Back to Squawk list
  • 10

Malaysia Airlines flight to Hyderabad turns back due to auto-pilot defect

A Malaysia Airlines flight from Kuala Lumpur to India has turned back due to a defect with the plane's auto-pilot system. Flight MH198 from Kuala Lumpur to Hyderabad departed late on Saturday, but the Boeing 737-800 turned back due to an auto-pilot defect. ( 更多...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

preacher1 9
It don't specify the problem but couldn't we hand fly rather than dump a whole tank of fuel, plus delaying what pax there were by 24 hrs?

[This poster has been suspended.]

[This poster has been suspended.]

acmi 0
you called it !
preacher1 2
Oh, I'm sorry, that might be too much like work even if they knew how.
connor oslie 0
..... well we are talking about asia here...
They haven't exactly gone GREEN yet.
steve rogers 7
my guess is , Malaysian airlines can not afford to take any more chances , its been a pretty rough year for them , I think they did the right thing .
Eric Rindal 5
ETOPS requirements. If this was a flight over land with lots of diversion options along the route they may have had the option to continue to the destination. If you look at the flight path for this flight there are virtually no options. Pilots made the correct decision.
preacher1 1
Nothing in front of me to argue with but what has ETOPS got to do with a bad auto pilot? That's a new one on me.
Eric Rindal 1
7+ hour flight over water. in order to fly past the ETOPS entry point certain conditions are require. one of which is that no condition exist that would require extra effort on the part of the crew. A non-functioning autopilot would seem to qualify.

(2) ETOPS Group 2 Systems:
Group 2 Systems are ETOPS significant systems that do not relate to the number of engines on the aeroplane, but are important to the safe operation of the aeroplane on an ETOPS flight. The following provides additional discriminating definitions of an ETOPS Group 2 Significant System:
(i) A system for which certain failure conditions would reduce the capability of the aeroplane or the ability of the crew to cope with an ETOPS diversion (e.g., long range navigation or communication, equipment cooling, or systems important to safe operation on a ETOPS diversion after a decompression such as anti-icing systems).
(ii) Time-limited systems including cargo fire suppression and oxygen if the ETOPS diversion is oxygen system duration dependent.
(iii) Systems whose failure would result in excessive crew workload or have operational implications or significant detrimental impact on the flight crew’s or passengers’ physiological well-being for an ETOPS diversion (e.g., flight control forces that would be exhausting for a maximum ETOPS diversion, or system failures that would require continuous fuel balancing to ensure proper CG, or a cabin environmental control failure that could cause extreme heat or cold to the extent it could incapacitate the crew or cause physical harm to the passengers).
(iv) A system specifically installed to enhance the safety of ETOPS operations and an ETOPS diversion regardless of the applicability of paragraphs (2)(i), (2)(ii) and (2)(iii) above (e.g. communication means).
preacher1 1
I didn't look at the flight track or I would have saved you all that typing. Boy you are right, in there ain't no place to go. Which brings up the question. You got a 7+ hour flight. How in the sam hill do you do that in a 737 where, in just looking at the flight track, at least 5 of those hours are over water with no diversion point. Putting all that aside, I would agree with you that a non functioning autopilot would require extra effort on the part of the crew. LOL
30west 1
A/P is required in RVSM Airspace. Could fly lower below floor if extra fuel burn wasn't a show stopper. Then repair/parts at an out-station could be an issue.
preacher1 0
I posted earlier John but don't know why it didn't take. I know that the AP is required for RVSM, but even taking a lower floor and higher fuel burn would seem to be better than wasting a whole load, getting down to MLW to return. I guess parts could have been an issue but that would have been one expensive AP. The other thing is, as hard up as they are right now for cash, I wouldn't think delaying what paying pax there were for 24 hrs would be a good idea.
WtfWtf 2
You don't know what else could have been wrong with the systems.. Might not be limited to the AP.
preacher1 0
This is true but all comments made on just autopilot going bad as the story says and if that was the case, they should have hand flown it.
Felix Senada 1
I agree with you, that they should be able to fly it manually rather than to fiddle with their tablets or chat away among themselves...
preacher1 1
Sad part is that a lot of pilot unions have it in the contract on one hand and then are among the first to bitch about button pushing pilots. Pilots may very well have the skills to hand fly but not be allowed to. Auto Pilot is an MEL item per FAA I think, idk about ICAO. I found this out doing some reserve work for a 121 a few years ago. I got hammered bad by ALPA dogs but the bottom line was screw the pax, make the airline pay.
Jeff Lawson 1
Flight track for MAS198 --


还没有帐户吗? 现在就注册(免费),设置诸多自定义功能、航班提醒等等!