Professionalism Of Thai Cockpit Crew Questioned After Bad Landing

[cdnvic]

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

I think you're taking this (and your actions) too seriously.

So they want to know anytime someone talks about them on web forums? What can they do about it? I can't comment on Capt 000's authenticity, but there's no shortage of earthbound folks online claiming to be pilots. It's no easier for them to figure out who this anonymous person is than you or I can.

For that reason they'll likely ignore it.

Edited July 21, 2007 by cdnvic

[000]

Likely ignore it? After they stop laughing.

[Ijustwannateach]

I'm actually enjoying a troll, for once...

[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.

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...

Haphazard? I'm baffled by your inability to parse words in English as I wrote clearly and plainly. Whether you believe that I am a pilot or not is not my concern. As pilot in command of an aircraft my first concern is for the safety and well being of all aboard. Part of my job is not damaging the airplane. The airlines tend to take a dim view of this manuever and it is usually career ending.

The pilots of the Thai Air plane got the left landing gear stuck in mud and then they forced the aircraft out of the mud likely stressing the airframe in the process. The damage done to the aircraft will be more than just the landing gear.

One must wonder at the level of training for the Thai Air pilots.

000

[OlRedEyes]

One must wonder at the level of training for the Thai Air pilots.

000

I wonder if any amount of training can override ingrained culture...

[slapout]

There was quite a discussion recently on pilot expierence thru out the airline industry. Due to 9/11 and subsquent layoff of airline crews, pilot included, the newspaper article made a point of inexperienced pilots being used by some of the airlines. For once someone was thinking ahead instead of after a accident. I am not a pilot or frequent flyer, anymore and dont plan on being so no argument from me on this topic. I did think 000 made a valid point.

[taxexile]

I can't comment on Capt 000's authenticity,

he looks like a pilot to me !

[Gary A]

I DO doubt that it happened as reported. Had the landing gear been off the runway it WOULD have sunk into the swamp and they would NOT have been able to drive it out. I would have required some HEAVY duty equipment to pull it out.

[dekka007]

From Rumour control at BKK. The a/c did not leave the runway at highspeed during the landing rollout phase.

The aircraft main gear left the runway on vacating the high speed turnoff during the left turn onto the taxiway at what speed - who knows but less than 35 kts sure.

I am a little confused as to which statement is attracting so much attention to member 000 that is resulting in people threatening to contact NW customer service - bizarre.

I agree with 000 it was not a bad landing it was a accident / incident.

Edited July 22, 2007 by dekka007

[000]

From Rumour control at BKK. The a/c did not leave the runway at highspeed during the landing rollout phase.

The aircraft main gear left the runway on vacating the high speed turnoff during the left turn onto the taxiway at what speed - who knows but less than 35 kts sure.

I am a little confused as to which statement is attracting so much attention to member 000 that is resulting in people threatening to contact NW customer service - bizarre.

I agree with 000 it was not a bad landing it was a accident / incident.

Some of these people are clearly not taking their prescribed medication. We know what a bad landing is, just ask the Captain who has made too many flights and never landed the aircraft - we all get rusty now and then and it sometimes takes the runway meeting the plane hard to shake some off.

The Thai aircraft had major damage -

Anyone who wants to take issue can march to their favorite pharmacy in Thailand to pick up some Prozac.

[UnknownPoster]

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.

[geriatrickid]

Lemme see now; A wheel got caught in the mud. As a frequent flier, I think I'll take that any day over the near misses at US airports with their lack of air traffic controllers and overcrowded tarmacs.

Airplanes cost big bucks. I doubt that a major airline is going to hand it over to an incompetent as a matter of policy (Ok, there may be an exception with US Airways, but otherwise I am confident).

As for questioning the pilots' professionalism, sorry but that's stretching it. I don't know how many of you actually have spoken to or know commercial airline pilots, particularly those that have air force experience. You're starting with people that have above average intelligence, and that by the time they are piloting a big plane are very mature. Above all, they have had the concept of responsibility and professionalism drilled into them since basic training. As for the silliness about reporting someone's post to NWA, get real. It is unattributed and not on behalf of NWA.

[Mid]

Lemme see now; A wheel got caught in the mud. As a frequent flier, I think I'll take that any day over the near misses at US airports with their lack of air traffic controllers and overcrowded tarmacs.

Airplanes cost big bucks. I doubt that a major airline is going to hand it over to an incompetent as a matter of policy (Ok, there may be an exception with US Airways, but otherwise I am confident).

As for questioning the pilots' professionalism, sorry but that's stretching it. I don't know how many of you actually have spoken to or know commercial airline pilots, particularly those that have air force experience. You're starting with people that have above average intelligence, and that by the time they are piloting a big plane are very mature. Above all, they have had the concept of responsibility and professionalism drilled into them since basic training. As for the silliness about reporting someone's post to NWA, get real. It is unattributed and not on behalf of NWA.

and the omission , to your post ?

ie the VP .

[vermin on arrival]

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 .

I am with Mid concerning the VP. If he didn't know about this because he had not been informed of the daily documentation, he should have said he would investigate the allegations, or he should have said no comment. Instead he denies that the incident ever took place, without even attempting to ascertain the veracity of the report. This face saving denial does not inspire confidence in the management of the airline, or at the very least, that individual's competence.

Edited July 22, 2007 by vermin on arrival

[Mid]

thanxs for that ,

I do believe that is the real issue here .

[dr_Pat_Pong]

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)

Seconded

[Minburi]

Sounds like the story is missing some points. A 24 knot head wind or tail wind or cross wind? Putting a wheel into the sand/dirt on the edge ot the taxiway is not good but far from damaging an aircraft and is an incident not an accident in the aviation world. And happening at the high speed it an happen and the aircraft not getting stuck shows it was not to bad. I would like to see the full report before making a statement about how good or bad the crew was. Who is to say the the crew did not report the incident and upper management did not report or consider it a situation worth reporting?

[000]

Sounds like the story is missing some points. A 24 knot head wind or tail wind or cross wind? Putting a wheel into the sand/dirt on the edge ot the taxiway is not good but far from damaging an aircraft and is an incident not an accident in the aviation world. And happening at the high speed it an happen and the aircraft not getting stuck shows it was not to bad. I would like to see the full report before making a statement about how good or bad the crew was. Who is to say the the crew did not report the incident and upper management did not report or consider it a situation worth reporting?

Did you read the article in the newspaper? Getting your main gear stuck is one thing, but freeing it yourself is quite another? What did he do to free the main gear? How much thrust did he have to use in order to "free" the airplane? He did enough to damage the gear, parts of the wing, and he destroyed runway lights.

Incident? Maybe. They closed the runway for an hour and then under the cover of darkness repaired the airplane quietly.

What else aren't they telling us?

[Maestro]

The pilots of the Thai Air plane got the left landing gear stuck in mud and then they forced the aircraft out of the mud likely stressing the airframe in the process. The damage done to the aircraft will be more than just the landing gear.

I think Captain 000 makes an interesting point here. Would the damage to the aircraft have been a lot less if the pilot had not forced it back onto the runway?

I remember seeing news reports, involving planes of other airlines and at other airports, where the plane was left right where it was after a wheel got off the runway and stuck in soft earth and the passengers were taken off the plane on the runway. This probably saved the company money on repairs, but it wasn’t so good for the image. As regards passenger safety, perhaps it makes no difference one way or the other but it would make sense to me to try to minimise the damage to the plane and thus get it operational again faster.

--

Maestro

[Minburi]

You want to talk about problems. He used some extra power to power out as he slowed which is smart as he keeps the movement going on the aircraft. You want to see problems? You stop and let the gear sink into the ground which it would do with an aircraft of the weight of an airbus 300. Now the plane is stuck and will need a crane to get free. Sending a bus and stair truck out to a plane with one gear sinking to the ground is stress. Partly going off the highspeed and hitting a few taxi and exit lights is minor and getting stuck are two different things and one makes a good story where nothing has really happened other then a bit of dirt and some lights are damaged.

As for the crew freeing it. How do you think they freed it? Got out and shovel? No they powered it out and also did any of the passengers notice? No? So how stuck was it really?

Edited July 22, 2007 by Minburi

[onethailand]

I fly Northwest - which was Northworst 10 years ago but they really turned around their act - and I have never had an incident with them so certainly I trust that airline.

Thai, on the other hand, there's always a problem with one thing or another lately - on all of my flights this year except the last one. Maintenance isn't one of Thai's strong points.

I think what needs to be determined is just how "stuck" the landing gear was. No doubt it could've powered itself out of many situations - but there's no telling how bad the situation was. On the whole though I'd have to agree with 000.

The Thai VP was probably out of line, almost typical. No way they are going to admit to incidents easily.

[rafval]

thanxs for that ,

I do believe that is the real issue here .

I agree, but that seems pretty standard in Thailand, he's possably consulting his fortune teller now to see whats really going on

[UnknownPoster]

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.

Regarding the Surat Thani Crash.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/jan1999/air-j13.shtml

THAI pilot pointed out, the aircrew is under considerable pressure from management to land aircraft and save all the costs of an aborted flight.

The ILS or Instrument Landing System had been dismantled at least six months previously as part of construction at the airport to lengthen the runway.

Along the runway, every second tracklight had been turned off as a cost-cutting measure--increasing the distance between lights from 60 to 120 metres.

Furthermore, a set of Precision Approach-Path Indicator (PAPI) lights, usually installed at the approach end of a runway, had also been removed.

Also, many passengers disregarded the aircrews direction and started using their cellphones to contact their drivers waiting at the Airport to report delay.

[000]

The pilots of the Thai Air plane got the left landing gear stuck in mud and then they forced the aircraft out of the mud likely stressing the airframe in the process. The damage done to the aircraft will be more than just the landing gear.

I think Captain 000 makes an interesting point here. Would the damage to the aircraft have been a lot less if the pilot had not forced it back onto the runway?

I remember seeing news reports, involving planes of other airlines and at other airports, where the plane was left right where it was after a wheel got off the runway and stuck in soft earth and the passengers were taken off the plane on the runway. This probably saved the company money on repairs, but it wasn't so good for the image. As regards passenger safety, perhaps it makes no difference one way or the other but it would make sense to me to try to minimise the damage to the plane and thus get it operational again faster.

--

Maestro

I'll answer this question as a Captain:

The three most dangerous phases of flying an aircraft are landing, takeoff and sitting on the runway. Runway incursions happen far more frequently than you think and sitting on an active runway is not where I want to be. I want to land, and get off the active runway as is practicable. The last thing I want is to sit on the runway where there is a chance of someone landing on top me, or taking off without knowing I'm there. If you think controllers don't make mistakes you better think twice.

I am the pilot in command. Everything that happens in that airplane is my responsibility. I can blame the controller but what good does it do my passengers if I'm dead or we are all dead.

And for any of you who think I or any other pilot cares so much about you in the back, I care about me first which is a good thing since I'm driving. I want to fly again later - so my self preservation fits in your self-interest.

He should have shutdown and evacuated the people. That the plane was "fixed" in secret just tells me that there was more going on - the logs however shouldn't lie.

000

[000]

You want to talk about problems. He used some extra power to power out as he slowed which is smart as he keeps the movement going on the aircraft. You want to see problems? You stop and let the gear sink into the ground which it would do with an aircraft of the weight of an airbus 300. Now the plane is stuck and will need a crane to get free. Sending a bus and stair truck out to a plane with one gear sinking to the ground is stress. Partly going off the highspeed and hitting a few taxi and exit lights is minor and getting stuck are two different things and one makes a good story where nothing has really happened other then a bit of dirt and some lights are damaged.

As for the crew freeing it. How do you think they freed it? Got out and shovel? No they powered it out and also did any of the passengers notice? No? So how stuck was it really?

You'll have to show me what the company policy is for soft-field landings in an Airbus.

[Minburi]

You want to talk about problems. He used some extra power to power out as he slowed which is smart as he keeps the movement going on the aircraft. You want to see problems? You stop and let the gear sink into the ground which it would do with an aircraft of the weight of an airbus 300. Now the plane is stuck and will need a crane to get free. Sending a bus and stair truck out to a plane with one gear sinking to the ground is stress. Partly going off the highspeed and hitting a few taxi and exit lights is minor and getting stuck are two different things and one makes a good story where nothing has really happened other then a bit of dirt and some lights are damaged.

As for the crew freeing it. How do you think they freed it? Got out and shovel? No they powered it out and also did any of the passengers notice? No? So how stuck was it really?

You'll have to show me what the company policy is for soft-field landings in an Airbus.

Ask Air France about soft field landings and a Air bus in Toronto with their 340. If any of you have the Maintence logs or pictures to prove anything on this incident and Thai Air then please show me till then its all speculation and nothing more and some paper reporting it and making mountains out of mole hills.

[000]

You want to talk about problems. He used some extra power to power out as he slowed which is smart as he keeps the movement going on the aircraft. You want to see problems? You stop and let the gear sink into the ground which it would do with an aircraft of the weight of an airbus 300. Now the plane is stuck and will need a crane to get free. Sending a bus and stair truck out to a plane with one gear sinking to the ground is stress. Partly going off the highspeed and hitting a few taxi and exit lights is minor and getting stuck are two different things and one makes a good story where nothing has really happened other then a bit of dirt and some lights are damaged.

As for the crew freeing it. How do you think they freed it? Got out and shovel? No they powered it out and also did any of the passengers notice? No? So how stuck was it really?

You'll have to show me what the company policy is for soft-field landings in an Airbus.

Ask Air France about soft field landings and a Air bus in Toronto with their 340. If any of you have the Maintence logs or pictures to prove anything on this incident and Thai Air then please show me till then its all speculation and nothing more and some paper reporting it and making mountains out of mole hills.

Where is my whack a mole/shill hammer? I know I left it here somewhere ... let me see .... ah yes here is is

Rule number 1: when your facts don't add up, deflect deflect, deflect

I don't give a shiite about what Air France's manual says, because we are discussing Thai Air.

Stick with the topic and thread and try not to wander.

000

[Minburi]

You want to talk about problems. He used some extra power to power out as he slowed which is smart as he keeps the movement going on the aircraft. You want to see problems? You stop and let the gear sink into the ground which it would do with an aircraft of the weight of an airbus 300. Now the plane is stuck and will need a crane to get free. Sending a bus and stair truck out to a plane with one gear sinking to the ground is stress. Partly going off the highspeed and hitting a few taxi and exit lights is minor and getting stuck are two different things and one makes a good story where nothing has really happened other then a bit of dirt and some lights are damaged.

As for the crew freeing it. How do you think they freed it? Got out and shovel? No they powered it out and also did any of the passengers notice? No? So how stuck was it really?

You'll have to show me what the company policy is for soft-field landings in an Airbus.

Ask Air France about soft field landings and a Air bus in Toronto with their 340. If any of you have the Maintence logs or pictures to prove anything on this incident and Thai Air then please show me till then its all speculation and nothing more and some paper reporting it and making mountains out of mole hills.

Where is my whack a mole/shill hammer? I know I left it here somewhere ... let me see .... ah yes here is is

Rule number 1: when your facts don't add up, deflect deflect, deflect

I don't give a shiite about what Air France's manual says, because we are discussing Thai Air.

Stick with the topic and thread and try not to wander.

000

Yeah I would want to fly with you. If you can not relate and connect a previous comment on Air Bus and soft landings to Air France and their 340 crash in YYZ why are you even making quotes?

So connect your dots.. Passengers did not even notice a problem, Secret repairs where is your proof. A newspaper report ..Oh please...Stress on the air frame. You do the NDT work? Your a pilot if that what would you know about MAintence or the Thai Air MPM? Were you there? because enless you were the pilot in command on that landing and have facts based on proof you are guessing so you stick to facts please which no one has here. You want to question the Maintence that is fine but you could second guess alot of companies the the way they do things. And the biggest danger to passengers is a pilots ego lets see if you can get that under control.

[slapout]

I havent flown NW in about 18 years but 000 is getting me ready to book my next flight just to see if he would put in an appearance. Kind of like looking for Roy Rogers to get this mess taken care of. To bad Thai airline are not privey to all of this, it may point out some of their shortcomings and why their international trade has dropped off in some areas.

[cdnvic]

What does soft field landing procedures have to to with the Air France crash at Toronto? It landed too far down the runway and overshot the end, crashing down an embankment. Nothing at all to do with a soft field.