Skip to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Thailand News and Discussion Forum | ASEANNOW

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

Thai Navy Plane Blocks Phuket Airport Runway; Flights Disrupted

Featured Replies

  • Popular Post

phuket-airport-runway.webp

Royal Thai Navy's Cessna O-2 Skymaster on the runway after suffering a landing gear failure | Photo via BangkokBizNews

 

A Thai Navy aircraft blocked the runway at Phuket International Airport today, October 8, due to a landing gear malfunction. The incident, which occurred at 11:14 a.m., resulted in the temporary closure of the runway, although no injuries were reported. Passengers have been urged to check their flight status with airlines, as several flights were disrupted.

 

The aircraft, identified as a T-337 observation plane, or Cessna O-2 Skymaster, has served the Royal Thai Navy for over 40 years. It was on a routine maritime patrol mission to monitor activities like drug trafficking and smuggling along Thailand’s maritime borders. Rear Admiral Parach Rattanachaiyaphan acknowledged the inconvenience and assured swift action to restore normal operations.

 

“The Navy apologises for the inconvenience caused by the landing gear issue. All relevant teams are working quickly to remove the aircraft and minimise disruption,” said Rear Admiral Parach Rattanachaiyaphan. An urgent operation is underway to clear the aircraft, with expectations to reopen the runway by 3:30 p.m. or earlier.

 

This incident draws parallels to a previous event at Suvarnabhumi Airport last year when Thai Airways flight TG466 veered off the runway during landing. In that instance, the Airbus A350-900 struck several edge lights due to adverse weather but safely taxied to the gate without injuries.

 

Such incidents highlight the complexities involved in maintaining flight safety amid technical failures. Experts stress the importance of regular maintenance checks, especially for older aircrafts involved in crucial operations like the Navy's patrol missions. The swift response by Phuket's airport authorities underscores the focus on passenger safety.

 

Looking ahead, the removal operation of the blocked aircraft is anticipated to conclude shortly, allowing for the resumption of normal flight activities. Passengers are advised to stay updated by communicating with their airlines regarding any potential delays or changes in flight schedules.

 

Key Takeaways

  • A Thai Navy aircraft halted flights at Phuket Airport due to landing gear issues.
  • The aircraft was on a routine patrol, highlighting its role in maritime security.
  • Operations are ongoing to quickly resolve disruptions and resume normal airport functions.

 

Related Stories

Direct Flights from Thailand to US Return After 10 Years

Thai Airports Raise Service Charges for Travelers

 

image.png  Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Thaiger 2025-10-08

 

image.jpeg

 

image.png

  • Popular Post

Those Russian drones getting everywhere 😋

  • Popular Post

These Skymasters have seen action in Vietnam more than 50 years ago. With the local heat and humidity I wonder how they can still fly. They must be rotten to the core.

Over 500 units were delivered to the US forces in Vietnam. Close to 200 units were lost in combat or destroyed on the ground. Many were given to the RTAF after the US forces left Nakhon Phanom, others left in the Philippines or thrown overboard after the Saigon debacle.

  • Popular Post
16 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

The aircraft, identified as a T-337 observation plane, or Cessna O-2 Skymaster, has served the Royal Thai Navy for over 40 years

Time to retire the ageing aircraft.

" Passengers have been urged to check their flight status with airlines, as several flights were disrupted."

 

Hopefully not during the flight. That would have catastrophic consequences!

41 minutes ago, hotchilli said:

Time to retire the ageing aircraft.


Conventional aircraft maintenance schedules replace all worn or aged parts (engine, propellors, bearings, etc.) at a frequency specified by the aircraft manufacturer.  Engines, for example, are replaced with 'zero-hours' (new or fully-reconditioned to new tolerances) every 2,400 hours.

Aircraft are not like cars.  It's like replacing the car's engine, gearbox, axles, suspension, steering rack, ancillaries (e.g. air conditioning, alternator, fuel pump) at specified schedules.  If they did, cars could run forever.

So, what ages in commercially-maintained aircraft, and why the need to retire them?
 

43 minutes ago, IsaanT said:


Conventional aircraft maintenance schedules replace all worn or aged parts (engine, propellors, bearings, etc.) at a frequency specified by the aircraft manufacturer.  Engines, for example, are replaced with 'zero-hours' (new or fully-reconditioned to new tolerances) every 2,400 hours.

Aircraft are not like cars.  It's like replacing the car's engine, gearbox, axles, suspension, steering rack, ancillaries (e.g. air conditioning, alternator, fuel pump) at specified schedules.  If they did, cars could run forever.

So, what ages in commercially-maintained aircraft, and why the need to retire them?
 

I think it's the airframes. Can only handle so may pressurising and depressurising cycles.

I'm sure someone much more knowledgeable than me can explain it.

  • Popular Post
1 hour ago, BerndD said:

" Passengers have been urged to check their flight status with airlines, as several flights were disrupted."

 

Hopefully not during the flight. That would have catastrophic consequences!

As paddy said on hearing the pilots announcement, that "because of an engine failure we will arrive 1hr late" he said "I hope the other does not fail or we'll be stuck up here all day"

quote"

This incident draws parallels to a previous event at Suvarnabhumi Airport last year when Thai Airways flight TG466 veered off the runway during landing. In that instance, the Airbus A350-900 struck several edge lights due to adverse weather but safely taxied to the gate without injuries."

 

What are the parallels, noticed in this article?? I don't see too many if at all one.

1st a huge airliner, A350, that due to adverse weather was blown to one side and damage some edge lights, (apparently not even going beside the runway)

2nd a small plane , Cessna O2, that in good weather had a malfunction on the landing gear. the pilot made a perfect bellow landing and held the plane centre-line on the runway. And no this Cessna could not taxi to the gates . 

 

So where are the parallels???  Oh, I see already both incidents caused not casualties. 

 

21 minutes ago, emptypockets said:

I think it's the airframes. Can only handle so may pressurising and depressurising cycles.

I'm sure someone much more knowledgeable than me can explain it.

What does pressurization have to do with a gear malfunction?  This military plane is mostly used for observations as per the design intentions. So that will be done on low altitudes ,where there is no pressurization of the hull. 

The ceiling for the Cessna O2 is 19,200 ft, so the hull can be pressurized most likely, though I am not sure; could not find it in the aircraft documentation so quickly. 

25 minutes ago, ardsong said:

What does pressurization have to do with a gear malfunction?  This military plane is mostly used for observations as per the design intentions. So that will be done on low altitudes ,where there is no pressurization of the hull. 

The ceiling for the Cessna O2 is 19,200 ft, so the hull can be pressurized most likely, though I am not sure; could not find it in the aircraft documentation so quickly. 


The Cessna T-337 is not pressurized.  19.200 feet is the aircraft's ceiling, i.e. it just can't climb any higher, but it wouldn't operate at that height, in the same way that just because a car can reach a maximum speed of 140mph it doesn't cruise along autobahns at that speed (with a few exceptions, admittedly).  However, pilots and passengers need oxygen for sustained periods above 10,000 feet because the air is too thin and this environment is created by pressurising the cabin.  The purpose of pressurisation is to help passengers breathe without assistance.  Climbers reach 29,000 feet when they climb Mount Everest but they are breathing oxygen from bottles.

To avoid undue stress on the airframe, commercial passenger jets maintain an internal cabin pressure equivalent to being at 8,000 feet altitude but can maintain this all the way up to 45,000 feet if that's how high they can go.

p.s. You may have already noticed, but the T-337 is a 'push-me, pull-you' aircraft.  It has two engines and two propellors, one each at either end of the fuselage, hence the twin tail booms...
 

1 hour ago, IsaanT said:


Conventional aircraft maintenance schedules replace all worn or aged parts (engine, propellors, bearings, etc.) at a frequency specified by the aircraft manufacturer.  Engines, for example, are replaced with 'zero-hours' (new or fully-reconditioned to new tolerances) every 2,400 hours.

Aircraft are not like cars.  It's like replacing the car's engine, gearbox, axles, suspension, steering rack, ancillaries (e.g. air conditioning, alternator, fuel pump) at specified schedules.  If they did, cars could run forever.

So, what ages in commercially-maintained aircraft, and why the need to retire them?
 

Ah you have never had a fiat 127 then!

Or other rust buckets from the 1980,s

And the council spraying salt on the roads!

🤣🤣🤣🚀😮

15 minutes ago, cowellandrew said:

Ah you have never had a fiat 127 then!

Or other rust buckets from the 1980,s

And the council spraying salt on the roads!

🤣🤣🤣🚀😮


I have owned two Fiat 127s (partner's cars) years ago.  Feisty little thing when driven exhuberantly! 😄  I do agree that some Italian cars of the period rusted badly.  Lancias were the worst - many already had rust starting to form when collected new from the showrooms.

Although aircraft do typically have steel components, they are treated with zinc oxide during assembly.  Rust isn't usually an issue.  Most panels on aircraft are aluminium alloy, which is also treated for corrosion.

When I fly aeroplanes I haven't noticed council vehicles spraying salt at altitude but maybe I wasn't in the right area at the time. 😉

Replacing them would mean a lot of commissions for the generals (air Commodores). It is a decision best not taken in haste.

1 hour ago, ardsong said:

What does pressurization have to do with a gear malfunction?  This military plane is mostly used for observations as per the design intentions. So that will be done on low altitudes ,where there is no pressurization of the hull. 

The ceiling for the Cessna O2 is 19,200 ft, so the hull can be pressurized most likely, though I am not sure; could not find it in the aircraft documentation so quickly. 

Nothing. I was responding to Nissan T about why aircraft may be taken out of service, not gear failure.

 

4 hours ago, IsaanT said:


Conventional aircraft maintenance schedules replace all worn or aged parts (engine, propellors, bearings, etc.) at a frequency specified by the aircraft manufacturer.  Engines, for example, are replaced with 'zero-hours' (new or fully-reconditioned to new tolerances) every 2,400 hours.

Aircraft are not like cars.  It's like replacing the car's engine, gearbox, axles, suspension, steering rack, ancillaries (e.g. air conditioning, alternator, fuel pump) at specified schedules.  If they did, cars could run forever.

So, what ages in commercially-maintained aircraft, and why the need to retire them?
 

By this time that must be nearly a brand new plane. It’s so old virtually every component should have been replaced. But we know how good Thai’s are at maintenance.

4 hours ago, IsaanT said:


Conventional aircraft maintenance schedules replace all worn or aged parts (engine, propellors, bearings, etc.) at a frequency specified by the aircraft manufacturer.  Engines, for example, are replaced with 'zero-hours' (new or fully-reconditioned to new tolerances) every 2,400 hours.

Aircraft are not like cars.  It's like replacing the car's engine, gearbox, axles, suspension, steering rack, ancillaries (e.g. air conditioning, alternator, fuel pump) at specified schedules.  If they did, cars could run forever.

So, what ages in commercially-maintained aircraft, and why the need to retire them?
 

When all the above doesn't happen

His runway if there are serious safety issues. Send a tug out to move it.

 

It is not like the pilot was deliberately trying to interrupt traffic.

Mayday mayday to Tower, where is the damn button to extend the landing gear:cheesy:

28 minutes ago, hotchilli said:

When all the above doesn't happen

 
You're a smart man...

I did state 'Conventional aircraft maintenance...'.  I cannot vouch for whether this aircraft was receiving said level of maintenance but even well-maintained aircraft fail occasionally and landing gear issues on light aircraft are a reasonably common event.  I always flew fixed-gear aircraft - one less thing to go wrong.

By the way, I admire the brevity of all your posts.  You almost always make a good point with very few words.  If only it was infectious... 😉

You might not be that far off the mark, this looks like a case of forgotten Landing Gear extension. If you have a problem with Landing Gears you rarely involves all three of them.

1 hour ago, IsaanT said:

 
You're a smart man...

I did state 'Conventional aircraft maintenance...'.  I cannot vouch for whether this aircraft was receiving said level of maintenance but even well-maintained aircraft fail occasionally and landing gear issues on light aircraft are a reasonably common event.  I always flew fixed-gear aircraft - one less thing to go wrong.

By the way, I admire the brevity of all your posts.  You almost always make a good point with very few words.  If only it was infectious... 😉

The problem with aged aircraft is the availability of spare parts.

Manufacturers have long since stopped producing them, suppliers have stopped stocking them as they take up valuable space.

Also repair specialist stop maintaining/servicing units due to the low demand and cost/availability of spares.

This forces aircraft owners to try to service/repair their own stock from the aircraft, this inevitably leads to failures.

44 minutes ago, Montnoveau said:

You might not be that far off the mark, this looks like a case of forgotten Landing Gear extension. If you have a problem with Landing Gears you rarely involves all three of them.

Possibly.  Been done countless times.

Landing with less than three legs extended is going to be way trickier than landing with none so the pilot may have experienced a problem and elected to land with any serviceable legs up.

Too much Airfix glue on the landing gear

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.

Account

Navigation

Search

Search

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.