Thai Lion Air flight aborts landing in 12-knot winds

[farcanell]

1 hour ago, InMyShadow said:

Every body else did and the directors report can be verified by metorigocal reports and the 100 other flights and he has no motive and this is why your so far out of your depth, it's not the tuk Tuk mafia lol

22 flights a day... not 100

 

5 flights in that general time period... which is the number that’s relevant (80% of planes landed... 20% did not)

 

This according to the website

Edited November 1, 2017 by farcanell

[Patriot]

4 hours ago, InMyShadow said:

Did you read the report. That crew needs to be de briefed to find out why they could not land in a breeze  

Of course other planes had no problem. What a massive inconvenience and fuel burn costs because of what appears to be incompetence. Applauded for going back? They shouldn't even be in the air and that's the problem with low cost carriers.. You get the fight crew you pay for and it's not much

 

' Ratchathani airport director Kittichai Sajjalak said the wind speed at the airport was about 12 knots on Tuesday morning, which did not exceed safety levels. He added that other airlines had landed at the airport but that decision depended on the decision of a pilot whether to abort a landing."

 

 

 

Here Endeth the lesson!

have you ever tried landing a Harrier on a pitching flight deck??  No. Well I have. 

you have no idea what it's like having to make these cockpit decisions so I suggest you wind your neck in and stick to the more pressing issues to which you're suited such as price of tea bags or curry paste at Tesco

[moose7117]

On 01/11/2017 at 9:42 PM, Patriot said:

Here Endeth the lesson!

have you ever tried landing a Harrier on a pitching flight deck??  No. Well I have. 

you have no idea what it's like having to make these cockpit decisions so I suggest you wind your neck in and stick to the more pressing issues to which you're suited such as price of tea bags or curry paste at Tesco

well it seems you are not the only pilot on this forum and there is a bit of a difference between  a moving deck and a 12 knot cross breeze.

 

so neck up yourself !

[NanLaew]

To all the armchair pilots, jump-jet experts and those that fondly remember the Vickers VC-10, 'bandits at 9 o'clock' and 'Banzai! Banzai Banzai!', please consider the high likelihood of a typographical error and the distinct possibility of winds gusting to 12 meters per second.

[moose7117]

usually aeronautical people talk in knots when referring to airspeed.

crane operators and such talk meters per second.

 

[MeMock]

11 hours ago, NanLaew said:

please consider the high likelihood of a typographical error and the distinct possibility of winds gusting to 12 meters per second.

 

That would still only be 23 knots. Strong yes, but still within limits.

[NanLaew]

1 hour ago, MeMock said:

 

That would still only be 23 knots. Strong yes, but still within limits.

I would have to defer on what is 'within limits' since I am not a flyer beyond the front of the bus (behind the flight deck!) but in nautical terms, that would be a (Beaufort Wind Scale) Force 6 or a 'Strong Breeze'. If this was gusting or cross-wise to the runway, or if the runway was wet, it may have been too close to the limits for this pilot with a full 737? Maybe he was worried about being able to take-off after the turnaround? That is more critical in the LCC business model where fast aircraft turnaround is key to making money.

 

From here:

 

Take off

On a dry runway, a Boeing 737-800 has a maximum allowable crosswind component of approximately 33kts. For taking off on a wet runway it’s about 27kts. The actual figure might be slightly above or below this because the airline can choose to set it’s own more restrictive value if it wishes. If the cross wind component was greater than this, the aircraft might have an option to choose another runway which is more into wind, but in the case of a single runway airport, it wouldn’t be able to depart.

 

Landing

On a dry runway, the Boeing 737-800 crosswind limitation is the same as take-off, 33kts. On a wet runway this reduces to a maximum of 30kts.

The maximum tailwind component for take off and landing is usually between 10-15kts, but the actual figure that can be used may be performance limited by runway length, aircraft weight etc.

In the event of a contaminated runway, both the maximum allowable crosswind / tailwind limits reduce, depending on the type and depth of the contaminant. Most airlines do not allow a tailwind takeoff on a contaminated runway.

 

Either way, the speeds quoted above are almost double the 12 m/s that I suggested so the wind speed being quoted as the reason that this pilot chose not to execute is probably a huge mis-translation or misinterpretation of whatever wind speeds were at the time. Maybe the airport director isn't familiar with an anemometer and was quoting the thermometer instead?

Edited November 4, 2017 by NanLaew

[farcanell]

Thai weather records show winds on the day to be 12 to 20kts, or such like, for that airport ( yes... I looked it up, but only recall that in and of themselves, they were not prohibitive to a safe landing)

 

look elsewhere for the real reason, or reasons.... which caused the pilot to make a command decision to return to DM airport

 

 

[moose7117]

6 hours ago, MeMock said:

 

That would still only be 23 knots. Strong yes, but still within limits.

Mr Memock, what would you know about flying ?

sure i know you have personally flown a helicopter across Australia and grown up around pilots and have a few pilots in your family, but you will admit all the keyboard warriors are so much more knowledgable than you. 

these guys know the truth cause GOOGLE told them so.

 

but seriously reading some of the drivel on these pages makes me laugh so bloody hard that i feel all fuzzy inside.

[Patriot]

You've got a point there. Going back in history, apparently, Alcock and Brown were on the verge of turning back to Newfoundland because the wind was up in Ireland. I know; I've checked the records