Professionalism Of Thai Cockpit Crew Questioned After Bad Landing

[brahmburgers]

In a related, but much more dire incident;

nearly 9 years ago, Dec. '98, there was a crash landing in Surat Thani by a Thai Airways. Aparently, the pilot approached twice in hard rain, and each of those 1st two times he pulled up. He then went and forced a landing on his 3rd attempt - resulting in deaths and injuries (can't recall how many). Thai Airways management immediatly denied pilot error, even while the fires were still burning.

My question is: isn't there something in the pilot's manual that says something to the effect: "if inclement weather forces you to abort two attempted landings in a row, find and go to airfield with better conditions." ?

It appears to this outsider that the young pilot was under duress to land the plane (maybe low on fuel), or more likely he was worried about his job security if he failed to land as scheduled. I'd like to hear pertinent details.

[Mid]

sbk has a thread on some of that here ,

a google search for crash landing in Surat Thani turns up lots more .

[lazeeboy]

sbk has a thread on some of that here ,

a google search for crash landing in Surat Thani turns up lots more .

unfortunatly if the pilots speak out they will be sacked and find it very hard to find another job.......

[Guest Reimar]

Ok, the pilot has to fill out the ASR and submit to the Safty Department of the Carrier! But what than? The Carrier reports to the DOA? Normally they have to do so!

If the VP of the Carrier denies the existence of the incident but the Pilot filed the report to the SD, what than?

Many of the "young" Pilots of TG coming from the Air Force or Army. They're trained in Hua Hin's Civil Aviation Training Center for IFR, ILS &c on cost of the Gov. If private trained at Hua Hin, they have to pay for the "course" as little as 2 million Baht. So, what's the outcome? What can be expected?

Those Pilot's are under pressure from the Carrier to keep the job and if they didn't follow the "rule" they will be without job in Thailand and elsewhere as well, special as Pilot.

And, if the Pilot submitted the report to the SD, that's what he have to do and he can't be blamed!

On the other hand, if a A300-600 has to be landed with 24 knots (45 km/h) Crosswind, that isn't an easy job. Who ever flown a Airplane and landed with more than 15 knots Crosswind, know what I talking about. And if the runway is slippy because of rain and for sure dust that's like soap and an Aircraft with a more than 200 tons rolling on "soap" isn't easy to keep straight but easy moves to the side!

Ever seen how a Aircraft landing/touch down with Crosswind? The "slipp" down (which means keep the "node" a little directed in the wind) and just on real touch down the change the real direction to the runway heading. And that's the moment while they have to be very carefully not to slipp sideways.

[dekka007]

Ok, the pilot has to fill out the ASR and submit to the Safty Department of the Carrier! But what than? The Carrier reports to the DOA? Normally they have to do so!

If the VP of the Carrier denies the existence of the incident but the Pilot filed the report to the SD, what than?

Actually the DOA only gets the ASR's if it is a MOR otherwise ASR's stay in house and are stored on the computer database for future in house reference and safety proposals.

The pilot in most airlines covers his own back by filing an ASR however it can still result in disciplinary actions / further training etc depending on the nature of the incident.

Can the VP make an ASR go missing - very unlikely and far to dangerous. The pilots licence is at stake here and he will protect himself adn his career by filing the form for sure.

On the other hand, if a A300-600 has to be landed with 24 knots (45 km/h) Crosswind, that isn't an easy job

Try a A300-600 in 35kts across in a typhoon at HKG in 1000m vis in heavy rain- makes 24 knots seem like a calm summers day

Actually 24kts is (Just) in the autoland limit for the A300 so had they used that it might have been a different result if it was available.

Edited July 21, 2007 by dekka007

[Mid]

Can the VP make an ASR go missing - very unlikely and far to dangerous. The pilots licence is at stake here and he will protect himself adn his career by filing the form for sure.

can a VP cause a ASR not to be written ??

[dekka007]

Can the VP make an ASR go missing - very unlikely and far to dangerous. The pilots licence is at stake here and he will protect himself adn his career by filing the form for sure.

can a VP cause a ASR not to be written ??

Good question. Thailand......not sure.

Put it this way if filing an ASR i make 3 copies 1 each for the crew and 1 submitted to the company and keep these for a period of time. So if the DOA / CAA coming knocking on my door trying to suspend my licence i present them with a dated/signed copy of the ASR/MOR. Again its all about covering your ass in that line of work. And if the crew did not file one they are not covering their ass. So if the company fails to submit it I have it.

I do know companies do not like to many MOR filed against them as it makes the DOA start taking a closer look at the operation.

I am still convinced this story is NATION bullshit as usual......Aviation related horror stories make great reading in the press...whether its plane endangering cracks in the runway or some other exagerated nonsense

Edited July 21, 2007 by dekka007

[Mid]

confused as to where you find the bs ?

a ) didn't happen , full stop ?

b ) happened and was handled correctly , lying VP ?

c ) happened and wasn't handled correctly , lying VP ?

d ) ??

Edited July 21, 2007 by Mid

[dekka007]

ok Here is my take on it:

Main landing gear left the runway (On vacating the high speed exit) - no big deal sh*t happens everyday somewhere in the world.

TG Maintenance personal involved to repair a/c. Airport authority investigation DCA investigation TG inverstigation.

Crew did not file MOR / ASR on the day of incident. DCA ask TG where is the ASR/MOR for this particular incident we are looking at now. TG say ah we cant find it / not filed yet. Rapped knuckles for TG for not filing it - no problem will get crew to file it now.

The media is making this out as a cover up...........nonsense impossible. 3 Independent investigations from 3 parties plus maintenance action. It was not covered up and it was not failed to be reported.

And I love the quote aircraft was repaired in a secretive manner..........how exactly do u do that with a 130t airplane....

However there is another way of looking at it. Were the crew aware that the a/c wheel left the paved surface? And if not that is why no ASR was filed because they were unaware? - possibilities.

VP of an airline has no idea about the operational side. The newspaper should have spoke to the Fleet Managers or Chief Pilot or Operations Director.

At the end of the day there are so many things to speculate on what happened here. But in my professional opinion a COVER UP is not one of them.

Edited July 21, 2007 by dekka007

[Mid]

personally I think your on the money with the exception of the VP .

he's quoted by name and quite frankly isn't instilling any confidence ,

passenger saftey must come ABOVE all else .

thanxs for the professional input .

[dekka007]

It would also be the first airline in the world where the board / VP gets reports on the daily ASR. Airline incidents only get to that level with hull loss / fatalities.

To give u an example my previous employer used to have 20-30 ASR reports filed per day ranging from cabin crew spilling hot water on her hand to near mid-air collisions. There is no way all these reports arrive on the VP desk.

So I am not surprised when he said that he had received no reports about it - which would be normal.

Edited July 21, 2007 by dekka007

[Mid]

THAI executive vice president Narongsak Sangapong yesterday flatly denied that it ever took place.

''There was no such incident. I have not received any reports about it,'' he stated, insisting the story was based on ''imagination and hearsay''.

''The pilot would have certainly reported to the parties concerned if the incident had really occurred,'' ACM Narongsak said

your being too kind .

Thats the wrong man in that job .

[cdnvic]

I think it probably did

Perhaps not to the extent the media are reporting. Must be a A300-600 thing at BKK because about 1 year ago another A300-600 went off the the same runway due to uneven engine spool up. Scary airplane

Rubbish. The A-300 has a better safety record than the 747.

[dekka007]

Rubbish

Please do explain exactly which part is rubbish......

I think you will find that most pilots on the A300 who have flown the 74 series would much prefer to be in the 747. The A300-600 is a mishmash of technologies and a hybrid mix of glass cockpit and classic technologies which does not always work as expected. Combine that with the control feel and small wing - its a tough airplane.

All drivers that I know on the A300-600 myself included find it one of the most challenging widebody a/c to operate. Its an airplane that will lead u into some horrible situations very quickly if you do not keep on top of it....but I wont scare you with those

Your statistics on the A300 being safer than the 747 intrigue me.....off the top of my head i think there is about 220 A300 aircraft in service and total loss has been around 10-12 of those. 747 accident statistics i dont know but i think there is 1500 in service roughly with the same accidents numbers as the A300...........

I was being a little tongue in cheek about BKK and A300-600 just seems to be a lot by coincidence of A300 problems at BKK my own company includeded

Edited July 21, 2007 by dekka007

[cdnvic]

Dekka, your glib "scary airplane" comments just foster yet more unnecessary fear amongst travellers.

Boeing 747 - 14.8 million flights - 24 fatal events = Rate of 1.62 per million flights.

Airbus 300 - 8 million flights - 9 fatal events = Rate of 1.13 per million flights.

Dec 2004 statistics (airdisaster.com)

Edited July 21, 2007 by cdnvic

[dekka007]

Include the A310 in the statistics - its the same airplane.

Yes you are right perhaps I should refrain from "glib" comments. It is after all still the safest method of transportation.

[bkkandrew]

Dekka, your glib "scary airplane" comments just foster yet more unnecessary fear amongst travellers.

Boeing 747 - 14.8 million flights - 24 fatal events = Rate of 1.62 per million flights.

Airbus 300 - 8 million flights - 9 fatal events = Rate of 1.13 per million flights.

Dec 2004 statistics (airdisaster.com)

Sorry for being ignorent, but doesn't that make the Airbus safer than the 747?

[dekka007]

Sorry for being ignorent, but doesn't that make the Airbus safer than the 747?

With those figures yes. Depends where you get the statistics so many places quote different figures. U have to include the A310 also.

[cdnvic]

Sorry for being ignorent, but doesn't that make the Airbus safer than the 747?

With those figures yes. Depends where you get the statistics so many places quote different figures. U have to include the A310 also.

That gives a rate of 1.30, still better than the 747 (which I don't intend to rag on, it's a very safe aircraft)

[dekka007]

I would still rather fly on a 747 than A300 even with those quoted statistics. Statistics have their place sure. But everyone I know who works on A300, maintenance and pilots would much rather be on a 747 or 737 (Which has even worse statistics). So I wouldnt read to much into the numbers to be honest.

[geriatrickid]

This news report doesn't seem accurate. If landing gear repairs were handled locally, I doubt there was significant damage. An Airbus requires specialized servicing and all significant repairs are coordinated through one of the regional service centers with either the aircraft sent to a special service depot or technicians dispatched from a service hub. TG doesn't do major repairs on its Airbus fleet. The local maintenance crew has to file its reports and a reason has to be included in those reports for the repairs. Therefore, some people at TG had to have knowledge of the incident. This is the kind of thing that shows up on the executives daily briefing log under aircraft/airport incidents.

I find it hard to believe that TG as a whole would screw around with this, particularly since it's reporting obligations are stated in the aircraft lease agreements. TG has to follow the manufacturer's equipment incident reporting protocols and failure to comply with the aircraft leasing agreement is considered a default.

More importantly, inappropriate conduct would result in having certification questioned or pulled by the FAA and the ETC which would then shut TG out of its foreign markets. It's just not worth it.

I think this has more to do with the airport's current international accreditation troubles and worries. Correct me if I am wrong, but IATA still hasn't granted its full safety certificate yet and this is in part due to still unresolved issues with the granting of Aerodrome worthiness by the Thai Civil Aviation Department. As well, Star Alliance has been voicing its concerns about the airport and safety etc. If an incident occurred, wouldn't it alleviate pressure on the airport authority if the responsibility could be shifted to the airline, particularly when it was a Star Alliance member?

[000]

Professionalism of THAI cockpit crew questioned after bad landing

The professionalism of Thai Airways International's cockpit crew has been questioned by aviation experts after one of its pilots supposedly failed to report a recent incident in which a THAI aircraft skidded off the runway at Suvarnabhumi airport. The 260-seat Airbus A300-600 was landing after an afternoon flight from Phuket about two weeks ago in 24-knot winds and rain when it skidded off the left side of the runway, according to industry sources.

Most passengers on board the THAI jetliner were unaware of the incident which caused only minor damage to the aircraft and the runway, with no injuries or fatalities. The aircraft's left landing gear sank into the soft soil on the edge of the runway before the cockpit crew managed to pull the wheels back up on the tarmac and proceeded to park the plane safely, the sources said.

More from the Bangkok Post here.

This was not a bad landing. Bad landings are when you hit the pavement so hard, that grandma loses her teeth only to find them embedded in the seat back in front of her. That's a bad landing.

When you hit runway lights, go off the runway and then mire your wheels in the mud, we consider that an incident or accident.

[bkkandrew]

When you hit runway lights, go off the runway and then mire your wheels in the mud, we consider that an incident or accident.

And you are a nutcase. Thank goodness you have nothing to do with airline safety...

[000]

When you hit runway lights, go off the runway and then mire your wheels in the mud, we consider that an incident or accident.

And you are a nutcase. Thank goodness you have nothing to do with airline safety...

I am a Captain for Northwest. What's your pedigree? Calling me a nutcase only emphasizes that you haven't a clue when it comes to this topic. Bad landings happen all the time - knocking out runway lights thankfully don't happen often and never in my career have I ever seen anything like that in my flying. He should have gone around for another shot at landing the plane but many companies frown on the go around as it costs several thousand dollars more fuel to execute it, fly to the fix - and then make another approach.

Bending the airplane is not considered just a "bad" landing.

000

Edited July 21, 2007 by Guest

[bkkandrew]

When you hit runway lights, go off the runway and then mire your wheels in the mud, we consider that an incident or accident.

And you are a nutcase. Thank goodness you have nothing to do with airline safety...

I am a Captain for Northwest. What's your pedigree? Calling me a nutcase only emphasizes that you haven't a clue when it comes to this topic. Bad landings happen all the time - knocking out runway lights thankfully don't happen often and never in my career have I ever seen anything like that in my flying. He should have gone around for another shot at landing the plane but many companies frown on the go around as it costs several thousand dollars more fuel to execute it, fly to the fix - and then make another approach.

Bending the airplane is not considered just a "bad" landing.

000

Well, I have emailed your post to customer relations at Northwest. I (used) to fly with them quite often. I am glad I don't now...

[cdnvic]

Too much drama over semantics here. The incident took place after the landing so is technically not a bad landing. Customer service at Northwest will do nothing as there is no way to see who made the post.

Incidentally, Northwest has an outstanding safety record, one of the best in the industry actually, so maybe you should think twice before flying into hysterics and switching elsewhere.

[000]

When you hit runway lights, go off the runway and then mire your wheels in the mud, we consider that an incident or accident.

And you are a nutcase. Thank goodness you have nothing to do with airline safety...

I am a Captain for Northwest. What's your pedigree? Calling me a nutcase only emphasizes that you haven't a clue when it comes to this topic. Bad landings happen all the time - knocking out runway lights thankfully don't happen often and never in my career have I ever seen anything like that in my flying. He should have gone around for another shot at landing the plane but many companies frown on the go around as it costs several thousand dollars more fuel to execute it, fly to the fix - and then make another approach.

Bending the airplane is not considered just a "bad" landing.

000

Well, I have emailed your post to customer relations at Northwest. I (used) to fly with them quite often. I am glad I don't now...

Yes - I'm sure they will recognize me by my handle. What meds are you not taking?

Edited July 21, 2007 by Guest

[cdnvic]

Be wary next time you hear an announcement from "Captain 000"

[000]

Too much drama over semantics here. The incident took place after the landing so is technically not a bad landing. Customer service at Northwest will do nothing as there is no way to see who made the post.

Incidentally, Northwest has an outstanding safety record, one of the best in the industry actually, so maybe you should think twice before flying into hysterics and switching elsewhere.

A good landing is any landing that doesn't bend the airplane. When the airplane is bent, it is not a good landing. Hence, it is a bad landing. The pilot should have executed a go around as soon as he thought control was lost.

It is not a sign of a weak pilot who executes a go around, it is the sign of good judgment when a pilot throws in the towel only to try again.

000

[bkkandrew]

Too much drama over semantics here. The incident took place after the landing so is technically not a bad landing. Customer service at Northwest will do nothing as there is no way to see who made the post.

Incidentally, Northwest has an outstanding safety record, one of the best in the industry actually, so maybe you should think twice before flying into hysterics and switching elsewhere.

Well, (thank God) I don't have to fly back to US nowadays, so I am unconcerned...

Captain 000 can continue flying in as haphazard a manner as he wants for all I care!

Point of order: NW would, I am sure, be interested in negative publicity in the public domain, hence emailing them...

Edited July 21, 2007 by bkkandrew