Hydraulics Hiccup Forces Thai Airways Flight Back To BKK

[webfact]

Hydraulics Hiccup Forces Thai Airways Flight Back To BKK

By Asaree Thaitrakulpanich, Staff Reporter

 

SAMUT PRAKAN — A Thai Airways flight to New Delhi had to return to Suvarnabhumi Airport 30 minutes after takeoff Wednesday night due to a mechanical problem.

 

The captain of Flight TG315 decided to double back to the airport due to a problem with the plane’s hydraulic system after taking off at 5:55pm. The plane reportedly had a problem with the control of its flight systems and landing gear.

 

Full story: http://www.khaosodenglish.com/news/crimecourtscalamity/calamity/2018/09/13/hydraulics-hiccup-forces-thai-airways-flight-back-to-bkk/

 

-- © Copyright Khaosod English 2018-09-13

[AsiaHand]

Did not I just read yesterday how Thailand was going to be all up with the rest of the world on flight maintenance safety ? 

[Esso49]

1 minute ago, AsiaHand said:

Did not I just read yesterday how Thailand was going to be all up with the rest of the world on flight maintenance safety ? 

You did and in another post I asked why it took them 30 mins not to declare a mid air emergency knowing they had gear hydraulics failure. Safety has a different meaning in Thailand as it only means protection of the baht,  not human life

[arithai12]

6 minutes ago, Esso49 said:

You did and in another post I asked why it took them 30 mins not to declare a mid air emergency knowing they had gear hydraulics failure. Safety has a different meaning in Thailand as it only means protection of the baht,  not human life

You might be right if you talk about the general attitude towards safety in this country but specifically for Thai afaik they have a good safety record. These things happen to all airlines.

When they say " return to Suvarnabhumi Airport 30 minutes after takeoff" it might mean that they landed again 30 min later, which is a minimum time if you consider that a jet of that size cannot simply abort an ascent, they probably have to reach some safe speed and altitude first. Not to mention that they need clearance from the control tower to evacuate a landing runway. Actually, they more time they spend in the air the more time they have to organize safety on the ground.

 

[Esso49]

2 minutes ago, arithai12 said:

You might be right if you talk about the general attitude towards safety in this country but specifically for Thai afaik they have a good safety record. These things happen to all airlines.

When they say " return to Suvarnabhumi Airport 30 minutes after takeoff" it might mean that they landed again 30 min later, which is a minimum time if you consider that a jet of that size cannot simply abort an ascent, they probably have to reach some safe speed and altitude first. Not to mention that they need clearance from the control tower to evacuate a landing runway. Actually, they more time they spend in the air the more time they have to organize safety on the ground.

 

If you access ATC reports on this flight you will see they requested permission to land 30 minutes after ETO.  that indicates a 30 minute delay in notification to ATC and landing was some 49 minutes later

[Tug]

Kudos to the crew for the right call and the safe landing control (issues) ate a very serious matter indeed kudos

[heybuz]

would they have to dump fuel.

[Ron19]

Flame posts removed.

[ChiangMaiLightning2143]

The article said there was a "problem" Modern planes have multiple redundant systems.

They likely had had no controll issues at all, just potential problem if the had continued. Maybe just a warning light?

So the pilot made the right call to Return to BKK.

 

Sounds like the same plane was rebounded after a delay, a non story as there would have been an aircraft swap for any major hydraulic leaks, fires, or burst lines.

 

[hotchilli]

15 hours ago, arithai12 said:

You might be right if you talk about the general attitude towards safety in this country but specifically for Thai afaik they have a good safety record. These things happen to all airlines.

When they say " return to Suvarnabhumi Airport 30 minutes after takeoff" it might mean that they landed again 30 min later, which is a minimum time if you consider that a jet of that size cannot simply abort an ascent, they probably have to reach some safe speed and altitude first. Not to mention that they need clearance from the control tower to evacuate a landing runway. Actually, they more time they spend in the air the more time they have to organize safety on the ground.

 

Another point to add to your reply which makes good sense, is that after taking off the aircraft would be fully loaded with fuel for the flight ahead, if it declares an emergency because of possible hydraulic problems or landing gear issues they would need to over-fly a safe zone to dump excess fuel to lighten the landing weight and of course decrease the risk of fire on landing!

[gk10002000]

8 minutes ago, hotchilli said:

Another point to add to your reply which makes good sense, is that after taking off the aircraft would be fully loaded with fuel for the flight ahead, if it declares an emergency because of possible hydraulic problems or landing gear issues they would need to over-fly a safe zone to dump excess fuel to lighten the landing weight and of course decrease the risk of fire on landing!

Many modern commercial aircraft do not have the ability to dump fuel... Environmental regulations, etc.  Some can, some can not.  That is why you often see in the news planes that flew around for a while to burn fuel before landing. A320 no, but I think a 777 can, at least some models

[Moonlover]

3 minutes ago, gk10002000 said:

Many modern commercial aircraft do not have the ability to dump fuel... Environmental regulations, etc.  Some can, some can not.  That is why you often see in the news planes that flew around for a while to burn fuel before landing. A320 no, but I think a 777 can, at least some models

You're correct. Most lighter passenger aircraft are now delivered without fuel dumping facilities. But the 'heavies' such as the 747, 777 and A380 still do. It's an FAA requirement, amongst a host of other regulations.

 

In this case though, I doubt whether fuel dumping was necessary. The flight was bound for Delhi, which for a 777 is a short hop. So the fuel load would have been fairly modest.

 

And to those who, once again, took delight in seizing the opportunity to take a swipe at all things Thai, the pilot undoubtedly made the right call in returning to BKK. There are protocols and procedures for every failure that can occur during a flight. And a hydraulic failure, even a minor one can become a serious issue.

[ronaldo0]

Hiccup ?? ?