richard_smith237

I wouldn't exactly suggest that 'breaking a law and getting charged for it' would be considered 'interference, in pretty much every country in the world, its called policing !!!

I don't disagree with that - while its tragic that some see no other option there is a significant element of selfishness in putting others at physical risk, also the horrific cleanup... this kind of eliminates some of the initial sympathy felt.

you having a go at me now, Richard?? your list of enemies here not long enough then I take it? I'm 'having a go' at your persistent need to bash Thailand.... its completely unnecessary and boresome, you can be better than that. I've no idea about my 'list of enemies' - those who find my comments so disagreeable they find reason to take personal affront matter very little to me, they are often incapable of intelligent discussion and resort to getting upset. Meanwhile, the vast majority of the form remains with whom to hold intelligent, informative and interesting discussion and debate.

I've always thought the charges for cleaning up vomit was 2000 baht... I can't remember where but I saw a sign suggesting that. At 5000 baht, of course the taxi driver was trying to profit. How much cleaning is required to clean a taxi of vomit so that it no longer smells, there is also the loss of income while the taxi is off the streets being valeted. It might even need new carpets etc. I certainly don't want to get into a taxi that someone chunderred in the day before. Is 5000 baht excessive ? - maybe, but I have no sympathy for the idiot who threw up.

You'll shoe-horn in any logic to have a dig at the Thai's - its pathetic. Base-jumping in a busy area is an activity not only dangerous for those taking part, but can have innocent victims too - If something goes wrong, pedestrians underneath and those in the landing area are at risk. The authorities are 100% correct for attempting to deal with this issue - although it was 3 months ago, and I suspect those who took part are no longer in Thailand.

Erm... Cambodia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Laos are relatively close to Thailand. Australia is a 7352 Km intercontinental flight of 8 hours outbound on a Budget Airline (JetStar) and 14hrs return with a stop off in Melbourne... ... that's far from being 'relatively close' or ideal for a short 2 day trip.

This is pathetic - typical of the Police to charge a foreigner when local Thai's are doing the very same thing in their thousands. .... and rightly so.. this clearly had nothing to do with the law and everything to do with extorting a foreigner. Every single hit from a from simple google Image search for New Years Eve in Chiang Mai shows lanterns... The hypocrisy and targeting of foreginers in this example stinks.

Good point, and that all makes sense. Again, perfectly valid points.... I initially assumed the 'bird strike video' was taken on initial approach (South to North onto Runway 01), however, it does make more sense that the video was taken on a secondary approach (North to South onto Runway 19)

If both engines are out, the backup electric hydraulics won't work immediately because the main electrical will be out. They would need to deploy the APU (back up generator) first. They probably didn't have time for that or were preoccupied trying to restart an engine. I've read that the back-up electric-motor hydraulic pumps are (theoretically) available instantaneously. Firstly there is residual hydraulic pressure - After engine failure it doesn't just 'bleed off'. The back-up electric-motor hydraulic pumps work off the battery the response is instant. This bridges the gap / time it takes to engage the APU (which as you mentioned takes a bit of time - its 60-90 seconds) This is why I have questioned If there was a possible pilot error in not switching over to back-up power - i.e. pre-occupied with trying to restart the engines (as you mentioned), or just using their strength to control the air-craft manually without the assistance of hydraulics.

There's a certain irony in you using that statement when your avatar is a motorcycle !!!

I think as outsiders (foreigners) we can often over think things of a very simplistic nature. Why is red Fanta offered ??... because everyone else does it... I think sometimes things are just that simple and we go down the rabbit hole of trying to explain a reason for something that has no reason.

That makes a sense... thus a possible: 1) Bird strike warning 2) observed significant number of birds ahead. 3) Decision made to abort landing and 'go around' to approach north. 4) Encountered bird strike, one engine out. 5) Did the pilot shut down the correct engine (potential pilot error ?) 6) Hydraulic loss (no - Flaps and Slats / no landing gear) 7) Too late to engage landing gear manually 8) Backup electric hydraulic systems failed (no idea why). 9) Landing north to South at speed (no flaps / slats / landing gear) 10) Ground effected resulted in touch-down 1200m down the runway (1600m reaming runway) 11) No reverse thrust (engines shut down ?) Air-craft will not arrest 12) Earth Berm topped with Concrete Raft for ALS hit at speed, aircraft explodes. This of course is pure speculation - but given what has been reported and discussion here, its a laymans idea of possible sequence of events. **no doubt some bright spark will come along with a comment on this discussion and criticism AN sleuths who thing we can solve the mystery instead of waiting for the results of the official investigation, and in doing so will completely miss the whole point of having an informal discussion on a forum such as this (just getting out ahead of such likely moronic comments).

It would be interesting to see that photo and confirm that it is a genuine photo of Jeju Air 2216 on initial approach to Muan (following the Bird strike with the nose gear down). This must be one factor that will obviously be answered in the course of the investigation. There is a video of the Bird Strike taking place: Firstly, it needs to be verified that this video is actually of Jeju Air 2216. The video is poor quality, but appears to show that no landing gear was deployed. The 737-800 would usually deploy its landing gear some 3 to 5 nautical miles (5 to 8 kilometers) from the runway, during the final approach. There is no reported 'confirmed' distance from Muan Airport at which the bird strike took place, although the altitude is reported to have been 500 ft. Assuming the conventional 3 degree glide slope the bird strike occured 1.6 nautical miles (2.9 km) from the runway. Thus: in the video showing the bird strike, I'm wondering why the landing gear was not already deployed , or if the video is actually of Jeju Air 2216. Or if the landing gear is deployed and we can't see it from that video, then why was it retracted ? - perhaps for the 'go around' after the bird strike. Lots of questions and events that don't quite add up at the moment.

No offence, intended, however, I'm struggling to differentiate your comments from random ill informed musing. You've mentioned 'golden rule' as if you are an experienced airman yet your comments betray an extreme level of flawed assumption - particularly the assumption that a water ditching is preferable, its only preferable as a last resort when all other potential safer on-land options have been exhausted. The 737 requires 1500m to 1800m for a regular touch-down - this run ways 1km more than conventionally required. Even 'coming in hot' and landing late, 1.4km of runway is preferable to water and fields. With regards to the actual 'touch down' - for whatever reason, mostly likely due to a hydraulic failure, the flight surfaces were limited - there were no flaps and no leading edge slats deployed, meaning to maintain lift the aircraft required greater speed. At this greater speed, as the air-craft approached the runway the cushion of air; ground effect, prevented touch-down early on. The pilot could not plan for 'ground effect' before the runway as the ground is likely uneven and there is risk of premature touch-down. Thus the touchdown was likely the best that could be performed given the circumstances. No one considered the berm at the end of the runway. This is nothing like aborting a landing of a perfectly good aircraft after V1. Additionally, if there is 'no other option' such as catastrophic power failure, aborting the take off and over-shooting is better than a stall after take-off - thus, your golden rules fail to consider the realities of un-planned and catastrophic event. To suggest 'nothing will be good enough' is a huge error in observation - with a heavily damaged air-craft without flaps, slats and landing gear, and landing on a runway at speed a runway was the only viable option. While there were some failures and there was possible pilot error - the choice to touch down on the runway was not one of them - no one considered the berm-wall at the time and that is the only factor that turned this into a 'mass loss of life' event, when overshooting would likely have been a very survivable event. I am curious why the 'South to North' (initial landing) was aborted and the air-craft went around to approach from the North - perhaps this was to give them more time to set the landing gear manually, during which time cascading failures forced an 'as-is' landing.

If they had ditched in the water, the whole world would be criticising the pilots for putting passengers at additional risk when there was a perfectly good runway nearby at the time. No one thought about the berm at the end of the runway until after the tragedy. Had the plane landed South to North, or had the berm not been there, any suggestion of a water ditching would been labelled ridiculous. A water ditching is only a viable alternative when there is no runway, viable roads, or viable land nearby (i.e. no unpopulated or flat area's of land).

I agree... this is exactly what the 'berm structure' looks like to me... A thick concrete 'raft' sitting on top of the 8-10 ft earth berm - so that the Approach Landing System (ALS), is raised to 'runway level'. I'm assuming that the end of the runway had a downhill dip which is why the lights were raised - though I'm not sure why they wouldn't extend the framework for the lights instead. Perhaps someone in a position of authority at the airport thought building the berm was the solution - As pointed out by the expert witness (in one of the videos) this would be criminally negligent if it was for cost saving measures.

Do you reckon they are still there now, or removed already ?

Your comments contradict logic and suggest you believe the aircraft was fully operational, other than the landing gear and it was pilot error to land halfway down the runway without flaps... And no.. Ditching in the water is not preferable at all: the choice of where to ditch depends on the unique circumstances of the emergency. Pilots are trained to assess these factors quickly and make the best decision to maximise survivability for everyone on board. Why would any pilot ditch in water when there is a perfectly good runway nearby ? You will of course mention the berm now without understanding that this would not have been thought about, and without seeming to accept that this was an emergency, possibly without both engines, without hydraulic power to the flaps, without landing gear and without time to run these check-lists you keep mentioning.

Not fully - they had partial control of the flight surfaces - they could not extend the flaps for landing.

I'm not sure thats correct LL... They 'are' interlinked... the ruling was that they cannot withhold your Tax document even if you have outstanding fines. Thus: when renewing your Tax the DLT can see the fines registered to your car, the DLT will even instruct you to pay the fines. But, they can't use your Tax document as leverage to force you to pay the fines.

Linking to Tax renewal is somewhat of a grey area - they can only legally link to the tax renewal after so many warnings of a unpaid fine. .. so it is linked, kind of, but they can't withhold your tax documentation (officailly of course - what happens for most of us reality may well be different). I think the issue is kind of like the 'non wearing of helmets' issue - the amount vehicles blowing through M-Flow without making a payment is too great, the task of recovering fees too overwhelming to target people individually, so they try and frighten people into paying. In reality - if the law enforced payment of these fees and fines upon tax renewal time - then it would be more effective and better for the general good of everyone as the M-Flow aids traffic flow compared to M / Easy Pass. Then, fines for no tax need to be far greater.

Of course, my comments were 'pie in the sky'... However, who would have imagined 10 years ago that Private Schools would be targeted to fill a short fall ? My 'what next?' is not such a huge leap of the imagination.

Its astonishing - other countries have had such a 'flow toll systems' for decades... how is this a struggle ? To prevent queues at busy times, all toll booths should be the 'flow system' instead of barriers. If people don't pay - refuse their tax. If cars are untaxed, confiscate them - of course, easier said than done and it involves actual work. But with todays modern systems, surely the systems can be interlinked.

Well, to play devils advocate, if it was me, that is exactly what I would be doing and saving myself £24k a year. I wonder how many parents of SEND pupils will think the same way. After confirming that the local State School cannot provide. There is also the option of enrolling in a Grammar School. In my view, this should be the primary choice for parents. Grammar Schools inherently filter out those who rely solely on privilege, ensuring that all students have met a rigorous academic standard by passing an entrance exam. This places the cohort among the top 10% of the country, having successfully met the stringent 11+ requirements. However, this topic diverges from the issue of paying a 20% VAT on education. That said, a significant challenge with Grammar Schools today lies in the increasingly fierce competition for admission. One wonders at what point a Labour government might implement policies targeting Grammar Schools, branding them as elitist for segregating students based on intelligence. Would their meritocratic foundation be viewed as incompatible with egalitarian ideals? Perhaps they might decide to address future shortfalls in state education by imposing fees on Grammar School students, arguing that they are receiving privileged treatment. This is one of the issues with such a government - its difficult to know where they will stop. Farmers are getting shafted, old people are getting shafted, private students are getting shafted...

Back at you - Its been an interesting debate... Clearly our opinions differ and I'm sure neither of our opinions will change - though some of the content you have provided, gives me pause for thought, this is not quite as black and white / right and wrong as maybe initially considered, there are huge number of variables as to whether or not this is a good move for education on a whole.