ON Thursday evening (October 24, 2024), Datuk Zolkifli Abdul, a former Director-General of the Department of Civil Aviation Malaysia, forwarded me a Bernama news report with the headline, “181 Incidents of Malaysia Airlines Planes Returning to Chocks So Far This Year (2024).”
He, once a Board Member of Malaysian Airline System and still having the national airline close to his heart, asked me, “Kamil, is the report correct?”
The salient points of the report are reproduced below:
“A total of 181 Return to Chock (RTC) incidents involving Malaysia Airlines aircraft have been recorded so far this year.
The Transport Ministry (MOT) reported that within the same period, there were 18 Air Turnback (ATB) incidents, where Malaysia Airlines aircraft were forced to return to the airport after take-off. This compares to 248 RTC incidents and 13 ATB cases last year. It was a written response to the Dewan Rakyat.
The clarification was in response to a question by the Setiu MP regarding the MOT’s strategy to ensure proper maintenance of the airline’s aircraft and an explanation of the factors contributing to the technical issues.
My response to Zolkifli was straightforward, “That must be correct because the figures must be obtained from the airline to be answered in Parliament. However, the return to chocks can be for any reason—not necessarily due to technical issues, though that’s normally the case.”
“Analyse a bit more; categorise the return, the capability of Malaysia Airlines, the professionalism of the pilots, and the management of the airline,” he instructed, knowing that I was once in the management as the Director of Flight Operations.
“You are the best to comment,” he added.
I had but to reply, “I would love to. But I don’t have the statistics or the details. I can’t simply shoot from the hip.”
The 181 appears to be many. But if the airline were to operate 400 flights in a day, in a year, that RTC is just 0.1239% of the total number of services operated.
Anyway, aircraft returning to chocks can be due to many reasons, not only due to technical issues. A flight can also return to its bay for commercial reasons—to disembark a ‘problem’ passenger or even to accept a last-minute passenger on compassionate grounds, such as the need to travel following the passing of a loved one.
A return can also happen due to a medical case that suddenly arises. There have also been cases of flights returning on the grounds of security, such as bomb threats. It could even be due to adverse weather, with the return made to await weather improvement. We must have faith in the pilots’ judgement and the decisions made. All decisions are made on the grounds of safety or security. It’s better to tackle the problem on the ground before the aircraft takes off than to have an Air Turnback subsequently.
RTC and ATB incidents happen to all airlines, including foreign carriers. I lamented why this issue surfaced and why it had to be brought up in Parliament, singling out Malaysia Airlines. It’s as if the other two major airlines in the country, AirAsia and Batik, are seen as superb and perfect. Strange that nothing ‘adverse’ is said or written about them.
When my response was circulated in WhatsApp groups, one person who picked up on it and gave a very sensible comment was my friend Norman Fernandez, a well-known lawyer from Johor Bahru. He posted, “A plane does not return if there are no reasons. The passengers, though inconvenienced, should be thankful that it has returned or landed.”
He continued, “Ponder this: a pilot is not going to inconvenience the passengers (and the crew) by returning to the airport of take-off (or even landing at the nearest airport). The pilot, being the Commander of the plane, knows best, and the passengers should leave it to his judgement.
Passengers, though suffering inconvenience, just need to be thankful that they have returned or landed safely. Many passengers never had the opportunity.
So, place your seat in an upright position. Start saying your prayers (my first prayer when I board is never for myself but for the pilot and crew) for a safe landing—for all.”
Norman concluded, “But what is important is for the pilot to maintain clear, continuous communication with the passengers. If one engine is not working, say so. If Abdool does not want to go to Melbourne but wants to be taken to Tripoli instead, say so.”
This witty lawyer has always been on the same page as me. We are both Geminis. Yes, it’s without a doubt that good and proper communication is very important. It is imperative that the Commanders keep the passengers informed of the progress of the flight, especially if any abnormality were to occur.
The Bernama report also reiterated the stance taken by the Ministry that, “The Ministry (of Transport) said that based on the latest audit by CAAM, the renewal period for the Air Operator’s Certificate (AOC) for MAB had been shortened from three years to one, effective from September 1 to August 31, 2025.
The ministry added that airlines would now undergo more frequent audits before the AOC was renewed.
This will ensure that MAB remains alert and takes the necessary improvement actions as outlined in CAAM’s mitigation plan,” it said.
That makes it appear that Malaysia Airlines’ maintenance record is that bad. Is that so? Malaysia Airlines, like all airlines, has its fair share of accidents—not many, though. But none of those accidents were due to technical issues arising from poor maintenance. None.
For the record, the first major accident was the loss of a Boeing 737-200, which crashed into the swamps of Tanjung Kupang on Sunday evening, December 4, 1977, after both pilots were shot by a hijacker, killing all 100 on board, including the two pilots, five cabin crew, and 93 passengers, including the hijacker, of course.
The next accident was the ‘short landing’ of an Airbus A300 B4 at Subang on the evening of 18 December 1983. It ‘landed’ about a mile short of Runway 15, following a difficult approach in a thunderstorm. It had nothing to do with maintenance or technical deficiencies of the aircraft. Miraculously, none of the 247 on board suffered any serious injury.
The only accident that tarnished the airline’s good safety record was the Fokker 50 overrunning the runway in Tawau on the afternoon of September 15, 1995, killing 32 passengers and both pilots. The accident report established that it was due to the pilot’s error of judgement, commonly referred to as pilot error; there was nothing at all about the aircraft’s deficiencies or poor standards of maintenance.
The loss of the two Boeing 777s operating as MH370 and MH17, a few months apart in 2014, had nothing to do with the pilots or the airline. Of course, by extension, it was not due to technical or maintenance issues.
The CEO of CAAM is a pilot and was once with the airline. Didn’t he know about all this, or is he too young to know?
Isn’t he aware of the implications of this move, which gives the impression that the airline’s technical and maintenance standards are really poor? It might be picked up by foreign aviation authorities like the UK CAA or Australian CAA and might result in the airline being banned from flying to London and Australian airports, as happened to Garuda a few years ago.
A friend, Mahbob, an ex-planter and a seasoned traveller, totally agrees with me. Another friend, Yusoff Che Omar, a former Petronas staff, went one step further. He said, “We have shot ourselves in the foot.”
The airlines, particularly the pilots, do not want flights to return to the gate or to make Air Turnbacks. But we are dealing with machines carrying humans. Their primary concern is safety. So why must these RTC and ATB incidents become issues? No accidents happen—unless, of course, there is a hidden agenda to tarnish Malaysia Airlines’ image. – October 29, 2024
Capt. Kamil is a former director of flight operations for Malaysia Airlines