Flight MH066 from Kula Lumper made Emergency Landing at Hong Kong

British passenger sent text to her mother from diverted plane saying she feared for her life after travellers were told to put on life jackets and prepare for emergency water landing in latest Malaysian Airline flight terror

A British passenger 'thought she was going to die' when travellers onboard a Malaysia Airlines jet were told to prepare for an emergency water landing after an electricity generator failed.

Luisa Barbaro was on board the diverted flight MH066 which made an unscheduled landing in Hong Kong while it was flying from Kuala Lumpur to Incheon, in South Korea, in the early hours of today.

The 26-year-old was finishing a week-long holiday in Kuala Lumpur and was travelling to Seoul for a business trip....

Flight MH066 from Kula Lumper made Emergency Landing at Hong Kong

As above a Malaysian flight from Kula Lumper had to make an emergency landing today at Hong Kong airport due to a Generator Failure!!
Passengers were told to prepare for an emergency water landing, but seems they made it to land.

I imagine this airline company are going to see a HUGE drop in number of passengers after this, You would be thinking a fluke accident after the first plane had crashed a few feeks ago, now this? WOW.

I dont know what to think, its not looking good for the airline company tho!!

Stuff happens to planes ALL THE TIME ALL DAY EVERYDAY. Hell here in central florida 3-4 small planes have crashed in 2 days. Flying is the safest and will be for probably ever. Granted this is not a PR wet dream for the airline but no one was hurt and even though they were prepared for the worst nothing happened. The plane will be fixed and no one will even remember.

reply to post by marbles87


I totally agree, I was looking at it form a pr perspective, It couldn't have come at a worse time tho considering the circumstances, and I imagine it will do the company a bit of harm, more than if it happened without the previous accident.

Prepare for a water landing because they lost a generator? They're kidding right?

The 777 is capable of taking off, flying to its destination, and landing safely with one engine. That is one reason why the engines were designed to be as powerful as they are. Losing one generator, while kind of important, is seriously unlikely to cause a water landing to occur.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Prepare for the worst, pray to every god for the best. Tell them to hold their breath to float if the airline thought people would say they didn't do enough.

reply to post by marbles87


Yeah, you prepare for the worst, but telling people to put life jackets on, and prepare for a water landing over a generator is just insane. Even if they lost the generator, in some cases the engine could still be running, they'd just lose electrical power. My father had a B-52 lose six generators, and no engines on a flight, and landed safely.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Missing the point. Sure if this happened to another airline sure maybe they would have taken it better I'm surprised the airline didn't scramble jets if you get what I mean.

I know I'm not the only one to find the timing of this to be very odd.

All the speculation of electrical issues with the missing 777, and now electrical issues with this aircraft ran by the same airline? Hmmm......

Zaphod58
...
The 777 is capable of taking off, flying to its destination, and landing safely with one engine...

According to what I'm seeing:

In a statement today Malaysia Airlines said Flight MH066, which was carrying 271 people, had taken off from Kuala Lumpur at 11.37pm on Sunday and made the emergency landing in Hong Kong at 2.53am today.

Fire crews were put on standby for the arrival of the Airbus 330-300, a larger jet than the Boeing 777 which is missing - the Airbus can carry up to 440 passengers, while the Boeing has a 365 passenger capacity.

Despite the emergency landing, the airline said that electrical power continued to be supplied by an auxiliary power unit.

(source)
Article from OP

(emphasis mine)
This MH066 was an Airbus 330-300, yes? I'm not familiar with aircraft really but do these two machines share electrical systems? And can this Airbus 330-300 also perform after engine failure?

reply to post by marbles87


No, I get your point. But even for an airline that recently lost a bird, this was an insane overreaction. On top of the maintenance cost to fix/replace the generator, they now have to replace all those life jackets, as well as inspect and repack them. And instead of appearing proactive opened the door for an emotional distress lawsuit.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Pennies compared to if anything did happen and they didn't do these steps.

reply to post by marbles87


Even if they lose both engines the aircraft is not going to plunge straight down. They would have plenty of time.

reply to post by Zaphod58


I know that. You know that 3/4 of ATS knows this. 99.9% of the world are brainwashed. The airline will use this to say. "Look we had everything handled and the passengers will say that they really weren't that scared because they could see things happening" this is pycholocial. The airline needs their reputation back. The governments are screwed but the airline is trying to save face.

I know I'm not the only one to find the timing of this to be very odd.

reply to post by ChaosComplex



I could not agree more with the above statement.
Very odd to say the least.

Brisbane airport had an emergency landing yesterday also. What is going on??

reply to post by shillhound


There are over 85,000 flights (counting general and business aviation) over the US alone on any given day. Emergencies happen daily.

Zaphod58
Prepare for a water landing because they lost a generator? They're kidding right?

no - because if you don't prepare for something that does happen you're in even deeper do-do.

The 777 is capable of taking off, flying to its destination, and landing safely with one engine. That is one reason why the engines were designed to be as powerful as they are. Losing one generator, while kind of important, is seriously unlikely to cause a water landing to occur.

It is not capable of taking off with a full load on 1 engine, and with 1 engine gone you would make for the nearest suitable airfield on het basis that you won't be flying for long on the off chance that another engine goes.

Much of that redundancy is NOT there to enable you to "keep calm and carry on" - it is designed to ensure that 1 or 2 failures do not see you falling out of the sky. with 1 system gone you are a little bit closer to falling out of the sky, so you do not persist about - you get down ASAP.

Uncompromising safety requirements are the main reason why aviation remains the safest form of mass travel - if you start taking a lacsidasical approach then that record won't last long.

Aloysius the Gaul
no - because if you don't prepare for something that does happen you're in even deeper do-do.

And if something does happen one of two things happens. Either you lose the other one, and go straight down, and it doesn't matter anyway, or you lose the other one, and glide in, and have time to prepare people. Prepping for a water landing because of losing one generator is massive overkill.

It is not capable of taking off with a full load on 1 engine, and with 1 engine gone you would make for the nearest suitable airfield on het basis that you won't be flying for long on the off chance that another engine goes.

Much of that redundancy is NOT there to enable you to "keep calm and carry on" - it is designed to ensure that 1 or 2 failures do not see you falling out of the sky. with 1 system gone you are a little bit closer to falling out of the sky, so you do not persist about - you get down ASAP.

Uncompromising safety requirements are the main reason why aviation remains the safest form of mass travel - if you start taking a lacsidasical approach then that record won't last long.

Where did I say anything of the sort? I didn't say "Keep flying on to their destination". Of course you land as soon as you can, and you prep for that landing. But aircraft lose generators all the time, even over water, and absolutely nothing happens. Having passengers put life vests on, and telling them to prepare for a water landing over a lost generator is such overkill it isn't even remotely funny.

Zaphod58
reply to post by marbles87

 

Even if they lose both engines the aircraft is not going to plunge straight down. They would have plenty of time.

I think the glide ratio, at green dot, is around 1:15.
Your mileage may differ.
Agreed, plenty of time.

Zaphod58


Where did I say anything of the sort? I didn't say "Keep flying on to their destination". Of course you land as soon as you can, and you prep for that landing. But aircraft lose generators all the time, even over water, and absolutely nothing happens.

Nope. You didn't say that. Right here you actually indicated more capabilities than just "Keep flying to their destination", in fact you imply that an entire trip (take off, get to destination, land) is possible with only one engine:

Zaphod58
Prepare for a water landing because they lost a generator? They're kidding right?

The 777 is capable of taking off, flying to its destination, and landing safely with one engine. That is one reason why the engines were designed to be as powerful as they are.

Grasping, grasping, gone.
"Better safe than sorry" trumps most other forms of thinking in my opinion.

reply to post by ChaosComplex


Which means only that if they lose an entire engine, not just the generator, they can safely fly the airplane. Thank you for putting words in my mouth though.

You know, I never knew that a generator was so utterly vital to a plane flying that it required immediate preparations for a water landing, including putting life vests on. Yes being prepared is better, but you can be prepared, without telling people there is a good chance they're going to die (which many probably will if they have to ditch), because you had one fault, that in the grand scheme of things isn't a huge one.

Zaphod58
reply to post by ChaosComplex

 

Which means only that if they lose an entire engine, not just the generator, they can safely fly the airplane. Thank you for putting words in my mouth though.

You know, I never knew that a generator was so utterly vital to a plane flying that it required immediate preparations for a water landing, including putting life vests on. Yes being prepared is better, but you can be prepared, without telling people there is a good chance they're going to die (which many probably will if they have to ditch), because you had one fault, that in the grand scheme of things isn't a huge one.

I quoted you directly, where are the words I put in your mouth?

As you wrote it you indicated a 777 could take off, fly to the destination, and land safely with one engine. The way I read it the aircraft is operating on one engine, from takeoff to landing.

At a warehouse if a forklift driver has an accident, there is often a surge in safety enforcement directly afterwards. I think that the perceived "over preparing" could be due to the fact the airline has obvioulsy lost a jet recently and is simply covering its own butt.

Not trying to be offensive or anything of that nature, just trying to sort through all the details is all.