A Thai Airways captain faced criticism over a decision to divert a Bangkok-Melbourne flight to Sydney due to poor visibility, sparking online debate.

 

The incident occurred on January 28 when the flight was unable to land in Melbourne as planned. A passenger, claiming extensive flying experience, posted a complaint on Facebook accusing the captain of not carrying enough fuel and lacking assertiveness with air traffic control (ATC).

 

However, the captain, known as Faisal, responded in detail, explaining standard aviation procedures and fuel regulations. Eventually, the passenger retracted the post and publicly apologised for any misunderstanding caused by their initial complaint.

 

On January 28, Thai Airways flight TG465 from Bangkok was scheduled to land in Melbourne but instead touched down in Sydney at 8.51am local time, due to low visibility and thick fog at the intended destination. The decision to divert was made after less than 20 minutes of attempting to land in Melbourne, as the flight was running low on fuel.

 

The circumstances led to heated discussions on social media when a passenger, who frequently flew the route, questioned the captain’s judgement. The passenger’s post suggested that other flights were landing in Melbourne without issue, as clear skies were visible through the aircraft windows.

 

By Samantha Rose

Caption: Photo courtesy of Sanook

 

Full story: The Thaiger 2024-01-30

 

- Cigna offers a range of visa-compliant plans that meet the minimum requirement of medical treatment, including COVID-19, up to THB 3m. For more information on all expat health insurance plans click here.

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

 

Should pretty much never criticise a Captain's decision to divert, go-around, delay or any other such action.

 

Getthereitis or pressure to not incur additional costs has been a major factor in countless accidents. The idiot with the "flying experience" is a complete tool.

Well done Pilot - everyone safe, no souls risked....  

 

If the visibility at the destination airport is below regulations diverting to an alternative airport with sufficient fuel is somewhat of an SOP no-brainer...   only an idiot would criticise this.

10 hours ago, Woof999 said:

Should pretty much never criticise a Captain's decision to divert, go-around, delay or any other such action.

 

Getthereitis or pressure to not incur additional costs has been a major factor in countless accidents. The idiot with the "flying experience" is a complete tool.

Agree 

I know Oz is a big place but that is quite a diversion, hardly surprising fuel was a concern. Could Canberra ever be used?

45 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

I know Oz is a big place but that is quite a diversion, hardly surprising fuel was a concern. Could Canberra ever be used?

  Actually, its a good decision. Melbourne is several hundred Ks south of Sydney , so were going past it on the way. Canberra Airport is in a hole in the mountains, and if weather is marginal wouldnt be a good choice. Also the airport may not be suitable or the aircraft..

Potemkin airline.

Why wont they fly to Brisbane? Not enough fuel?😊

Captain is in charge. end of.

12 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

The incident occurred on January 28 when the flight was unable to land in Melbourne as planned. A passenger, claiming extensive flying experience, posted a complaint on Facebook accusing the captain of not carrying enough fuel and lacking assertiveness with air traffic control (ATC).

 

However, the captain, known as Faisal, responded in detail, explaining standard aviation procedures and fuel regulations. Eventually, the passenger retracted the post and publicly apologised for any misunderstanding caused by their initial complaint.

Back seat driver...

24 minutes ago, findlay13 said:

Potemkin airline.

Why wont they fly to Brisbane? Not enough fuel?😊

Before the flight even leaves Bangkok, alternative landing sites are already programmed into the flight data.

Maybe the passenger should get a job as a pilot.  

34 minutes ago, swm59nj said:

Maybe the passenger should get a job as a pilot.  

Yes but then he would have two jobs. Pilot and backseat driver.

8 minutes ago, Asquith Production said:

Yes but then he would have two jobs. Pilot and backseat driver.

And a know all that knows  sweet fanny adams.

So even pilots have to deal with backseat drivers 🤪

 

Quote

 

A passenger, claiming extensive flying experience

 

 

This fellow hasn't any idea of the reason behind the decision to divert. The captain is in charge and that's the end of the story. TG always used to carry far too much fuel going Australia, as they didn't comprehend the Australian rules for minimum fuel required in Australian airspace. They now do, and it is sufficient to allow for a timely decision to be made, in the fairly rare event unforecast weather eventuates at the planned destination.

However.... looking at the actual weather on that day and time, the wind was from the SE and runway 16 has a Cat 111b ILS, allowing for landings with no cloud base and 75m visibility minima. Thai (albeit a long time ago) were never able to maintain certification of the automatic landing capability of the old 747's (no idea if that applies to the aircraft used on this sector), so if a CAT 111b capability existed at Melbourne at the time, vis was reported at or or above 75m (and equipment may not be fully serviceable at the airport of course), it is probably safe to assume the aircraft was not capable, for one reason or another, or the crew were not qualified for such an approach. I think the suggestion that the passenger concerned get his pilots licence and start flying commercial heavy jets, before demonstrating his ignorance, a fairly good one.

The world is full of idiots who think they know everything. Seeing some clear weather

out the sine of a plane does not mean the the weather ahead is clear as

well.  Pilots are much better trained than the know it all passangers. IMO

Whilst I don't doubt the pilots decision, I wonder if there was a collective effort between all staff at TG to handle this smartly as would be with Singapore Airlines or Emirates, get the operations center to pro-actively reschedule on-wards flights where the airline has responsibility (same ticket number) - talk to passengers if in doubt on suitable arrangements but still allow further change if deemed unsuitable once at MEL, ensure a couple of hundred litres of drinking water prepped at SYD and loaded for the 4 hour delay, unlock the trolleys for soft drinks and snacks, provide timely cabin updates, ensure those with infant children or medical needs have everything they need and so on.

 

I can empathize with the complainer if they were stuck on the tarmac for 3 hours (not saying that was the case but as an example) with no update or refreshments, that would bring out the Karen/Ken in a lot of people.

 

A good airline in my book is one that manages the shlt show properly - i.e. when things go wrong they are on top of it. e.g. If missed next leg, walking off the gate, spot a sign, here you go Mr X here's your new boarding pass for your final destination and 20USD voucher for some food. no mega long queue at transit ticket office.

Edited January 31, 20242 yr by eyeman

50 minutes ago, Sir Swagman said:

This fellow hasn't any idea of the reason behind the decision to divert. The captain is in charge and that's the end of the story. TG always used to carry far too much fuel going Australia, as they didn't comprehend the Australian rules for minimum fuel required in Australian airspace. They now do, and it is sufficient to allow for a timely decision to be made, in the fairly rare event unforecast weather eventuates at the planned destination.

However.... looking at the actual weather on that day and time, the wind was from the SE and runway 16 has a Cat 111b ILS, allowing for landings with no cloud base and 75m visibility minima. Thai (albeit a long time ago) were never able to maintain certification of the automatic landing capability of the old 747's (no idea if that applies to the aircraft used on this sector), so if a CAT 111b capability existed at Melbourne at the time, vis was reported at or or above 75m (and equipment may not be fully serviceable at the airport of course), it is probably safe to assume the aircraft was not capable, for one reason or another, or the crew were not qualified for such an approach. I think the suggestion that the passenger concerned get his pilots licence and start flying commercial heavy jets, before demonstrating his ignorance, a fairly good one.

 

This flight was a 5 year old A350-941 so it should have had all the latest equipment. Looks like the captain assesed the situation at Melbourne before diverting to Sydney. There was no go around or missed approach.

 

 

 

 

5 hours ago, Brock said:

  Actually, its a good decision. Melbourne is several hundred Ks south of Sydney , so were going past it on the way. Canberra Airport is in a hole in the mountains, and if weather is marginal wouldnt be a good choice. Also the airport may not be suitable or the aircraft..

 

CBR might not be a CIQ airport (customs and immigration)  

17 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

A passenger, claiming extensive <insert any skill, trade, profession> experience, posted a complaint

 

Was this one of us in here?  

 

_teehee

 

The old saying comes into play here, "better safe than sorry".

Just now, Hanuman2547 said:

The old saying comes into play here, "better safe than sorry".

 

I think it has more to do with FAA regulations regarding visibility and range.

3 hours ago, Asquith Production said:

Yes but then he would have two jobs. Pilot and backseat driver.

Sounds like the missus. 

Another net-citizen I have a feeling it was a Thai as removed their post and apologized, maybe scared of Thais defamation laws, on return. 

Another example of Thai airways not listening to their customers!

 

Customer service,as their motyid goes certainywasnt customer centric 

What happened to the "customer is always right ? 

 

32 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

I think it has more to do with FAA regulations regarding visibility and range.

The reason we have FAA regulations is because they weren't being safe in the first place.  

 

What an idiot this passenger is!

52 minutes ago, georgegeorgia said:

What happened to the "customer is always right ? 

 

It was superseded by "customer is often a moron".

2 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

I think it has more to do with FAA regulations regarding visibility and range.

I wonder why you would think American regulations would apply in Thailand or Australia.

2 hours ago, Hanuman2547 said:

The reason we have FAA regulations is because they weren't being safe in the first place.  

We have? Who is 'we'?

 

Don't get me started on National Aviation regulatory requirements and oversight....