Pilot Crashed In ‘Old But Usable’ Plane: Air Force

By Asaree Thaitrakulpanich, Staff Reporter

 

Air Marshal Kroekkiat Suwanno’s family carries his body Wednesday at the Wing 6 air base in Tak.

 

UBON RATCHATHANI — The head of the air force said Wednesday that a plane which crashed and killed the pilot was old but operational.

 

Air Chief Marshal Jom Rungsawang tried to address concerns about the safety of air force planes following Squadron Leader Kroekkiat Suwanno’s death, killed Tuesday after ejecting from his training jet before it crashed onto the Bhumibol Dam Golf Course. His co-pilot, Group Capt. Jirasak Namwongtri, 42, did not eject but survived.

 

Full story: http://www.khaosodenglish.com/news/crimecourtscalamity/calamity/2018/05/24/pilot-crashed-in-old-but-usable-plane-air-force/

 

-- © Copyright Khaosod English 2018-05-24

So the pilot is to blame, not the old knackered plane

RIP

regards Worgeordie

1 minute ago, worgeordie said:

So the pilot is to blame, not the old knackered plane

RIP

regards Worgeordie

If the crash doesn't kill the pilot, the inquiry will.

27 minutes ago, worgeordie said:

So the pilot is to blame, not the old knackered plane

RIP

regards Worgeordie

The plane probably had fewer hours on it than many airliners you've flown in.

Not understand - if you 'eject' from a plan you die but if you stay in it and crash you live   ?

2 minutes ago, JoePai said:

Not understand - if you 'eject' from a plan you die but if you stay in it and crash you live   ?

Totally feasible. Sometimes ejection can save a life and in this case, was fatal. likewise the co-pilot stayed with the plane and survived but was severely injured. there are no hard guarantees. The deceased pilot landed in trees which may have caused his death. Possible human error, possible mechanical error.

4 minutes ago, JoePai said:

Not understand - if you 'eject' from a plan you die but if you stay in it and crash you live   ?

Lots of incidents where that has happened. It's often a matter of timing and what state/speed/attitude the aircraft is when it contacts the ground. U Tube is full of videos of that happening, both ways. 

 

 

 

 

 

37 minutes ago, JoePai said:

Not understand - if you 'eject' from a plan you die but if you stay in it and crash you live   ?

It's simple. If the aircraft going down faster that the seat is going up the resultant vector is DOWN and at low level there can be insufficient height for the deployment and development of parachutes.

 

Rocket seats were developed to increase the survival rate in such situations.

RIP Sir.

 

It seems the military's 'old but useful' operational philosophy is implemented universally.  Aircraft it seems, but also in the ranks. From the top down.

22 minutes ago, Juan B Tong said:

RIP Sir.

 

It seems the military's 'old but useful' operational philosophy is implemented universally.  Aircraft it seems, but also in the ranks. From the top down.

That is why armed forces have to renew their gear from time to time.

5 hours ago, PETERTHEEATER said:

It's simple. If the aircraft going down faster that the seat is going up the resultant vector is DOWN and at low level there can be insufficient height for the deployment and development of parachutes.

 

Rocket seats were developed to increase the survival rate in such situations.

All seats today are designed to operate from the ground level to deploy the parachute to safely lower the pilot to the ground. Unless inverted even in a dive the seat will work. A high ground wind can have another effect on how the pilot hits the ground. The first seat to be rated as zero/zero meaning zero forward speed and zero height above ground level was the "Martin Baker" from about the late 1950s .

Edited May 24, 20188 yr by AsiaHand

6 hours ago, ratcatcher said:

Totally feasible. Sometimes ejection can save a life and in this case, was fatal. likewise the co-pilot stayed with the plane and survived but was severely injured. there are no hard guarantees. The deceased pilot landed in trees which may have caused his death. Possible human error, possible mechanical error.

If you are not I'm control of the aircraft it is always safer to eject.

7 hours ago, worgeordie said:

So the pilot is to blame, not the old knackered plane

RIP

regards Worgeordie

With " proper"  maintenance an airplane is a lot more dependable then some of the pilots that fly them. The stats in the commercial airplanes (Thai.AA,Ua,ect) are 87% of crashes are caused by crew error.

recycled parts 

29 minutes ago, surangw said:

recycled parts 

There have been some reported civilian aircraft owners buying replacement parts from China that are copies but an experienced mechanic with the proper training will spot them right away .Some commercial operators have been fooled also. Very rarely would this ever occur in the military as they seem to have an endless supply of "Tax payers" money to spend.

On 5/24/2018 at 9:29 PM, AsiaHand said:

There have been some reported civilian aircraft owners buying replacement parts from China that are copies but an experienced mechanic with the proper training will spot them right away .Some commercial operators have been fooled also. Very rarely would this ever occur in the military as they seem to have an endless supply of "Tax payers" money to spend.

Also, domestic civilian operators do not have to comply to the same standards as intl carriers. When I worked overseas a travel advisory suggested that if flying into the former Soviet Union, it was best to fly directly into the destination from overseas, rather than fly to say Moscow, then take an internal flight, for this reason.

 

I used to work in the UK for a company that supplied nimonic alloy parts (turbine blades & rings) to Rolls Royce, V expensive stuff!

Sure, it was operational until it fell out of the sky

On 5/24/2018 at 8:14 AM, JoePai said:

Not understand - if you 'eject' from a plan you die but if you stay in it and crash you live   ?

Possibly ejected at too lower altitude, Co Pilot managed a survivable crash landing.

 

Military fighter jet pilot fly by the seat of their pants, split second dissensions. 

Edited May 26, 20188 yr by Basil B

On 5/24/2018 at 3:29 PM, AsiaHand said:

There have been some reported civilian aircraft owners buying replacement parts from China that are copies but an experienced mechanic with the proper training will spot them right away .Some commercial operators have been fooled also. Very rarely would this ever occur in the military as they seem to have an endless supply of "Tax payers" money to spend.

I am sure even Boeing was fooled, counterfeit parts were found in their inventory.