Gasping For Air: Thai Passengers React to Engine Mishap

[RobU]

1 hour ago, Georgealbert said:

Fully agree that currently Boeing’s reputation is in pieces, but we are currently seeing that every event involving a Boeing aircraft hits social media and the news immediately, and sometimes without considered opinion or expert insight, Boeing are blamed, even if is human error, airlines faults, maintenance issues. This incident was minor, with a short delay and the aircraft completed the flight after corrective action.
 

FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) issues Airworthiness Directives, to all aircraft types. These are legally enforceable rules issued by in accordance with 14 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) part 39 to correct an unsafe condition in a product. 14 CFR part 39 defines a product as an aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance.

 

A full searchable list of these directives can be found here.

 

https://drs.faa.gov/browse

 

The International Air Transport Association (IATA) recently stated that “ Flying is the safest mode of transport, with one accident for every 1.26 million flights. At this level of safety, on average a person would have to travel by air every day for 103,239 years to experience a fatal accident.”

 

In 2023 there was only a single fatal accident involving a turboprop aircraft, which resulted in 72 fatalities. Yeti Airlines Flight 691, from Kathmandu to Pokhara in Nepal, on 15 January 2023, an ATR 72, from an Franco-Italian aircraft manufacturer

 

For comparison’s sake, 158 people died in aviation accidents in 2022, with more than 65,000 dying on roads in the UK, US and EU in the same year.

 

I agree flying is the safest mode of transport, unless you fly in a Boeing. People at Boeing who were the most 'productive' were promoted without assessing why they were more productive. It turns out that cutting corners was their secret.  They then are given responsibility, big pay rises and told to enforce their methods without oversight. Anyone reporting problems was ignored or hounded out of their job. Then planes started crashing due to build defects and badly tested and implemented flight systems which Boeing denied until it was proven otherwise by external bodies and investigations after whistle blowers came forward.  No other make of aircraft has such a proportionally   poor safety record, over the past 20 years. It is right that all safety concerns with any Boeing aircraft are reported in the news otherwise the lazy, greedy and incompetent corporate managers will set about covering up again, as 'damage limitation' to the company, which is more important to them than the lives of aircrew and passengers. Witness their persistent claims that it was poor piloting that caused crashes despite suppressed evidence to the contrary. 

Edited May 8 by RobU

[stix40]

5 hours ago, AhFarangJa said:

Luxury.......We lived in a plastic bag in a septic tank.......

Luxury we dreamed of living in septic tank

Would ha' been a palace to us. We used to live in an old water tank on a rubbish tip. We got woke up every morning by having a load of rotting fish dumped all over us! House

[superal]

2 hours ago, Georgealbert said:

All aircraft have maintenance check periods and for the 737 I believe is as follows:

 

A check – every 500 FH.(flight hours) Now known as a P1 check.

 

B check – every 6 months. For modern aircraft this is now incorporated into A or C checks.

 

C check – every 4-6,000 FH / 2-3 years. Now P8, P10 or P12 checks.

 

D check – every 24-40,000 FH / 9-12 years. Typically a P48 check.

 

D Checks involves comprehensive inspections and repairs of the entire aircraft. Technicians basically dismantle the airplane and put it back together. This check can take about three to six weeks and costs several millions of dollars.

 

The aircraft in this minor incident, is leased, and the maintenance schedules, will be part of that lease agreement.

 

https://wtruib.ru/boeing_737/amm/FLIGHT_CONTROLS/

The flight maintenance schedule above does not give consideration to the distance travelled per flight . What I am getting at is e.g. a medium flight  time of say  5 hours will have taken off and landed , ( this is when most of the controls are being used ), much less than a domestic flight of say 1 hour . Indeed these short haul flights turn around is 30 minutes or less . On the go most of the day . I believe the pilot has to do a visual check after every landing . So it can  make 500 short haul flights without maintenance ? Does not sound right to me .

Not so long ago Thai Air were almost banned from the UK because of poor aircraft maintenance . One could be forgiven for thinking that all active aircraft had an engineers check after every flight or at least once a day . 

[RobU]

11 minutes ago, stix40 said:

Luxury we dreamed of living in septic tank

Would ha' been a palace to us. We used to live in an old water tank on a rubbish tip. We got woke up every morning by having a load of rotting fish dumped all over us! House

You had a house? Seriously I had friends who lived in a row of slum 4 room terraced houses that were located in a Tanyard located inside the main gates, the pedestrian side gate was left open after work finished so they could get in and out. With all the health risks and the stink associated with the dangerous chemicals used

[gargamon]

5 hours ago, Bobthegimp said:

Hey, that's from one of the twilight zones with Shatner. That will be the back of his head, a couple of years before he was in Star Trek.

[stix40]

4 minutes ago, RobU said:

You had a house? Seriously I had friends who lived in a row of slum 4 room terraced houses that were located in a Tanyard located inside the main gates, the pedestrian side gate was left open after work finished so they could get in and out. With all the health risks and the stink associated with the dangerous chemicals used

Luxury!

Right. I had to get up in the morning at ten o’clock at night, half an hour before I went to bed, , eat a lump of cold poison, work twenty-nine hours a day down mill, and pay mill owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad would kill us, and dance about on our graves singing “Hallelujah.”

[Kalasin Jo]

4 hours ago, IamNoone88 said:

Airlines really dont seem to care and as for refunds or compensation for their mistakes .... they seem untouchable and in most cases unreachable. They know 99% of passengers give up on pursuing a claim as its just too hard. 

EU regulations require airlines operating there to pay compensation to passengers for delays over 3 hours, with some exceptions. I got the minimum of €250 from Ryanair a few years back with no quibbling from them on their route Limoges, France to London Stansted. And whilst waiting we were kept updated, given a € 10 voucher to spend in the café and claim forms were distributed. It's never great to be delayed especially if that messed up onward travel but they really did a good job. They flew in from Stansted a replacement unit for the failed one, an engineer to fit it and a fresh crew. 

Different story when I decided to book the same journey by train and strike action led to cancellations on the day. No compensation, 3 years to recover the price of all the tickets. A lesson learnt: do consider carefully buying travel insurance to cover the journey!

[PETERTHEEATER]

9 hours ago, flyingtlger said:

Ba ha ha ha......

Why was there no option of a bagel? 😒

[RobU]

19 minutes ago, stix40 said:

Luxury!

Right. I had to get up in the morning at ten o’clock at night, half an hour before I went to bed, , eat a lump of cold poison, work twenty-nine hours a day down mill, and pay mill owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad would kill us, and dance about on our graves singing “Hallelujah.”

🤣😂 Good one  My post about the Tanyard is actually true. All 3 of my friends died in their 30's from different forms of lung disease. 

[Kaopad999]

9 hours ago, webfact said:

Nok Air offered to  provided a donut and a bottle of water as compensation

LMAO 🤣

We almost ended your life, but here's a bottle of water and a doughnut to help you recover from the trauma.. 🤣

Edited May 8 by Kaopad999

[Georgealbert]

33 minutes ago, superal said:

The flight maintenance schedule above does not give consideration to the distance travelled per flight . What I am getting at is e.g. a medium flight  time of say  5 hours will have taken off and landed , ( this is when most of the controls are being used ), much less than a domestic flight of say 1 hour . Indeed these short haul flights turn around is 30 minutes or less . On the go most of the day . I believe the pilot has to do a visual check after every landing . So it can  make 500 short haul flights without maintenance ? Does not sound right to me .

Not so long ago Thai Air were almost banned from the UK because of poor aircraft maintenance . One could be forgiven for thinking that all active aircraft had an engineers check after every flight or at least once a day . 

 

My post was just a basic overview.

 

Commercial operators must follow a continuous inspection program approved by the countries aviation authority, such as;

 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the United States.

Transport Canada Civil Aviation Directorate (TCCA) in Canada.

European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) in EU.

Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) in UK.

 

Each aircraft operator prepares a Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Program (CAMP) which includes both routine and detailed inspections, following national guidelines. Many following FAA standards.

 

“The FAA directs that maintenance requirements be generated for each aircraft type in a Maintenance Review Board Report (MRBR), which is based on the analysis performed as outlined in ATA (Air transportation Association) "MSG-3 Operator/Manufacturer Scheduled Maintenance Development" document (MSG-3 is for Maintenance Steering Group – 3rd Task Force).

Aircraft with MSG-3-derived maintenance programs employ usage parameters —such as flight hours, calendar time, or flight cycles—for each required maintenance task included in the MRBR. This allows for more flexibility in the scheduling of maintenance to minimise aircraft downtime.”

 

https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/ws_prod-g-doc-Events-2010-jan-19-Ref-9.-MRB-process.pdf
 

All Thai airlines came close to a ban in 2015, but European aviation authorities decided not to place any restrictions on Thai airlines operating in Europe, saying they were convinced that Thai authorities are committed to rectifying safety shortcomings cited by the International Civil Aviation Organisation.(ICAO).

In June 2015, ICAO had added Thailand to a list of 12 other nations found deficient in managing their airlines and ability to conduct air operator certifications.

A week before the FAA had downgraded Thailand's aviation safety rating to "category 2," barring Thai airlines from establishing new services to the United States.

Category 2 means a nation's civil aviation authority is deficient in one or more critical areas or that the country lacks laws and regulations needed to oversee airlines in line with international standards.

[Bobthegimp]

Someone deleted my post. 

[PETERTHEEATER]

7 hours ago, SAFETY FIRST said:

Has Songkhla got an airport?

 

I've always had to fly from Bangkok to HatYai, then drive to Songkhla. 

 

Yes. VTSH.

[Georgealbert]

3 minutes ago, Kaopad999 said:

LMAO 🤣

We almost ended your life, but here's a bottle of water and a doughnut to help you recover from the trauma.. 🤣

Please explain what trauma you think they suffered. 
 

The passengers got a bit sweaty and delayed, the plane was not involved in an emergency and there was never any danger. 

[Kaopad999]

2 minutes ago, Georgealbert said:

Please explain what trauma you think they suffered. 

I dunno, you'd have to ask them.. But, judging from their reactions, I'd say they look pretty traumatized.

 

[Kalasin Jo]

31 minutes ago, PETERTHEEATER said:

Why was there no option of a bagel? 😒

No. It wasn't the now defunct Thai Smile, reabsorbed in to Thai Airways. I used them regularly. I miss them. 

[Georgealbert]

1 hour ago, RobU said:

I agree flying is the safest mode of transport, unless you fly in a Boeing. People at Boeing who were the most 'productive' were promoted without assessing why they were more productive. It turns out that cutting corners was their secret.  They then are given responsibility, big pay rises and told to enforce their methods without oversight. Anyone reporting problems was ignored or hounded out of their job. Then planes started crashing due to build defects and badly tested and implemented flight systems which Boeing denied until it was proven otherwise by external bodies and investigations after whistle blowers came forward.  No other make of aircraft has such a proportionally   poor safety record, over the past 20 years. It is right that all safety concerns with any Boeing aircraft are reported in the news otherwise the lazy, greedy and incompetent corporate managers will set about covering up again, as 'damage limitation' to the company, which is more important to them than the lives of aircrew and passengers. Witness their persistent claims that it was poor piloting that caused crashes despite suppressed evidence to the contrary. 

I am not disagreeing on your summary of the current situation, Boeing reputation as I said before is in pieces.

 

Boeing is not going to disappear, as airlines have little choice to still order new Boeing aircraft, as the market is dominated by the them and Airbus. Neither company can keep up with current demand and it would be impossible for Airbus to supply all aircraft on their own. Embraer, Bombardier and Comac are years/decades away from challenging that domination 

 

Each year both Airbus and Boeing produce a statistical analysis of commercial aviation accidents 1958 - 2023, the publications looks at all the data and also provides a review of the commercial aviation safety record evolution over the previous decades.

 

https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/stories/2024-03-2023-a-year-with-no-fatal-accidents-in-commercial-aviation#:~:text=No fatal accidents and no,in safety over recent decades.
 

https://www.boeing.com/content/dam/boeing/boeingdotcom/company/about_bca/pdf/statsum.pdf

[dinsdale]

6 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Having an APU malfunction isn't a big mishap especially before take off. Even having an engine fail mid-air is no biggie. Serious yes but not fatal.

Seeing that I have some negative reactions to my above post it would seem that some people on this forum do not know that modern twin engine aircraft are quite capable of flying on one engine.

[Georgealbert]

18 minutes ago, Kaopad999 said:

I dunno, you'd have to ask them.. But, judging from their reactions, I'd say they look pretty traumatized.

 

Think yours and theirs, idea of being traumatised is very different from mine.

 

This was so minor, it is not even a reportable aviation incident, just a few drama queens whining on Tik Tok, about getting hot and delayed.

 

The plane was never in danger, it made no attempt to take off, and at worse the start up problem occurred after being pushed back, and had to wait to be moved back to a gate, to let the passengers off. Without engines, APU and ground cooling connection, the aircraft had no air conditioning.

 

 

[dinsdale]

4 minutes ago, Georgealbert said:

Think yours and theirs, idea of being traumatised is very different from mine.

 

This was so minor, it is not even a reportable aviation incident, just a few drama queens whining on Tik Tok, about getting hot and delayed.

 

The plane was never in danger, it made no attempt to take off, and at worse the start up problem occurred after being pushed back, and had to wait to be moved back to a gate, to let the passengers off. Without engines, APU and ground cooling connection, the aircraft had no air conditioning.

 

 

I'm thinking it was just the APU failed after pushback or when taxiing. No big deal but a bit of bad luck for the passengers on this particular flight.. 

[dinsdale]

40 minutes ago, Kaopad999 said:

LMAO 🤣

We almost ended your life, but here's a bottle of water and a doughnut to help you recover from the trauma.. 🤣

Can you explain to us how the lives of the passengers were almost ended? I and I'm sure others on this thread would love to know. 

[Kaopad999]

17 minutes ago, Georgealbert said:

Think yours and theirs, idea of being traumatised is very different from mine.

 

This was so minor, it is not even a reportable aviation incident, just a few drama queens whining on Tik Tok, about getting hot and delayed.

 

The plane was never in danger, it made no attempt to take off, and at worse the start up problem occurred after being pushed back, and had to wait to be moved back to a gate, to let the passengers off. Without engines, APU and ground cooling connection, the aircraft had no air conditioning.

 

 

I notice people panicking and displaying unusually aggressive behavior, which I interpret as potential signs of trauma. Understanding their inner thoughts is beyond my grasp. As you rightly pointed out, each person's perception of trauma varies. Thus, it's reasonable to acknowledge that stress and fear affect us all differently. What might appear insignificant to one person could be profoundly distressing for another. 

 

 

 

Edited May 8 by Kaopad999

[Georgealbert]

19 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

I'm thinking it was just the APU failed after pushback or when taxiing. No big deal but a bit of bad luck for the passengers on this particular flight.. 

 

I think you are almost certainly right. This is a minor incident, which many seem to have blown out of all proportions.

[Georgealbert]

18 minutes ago, Kaopad999 said:

I notice people panicking and displaying unusually aggressive behavior, which I interpret as potential signs of trauma. Understanding their inner thoughts is beyond my grasp. As you rightly pointed out, each person's perception of trauma varies. Thus, it's reasonable to acknowledge that stress and fear affect us all differently. What might appear insignificant to one person could be profoundly distressing for another. 

 

 

 

Really, are you watching the same videos as me?

 

If you think these people are having “a deeply distressing or disturbing experience”, I hate to think how you would react in a real emergency.

 

Bye and have a good day, these people had nothing more than an uncomfortable experience.

[BangkokHank]

7 hours ago, soalbundy said:

Two cases of engine failure in one day, Boeing?

Yes, but you'd better not say anything about it. The last two people who blew the whistle on Boeing got whacked.

[SAFETY FIRST]

1 hour ago, PETERTHEEATER said:

Yes. VTSH.

Why be a dick? 

 

The article says Nok Air flight from Bangkok to Songkhla.

You don't get Nok Air flying from BKK to vtsh. 

 

I'm aware of vtsh, I've flown, chopper to the rig. 

 

 

 

Edited May 8 by SAFETY FIRST

[Kaopad999]

15 minutes ago, Georgealbert said:

Bye and have a good day, these people had nothing more than an uncomfortable experience.

Fair enough, that's you opinion. wishing you a nice day too.

[dinsdale]

2 hours ago, RobU said:

I agree flying is the safest mode of transport, unless you fly in a Boeing. People at Boeing who were the most 'productive' were promoted without assessing why they were more productive. It turns out that cutting corners was their secret.  They then are given responsibility, big pay rises and told to enforce their methods without oversight. Anyone reporting problems was ignored or hounded out of their job. Then planes started crashing due to build defects and badly tested and implemented flight systems which Boeing denied until it was proven otherwise by external bodies and investigations after whistle blowers came forward.  No other make of aircraft has such a proportionally   poor safety record, over the past 20 years. It is right that all safety concerns with any Boeing aircraft are reported in the news otherwise the lazy, greedy and incompetent corporate managers will set about covering up again, as 'damage limitation' to the company, which is more important to them than the lives of aircrew and passengers. Witness their persistent claims that it was poor piloting that caused crashes despite suppressed evidence to the contrary. 

Boeing 777 will always be the best jet I've ever taken. Econ class of course.

[Kaopad999]

Just now, dinsdale said:

Boeing 777 will always be the best jet I've ever taken. Econ class of course.

Absolutely, the 777 is a fantastic aircraft, especially with those Rolls Royce engines. It's truly captivating to be on board and listen to them roar down the runway.
The Boeing 737 MAX is the problamitic one. 

[RobU]

1 hour ago, Georgealbert said:

I am not disagreeing on your summary of the current situation, Boeing reputation as I said before is in pieces.

 

Boeing is not going to disappear, as airlines have little choice to still order new Boeing aircraft, as the market is dominated by the them and Airbus. Neither company can keep up with current demand and it would be impossible for Airbus to supply all aircraft on their own. Embraer, Bombardier and Comac are years/decades away from challenging that domination 

 

Each year both Airbus and Boeing produce a statistical analysis of commercial aviation accidents 1958 - 2023, the publications looks at all the data and also provides a review of the commercial aviation safety record evolution over the previous decades.

 

https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/stories/2024-03-2023-a-year-with-no-fatal-accidents-in-commercial-aviation#:~:text=No fatal accidents and no,in safety over recent decades.
 

https://www.boeing.com/content/dam/boeing/boeingdotcom/company/about_bca/pdf/statsum.pdf

You have a good point