24 minutes ago, Autonuaq said:

the interesting question is more why the Thai allow possible unsafe airplanes to enter the Thai airspace.

So ban all Boeings from Thai airspace.   

25 minutes ago, Autonuaq said:

Russian airplanes are now known as that they have nor access to genuine certified parts and the needed maintenance.

Yes, they do have access to parts, they can get parts from many places.

27 minutes ago, Autonuaq said:

the interesting question is more why the Thai allow possible unsafe airplanes to enter the Thai airspace.

Ridiculous question.  Every single aircraft everywhere is possibly unsafe.   Until they are unsafe, they are safe.  

30 minutes ago, Autonuaq said:

the interesting question is more why the Thai allow possible unsafe airplanes to enter the Thai airspace.

Why would Thailand ban aircraft, for no reason, from one of its major trading partners?

4 hours ago, Samh said:

10 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Even more stupid to accuse someone of being pretty stupid for asking the question when the plane can dump fuel.

https://www.airlinereporter.com/2009/12/pictures-of-saudi-arabian-boeing-777-fuel-dump/#google_vignette

 

Saudi 777 dumping fuel.

What are you telling me for?   Tell the member to whom I responded following his daft claim that it was "pretty stupid to think Boeing 777-300 can dump fuel".

The Boeing 777-300ER has the following weight specifications:

• Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW): 775,000 lbs (351,534 kg)
• Maximum Landing Weight (MLW): 554,000 lbs (251,290 kg)

Comparison:

• The MTOW is significantly higher than the MLW because an aircraft takes off with a full fuel load and payload but needs to be lighter for landing due to structural limitations.
• The difference between MTOW and MLW is 221,000 lbs (100,244 kg), which means that if a 777-300ER needs to return to the airport shortly after takeoff, it may have to dump or burn fuel to reduce weight before landing safely.

It is therefore pretty obvious why the aiircraft had to dump fuel.

 

To reduce from MTOW to MLW, a Boeing 777-300ER would need to dump 221,000 lbs of fuel, which would take approximately 39 minutes at the standard fuel dump rate.

 

That figure is to reach MLW, and assumes that the aircraft's front landing assembly could withstand the weight involved. If there was any doubt about that fact, it would explain why flying a holding pattern for longer would be a safer option. When lives are at risk, it is neccessary to apply precautionary principles.

10 hours ago, digger70 said:

Yea right   That's Absolutely stupid .

An emergency landing Is an an emergency landing  Only IF/When there is Something Wrong Otherwise it Isn't an Emergency.

Yup, that's why they took 3 hours to circle calmly above the andaman sea...

9 minutes ago, Health On A Budget said:

The Boeing 777-300ER has the following weight specifications:

• Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW): 775,000 lbs (351,534 kg)
• Maximum Landing Weight (MLW): 554,000 lbs (251,290 kg)

Comparison:

• The MTOW is significantly higher than the MLW because an aircraft takes off with a full fuel load and payload but needs to be lighter for landing due to structural limitations.
• The difference between MTOW and MLW is 221,000 lbs (100,244 kg), which means that if a 777-300ER needs to return to the airport shortly after takeoff, it may have to dump or burn fuel to reduce weight before landing safely.

It is therefore pretty obvious why the aircraft had to dump fuel or burn it instead.

 

To reduce from MTOW to MLW, a Boeing 777-300ER would need to dump 221,000 lbs of fuel, which would take approximately 39 minutes at the standard fuel dump rate.

 

That figure is to reach MLW, and assumes that the aircraft's front landing assembly could withstand the weight involved. If there was any doubt about that fact, it would explain why flying a holding pattern for longer would be a safer option. When lives are at risk, it is neccessary to apply precautionary principles.

Amendment included above is to show the option to dump or burn excess fuel.

Next time, the Russians should just fly Tupolev-114 aircraft...

 

 

2 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

So ban all Boeings from Thai airspace.   

No! Ban all Aeroflot!

11 hours ago, pete43 said:

No! Ban all Aeroflot!

Why?   Do you have any rational reason?

13 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

What are you telling me for?   Tell the member to whom I responded following his daft claim that it was "pretty stupid to think Boeing 777-300 can dump fuel".

Just backing up what you said. I couldn't find the original dumb post to reply to that one.

It looks like this aircraft (RA-73518) departed BKK/SBIA early this morning and has landed at KHV (Khabarovskiy Aeroport), operated at flight SU7081.

 

That's a long way from Moscow, but Aeroflot does operate flights KHV-BKK.

 

So this airframe is scheduled to return to BKK tomorrow as SU654 due at 11:15.

 

Seems like it will take a while to get those ~ 290 pax back to Moscow, maybe accommodated on some ME cariers.

 

On 2/11/2025 at 5:05 AM, Liverpool Lou said:

What makes you think that (a) any airline would not order that facility on that model (if it is actually an option on that model and not standard equipment) and (b) it is "obvious" that Aeroflot didn't order it?

It's standard equipment on all t7s. Has to be. Only certain short range aircraft can get away with it being optional. MTOW and all that. The guys talking rubbish.

Good to know it didn’t crush in population center of the kingdom

 

Otherwise, it is just like Russia unwittingly bombing  another country, half the world away from  warzone.

On 2/11/2025 at 8:16 AM, BerndD said:

Russian Roulette with a pistol.

 

Better use this Instead.

With this, death rate is 1/6.

But with the above, it is 6/6(100%)...

 

On 2/11/2025 at 4:38 AM, hotchilli said:

Very doubtful

 

With or Without sanction, anything in Russia presumed lousy...

On 2/11/2025 at 5:11 AM, NatureFilm said:

Flying with russian airlines is "Russian Roulett"

 

Literary...

On 2/11/2025 at 5:06 AM, D M G said:

Forgot the Vodka

 

Unless their plane is Multi-Fuel, like Brazilian cars...

You have to be above 5000 feet to dump fuel this way by the time you dump it at that altitude it doesn’t hit the ground and evaporates

On 2/10/2025 at 9:04 PM, Bannoi said:

I wonder if sanctions leading to poor maintenance had anything to do with it.

They've had a poor maintenance record for many years. I believe they were banned from the UK at one point.  There were reports a few years back that aircrew were told to stop reporting faults and just let the captain know.

On 2/11/2025 at 6:33 AM, Srikcir said:

Airbus and Boeing Suspend Technical Support For Russian airlines, 2022-03-03 https://www.airnavradar.com/blog/airbus-and-boeing-suspend-technical-support-for-russian-airlines

Thailand allowing this aircraft to enter Thailand airspace is a threat to its national security. 

But think of the value of Russian tourists! Money, money, money.

 

Disgusting attitude.  Trump will fix it. 

Wrong answer - if a plane lands or take off from an airport, that airport must have sufficient emergency response to handle that plane…

 

to say Bkk over Phuket makes one question emergency response capabilities  in Phuket 

4 hours ago, cardinalblue said:

Wrong answer - if a plane lands or take off from an airport, that airport must have sufficient emergency response to handle that plane…

 

to say Bkk over Phuket makes one question emergency response capabilities  in Phuket 

 Not true. The pilot wanted a bigger airport with bigger teams and a longer runway. Nothing else going on.

49 minutes ago, Gobbler said:

 Not true. The pilot wanted a bigger airport with bigger teams and a longer runway. Nothing else going on.

Yep, why wouldn't you choose the much bigger and better equipped airport?

And as someone else pointed out, if the landing gear fails on landing it would close the runaway. As Phuket only has one it would be catastrophic, whereas Suvarnabhumi has three so could easily continue operations.

It all makes perfect sense, not sure why anyone thinks there is reason to question it.

On 2/11/2025 at 9:04 PM, Liverpool Lou said:

Yes, they do have access to parts, they can get parts from many places.

Not certified, so no good. 

27 minutes ago, Airwolf said:

On 2/11/2025 at 9:04 PM, Liverpool Lou said:

Yes, they do have access to parts, they can get parts from many places.

Not certified, so no good. 

Says who?