Jangot

20 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

You get them here here by applying at a immigration office.

First you get a one year extension by showing 800k baht in a Thai bank for 2 months or proof of 65k baht income or a combination of the 2 totaling 800k baht.

Then you would apply for a re-entry permit to keep the extension valid if you want to travel. A single is 1000 baht and a multiple is 3800 baht.

Sorry to re-raise an old part of the thread, but I would appreciate some advice.

For the last 15 years I have been getting non-O multi by married to Thai. Obtained first from Hull, then London. This has been ideal for me as I work outside Thaialnd on contracts and need to travel at short notice for various periods.  I spend more than half the year outside Thailand.

I would happily convert to a 1 year extension and re-entry permit, but If I understand the situation correctly, I am not able to stay in Thailand for the period of the application process. Could Joe please confirm:  How long I have to remain in Thailand waiting for the 1 year extension approval?  I understand I cannot leave whilst the application is in process?  At the next renewal one year later, how flexible is thetime period, an how long would I have to remain in Thailand for the renewal process?  Thanks for help.

Jangot.

Brewsterbudgeon - re post 35.  I would humbly suggest to verify and use the UK government aka DVLA definition of 'reside' before making the statement on the application.

I stay at my sister's house for approximately one week every year, so it would certainly not work for me!

Interesting topic, one I have given some thought to.

I left UK permanently in 1982.  I have kept my UKDL registered address at my sister's address.  I did that when the licence changed from a booklet style to the computer print style. I have never applied for the photo licence as there is no requirement to do so.

Now my UKDL will expire next year on my 70th birthday.  I could re-apply (need to state nil medical problem that would affect driving) but I would have to make the clear, written and incorrect, statement that I reside at my sister's address in UK.

Now that would certainly work, and I would get my licence renewed. 

Until I had an accident.  Then all would be revealed and I would probably be deemed as driving unlicensed so my insurance would probably be invalidated and all would go into the cess pit in short order.

I won't be renewing my UKDL!

(I do resent this as I cannot see why, as a UK citzen, renewing my UK driving licence should be dependant upon me being resident).

Seems to me there are three valid interpretations:

1.  "He wife work at Global".  That is, his wife sells hardware products at a well known and well respected building supplier outlet.

2.  "He wife work at Gogol".  His wife is currently working on the stage production of Nikolia Gogol's 'Diary of a Madman' . A stage play particularly appropriate to western expats in Thailand.

3. "He wife works at Gaugin".  His wife is currently engaged in restoring one of the painting of Paul Gaugin at an art dealer workshop.

What is this "go go" you all mention?

No mention of his performance in "Shooting Dogs".  That movie, and his part in it, made a deep impression on me.  

Very sad to see him go.

What I don't understand is how my wife is supposed to know about this.

I have been staying in CM for the last 17 years, first few years on visa exempt entry, then on Non-O multi basis of marriage.

I work contracts outside Thailand, and exit/enter around 8 or 10 times every year.

I only know about this now from Thaivisa.

Even if I missed some notification in my visa application form, is there some instruction on the TM6 (The half that is not stapled to my PP?)

Curious as to how the requirement is notified.

Don't see why the fuss over no mirrors- they don't use them anyway

Of course they are used! How else are you going to be able to see the zits and chin hairs to pluck.

A lot of sarcasm here to a sensible question

No

I can only wish you the emotional strength to get through this, and hope the bar stool piranhas don't attack.

The reason can't only be her parents. It is better if you can find the truth, even if it is emotionally unpleasant. Then you can deal with it and move on.

The consulate in Birmingham (search on the web) was an honourary consulate with a head of mission that was an honourary consul.

And it's now CLOSED,like this thread should be.

Many people used the Birmingham consulate, this is going to cause a lot of issues for a lot of people.

There should be a sticky topic / announcement at the top of the forum or something, 100's of people are going to turn up there every week for months to come and they're going to be in the shit when they realise it's closed.

I don't think so. I think that most people, before travelling to a consulate or mailing in an application will visit the consulate web site first to check for latest document update or requirement information, and thus find it closed.

Knowing this I wont sleep tonight.

disturbing news! going to my compost heap now to check. oh wait... i don't have one.

I am shell shocked

Not just pigs, wasteful pigs. Eat what you put on your plate. Show some manners.

The "manners" you assume to be held worldwide are not, believe it or not you are in Thailand where the accepted manners are completely different from your country. Finishing what is on your plate is rude in Thailand, as it is in China, as it infers that you have not been given enough food. At least try to learn basic Thai manners and leave off trying to impose your very foreign manners onto people in Thailand and other Asians who share a similar culture.

Must be a regional thing because out here in Central Isaan I clear my plate and get smiles in response.

Nope, same in Isaan, bad manners, obviously not an issue at home with family though, if you are hungry then eat it. Are you sure you are understanding all of the different Thai smiles? Just hope it is not a 'Yim mi let nai' smile.

There is a huge difference between the polite little bit you leave on your plate to show you are full, and the huge platesfull of taken but untouched unwanted food that are left on the table after the tour group hoard departs

I know what a "Life Form" is in the Star Trek context, but what is it in UK pensions context?

My regular is 3 hours. Two hours of Thai, followed by one hour of oil.

For me, that's a great combination. Relaxing but not boring.

No naughty bits, all done at home under the watchful eye

"If you believed they put a man on the moon

Man on the moon

If you believe there's nothing up his sleeve

Then nothing is cool"

/R.E.M

"Space may be the final frontier

But it's made in a Hollywood basement"

/Red Hot Chilli Peppers

Oh! so two rock group type people have pronounced. That's it then, no more need for discussion, case proven, job done.

I noted that the GPS Antennae were mounted ON the fuselage skin - i.e. externally on the surface. They are a composite shell, so could have been damaged by the hail, they are certainly in a vulnerable position near the front. But they are not mounted inside the Radome.

The GPS Computers are tucked safely in the belly of the aircraft.

The pointy bit at the front of the A320 is called a Radome because Airbus calls it a Radome - and it covers the weather radar antenna as well as providing an aerodynamic profile for the front.

The Radome also covers the Localiser Antenna and the Glide Slope Antenna.

There is no GPS Antenna in there. On an A320, the GPS Antennae (normally 2) are mounted on the upper forward fuselage, approximately above the forward passenger door and the second one a bit aft of that.

You call them boneheads, but you are quite happy to litter your environment by throwing stuff out of your car window.

I believe this flight is operated by an A321, which does not have fuel dumping capability.

As the Max Landing Weight is about 14 tons less than the Max Takeoff Weight, they would have had to go into a holding pattern to burn off fuel down to a safe landing weight...

Or, land overweight, which is not a good option unless a real emergency that requires getting on the ground as a priority.

If the above is factually correct, no one should fly in an A321 because if the pilot has a problem immediately after take off he either has to land with excess fuel considered very dangerous or go into holding pattern when problem can get worse, why no fuel dumping capability

It's NOT factually correct (how unusual ...). The facts are already here in the thread, so I won't post them again.

My post was totally correct and factual.

The A320 family (of which the A321 is the largest) does not have fuel dumping capability.

This is also true of the Boeing 737 family - no dumping capability.

The Max Landing Weight is set during certification of the aircraft type. Primarily a structure consideration.

Landings above that weight have the risk of causing structure damage.

After an overweight landing, the aircraft has to undergo a special inspection, as mentioned by a previous poster, mostly in the area of the Landing Gear and its mounts.

The depth of the inspection will depend if the overweight landing was gentle/smooth, or hard.

The decision to land overweight or circle to burn fuel down to the landing weight belongs to the Captain.

He will be advised by his Tech Ops, and Engineers (if there is time), but it is his ultimate decision.

The decision will be based on how urgent it is to get the aircraft on the ground. Some system malfunctions which would prevent the aircraft continuing to scheduled destination, are not a risk at all whilst circling to burn fuel, so getting down to Max Landing Weight would be chosen.

As Hawker 9000 says, there is standard procedure in the QRH (And Flight Manual) to conduct an owerweight landing, IF the Captain decides it is the best/safest option.

J.

"One passenger said he felt something unusual when the plane was airborne for almost an hour but still was flying at low altitude, or just above rooftop." For one hour! Jesus christ!

They should have declared an emergency and been given priority to land. They could have flown over open land to dump fuel.

Maybe the Thai aviation regulator should be looking at other airlines as well!

I believe this flight is operated by an A321, which does not have fuel dumping capability.

As the Max Landing Weight is about 14 tons less than the Max Takeoff Weight, they would have had to go into a holding pattern to burn off fuel down to a safe landing weight...

Or, land overweight, which is not a good option unless a real emergency that requires getting on the ground as a priority.

I think the funniest one was a few years ago: The report that, after the success of allowing people to keep their phone number when they changed providers, it would now be implemented that people could keep their Post Code when they moved house.

The huge number of people who swallowed that and embarked on a tirade of abuse against Thai authorities and Thais in general was a hoot.

There must have been a huge humble pie fest after that one.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

So now even Japan is getting soft?

Safety first!

Not getting soft.. more checks of the planes when they are in Japan + extra checks before leaving.

You can bet that if they find bad things its the end for the temporarily easing of the ban.

I don't know the exact reasons why they banned Thai planes but i guess it wasn't only about technical issues of their planes.

Japan lost it's credibility today, i trusted them more then any other nation on the world.

The only way they can check the planes technically is before they are departing with destination Japan. If one of them crashes into Tokyo or Sapporo it's too late.

Sure you can trust Japan- don't they have the most comprehensive, closely monitored, open honest and successful safety procedures and systems in the world.....

"Yes, you at the back sir; your question again?....Um, Oh, nuclear power...Um, yes well..." [click]