Three injured as Air Force plane makes emergency landing in Songkhla

[snoop1130]

Three injured as Air Force plane makes emergency landing in Songkhla

By The Nation

 

 

An Air Force plane made a forced landing in a wooded area near Wat Bang Sala in Songkhla on Tuesday, following an engine malfunction after taking off from Pattani.

 

Air Force spokesman Air Marshall Pongsak Semachai said two pilots and a mechanic on board had been slightly injured and were taken to hospital.

 

The AU-23 Peacemaker was returning from a mission in Pattani to Air Wing 56 command in Hat Yai when it suffered an engine malfunction, he said.

 

The turboprop aircraft had taken off from Pattani at 11.56am, but was forced to land just four minutes later close to Wat Bang Sala, in Hat Yai district’s Tambon Bang Phru.

 

The plane had been on a mission of the Ninth Air Force Taskforce in Pattani’s Bor Thong area, the spokesman added.

 

The Air Force has been using AU-23 aircraft for psychological warfare, light attacks and logistical support as they can take off and land using short runways.

 

The Air Force has received a total of AU-23s for anti-terrorism missions since 1972.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/breakingnews/30365243

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2019-03-05

[Mavideol]

and I thought they were bad drivers only !!!! at least nobody died

[RotBenz8888]

The lamp post was in the way again.

[roo860]

Airbrake failure.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Justgrazing]

1 hour ago, snoop1130 said:

The Air Force has received a total of AU-23s for anti-terrorism missions since 1972

Cheap bottom ( very ) end gunship these and old ones at that .. 

[KMartinHandyman]

An emergency landing and a forced landing in the woods would be reported as a crash landing anywhere else I think. Three lives saved by the pilot and face by the reporting. Maybe the pilot knew the mechanic and said “I don’t care if you swear the engines fixed, you’re coming with us!”

[PhilAtUbon]

It wasn't an "emergency landing".

 

It crashed!

[colinneil]

This is a clear case of bad reporting, emergency landing my a++e, the damned plane crashed.

 

[steve187]

it would seem these plane were never used by the USA, due to not being up to the job. and 40 years later are in the hands of the Thais

[Proboscis]

12 hours ago, KMartinHandyman said:

An emergency landing and a forced landing in the woods would be reported as a crash landing anywhere else I think. Three lives saved by the pilot and face by the reporting. Maybe the pilot knew the mechanic and said “I don’t care if you swear the engines fixed, you’re coming with us!”

Yeah, you don't make an emergency in a wooded area! That was a crash.

[Fore Man]

2 hours ago, steve187 said:

it would seem these plane were never used by the USA, due to not being up to the job. and 40 years later are in the hands of the Thais

Actually the AU-23 was used by the USAF but only to complete testing and evaluation. Theses 15 airframes were later delivered to Thailand under provisions of the Military Assistance Program and since operated by the RTAF. 

 

The AU-23 is the military equivalent to the Pilates Porter and Helio Stallion, flown extensively in the Vietnam War era and were rugged, dependable STOL aircraft that were able to service remote mountain and unimproved strips throughout Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. It would seen that maintaining such vintage aircraft would be problematic and undoubtedly some key malfunction occurred to the airframe or power plant to cause this crash (and yes, let’s call it was it is).  It’s fortunate That nobody perished

[madmen]

Wonder why it couldn't finish the flight on one engine unless it failed right on rotation which would be problematic even for modern air craft

[manarak]

3 minutes ago, madmen said:

Wonder why it couldn't finish the flight on one engine unless it failed right on rotation which would be problematic even for modern air craft

"landed" after only 4 minutes of flight - it's very likely that the problem occured while it tried to gain altitude.
it never developed enough thrust to properly takeoff.

[fantom]

8 minutes ago, madmen said:

Wonder why it couldn't finish the flight on one engine unless it failed right on rotation which would be problematic even for modern air craft

Probably because he only had one to start with. Do read the threads.

 

Actually, kudos to the pilot, engine failure over tiger country, a controlled descent into trees, allowing trees to dissipate energy, all only minor injuries.

Respect

[Moonlover]

2 hours ago, steve187 said:

it would seem these plane were never used by the USA, due to not being up to the job. and 40 years later are in the hands of the Thais

According to Christopher Robbins in his excellent book, 'The Ravens', they were used extensively by Air America and Continental Air Services in support of the clandestine operations in Laos.

 

Internet references are 'thin on the ground', but here's one I found.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Air_Services,_Inc

 

 

[madmen]

Probably because he only had one to start with. Do read the threads.
 
Actually, kudos to the pilot, engine failure over tiger country, a controlled descent into trees, allowing trees to dissipate energy, all only minor injuries.
Respect

My mistake no idea where I read 2 engine so a very good outcome considering.

However STOL aircraft do have a good glide ratio and low stall speed due to increased wing camber

[SupermarineS6B]

That's a shame, nice old Porter.........

[Psimbo]

I'm willing to bet a lot of the commentators above also whinge when new planes are announced to replace old clapped out machines.

 

Damned if they do, damned if they don't!

[Psimbo]

4 hours ago, colinneil said:

This is a clear case of bad reporting, emergency landing my a++e, the damned plane crashed.

 

This is a clear case of bad commenting- one would expect far more from the POTY 2018. Any chance for the knockers to bash the Air Force though.

 

It is common when an engine fails to select the nearest, safest area to put an aircraft down. If there was no open ground nearby and the aircraft was becoming uncontrollable the pilot carried out the correct actions. Its not always possible to turn back to an adequate airfield.

 

There are numerous documented cases of aircraft deliberately putting down in areas far too small but using trees to slow down and potentially prevent fatalities. in this case it clearly worked.

 

Kudos to the pilot for getting the plane down with only minor injuries to himself and the crew.

[Psimbo]

1 hour ago, madmen said:

Wonder why it couldn't finish the flight on one engine unless it failed right on rotation which would be problematic even for modern air craft

Wonder why people don't research before commentating? This a/c only has ONE engine.

[KhunBENQ]

8 minutes ago, Psimbo said:

Wonder why people don't research before commentating? This a/c only has ONE engine.

The second one is a hidden feature

And it's built in license from the Swiss Pilatus Porter PC-6.

"emergency landing in the forest/jungle"

 

From "Thai Military Aviation Club":

[madmen]

Wonder why people don't research before commentating? This a/c only has ONE engine.

Like you read this thread where I clearly admitted my mistake? Oh the irony...

Learn to read the thread to avoid endless repeat posts

[billd766]

2 hours ago, Proboscis said:

Yeah, you don't make an emergency in a wooded area! That was a crash.

When the only engine you have has stopped you try to make a landing anywhere you can, preferably on an open piece of land. If there is no open space you have little choice of landing spots, especially with a dead engine.

If the controls are hydraulic and the engine is dead, so are the controls.

 

quote  " 2 hours ago, madmen said:

Wonder why it couldn't finish the flight on one engine unless it failed right on rotation which would be problematic even for modern aircraft". 

 

madmen, FYI it only had one engine to start with. When that stops the only way is down.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, manarak said:

"landed" after only 4 minutes of flight - it's very likely that the problem occured while it tried to gain altitude.
it never developed enough thrust to properly takeoff.

 

 

[Fore Man]

As a long retired soldier serving in various airborne assignments during my career, I often made freefalls out of these remarkable aircraft, flown out of civilian skydiving centers.  The turbine-powered Porter could climb with a full load like an elevator on steroids, then unlike a piston engined airplane with its warp-susceptible valving, it could stand on its head and dive for the deck, ready to take on another load and head for altitude again...all day long. It was a true workhorse and it is easy to understand why the RTAF selected it for its CT mission.   PC-6  ‘s have been real workhouses all over the world wherever operations from unimproved or short strips were required, including rescue operations from alpine snowfields and glaciers when fitted with ski gear. I salute the pilot who brought this one down without serious injury or loss of life. Bravo, sir!

[Fore Man]

57 minutes ago, Fore Man said:

As a long retired soldier serving in various airborne assignments during my career, I often made freefalls out of these remarkable aircraft, flown out of civilian skydiving centers.  The turbine-powered Porter could climb with a full load like an elevator on steroids, then unlike a piston engined airplane with its warp-susceptible valving, it could stand on its head and dive for the deck, ready to take on another load and head for altitude again...all day long. It was a true workhorse and it is easy to understand why the RTAF selected it for its CT mission.   PC-6  ‘s have been real workhouses all over the world wherever operations from unimproved or short strips were required, including rescue operations from alpine snowfields and glaciers when fitted with ski gear. I salute the pilot who brought this one down without serious injury or loss of life. Bravo, sir!

A close friend and former Air America pilot sent me his thoughts about the AU-23/Pilatus Porter.  I offer it to TV readers as additional clarifying information...to wit:

 

“I have 2000 hours in the Porter. The ones we had used Garret engines. CASI used Pratt & Whitney. I don't know which is better. I flew the Piper Cheyenne that has P&W engines and they are quieter. The Swiss version was better because it was lighter, and you could tell the difference when flying the Fairchild model. My only complaint was it was slow. You felt like it was fast but looking at the airspeed indicator told the truth. It landed short, and the take off length was decent. It was easy to land, and you couldn't make a bad landing.  The new ones have electric flaps. The ones I flew were hand crank.
I never operated it in Laos and the strips there were treacherous. 
Did you ever see the original Air America documentary? The flying scenes are neat. It was a propaganda film. Watch the whole thing and you can see some of the Porter landing strips in Laos.  
http://www.vietnamproject.ttu.edu/airamerica/fmfm/FMFM-500k.mp4”

[seahorse]

8 hours ago, fantom said:

Probably because he only had one to start with. Do read the threads.

 

Actually, kudos to the pilot, engine failure over tiger country, a controlled descent into trees, allowing trees to dissipate energy, all only minor injuries.

Respect

Tiger country? What are you on about? 

[Sir Swagman]

11 hours ago, madmen said:

My mistake no idea where I read 2 engine so a very good outcome considering.

However STOL aircraft do have a good glide ratio and low stall speed due to increased wing camber

Glide ratio has little to no relationship to stall speed or camber. You could, in theory, flutter down vertically, slowly, given sufficient wing area and the ability to retain control. Makes for good STOL, but crappy glide ratio. Not sure that you don’t have the term a little confused. Glide ratio refers to distance travelled horizontally vs vertically, usually abbreviated to L/D (lift to drag) ratio