Is It Safe To Land At Suvarnabhumi?

[Alf Witt]

The airport's director-general Chaisak Angsuwan has admitted that there are cracks on runways and taxiways over a wide area of the airfield.

Shouldn't the airport be closed immediately?

If the quality of the runway is substandard (for whatever reason) when are cracks most likely to occur - when the runway is idle or when it is impacted by the weight of an aircraft landing?

Am I being too simplistic here or is some form of Russian Roulette taking place every time an aircraft lands?

Are the commercial interests of the airport and the airlines being allowed to override safety considerations?

[britmaveric]

Doubt AOT will close it until a catastrophic accident occurs.

[Jamie]

Have any aircraft been damaged yet? I wonder what would happen if an aircraft did land and caused noticeable damage (not catastrophic). Would the airline decide to no longer land or would they keep on so they didn't lose out on the market.

[jumnien]

Remember, the news we are getting from AOT (loaded up with military officers after the coup) is naturally going to try to justify the reasons for the coup. If news of a perfectly smooth runway built by Thaksin was justification for the junta trashing the constitution you'd be getting news of the perfectly smooth runway.

I'm not saying there are no problems with the new airport or the BTS extensions or the road widening near Petchaburi or any other project in Thailand (No to the Nuclear Power Plant!). But we all must be aware of how a political football like the new airport is being used by the CNS.

[thai_narak]

Honestly, I don't feel safe to land in Suwanaphum at the moment. I have never been scared during landing but 2 weeks ago when I went home, it felt like the runaway was short. The pilot was breaking so hard maybe to avoid the cracks at the end of the runaway.

[cdnvic]

The heavies might be ok, but I wouldn't want to be landing a Challenger or LearJet there with the smaller tires hitting the cracks.

In any case, the big danger is still the taxi ride to the hotel.

[STEELINOX]

The airport's director-general Chaisak Angsuwan has admitted that there are cracks on runways and taxiways over a wide area of the airfield.

Shouldn't the airport be closed immediately?

If the quality of the runway is substandard (for whatever reason) when are cracks most likely to occur - when the runway is idle or when it is impacted by the weight of an aircraft landing?

Am I being too simplistic here or is some form of Russian Roulette taking place every time an aircraft lands?

Are the commercial interests of the airport and the airlines being allowed to override safety considerations?

Welplessee, picture this: you are driving down the road and your run over the "typical" pot hole; now mind you the entry and exit of the actual hole itself is probably quite close in proximity so you really only feel a brief thud through your chasis. The cracks in the airport seem to be long and parallel to one another but sometimes in a sinking succession to one another and possibly wider apart; well traveling down a runway with the breaks and thrust reversers active you may not feel anything, but if those cracks are hit in just the right angle (hi % probability not to) this could cause a "ground loop" and shoot your fully loaded 747-400 across tarmacs of the wrong flavor to be on while coming to a stop for the active taxiway. It is not a big problem now but when the rainy season comes this whole thing will become lakefront property and a popular tourist attraction as the "airport that was!"

Thanks,

Randy

[sfokevin]

Cracks are all overblown... New guy from the Junta has been out to look at the runways and announce they got it all wrong - he sees no cracking... just minor problem just like most airports in America... Same Same... No worry...

http://www.bangkokpost.net/breaking_news/b...s.php?id=116510

[britmaveric]

Here we go again - DENIAL. I'd like to see some foreign experts in to access the airport, can't trust these lot.

[jdinasia]

If it were dangerous IATA would completely decertify the airport

[cdnvic]

If it were dangerous IATA would completely decertify the airport

There's alot of "certified" airports in the world that are quite dodgy. The IATA aren't exactly renowned for keeping on top of these things. Many airports stay certified with inoperable ILS, poorly trained ATC, inadaquate firefighting/rescue equipment, etc.

Edited February 2, 2007 by cdnvic

[britmaveric]

If it were dangerous IATA would completely decertify the airport

IATA never certified it.

[cobra]

I'm not overly concerned yet about the runway issues.

The survival instinct is quite powerful. No pilot is going to risk his own life, not to mention ~400 other people, landing on a runway that is clearly fraught with danger or inadequate unless there's some emergency.

They'll divert or other. To lose a wide body when carriers were aware of existing safety issues concerning the runways, would have a tremendous impact on business and liability would be staggering.

Our International airport up here in Anchorage Alaska always has a runway(s) undergoing some type of repair, with constant freezing and thawing, no manner of fill or compacting is going to keep intact indefinitely. While resurfacing is going on, they just shift over to a parallel runway.

Which may end up being the norm for Suvarnabhumi.

[dekka007]

The heavies might be ok, but I wouldn't want to be landing a Challenger or LearJet there with the smaller tires hitting the cracks.

In any case, the big danger is still the taxi ride to the hotel.

Size of tyres has got nothing to do with it. Its the high pressure of a/c tyres that will be the issue so challenger / 747 same risk.

Anyway dont worry about it. VERY VERY unlikely to happen.

Honestly, I don't feel safe to land in Suwanaphum at the moment. I have never been scared during landing but 2 weeks ago when I went home, it felt like the runaway was short. The pilot was breaking so hard maybe to avoid the cracks at the end of the runaway.

Again runway is plenty long enough - that would certainly not be the reason for "Slightly higher braking action" more likely that they were asked to expedite vacating the runway as the next landing aircraft spacing was reduced or they wished to depart an a/c quickly between 2 landing. Or the pilot was tired and wanted to get to his gate quicker .

I can only give my professional opinion I land at Suvarnabhumi in a fairly heavy a/c most weeks and the cracks are not a safety issue. Its just sensationalism made by a few newspapers and scare mongers.

The cracks will not cause a major a/c incident - it is an expensive inconvience not safety prob. Its the inflight fires, terrorists,smoke, Flight into a mountain, volcanic ash, windshear, thunderstorms, below average pilots /engineering that will kill you - Thats what you should be worrying about next time your flying not the cracks. Safe flying.

Edited February 4, 2007 by dekka007

[jumnien]

Here we go again - DENIAL. I'd like to see some foreign experts in to access the airport, can't trust these lot.

Hmmm... Designed by the Germans, built by the Italians; can we necessarily trust foreign experts to comment on the runways?

[dong]

makes you wonder who"s got the most cracks, the airport or nan plaza

[wpcoe]

I can only give my professional opinion I land at Suvarnabhumi in a fairly heavy a/c most weeks and the cracks are not a safety issue. Its just sensationalism made by a few newspapers and scare mongers.

What's your professional opinion of the flocks of birds at the airport frolicking around the taxiways and runways?

[dekka007]

What's your professional opinion of the flocks of birds at the airport frolicking around the taxiways and runways?

Actually the airport authority is starting all be it slowly to get the bird clearing vehicles out more frequently and efficently. From what I have seen over the last 2-3 weeks it has not been an issue for me - perhaps I am just lucky.

But really from my point of view it is not a major threat to aircraft as it stands today. Again something not too lose sleep over

So far in my career I have flown through a flock of racing pigeons and also hit a swan and still here to tell the tale Just have another Gin & Tonic and enjoy the inflight movie. The boys/girls up the front will look after you...........usually

Edited February 4, 2007 by dekka007

[Jamie]

What's your professional opinion of the flocks of birds at the airport frolicking around the taxiways and runways?

Actually the airport authority is starting all be it slowly to get the bird clearing vehicles out more frequently and efficently. From what I have seen over the last 2-3 weeks it has not been an issue for me - perhaps I am just lucky.

But really from my point of view it is not a major threat to aircraft as it stands today. Again something not too lose sleep over

So far in my career I have flown through a flock of racing pigeons and also hit a swan and still here to tell the tale Just have another Gin & Tonic and enjoy the inflight movie. The boys/girls up the front will look after you...........usually

The problem with that is if you are in takeoff there is very little room for error. Once you are committed, you really can not turn around. You have an engine problem during landing or during flight, it's not as big of a problem because you can power that engine down. Suck a bird up on takeoff and you've got problems.

[david96]

Who were the consulting enginers supervising the project? Was there a defects liability clause in the contract, because if there was it would be up to them to fix.

If the airport was unsafe no reputable airline would land there.

[jumnien]

We've had 60,000 plus perfectly safe landings and takeoffs at the new airport, we've had professional pilots say it's safe and still large segments of the farang community seem to think there are 3 foot wide cracks in the runway that the heavy jets are somehow evading. Don't believe everything you read in the papers or gaze into on the internet! I can't believe farangs in Thailand are that concerned with "safety" considering the real issues that face us all in everyday life.

[cdnvic]

We don't have any reliable info on the cracks, other than that they exist so it's no wonder people get a little edgy about these things, especially with Thai attitudes toward safety.

Scaremongering is making something out of nothing. When real information is being suppressed it's only natural for people to get a bit concerned.

Edited February 5, 2007 by cdnvic

[dekka007]

Suck a bird up on takeoff and you've got problems.

Not always true. The birds that are generally around the new airport aint that big. 9/10 you throw a bird down a engine at take-off engine parameters fluctuate a bit, nasty smell through the aircon and then everything continues as per normal. Sometimes you will have no indication that you have "Eaten" one until your next walk-round at destination (twice this has happened to me).

And if it is multiple strikes down one engine and it goes bang - Public Transport flights are certified at ALL stages of flight to lose a engine and either 1. Continue the Takeoff attain a safe altitude and return for an approach and landing on one engine.

2. Stop the takeoff prior to the decision speed (V1) and bring the aircraft safely to a stop on the runway within the runway distance available.

So really in the unlikely event of a bird strike damaging a single engine - The aircraft is safe.

As was said above. The cracks / birds are not bothering my colleagues or indeed myself to the extent that we are concerned about operating into or out of the airport on a daily basis - therefore I thnk the general public should relax a bit and let THE NATION and BANGKOK POST battle out and ignore their little horror stories.

Agreed the cracks / birds / everything else - is a pain in the ass but it is not affecting aircraft safety to a concerning level. If it was do you think I would be risking my ass / Licence and aircraft flying in there so often - NO.

Edited February 5, 2007 by dekka007

[wpcoe]

Thanks for the reassurances.

The two times I took off from Suvarnabhumi were at dawn, so that might be a factor in bird behaviour affecting my observations. There were *dozens* of fair-sized egrets along the taxiways all the way out to the runway. At one culvert alone I counted more than twelve. Out closer to the runway there were large swarms of black-colored medium-sized birds. I was on a 747, so was comforted by the fact that we had four engines and could "afford" to lose one or two. But what about all the twin-engined aircraft? What if they flew right through a flock of birds and lost *both* engines after V1? Not likely, but can you honestly say it CAN not and WILL not ever happen?

My roommate was injured during the evacuation on a flight in BKK (Don Muang) last year that aborted takeoff due to bird ingestion/engine shutdown. The evacuation was due to smoke and report of flames from the undercarriage after they turned off onto a taxiway after severe braking action. A bird strike caused him physical injury.

Sorry to be so pedantic about it, but the most birds I've ever seen at an airport are at Suvarnabhumi.

[dekka007]

The evacuation was due to smoke and report of flames from the undercarriage after they turned off onto a taxiway after severe braking action.

The bird strike did not cause the smoke/flames from the undercarriage - I am afraid that sounds like it was due to a badly handled landing / pilot error. The Human factor is always an element in these things but from an engineering point of view the aircraft was safe and no one should have been injured had the pilot correctly handled the situation.

but can you honestly say it CAN not and WILL not ever happen

Of course not but then again if you get out of bed in the morning and cross the road there is also a chance a car brakes will fail and kill you..............everything in life is a risk. More chance of being knocked down by a bus than than a dual flame out after V1 at BKK airport due to bird strike happening mate.

Bottom line is this after 15 years of flying airliners with 2 engines at airports with more cracks and birds than BKK. I am confident flying in and out of there without feeling uneasy at all!

Edited February 5, 2007 by dekka007

[Paul MBMG]

The evacuation was due to smoke and report of flames from the undercarriage after they turned off onto a taxiway after severe braking action.

The bird strike did not cause the smoke/flames from the undercarriage - I am afraid that sounds like it was due to a badly handled landing / pilot error. The Human factor is always an element in these things but from an engineering point of view the aircraft was safe and no one should have been injured had the pilot correctly handled the situation.

but can you honestly say it CAN not and WILL not ever happen

Of course not but then again if you get out of bed in the morning and cross the road there is also a chance a car brakes will fail and kill you..............everything in life is a risk. More chance of being knocked down by a bus than than a dual flame out after V1 at BKK airport due to bird strike happening mate.

Bottom line is this after 15 years of flying airliners with 2 engines at airports with more cracks and birds than BKK. I am confident flying in and out of there without feeling uneasy at all!

there's a bird sanctuary at one end of one of the main Heathrow runways and bird strikes happen there from time to time on take off

caused shutdown of one of the engines on a 747 and eventual (after fuel dumping) return to Heathrow when it happened on a plane that I was on

mind you I'd still rathe rtake-off/land at H'row than NBIA

[papaya9]

I heard there was one incident where an airliner's tire actually got stuck in a sinkhole when taxiing. Talk about losing face. The tug had to pull the plane out because the plane couldn't use thrust to get out. This was fairly recent too.

[wpcoe]

The evacuation was due to smoke and report of flames from the undercarriage after they turned off onto a taxiway after severe braking action.

The bird strike did not cause the smoke/flames from the undercarriage - I am afraid that sounds like it was due to a badly handled landing / pilot error. The Human factor is always an element in these things but from an engineering point of view the aircraft was safe and no one should have been injured had the pilot correctly handled the situation.

No, but the loss of an engine (due to bird strike) at just below V1 caused tremendous stress on the braking system and tires, which then smoldered from the heat produced. The control tower also reported flames at which point the captain initiated an evacuation over the PA. I'm not sure it was "badly handled/pilot error" ... when you are hurtling down the runway and you lose one of your engines at a point where established procedure is to abort takeoff, just how gently can you apply the brakes of a fully-loaded 747 to avoid overheating. (BTW, this was *takeoff* not landing.)

No, the bird strike did not directly cause the smoke/fire, but I doubt the pilot would have slammed on the brakes had a bird strike had not zeroed-out one of the engine's thrust. Ergo, no bird strike = no report of flames from the smoldering brakes/tires = no evacuation ....

Obviously we both have flown in and out of airports with at least some birds present and as far as I know, I've not been on a plane with a bird strike, at least not a catastrophic one. <g> I suspect our good fortune will continue. My original concern was the LARGE number of birds I observed on my two Suvarnabhumi takeoffs, thinking that the larger the bird population present, the greater the odds of a bird strike. Apparently I have nothing to worry about, and that is quite reassuring.

[Mid]

I heard there was one incident where an airliner's tire actually got stuck in a sinkhole when taxiing. Talk about losing face. The tug had to pull the plane out because the plane couldn't use thrust to get out. This was fairly recent too.

more ??