Flight OG269: At Least 88 Bodies Found At Phuket Airport Crash Site

[bino]

I will be the first to admit I dont know much about aircraft safety.

On the other hand, I would not feel safe flying in a 24 year old plane, in poor weather conditions, especially one that is doing 6 round trips on the same route every day. Can it really be that safe?

The plane was 12-year-old (I'm think the sources suggesting 24 year-old are wrong).

The plane was indeed 24 years old.

Original Owner: Trans World Airlines

Serial number: 49183 LN:1129

Type: MD-82

First flight date: 17 November 1983

Delivery Date: 20/12/1983

Operator:TWA

Registration: N912TW

Delivery Date: 2/12/2001

Operator:American Airlines

Registration: N912TW

Remark: Stored at Roswell 04/2006

Delivery Date: 21/03/2007

Operator:One Two Go Airlines

Registration: HS-OMG

[gwynt]

I fly on average 20 times a year, 16 so far this year, one to Phuket(Nok Air) and I still feel safer in the air than traveling to and from work every day.

Deepest condolences to all those grieving families

[Wolfie]

Statistically speaking, air travel is still one of the safest ways to travel.

My condolences to the families of those who lost their lives in this disaster and my thoughts are with the wounded.

[khuntony]

On the other hand, I would not feel safe flying in a 24 year old plane, in poor weather conditions, especially one that is doing 6 round trips on the same route every day. Can it really be that safe?

The point is: HOW can you tell when you pre-book a ticket ?

LaoPo

Quite simply put, you can't, but if you do any amount of air travel around the world, you have probably flown on many 24+ yr old aircraft (without realizing it), that are flying quite safely in everyday operation because of the 'checks and balances' that are in place with ALL commercial operations (airlines) around the world. I'm not saying that there is no chance of human error in any of the areas of all that is required to put an airliner into flight (maintenance, crew, ground-ops, fuel, weather etc), but there are checks in place that are designed to catch and prevent errors, but it remains a fact that commercial aviation is still the safest way to travel.

I would venture a guess that there are many people traveling on other forms of non-aviation, commercial, public transportation around certain areas of the world that are at far greater risk on their journey as I write this.

Unfortunately, when an accident like yesterday's sad event occurs, it always captures the headlines, and the 'witch-hunt' begins.

Pointless speculation on forums like this serves no useful purpose.

Allow those who's job it is to find the cause of this accident to do their job professionally, with all the resources, and experience that they have at their disposal, so that lessons may be learnt, and passed on as necessary, to help prevent a similar event if possible. Save any criticism of whoever or whatever might be deemed to have been responsible for when the final report has been published.

[ThaiPauly]

OMG....we have just found out that one of my Wife's distant cousins was on the plane, but they share the same family name.

She did not survive.

My Wife had only met her a few times ......she comes from a very big family in Surat Thani,

RIP Jiranuch Sawannarat and every one else that lost their lives in this tradgedy.

[tigerbeer]

LaoPo

Quite simply put, you can't, but if you do any amount of air travel around the world, you have probably flown on many 24+ yr old aircraft (without realizing it), that are flying quite safely in everyday operation because of the 'checks and balances' that are in place with ALL commercial operations (airlines) around the world. I'm not saying that there is no chance of human error in any of the areas of all that is required to put an airliner into flight (maintenance, crew, ground-ops, fuel, weather etc), but there are checks in place that are designed to catch and prevent errors, but it remains a fact that commercial aviation is still the safest way to travel.

still many MD-80 & 90 series flying around:

quoted from Wikipedia:

The MD-80 series has been used by airlines around the world. Major customers include Aeroméxico, Allegiant Air, American Airlines, Austrian Airlines,Belle Air,Delta Air Lines, Swissair, Alitalia, Scandinavian Airlines System (SAS), Finnair, Iberia, Japan Air System (JAS), China Eastern Airlines, China Northern Airlines, Alaska Airlines, Korean Air, Austral Líneas Aéreas, and Viking Airlines. Many of the airlines have, however, started to retire the type in the 2000s.

In May 2007, a total of 1,051 MD-80 and MD-90 aircraft (all variants) were in airline service, including American Airlines (301), Delta Air Lines (133), Alitalia (72), Scandinavian Airlines System (44), Japan Airlines (42),Spanair (37), Iberia Airlines (30), Saudi Arabian (29, MD-90 only), Aeroméxico (28), China Southern Airlines (24), Allegiant Air (24). In addition, some 70 other operators fly smaller numbers of the type.[2]

i would still be vary about flying with an airline using older planes, but thats just me. regardless of it being in a "Budget" airline or a premium one.

condolences to all those involved in yesterday's crash.

TB..

Edited September 17, 2007 by tigerbeer

[Abrak]

If you look at the above history of the plane you will see that after its tenure with American Airlines it was 'stored at Roswell'

Roswell is essentially a graveyard for planes - where they are usually chopped up and used for spare parts.

How it got from there in April '2006 to Bangkok/Phuket in March 2007 to be used to do 6 round trips a day I simply have no idea. But it is not the sort of plane I would feel comfortable flying on....

I wonder what other short cuts these budget airlines take in order to stay in business?

[A_Traveller]

On the Roswell point, I'm not sure but my understanding was after 9/11 there were many planes stored in the desert and they have over time returned to service, not just as spare parts.

Regards

[Maigo6]

here's an interesting clip.. very fierce approach conditions as an airliner attempts to put down, excellent pilot skills are utilized as he aborts for a go around

Jeeez, scarey stuff!!

[chinthee]

On the Roswell point, I'm not sure but my understanding was after 9/11 there were many planes stored in the desert and they have over time returned to service, not just as spare parts.

Regards

yes, that is my understanding too. It's kind of the "used car lot" of jets. Some get sold, some sit, and some get parted out.

[AsiaCheese]

If you look at the above history of the plane you will see that after its tenure with American Airlines it was 'stored at Roswell'

Roswell is essentially a graveyard for planes - where they are usually chopped up and used for spare parts.

How it got from there in April '2006 to Bangkok/Phuket in March 2007 to be used to do 6 round trips a day I simply have no idea. But it is not the sort of plane I would feel comfortable flying on....

I wonder what other short cuts these budget airlines take in order to stay in business?

These airplane "graveyards" also serve as parking areas for airplanes that aren't in - uhm - high demand, but otherwise still fully functional. "Big name" airlines aren't doing their shopping there, but low-cost ones are -- it's a bit like a used-car dealer scenario. But regardless of where it was stored between active duties, any plane that's ever in the air needs to comply with x number of national/international safety regulations. The graveyard bit may be yellow press fodder, but it's hardly relevant...

Quite a few "big name" airline planes are surprisingly old (as far as their initial in-service date is concerned), but much in contrast to old cars, manufacturers regularly come up with updates which mandatorily need to be retrofitted, thus any airplane gradually becomes "newer" as time goes. There are of course limits there as well -- some materials can "get tired" over time...

[Old Man River]

I asked this early on in this thread, but now with 21 pages, I am not going to read them all.

Does anyone know if Phuket airport has Doppler radar? It shows directions and speeds of winds and is most useful during storms. After some tragic crashes in the US 15-20 years ago, most airports now use it. Still, I would imagine there are still some smaller airports which haven't upgraded their radar equipment. Is Phuket one of these?

[lannarebirth]

On the Roswell point, I'm not sure but my understanding was after 9/11 there were many planes stored in the desert and they have over time returned to service, not just as spare parts.

Regards

yes, that is my understanding too. It's kind of the "used car lot" of jets. Some get sold, some sit, and some get parted out.

In America, Roswell, and to a much greater extent Mojave, are aircraft storage facilities. This is primarily due to their dry weather. Many brabd new aircraft can be found in these facilities as well. Aircraft leasing firms park the planes they don't have customers for yet, there.

Edited September 17, 2007 by lannarebirth

[chrislarsson]

I just watched a debate on Channel News Asia about the accident in Phuket and air safety in general. The panel comprised of three industry experts. Don't know their names, but they were American and European.

Here is a summary of their conclusions:

* All speculation now is quite meaningless, but the weather was a contributing factor for sure. Normally accidents do not depend on a single factor, but a series of unfortunate events.

* Budget airlines are not less safe than major airlines. It can rather be the lack of enforcement of regulations in a country that can make airlines less safe. Such was the case in Indonesia who has now taken measures to improve safety. There is no pattern suggesting that this is the case in Thailand.

* The age of a plane is not a major risk factor , it is rather the quality of maintanence.

* One of the main problems for the air industry in Asia at the moment are that the growth is too high causing a shortage of pilots.

* China has taken pro-active measures to avoid this problem by not allowing new airlines to start-up. China now has one of the best air safety records in the world, from having one of the worst in the beginning of the 90's.

I think that was all of their main-points.

[geriatrickid]

On the Roswell point, I'm not sure but my understanding was after 9/11 there were many planes stored in the desert and they have over time returned to service, not just as spare parts.

Regards

Fuel guzzler depot. Those older planes can consume upwards of 25% more fuel than the newer models. Makes a big diff today.

[geriatrickid]

I mentioned last night that NTSB may be invited, since the aircraft is of US manufacture. It is normal these days and I believe that NTSB has stated that they will assist.

From CNN:

The National Transportation Safety Board will assist the Thai government in the investigation, according to a statement on the NTSB's Web site. Both the NTSB and the Federal Aviation Administration usually deploy investigators to crash sites involving U.S.-made aircraft.

NTSB Chairman Mark V. Rosenker has designated investigator Jill Andrews as the U.S. Accredited Representative. She will be accompanied by representatives from the Federal Aviation Administration, Boeing, and Pratt & Whitney.

Regards

/edit add quotes//

Reuters reports Flight recorders are being sent to the USA for analysis.

[chrislarsson]

I asked this early on in this thread, but now with 21 pages, I am not going to read them all.

Does anyone know if Phuket airport has Doppler radar? It shows directions and speeds of winds and is most useful during storms. After some tragic crashes in the US 15-20 years ago, most airports now use it. Still, I would imagine there are still some smaller airports which haven't upgraded their radar equipment. Is Phuket one of these?

I don't really know what a Doppler Radar is, or its importance at airports. Could you please direct us to a site with more information about this.

Edited September 17, 2007 by chrislarsson

[cdnvic]

I asked this early on in this thread, but now with 21 pages, I am not going to read them all.

Does anyone know if Phuket airport has Doppler radar? It shows directions and speeds of winds and is most useful during storms. After some tragic crashes in the US 15-20 years ago, most airports now use it. Still, I would imagine there are still some smaller airports which haven't upgraded their radar equipment. Is Phuket one of these?

Phuket doesn't have equipment to detect windshear according to CNN.

[simon43]

In fact, the manufacturer's website here:

http://www.sigmet.com/products/installedsystems

says that Phuket does have a windshear radar system installed...

Simon

[dekka007]

I am pretty sure no where in Thailand has a windshear detection system installed. I think (limited knowledge on ground ATC radars) that IRIS is a type of weather cell and droplet return radar.

A true Windshear system such as hong kong: Hong Kong is way expensive and very rare.

((remove personal comment on resolved problem - lopburi3))

Edited September 17, 2007 by lopburi3

[jeebusjones]

I just watched a debate on Channel News Asia about the accident in Phuket and air safety in general. The panel comprised of three industry experts. Don't know their names, but they were American and European.

Here is a summary of their conclusions:

...

* The age of a plane is not a major risk factor , it is rather the quality of maintanence.

...

Thanks chrislarsson, you've posted some very informative things today. I do find one point mentioned from that debate to be rather dubious.

Aircraft may be able to operate for very long periods of time if maintained properly. So, no, age wouldn't necessarily be a risk factor.

However, if an aircraft is very old (say 24 years, like this one), then there is a pretty substantial risk that the aircraft has not been optimally maintained. Especially if an aircraft has changed hands a few times, there's no telling what details were forgotten/overlooked in the trade. For example, a China Airlines crash in 2002 was apparently caused by a shoddy repair that had been done to the plane back in 1980. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Airlines_Flight_611)

If you're flying in a brand new plane, you don't have to worry about that risk of sub-par maintenance at all.

[baabaabobo]

Death toll at 89, all bodies recovered

PHUKET: As Phuket woke up to memories of yesterday’s airport disaster, the death toll of those on board One-Two-Go flight OG269 stood at 89, including five crew members.

A press conference held this morning at Phuket International Airport was attended by Deputy Transport Minister Sansern Wongchaoom; Kalaya Pakakrong, acting managing director of Airports of Thailand (AOT); Udom Thantiprasongchai, managing director of Orient Thai, which operates One-Two-Go; Chaisak Ungsuwan, director general of the Department of Civil Aviation; and Phuket Airport Director Sq Ldr Pornchai Eua-aree.

Of the 89 dead, about 60 have been identified, said K. Kalaya.

The victims’ bodies are being kept in a makeshift morgue at Phuket Airport Hall, a multipurpose building to the south of the main airport terminal.

Among the foreigners who perished was 56-year-old pilot Areef Mulyadi, whose nationality was not officially released but is understood to be Indonesian. The co-pilot, a Thai, also died.

Reported as having perished i the crash were three prominent members of the government and judiciary: Phuket Court Judge Katha Kanchanasutha, Phang Nga Court Judge Chakart Kulwanich and Phuket Provincial Comptroller Wantana Meesang.

Bangkok Phuket Hospital, which is treating 29 of the 41 survivors, listed their patients’ citizenships as: Thai (8); Iranian (6); German (4); English (3); Irish (2); Israeli (2); Austrian, Canadian, French, Australian (1 each).

The hospital had earlier reported the number of survivors as 42 because one person being treated at the hospital, who was admitted around the time of the crash in a separate incident, was mistaken as being on board flight OG269.

Orient Thai Director K. Udom arrived in Phuket last night. In addition to expressing his regrets and condolences, he said the airline will provide free transport and accommodation to the family members of all survivors as well as an initial compensation payment of 100,000 baht for each victim.

“We can’t say say at this point how much we will pay in total compensation, but don’t worry because we will do our best,” he said.

Although AOT had originally wanted to reopen the airport for service at 7:30 pm tonight, the airport officially reopened at 4 pm this afternoon.

Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont arrived in Phuket at 4.40 pm to visit survivors at Bangkok Phuket Hospital and Vachira Phuket Hospital. He was due to return to Bangkok tonight.

Now that all of the bodies have been recovered, workers are using a crane and other heavy equipment to remove the rest of wreckage along the side of the runway where the plane came to rest after breaking in two.

The wreckage and its removal continues to attract scores of onlookers, despite efforts to restrict the view by putting up plastic sheeting along the chain-link fence that surrounds the airfield.

One survivor, Nong Khaonuan, told the ASTV television network in a telephone interview this morning that he had suffered only an injury to his ear. His wife, K. Ladda, also survived, but suffered a severe blow to her forehead.

Rescue workers were on the scene within 10 minutes of the accident and it was not raining heavily when he escaped the fuselage, said K. Nong.

In a telephone interview on military-run Thai TV Channel 5, Transport Minister Gen Teera Hawjaroern expressed condolences to the families of all who perished in the disaster and praised the efforts of rescue workers and medical staff in getting survivors to safety.

Currently only three survivors, all Thais, are listed as needing intensive-care treatment. All are being treated at Phuket International Hospital. They were listed on the One-Two-Go website as: Likhit Liengpansakul, Parinwit Choosaeng and Chainarong Maharae.

From the Phuket Gazette

[chrislarsson]

I do not believe MD made planes as early as 12 years ago. 24 years is more like it, I think.

I am not sure which one is true, but according to Wikipedia the MD-80 series was in production between 1979 - 1999.

Of the 1,191 units built, four have had fatal incidents including the one in Phuket yesterday.

1. Dec 1991, SAS: Ice breaking loose from the wings destroyed both engines. The plane crashed into a field and broke into three parts. All passengers survived without serious injuries.

2. Jan 2001, Alaska Airlines. The jacksrew problem mentioned earlier in this thread. No survivors.

3. Oct 2001, SAS. A collision with a Cesna entering the runway during takeoff. If I don't remeber it wrong some of the staff from the air control tower had to spend time behind bars.

4. Sept 2007, One-two-GO...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_MD-80/MD-90

[emmezeta]

LaoPo

In May 2007, a total of 1,051 MD-80 and MD-90 aircraft (all variants) were in airline service, including American Airlines (301), Delta Air Lines (133), Alitalia (72), Scandinavian Airlines System (44), Japan Airlines (42),Spanair (37), Iberia Airlines (30), Saudi Arabian (29, MD-90 only), Aeroméxico (28), China Southern Airlines (24).

Every hour an MD-80 will depart from Milan to Rome and viceversa.......

But we have goood weather usually, apart rare fog......

Speaking of another airplane very known in Samui, ATR42, we had incidents due to ice,

so nothing to worry in Thailand

[cdnvic]

I do not believe MD made planes as early as 12 years ago. 24 years is more like it, I think.

McDonnell Douglas made the aircraft until August of 97 when they merged with Boeing. Boeing produced MD-80s up until 1999. The MD-80/90 series lived on as the Boeing 717 until the final one was delivered last year

[wpcoe]

I am not sure which one is true, but according to Wikipedia the MD-80 series was in production between 1979 - 1999.

Of the 1,191 units built, four have had fatal incidents including the one in Phuket yesterday.

1. Dec 1991, SAS: Ice breaking loose from the wings destroyed both engines. The plane crashed into a field and broke into three parts. All passengers survived without serious injuries.

2. Jan 2001, Alaska Airlines. The jacksrew problem mentioned earlier in this thread. No survivors.

3. Oct 2001, SAS. A collision with a Cesna entering the runway during takeoff. If I don't remeber it wrong some of the staff from the air control tower had to spend time behind bars.

4. Sept 2007, One-two-GO...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_MD-80/MD-90

I think Wikipedia missed a few:

Date		 Airline/Location			Aircraft Type/Registration	  Fatalities

12.01.1981   Inex Adria Aviopromet	   McDonnell Douglas MD-82		 180:180
		 Ajaccio, France			 YU-ANA

08.16.1987   Northwest Airlines		  McDonnell Douglas MD-82		 154:155 + 2
		 Romulus, Michigan (Detroit Airport)   N312RC

06.12.1988   Austral Lineas Aeras		McDonnell Douglas MD-81		  22:22
		 Posadas, Argentina		  N1003G	 

10.26.1993   China Eastern Airlines	  McDonnell Douglas MD-82		   2:80
		 Fuzhou, China			   B-2103	 

11.13.1993   China Northern Airlines	 McDonnell Douglas MD-82		  12:102
		 Urumqui, China			  B-2141	 

07.06.1996   Delta Air Lines			 McDonnell Douglas MD-88		   2:146
		 Pensacola, Florida, USA	 N927DA	 

06.01.1999   American Airlines		   McDonnell Douglas MD-82		  12:143
		 Little Rock, Arkansas, USA	 N215AA	 

01.31.2000   Alaska Airlines			 McDonnell Douglas MD-83		   88:88
		 Point Magu, California, USA	 N963AS	 

10.08.2001   Scandinavian Airlines (SAS) McDonnell Douglas MD-87		  118:118+4
		 Milan, Italy - Linate Airport	 SE-DMA	 

05.07.2002   China Northern Airlines	 McDonnell Douglas MD-82		  112:112
		 Yellow Sea - off Dalian, China	 B-2138	 

11.30.2004   Lion Airlines			   McDonnell Douglas MD-82		   26:153
		 Solo, Indonesia			 PK-LMN	 

08.16.2005   West Caribbean Airways	  McDonnell Douglas MD-82		  160:160
		 Machiques, Venezuela		HK-4374X	 

09.16.2007   One-Two-GO by Orient Thai   McDonnell Douglas MD-82		   88:130
		 Phuket, Thailand			HS-OMG

source: http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/view_ma...i?aircraft=MD-8

(Is there any way to post tabular data other than useing

 tags?  Sorry for the amount of space that took, but I couldn't find another way to post it so it would be readable...)

[Burr]

On the Roswell point, I'm not sure but my understanding was after 9/11 there were many planes stored in the desert and they have over time returned to service, not just as spare parts.

Regards

They store them in the desert because there is "VERY" low humidity.

They are sealed and almost ready to go, may need to replace a few dried seals.

Edited September 17, 2007 by Burr

[elkangorito]

In the 1970's, when I was in the R.A.A.F. (Royal Australian Air Force), I flew in DC-3's, 'A' & 'E' model Hercules (as a passenger), all of which have since been decommissioned by the RAAF. Nonetheless, these aircraft are still used & are still reliable. The key issue here is maintenance & regulatory requirements. At that time, a DC-3 in which I was a passenger, had a problem in an engine (overheating). The crew shut down the engine to minimise a possible fire risk. The aircraft had 37 people on board. Many of my colleagues were physically sick at the time with fear but we had no problems whatsoever continuing to our destination. In this case, procedure took care of the problem & maintenance was obviously becoming a problem.

It is only my opinion that the age of an aircraft has little to do with its' performance. It is more to do with;

1] pilot error.

2] availability & cost of parts (in some way related to the age of the aircraft, which is resolved by decommissioning the aircraft. If the parts etc are still available, there is no reason why the aircraft is less safe).

3] owner/operators adhering to regulatory requirements.

It is a statistical fact that over 80% of air 'incidents' directly relate to pilot error.

It is also very difficult to 'fudge' the maintenance releases of a particular aircraft but not withstanding this, I guess 'money' could cover the issue.

I think that the Phuket incident was a situation where the pilot was in extreme weather conditions & under great pressure. It's quite possible that his 'decision making' process was a bit slow. Coming in at 200+ knots does not give much room/time for error. I really don't think that it was an aircraft problem.

Then again, I am just speculating.

EDIT: "t is only my opinion that the age of an aircraft has little to do with its' performance. It is more to do with;"

changed 'reliability' to 'performance'.

Edited September 17, 2007 by elkangorito

[Mid]

String of crashes in Asia raises concerns

snip

It's too early to say what caused Flight OG269 to crash in stormy weather, although one aviation expert, citing Thai aviation officials, said the pilot reportedly asked to circle around again because he could not see the runway, but the plane was already too low.

"It was hit by wind shear or strong winds and he didn't have time to react," said Tom Ballantyne, chief corespondent for Orient Aviation magazine, adding that the bigger question was whether the airport should have been allowing planes to land in such weather.

snip

usatoday.com

bigger question was whether the airport should have been allowing planes to land in such weather

[elkangorito]

String of crashes in Asia raises concerns

snip

It's too early to say what caused Flight OG269 to crash in stormy weather, although one aviation expert, citing Thai aviation officials, said the pilot reportedly asked to circle around again because he could not see the runway, but the plane was already too low.

"It was hit by wind shear or strong winds and he didn't have time to react," said Tom Ballantyne, chief corespondent for Orient Aviation magazine, adding that the bigger question was whether the airport should have been allowing planes to land in such weather.

snip

usatoday.com

bigger question was whether the airport should have been allowing planes to land in such weather

VFR (Visual Flight Rules - it was daytime) conditions are pretty easy. It takes a pretty bad situation before an aerodrome or airport decides to 'shutdown'.

I believe that in this case, the conditions were expected given the location & time of year, but a sudden & extreme condition is not something that we humans can generally deal with in a timely fashion.

At the end of the day & under VFR, it's up to the pilot to make these decisions.

I'm pretty sure dekka can add to or correct my evaluation of this.

Edited September 17, 2007 by elkangorito