out at the left wing. The pilot announced that the flaps were stuck and it was safer to land in Bangkok. Cue for me and my mates to start drinking heavily. We landed normally.

[pattayasnowman]

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

Rubbish - As already mentioned by BSJ, dumping fuel is not possible on the A320family.

The differences from Max Take Off Weight (MTOW ) to Max Landing Weight (MLW) are not that small:

A321-200: Approx 14 tons

So you have to enter a holding pattern somewhere to burn fuel or to do the overweight landing procedure.

The A321 burns fuel at a bit less then 5 tons per hr . Since the flight to Macau is short it is likely that it was not at max fuel capacity at take off so that the difference between its TOW and MLW was less then 14 tons.

So flying in a holding pattern for 1 hr to burn 5 tons of fuel to reach MLW seems the most probable explanation for the 'facts' as reported.

But as you rightly pointed out so often these 'facts' can be far from what actually occured.

Edited April 22, 2015 by pattayasnowman

[oneday]

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"?

They were waiting for an explanation that made sense. They knew they were being lied to or just flat out disrespected and ignored so they decided they were not flying on an airplane belonging to an airline that was going to hide the problem from them.

It was an outstanding move on the passengers part and absolutely correct for them to do it.

[The Deerhunter]

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.

They always travel at below rooftop altitude and a bit slower. But!!!!!!!! Point well made. Yeah boy! I would never want to travel over the Phuket hill in any form of bus again. least of all one of those top-heavy Chinese tour buses.

[F4UCorsair]

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

Rubbish - As already mentioned by BSJ, dumping fuel is not possible on the A320family.

The differences from Max Take Off Weight (MTOW ) to Max Landing Weight (MLW) are not that small:

A321-200: Approx 14 tons

So you have to enter a holding pattern somewhere to burn fuel or to do the overweight landing procedure.

The A321 burns fuel at a bit less then 5 tons per hr . Since the flight to Macau is short it is likely that it was not at max fuel capacity at take off so that the difference between its TOW and MLW was less then 14 tons.

So flying in a holding pattern for 1 hr to burn 5 tons of fuel to reach MLW seems the most probable explanation for the 'facts' as reported.

But as you rightly pointed out so often these 'facts' can be far from what actually occured.

No! Not rubbish!!! Read and comprehend.

I didn't say that there was no difference between MTOW and MLW, onlt that an aircraft can be landed at maximum weight. An 'overweight landing' must be recorded and an engineering inspection carried out.

Consider this scenario. An aircraft takes off an experiences an uncontrollable engine fire, so must land asap. Does he hold to burn off fuel to get below landing weight? Of course not, so it's your assertion that is rubbish.

I'm not a google pilot.

[alfalfa19]

sounds terrifying. good on the passengers for "revolting" . i will be sure to never fly this airline.

[pattayasnowman]

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

Rubbish - As already mentioned by BSJ, dumping fuel is not possible on the A320family.

The differences from Max Take Off Weight (MTOW ) to Max Landing Weight (MLW) are not that small:

A321-200: Approx 14 tons

So you have to enter a holding pattern somewhere to burn fuel or to do the overweight landing procedure.

The A321 burns fuel at a bit less then 5 tons per hr . Since the flight to Macau is short it is likely that it was not at max fuel capacity at take off so that the difference between its TOW and MLW was less then 14 tons.

So flying in a holding pattern for 1 hr to burn 5 tons of fuel to reach MLW seems the most probable explanation for the 'facts' as reported.

But as you rightly pointed out so often these 'facts' can be far from what actually occured.

No! Not rubbish!!! Read and comprehend.

I didn't say that there was no difference between MTOW and MLW, onlt that an aircraft can be landed at maximum weight. An 'overweight landing' must be recorded and an engineering inspection carried out.

Consider this scenario. An aircraft takes off an experiences an uncontrollable engine fire, so must land asap. Does he hold to burn off fuel to get below landing weight? Of course not, so it's your assertion that is rubbish.

I'm not a google pilot.

You are not a very careful reader either:

Read my Post:

"So you have to enter a holding pattern somewhere to burn fuel or to do the overweight landing procedure."

Edited April 22, 2015 by pattayasnowman

[humqdpf]

There is no tradition of communication with passengers in many Asian airlines.

I recently took a Lao Airlines flight from Vientiane to Sumarabhumri. Plane was diverted to Don Muang where we stayed for 4 hours. Not once did the pilot communicate with us during the whole episode - a member of the cabin crew told us that there was bad weather at Sumarabhumri and that was the reason for the diversion. At no time were we told about when it would be likely that we would rejoin the flight path to our destination, no word from the cockpit, no apology, no assurance. Cabin crew knew nothing except for the bad weather. Was delayed by between 4 and 5 hours. Many passengers were unhappy as they could have been released at Don Muang. No explanation as to why this was not possible. Almost missed my connecting flight. No offer of help to make that connecting flight or inform the connecting flight airline.

[annabel]

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?

Yes and now I think all these other high falunked airlines are trying to take advantage of this but increasing prices way over the top! Last year in May I flew with Korean Airlines from CM / Seoul / Toronto return for &1,300 usd....

I just checked now to go again and was unbelievably shocked to see a price quote of 72,000 Baht ( 2,250 usd ) EACH WAY !!! WTH???

[annabel]

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

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

Exactly why after having made a few trips on various Chinese Airlines ( China Eastern, Air China etc... as there are quite a few now ) I will never fly any Chinese airlines whatsoever ever again .... all the ones I tried were just awful all over ...from service to food to communications ! I hate all USA airlines also but they are at least 1 point above.. not that is so great but at least a bit better...

[Grouse]

Goodness me. There are some real drama queens on here!

Air Macao have a safety rating of 7/7

It is not a low cost airline it is full service with a new fleet.

We don't have the full facts yet

My guess is some kind of failure during takeoff. Chose to burn off fuel to reduce weight before landing.

These things happen

No idea why flight crew did not keep pax informed though.

[dabhand]

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.

It does get a mention on pprune but only has the same information source as this thread.

http://www.pprune.org/south-asia-far-east/560285-air-macau-aborts-flight-after-passengers-revolt.html

So, none the wiser, but maybe there will be follow up postings that provide more information than currently available. Wouldn't hold my breath though!!

[Tomtomtom69]

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.

Thais are patient, Chinese aren't. Neither are Vietnamese.

I remember one flight a Lufthansa flight from BKK to SGN back in July 2008. Flight was delayed 2-3 times before finally being cancelled around 2 hours after the original scheduled departure time. The Vietnamese all became quite agitated, but the few Thais on board waited patiently and didn't say anything. The Thai ground staff, who weren't all that helpful were completely overwhelmed with all those complaining people. Almost as if they were thinking "how dare you complain?" But it all went well in the end, as we were put up in the 5-star airport hotel, with a free midnight buffet (yes it took that long to organise everything) and then a new flight was scheduled the following afternoon, again delayed by about 2-3 hours. But this time, it wasn't a Lufthansa flight but a rickety old Orient Thai plane! I was so glad to get off that one, and had I known we'd be delayed for 24 hours I could have travelled overland via Cambodia, would have been faster as well.

[timendres]

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

Remained at 4100 feet for duration of flight.

And never got over 270 knots airspeed. They definitely had engine trouble.

[F4UCorsair]

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.

Single engine ceiling is way above 4100 feet.... unless there were other problems.

[slipperylobster]

Good Pilot....bad plane.

He recognized a problem, kept it low for a safe return.

Lots of grumbling, but everyone got out ok....

perhaps the best outcome possible.

Edited April 22, 2015 by slipperylobster

[F4UCorsair]

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

Rubbish - As already mentioned by BSJ, dumping fuel is not possible on the A320family.

The differences from Max Take Off Weight (MTOW ) to Max Landing Weight (MLW) are not that small:

A321-200: Approx 14 tons

So you have to enter a holding pattern somewhere to burn fuel or to do the overweight landing procedure.

The A321 burns fuel at a bit less then 5 tons per hr . Since the flight to Macau is short it is likely that it was not at max fuel capacity at take off so that the difference between its TOW and MLW was less then 14 tons.

So flying in a holding pattern for 1 hr to burn 5 tons of fuel to reach MLW seems the most probable explanation for the 'facts' as reported.

But as you rightly pointed out so often these 'facts' can be far from what actually occured.

Not rubbish! Bad wording on my part. Possibly better to have said, "most modern aircraft types don't have a fuel dumping ability."

I didn't contend that there was no difference between MTOW and MLW, only that the aircraft can ne landed immediately regardless of weight and is in an emergency warranting that course of action. An overweight landing is reported and an engineering inspection carried out. Not all emergencies require it, but an engine failure eould.

Consider an uncontrollable engine fire, extreme case, and holding to burn off fuel so as to be under MLW to appreciate the absurdity of your contention.

I'm not a Wikipefia/google pilot.

[Bluespunk]

Goodness me. There are some real drama queens on here!

Air Macao have a safety rating of 7/7

It is not a low cost airline it is full service with a new fleet.

We don't have the full facts yet

My guess is some kind of failure during takeoff. Chose to burn off fuel to reduce weight before landing.

These things happen

No idea why flight crew did not keep pax informed though.

The OP quotes the airline as saying there was a faulty engine part.

It also seems they were intending to fly without replacing it.

[jacko45k]

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.

It may be that this was a simple lie to quieten down an aircraft full of irate passengers.

Passengers are treated like cattle all too often, I have been stuck waiting on an aircraft too may times myself hearing a stream of slightly modified lies designed to pacify.

Some may also feel the truth was rather scary...'we experienced engine problems and hope to have it repaired in 2 minutes'...... I would wonder if something so complex could be repaired so quickly in situ!

[car720]

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 .

Ok, you've almost got it.

What happens here is similar to truck drivers who drive for long haul companies.

They are pressured with the threat of losing their job if they don't bring loads in within a certain time and within a certain fuel usage limit.

We are no more that cattle any longer.

This is the Chinese cost cutting philosophy at its finest.

The big boys will have this problem soon because of code sharing. Using their name on other peoples planes.

[Godders]

Now THAT'S what I call Thai-style democracy!

[mike324]

My parents were on a flight to Dubai, the plane had to make an emergency landing in India. Pilot made an announcement that there would be an emergency landing that's all, the plane circled around and dump the fuel. Heavy fuel smell penetrated the plane, plane landed safely at the airport with emergency crew waiting at the tarmac. Passengers were never told what the emergency was. They were booked into a hotel and flew out the day after with no compensation for the delay in their trip.

[bdenner]

I'm surprised http://avherald.com/ have not reported on this incident. Maybe they are being stonewalled as well?

[mikemac]

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

If I was on that flight I would have been one of the first to "revolt". Bugger the Chinese, they can go down with the ship if they want to.

Sorry, but I can't seem to shake this image of agitated Thais storming off the plane waving pitchforks and burning sticks.

[chainarong]

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

<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.

They would all know what was happening in every control tower in Thailand , the pilot would keep it low so that ground staff could see if something was wrong through binoculars , I was coming down from Chiang Mai once and we did a low fly over an air base then lined up with Phitsanulok kept low , started discharging fuel , we landed ok at Don Muang the reception committee was everyone and he's dog except Prayut - O was there , problem, undercarriage down light still on in cockpit.

[IMA_FARANG]

Sounds like "Mickey Mouse Airlines incorporated".

----------------------------

I recall an Air Vietnam flight that crashed in October 1979 or 1980 (can't remember the year) during a violent thunderstorm at the old DMG airport (before swampy was built).

the tower advised the plane to circle until the thunderstorm passed, but the Air Vietnam pilot advised he could not as he did not have the fuel to do that.

The plane crashed on attempting to land in the storm.... and the crash investigation questioned why there was no fire in the crash.

It developed that at that time Air Vietnam was having problems getting aviation fuel so they were routinely flying planes to Bangkok with only enough fuel for a one way trip.

They were then refueling the planes in Bangkok and paying for the fuel for the return flight on credit to avoid foreign exchange problems in Vietnam.

Most of the passengers and crew were killed in that crash, which was caused by a downdraft on landing during the thunderstorm.

To be fair that was long ago and Air Vietnam now meets all the ICAO safety requirements, including the fuel safety margins..

But I still do remember that air Vietnam plane crash and the results of the crash investigation.

[Grouse]

Cabin pressure controller 1 & 2 fault.

Airbus A320 automatically goes to abort mode.

Captain correctly circled to burn off fuel and reduce weight

All done by the book

(Pity about poor communication with Pax though)

Edited April 25, 2015 by Grouse