Jump to content
MalaysianWings - Malaysia's Premier Aviation Portal
Adrian Meredith

MH001 incident out of LHR

Recommended Posts

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

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

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 by Mohd Suhaimi Fariz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
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 by filipeseda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :D

But then what do I know about running an airline ?! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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........

 

 

:hi:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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' :lol:

(I believe it's 9M-MPR :))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you meant the 744F shown in the video, you must be one of those who regulalee get their 'ell' muddled with their 'are' :lol:

(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

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

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

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 by Walter Sim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you meant the 744F shown in the video, you must be one of those who regulalee get their 'ell' muddled with their 'are' :lol:

(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

Ya, any specific ruling that they must use the "D" suffix?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Radzi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...