Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Air NZ Under Fire Again  
User currently offlineNZCH From New Zealand, joined Jan 2006, 119 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2676 times:

Air New Zealand is under fire again - this time from a passenger caught up on a New Year's Eve flight which narrowly avoided disaster.


Flying from New Plymouth to Auckland when 30 minutes into the flight, there were two loud bangs and one of the engines stopped.

The plane landed safely that evening in Auckland - with emergency services on the scene in case they were needed.

the passenger said the crew did not appear to be any less frightened than the passengers.

And now she says she has been angered by the customer service after the incident - someone from the company called her saying it was only turbulence which affected their flight.

She says it is disgusting she was dismissed in such a way.

Air New Zealand has confirmed an investigation is underway into what happened to the engine.

http://www.xtramsn.co.nz/news

If I was on that flight and the engine did cut out then I would be worried but not that worried because we would have been flying over land and could have easily diverted to Hamilton Airport which looks like closest to the route which it takes. plus there was still the other engine to go on and the flight is only a 45 minute flight which if the engine did cut out about 30 minutes into flight then there should have only been 15 minutes or so left of the flight. and I'm presuming the aircraft was a Saab 340 aircraft. Any replys would be appreciated.


Airlines flown: BA,BD,NZ,SQ,FR,ZB,EK,JQ
19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineZKSUJ From New Zealand, joined May 2004, 7088 posts, RR: 12
Reply 1, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2568 times:

15 minutes out. Would they have already started their descent? Hence diverting may not be a necesary alternative? (I.E. TOD for Hamilton would be well before the plane reaches TOD for AKL)

In saying that...

We do not know what went on in the flight deck in that occasion, best to wait and see what the report says before we speculate too much. As we all know, pilots are well trained for these situations and the main thing is the plane landed safely.

*I presume it landed safely as I didnt hear anything about it until now!

SUJ


User currently offlineNZCH From New Zealand, joined Jan 2006, 119 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2514 times:

Quoting ZKSUJ (Reply 1):
15 minutes out. Would they have already started their descent? Hence diverting may not be a necesary alternative? (I.E. TOD for Hamilton would be well before the plane reaches TOD for AKL)

They would have most proberlay started there decent into AKL by then, but still if it was a major emergency then the captain/s would have consided diverting to Hamilton wouldn't they or would they. I don't know.

And yes the aircraft landed safely in AKL.

Thanks for the reply

Regards NZCH



Airlines flown: BA,BD,NZ,SQ,FR,ZB,EK,JQ
User currently offlineTG992 From New Zealand, joined Jan 2001, 2910 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2499 times:

Quoting NZCH (Thread starter):
which narrowly avoided disaster.

What an absolutely disgraceful and inaccurate comment from the gutter industry that calls itself the press in this country. The Air France flight in Canada is a flight that REALLY "narrowly avoided disaster". An engine failure is NOT!  banghead 



-
User currently offlineNZCH From New Zealand, joined Jan 2006, 119 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2491 times:

You know what the press is like they always exaggerate things to get people worried.

Regards NZCH



Airlines flown: BA,BD,NZ,SQ,FR,ZB,EK,JQ
User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12082 posts, RR: 18
Reply 5, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2485 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting TG992 (Reply 3):

I totally agree with TG992. Its surprising what the medial will do to get peoples attention (well not really surprising).

I would be interested to know what the media describes as a near disaster

Not to flame the thread starter but these engine incidents happen every day around the world and they don't warrent any media coverage, unless of course there was an injury on board or the worst happened, the aircraft crashed.

Quoting NZCH (Thread starter):
And now she says she has been angered by the customer service after the incident - someone from the company called her saying it was only turbulence which affected their flight.

Well sorry to tell this women, but these things can happen from turbulance


User currently offlineNZCH From New Zealand, joined Jan 2006, 119 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2473 times:

I have been on many flights with servier turbulence but just get on with it, I know the pilots are doing there best to fly the plane, and once I was unaccompanied Minor on a flight from Glagow Scotland to Manchester England with BA on a 737 400 I think, and our number 2 engine cut out during bad turbulence but the crew managed to get back working it was only out for several minutes.


Airlines flown: BA,BD,NZ,SQ,FR,ZB,EK,JQ
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21476 posts, RR: 60
Reply 7, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2455 times:

Exactly, if turbulence is so severe that it disrupts airflow, the engine can stall. Sounds like nothing major happened (ultimately), and some woman who doesn't understand anything about airplanes is all bent out of shape because she was scared. I would have been scared too, but I wouldn't go to the newspapers about it.


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineNZCH From New Zealand, joined Jan 2006, 119 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2445 times:

Some people are scared of because of terroists or an aircraft problem but just put out of there minds or keep it to themselves, I'm always scared flying as unaccompanied minor but I just get on with it.


Airlines flown: BA,BD,NZ,SQ,FR,ZB,EK,JQ
User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12082 posts, RR: 18
Reply 9, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2437 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting NZCH (Reply 8):
I'm always scared flying as unaccompanied minor

Well thats what the FAs are for, there to look after the UMs and make sure there are not worried


User currently offlineNZCH From New Zealand, joined Jan 2006, 119 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2424 times:

Quoting 777ER (Reply 9):
Well that's what the FAs are for, there to look after the UMs and make sure there are not worried

Yes that is true they are there to reassure that everything is OK.

Except on Ryanair with there 737 200's an absolute rust can ( flown with Ryanair as an UM many a times)



Airlines flown: BA,BD,NZ,SQ,FR,ZB,EK,JQ
User currently offlineNZ1 From New Zealand, joined May 2004, 2249 posts, RR: 25
Reply 11, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2365 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting 777ER (Reply 9):
Well thats what the FAs are for, there to look after the UMs and make sure there are not worried

Wrong, they are there to stop the hundreds of male sicko's from sitting near them.  Smile Remember.

NZ1


User currently offlineAntskip From Australia, joined Jan 2006, 927 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2331 times:

The precise link to the news item quoted is http://www.xtramsn.co.nz/news/0,,11964-5230129,00.html

User currently offlineNZCH From New Zealand, joined Jan 2006, 119 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2293 times:

Sorry I didn't put he correct link in, I forgot that you have to put in all of those numbers.

Regards NZCH



Airlines flown: BA,BD,NZ,SQ,FR,ZB,EK,JQ
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9510 posts, RR: 52
Reply 14, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2232 times:

First off that is an interesting picture for the news agency to pick for a topic about an Air New Zealand incident.

I was in AKL that evening, but saw nothing. Overall an emergency landing because of an engine failure is not the end of the world, but it would scare a lot of people. Pilots are trained so well that instincts will kick in and checklists will be followed, but I can understand some tension in the cabin. It is possible that the flight attendant wasn't the calmest. There is only one flight attendant on the Saab 340 as would be the case on almost all New Plymouth-Auckland flights. Hopefully it won't be too much of an issue and that Air New Zealand will be able to find out the cause.

One thing that irks me is when companies lie or hold back information. An airline trying to belittle a concern like this woman's would make me mad. If I saw an engine fail (and on a prop, it is pretty easy to tell), I would want a reason. If I was given a simple explanation like turbulence, then I would feel as if I was lied to and be even more angry. This seems to be the case here, presuming that the reporting is true.

Oh well, I feel sorry for Air New Zealand. There seems to be some bad press floating around ever since the announcement of job cutbacks.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12082 posts, RR: 18
Reply 15, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2173 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting NZ1 (Reply 11):
Quoting 777ER (Reply 9):
Well thats what the FAs are for, there to look after the UMs and make sure there are not worried


Wrong, they are there to stop the hundreds of male sicko's from sitting near them.  SmileRemember.

Please don't get me started on what I think of that discrimination rule mate.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21476 posts, RR: 60
Reply 16, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2120 times:

but severe turbulence can stop a turboprop. it's rare, but it happens. if that is what happened, is it NZ's fault that the passenger isn't happy with the truth?


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineJafa39 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2080 times:

I've done that flight, the route it takes makes AKL the best option for quite a large part of the flight as it cuts straight across the sea, you can see Mt Taranaki the whole way on a clear day.

Still, not many people wouldn't be scared, it always seems worse in a little a/c.


User currently offlineMr AirNZ From New Zealand, joined Feb 2002, 851 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2069 times:

Quoting 777ER (Reply 15):
Please don't get me started on what I think of that discrimination rule mate.

Im a male and NZ staff and im more than happy with the rule. I hate kids and if it means I don't have a talkative 6 year old beside me then GREAT  Wink

In reality I wont discuss my feelings on this rule in an open forum (weather I agree with it or not).


User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12082 posts, RR: 18
Reply 19, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2043 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting Mr AirNZ (Reply 18):
Quoting 777ER (Reply 15):
Please don't get me started on what I think of that discrimination rule mate.

Im a male and NZ staff and im more than happy with the rule. I hate kids and if it means I don't have a talkative 6 year old beside me then GREAT

Well if you don't like kids beside you then it obviously will suit you fine. I wonder what would happen to the male passenger at the arrival airport if they refuse to move, because they are offended by the request


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Air NZ Voted Best Pacific Airline....again posted Thu Oct 14 2004 04:13:11 by 777ER
The Air NZ & QF Marriage... Again? posted Wed Jul 7 2004 05:01:08 by Southpac
First Air Under Investigation....Again posted Sat Feb 28 2004 02:37:03 by AirCanadaMan
Freedom Air (NZ) To Be Prosecuted Again posted Thu Mar 14 2002 05:10:14 by JaseWGTN
Air NZ Flight Search Engine posted Sun Dec 10 2006 00:04:54 by Oznznut
Air NZ Undersupplies LHR-LAX Route posted Tue Dec 5 2006 00:55:29 by Koruman
Air NZ 744's Not Going To AI posted Wed Nov 29 2006 07:10:38 by TG992
Air NZ Coy On Virgin posted Fri Nov 17 2006 02:57:29 by Australia1
Air NZ 'may Cut' Trans Tasman Services posted Thu Nov 16 2006 08:01:28 by Australia1
Air NZ AKL-SFO Service, Daily? posted Wed Oct 25 2006 05:31:10 by NZ748