Pilot Caused Children’s Day Plane Crash: Military

[webfact]

Pilot Caused Children’s Day Plane Crash: Military

By Teeranai Charuvastra, Staff Reporter

 

  

A Saab-built Gripen multirole fighter at the Berlin Air Show in 2010. Photo: Matthias Kabel / Wikimedia

 

BANGKOK — The air force on Friday said a jet fighter crash which killed the pilot during a Children’s Day air show a year ago was caused by the pilot’s loss of orientation during the flight.

 

In a statement released on the eve of the anniversary of the Gripen crash, the military said Dilokrit Pattawee became disoriented, which hampered his sense of awareness and direction.

 

Full story: http://www.khaosodenglish.com/news/crimecourtscalamity/calamity/2018/01/11/pilot-caused-childrens-day-plane-crash-army/

 

-- © Copyright Khaosod English 2018-01-11

[colinneil]

Easy lets blame the pilot who is unable to defend himself.

Could not be lack of maintenance/poor maintenance, bloody cowards.

[greatwhitenorth]

 looks like he turned into right when he should have turned left.

 

 

[PatOngo]

12 minutes ago, colinneil said:

Easy lets blame the pilot who is unable to defend himself.

Could not be lack of maintenance/poor maintenance, bloody cowards.

I don't think brake failure would wash in this case.

[rkidlad]

Whatever the truth we will never know.

[Misterwhisper]

Hi-tech military equipment that requires expertise maintenance should be kept out of reach of the antiquated Thai armed forces anyway. Let them play with things they're more familiar with: swords, spears, armored elephants, muzzle-loading muskets and the like.

 Siamese army unit in Laos in 1893 (a time when the rest of the world already could afford boots for their soldiers)

[fantom]

Any pilot on this forum who has done any aerobatics would know exactly what the unfortunate pilot did after watching the video.

Nothing to do with maintenance.

[elwood]

2 hours ago, colinneil said:

Easy lets blame the pilot who is unable to defend himself.

Could not be lack of maintenance/poor maintenance, bloody cowards.

The investigation that decided this was carried out by the RTAF, Swedish Defence Material Administration and SAAB,

 

[colinneil]

1 minute ago, elwood said:

The investigation that decided this was carried out by the RTAF, Swedish Defence Material Administration and SAAB,

 

So my comment still stands, blame the 1 person who cannot defend himself.

[ExpatOilWorker]

The Thai Airforce have plenty experience........in crashing.

 

http://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F-16/mishaps-and-accidents/airforce/RTAF

[atyclb]

5 minutes ago, colinneil said:

So my comment still stands, blame the 1 person who cannot defend himself.

 

 

pulling back while inverted at very low altitude is not a wise thing to do, period.

[Darcula]

2 hours ago, Misterwhisper said:

 

 Siamese army unit in Laos in 1893 (a time when the rest of the world already could afford boots for their soldiers)

 

That does look a wee bit less grand than the armoured elephant duel pictures touted on their travel brochures.

 

[Enoon]

39 minutes ago, colinneil said:

So my comment still stands, blame the 1 person who cannot defend himself.

 

My post, Jan 14 2017, in reply to a comment on the nature of the fatal (ill judged and executed ) maneuver :

 

"The aeroplane rolled inverted, remained on a smooth, rolling, curving, forward, downward, flightpath, which would have resulted in it returning upright at the lowest point of the maneuver....... and then hit the ground.

 

Pull up into half loop and roll upright to reverse course (your film) = Immelmann.

 

Roll inverted and pull down into half loop to reverse course = Split S (which would have been insanity at his height)

 

As it was with this maneuver. It was a Barrel Roll started too low so that the lowest point of the maneuver coincided with a point below ground level.  It kills many part-time "show" pilots.

 

Aerobatics belong at a safe height, one that allows for recovery when they go wrong. 

 

As they often do, when not performed by trained, professional, competitive aerobatics pilots.  Who practice and practice and practice and practice and...................practice."

 

To which I would add:

 

The problem for many service pilots is they spend most of their time in the 1000's of feet, where losing a couple of 100 is no problem.

 

This is what happens when you start a maneuver at 195 feet AGL and find yourself 200 feet lower at the end of it

 

Your "comment" is redundant.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 11, 2018 by Enoon

[Just Weird]

3 hours ago, colinneil said:

Easy lets blame the pilot who is unable to defend himself.

Could not be lack of maintenance/poor maintenance, bloody cowards.

Let's ignore this part of the report, eh?..."It added that the investigation – which involved engineers from a Swedish firm that built the Gripens – ruled out a possible mechanical malfunction".

 

Maintenance was also carried out under supervision of the manufacturer's engineers.

[Just Weird]

2 hours ago, rkidlad said:

Whatever the truth we will never know.

If you read the link then you would know, unless for some reason (can't possibly be Thai bashing, I know)you're suggesting that the investigation team, with international investigators is lying?

Edited January 11, 2018 by Just Weird

[Dazinoz]

2 hours ago, greatwhitenorth said:

 looks like he turned into right when he should have turned left.

 

 

Turned ground when he should have turned sky. 

[Just Weird]

53 minutes ago, elwood said:

The investigation that decided this was carried out by the RTAF, Swedish Defence Material Administration and SAAB,

 

...and colinneil, apparently.

[Just Weird]

52 minutes ago, colinneil said:

So my comment still stands, blame the 1 person who cannot defend himself.

Only in your mind does it stand.

[rkidlad]

9 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

If you read the link then you would know, unless for some reason (can't possibly be Thai bashing, I know)you're suggesting that the investigation team, with international investigators is lying?

It means I don't trust officials here. Go and troll somewhere else, Gdggb. 

[evadgib]

Where does this leave the pilots posthumous promotion (to Air Chief Marshall!) & related pension? 

[colinneil]

1 hour ago, Enoon said:

 

My post, Jan 14 2017, in reply to a comment on the nature of the fatal (ill judged and executed ) maneuver :

 

"The aeroplane rolled inverted, remained on a smooth, rolling, curving, forward, downward, flightpath, which would have resulted in it returning upright at the lowest point of the maneuver....... and then hit the ground.

 

Pull up into half loop and roll upright to reverse course (your film) = Immelmann.

 

Roll inverted and pull down into half loop to reverse course = Split S (which would have been insanity at his height)

 

As it was with this maneuver. It was a Barrel Roll started too low so that the lowest point of the maneuver coincided with a point below ground level.  It kills many part-time "show" pilots.

 

Aerobatics belong at a safe height, one that allows for recovery when they go wrong. 

 

As they often do, when not performed by trained, professional, competitive aerobatics pilots.  Who practice and practice and practice and practice and...................practice."

 

To which I would add:

 

The problem for many service pilots is they spend most of their time in the 1000's of feet, where losing a couple of 100 is no problem.

 

This is what happens when you start a maneuver at 195 feet AGL and find yourself 200 feet lower at the end of it

 

Your "comment" is redundant.

 

 

 

 

Look back in recent history, any plane crash where the pilot is killed he gets the blame.

Before you yak on about that being wrong, i will comment on the  Dan air crash in 1979, both pilots killed and blamed.

Hs 748 crashed on take off at Sumburgh Shetland.

Before take off a passenger told the sole stewardess about fluid coming out of the starboard engine cowling.

She told the passenger not to worry sir it is only the overflow.

She never informed the pilot, cockpit crew and all passengers forward died, stewardess survived and even got an honour gong, mbe i think.

Did the investigators take notice of what the passenger said? No passenger only a lowly a.m.e. aircraft mech electric.

Now you will tell me that is wrong.

Edited January 11, 2018 by colinneil

[fantom]

Rubbish, read the accident report.

[Artisi]

5 hours ago, PatOngo said:

I don't think brake failure would wash in this case.

You could try, seems to account for and accepted for most heavy vehicle crashes. 

[toughlove]

Look back in recent history, any plane crash where the pilot is killed he gets the blame.
Before you yak on about that being wrong, i will comment on the  Dan air crash in 1979, both pilots killed and blamed.
Hs 748 crashed on take off at Sumburgh Shetland.
Before take off a passenger told the sole stewardess about fluid coming out of the starboard engine cowling.
She told the passenger not to worry sir it is only the overflow.
She never informed the pilot, cockpit crew and all passengers forward died, stewardess survived and even got an honour gong, mbe i think.
Did the investigators take notice of what the passenger said? No passenger only a lowly a.m.e. aircraft mech electric.
Now you will tell me that is wrong.

Only in your mind does it stand.

Your making me cringe. Please stop embarrassing yourself [emoji54]

[bangrak]

6 hours ago, colinneil said:

Easy lets blame the pilot who is unable to defend himself.

Could not be lack of maintenance/poor maintenance, bloody cowards.

Those Saab Gripens are about new, so I'd say, about this specific incident(!), you are wrong IMO.

[bangrak]

The article fails to tell the pilot who lost his life, RIP, was the Gripen squadron commander, and the chief-instructor on that plane..., and, when I'm correct, quite experienced in acrobatics. So these 'conclusions' blaming the accident on a 'loss of orientation' do leave me with a few question marks...

[simoh1490]

Do a search and you'll see that over 80% of plane crash deaths are caused by pilot error, statistically, the investigation got the cause right and this was confirmed by the manufacturers.

[worgeordie]

3 hours ago, Darcula said:

 

That does look a wee bit less grand than the armoured elephant duel pictures touted on their travel brochures.

 

Looks like the Thai version of Dad's Army.

regards worgeordie

[SupermarineS6B]

4 hours ago, fantom said:

Any pilot on this forum who has done any aerobatics would know exactly what the unfortunate pilot did after watching the video.

Nothing to do with maintenance.

Yep, un-coordinated control.........  Otherwise known as lack of experience.....

[Crossy]

I wonder if the actual report will ever get published (of course it won't).

 

Playing devil's advocate here, MECHANICAL failure has been discounted, but the Gripen is known for software failure, were all the updates applied?

 

Of course, pilot error is a distinct possibility, but it is also the easy way out when something undesirable is revealed by a military / manufacturer investigation.