Jump to content

Severe air pollution forces Nok Air flight back to Bangkok


snoop1130

Recommended Posts

Severe air pollution forces Nok Air flight back to Bangkok

By THE NATION

 

800_369d77f49fde236.jpg

 

Pollution in Phrae province reached a very high level, obstructing a Nok Air plane from landing and forcing it to head back to Bangkok.

 

PM2.5 dust particles today (January 27) were found to be 564 micrograms per cubic meter in the province, while PM10 was 171 micrograms.

 

The particles were visible, with 191 hotspots, especially in the districts of Long, Song, and Wang Chin. Locals were urged to spray water to protect themselves.

 

The particles cut visibility, forcing the Nok Air flight back to Don Mueang Airport.

 

People who wanted to take the 11.30am flight had to head to Chiang Mai or Lam Pang airports to travel by air.

 

“However, those passengers did not need to buy new tickets to take a new flight,” Nok Air’s manager for Phrae Natcha Chaiyawan said.

 

She said those who wanted to come to Phrae from Bangkok needed to wait for the 6pm flight.

 

“The flights tomorrow [Tuesday] will be operated as usual,” she said. “However, if we experience the same problem again, we will do as we did today."

 

Source: https://www.nationthailand.com/news/30381143

 

nation.jpg

-- © Copyright The Nation Thailand 2020-01-27
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, snoop1130 said:

The particles cut visibility, forcing the Nok Air flight back to Don Mueang Airport.

And because they couldn't see very far the did not land?

What do they do in bad rain?

I thought they should be able to fly blind just with instruments?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Better safe than sorry, already three aircraft incidents throughout the world in the last 24 hrs. As an aside, is it only me or do others find the Nok Air paint scheme a little scary? OK I get the image intent, a steam pigeon, but "flames" coming from the cockpit area and then down towards the tail abaft the engines, hmmmm!

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, snoop1130 said:

PM2.5 dust particles today (January 27) were found to be 564 micrograms per cubic meter

The truth comes out! We were told earlier today that even the worst air in the north is at least 4x better than that. From this article: "In the northern region, they [PM2.5] measured between 20-134 micrograms per cubic metre". Busted!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

And because they couldn't see very far the did not land?

What do they do in bad rain?

I thought they should be able to fly blind just with instruments?

You non-pilots watch too many movies. There is what's called an MDA or minimum decision height.  If you can't see the runway at the MDA you are mandated by law to go around and find an alternate airport to land. 

 

Only a few airports can land planes with almost no visibility.  The MDA varies by airport.  Instruments can get you to the airport, get you established on the glideslope (localizer) but if at some point, the MDA, you can't see the runway, you can't land.

 

I suspect they were not allowing departures as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Admiral Hornblower said:

Better safe than sorry, already three aircraft incidents throughout the world in the last 24 hrs. As an aside, is it only me or do others find the Nok Air paint scheme a little scary? OK I get the image intent, a steam pigeon, but "flames" coming from the cockpit area and then down towards the tail abaft the engines, hmmmm!

Surely they are feathers?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Locals were urged to spray water to protect themselves.

 

And how exactly does that help? Particles this small slip between water droplets. Best get a real big fan and blow it away. Works better!!

All these things they have advised but they either know nothing or cant even use google correctly. 

Best thing really to do would be arrest the illegal fire starters but for some dum reason it will never happen.

This government has doomed its citizens with a push for more sugarcane in the future to fill their desire to use more ethanol based fuels which isnt a good investment when electric vehicles are now a thing which has sadly been taxed ridiculously probably for the same reason.

Dont let me get started on the unhelthy push for more and more sugar....

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, unamazedloso said:

Locals were urged to spray water to protect themselves.

 

And how exactly does that help?

It helps the particles stick to their bodies.  It keeps them cool.  Best way to calm a bird is to spray it with water.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chrysaora said:

You non-pilots watch too many movies. There is what's called an MDA or minimum decision height.  If you can't see the runway at the MDA you are mandated by law to go around and find an alternate airport to land. 

 

Only a few airports can land planes with almost no visibility.  The MDA varies by airport.  Instruments can get you to the airport, get you established on the glideslope (localizer) but if at some point, the MDA, you can't see the runway, you can't land.

 

I suspect they were not allowing departures as well.

You seem to be confusing Minimum Descent Altitude With Decision Altitude.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chrysaora said:

You non-pilots watch too many movies. There is what's called an MDA or minimum decision height.  If you can't see the runway at the MDA you are mandated by law to go around and find an alternate airport to land. 

 

Only a few airports can land planes with almost no visibility.  The MDA varies by airport.  Instruments can get you to the airport, get you established on the glideslope (localizer) but if at some point, the MDA, you can't see the runway, you can't land.

 

I suspect they were not allowing departures as well.

 

I don't know about the movies, but I landed my Cessna 152 many times "under the hood" with less than 40 flying hours.  "The hood" was a mask that obscured all vision out the windows while allowing a student to look at the plane's instruments.  It mimics a situation where you can't see anything outside for the weather.  And I did it at airports without any tower at all.

 

The regulations may prohibit it under a normal flight, but I'm pretty sure they could have landed safely if they were low on fuel and couldn't see the runway.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, impulse said:

 

I don't know about the movies, but I landed my Cessna 152 many times "under the hood" with less than 40 flying hours.  "The hood" was a mask that obscured all vision out the windows while allowing a student to look at the plane's instruments.  It mimics a situation where you can't see anything outside for the weather.  And I did it at airports without any tower at all.

 

The regulations may prohibit it under a normal flight, but I'm pretty sure they could have landed safely if they were low on fuel and couldn't see the runway.

 

I didn’t know Cessna 152 had a radar altimeter and full ILS panel, most unusual...

Regulations also mandate minimum reserves of fuel and alternative airport in submitted flight plan so low fuel emergency should never arise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PJPom said:

I didn’t know Cessna 152 had a radar altimeter and full ILS panel, most unusual...

Regulations also mandate minimum reserves of fuel and alternative airport in submitted flight plan so low fuel emergency should never arise.

 

They didn't.  And that was long before GPS.  Yet I was still able to practice no-visibility landings at Houston Southwest Airport...  Just a strip with no tower...  There was a lot of help from Hobby's tower (HOU)- quite a few miles away.  To be honest, it was so long ago I don't remember the mechanics of it.    Just that, after flying around in a C152, I was never nervous about flying commercial- no matter how bumpy it got.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember years back, like the 70s and even early 80s when flying into Los Angeles California after being in a clean air outdoor place like new Hampshire with trees and lakes and stuff, you could of course see the pollution and haze and smog but you could also "smell" it and get the metallic taste on your tongue as the plane went into the area. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, unamazedloso said:

Locals were urged to spray water to protect themselves.

 

And how exactly does that help? Particles this small slip between water droplets. Best get a real big fan and blow it away. Works better!!

All these things they have advised but they either know nothing or cant even use google correctly. 

Best thing really to do would be arrest the illegal fire starters but for some dum reason it will never happen.

This government has doomed its citizens with a push for more sugarcane in the future to fill their desire to use more ethanol based fuels which isnt a good investment when electric vehicles are now a thing which has sadly been taxed ridiculously probably for the same reason.

Dont let me get started on the unhelthy push for more and more sugar....

 

Further, and still nothing concrete to STOP sugar cane burning. I guess money rules!

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Chrysaora said:

You non-pilots watch too many movies. There is what's called an MDA or minimum decision height.  If you can't see the runway at the MDA you are mandated by law to go around and find an alternate airport to land. 

 

Only a few airports can land planes with almost no visibility.  The MDA varies by airport.  Instruments can get you to the airport, get you established on the glideslope (localizer) but if at some point, the MDA, you can't see the runway, you can't land.

 

I suspect they were not allowing departures as well.

Thanks

 

Sometimes it's enough the explain those non-pilots just the facts like you just did.

And sometimes it would be even better to write those facts directly in the original article to avoid the questions.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

And because they couldn't see very far the did not land?

What do they do in bad rain?

I thought they should be able to fly blind just with instruments?

LOL they follow the main roads, couldn't see them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very strange indeed, never heard of a commercial jet having to turn around because of too much pollution in the air.  
If this is normal then China would have cancelled dozens of flights daily...
 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

And because they couldn't see very far the did not land?

What do they do in bad rain?

I thought they should be able to fly blind just with instruments?

Just start to get more information about flight safety before posting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Aachen said:
13 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

And because they couldn't see very far the did not land?

What do they do in bad rain?

I thought they should be able to fly blind just with instruments?

Just start to get more information about flight safety before posting.

Do you know the meaning of question marks?

People use them to indicate that they are not sure or ask questions.

 

I didn't write something like: These idiots should use the instruments!

I wrote: "And because they couldn't see very far the did not land?" 

Do you spot the difference? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...