Airplane Makes Emergency Landing At U Tapao Airport After Landing Gear Problem

[Muhendis]

5 hours ago, impulse said:

Just out of curiosity, where would Yingluck be coming from?

Any 0one notice any unusual activity at the police hospital lately?

[Burma Bill]

5 hours ago, webfact said:

Approximately a hundred passengers plus the captain, a co-pilot and seven crew members were unharmed.

 

A very confusing post - so which is correct and which is fake?

According to The Nation:

 

All nine crew members of the plane, which had no passengers, were reportedly safe after the successful emergency landing.

The air traffic control tower at U-Tapao-Pattaya International Airport in Rayong’s Ban Chang district reported that it received a notification from the captain of a commercial Airbus A319-115(CJ), travelling from Dubai, requesting emergency landing due to landing gear issues..............  The captain then landed the aircraft at the designated parking bay to allow further inspection of the landing gear system. (no mention of refuelling).

 

https://www.nationthailand.com/news/general/40038837

 

[SiSePuede419]

In America 'U' might stand for University, but apparently in Thailand it stands for 'U-turn'.

Thank you.

I'll be here all week.

Don't forget to tip your waitstaff. 😄

[RobU]

1 hour ago, Georgealbert said:

Do you really think at 00.30, there was a suitable Airbus engineer available at the airport to manually fix a hydraulic leak, pass the aircraft fit for flight, all in the hour before it took off again. The only regular flights to the airport are by B737/Max, and ATR aircrafts.

Only possible defect could have been a warning activation, which the pilots rectified by radio to an engineer at their base. Then running the check lists, so the plane could fly off.

Engineers will have a standby rota and can be called out any time from home when they are on standby. 

[Blueman1]

6 hours ago, JoePai said:

The distance between Dubai and the Philippines is approx 7k Km - the same range as a A319 - does that sound right ?

Errrrrrrr......NOT Really !!

[spidermike007]

I am no aeronautical engineer, but this sounds fishy. Why would the landing gear warning light go on during a long flight? 

 

Why not land at an airport better equipped to handle a crisis, should one happen? 

 

Entirely bizarre. 

[kiwikeith]

6 hours ago, impulse said:

 

Yeah, I'd love to read the full safety report.  From the link:

 

However the airplane landed safely at 1.05 a.m. after the landing gear deployed fully just slightly skidding off the runway.

The airplane was at this Thai airport for around an hour for maintenance work and refuelling before taking off again for its destination.

 

I wonder why the landing gear warning would go off hundreds (thousands?) of miles before they needed to deploy the gear, and why they'd re-launch an aircraft an hour after it "skidded off the runway" as if nothing happened.  After topping it up...

 

Looks more like they either ran low on fuel, or they needed to clandestinely drop someone off in Thailand.  But I am a wingnut conspiracy buff.

 

I think the pilot made a good decision, 

[tomazbodner]

5 hours ago, impulse said:

1) Did the plane fly onto the Phils, or return west from U-Tapao?

Maybe west if grandpa Tony was on it...

[Georgealbert]

1 hour ago, RobU said:

Engineers will have a standby rota and can be called out any time from home when they are on standby. 

Yes there may do, but the engineers would be from or retained by the airlines, and U-Tapao has 3 regular airlines using the airport;

 

Bangkok Airways, which fly ATRs only there,

FlyDubai, who's fleet are Boeing 737 Max 8,

Thai Lion Air, which uses the Boeing 737 900.

 

To get a suitable, qualified Airbus engineer there and do any repairs, I would expect to take longer that the 1 hour 8 minutes this Airbus319, operated by Comlux Malta,  was on the ground.

 

Edited June 15 by Georgealbert

[Georgealbert]

Here is confirmation that this  A319 aircraft, registration 9H -LIV, after taking off again from U-Tapao, did fly to the Philippines, landing at Manilla, at 05.49 PST. 

 

Edited June 15 by Georgealbert

[Georgealbert]

This is the 2 flight paths for the aircraft, leaving Dubai to U-Tapao, then onto Mailla.

 

Edited June 15 by Georgealbert

[Mr Dome]

In SE Asia, they don't fly to the Philippines (and only to destinations not served by Emirates). 

 

They are:

 

- Pattaya

- Krabi

- Langkawi & 

- Penang 

 

Their fleet consists of Boeing 737 Max & 737-800 planes only.

Must be a miserable experience for such long flights.

[brianthainess]

The BP has more info, there were just 2 pilots and 7 crew on board, no passengers. 

Just enough time for Yingluck to disappear in an 'emergency' vehicle out of sight at the far end of the runway. 

[champers]

She was unloaded in a laundry basket; a bit undignified but needs must.

[tgw]

8 hours ago, JoePai said:

The distance between Dubai and the Philippines is approx 7k Km - the same range as a A319 - does that sound right ?

you confused Km with Miles

[tgw]

8 hours ago, Gottfrid said:

I fail to understand this incident. The pilot was supposed to fly from Dubai to the Philippines. I warning light shows, about the landing gear, and he feel the need to do an emergency landing at U-Tapao???? What if it was a temporary failure, and it fixes itself during the rest of the flight? Also, what is safer making an emergency landing at U-Tapao instead of continuing the flight and take care of the landing gear problem in the Philippines?

 

You got to trust the pilot's decisions.
I was wondering the same when reading the article, but there was also an emergency light/alarm and the article doesn't say which one.

[RobU]

1 hour ago, Georgealbert said:

Yes there may do, but the engineers would be from or retained by the airlines, and U-Tapao has 3 regular airlines using the airport;

 

Bangkok Airways, which fly ATRs only there,

FlyDubai, who's fleet are Boeing 737 Max 8,

Thai Lion Air, which uses the Boeing 737 900.

 

To get a suitable, qualified Airbus engineer there and do any repairs, I would expect to take longer that the 1 hour 8 minutes this Airbus319, operated by Comlux Malta,  was on the ground.

 

Good point

[Georgealbert]

8 minutes ago, tgw said:

you confused Km with Miles

Fully agree.

 

The flight distance between Dubai (Dubai International Airport) and Manila (Ninoy Aquino International Airport) is 4297 miles / 6915 kilometers / 3734 nautical miles.

 

The company, Comlux Malta, in their literature says the aircraft has a range of 3900 nautical miles, so could have flown the route direct. (Airbus in their literature give a maximum range of 4600 nautical miles)

 

https://comlux.com/aviation/fleet/airbus-acj-319-9h-liv

 

https://www.acj.airbus.com/en/iflyacj/acj319-9h-liv

[Gottfrid]

26 minutes ago, tgw said:

 

You got to trust the pilot's decisions.
I was wondering the same when reading the article, but there was also an emergency light/alarm and the article doesn't say which one.

Yeah, but it does say. The emergency light is said to be for the landing gear.

9 hours ago, webfact said:

after an emergency light flashed that the landing gear would not deploy.

 

That was the thing that got me going, as I know nothing else can be connected to the closed circuit that handles the oil and pressure system connected to the landing gear.

Edited June 15 by Gottfrid

[ravip]

9 hours ago, Gottfrid said:

I fail to understand this incident. The pilot was supposed to fly from Dubai to the Philippines. I warning light shows, about the landing gear, and he feel the need to do an emergency landing at U-Tapao???? What if it was a temporary failure, and it fixes itself during the rest of the flight? Also, what is safer making an emergency landing at U-Tapao instead of continuing the flight and take care of the landing gear problem in the Philippines?

What if it was a temporary failure, and it fixes itself during the rest of the flight? 

 

I am not an aeronautics engineer or any such.

But, should a pilot fly with a load of passengers hoping that a landing gear problem solve all by itself up in the air?

 

Edit

I think the Captain of the effected aircraft is the best and most qualified person to decide on what to do in that situation, rather than us armchair experts.

He did land the aircraft successfully, without any issues. That's it.

Edited June 15 by ravip

[ravip]

8 hours ago, Moonlover said:

The pilot did not 'feel the need' to do an emergency landing, he followed the clear and strict instructions to land as soon as possible. It may only have been a spurious electrical problem or it could mean something more serious. And it seems that it was, the undercarriage initially failed to deploy.

 

Pilots don't try and 'second guess' a problem, they follow the procedures. They DO NOT ignore warning indicators, ever. The flight crew of Lauda Air flight 004 did that and look what happened!

Absolutely correct!

Many fail to understand the responsibility of a Captain/Pilot of an aircraft!

If one was in that aircraft, would they still stick to their theories, or wipe the sweat off their forehead once the plane landed safely?

[Keeps]

23 minutes ago, ravip said:

What if it was a temporary failure, and it fixes itself during the rest of the flight? 

 

I am not an aeronautics engineer or any such.

But, should a pilot fly with a load of passengers hoping that a landing gear problem solve all by itself up in the air?

 

Edit

I think the Captain of the effected aircraft is the best and most qualified person to decide on what to do in that situation, rather than us armchair experts.

He did land the aircraft successfully, without any issues. That's it.

It would seem that the Captain of the aircraft didn't have Gottfrid's telephone number to hand therefore could not seek his advice as to what to do in this precarious situation.

[Ben Zioner]

Ok, first thing we thought of was the Yingduck drop, but it could also be a pick up. In that case who? Big Joke? Thaksin himself?

[burner2014]

This thread reads like a thriller 😄 thanks for all the input. If Yingluck shows up in Thailand the next 2 weeks this was the flight.

 

This whole thing makes no sense for me especially getting so many ambulances when there are 9 people on-board lol. Somewhere the ATC has to have total wrong information because normally they ask for "souls on board" .. 10 ambulances and fire fighters would have been enough no? But it seems the ATC just saw what airplane it is? 

[Enoon]

5 hours ago, digbeth said:

actual report before it went through layers of chinese whispers was that the plane was due to refuel at Utapao anyway, and there was no emergency, only that the pilot reported the front gear was reluctant to turn at the end of the runway, hence the plane was sitting on the runway for a while and tow vehicle was requested but the issue was corrected, no emergency was ever declared 

 

My version was same as yours but with a warning light showing when preparing to land.

 

That would justify the seemingly huge turnout of personnel on the ground.

 

Apparent huge turnout might also be due to massive overreaction on the part of the airport when informed that the aeroplane had problems with sticky gear after landing.

 

UTP looking/hoping for a bit of that congratulatory attention that BKK got a couple of weeks ago?........surely not? 😄

 

 

Edited June 15 by Enoon

[sanabavy IV]

Thailand, a nascent hub of emergency landing? (🤔)

[Keeps]

They may well have had the recent Singapore airlines emergency landing in Bangkok at the forefront of their minds (which they handled exceptionally well by all accounts) and thought 'best to be prepared'.

[Gottfrid]

1 hour ago, ravip said:

 

But, should a pilot fly with a load of passengers hoping that a landing gear problem solve all by itself up in the air?

 

That´s kind of a crazy comment. What is best? Land when you have a signal for a problem before it´s time to land in the right place, or wait and see if the problem was temporary and land when it´s time. If the problem is not temporary, it will show in both places, and it will be same hard to land in both places. Waiting in this case, only have the possibility to be a win. The loss will be same in either of the situations.

[billd766]

1 hour ago, tgw said:

 

You got to trust the pilot's decisions.
I was wondering the same when reading the article, but there was also an emergency light/alarm and the article doesn't say which one.

Press on-itis is a dangerous disease which can affect anybody.

 

It starts out by people ignoring a warning light or an alarm. They tend to think that if they ignore it and press on to their destination, everything is fine after the light or alarm goes out, until another warning light or alarm comes on and the first one comes back on, In an aircraft, once you pass the point of no return, what do you do?

 

Make an emergency call and divert to the nearest safe landing spot, or press on and hope that the warning alarms and lights are spurious?

 

Hence the term press on-itis. It can easily cause a crash and death.

 

Alternatively you can call up the "what do I do now" list and follow its guidelines, which is what I think that the crew did.

 

The problem could have been as simple as a faulty micro switch or something far more difficult. But the pilot did the correct thing and diverted.

 

Good for him.

[AreYouGerman]

8 hours ago, Wuvu2 said:

And those of us that are Boeing shareholders breathed a rare sigh of relief 😆

 

I am shorting it with everything I have. The incidents getting worse every month. It's just a matter of time until one of the Boeing crashes and then it will be basically the end of commercial flights as we know. Maybe that's the plan, though. Who knows.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/tui-boeing-flight-bristol-disaster-avoided-b2558536.html

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/southwest-pilot-nearly-crashed-flight-into-the-ocean-report-2024-6