Almost 100 sky lanterns grounded at Chiang Mai Airport

[55Jay]

Just now, heybruce said:

Walk up to an aircraft sitting on the  tarmac, engines running.  Bring an adult seagull and allow it to be ingested in the engine intake.  Take notes and report back once you are done with jail and court proceedings. 

 

There are many more seagulls than lanterns in Thailand, and they are flying around all year long.  Does the risk of seagulls cause you to avoid flying anywhere near a beach?

Not so easy to control seagulls.  Shit happens.

 

Lanterns launched by humans for stupid reasons can be controlled. 

[heybruce]

6 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

Not so easy to control seagulls.  Shit happens.

 

Lanterns launched by humans for stupid reasons can be controlled. 

Seagulls are far more common than lanterns and do far more damage to an aircraft in flight, yet people don't worry about them.  The risk to aviation from lanterns is so minuscule that nobody can cite a single incident, but some people with too much free time still get worked up about them.

 

You think Thai culture and traditions are stupid?  You should avoid Thailand.

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, Hardie said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/8628686/Latest-fire-caused-by-Chinese-sky-lanterns-increases-calls-for-a-ban.html

It seems people in the UK either don't know how to make lanterns or don't know how to safely launch them.  People in Thailand do a better job of it, which is why an incident like this has never happened in Thailand.

[55Jay]

Just now, heybruce said:

Seagulls are far more common than lanterns and do far more damage to an aircraft in flight, yet people don't worry about them.  The risk to aviation from lanterns is so minuscule that nobody can cite a single incident, but some people with too much free time still get worked up about them.

 

You think Thai culture and traditions are stupid?  You should avoid Thailand.

I'm not surprised you are still avoiding the original question.  What would happen to the engine if it ingests a lantern?  Would it get fodded out or not?  Answer the question, Bruce.

 

People avoid thinking about risks for a lot of things.  Bird strikes are fairly common if you look at av forums and we know what the result are, or can be.

 

The risk is obvious and well known, and in the case of lanterns, completely avoidable.  

 

Just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it won't.  Luckily, the Chinese ground crew was on the ball and spotted the lantern in this commercial airliner's engine intake earlier this year. 

https://www.thebeijinger.com/blog/2017/02/07/chinese-new-year-flying-lantern-delays-commercial-flight

[55Jay]

10 minutes ago, heybruce said:

It seems people in the UK either don't know how to make lanterns or don't know how to safely launch them.  People in Thailand do a better job of it, which is why an incident like this has never happened in Thailand.

Oh yes, the average Thai person is a real pro, concerned about the potential ramifications of their actions.  LOL. 

 

[heybruce]

2 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

I'm not surprised you are still avoiding the original question.  What would happen to the engine if it ingests a lantern?  Would it get fodded out or not?  Answer the question, Bruce.

 

People avoid thinking about risks for a lot of things.  Bird strikes are fairly common if you look at av forums and we know what the result are, or can be.

 

The risk is obvious and well known, and in the case of lanterns, completely avoidable.  

 

Just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it won't.  Luckily, the Chinese ground crew was on the ball and spotted the lantern in this commercial airliner's engine intake earlier this year. 

https://www.thebeijinger.com/blog/2017/02/07/chinese-new-year-flying-lantern-delays-commercial-flight

Actually you never asked that question, but in all probability a lantern would pass through the engine without causing any damage.  A seagull would also probably pass through without catastrophic damage, but it would be riskier.  It usually takes a flock of birds to shut down an engine.

 

The risk from birds the size of seagulls is in structural damage, primarily to the windscreen.  A lantern is so light and fragile it poses no risk there.

[heybruce]

3 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

Oh yes, the average Thai person is a real pro, concerned about the potential ramifications of their actions.  LOL. 

 

Prove me wrong. Give me an example of damage caused by lanterns in Thailand. 

 

You do seem to hold all things Thai in contempt.  Why are you here?

[sirineou]

 Thou it is a beautiful sight to see I also wondered about the safety of such tradition. 

I don't know what he argument is , It might not bring airplanes down or interfere with the flight plans of extraterrestrial craft,  but it does not take a genius to figure out that there are inherent dangers in lighting up a paper devise and setting  to fly free in the wind. 

[55Jay]

3 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Prove me wrong. Give me an example of damage caused by lanterns in Thailand. 

 

You do seem to hold all things Thai in contempt.  Why are you here?

Quit being such an cavalier, intentionally obtuse dork about FOD and jet engines.   Why do you think there are laws and regs against these lanterns in/around airports?  Not just in Thailand either, and you know it. 

 

And for the love of christ, quit this sanctimonious sniffles and tears guilt trip act about oh so sacred Thai traditions.  It's ridiculous, and it doesn't work.

 

Go float a Krathong instead.  At least a few Thais can steal the coins after you let go, and people are employed to go clean up the bloody mess the next morning. 

[55Jay]

Can't post from "that" other newspaper, but to their credit, the Thais are dealing with the obvious potential risk to air traffic during Loy Krathong by rescheduling and/or re-routing flights. 

 

Asking for an example of a lantern -v- aircraft before conceding the already painfully obvious point, is really dumb.  This is day 1 of Navy Aviation Apprentice school, and having done 100s of FOD walk downs on aircraft carrier decks, and seen aircraft get fodded out and grounded for objects far smaller than a lantern, the Thais are to be commended for trying to educate the public and prevent the conditions that can result in an incident.   This is a no-brainer.

 

Despite laws, regs and punishments it persists.  And not just the Thais.  Dopey tourists and expats do it too. 

 

 

Edited November 5, 2017 by 55Jay

[heybruce]

I never said lanterns pose zero risks, I maintain they pose minimal risks.  Far less than other risks in flying, or of walking across a street for that matter.  Regulations keeping lanterns away from airports make sense if only to soothe the nerves of passengers and air crew.

 

A traditionally made Thai lantern is all tissue paper, thin pieces of bamboo, wax and a tiny amount of wire.  The only part remotely damaging to an aircraft engine is the wire, and it is so small it primarily is a risk of minor erosion of the engine blades.  It's not a bad as ingesting a bird, and not nearly as bad as flying through a sandstorm, but anything entering the engine other than clean air reduces engine life and increases maintenance requirements.

 

There is a very simple solution for those who are afraid of what a lantern might do to your aircraft, don't fly during Loy Krathong.  However don't expect the Thai people to abandon a treasured tradition because it makes you nervous, or gives you something to bellyache about.  Go find a topic about road safety you can post on, that is a very real problem.

[55Jay]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

I never said lanterns pose zero risks, I maintain they pose minimal risks.  Far less than other risks in flying, or of walking across a street for that matter.  Regulations keeping lanterns away from airports make sense if only to soothe the nerves of passengers and air crew.

 

A traditionally made Thai lantern is all tissue paper, thin pieces of bamboo, wax and a tiny amount of wire.  The only part remotely damaging to an aircraft engine is the wire, and it is so small it primarily is a risk of minor erosion of the engine blades.  It's not a bad as ingesting a bird, and not nearly as bad as flying through a sandstorm, but anything entering the engine other than clean air reduces engine life and increases maintenance requirements.

 

There is a very simple solution for those who are afraid of what a lantern might do to your aircraft, don't fly during Loy Krathong.  However don't expect the Thai people to abandon a treasured tradition because it makes you nervous, or gives you something to bellyache about.  Go find a topic about road safety you can post on, that is a very real problem.

Thank you.  Much better, at least the first half, before you slipped backward in an attempt to "win".  I guess.    

 

Our familiarity and easy access to commercial airline travel with a movie and a glass of scotch, dulls the reality that flying is a high risk activity and environment.  Familiarity and routine breeds complacency.    And no, I'm not an alarmist, but if it boils down to a Yes, no problemo or Meh, maybe it's not such a good idea.... after a quick and dirty risk assessment, it's an easy "No" vote.

 

- Is sending lighted lanterns aloft really necessary?  No.

- Do they present a potential hazard to aircraft systems and pilots?  Yes.

- Is there a probability of aircraft engine damage? Yes. 

- If an in-flight incident attributable to lanterns aloft occurred, would resulting death and/or injury, hull loss and expense be acceptable?  No.  Despite enacting laws, regs and stern warnings of draconian punishment, the Thai government would be crucified for not doing enough to prevent it.

Edited November 5, 2017 by 55Jay

[heybruce]

38 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

Thank you.  Much better, at least the first half, before you slipped backward in an attempt to "win".  I guess.    

 

Our familiarity and easy access to commercial airline travel with a movie and a glass of scotch, dulls the reality that flying is a high risk activity and environment.  Familiarity and routine breeds complacency.    And no, I'm not an alarmist, but if it boils down to a Yes, no problemo or Meh, maybe it's not such a good idea.... after a quick and dirty risk assessment, it's an easy "No" vote.

 

- Is sending lighted lanterns aloft really necessary?  No.

- Do they present a potential hazard to aircraft systems and pilots?  Yes.

- Is there a probability of aircraft engine damage? Yes. 

- If an in-flight incident attributable to lanterns aloft occurred, would resulting death and/or injury, hull loss and expense be acceptable?  No.  Despite enacting laws, regs and stern warnings of draconian punishment, the Thai government would be crucified for not doing enough to prevent it.

Skiing, bike riding, swimming, diving, sailing, hiking, zip-lining, etc., name an interesting activity that does not involve a risk.  Those listed involve much more risk than lanterns.  Compared to drinking and smoking, lanterns are nothing.

 

Let's keep it simple--this is Thailand, it belongs to the Thais, they want to keep the lanterns so live with them or leave.

[55Jay]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Skiing, bike riding, swimming, diving, sailing, hiking, zip-lining, etc., name an interesting activity that does not involve a risk.  Those listed involve much more risk than lanterns.  Compared to drinking and smoking, lanterns are nothing.

 

Let's keep it simple--this is Thailand, it belongs to the Thais, they want to keep the lanterns so live with them or leave.

I am keeping it simple.  It's a no brainer.  Thailand, but not only Thailand, isn't renowned for its planning, safety habits and taking responsibility.  That's not a bash, it's just a fact of life here, you can see it everyday.  

 

But in this case, the Thai authorities who would be accountable are in-line with the rest of the world and their actions to mitigate and prevent this avoidable, unnecessary risk seems to be at odds with your easy come easy go attitude. 

 

Despite the regs, education, pleas and threats, the practice continues.  1 out of 1,000,000,000 odds ain't so bad.  Unless your one of the poor schmucks on the plane.  It's never a problem until it touches you, or someone you know, directly, and then it's all hands to the pump.

 

And please, dispense with the love it or leave it cliche.

[heybruce]

42 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

I am keeping it simple.  It's a no brainer.  Thailand, but not only Thailand, isn't renowned for its planning, safety habits and taking responsibility.  That's not a bash, it's just a fact of life here, you can see it everyday.  

 

But in this case, the Thai authorities who would be accountable are in-line with the rest of the world and their actions to mitigate and prevent this avoidable, unnecessary risk seems to be at odds with your easy come easy go attitude. 

 

Despite the regs, education, pleas and threats, the practice continues.  1 out of 1,000,000,000 odds ain't so bad.  Unless your one of the poor schmucks on the plane.  It's never a problem until it touches you, or someone you know, directly, and then it's all hands to the pump.

 

And please, dispense with the love it or leave it cliche.

The practice continues because it is still allowed.  Restrictions on times and locations have been put in place, but within these restrictions the lanterns are legal.

 

If you are truly safety obsessed start a campaign against drunk driving or tobacco.  If you want to maintain an aviation theme, you can try to get lithium batteries (a known fire and explosion risk) and alcohol banned on commercial flights.  Granted this may involve advocating the elimination of things you enjoy, but they are unnecessary and undeniably risky, much more of a risk than lanterns. 

 

Will you apply your outrage to where it will do the most good, or will you simply vent at another culture doing things you don't approve of?

[55Jay]

43 minutes ago, heybruce said:

The practice continues because it is still allowed.  Restrictions on times and locations have been put in place, but within these restrictions the lanterns are legal.

 

If you are truly safety obsessed start a campaign against drunk driving or tobacco.  If you want to maintain an aviation theme, you can try to get lithium batteries (a known fire and explosion risk) and alcohol banned on commercial flights.  Granted this may involve advocating the elimination of things you enjoy, but they are unnecessary and undeniably risky, much more of a risk than lanterns. 

 

Will you apply your outrage to where it will do the most good, or will you simply vent at another culture doing things you don't approve of?

Not whether I approve or not.  It's just not very smart is all. 

[midas]

On 11/5/2017 at 12:55 PM, Bob12345 said:

Agree. Who cares about some airplanes crashing and a few hundred people dying? As long as thais can release their fire-hazard balloons for some good luck.

Well it would be silly to have double standards. Why wouldn't the same mindset apply regarding this as as on Thailand roads?

[01322521959]

On 11/5/2017 at 1:32 PM, heybruce said:

In the history of Thailand, how many airplanes have crashed and how many fires started by lanterns?

The damn things cause a lot of problems, from fires to being ingested by cattle which then choke and die. Together with helium balloons that are a menace. Your ill informed comments are no excuse.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, 01322521959 said:

The damn things cause a lot of problems, from fires to being ingested by cattle which then choke and die. Together with helium balloons that are a menace. Your ill informed comments are no excuse.

Show us how well informed you are:  Give some examples of fires and cattle choking.  I've asked repeatedly for examples of fires in Thailand and none have been provided.  I would be especially interested in an example of cattle choking on a lantern.  Cattle are no more likely to eat lanterns than any other trash littering Thailand, and there are many other sources of trash.

[USPatriot]

Grounded is not being able to take off.... landed is a better word to describe the situation.