Minor technical fault forces Air Malta's flight return
An Air Malta flight to Rome had to return to Malta this morning because of a minor technical fault, an airline spokesman confirmed.
He said the passengers were never in any danger.
The plane took off on schedule shortly before 6 a.m. and was meant to make a stop-over at Reggio Calabria but the pilot decided to return to Malta as a safety precaution when the fault was detected.
Although the fault was rectified "within five minutes" the flight could not take off again for three hours because bad weather had closed Reggio Calabria airport, the spokesman said.
The plane left once more at 9.30 a.m.
14 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Mario Micallef
Jan 14th 2009, 11:59
@ I Galea...in the early 90s the aircraft bought where RJs from BAE systems not MD..as stated...and by the way did you forget when in the 80s AirMalta was like a club house to a certain village supporting a particular candidate? looks like always PN is wrong according to you
lgalea
Jan 14th 2009, 09:55
henry galea
Do you know if there are satisfactory repair facilities in other airports?
Don't you think that the pilots would choose to land at the nearest airport if coming back means that the passengers will be exposed to more risk?
scalleja
AirMalta never made any losses. It only started making losses after your EFApn appointed chairman went against all advise and bought the MD aircraft which were not suitable for AirMalta so much so that they even had trouble chartering and selling them to other airlines.
That was Maltese peoples taxes and AirMalta profits squandered by your EFApn appointed chairman callejja.
henry galea
Jan 14th 2009, 06:38
Dear readers in Malta what ever happens we blame the other party, this is not the case. I have been observing that when ever Airmalta flight ends with a technical fauilt what ever the reason, the pilot returns back to home, instead of landing in the closest airport. This means that a longer journey returning home that it might endanger the lives of all pessengers. This has been going on for years, or could it be that the pilot was unable to land in bad weather!!!
scalleja
Jan 14th 2009, 00:28
Astounding how Air Malta prices are sometimes more than double those of other carriers, and yet it still makes a loss. a very successful project indeed i should say. perhaps privatisation would not be a bad thing for the company. as for the criticism of low-cost airlines for their safety record, there have not been any particular safety issues with them, and the accident in spain was due to pilot error and lack of warning systems on the very old MD-80.
Also, A319's are not used for long-haul flights. they do not have the range nor the passenger capacity to be feasible.
Sean Bonello
Jan 13th 2009, 21:51
Well Done Pilot, safety first!
Jos Vella
Jan 13th 2009, 21:38
This is the proof for passengers' peace of mind when flying with Air Malta; passenger's safety comes before the profits. AirMalta is not among the cheapest but I prefer spending some more € knowing that I am being cared for.
lgalea
Jan 13th 2009, 20:48
Good job AirMalta.
The safety of the passengers has always been your first and foremost concern.
Don't take any notice of those who criticize AirMalta simply because it is AirMalta and an extremely successful project of a Labour Government.
May God keep his hands upon AirMalta.
Duncan Sant
Jan 13th 2009, 17:44
@Alfred farrugia
I doubt it was and A319 that took you from London Heathrow to Dulles Airport Washington, as th A319 simply doesn't have the range. It's more likely that it was a Boing 777 or Airbus A330.
Anyway, it is always the safety of passengers that comes first, no matter the cost...something which low-cost carriers sometimes don't take so seriously....would love to know what the technical fault was though....
Alfred Farrugia
Jan 13th 2009, 17:19
British Airways flight 265 from London Heathrow Terminal 5 to Washington, DC, on January 5, scheduled for 3.45 pm was delayed on the tarmac for 30 minutes because of a technical fault, and then it was delayed by another 30 minutes because it had lost its turn to depart, or so we were told.
I suspected that something was wrong when we were taken by coach to the Airbus A319 parked in the middle of nowhere instead of directly into the aircraft from the gate. My suspicion was confirmed as I sat in the Airbus for more than an hour before we took off. Eventually, the flight had no problems and we arrived safely in Washington.
I did not check The Times of London, but I doubt that such a technical fault and delay would have been reported. I guess that in large cities, newspapers would need a supplement to report such features.
a. sciberras
Jan 13th 2009, 16:48
well done air malta for giving importance to passenger safety!
Debono D
Jan 13th 2009, 15:51
R.Caruana & D Busutill
When do you want Airmalta to be in the news? When something drastic happens like What happenned in Spain a few months ago, or when something like this happenned. I congratulte the pilot for the decision taken. Safety First, even though this decision costs Airmalta a lot of money. The life of the passengers has no price.
Welldone
Matthew Borg
Jan 13th 2009, 15:29
I think it's always good news to hear that Air Malta are constantly focusing on the safety of their passengers! Well done to the crew and pilot aboard that plane.
Daniela busuttil
Jan 13th 2009, 15:23
Agree with R. Caruana, that this is no news. Air Malta safety record is second to none and flight delays due to safety precautions are commendable.
R.Caruana
Jan 13th 2009, 14:54
Is this news for us? Why is it that Airmalta has to be in the limelight for every minor thing that happens? Maybe we should make it headlines or flash news each time that a Ryanair flight is cancelled without any prior notice.