Adrian Meredith 0 Report post Posted August 18, 2012 Just heard from a friend who was on last night's MH001 from LHR that the 747 had to turn around and re-land at LHR after about an hour into the flight due to problems with two engines. Is this just due to age? Or poor maintenance? Or is it just one of those things that happen from time to time? I've heard of (and been on) planes having trouble with one engine, but two at time? Hope he manages to get back for Hari Raya! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Keith Ng 0 Report post Posted August 18, 2012 From Malaysia Airlines Facebook page: Malaysia Airlines flight MH1/17 August 2012 that departed London Heathrow at 2215 hours for KL International Airport (KLIA) with 340 passengers (including 6 infants) returned and landed safely at Heathrow at 2319 hours. The operating crew of the B747-400 aircraft took this decision due to a technical problem with its No. 2 engine. In the best interest of the safety of the passengers, it was decided that the flight should not proceed to KLIA. Malaysia Airlines provided ground transfers and full board hotel accommodation in London for all the passengers and will keep them informed of the alternative travel arrangements for their flight to KLIA. The national carrier of Malaysia extends its apologies to all passengers for the unexpected disruption to their flight plans. Customers are advised to check latest flight status with Malaysia Airlines at its 24 hours Call Centre (1300 88 3000 for calls from within Malaysia and +603 7843 3000 for call from outside Malaysia) and online at http://bit.ly/MHflightstatus Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Isaac 0 Report post Posted August 18, 2012 On a bright side, they sold 93% of the seats on that flight Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ahmad M 1 Report post Posted August 18, 2012 So it's the no2 engine and not 2 engines after all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nrazmoor 0 Report post Posted August 18, 2012 read in someone twitter that the engine caught with fire.. not sure if its true or not. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mohd Suhaimi Fariz 2 Report post Posted August 18, 2012 (edited) It's probably an engine surge & the crew erred on the side of caution to return back to LHR. I remembered a BA flight which had an engine shutdown out of LAX flew all the way to MAN on 3 engines before diverting there as a precautionary measure. So could MPL flew on to make it easier on everyone? Edited August 18, 2012 by Mohd Suhaimi Fariz Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Adrian Meredith 0 Report post Posted August 18, 2012 So it's the no2 engine and not 2 engines after all. Ah, that makes more sense Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Naim 6 Report post Posted August 18, 2012 Ah, that makes more sense so no double engine failure due to old age and poor maintenance? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
leon t 0 Report post Posted August 18, 2012 MH have 340 pax on this 744 n not even a full flight - how to fill up its 380 with 500 seats! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
filipeseda 0 Report post Posted August 18, 2012 (edited) MH have 340 pax on this 744 n not even a full flight - how to fill up its 380 with 500 seats! 340 for 744 is good considering that MH has 359 seats on its jumbo jet. That is a very good load factor by any airline standards. If I am not wrong MH 001 is the evening flight that does not have as many connecting flight options with the A380 flight. 340 on 001 is quite good considering this. Would only expect the A380 to sell more tickets because it is more strategically placed, especially for kangaroo route flyers. Edited August 18, 2012 by filipeseda Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BC Tam 2 Report post Posted August 18, 2012 If I am not wrong MH 001 is the evening flight that does not have as many connecting flight options with the A380 flight. 340 on 001 is quite good considering this One option may then be to schedule some (or at least more) connecting flights for when MH1 arrives at KUL to places that transitting pax may want to go to Instead of shrugging one's shoulder in resignation ala c'est la vie mode But then what do I know about running an airline ?! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Isaac 0 Report post Posted August 18, 2012 If I am not wrong MH 001 is the evening flight that does not have as many connecting flight options with the A380 flight. There should be many Australia bound passengers on the evening flight from LHR to KUL... just like how popular the SQ evening flights are back to SIN. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aaron Goh 1 Report post Posted August 19, 2012 It's probably an engine surge & the crew erred on the side of caution to return back to LHR. I remembered a BA flight which had an engine shutdown out of LAX flew all the way to MAN on 3 engines before diverting there as a precautionary measure. So could MPL flew on to make it easier on everyone? you dont want that Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lock SH 0 Report post Posted August 23, 2012 On a bright side, they sold 93% of the seats on that flight Last flight to reach KUL just in time for Hari Raya may be could be one of the reasons........ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Johan Z 0 Report post Posted August 24, 2012 I found this video on Youtube. MASKargo was dispatched to carry replacement engine. The aircraft was 9M-MPL. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixM-tGKNumI&feature=channel&list=UL[/url] Credit to MrFlashjet Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BC Tam 2 Report post Posted August 24, 2012 I found this video on Youtube. MASKargo was dispatched to carry replacement engine. The aircraft was 9M-MPL. If you meant the 744F shown in the video, you must be one of those who regulalee get their 'ell' muddled with their 'are' (I believe it's 9M-MPR ) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mushrif A 3 Report post Posted August 24, 2012 If you meant the 744F shown in the video, you must be one of those who regulalee get their 'ell' muddled with their 'are' (I believe it's 9M-MPR ) I'm sure he knows his ABCs quite well. He meant (in very few words) that the grounded 744 was 9M-MPL. And talking about -MPL, it seems that it is well enough to make the trip home as MH001D today. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BC Tam 2 Report post Posted August 24, 2012 I'm sure he knows his ABCs quite well. He meant (in very few words) that the grounded 744 was 9M-MPL. Hah hah, I thought as much but ....... ! So there would have been two MH001's today ? Wonder how they managed to squeeze an extra slot available at LHR ?! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mushrif A 3 Report post Posted August 24, 2012 Hah hah, I thought as much but ....... ! So there would have been two MH001's today ? Wonder how they managed to squeeze an extra slot available at LHR ?! No, only one MH001. The other is MH001D...i.e. with a "dee" after the "wan".... letter "dee" for "deer" or "dont you know your alphabets?" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Walter Sim 1 Report post Posted August 24, 2012 (edited) I'm sure he knows his ABCs quite well. He meant (in very few words) that the grounded 744 was 9M-MPL. And talking about -MPL, it seems that it is well enough to make the trip home as MH001D today. Ahh heard them on the radio just now circa 330pm, was wondering why the D suffix Edited August 24, 2012 by Walter Sim Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Johan Z 0 Report post Posted August 24, 2012 If you meant the 744F shown in the video, you must be one of those who regulalee get their 'ell' muddled with their 'are' (I believe it's 9M-MPR ) Haha. When I read back, I knew it can be confusing. BTW, why did all MH 747-400 register as 9M-MP_, including freighter? I understand they only have a handful 747 pax version, but 747F is used for completely different mission like A332F Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Waiping 12 Report post Posted August 24, 2012 Ya, any specific ruling that they must use the "D" suffix? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Johan Z 0 Report post Posted August 24, 2012 Delayed? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Radzi 2 Report post Posted August 24, 2012 (edited) No, only one MH001. The other is MH001D...i.e. with a "dee" after the "wan".... letter "dee" for "deer" or "dont you know your alphabets?" I don't think anybody involved ever said "dee", they will say "delta"... Haha. When I read back, I knew it can be confusing. BTW, why did all MH 747-400 register as 9M-MP_, including freighter? I understand they only have a handful 747 pax version, but 747F is used for completely different mission like A332F P as in Pratt & Whitney? Earlier MH B747 used the MH_ registration, and so were the A300B4s. MHI/ J were -200. MHK was a -300 while MHL/M/N and O were GE-engined -400s. Edited August 24, 2012 by Radzi Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Johan Z 0 Report post Posted August 24, 2012 Thanks. So, only P&W 747-400s have 9M-MP_ rego. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites