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

[Srikcir]

11 hours ago, VBer said:

Maybe pilot decides that the problem will be escalating over time. For example, loosing some pressure or leak of some liquid. So he decided to land asap, while the problem is still manageable.

As landing gear was in a stored position, there should be no pressure to cause a leak. Maybe a faulty pressure gauge?

[Srikcir]

I would think that when it's wheels up on takeoff from Dubai that there would be a pressure warning, not hours later into the flight when the wheel gear is in stored position not requiring hydraulic pressure. 

[Aviatorhi]

12 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

As landing gear was in a stored position, there should be no pressure to cause a leak. Maybe a faulty pressure gauge?

Bud, you're out of your depth - the hydraulic system is running full time and a leak in it will cause at least an abnormal, and possibly emergency, condition - alternate gear extension doesn't require HYD pressure. With the gear doors appearing closed it seems the fault wasn't significant and/or easily repaired before the photos were taken... though I don't fly Airbus aircraft, logically, a system like this doesn't include alternate door retraction mechanisms.

 

As for this being related to "FlyDubai"... I'm not seeing the connection - that airline only operates the 737 (with 787s on order). Possibly some sort of charter for a mass group sold by FlyDubai and farmed out? But that's about the closest it's going to get.

Edited June 15 by Aviatorhi

[RaveBlond]

4 hours ago, Aviatorhi said:

Bud, you're out of your depth - the hydraulic system is running full time and a leak in it will cause at least an abnormal, and possibly emergency, condition - alternate gear extension doesn't require HYD pressure. With the gear doors appearing closed it seems the fault wasn't significant and/or easily repaired before the photos were taken... though I don't fly Airbus aircraft, logically, a system like this doesn't include alternate door retraction mechanisms.

 

As for this being related to "FlyDubai"... I'm not seeing the connection - that airline only operates the 737 (with 787s on order). Possibly some sort of charter for a mass group sold by FlyDubai and farmed out? But that's about the closest it's going to get.

You are right, the A320 family aircraft do not sport an alternate gear door retraction.  If the gear was lowered via manual gear extension, the gear doors would have stayed open.  I think they were supposed to fuel at U-Tapao anyway as DXB-MNL is too far (even though their theoretical range may have been sufficient, pilots do not like to cut it so very close - they like extra fuel, especially for unscheduled charter flights).

Edited June 15 by RaveBlond

[Georgealbert]

8 hours ago, AreYouGerman said:

 

I am shorting it with everything I have. The incidents are 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

Off topic, as this incident was a Airbus, but lets looks at the facts of your links, not just a couple of headlines on news sites.

 

Southwest incident - most likely pilot error.

 

“According to ADS-B Data the aircraft descended normally through about 950 feet MSL at 05:12:31 with a sink rate of about 800-1000 fpm, at 05:12:47 however the aircraft is seen climbing through 875 feet MSL at a high climbing rate.

What happened in these 16 seconds is described in an internal memo circulating in Southwest Airlines stating, that during the go around due to weather conditions the first officer, pilot flying, inadvertently pushed the control column forward while monitoring the power settings causing the aircraft to descend to about 400 feet MSL before the aircraft started climbing again.”

 

Tui incident - most likely pilot and maintenance issue.

 

“The aircraft took off from Runway 09 with a thrust setting significantly below that required to achieve the correct takeoff performance. Rotation for the takeoff occurred only 260 m before the end of the runway and the aircraft passed over the end at a height of approximately 10 ft. The N1 required to achieve the required takeoff performance was 92.8% but, following an A/T disconnect when the crew selected TOGA, 84.5% was manually set instead. Despite an SOP requirement to check the thrust setting on takeoff, the crew did not realize that the thrust was not set correctly until after the takeoff although they had noted how close to the end of the runway they were.”

 

The International Air Transport Association (IATA) 2023 Annual Safety Report for global aviation, states that aviation continues to make progress on safety with several 2023 parameters showing “best-ever” results. So the expert’s opinion is very different from your “The incidents getting worse every month”, but lets not let data and facts gets in the way.

Edited June 15 by Georgealbert

[steven100]

This flight all sounds very suspicious :

 

There were no passengers on board this flight,  only crew and pilots.

 

This was not a regular commercial flight.

 

The aircraft is an A320 Airbus ...  Dubai--Manila ... It has sufficient fuel to fly direct Dubai-MNL 

 

an emergency landing was requested by the pilot to access U-Topao Airport ... 

 

Who got off that flight in U-Topao under the cover of darkness and without media attention or to arouse  suspicion   ?

 

[Aviatorhi]

4 hours ago, RaveBlond said:

You are right, the A320 family aircraft do not sport an alternate gear door retraction.  If the gear was lowered via manual gear extension, the gear doors would have stayed open.  I think they were supposed to fuel at U-Tapao anyway as DXB-MNL is too far (even though their theoretical range may have been sufficient, pilots do not like to cut it so very close - they like extra fuel, especially for unscheduled charter flights).

There's no way to say without knowing their load, but a VIP A319 sports quite an impressive range. 

I wouldn't put such shenanigans past a Maltese operator, but that's asking for some serious penalties if discovered.

[JoePai]

13 hours ago, tgw said:

you confused Km with Miles

Nope, both about 7k Km is correct

[SiSePuede419]

16 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Why would the landing gear warning light go on during a long flight? 

You're saying why would there be a problem with wiring on an car that's 30+ years old.  Or 20 years old.  Or whatever.  The point is mechanical systems like landing gear motors and associated mechanical gear do wear out and fail over time.

 

What country"s educational system failed you in Critical Thinking skills?

 

Just curious. 🤔

[BKKBike09]

19 hours ago, Georgealbert said:

The airport will have a emergency response plan, which will detail what response and actions are needed for any incident type.

 

Once the information from pilot is passed to ATC (Air traffic control), the airport duty manager, will put into action the suitable plan.

 

Which is what makes this massive over-response odd.

 

One of your earlier posts had a FlightRadar image of the a/c in red, indicating it had formally declared an emergency and transponder was squawking 7700.

 

If it declared an emergency, ATC would have asked for souls on board + fuel remaining + any hazardous cargo. So they would have known in good time that there were only a handful of people on board, and that the nature of the emergency wasn't a flight control issue.

 

Mind you, the ATC guys at UTP don't have much to do ...

 

 

 

 

 

[BKKBike09]

21 minutes ago, SiSePuede419 said:

You're saying why would there be a problem with wiring on an car that's 30+ years old.  Or 20 years old.  Or whatever.  The point is mechanical systems like landing gear motors and associated mechanical gear do wear out and fail over time.

 

What country"s educational system failed you in Critical Thinking skills?

 

Just curious. 🤔

 

Many aircraft systems and mechanical components are timed life: change out at X hours of use regardless of apparent condition.  

 

Also (commercial a/c like this) have multiple redundancy of hydraulic and electrical systems.

 

[Georgealbert]

24 minutes ago, BKKBike09 said:

 

Which is what makes this massive over-response odd.

 

One of your earlier posts had a FlightRadar image of the a/c in red, indicating it had formally declared an emergency and transponder was squawking 7700.

 

If it declared an emergency, ATC would have asked for souls on board + fuel remaining + any hazardous cargo. So they would have known in good time that there were only a handful of people on board, and that the nature of the emergency wasn't a flight control issue.

 

Mind you, the ATC guys at UTP don't have much to do ...

 

 

 

 

 

Fully agree, I use flightradar app, and it is set up to receive 7700 alerts, but did not get one for this aircraft.

 

The plane woke me up, as it made what sounded like a lower approach, and I was then informed of the details by someone at the RVP.

 

The information briefings at the RVP, were not consistent, hence the reported changes in the numbers involved.
 

It may had been this confusion on how many passengers, that led to the airport initiating a full emergency response. It is easier to send responders away if not needed, rather than be lacking in responders should it had been an accident. 
 

This occurred outside of normal operating hours, and I don’t know what the arrangements are at U-Tapeo, to maintain a standby ground team, to handle a declared emergency landing.

 

There does seem to be a break down of communications somewhere in the chain from pilot, ATC, duty airport manager and emergency/crisis response, and it is not known how experienced some of these involved were.

Edited June 16 by Georgealbert

[khunpeer]

23 hours ago, Upnotover said:

Curious.  There are no flights from Dubai to the Philippines on the Flydubai website (that I can see) and no A319's mentioned either. 

the plot thickens...

[impulse]

39 minutes ago, Georgealbert said:

Fully agree, I use flightradar app, and it is set up to receive 7700 alerts, but did not get one for this aircraft.

 

Do you know if the flight plan called for a landing in Thailand?  And if not, would they have filed a manifest with occupant passport numbers to fly over Thai airspace?

 

[BKKBike09]

46 minutes ago, Georgealbert said:

This occurred outside of normal operating hours, and I don’t know what the arrangements are at U-Tapeo, to maintain a standby ground team, to handle a declared emergency landing.

 

Actually UTP (VTBU) is 24H operational.

 

[Georgealbert]

6 minutes ago, BKKBike09 said:

 

Actually UTP (VTBU) is 24H operational.

 

Yes fully agree, but I am sure that is only in a standby mode, as the airport is not currently that busy. Normal day pictured below. It is how experienced the personal are that cover the hours out of normal operations.

 

Edited June 16 by Georgealbert

[Moonlover]

7 hours ago, RaveBlond said:

You are right, the A320 family aircraft do not sport an alternate gear door retraction.  If the gear was lowered via manual gear extension, the gear doors would have stayed open.  I think they were supposed to fuel at U-Tapao anyway as DXB-MNL is too far (even though their theoretical range may have been sufficient, pilots do not like to cut it so very close - they like extra fuel, especially for unscheduled charter flights).

Yes I agree with that. An undercarriage problem will typically only manifest when the gear down is selected and that would only occur during final approach. So the flight must have been on approach for a landing at U Tapao for refueling. It was on its way after only 1 hour so I guess that it was simply an adjustment issue with one of the many sensors on the undercarriage.

[ballpoint]

22 hours ago, Georgealbert said:

This is the aircraft on the ground, last night. Registration number 9H-LIV Can be seen clearly

 

 

 

The problem is obvious. There's a tree stuck in the front landing gear.

[Moonlover]

3 minutes ago, ballpoint said:

 

The problem is obvious. There's a tree stuck in the front landing gear.

We did have a problem once in Singapore (RAF Changi) when a python coiled itself around the nose wheel leg of a parked aircraft. (Sorry guv, well above my paygrade!)

[Georgealbert]

These VIP companies keep their flight plans and manifest very secretive to protect the privacy of their customers. As there was no reportable incident, I doubt anything will become public.

 

My own personal view is now leading me to believe this was a planned refuelling stop, hence the 68 minute turnaround time on the ground.The warning alert for the nose gear was detected on pre-landing checks on the approach to the airport, and the airport decided to put in a full emergency response plan as a precaution. Once on the ground the pilot received technical advice on solutions from home-base, and these were actioned, checked and okayed to proceed..

 

The aircraft only left Manila, today at approximately 09.00 this morning thai time and is heading north east currently. I can find no listed destination, but seems to be in the direction of Japan possibly.

 

 

[tgw]

3 hours ago, JoePai said:

Nope, both about 7k Km is correct

 

Quote

The A319CJ has an impressive range capability of 7,015 miles.

https://airstreamjets.com/aircraft/a319cj/

[Woof999]

30 minutes ago, Georgealbert said:

My own personal view is now leading me to believe this was a planned refuelling stop, hence the 68 minute turnaround time on the ground.The warning alert for the nose gear was detected on pre-landing checks on the approach to the airport

 

The full approach looked pretty normal, potentially except for the original right hand turn while still at cruise, which took them more southerly towards UTP. That would suggest that they initially had a different destination. I'm not sure of the airways in use though, so that could all be codswallop.

 

Also, if any issue was detected shortly before arrival, that wouldn't have given enough time for all those ambulances to get there. From top of descent to landing was within the time it would have taken a Pattaya ambulance to get anywhere near.

 

Thanks for all the posts in this thread by the way. Very useful.

[Georgealbert]

11 minutes ago, Woof999 said:

 

The full approach looked pretty normal, potentially except for the original right hand turn while still at cruise, which took them more southerly towards UTP. That would suggest that they initially had a different destination. I'm not sure of the airways in use though, so that could all be codswallop.

 

Also, if any issue was detected shortly before arrival, that wouldn't have given enough time for all those ambulances to get there. From top of descent to landing was within the time it would have taken a Pattaya ambulance to get anywhere near.

 

Thanks for all the posts in this thread by the way. Very useful.

Good points.

 

i had a quick look through the basic A319 checklists, but I don’t have the technical knowledge, to know, if anything in the descend checks, may have alerted the pilots.

 

 

[Woof999]

ECAM status would, for anything like a hydraulic issue, but it would be bugging you immediately without you needing to take any action from a checklist. Specific landing gear checklist items don't come in until the approach checklist.

 

My best guess is a landing gear not uplocked (which is more likely to have happened shortly after takeoff), a hydraulic issue, which could happen at any time or... well, could be many things which we might never know.

[Georgealbert]

The RVP seemed was well organised, and announcements made over a speaker system to all emergency responders.

 

This video is of the announcement that the aircraft and everyone on board had landed safely.

 

 

[JoePai]

46 minutes ago, tgw said:

 

https://airstreamjets.com/aircraft/a319cj/

Apologies, was looking at a regular(?) 319

[Georgealbert]

9 minutes ago, Woof999 said:

ECAM status would, for anything like a hydraulic issue, but it would be bugging you immediately without you needing to take any action from a checklist. Specific landing gear checklist items don't come in until the approach checklist.

 

My best guess is a landing gear not uplocked (which is more likely to have happened shortly after takeoff), a hydraulic issue, which could happen at any time or... well, could be many things which we might never know.

Thanks, good information.

 

Yes agree, we are never going to know, as this was not a reportable incident and there is no investigation. Only the airport management will now review their emergency response plan and the actions taken, then amend, update and train as required.

[steven100]

Why even land at U-Tapao airport ...  who exited that aircraft after midnight

 

[BKKBike09]

2 hours ago, Georgealbert said:

Yes fully agree, but I am sure that is only in a standby mode, as the airport is not currently that busy. Normal day pictured below. It is how experienced the personal are that cover the hours out of normal operations.

 

 

Yes, the controllers at VTBU aren't overworked although there is actually a bit more traffic than that - you've also got the skydiving operators, various GA flights, police/military (mostly rotary), US mil from time to time. A lot of these a/c don't have ADS-B so they won't show on the tracking sites (which rely on ADS-B data). 

 

 

 

 

 

[Burma Bill]

59 minutes ago, steven100 said:

Why even land at U-Tapao airport ...  who exited that aircraft after midnight

 

 

Yingluck??