Singapore Keeps Australian Terror Scare Pilot

[LaoPo]

Professional Pilots Rumour Network, South Asian section.

Thanks. I read the 2 topics running on that website about the float plane.

It confirms what many of us think...the case 'stinks' and the pilot has not a very good name in the industry....

According to the specialists on that site he broke about every rule there is in the flying industry. If that's true I hope they take his license and bring him to court.

Facts:

1. ".......the flight was 'disconnected' at 2.31pm Thai time on Tuesday."

2. "The Cessna's flight on Tuesday was supposed to last 50 minutes. But, 2 1/2 hours later, it 'went off the air' despite repeated calls by air traffic controllers at Koh Samui Airport."

2. "It landed at Changi Airport's central runway at 7.54pm and was ringed by airport police." (That's 6.54pm Thai time.)

So: it was in the air for hours-and-hours; that's a bit long for a 40-50 min 'test' flight, isn't it; apart from the completely filled up fuel tanks... Maybe the gasoline guy at Samui airport still has a record in his notebook

From: http: //64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:5ts_hCrJGZMJ:mforum.cari.com.my/viewthread.php%3Ftid%3D328007+Rhys+Thomas+airline+pilot&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=17&gl=nl&lr=lang_nl|lang_en&client=firefox-a

We'll see.

LaoPo

[Gatorade]

There are many airports with radar, I listed those along the possible route, all of them apart from Surat, and Hat Yai do not have this facility.

is it me, or......

LaoPo

Sorry, meant to say "many airports in Thailand". Just happens that the airports long the possible routes from Samui to the Malay border don' have it. I listed them on previous thread.

[jumnien]

From PPRUNE -

Police widen probe into air intrusion

By David Boey

A POLICE investigation into the airspace intrusion that shut down Changi Airport for close to an hour on Jan 22 has turned to how the pilot of the plane got his aircraft.

The Cessna 208 Caravan Amphibian seaplane, said to be worth US$1.2 million (S$1.7 million), has been impounded.

Singapore police are holding on to the passports of the pilot, Mr Rhys Thomas, said to be in his late 50s to early 60s, and his sole passenger, Mr Darren Johnson, said to be a flight engineer in his 40s and both Australians are still “assisting with investigations”.

The Straits Times understands that the police are looking into three suspicious areas.

First, the flight. The plane did not have permission to leave Thai airspace for its flight from Koh Samui airport that day.

It had been cleared only for 50 minute test flight in the vicinity of the airport.

Instead, the pilots went on a 1,000km, six hour trip - without immigration clearance or filing a flight plan, which is required under international aviation rules.

The history of the plane has also thrown up some questions.

Records showed the plane changed owners twice in a few weeks recently.

Ownership was first transferred last December to a Mrs Mali Sadd.

Barely a month later, it was sold to some Australians – supposedly on the cheap – and was registered as belonging to a Ms Mary Cummins.

Ms Cummins and Mr Thomas run a tour agency called Horizontal Falls Adventure Tours in Broome, a coastal resort town in Western Australia.

They also operate a company called Kimberley Seaplanes, which has two other Cessnas of the type that was piloted by Mr Thomas.

Before these transfers, the plane had been owned by Coco Seaplanes, which was in turn owned by Coco International Properties, a company set up to develop beachfront real estate on Koh Samui.

The company was headed by a Mr Alan Sadd – the husband of Mrs Mali Sadd.

As it turns out, Mr Sadd had been in trouble with the authorities in Bangkok for failing to pay 750 000 baht (S$34,000) to a construction firm. He was arrested on Jan 15 as he attempted to leave Koh Samui for Taiwan.

Finally, Mr Thomas background is also being looked into.

It has emerged that Singapore police have contacted an Australian aviator who once flew for him.

The aviator, who declined to be named, told the Straits Times when contacted that he was arrested in the Seychelles while piloting a plane for Mr Thomas that had false registration.

The airspace intrusion on Jan 22 sparked an air defence response, and the episode ended when two missile-armed Republic of Singapore Air Force F16D jets forced the Cessna to land at Changi Airport’s central runway.

The resulting lockdown of Singapore’s airspace triggered by the intrusion affected 17 inbound flights, which were forced into holding patterns. Six departures were delayed.

The two Aussies were questioned immediately upon landing, and it is understood that Mr Thomas initially claimed that he had problems with the landing gear of his seaplane.

He claimed that was the reason for the diversion to Singapore.

But as the investigations progressed, the new details surrounding the flight aroused the police’s suspicious.

A defence source noted that the current probe has gone on longer than the investigation into the last reported airspace intrusion in August 2003.

The source said that probe was “wrapped up within a day” after the authorities learnt that an electrical fault prevented a Portuguese pilot from talking to air traffic controllers.

Edited February 11, 2008 by Totster
Removed email - see forum rules

[LaoPo]

From PPRUNE -

Police widen probe into air intrusion

By David Boey

A POLICE investigation into the airspace intrusion that shut down Changi Airport for close to an hour on Jan 22 has turned to how the pilot of the plane got his aircraft.

The Cessna 208 Caravan Amphibian seaplane, said to be worth US$1.2 million (S$1.7 million), has been impounded.

Singapore police are holding on to the passports of the pilot, Mr Rhys Thomas, said to be in his late 50s to early 60s, and his sole passenger, Mr Darren Johnson, said to be a flight engineer in his 40s and both Australians are still “assisting with investigations”.

The Straits Times understands that the police are looking into three suspicious areas.

First, the flight. The plane did not have permission to leave Thai airspace for its flight from Koh Samui airport that day.

It had been cleared only for 50 minute test flight in the vicinity of the airport.

Instead, the pilots went on a 1,000km, six hour trip - without immigration clearance or filing a flight plan, which is required under international aviation rules.

The history of the plane has also thrown up some questions.

Records showed the plane changed owners twice in a few weeks recently.

Ownership was first transferred last December to a Mrs Mali Sadd.

Barely a month later, it was sold to some Australians – supposedly on the cheap – and was registered as belonging to a Ms Mary Cummins.

Ms Cummins and Mr Thomas run a tour agency called Horizontal Falls Adventure Tours in Broome, a coastal resort town in Western Australia.

They also operate a company called Kimberley Seaplanes, which has two other Cessnas of the type that was piloted by Mr Thomas.

Before these transfers, the plane had been owned by Coco Seaplanes, which was in turn owned by Coco International Properties, a company set up to develop beachfront real estate on Koh Samui.

The company was headed by a Mr Alan Sadd – the husband of Mrs Mali Sadd.

As it turns out, Mr Sadd had been in trouble with the authorities in Bangkok for failing to pay 750 000 baht (S$34,000) to a construction firm. He was arrested on Jan 15 as he attempted to leave Koh Samui for Taiwan.

Finally, Mr Thomas background is also being looked into.

It has emerged that Singapore police have contacted an Australian aviator who once flew for him.

The aviator, who declined to be named, told the Straits Times when contacted that he was arrested in the Seychelles while piloting a plane for Mr Thomas that had false registration.

The airspace intrusion on Jan 22 sparked an air defence response, and the episode ended when two missile-armed Republic of Singapore Air Force F16D jets forced the Cessna to land at Changi Airport’s central runway.

The resulting lockdown of Singapore’s airspace triggered by the intrusion affected 17 inbound flights, which were forced into holding patterns. Six departures were delayed.

The two Aussies were questioned immediately upon landing, and it is understood that Mr Thomas initially claimed that he had problems with the landing gear of his seaplane.

He claimed that was the reason for the diversion to Singapore.

But as the investigations progressed, the new details surrounding the flight aroused the police’s suspicious.

A defence source noted that the current probe has gone on longer than the investigation into the last reported airspace intrusion in August 2003.

The source said that probe was “wrapped up within a day” after the authorities learnt that an electrical fault prevented a Portuguese pilot from talking to air traffic controllers.

[email protected]

The plot thickens....and it seems Mr. Alan Sadd is in problems as are the two who flew the seaplane to Singapore.

LaoPo

[jacksparrow]

First off, this is my first post on this subject which I make only because I cannot stand by and see all the misinformation, speculation, and outright distortion of the facts. Some very good people are in a lot of trouble because many officials of two governments are acting solely to cover their own buts in what has become a significant international incident that should never have happened. Let's just say I have in depth, first hand knowledge of the situation and know all the parties involved. What follows is from discussions I have had with people that were involved. I was not there and was not involved, nor intend to be in any way.

So, to start off, the real questions that need to be answered are:

1. When an in flight emergency is declared and the most prudent resolution is an international divert to a location where both a water and land landing is possible, has haul out facilities in event of the former, and has full maintenance support for the aircraft type and configuration, what is the authority of the PIC, what is the role of the controlling region (i.e. Samui tower in this case), and who MUST notifiy the correct authorities of the situation?

2. When is it compulsory for a controlling authority to accept a flight plan outside of normal procedures and channels.

3. Why, in a declared emergency, radio contact with correct controlling authority (Malaysia, Thai, and SG!), was an intercept ordered, and more importantly, why was the ENTIRE SG AIRSPACE SHUT DOWN? (intercepts normally do not clear airspace like this... try flying into the Washington ADIZ... Reagan international doesn't get shut down, but you may be...)

4. Who didn't want the plane to leave Thailand even though the aircraft had been paid for (to an agent of the registered owner), a clean bill of sale was provided, and all registered leins had been paid off? (remember, the aircraft was AU registered at the time of the flight, so a clean bill of sale would have been required). And Why?

5. Why didn't the ground support team call Singapore ATC directly and file?

I agree, going to Simgapore in this case (in a post 9-11 world) was a bad call. Subang or Penang would have been a much better choice. However, as it is, there was no reason other then an automated response to order an intercept.

As for the last article... there was a clean bill of sale. The sales agent had been paid commission, title had been transfered, the aircraft had been re-registered, a temporary Certificate of Airworthiness had been issued by a AU licensed engineer, and all liens and outstanding registered debts (like parking, fuel, etc) had been paid by the BUYER (above the purchase price).

The flight was conducted as a maintenance test flight and acceptance test flight. Landing gear maintenance had been conducted prior to the flight. This aircraft has a history of gear failures having had to do an emergency forced landing in the water in N. Phang Nga bay while operated by Bluewater Air. During the flight, the landing gear was stuck mid-way precluding a safe water or land landing. Thus, an emergency was declared and a decision to divert to Seletar (in SG) was made by the PIC. The ground team (in the Samui Tower) a licensed engineer and pilot attempted to file an emergency international flight plan with the Thai tower controllers but the flight plan was REFUSED with an excuse that the plane was not authorized to leave Thailand (it is NOT Thai registered at this time)! Remember this was a declared emergency where the PIC can break any rule or regulation in the interest of safety of flight (but better be able to justify it afterwards). An engineer was on board the aircraft and full maintenance and emergency facilities are available at Seletar, which are not available ANYWHERE in Thailand for this type of aircraft (for the record, DA is doing their own maintenance.)

So, whether or not the emergency was real is irrevelant. The Samui controllers had to assume it was and act accordingly. From what I understand, they did not. Hence the cover your ass situation everyone is in now.

As to the points of investigation in the Straights Times article:

1. No, the aircraft was not authorized to leave Thailand but a declared in-flight emergency should trump that. Question should be why it wasn't authorized to leave and by who's authority.

2. Mali Saad has been the registered owner of the aircraft since shortly after the purchase from BWA in 2005. The change in December was a deregistration from Thai register requested by another potential buyer and paid for by them.

3. The Alan Saad arrest reported is BS, never happened.. Press sensationalism.

4. The australian buyers owned the airplane free and clear with no outstanding liens or registered debts (registered is the key word here) at the time of the departure from Samui.

5. The plane was NEVER owned by Coco Seaplanes Co. Ltd. Mali has been the registered owner since the aircraft was purchased from BWA.

6. Coco Seaplanes is still a viable entity and only needs an AOC to start operating. There are conditions attached to the AOC license that the current situation at the Coco group of companies does not allow compliance with.

So, I have to ask... who is in the wrong here? And, what did they do wrong?

The PIC (who has thousands of hours in type and many years experience as an international ferry pilot worldwide) declared an emergency, presumably was in contact with all the ATC controllers enroute (at least Malaysia admits this... why won't Thailand and Singapore?). How was he wrong? Why is he still under house arrest in Singapore?

The aircraft was sold, clear, and done. It was no longer Thai registered. Ferry permits (presumably... don't know this one for sure) were issued by Australia. So why can't it leave Thailand? Who didn't want it to leave and why?

Did the Singapore military over-react... I would say definitely yes. But, it could all have been declared a training sorty except for one problem...they shut down Changi which cost many thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars to affected airlines and passengers. So, now there needs to be a justification for all those people who were inconvenienced.

I would be looking at what happened in the Samui tower after the emergency was declared and what happened in Singapore...There appears to have been a major breakdown in communication and possibly a blind adherance to policy without thinking things through.

Enough said... that's the facts... take it as it comes

[LaoPo]

..... a temporary Certificate of Airworthiness had been issued by a AU licensed engineer,

YET:

The flight was conducted as a maintenance test flight and acceptance test flight. Landing gear maintenance had been conducted prior to the flight. This aircraft has a history of gear failures .......................... During the flight, the landing gear was stuck mid-way precluding a safe water or land landing.

Thus, an emergency was declared and a decision to divert to Seletar (in SG) was made by the PIC.

The ground team (in the Samui Tower) a licensed engineer and pilot attempted to file an emergency international flight plan with the Thai tower controllers but the flight plan was REFUSED with an excuse that the plane was not authorized to leave Thailand (it is NOT Thai registered at this time)! Remember this was a declared emergency where the PIC can break any rule or regulation in the interest of safety of flight (but better be able to justify it afterwards). An engineer was on board the aircraft and full maintenance and emergency facilities are available at Seletar, which are not available ANYWHERE in Thailand for this type of aircraft (for the record, DA is doing their own maintenance.)

To me, this story has missing links....

Tell me 'jacksparrow',

1. how long (in minutes) after take off in Samui the landing-gear 'emergency' was reported to Samui tower ?

2. "The flight was conducted as a maintenance test flight and acceptance test flight" earlier reports say that it was for something like a 40 min flight.

3. If so (2) why was the plane fit (fully fueled) to fly the very long distance to S'pore ?

4. How come the plane landed smoothly in Singapore with an 'emergency' landing gear problem ?

5. WHAT does the technical survey report from the Singapore authorities say about the 'emergency' problems ? Surely the specialist of the"full maintenance and emergency facilities are available at Seletar" MUST have found the cause of the problems by now ?

6. How come that an AU licensed engineer supplies a "temporary Certificate of Airworthiness" KNOWING that the plane has a SERIOUS PROBLEM with the failing landing gear ?

Was this licensed engineer the same as the one from the 'ground team' on Samui ?

Hmmmm....your story is one-sided; the owners...

LaoPo

[highdiver]

just to add to some of the questions raised by LaoPo.

"Landing gear maintenance had been conducted prior to the flight" so we are to understand that prior to the flight 2 engeneers have checked the plane conducted maintenece on the undercareage and right after take of there was a need to declare emergency.??

you further more emphesize this point by saying that when it was ownd by BWA it had an emergency forced landing in the water in N. Phang Nga bay.... so when it was ownd by BWA it was possible to land it in Thailand on a landing gear emergency yet when owners changed it was

needed to go all the way to Singapore

"The PIC (who has thousands of hours in type and many years experience as an international ferry pilot worldwide) declared an emergency"

Thus, an emergency was declared and a decision to divert to Seletar (in SG) was made by the PIC. The ground team (in the Samui Tower) a licensed engineer and pilot attempted to file an emergency international flight plan with the Thai tower controllers but the flight plan was REFUSED with an excuse that the plane was not authorized to leave Thailand

so a wel trained pilot and qulified engineer along with a well trained ground team that allso includes a pilot have decided that in case of emeregency on the contrary to common practice and aviation rules of getting the plane down as quickly as possible to the nearesr airport have decided that the best respose is to continue flying in a state of emergency all the way to SG. phuket interantional or Suvanbbum are not good enough to handle a cessna???

maybe the guy that told your guy that told you the details got them mixed up a bit???

[jacksparrow]

..... a temporary Certificate of Airworthiness had been issued by a AU licensed engineer,

YET:

The flight was conducted as a maintenance test flight and acceptance test flight. Landing gear maintenance had been conducted prior to the flight. This aircraft has a history of gear failures .......................... During the flight, the landing gear was stuck mid-way precluding a safe water or land landing.

Thus, an emergency was declared and a decision to divert to Seletar (in SG) was made by the PIC.

The ground team (in the Samui Tower) a licensed engineer and pilot attempted to file an emergency international flight plan with the Thai tower controllers but the flight plan was REFUSED with an excuse that the plane was not authorized to leave Thailand (it is NOT Thai registered at this time)! Remember this was a declared emergency where the PIC can break any rule or regulation in the interest of safety of flight (but better be able to justify it afterwards). An engineer was on board the aircraft and full maintenance and emergency facilities are available at Seletar, which are not available ANYWHERE in Thailand for this type of aircraft (for the record, DA is doing their own maintenance.)

To me, this story has missing links....

Tell me 'jacksparrow',

1. how long (in minutes) after take off in Samui the landing-gear 'emergency' was reported to Samui tower ?

2. "The flight was conducted as a maintenance test flight and acceptance test flight" earlier reports say that it was for something like a 40 min flight.

3. If so (2) why was the plane fit (fully fueled) to fly the very long distance to S'pore ?

4. How come the plane landed smoothly in Singapore with an 'emergency' landing gear problem ?

5. WHAT does the technical survey report from the Singapore authorities say about the 'emergency' problems ? Surely the specialist of the"full maintenance and emergency facilities are available at Seletar" MUST have found the cause of the problems by now ?

6. How come that an AU licensed engineer supplies a "temporary Certificate of Airworthiness" KNOWING that the plane has a SERIOUS PROBLEM with the failing landing gear ?

Was this licensed engineer the same as the one from the 'ground team' on Samui ?

Hmmmm....your story is one-sided; the owners...

LaoPo

To answer your questions (even though you are missing the whole point):

1. Don't know. Doesn't matter. An emergency is an emergency... plain and simple.

2. Always store a plane with full fuel to avoid condensation in the tanks. No reason not to have full fuel. In any case, the fuel system had just been completely flushed and refilled a few days prior as part of return to service maintenence.

3. Don't know.. I never claimed whether or not the emergency was real, just that one was declared. That is all that matters. ATC MUST treat a declared emergency as real no matter what, and sort things out later. Or, maybe they were able to fix it on the way down. Hand pump, electrical override, who knows.

4. Plane has been in impound at Changi since arrival. No one has been to see it. Not relevant in any case.

5. Gear checked good on the ground after return to service maintenance.

Are you a pilot or licensed engineer? These questions beg the question.

All that matters is:

1. Someone did not want this plane to leave Thailand even though there was no legal reason to prevent it from doing so.

2. An in flight emergency was declared, but not responded to correctly by the relevant authorities.

That is ALL THAT MATTERS. Everything else is fluff.

[jacksparrow]

just to add to some of the questions raised by LaoPo.

"Landing gear maintenance had been conducted prior to the flight" so we are to understand that prior to the flight 2 engeneers have checked the plane conducted maintenece on the undercareage and right after take of there was a need to declare emergency.??

you further more emphesize this point by saying that when it was ownd by BWA it had an emergency forced landing in the water in N. Phang Nga bay.... so when it was ownd by BWA it was possible to land it in Thailand on a landing gear emergency yet when owners changed it was

needed to go all the way to Singapore

"The PIC (who has thousands of hours in type and many years experience as an international ferry pilot worldwide) declared an emergency"

Thus, an emergency was declared and a decision to divert to Seletar (in SG) was made by the PIC. The ground team (in the Samui Tower) a licensed engineer and pilot attempted to file an emergency international flight plan with the Thai tower controllers but the flight plan was REFUSED with an excuse that the plane was not authorized to leave Thailand

so a wel trained pilot and qulified engineer along with a well trained ground team that allso includes a pilot have decided that in case of emeregency on the contrary to common practice and aviation rules of getting the plane down as quickly as possible to the nearesr airport have decided that the best respose is to continue flying in a state of emergency all the way to SG. phuket interantional or Suvanbbum are not good enough to handle a cessna???

maybe the guy that told your guy that told you the details got them mixed up a bit???

Come on now... let's get real.

Something that checks good on the ground may fail in flight. Particularly complex systems like the landing gear on an amphib...

The BWA forced landing is a different situation. In that case, it was a commercial flight with 8 or 10 passengers on board and minimal fuel. The only choice was to land in the water in Phang Nga due to low fuel emergency. An, in that case the gear was stuck up. In the Samui case the gear was stuck mid-cycle.

The nearest airport in this case was Samui or Surat Thani, neither of which has equipment required to drop the gear out of this airplane. And, the gear was mid-cycle. better to divert somewhere where there are:

1. know emergency services... none exist in Samui or are at best unknown.

2. KNown maintenance capabilities... so the plane can be fixed once on the ground and not have to be dismantled and freighted off the airport for maintenance

Remember, if there was a fire or fuel problem a landing at the nearest airport would be advisable. When the aircraft is safe for flight, and the emergency situation would take some time to resolve, best to head somewhere where services are available.

But, again, you are missing the point... check the previous posting.

[Gatorade]

just to add to some of the questions raised by LaoPo.

"Landing gear maintenance had been conducted prior to the flight" so we are to understand that prior to the flight 2 engeneers have checked the plane conducted maintenece on the undercareage and right after take of there was a need to declare emergency.??

you further more emphesize this point by saying that when it was ownd by BWA it had an emergency forced landing in the water in N. Phang Nga bay.... so when it was ownd by BWA it was possible to land it in Thailand on a landing gear emergency yet when owners changed it was

needed to go all the way to Singapore

"The PIC (who has thousands of hours in type and many years experience as an international ferry pilot worldwide) declared an emergency"

Thus, an emergency was declared and a decision to divert to Seletar (in SG) was made by the PIC. The ground team (in the Samui Tower) a licensed engineer and pilot attempted to file an emergency international flight plan with the Thai tower controllers but the flight plan was REFUSED with an excuse that the plane was not authorized to leave Thailand

so a wel trained pilot and qulified engineer along with a well trained ground team that allso includes a pilot have decided that in case of emeregency on the contrary to common practice and aviation rules of getting the plane down as quickly as possible to the nearesr airport have decided that the best respose is to continue flying in a state of emergency all the way to SG. phuket interantional or Suvanbbum are not good enough to handle a cessna???

maybe the guy that told your guy that told you the details got them mixed up a bit???

Come on now... let's get real.

Something that checks good on the ground may fail in flight. Particularly complex systems like the landing gear on an amphib...

The BWA forced landing is a different situation. In that case, it was a commercial flight with 8 or 10 passengers on board and minimal fuel. The only choice was to land in the water in Phang Nga due to low fuel emergency. An, in that case the gear was stuck up. In the Samui case the gear was stuck mid-cycle.

The nearest airport in this case was Samui or Surat Thani, neither of which has equipment required to drop the gear out of this airplane. And, the gear was mid-cycle. better to divert somewhere where there are:

1. know emergency services... none exist in Samui or are at best unknown.

2. KNown maintenance capabilities... so the plane can be fixed once on the ground and not have to be dismantled and freighted off the airport for maintenance

Remember, if there was a fire or fuel problem a landing at the nearest airport would be advisable. When the aircraft is safe for flight, and the emergency situation would take some time to resolve, best to head somewhere where services are available.

But, again, you are missing the point... check the previous posting.,

The points you make are good. Many of these have been discussed previously in this thread.

The decision made by the PIC given the present info available was correct.

Why risk somersaulting by landing on water with a partially extended undercarriage?

Why risk landing back at Samui where there are no maintenance capabilities?

This aircraft was previously totally overhauled at Singapore Seletar so it would make sense to fly

it there. Besides, the company at Singapore is a licensed Cessna major overhaul facility.

I am afraid, Jacksparrow that you are not going to convince many of the so called "aviation experts"

who read this Forum. They only want cover up stories and tales of deception. INMHO I think that there was a Civil/

Military Communications breakdown at Singapore ACCand someone must be blamed.

My only other comment is that the aircraft had been standing at Samui for a long time. The undercarriage

was always slow to cycle. Therefore in the first place, prior to any flight I would have planned a gear down operation. However this is an armchair comment without knowing the full facts.

Good luck in getting your points across although you are probably wasting your time.

[beech]

just to add to some of the questions raised by LaoPo.

"Landing gear maintenance had been conducted prior to the flight" so we are to understand that prior to the flight 2 engeneers have checked the plane conducted maintenece on the undercareage and right after take of there was a need to declare emergency.??

you further more emphesize this point by saying that when it was ownd by BWA it had an emergency forced landing in the water in N. Phang Nga bay.... so when it was ownd by BWA it was possible to land it in Thailand on a landing gear emergency yet when owners changed it was

needed to go all the way to Singapore

"The PIC (who has thousands of hours in type and many years experience as an international ferry pilot worldwide) declared an emergency"

Thus, an emergency was declared and a decision to divert to Seletar (in SG) was made by the PIC. The ground team (in the Samui Tower) a licensed engineer and pilot attempted to file an emergency international flight plan with the Thai tower controllers but the flight plan was REFUSED with an excuse that the plane was not authorized to leave Thailand

so a wel trained pilot and qulified engineer along with a well trained ground team that allso includes a pilot have decided that in case of emeregency on the contrary to common practice and aviation rules of getting the plane down as quickly as possible to the nearesr airport have decided that the best respose is to continue flying in a state of emergency all the way to SG. phuket interantional or Suvanbbum are not good enough to handle a cessna???

maybe the guy that told your guy that told you the details got them mixed up a bit???

Come on now... let's get real.

Something that checks good on the ground may fail in flight. Particularly complex systems like the landing gear on an amphib...

The BWA forced landing is a different situation. In that case, it was a commercial flight with 8 or 10 passengers on board and minimal fuel. The only choice was to land in the water in Phang Nga due to low fuel emergency. An, in that case the gear was stuck up. In the Samui case the gear was stuck mid-cycle.

The nearest airport in this case was Samui or Surat Thani, neither of which has equipment required to drop the gear out of this airplane. And, the gear was mid-cycle. better to divert somewhere where there are:

1. know emergency services... none exist in Samui or are at best unknown.

2. KNown maintenance capabilities... so the plane can be fixed once on the ground and not have to be dismantled and freighted off the airport for maintenance

Remember, if there was a fire or fuel problem a landing at the nearest airport would be advisable. When the aircraft is safe for flight, and the emergency situation would take some time to resolve, best to head somewhere where services are available.

But, again, you are missing the point... check the previous posting.,

The points you make are good. Many of these have been discussed previously in this thread.

The decision made by the PIC given the present info available was correct.

Why risk somersaulting by landing on water with a partially extended undercarriage?

Why risk landing back at Samui where there are no maintenance capabilities?

This aircraft was previously totally overhauled at Singapore Seletar so it would make sense to fly

it there. Besides, the company at Singapore is a licensed Cessna major overhaul facility.

I am afraid, Jacksparrow that you are not going to convince many of the so called "aviation experts"

who read this Forum. They only want cover up stories and tales of deception. INMHO I think that there was a Civil/

Military Communications breakdown at Singapore ACCand someone must be blamed.

My only other comment is that the aircraft had been standing at Samui for a long time. The undercarriage

was always slow to cycle. Therefore in the first place, prior to any flight I would have planned a gear down operation. However this is an armchair comment without knowing the full facts.

Good luck in getting your points across although you are probably wasting your time.

[beech]

just to add to some of the questions raised by LaoPo.

"Landing gear maintenance had been conducted prior to the flight" so we are to understand that prior to the flight 2 engeneers have checked the plane conducted maintenece on the undercareage and right after take of there was a need to declare emergency.??

you further more emphesize this point by saying that when it was ownd by BWA it had an emergency forced landing in the water in N. Phang Nga bay.... so when it was ownd by BWA it was possible to land it in Thailand on a landing gear emergency yet when owners changed it was

needed to go all the way to Singapore

"The PIC (who has thousands of hours in type and many years experience as an international ferry pilot worldwide) declared an emergency"

Thus, an emergency was declared and a decision to divert to Seletar (in SG) was made by the PIC. The ground team (in the Samui Tower) a licensed engineer and pilot attempted to file an emergency international flight plan with the Thai tower controllers but the flight plan was REFUSED with an excuse that the plane was not authorized to leave Thailand

so a wel trained pilot and qulified engineer along with a well trained ground team that allso includes a pilot have decided that in case of emeregency on the contrary to common practice and aviation rules of getting the plane down as quickly as possible to the nearesr airport have decided that the best respose is to continue flying in a state of emergency all the way to SG. phuket interantional or Suvanbbum are not good enough to handle a cessna???

maybe the guy that told your guy that told you the details got them mixed up a bit???

Come on now... let's get real.

Something that checks good on the ground may fail in flight. Particularly complex systems like the landing gear on an amphib...

The BWA forced landing is a different situation. In that case, it was a commercial flight with 8 or 10 passengers on board and minimal fuel. The only choice was to land in the water in Phang Nga due to low fuel emergency. An, in that case the gear was stuck up. In the Samui case the gear was stuck mid-cycle.

The nearest airport in this case was Samui or Surat Thani, neither of which has equipment required to drop the gear out of this airplane. And, the gear was mid-cycle. better to divert somewhere where there are:

1. know emergency services... none exist in Samui or are at best unknown.

2. KNown maintenance capabilities... so the plane can be fixed once on the ground and not have to be dismantled and freighted off the airport for maintenance

Remember, if there was a fire or fuel problem a landing at the nearest airport would be advisable. When the aircraft is safe for flight, and the emergency situation would take some time to resolve, best to head somewhere where services are available.

But, again, you are missing the point... check the previous posting.,

The points you make are good. Many of these have been discussed previously in this thread.

The decision made by the PIC given the present info available was correct.

Why risk somersaulting by landing on water with a partially extended undercarriage?

Why risk landing back at Samui where there are no maintenance capabilities?

This aircraft was previously totally overhauled at Singapore Seletar so it would make sense to fly

it there. Besides, the company at Singapore is a licensed Cessna major overhaul facility.

I am afraid, Jacksparrow that you are not going to convince many of the so called "aviation experts"

who read this Forum. They only want cover up stories and tales of deception. INMHO I think that there was a Civil/

Military Communications breakdown at Singapore ACCand someone must be blamed.

My only other comment is that the aircraft had been standing at Samui for a long time. The undercarriage

was always slow to cycle. Therefore in the first place, prior to any flight I would have planned a gear down operation. However this is an armchair comment without knowing the full facts.

Good luck in getting your points across although you are probably wasting your time.

[beech]

The Caravan Amphib system is not complex.

Having done repairs on it before, it has four rams and two motors driving two hydraulic pumps.

Simple.

The Cessna center in Singa is authorised to maintain Cessnas JUST LIKE the Cessna centre in Bangkok If If this pilot went to Bangkok, it would have made what has become a Major and costly international incident, to that of a simple local flight to either Phuket or Bangkok and saved the Singa airforce and the airlines effected - literally millions of dollars.

But regardless of what Cessna center is approved to do is NOT the issue here.

The floats are NOT made by Cessna.

Cessna have no maintenance/repair data re the wipline floats attached to their aircraft.

In Bangkok however, the Cessna Center does have access to approved Thai engineers who have worked on the wipline amphib floats for a number of years in their country.

Singa does not.

Furthermore,

I do not understand that if the pilot could not get the flight plan in, why did he not communicate with anyone at all via his radios enroute to singa?

He is an ex fairy pilot so the forums say. He should know better.

Also the transponder has a frequency that lets those know on radar, that the aircraft has a radio failure.

That did not happen. i can understand people down there getting a bit excited!

It's starting to sound as though this aircraft was totally unairworthy.

That seems to be a problem for the australians as it was on their register.

One forum states it sat on the hard for a couple of years doing nothing.

But at the end of the day and putting all this nonsense aside, the pilot could have just gone over to Phuket.

You simply then fly the engineers from Bangkok or Singa or even Wipline, if the owners preferred, to simply fix the problem.

And NO INTERNATIONAL INCIDENTS.

And no incident at a major airport in Singa 1000 km's away with an aircraft doing a wheels up at Changi!

This annoys the crap out of me.

He stuffed up in his eagerness to get to Australia.

The excuse maybe is - It would have cost too much in fuel to go to Phuket or Bangkok for that matter.

Even if I am unnanounced the pilot may think, the singaporeans will let me in!

Yeah right!

Sounds like a real bad error in judgemnent from wheels up at samui to wheels down a couple of countries down the road.

[LaoPo]

The Caravan Amphib system is not complex.

Having done repairs on it before, it has four rams and two motors driving two hydraulic pumps.

Simple.

The Cessna center in Singa is authorised to maintain Cessnas JUST LIKE the Cessna centre in Bangkok If If this pilot went to Bangkok, it would have made what has become a Major and costly international incident, to that of a simple local flight to either Phuket or Bangkok and saved the Singa airforce and the airlines effected - literally millions of dollars.

But regardless of what Cessna center is approved to do is NOT the issue here.

The floats are NOT made by Cessna.

Cessna have no maintenance/repair data re the wipline floats attached to their aircraft.

In Bangkok however, the Cessna Center does have access to approved Thai engineers who have worked on the wipline amphib floats for a number of years in their country.

Singa does not.

Furthermore,

I do not understand that if the pilot could not get the flight plan in, why did he not communicate with anyone at all via his radios enroute to singa?

He is an ex fairy pilot so the forums say. He should know better.

Also the transponder has a frequency that lets those know on radar, that the aircraft has a radio failure.

That did not happen. i can understand people down there getting a bit excited!

It's starting to sound as though this aircraft was totally unairworthy.

That seems to be a problem for the australians as it was on their register.

One forum states it sat on the hard for a couple of years doing nothing.

But at the end of the day and putting all this nonsense aside, the pilot could have just gone over to Phuket.

You simply then fly the engineers from Bangkok or Singa or even Wipline, if the owners preferred, to simply fix the problem.

And NO INTERNATIONAL INCIDENTS.

And no incident at a major airport in Singa 1000 km's away with an aircraft doing a wheels up at Changi!

This annoys the crap out of me.

He stuffed up in his eagerness to get to Australia.

The excuse maybe is - It would have cost too much in fuel to go to Phuket or Bangkok for that matter.

Even if I am unnanounced the pilot may think, the singaporeans will let me in!

Yeah right!

Sounds like a real bad error in judgemnent from wheels up at samui to wheels down a couple of countries down the road.

Very well said and that's probably also WHY the Singaporians won't let him go; the pilot was simply betting he could get away with his 'emergency' story.

For those who are not aware about distances, here's a map:

Look at the distance Samui >>> Singapore versus Phuket, Bangkok and even Kuala Lumpur.

Samui>>>Singapore is MORE THAN twice the distance of Bangkok, not to speak about Phuket...

Yeah....right, quite an emergency/repair possibilities' case.....

What about convenience and a 'gambled' flight ?

And, Mr. jacksparrow, how come you are so well informed about this trip, being an outsider ? Or are you the one under house-arrest in S'pore ?

Just guessing...

LaoPo

[Gatorade]

The Caravan Amphib system is not complex.

Having done repairs on it before, it has four rams and two motors driving two hydraulic pumps.

Simple.

The Cessna center in Singa is authorised to maintain Cessnas JUST LIKE the Cessna centre in Bangkok If If this pilot went to Bangkok, it would have made what has become a Major and costly international incident, to that of a simple local flight to either Phuket or Bangkok and saved the Singa airforce and the airlines effected - literally millions of dollars.

But regardless of what Cessna center is approved to do is NOT the issue here.

The floats are NOT made by Cessna.

Cessna have no maintenance/repair data re the wipline floats attached to their aircraft.

In Bangkok however, the Cessna Center does have access to approved Thai engineers who have worked on the wipline amphib floats for a number of years in their country.

Singa does not.

Furthermore,

I do not understand that if the pilot could not get the flight plan in, why did he not communicate with anyone at all via his radios enroute to singa?

He is an ex fairy pilot so the forums say. He should know better.

Also the transponder has a frequency that lets those know on radar, that the aircraft has a radio failure.

That did not happen. i can understand people down there getting a bit excited!

It's starting to sound as though this aircraft was totally unairworthy.

That seems to be a problem for the australians as it was on their register.

One forum states it sat on the hard for a couple of years doing nothing.

But at the end of the day and putting all this nonsense aside, the pilot could have just gone over to Phuket.

You simply then fly the engineers from Bangkok or Singa or even Wipline, if the owners preferred, to simply fix the problem.

And NO INTERNATIONAL INCIDENTS.

And no incident at a major airport in Singa 1000 km's away with an aircraft doing a wheels up at Changi!

This annoys the crap out of me.

He stuffed up in his eagerness to get to Australia.

The excuse maybe is - It would have cost too much in fuel to go to Phuket or Bangkok for that matter.

Even if I am unnanounced the pilot may think, the singaporeans will let me in!

Yeah right!

Sounds like a real bad error in judgemnent from wheels up at samui to wheels down a couple of countries down the road.

sta

Here we go again!

More speculation which I'm sure annoys the crap out of those who have some idea of what happened.

Facts: Singapore ARE approved. That's why the aircraft went there from Samui in 2005 for an overhaul which included the floats. The Tech Logs will confirm.

The Wipline floats and brakes were worked on during the stay in Singapore.

There are many good reasons for not using the very, very limited overhaul facilities in Bangkok which is not relevant to

this issue.

The Cessna Flight and Maintenance manuals contain all information in an approved supplement for Amphibious C208s.

The incident in question did not end up with a wheels up at Changi.

Are you positive that there were no communications?

How do you know that the pilot stuffed up in his eagerness to get to OZ?

The majority of your statements are unsubstantiated,speculative and simplistic.

Until the incident report is published, with the facts, I will stick with the thread from Jacksparrow.

[LaoPo]

Until the incident report is published, with the facts, I will stick with the thread from Jacksparrow.

I agree; it seems we have two 'camps' here but it's strange that you stick with the version of a newcomer/jacksparrow who said he had nothing to do with the incident.....It would be interesting to know the IP-address of 'jacksparrow'

Gatorade: do you know each other ?

Let's wait what the report says...

LaoPo

[highdiver]

The Caravan Amphib system is not complex.

Having done repairs on it before, it has four rams and two motors driving two hydraulic pumps.

Simple.

The Cessna center in Singa is authorised to maintain Cessnas JUST LIKE the Cessna centre in Bangkok If If this pilot went to Bangkok, it would have made what has become a Major and costly international incident, to that of a simple local flight to either Phuket or Bangkok and saved the Singa airforce and the airlines effected - literally millions of dollars.

But regardless of what Cessna center is approved to do is NOT the issue here.

The floats are NOT made by Cessna.

Cessna have no maintenance/repair data re the wipline floats attached to their aircraft.

In Bangkok however, the Cessna Center does have access to approved Thai engineers who have worked on the wipline amphib floats for a number of years in their country.

Singa does not.

Furthermore,

I do not understand that if the pilot could not get the flight plan in, why did he not communicate with anyone at all via his radios enroute to singa?

He is an ex fairy pilot so the forums say. He should know better.

Also the transponder has a frequency that lets those know on radar, that the aircraft has a radio failure.

That did not happen. i can understand people down there getting a bit excited!

It's starting to sound as though this aircraft was totally unairworthy.

That seems to be a problem for the australians as it was on their register.

One forum states it sat on the hard for a couple of years doing nothing.

But at the end of the day and putting all this nonsense aside, the pilot could have just gone over to Phuket.

You simply then fly the engineers from Bangkok or Singa or even Wipline, if the owners preferred, to simply fix the problem.

And NO INTERNATIONAL INCIDENTS.

And no incident at a major airport in Singa 1000 km's away with an aircraft doing a wheels up at Changi!

This annoys the crap out of me.

He stuffed up in his eagerness to get to Australia.

The excuse maybe is - It would have cost too much in fuel to go to Phuket or Bangkok for that matter.

Even if I am unnanounced the pilot may think, the singaporeans will let me in!

Yeah right!

Sounds like a real bad error in judgemnent from wheels up at samui to wheels down a couple of countries down the road.

sta

Here we go again!

More speculation which I'm sure annoys the crap out of those who have some idea of what happened.

why are you annoyed?? do you know or have sme idea of what happened untill now?? please share with us your knowledge base.

Facts: Singapore ARE approved. That's why the aircraft went there from Samui in 2005 for an overhaul which included the floats. The Tech Logs will confirm.

did you see the tech logs? was this the only reason it went to SG? or are you specul;ating as well??

The Wipline floats and brakes were worked on during the stay in Singapore.

There are many good reasons for not using the very, very limited overhaul facilities in Bangkok which is not relevant to

this issue.

please explain on what you base this assumption?? the overhall facility is a very high standard facility. and it is approved by cessna

The Cessna Flight and Maintenance manuals contain all information in an approved supplement for Amphibious C208s.

and this manual is only found in SG?

The incident in question did not end up with a wheels up at Changi.

Are you positive that there were no communications?

How do you know that the pilot stuffed up in his eagerness to get to OZ?

because any resonable begining pilot when encountering a technical problem will head for the nearest airport and not the furthest one. BKK and Phuket have emergency crews that were closer the SG so why did the pilot choose SG? why was the ground crew applying for an international divert??

The majority of your statements are unsubstantiated,speculative and simplistic.

and so are yours for that matter.

At the end of the day. 2 qualified pilots with 2 qualified engineers had conducted a maintnence on the aircraft after it was on the hard for a long time.

the floats and the undercareage were maintenced as well and if the maintence was done according to the TO of the manufacturer and done properly as those who did it were very qualified and also tested the sytem and then did a DI and PF then there should be no problem with it.

they applied to do a test flight in the Samui area.

however the ground team and the the pliot then declared a state of emergency and those on the ground applied for a emergency divert to SG. they were refused and had the option to divert to BKK or Phuket which the did not..they disobeyed the controll tower and flew anyway to SG.

beech was kinf enough to adress all the technical comunictions aspects and there is no need to repeat it.

if we are to accept Jacksparrow explenation then it is one hel_l of a chance that all this happened. it seems that all that could have gone wrong had!! and this is with 2 quified pilots and 2 qulified engineers.

the fact that all this happened at the time when Coco are in problems Alan is arrested at the airport and right after the plane ownership changed hands does make you think as to the integrity of this...

Until the incident report is published, with the facts, I will stick with the thread from Jacksparrow.

[jocwaoh]

The Caravan Amphib system is not complex.

Having done repairs on it before, it has four rams and two motors driving two hydraulic pumps.

Simple.

The Cessna center in Singa is authorised to maintain Cessnas JUST LIKE the Cessna centre in Bangkok If If this pilot went to Bangkok, it would have made what has become a Major and costly international incident, to that of a simple local flight to either Phuket or Bangkok and saved the Singa airforce and the airlines effected - literally millions of dollars.

But regardless of what Cessna center is approved to do is NOT the issue here.

The floats are NOT made by Cessna.

Cessna have no maintenance/repair data re the wipline floats attached to their aircraft.

In Bangkok however, the Cessna Center does have access to approved Thai engineers who have worked on the wipline amphib floats for a number of years in their country.

Singa does not.

Furthermore,

I do not understand that if the pilot could not get the flight plan in, why did he not communicate with anyone at all via his radios enroute to singa?

He is an ex fairy pilot so the forums say. He should know better.

Also the transponder has a frequency that lets those know on radar, that the aircraft has a radio failure.

That did not happen. i can understand people down there getting a bit excited!

It's starting to sound as though this aircraft was totally unairworthy.

That seems to be a problem for the australians as it was on their register.

One forum states it sat on the hard for a couple of years doing nothing.

But at the end of the day and putting all this nonsense aside, the pilot could have just gone over to Phuket.

You simply then fly the engineers from Bangkok or Singa or even Wipline, if the owners preferred, to simply fix the problem.

And NO INTERNATIONAL INCIDENTS.

And no incident at a major airport in Singa 1000 km's away with an aircraft doing a wheels up at Changi!

This annoys the crap out of me.

He stuffed up in his eagerness to get to Australia.

The excuse maybe is - It would have cost too much in fuel to go to Phuket or Bangkok for that matter.

Even if I am unnanounced the pilot may think, the singaporeans will let me in!

Yeah right!

Sounds like a real bad error in judgemnent from wheels up at samui to wheels down a couple of countries down the road.

sta

Here we go again!

More speculation which I'm sure annoys the crap out of those who have some idea of what happened.

why are you annoyed?? do you know or have sme idea of what happened untill now?? please share with us your knowledge base.

Facts: Singapore ARE approved. That's why the aircraft went there from Samui in 2005 for an overhaul which included the floats. The Tech Logs will confirm.

did you see the tech logs? was this the only reason it went to SG? or are you specul;ating as well??

The Wipline floats and brakes were worked on during the stay in Singapore.

There are many good reasons for not using the very, very limited overhaul facilities in Bangkok which is not relevant to

this issue.

please explain on what you base this assumption?? the overhall facility is a very high standard facility. and it is approved by cessna

The Cessna Flight and Maintenance manuals contain all information in an approved supplement for Amphibious C208s.

and this manual is only found in SG?

The incident in question did not end up with a wheels up at Changi.

Are you positive that there were no communications?

How do you know that the pilot stuffed up in his eagerness to get to OZ?

because any resonable begining pilot when encountering a technical problem will head for the nearest airport and not the furthest one. BKK and Phuket have emergency crews that were closer the SG so why did the pilot choose SG? why was the ground crew applying for an international divert??

The majority of your statements are unsubstantiated,speculative and simplistic.

and so are yours for that matter.

At the end of the day. 2 qualified pilots with 2 qualified engineers had conducted a maintnence on the aircraft after it was on the hard for a long time.

the floats and the undercareage were maintenced as well and if the maintence was done according to the TO of the manufacturer and done properly as those who did it were very qualified and also tested the sytem and then did a DI and PF then there should be no problem with it.

they applied to do a test flight in the Samui area.

however the ground team and the the pliot then declared a state of emergency and those on the ground applied for a emergency divert to SG. they were refused and had the option to divert to BKK or Phuket which the did not..they disobeyed the controll tower and flew anyway to SG.

beech was kinf enough to adress all the technical comunictions aspects and there is no need to repeat it.

if we are to accept Jacksparrow explenation then it is one hel_l of a chance that all this happened. it seems that all that could have gone wrong had!! and this is with 2 quified pilots and 2 qulified engineers.

the fact that all this happened at the time when Coco are in problems Alan is arrested at the airport and right after the plane ownership changed hands does make you think as to the integrity of this...

Until the incident report is published, with the facts, I will stick with the thread from Jacksparrow.

Highdiver, as good of guy as you seem and as vulcan and politically correct as you aspire to be?...bullocks. 1) what "incident report" with what "facts" here (and remember who are PM is, here....hint: same guy on CNN last week!) and 2) we ALL know what scumbags the Coco folks are, the jury is in....lomg time ago.

[jacksparrow]

It's so nice to hold a dialog with such an aviation enthusiest, even if only an archair one... Why don't you all take the time and effort to get a commercial pilots license, work as a bush pilot for a few years, then "maybe" you'll graduate to flying caravans. Then we can talk.

You might also want to pick up and read a copy of Spike's book, "So You Want to Be a Ferry Pilot".

Just to start... why so arrogant? There are people on this thread that actually do know what they are talking about... been there, done that sort of thing. Listen to them. Maybe you'll learn something.

So, back to the argument at hand. Lots to cover so stick with me...

First off.. just like the caption of a ship at sea, in a plane in flight, any plane, the PIC is GOD. I mean, the PIC (Pilot in Command) has SOLE responsibility for all actions taken with or onboard the aircraft and sole authority to make decisions. ATC does not control the PIC... in an emergency the PIC has authority to deviate or ignore any clearance or direction from ATC. Guess why nearly every aircraft accident has some portion of "pilot error" in the blame.

As for availability of emergency services... there are NONE IN THAILAND THAT CAN HANDLE A TURTLED SEAPLANE, period. It took months just to figure out how to flip over a turtled catamaran sailboat in Phuket a couple years ago. Show me anyone, anywhere in Thailand that could get an upside down plane out of the water in less then a day... That is what we mean by emergency services. Not airport services, but maritime.

SGA, though quite capable to a point, don't know jack when it comes to servicing a seaplane. It means nothing that they are Cessna Certified... Cessna doesn't even like to use them. Unfortunately, they are a shop of last resort. The only place with experienced engineers is Jet Avaition in Singapore. (for the record, this plane when with BWA was serviced by AirFlite out of Australia, not SGA in Bangkok)

Yes, Coco is having problems. Serious problems most not of their own making. However, that has nothing to do with the case at hand. Coco didn't own the airplane... it was privately owned by one of the Coco directors and that is the only real link. And no, the sale was not as easy one. It was the most difficult transaction for an aircraft I have ever witnessed...But, in the end there was a bill of sale and a legal transfer of ownership.

As for radio contact... it's quite obvious they were in contact with Thai and Malaysia ATC (at least in Samui, maybe not BKK Center). So, they would also have been in contact with Singapore Approach...don't you think.

In any event, there were parties that did not want to see this airplane leave Thailand, at least not in one piece. But, it did so now it's a done deal. There is a long history of midnight incidents of sneaking onto airports and flying out a plane unauthorized mostly to protect an asset from being siezed or stolen or a repossesion in this region. If you owned a Ferrari and someone forged papers to show that they owned your car... what would you do. Probably drive it to Malaysia... At least in this case they made it look real even if it wasn't (and I am not saying it wasn't... a declared emergency is an emergency...)

[jocwaoh]

It's so nice to hold a dialog with such an aviation enthusiest, even if only an archair one... Why don't you all take the time and effort to get a commercial pilots license, work as a bush pilot for a few years, then "maybe" you'll graduate to flying caravans. Then we can talk.

You might also want to pick up and read a copy of Spike's book, "So You Want to Be a Ferry Pilot".

Just to start... why so arrogant? There are people on this thread that actually do know what they are talking about... been there, done that sort of thing. Listen to them. Maybe you'll learn something.

So, back to the argument at hand. Lots to cover so stick with me...

First off.. just like the caption of a ship at sea, in a plane in flight, any plane, the PIC is GOD. I mean, the PIC (Pilot in Command) has SOLE responsibility for all actions taken with or onboard the aircraft and sole authority to make decisions. ATC does not control the PIC... in an emergency the PIC has authority to deviate or ignore any clearance or direction from ATC. Guess why nearly every aircraft accident has some portion of "pilot error" in the blame.

As for availability of emergency services... there are NONE IN THAILAND THAT CAN HANDLE A TURTLED SEAPLANE, period. It took months just to figure out how to flip over a turtled catamaran sailboat in Phuket a couple years ago. Show me anyone, anywhere in Thailand that could get an upside down plane out of the water in less then a day... That is what we mean by emergency services. Not airport services, but maritime.

SGA, though quite capable to a point, don't know jack when it comes to servicing a seaplane. It means nothing that they are Cessna Certified... Cessna doesn't even like to use them. Unfortunately, they are a shop of last resort. The only place with experienced engineers is Jet Avaition in Singapore. (for the record, this plane when with BWA was serviced by AirFlite out of Australia, not SGA in Bangkok)

Yes, Coco is having problems. Serious problems most not of their own making. However, that has nothing to do with the case at hand. Coco didn't own the airplane... it was privately owned by one of the Coco directors and that is the only real link. And no, the sale was not as easy one. It was the most difficult transaction for an aircraft I have ever witnessed...But, in the end there was a bill of sale and a legal transfer of ownership.

As for radio contact... it's quite obvious they were in contact with Thai and Malaysia ATC (at least in Samui, maybe not BKK Center). So, they would also have been in contact with Singapore Approach...don't you think.

In any event, there were parties that did not want to see this airplane leave Thailand, at least not in one piece. But, it did so now it's a done deal. There is a long history of midnight incidents of sneaking onto airports and flying out a plane unauthorized mostly to protect an asset from being siezed or stolen or a repossesion in this region. If you owned a Ferrari and someone forged papers to show that they owned your car... what would you do. Probably drive it to Malaysia... At least in this case they made it look real even if it wasn't (and I am not saying it wasn't... a declared emergency is an emergency...)

Yes, thank you for that. Now, why is it that you care?...I mean, seems fairly clear you are not with some degree of investment (monetary, emotional...whatever) in the Coco folks...or folk...fat...VERY fat folk, as it were. No?

[happyinthai]

There is nothing in this thread for the Coco owners to get excited about. This asset has gone. Too late.....

Speculation:

• The new owners have bought it at a knock down price, and it has been legally transferred onto the Australian Register
  
• A Pilot (and a Director of the new owners) plus an engineer fly and take a look, ohh there are lots of outstanding bills
  
• They check the tech logs and see an excuse
  
• They ask for a test flight, no problem, agreed
  
• Take off and shock, a sudden problem
  
• Koh Samui does not bother to radio them for 2 1/2 hour hence the press report
  
• We need go to Singapore, of course, on the way to Australia
  
• And suddenly an F16 appears outside the right wing
  

Purely speculation of course.......

[sbk]

Lets drop the flaming and insults please. It is possible to have a difference of opinion without resorting to name-calling, thanks.

[Gatorade]

Lets drop the flaming and insults please. It is possible to have a difference of opinion without resorting to name-calling, thanks.

Agreed. Truth will 'owt as they say.

At the end of the day, after a declared emergency the crew walked away unharmed and the aircraft

was intact. I think that any flaming or insults result from one or two of the posters (me for one) daring to query

some of the experts/spotters and to bring some facts to the various conspiracy theories.

[jacksparrow]

There is nothing in this thread for the Coco owners to get excited about. This asset has gone. Too late.....

Speculation:

• The new owners have bought it at a knock down price, and it has been legally transferred onto the Australian Register
  
• A Pilot (and a Director of the new owners) plus an engineer fly and take a look, ohh there are lots of outstanding bills
  
• They check the tech logs and see an excuse
  
• They ask for a test flight, no problem, agreed
  
• Take off and shock, a sudden problem
  
• Koh Samui does not bother to radio them for 2 1/2 hour hence the press report
  
• We need go to Singapore, of course, on the way to Australia
  
• And suddenly an F16 appears outside the right wing
  

Purely speculation of course.......

Great summary... one change I would make though...the 2 1/2 hour call is CYA and misinformation from the tower. They were in radio contact thoughout the time the plane was in Thailand airspace.

The F16 thing is the current problem. Why?

[highdiver]

There is nothing in this thread for the Coco owners to get excited about. This asset has gone. Too late.....

Speculation:

• The new owners have bought it at a knock down price, and it has been legally transferred onto the Australian Register
  
• A Pilot (and a Director of the new owners) plus an engineer fly and take a look, ohh there are lots of outstanding bills
  
• They check the tech logs and see an excuse
  
• They ask for a test flight, no problem, agreed
  
• Take off and shock, a sudden problem
  
• Koh Samui does not bother to radio them for 2 1/2 hour hence the press report
  
• We need go to Singapore, of course, on the way to Australia
  
• And suddenly an F16 appears outside the right wing
  

Purely speculation of course.......

Great summary... one change I would make though...the 2 1/2 hour call is CYA and misinformation from the tower. They were in radio contact thoughout the time the plane was in Thailand airspace.

The F16 thing is the current problem. Why?

It's so nice to hold a dialog with such an aviation enthusiest, even if only an archair one... Why don't you all take the time and effort to get a commercial pilots license, work as a bush pilot for a few years, then "maybe" you'll graduate to flying caravans. Then we can talk.

Jack saprrow. is that your own CV..?? it sounds a lot like the one who was flying the plane.. you know Ansset air and then a bush flyer and then a caravan flyer... the only thing left out is that high level of pilot training and kowledge that led to the incident with those pilots of the caravan lost in South Africa....

rings a bell???

it seems that there are many types of pilot training and maybe yours was somewhat different but then again bush pilots are not realy trained in international approaches are they??

there is a long going story about a bush pilot's first call to Victoria International tower in Canada being: "Victoria tower. This is xxxx short final for 09.

maybe the owner and the pilot ex Ansett Airlines pilot, had no clue about filing flight plans and that sort of bothersome administrative details when crossing international boundaries???

most PIC even though having "total controll" would not figure all those assumptions about "marine time emegencies" and "turttle" and all other considerations that you have outlined during a state of emergency . a responsible PIC that goes up for a 40 minute test flight does not need to fly 5 hours and 1000km to the furthest international airport and then land with out any problem.

and this qulified pilot was not aware of air security following 9/11??? he passed various controllers on the malasia side and not gound the time to ask them to report to SG about his arrival?? and if he did then at their last point of contact with malaysia, which is over johore, why did they not switch frequency to contact singapore?? is this the conduct of a professional pilot??

to sum it up....

No Flight Plan.

No customs clearance.

No immigration clearance.

No speak on the radio apart from from advising Koh Samui initially of a 1 hr jolly!

the plane finally landed on 02C and parked at Bay 404 in SG,

It was spotted at the North Eastern part of Singapore. they were not contactable initially as the ATCs were trying to ident the aircraft flying. seems strange that such a "qulified pilot" would no take the time to use emergency chanels "mayday call "to contact SG and advise them of this "emeregency"arrival.

the ground crew that were refused an international divert did not have enough time(5 hours) to call SG and inform them???

If we are to accept your explenation. then this is one of the worst performances by a pilot. but then again what do we expect from bush pilots.

just some more information regarding the plane. it was registered to Coco then trnasfered to Mali Sad and then transfered to the new australian buyer and all this in a time frame of 3 weeks... Aviation history.. and all this while Coco are in a jam... does raise an eybrow does it not??

[Gatorade]

There is nothing in this thread for the Coco owners to get excited about. This asset has gone. Too late.....

Speculation:

• The new owners have bought it at a knock down price, and it has been legally transferred onto the Australian Register
  
• A Pilot (and a Director of the new owners) plus an engineer fly and take a look, ohh there are lots of outstanding bills
  
• They check the tech logs and see an excuse
  
• They ask for a test flight, no problem, agreed
  
• Take off and shock, a sudden problem
  
• Koh Samui does not bother to radio them for 2 1/2 hour hence the press report
  
• We need go to Singapore, of course, on the way to Australia
  
• And suddenly an F16 appears outside the right wing
  

Purely speculation of course.......

Great summary... one change I would make though...the 2 1/2 hour call is CYA and misinformation from the tower. They were in radio contact thoughout the time the plane was in Thailand airspace.

The F16 thing is the current problem. Why?

It's so nice to hold a dialog with such an aviation enthusiest, even if only an archair one... Why don't you all take the time and effort to get a commercial pilots license, work as a bush pilot for a few years, then "maybe" you'll graduate to flying caravans. Then we can talk.

Jack saprrow. is that your own CV..?? it sounds a lot like the one who was flying the plane.. you know Ansset air and then a bush flyer and then a caravan flyer... the only thing left out is that high level of pilot training and kowledge that led to the incident with those pilots of the caravan lost in South Africa....

rings a bell???

it seems that there are many types of pilot training and maybe yours was somewhat different but then again bush pilots are not realy trained in international approaches are they??

there is a long going story about a bush pilot's first call to Victoria International tower in Canada being: "Victoria tower. This is xxxx short final for 09.

maybe the owner and the pilot ex Ansett Airlines pilot, had no clue about filing flight plans and that sort of bothersome administrative details when crossing international boundaries???

most PIC even though having "total controll" would not figure all those assumptions about "marine time emegencies" and "turttle" and all other considerations that you have outlined during a state of emergency . a responsible PIC that goes up for a 40 minute test flight does not need to fly 5 hours and 1000km to the furthest international airport and then land with out any problem.

and this qulified pilot was not aware of air security following 9/11??? he passed various controllers on the malasia side and not gound the time to ask them to report to SG about his arrival?? and if he did then at their last point of contact with malaysia, which is over johore, why did they not switch frequency to contact singapore?? is this the conduct of a professional pilot??

to sum it up....

No Flight Plan.

No customs clearance.

No immigration clearance.

No speak on the radio apart from from advising Koh Samui initially of a 1 hr jolly!

the plane finally landed on 02C and parked at Bay 404 in SG,

It was spotted at the North Eastern part of Singapore. they were not contactable initially as the ATCs were trying to ident the aircraft flying. seems strange that such a "qulified pilot" would no take the time to use emergency chanels "mayday call "to contact SG and advise them of this "emeregency"arrival.

the ground crew that were refused an international divert did not have enough time(5 hours) to call SG and inform them???

If we are to accept your explenation. then this is one of the worst performances by a pilot. but then again what do we expect from bush pilots.

just some more information regarding the plane. it was registered to Coco then trnasfered to Mali Sad and then transfered to the new australian buyer and all this in a time frame of 3 weeks... Aviation history.. and all this while Coco are in a jam... does raise an eybrow does it not??

Highdiver do you have some other issue? With Coco perhaps? You have constantly given out inaccurate information throughout the threads. Your last Para is typical and totally wrong. Raise an eyebrow indeed! The aircraft was registered from the word go in Mali Sadds name. That is until the new buyer came along. So what does this have to do with Aviation History?

This is not meant to be either an insult or flaming but I think a lot of people would be interested in the extent of your Aviation experence. :D .

[jacksparrow]

...he passed various controllers on the malasia side and not gound the time to ask them to report to SG about his arrival?? and if he did then at their last point of contact with malaysia, which is over johore, why did they not switch frequency to contact singapore?? is this the conduct of a professional pilot??

...

THe Malaysian DCA did contact Singapore ATC to inform them of the flight and the PIC's intentions. This was published in the New Straight Times a couple weeks ago and in a press release from the Malaysian DCA. Google it.

to sum it up....

No Flight Plan.

COvered that already. A flight plan was filed in THailand for Samui to Singapore with the Samui tower. It was not processed... fault with Samui ATC.

No customs clearance.

None required.

No immigration clearance.

No, they did not "check out" of Thailand, but that's a minor concern. No clearance / visa required for Singapore.

No speak on the radio apart from from advising Koh Samui initially of a 1 hr jolly!

And you know this how? Actually, they were in full radio and cell phone contact with Thai ATC.

the plane finally landed on 02C and parked at Bay 404 in SG,

It was spotted at the North Eastern part of Singapore. they were not contactable initially as the ATCs were trying to ident the aircraft flying. seems strange that such a "qulified pilot" would no take the time to use emergency chanels "mayday call "to contact SG and advise them of this "emeregency"arrival.

Malaysian ATC already did so.

the ground crew that were refused an international divert did not have enough time(5 hours) to call SG and inform them???

Agreed, this is a problem. The phone numbers for SG ATC are readily available. However, they did file a flight plan and expected it to be processed, just like it would have in Australia, the U.S, anywhere in Europe, etc. (Replace Samui with Tansmania and SG with Australia and see where that gets you) Ground crew just didn't think they needed to contact SG directly.

If we are to accept your explenation. then this is one of the worst performances by a pilot. but then again what do we expect from bush pilots.

You obviously don't know Tom...

just some more information regarding the plane. it was registered to Coco then trnasfered to Mali Sad and then transfered to the new australian buyer and all this in a time frame of 3 weeks... Aviation history.. and all this while Coco are in a jam... does raise an eybrow does it not??

Where are you getting this? From the media... they are always right, right? Well, this is completely false. The OFFICIAL registration for HS-CCO was that it was owned in entirety by Mali Saad since 2005. I checked myself early last year. The December event was a DEREGISTRATION for Thai register in preparation for registering the aircraft in the U.S. (and I won't explain further)

The rest of the post isn't worth responding to. Sorry.

BTW, why are you so interested in this case... IMO, this is good legal study in who is responsible for what in an internation emergency divert situation. Maybe some good will come out of this mess and we will have case law to cover similar situations in the future. However, I hope it doesn't come to that.

[LaoPo]

No Flight Plan.

Covered that already. A flight plan was filed in THailand for Samui to Singapore with the Samui tower. It was not processed... fault with Samui ATC.

BTW, why are you so interested in this case...

1. It's new to me that a flight plan: Samui>>>Singapore WAS filed....what happened to the 40 min test flight ?

2. You register here 2 days ago and YOU ask why someone is interested in this case ?

3. Tell us, jacksparrow*, who you really are and be honest...

I have to admit: your name is well chosen...

* Johnny Depp as Jack Sparrow in The Pirates Of The Caribbean

* Black Bart, the real pirate of the Caribbean and inspiration for Jack Sparrow's character

From:

The Real Jack Sparrow: He would have eaten Johnny Depp for breakfast

http://images.google.nl/imgres?imgurl=http...%3DOZD%26sa%3DX

Whatever will come out, the Mysterious Samui>Singapore flight OR The Pilots of The Gulf of Thailand is fit for a Hollywood movie...

LaoPo

[highdiver]

There is nothing in this thread for the Coco owners to get excited about. This asset has gone. Too late.....

Speculation:

• The new owners have bought it at a knock down price, and it has been legally transferred onto the Australian Register
  
• A Pilot (and a Director of the new owners) plus an engineer fly and take a look, ohh there are lots of outstanding bills
  
• They check the tech logs and see an excuse
  
• They ask for a test flight, no problem, agreed
  
• Take off and shock, a sudden problem
  
• Koh Samui does not bother to radio them for 2 1/2 hour hence the press report
  
• We need go to Singapore, of course, on the way to Australia
  
• And suddenly an F16 appears outside the right wing
  

Purely speculation of course.......

Great summary... one change I would make though...the 2 1/2 hour call is CYA and misinformation from the tower. They were in radio contact thoughout the time the plane was in Thailand airspace.

The F16 thing is the current problem. Why?

It's so nice to hold a dialog with such an aviation enthusiest, even if only an archair one... Why don't you all take the time and effort to get a commercial pilots license, work as a bush pilot for a few years, then "maybe" you'll graduate to flying caravans. Then we can talk.

Jack saprrow. is that your own CV..?? it sounds a lot like the one who was flying the plane.. you know Ansset air and then a bush flyer and then a caravan flyer... the only thing left out is that high level of pilot training and kowledge that led to the incident with those pilots of the caravan lost in South Africa....

rings a bell???

it seems that there are many types of pilot training and maybe yours was somewhat different but then again bush pilots are not realy trained in international approaches are they??

there is a long going story about a bush pilot's first call to Victoria International tower in Canada being: "Victoria tower. This is xxxx short final for 09.

maybe the owner and the pilot ex Ansett Airlines pilot, had no clue about filing flight plans and that sort of bothersome administrative details when crossing international boundaries???

most PIC even though having "total controll" would not figure all those assumptions about "marine time emegencies" and "turttle" and all other considerations that you have outlined during a state of emergency . a responsible PIC that goes up for a 40 minute test flight does not need to fly 5 hours and 1000km to the furthest international airport and then land with out any problem.

and this qulified pilot was not aware of air security following 9/11??? he passed various controllers on the malasia side and not gound the time to ask them to report to SG about his arrival?? and if he did then at their last point of contact with malaysia, which is over johore, why did they not switch frequency to contact singapore?? is this the conduct of a professional pilot??

to sum it up....

No Flight Plan.

No customs clearance.

No immigration clearance.

No speak on the radio apart from from advising Koh Samui initially of a 1 hr jolly!

the plane finally landed on 02C and parked at Bay 404 in SG,

It was spotted at the North Eastern part of Singapore. they were not contactable initially as the ATCs were trying to ident the aircraft flying. seems strange that such a "qulified pilot" would no take the time to use emergency chanels "mayday call "to contact SG and advise them of this "emeregency"arrival.

the ground crew that were refused an international divert did not have enough time(5 hours) to call SG and inform them???

If we are to accept your explenation. then this is one of the worst performances by a pilot. but then again what do we expect from bush pilots.

just some more information regarding the plane. it was registered to Coco then trnasfered to Mali Sad and then transfered to the new australian buyer and all this in a time frame of 3 weeks... Aviation history.. and all this while Coco are in a jam... does raise an eybrow does it not??

Highdiver do you have some other issue? With Coco perhaps? You have constantly given out inaccurate information throughout the threads. Your last Para is typical and totally wrong. Raise an eyebrow indeed! The aircraft was registered from the word go in Mali Sadds name. That is until the new buyer came along. So what does this have to do with Aviation History?

This is not meant to be either an insult or flaming but I think a lot of people would be interested in the extent of your Aviation experence. :D .

never had an issue with Coco. i jusr find the whole thread a bit like a movie..

as per given out wrong information...

at first i was only speculating and having fun as were every one else on this thread about the different options as raised by the media.

and then came "solid" information from those who "know"the plane and the pilot to teach us that all is not as in the media.

I have no interest at all at this case but it seems there are some big question marks as to the pilots behaviour and the ATC as well..

put this with the Coco problems and you ahve a noce thread...

As per my Aviation experience it goes way way back and icludes militery, civil and international comercial total loged of over 4500 hours.

[jacksparrow]

Ok, now I am curious... let's take a roll call.

How many pilots are there on this thread... PPL, CPL, ATP, whatever?

How many of them are at least CPL.

And how many with commercial (civil or GA) experience in Thailand?

Just wondering.

For me, ex-military aircrew CPL sea and land, single, twin, turbine. Unfortunately, I don't fly in Thailand... too much BS to deal with. Malaysia works better.