Thai airline flight makes emergency landing in Phuket

[hotchilli]

6 minutes ago, IsaanT said:

 

This is a valid and correct point.  As a pilot, I was interested in putting it into context.

As you probably know, pilots like to talk in V-speeds.  In this scenario we will use V1, Vr and V2.

 

V1 is the take-off commit speed (typically because there isn't enough runway remaining to stop, that sort of thing...)

Vr is the speed that rotation commences (rotation is when the nosewheel lifts off the runway but the main wheels are still in contact with the runway)

V2 is the safe minimum take-off speed.  A multi-engine airliner can continue the take-off and climb if an engine fails at or above this speed.

 

I'll use an Airbus A320 for this example, s a typical popular airliner:

 

- V1 is between 130-150 knots (dependent on aircraft weight, weather and runway conditions)

- Vr is between 135 and 155 knots (dependencies as above)

- V2 is between 140 and 160 knots.

 

Unsurprisingly, each of these events occur in sequence - V1, Vr then V2.

 

The bottom line is that there is typically 10 knots difference between V1 (there's no turning back) and V2 (we're OK to continue).  In an A320, this typically takes one second.

 

So, next time you're hurtling down the runway and the nose starts to rise, you might hold your breath.  When you feel the rumbling of the main wheels on the runway stop because you have become airborne, you can breath again (you might loudly proclaim "Thank God!" but this might confuse your fellow passengers).

 

I hope this helps. 🙂

 

Easy on the TO/GA buttons

[IsaanT]

5 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

I wonder how the passengers were even aware of this issue? It does not sound like anyone was ever in much danger. Perhaps the engine caught on fire, or was blowing out alot of smoke, easily visible to passengers? 

 

Glad everyone arrived safely. 

Engines don't usually shut down in a dignified manner.

A major cause of engine failure is ingestion of a bird.  This can cause banging, mis-fires, vibration and subsequent loss of all that noise that the engine was making only moments before.  The piilot will also have to yaw the airplane with the rudder (turn away from the dead engine side) to stop the good engine spiralling the plane into the ground, so the airplane will be crabbing along slightly sideways.

Passengers tend to notice these things.

[brfsa2]

Modern airplanes are much safer when only 1 out of 2 engines are working. The thrust, compensation and balance are all automatically handled by the computers. It would be impossible for the pilots to do that on the fly. They just need to fly the airplane with less available power and maneuverability.

with only 1 engine:

Pilots just need to be aware and trained of performance limitations.
They need to plan a higher approach speed than normal, low speed with 1 engine can be very dangerous.
Longer runway needed for landing roll due to reduced reverse thrust.

[Samh]

7 hours ago, ChrisY1 said:

I'm bloody sure that I would be very worried if I looked out of any plane window, and saw an engine not working....at 30k feet!

 

How would you know it wasn't working?

[Samh]

3 hours ago, black tabby12345 said:

 

That is the meaning of the plural engines, isn't it?

Already at the time of WW2, some B-17 bombers came back alive to the base in UK on single engine(3 others destroyed during air-to-air combat over Nazi air space).

 

Right but they jettisoned their bombs, threw the guns and radios out to save weight. Throwing passengers with their carry on out might be a problem.

[Spamhead]

11 hours ago, HK MacPhooey said:

If the crew didn’t complete the journey the number of take offs to landings would not be equal which is not good.
 

Depending at what point in the flight the engine fails the airline’s default policy is usually to return to home base due to the logistics of trying to replace an engine at an outstation or diversion airport - either way the safety of the aircraft is paramount.

I believe most airlines would say the safety of the passengers and crew was paramount

[phil2407]

Sorry but planes can fly with 1 engine -  respect to the pilots 

over dramatic AI story 

 

[KannikaP]

12 hours ago, Kinok Farang said:

You reckon he should have completed his journey on one engine?

He did!

[geisha]

11 hours ago, DUNROAMIN said:

No mention of what airline and more importantly what aircraft?

When I lived on Phuket over the winter ( EU) months, I stopped using Thai because the planes were very old. After, I always used Bangkok Airways. 

[black tabby12345]

4 hours ago, Samh said:

Right but they jettisoned their bombs, threw the guns and radios out to save weight. Throwing passengers with their carry on out might be a problem.

 

Very fortunate that jet thrust is a lot more powerful than  reciprocating engines'.

I have heard that pre-WW2 era airlines needed to check passengers' body weight as their engine power is limited.

[Kinok Farang]

2 hours ago, KannikaP said:

He did!

That'll teach me to read the full article.

[Stargeezr]

The reporter was so bad that they did not say what aircraft company or type, eg. B737 9s a Boeing 737.

  The airline is not important as anyone could have had this happen. No it isw not defamatory to mention

this information by the way.

[still kicking]

16 hours ago, Kinok Farang said:

Yes,but only in circles.

That's another silly comment.

[Kinok Farang]

7 hours ago, still kicking said:

That's another silly comment.

Funny though int it?

[Ralf001]

12 hours ago, phil2407 said:

 

over dramatic AI story 

 

[KannikaP]

18 hours ago, IsaanT said:

 

This is a valid and correct point.  As a pilot, I was interested in putting it into context.

As you probably know, pilots like to talk in V-speeds.  In this scenario we will use V1, Vr and V2.

 

V1 is the take-off commit speed (typically because there isn't enough runway remaining to stop, that sort of thing...)

Vr is the speed that rotation commences (rotation is when the nosewheel lifts off the runway but the main wheels are still in contact with the runway)

V2 is the safe minimum take-off speed.  A multi-engine airliner can continue the take-off and climb if an engine fails at or above this speed.

 

I'll use an Airbus A320 for this example, s a typical popular airliner:

 

- V1 is between 130-150 knots (dependent on aircraft weight, weather and runway conditions)

- Vr is between 135 and 155 knots (dependencies as above)

- V2 is between 140 and 160 knots.

 

Unsurprisingly, each of these events occur in sequence - V1, Vr then V2.

 

The bottom line is that there is typically 10 knots difference between V1 (there's no turning back) and V2 (we're OK to continue).  In an A320, this typically takes one second.

 

So, next time you're hurtling down the runway and the nose starts to rise, you might hold your breath.  When you feel the rumbling of the main wheels on the runway stop because you have become airborne, you can breath again (you might loudly proclaim "Thank God!" but this might confuse your fellow passengers).

 

I hope this helps. 🙂

 

Now tell us all about doing an emergency landing.

[IsaanT]

2 hours ago, KannikaP said:

Now tell us all about doing an emergency landing.

 

I guess it depends on your definition of emergency.  To me - a single-engine aircraft pilot - an emergency is no power.  This recent incident had the huge benefit of one remaining engine.  Given that jet engines are usually extremely reliable, it is safe to assume that controlled flight could have been continued for several hours until the fuel ran out.

Firstly, a plane still has adequate directional control and can maintain flight with one engine (or a minimum of two for a four-engined airliner (B747, A340).

Even if both [all] engines fail, aircraft don't fall out of the sky - they can glide.  They still have adequate directional control but now only in three directions - left, right and down.  The 'up' option is removed.  Having said that, if we use the A320 as an example again, the glide ratio with no engines is a very healthy 17:1 at the best glide speed of 230-250 knots.  This means that for every 17 feet horizontally it goes down 1 foot.

 

In 2001, an Airbus A330 (which has similar glide characteristics to the A320) glided 75 miles from 33,000 feet after running out of fuel, successfully landing in the Azores.  So, unless you are mid-Atlantic, there are options.

For context, let's contrast engine-out performance (and actions) with a helicopter.  As you can imagine, the main rotor blades on a helicopter beat the air down, keeping the helicopter in the air.  The angle that the rotor blades present to the air is controlled by the collective, a handle looking like a car handbrake down to the pilot's left (helicopter pilots traditionally sit on the right of their cockpit; aircraft pilots on the left).  To take off, the power is increased and the collective is lifted (sometimes, the throttle is automatically linked but let's not get distracted).  To lower the helicopter, or land, the collective is lowered.

Having explained the collective, you will now appreciate that if the engine loses power, the rotors only have their own inertia and will slow down rapidly.  This is not a good thing.  The rotors rely on the engine, of course, but also centrifugal force.  If the rotors slow down, centrifugal force diminishes, and the blades start to flap upwards (it's called coning).  It's probably all over once this happens.

There is a small moment of opportunity to save the day.  If the pilot detects that the engine power has gone, he has a brief moment to push the collective down fast.  This reverses the angle of the rotors.  This means the helicopter will go down but the air now rises through the rotor disc and it operates like a sycamore seed.  It can do this indefinitely all the way to the ground and, as a wonderful bonus, the pilot can control it left and right as it is doing so.  At around 25-35 feet, the pilot hauls the collective up and converts the rotational inertia in the rotor disc to lift, slowing the descent and hopefully allowing for a controlled landing.  You will imagine correctly that the pilot only gets one attempt at this.

The state of controlled descent without power in a helicopter is known as autorotation.  There will be many videos on YouTube if you wish to see it demonstrated.

 

I mentioned that the pilot has a brief opportunity to do the above if the engine fails.  Generally, the moment is briefer if the rotors have less inherent inertia (few blades, less mass).  The world's most popular helicopter, the two-seat Robinson R22 has two blades and low inertia.  The pilot has about 1.5 seconds to get the collective down.  Responsible R22 pilots do first and think later.  A Bell Jetranger pilot has a comparatively relaxed four seconds to complete the same action.

 

Lastly, like an aircraft taking off, there is a period of inherent danger in the take-off for a helicopter if the power fails at a critical moment.  Generally, you should imagine that a helicopter needs to have some forward motion to be able to convert to autorotation.  This is why most helicopter take-offs commence by lifting off the ground by 10-20 feet then lower the nose and accelerate across the ground until they have sufficient speed to climb safely.  What actually happens is that they reach a speed in this horizontal acceleration called the transition speed, and this is when the rotors get more lift and could autorotate, if required.  Next time you are in a helicopter in this scenario, you will feel a small shudder as the helicopter goes through the transition speed.  This is a good thing.  Finally, you will appreciate that if a helicopter takes off and climbs vertically, it has no autorotation options until it has reached a relatively high height above the ground.  For the R22, a safe height when hovering out of ground effect is around 150 feet.  Engine failure in a vertical take-off between 0-150 feet doesn't usually end well.

Stay safe!

[Mr Meeseeks]

On 2/1/2025 at 6:01 AM, ronster said:

Slightly made up journalism me thinks .

There is no way they would tell the passengers they were going to make an emergency landing due to engine failure.

They would just tell passengers to return to their seats and fasten seatbelts. Possibly even stating medical emergency as a cover story.

 

I was on a 737 South African Airlines flight in Africa where the pilot announced that a smoke detector had gone off in the baggage hold and that there could be a fire, so it does happen.

 

It was a false alarm obviously, but we made an emergency landing at the nearest airport nonetheless with a row of fire response vehicles shepherding us down either side of the runway as we landed.

 

Fun times.

[IsaanT]

16 hours ago, black tabby12345 said:

 

I have heard that pre-WW2 era airlines needed to check passengers' body weight as their engine power is limited.

 

Airline crew still check the weight of passengers and cargo - it's called the weight and balance check.  Passenger weights are assumed, of course - nobody gets on the scales.

 

Aircraft passenger and cargo weight - and particularly its distribution in the aircraft - remains critical to this day.  You won't find all the passengers on a half-full flight up one end of the cabin with the other end roped off, for example.

 

Here are a few notable airliner accidents where overloading or weight and balance issues were major contributing factors:

1. Air Midwest Flight 5481 (2003) – USA

• Aircraft: Beechcraft 1900D
• Cause: The aircraft was overloaded, and incorrect weight calculations led to an excessively aft center of gravity. This caused an uncontrollable nose-up pitch immediately after takeoff, leading to a stall and crash.
• Fatalities: All 21 on board.

2. Aeroflot Flight 8641 (1982) – USSR

• Aircraft: Yakovlev Yak-42
• Cause: Improper weight distribution led to stabilizer overloading and loss of pitch control. The aircraft entered an uncontrollable dive.
• Fatalities: All 132 on board.

3. Emery Worldwide Flight 17 (2000) – USA

• Aircraft: Douglas DC-8
• Cause: Improperly secured cargo shifted during takeoff, moving the center of gravity too far aft. This caused an uncontrollable nose-up pitch and stall.
• Fatalities: All 3 crew members.

4. Nigeria Airways Flight 2120 (1991) – Saudi Arabia

• Aircraft: Douglas DC-8
• Cause: The aircraft was overloaded and had tire failures due to excessive weight. The overheated tires led to an in-flight fire, causing structural failure.
• Fatalities: All 261 on board.

5. Trigana Air Flight 267 (2015) – Indonesia

• Aircraft: ATR 42-300
• Cause: The aircraft was overloaded, affecting performance and climb capability in the mountainous terrain. It crashed into a mountain while attempting to land.
• Fatalities: All 54 on board.

[IsaanT]

21 hours ago, brfsa2 said:

Modern airplanes are much safer when only 1 out of 2 engines are working. The thrust, compensation and balance are all automatically handled by the computers. It would be impossible for the pilots to do that on the fly.

 

Complete twaddle.

 

The aircraft is compromised, and its fall-back options have been reduced to zero, so how could it be safer?  Also, the pilots are trained for all contingencies - and practice them regularly on simulators - so the word 'impossible' here is both irresponsible and disrespectful of their skills.

[black tabby12345]

11 minutes ago, IsaanT said:

 

Airline crew still check the weight of passengers and cargo - it's called the weight and balance check.  Passenger weights are assumed, of course - nobody gets on the scales.

 

Aircraft passenger and cargo weight - and particularly its distribution in the aircraft - remains critical to this day.  You won't find all the passengers on a half-full flight up one end of the cabin with the other end roped off, for example.

 

Here are a few notable airliner accidents where overloading or weight and balance issues were major contributing factors:

1. Air Midwest Flight 5481 (2003) – USA

• Aircraft: Beechcraft 1900D
• Cause: The aircraft was overloaded, and incorrect weight calculations led to an excessively aft center of gravity. This caused an uncontrollable nose-up pitch immediately after takeoff, leading to a stall and crash.
• Fatalities: All 21 on board.

2. Aeroflot Flight 8641 (1982) – USSR

• Aircraft: Yakovlev Yak-42
• Cause: Improper weight distribution led to stabilizer overloading and loss of pitch control. The aircraft entered an uncontrollable dive.
• Fatalities: All 132 on board.

3. Emery Worldwide Flight 17 (2000) – USA

• Aircraft: Douglas DC-8
• Cause: Improperly secured cargo shifted during takeoff, moving the center of gravity too far aft. This caused an uncontrollable nose-up pitch and stall.
• Fatalities: All 3 crew members.

4. Nigeria Airways Flight 2120 (1991) – Saudi Arabia

• Aircraft: Douglas DC-8
• Cause: The aircraft was overloaded and had tire failures due to excessive weight. The overheated tires led to an in-flight fire, causing structural failure.
• Fatalities: All 261 on board.

5. Trigana Air Flight 267 (2015) – Indonesia

• Aircraft: ATR 42-300
• Cause: The aircraft was overloaded, affecting performance and climb capability in the mountainous terrain. It crashed into a mountain while attempting to land.
• Fatalities: All 54 on board.

 

Hello, IssanT,

Thank you for your detailed advice with which I could  update my knowledge.

I didn’t know they still do...

 

Even though I have heard of the case some unusually overweighted passenger met airline's rejection when she demanded 2 seats for her, at the price of one...

 

Larger-bodied airline passengers forced to pay for two seats prompts call for clearer anti-discrimination laws | Airline industry | The Guardian

 

'I'm Fat, I Should Not Have To Buy Two Seats On a Plane' - Newsweek

 

 

 

[WorriedNoodle]

19 hours ago, phil2407 said:

over dramatic AI story 

AI stories can be as dramatic as ones requests. This reads as pure fantasy and likely never happened.

[KannikaP]

1 hour ago, black tabby12345 said:

 

Hello, IssanT,

Thank you for your detailed advice with which I could  update my knowledge.

I didn’t know they still do...

 

Even though I have heard of the case some unusually overweighted passenger met airline's rejection when she demanded 2 seats for her, at the price of one...

 

Larger-bodied airline passengers forced to pay for two seats prompts call for clearer anti-discrimination laws | Airline industry | The Guardian

 

'I'm Fat, I Should Not Have To Buy Two Seats On a Plane' - Newsweek

 

 

 

As they do on more and more flights, the passenger plus their baggage should be weighed, so that the pax can be distributed correctly, and charged for. Average all pax ay say 100 kg.

Don't get me onto the subject of hand luggage which is mainly never touched during the flight. especially litres of inflammable alcohol.  OK, if a pax has only hand luggage, include it, but if they have checked in bags, add the 7-10kg to the usual 23 kg, so say 30kg.

 

[terryofcrete]

Even 20 years ago a jet could land on one engine without a major incident being announced. I was on one. I scoured the papers the next day ...Nothing !

[ravip]

On 2/1/2025 at 5:59 AM, diveasia666 said:

Surprised it doesn't happen more often after chapter 11 and minimal maintenance to cut costs.

You have the statistics of the maintenance details/schedules you refer to above? 

[ravip]

On 2/1/2025 at 7:28 AM, ChrisY1 said:

I'm bloody sure that I would be very worried if I looked out of any plane window, and saw an engine not working....at 30k feet!

 

To be honest,  never seen an engine WORKING at 30k feet!

Heard?  Yes. 

[ravip]

On 2/1/2025 at 6:01 AM, ronster said:

Slightly made up journalism me thinks .

There is no way they would tell the passengers they were going to make an emergency landing due to engine failure.

They would just tell passengers to return to their seats and fasten seatbelts. Possibly even stating medical emergency as a cover story.

Are you sure the passengers are NOT informed of any issue?

 

Once on a flight,  after about an hour,  the Captain announced that we were turning around due to an issue in the cabin pressurisation system. 

[ravip]

On 2/1/2025 at 9:03 AM, steven100 said:

Not sure where it came from, possibly Bangkok,  but to run out of fuel on approach is bad calculation by the ground staff.

 

Next time....more fuel.  

Did this engine stall due to a fuel shortage? 

I am not an expert in aircrafts.  But I doubt if each engine has its own fuel tank!

In fact,  it has an highly complex, computerised fuel feed system... I've heard...

[IsaanT]

27 minutes ago, ravip said:

Did this engine stall due to a fuel shortage? 

I am not an expert in aircrafts.  But I doubt if each engine has its own fuel tank!

In fact,  it has an highly complex, computerised fuel feed system... I've heard...

 

Airliners typically have four fuel tanks - one each in the wings, a central tank in the fuselage and perhaps an auxiliary tank.

 

Fuel can be pumped between each tank to help the weight and balance throughout the flight.

 

Unsurprisingly, aircraft have accurate fuel gauges so running out of fuel would be gross negligence.  An airliner low on fuel will declare a fuel emergency to its inbound airport, giving it priority over all other inbound traffic.

Some airlines have been banned from British airspace because they routinely loaded a marginal amount of fuel on their planes to be able to save money but declared too many low fuel emergencies.  Ryanair and Wizz Air have both been investigated for this.

[outsider]

On 1/31/2025 at 10:16 PM, chickenslegs said:

In such circumstances does the pilot announce that an engine has failed? I would have thought it better to just get on and land the plane without scaring the passengers.

 

If I am not mistaken, I think it's protocol. The pilot must tell passengers what happened, or is happening, if anything out of the ordinary takes place mid-flight. It's not about scaring/not scaring passengers. It is about 'equipping' passengers with information - tell them what went wrong, reassure them by explaining what is being done to alleviate the situation, and calm them down, to avoid scaring them! Not telling them anything and letting passengers speculate will scare them even more, not to mention the potential of some passengers escalating the incident by panicking physically - because they don't have the right information! This is even more dangerous.

 

Of course, aircrews are trained to be a little more tactful when they have to make such announcements. They probably wouldn't say "We just lost one engine, and have to fly with just the one that's still working" but instead something more 'encouraging' like "Due to a malfunction, we have to proceed with the flight with number two engine - that's the one on the right-hand side, ladies and gentlemen" and proceed to tell what is being/will be done to land the plane safely etc. etc.

 

While it is safe for an aircraft to fly with one engine, certain conditions must be met - lower airspeed, lower altitude etc. And the aircraft is not allowed to taxi to the terminal on its own power and must stop as soon as it clears the runway upon landing. Engines (and the APU) must be shut down (to avert a fire hazard, I guess?). The aircraft must sit on the tarmac and wait for the aircraft tug to come out and tow it to a safe location where passengers can disembark. Imagine, if all this was happening and the pilot doesn't tell the passengers anything - what do you think will happen in the cabin? In serious, potentially life-and-death situations, people share and exchange real information, not play hide-and-seek with real information. I'm not a pilot nor an aviation expert, just an amateur AV geek and 'planespotter', but I WAS on a flight that had to shut one engine due to a malfunction and the events above did take place.

 

Scary? I think I was more tense than scared. And it was bl**dy unpleasant, but I'll get to this in a bit. It was a Malaysia Airlines flight from KUL - BKK. The pilot did a good job talking to passengers throughout the flight after the initial announcement. The passengers were calm. The aircraft flew very slowly and at a low altitude but other than that, there was no drama. The unpleasantness came when we landed. The aircraft stopped as soon as it turned off the runway and everything was shut down. This was on a midday in April and, sitting in the open under the Songkran sun in Suvarnabhumi, the cabin heated up very quickly. I think it was a good part of 30 minutes before the aircraft tug came to get us. During disembarkation nobody pushed, rushed or panicked. It was quite 'normal' - to the point where you get the usual impatient muppets flipping their seatbelts away, lunging for their stuff from the overhead storage and standing in the aisle - even before the aircraft has come to a complete stop. The captain made a final announcement, then came out and together with the crew apologised for the unpleasantness. But instead of rushing to get off, the passengers (including the impatient muppets) clapped and even stopped to shake hands with the pilots and crew and exchanged pleasantries.

 

I think this was all a part of their training and they achieved the desired outcome. I think they did a good job, don't you think so?