Air Macau aborts flight from Suvarnabhumi after passengers revolt

[hawker9000]

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.

If the above is factually correct, no one should fly in an A321 because if the pilot has a problem immediately after take off he either has to land with excess fuel considered very dangerous or go into holding pattern when problem can get worse, why no fuel dumping capability

It's NOT factually correct (how unusual ...). The facts are already here in the thread, so I won't post them again.

[ALFREDO]

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"?

Possibly, nobody had seen, or recognized any repair work-on the engines or anywhere else.

[ALFREDO]

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?

Yes, he came back to get the Maximum fuel load, as lower flight level uses up more fuel and would have started again knowing he could give the passengers a low altitude scenic flight to Macau. Only he should have advertised that idea better to his passengers.

[ALFREDO]

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.

Add up - he decided its save to fly in low altitude with more fuel consumption, so he came back to get more fuel and was willing to strat again.

should have asked his passengers so.

[ALFREDO]

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.

4-5 hours at Don Muang waiting to go on to Suvarnabhumi? I would have made a loud scene, fuss and hassle.

I believe they would have me removed from the plane.

[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)

I have already told you what the problem was. No change to that!

Cabin pressurisation related issue meant that the maximum altitude was limited.

You can land an Airbus A320 at full load but that would require landing gear inspection.

Best solution for all is to go into a holding pattern for an hour and land under standard conditions.

So no major problem. Why the fuss?

Cockpit crew could and should have provided more info for the passengers though.

[Jangot]

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.

If the above is factually correct, no one should fly in an A321 because if the pilot has a problem immediately after take off he either has to land with excess fuel considered very dangerous or go into holding pattern when problem can get worse, why no fuel dumping capability

It's NOT factually correct (how unusual ...). The facts are already here in the thread, so I won't post them again.

My post was totally correct and factual.

The A320 family (of which the A321 is the largest) does not have fuel dumping capability.

This is also true of the Boeing 737 family - no dumping capability.

The Max Landing Weight is set during certification of the aircraft type. Primarily a structure consideration.

Landings above that weight have the risk of causing structure damage.

After an overweight landing, the aircraft has to undergo a special inspection, as mentioned by a previous poster, mostly in the area of the Landing Gear and its mounts.

The depth of the inspection will depend if the overweight landing was gentle/smooth, or hard.

The decision to land overweight or circle to burn fuel down to the landing weight belongs to the Captain.

He will be advised by his Tech Ops, and Engineers (if there is time), but it is his ultimate decision.

The decision will be based on how urgent it is to get the aircraft on the ground. Some system malfunctions which would prevent the aircraft continuing to scheduled destination, are not a risk at all whilst circling to burn fuel, so getting down to Max Landing Weight would be chosen.

As Hawker 9000 says, there is standard procedure in the QRH (And Flight Manual) to conduct an owerweight landing, IF the Captain decides it is the best/safest option.

J.

[hawker9000]

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.

If the above is factually correct, no one should fly in an A321 because if the pilot has a problem immediately after take off he either has to land with excess fuel considered very dangerous or go into holding pattern when problem can get worse, why no fuel dumping capability

It's NOT factually correct (how unusual ...). The facts are already here in the thread, so I won't post them again.

My post was totally correct and factual.

The A320 family (of which the A321 is the largest) does not have fuel dumping capability.

This is also true of the Boeing 737 family - no dumping capability.

The Max Landing Weight is set during certification of the aircraft type. Primarily a structure consideration.

Landings above that weight have the risk of causing structure damage.

After an overweight landing, the aircraft has to undergo a special inspection, as mentioned by a previous poster, mostly in the area of the Landing Gear and its mounts.

The depth of the inspection will depend if the overweight landing was gentle/smooth, or hard.

The decision to land overweight or circle to burn fuel down to the landing weight belongs to the Captain.

He will be advised by his Tech Ops, and Engineers (if there is time), but it is his ultimate decision.

The decision will be based on how urgent it is to get the aircraft on the ground. Some system malfunctions which would prevent the aircraft continuing to scheduled destination, are not a risk at all whilst circling to burn fuel, so getting down to Max Landing Weight would be chosen.

As Hawker 9000 says, there is standard procedure in the QRH (And Flight Manual) to conduct an owerweight landing, IF the Captain decides it is the best/safest option.

J.

What's NOT correct (and has been stated in this thread over & over again) is that overweight landings ARE NOT "considered very dangerous", and there's in fact a published procedure for it. It merely requires an after-landing inspection. 'Probably why the dumping capability was considered extraneous by Airbus in the first place. Some are just trying to add drama to this discussion. The pilot, no doubt in consultation with his airline ops, was probably advised that the overall impact to the route schedule from circling to burn down was less than that from waiting for completion of the inspection, although one suspects something unrelated - something to do with the cabin pressurization system has been mentioned - was going to have to be fixed anyway. I agree with others - this was mainly an issue with pilot failure to share the information with the passengers, for whatever reason and not a reason to start up some ridiculous (not to mention uninformed) conversation about how dangerous the A321 is because it can't dump.

[F4UCorsair]

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?

Airline crews don't give specific information regarding what the problem is unless it's obvious, e.g., an engine fire. Most pax wouldn't know if an engine had been shut down unless very perceptive, or it happened on take off, the lack of climb capability is obvious, and that is noticed by pax.

As I've said previously, a little information can be more dangerous than none at all.

[F4UCorsair]

What's NOT correct (and has been stated in this thread over & over again) is that overweight landings ARE NOT "considered very dangerous", and there's in fact a published procedure for it. It merely requires an after-landing inspection. 'Probably why the dumping capability was considered extraneous by Airbus in the first place. Some are just trying to add drama to this discussion. The pilot, no doubt in consultation with his airline ops, was probably advised that the overall impact to the route schedule from circling to burn down was less than that from waiting for completion of the inspection, although one suspects something unrelated - something to do with the cabin pressurization system has been mentioned - was going to have to be fixed anyway. I agree with others - this was mainly an issue with pilot failure to share the information with the passengers, for whatever reason and not a reason to start up some ridiculous (not to mention uninformed) conversation about how dangerous the A321 is because it can't dump.

I agree hawker, and the lack of communication is what causes me concern. Some non native english speakers have very poor English, and whilst they have passed an Aviation English exam, that doesn't mean they are fluent conversationalists in everyday communication.

Once again, reporters with little/no aviation knowledge (they can't be expected to be expert on everything) write these articles, and drama sells newspapers, so there is a combination of lack of knowledge and the desire the dramatize the situation that leads non aviation people to think that even a circuit breaker popping is about to cause a crash.

How many times have you seen a pax on a flight that returned to departure being goaded by a reporter and he/she says, "I thought we were all going to die." It makes good press.

[Johnny S]

Sounds like "Mickey Mouse Airlines incorporated".

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

Agree ... its the Wild West to fly in Asia with most carriers