Bangkok Airways Crash in Koh Samui

[MarkyM3]

I fly in and out of Samui 4 or 5 times a year, generally on the jets rather than turboprops. Have had a couple of go-around's in the past due to poor weather at the airport but I would have no hesitation in continuing to use BKK Airways. They are regarded as having a good safety culture. Contrast that with 1-2-Go or Orient Thai, who are banned from EU airspace.

I'm not a professional pilot but I expect Samui is a challenging airfield to land at in bad weather, the runway is not very long for starters.

Edited August 4, 2009 by MarkyM3

[dabest]

the pilot lost it (I guess to high winds not sure), then the plane hit the control tower...

a big mess for sure

this was the exact thing I was talking about and it did happened as I predicted... i think they were lucky and only the pilot died in the cash...

i saw this coming as I personally was in a horrible landing a while back (same everything arriving to Samui at evening time with high winds in prop plane two months ago now) and said to myself if that happened to me I am sure it will happen again and much worse

this plane does not handel well in high winds that's for sure and very dangerous therefor

[dabest]

I will add this…

the night I came in the flight with the BA prop plane just like this one that crashed I was so firkin scared shirtless and could not believe how rough the landing was...really I was shocked and it was as bad as u can get without crashing…. not joking

No body said anything either when we finally stopped and I felt a little crazy

It was my TGF's first flight in her life and she though it was normal!!!!!!!!!!

OMG how naive she was and how worried I was!

If anyone in the Co of BA is reading this that has any say or power....

Please consider getting rid of those planes NOW!

I asked the people behind me what they thought after we landed and they said they pee in their pants they were so scared...

Hey this is a wake up call….

and that plane design is not safe in any windy situation period

Edited August 4, 2009 by dabest

[Boater]

[GungaDin]

I do see where you're coming from <snip.

Why not ask Stuart8 his feelings on this one seeing as he is aircrew with Dragonair ???

I am still a little worried as i thought it was safer to fly to Samui rather than take the VIP Coach !

I'll take my chances with Bangkok Air any day over a coach.

RIP Captain.

[mjperry]

Firstly, my thoughts go out to the family of the Captain who lost his life today in this accident.

A few clarifications as reading this post as follows (in no particular order):

The ATR-72 is a French built turbo-prop aircraft. Bangkok Airways operate this aircraft, and also the A319 & Md80s into Samui.

Bangkok Airways are the owner/operator of Samui Airport, and no other Air Operators in Thailand fly to Samui. Thai Air, and a few others sell tickets for this flights through a code sharing agreement with Bangok Airways. Bangkok Airways restrict competition on this route by charging substantially for any other airlines who wish to land at their airport and therefore make it an un-profitable route for other carriers.

There is no re-fuelling facilities at Samui, and therefore aircraft carry round-trip fuel on this route (enough for A-B, B-A (or C) plus fuel for diversion). So if required, the aircraft would have had more than enough fuel to divert to a number of other airports.

I am not sure of the category of weather station at Samui, but expect that it would be failry low category, and more than likely, the control tower would be the best source of weather information for the pilots.

The control tower at Samui is fairly basic, with no radar, due to the low number of daily flights into the airport, and also since most approaches flown there are in visual flight conditions (VMC).

Not that it really matters to this story but to clear up some of the mis-information.

- Bangkok Airways are not the only operator flying to Samui domestically anymore. Thai Airways started flights from Bangkok back in February 2008, these are not code-share flights but flown using Thai's own 737-400's.

- There are of course refuelling facilities at Samui airport, they can provide and service A1 Jet fuel there. So there's no need for flights to carry enough fuel for their return sectors.

- The control tower at Samui definitely uses radar to manage the traffic around the airport, modern ATC systems use multiple radar systems to provide a multiradar picture giving increased quality positioning, redundancy and result verification, therefore the ATC for this and all the other airports in Thailand are run by the same company Aeronautical Radio of Thailand with all ATC locations interconnected to provide this multiradar system. Their systems are linked to the Military Air Defense Unit and are no doubt making use of the large radar installation which is located at the highest peak of Samui's mountainous regions and run by the Thai Air Force.

Martin

[cobra]

A few feet before, a few feet after, and this would probably just be just another routine incident of an aircraft skidding off a runway in bad weather.

But the cruel existence of Murphy's Law had to dictate that the plane would hit the only lone structure that side of the runway, unfortunate as it is, comes down to plain bad luck.

Keeping a little perspective, still a greater chance of being hit by lightning, than being in a plane crash.

[animatic]

My last arrival to Samui was on one of these, maybe this one,

and yes it did go MUCH tippier than it should have...

And the one I took to Pattaya did the same on landing,

I did NOT like it.

I fly in and out of Samui 7-10 times a year at least.

So from now on I will make SURE I am on the big jet

and not these large puddle jumpers.

Todays instance, and a friends comments and anecdotes from this htread,

today tells me these particular planes arrive on not much more than a wing

and a prayer at this airport FAR too often. I can count 5 questionable arrivals

with this SAME model.. That is one too many in my book.

Maybe in a nice calm prairie open plain field there are just fine,

But Samui is definitely a difficult airport, and it seems clear

these planes are not up to it regularly in all probable conditions

and still be safe.

Add to that this is by far the highest charged flight within Thailand,

but not the longest at all. I don't like to get charged more for

unstable aircraft... and why air destination monopolies are not healthy.

I also find the airline has little respect for the locals once on ground,

who travel to Bangkok and back, drive their own vehicle,

and not JUST those that only take the promotion flights.

Last flight NEVER has, and earlier flights rarely have anyone

driving a golf cart to help you slog the 1/2 klick or more

to the departure parking and your car, with all your bags etc...

Locals regularly go to Bkk to stock up on things not on island,

and it's super hard to get the extra bags to your vehicle,

because the airport is geared to getting tourist to their hotels

and visa versa.

Locals who actual fly MORE than any one tourist get short shrift.

I put this last in in case SOMEONE might actually read it from BA.

[wuyt]

In the afternoon 6th of march...

I am not sure if it's the same type of plane. I'll let the experts deside.

Dear Nana, is that a picture of the plane you flew with on 6 March 2009?

This is a picture of exactly the plane that just crashlanded in Samui (HS-PGL).

Consider yourself very lucky!

[Evergreen]

Yeah, for sure it's tragic that someone's lost their life and a few are reported as being seriously injured but by the look of the pictures i have viewed so far i find it amazing there's only been 1 fatality.

Although it won't ever put me off whatsoever from flying to Samui or anywhere for that matter, i'm sure it'll spring to mind when i'm on my approach when i come back, a few nervous thoughts i'm sure!!

On a sidenote: maybe it's just me.....but we all know there's been this sad crash today and this thread is now 10 pages long so we do not STILL need multiple posts copying and pasting the media reports from the newspapers anymore...i think we all get the drift by now as to what's happened. It's just the same copy/past reports over and over and over begins to get slightly annoying........

Cheers.

[Flatouthruthefog]

A few feet before, a few feet after, and this would probably just be just another routine incident of an aircraft skidding off a runway in bad weather.

But the cruel existence of Murphy's Law had to dictate that the plane would hit the only lone structure that side of the runway, unfortunate as it is, comes down to plain bad luck.

Keeping a little perspective, still a greater chance of being hit by lightning, than being in a plane crash.

I respect what you say 100% and, as we know, any accident has far more than one cause. The rain-soaked runway, the cross-wind, the type of aircraft, pilot skill etc etc.

However, just to add one new thought, the building which the plane hit was an old, outdated, unmanned ATC control tower. Disused! In a place alongside the runway where it could be hit by a plane having problems skating across the grass in an emergency like this!!

What the Heck was it doing still standing there??

Why was it not demolished (for SAFETY reasons!!) the day it was vacated? Huh? Wake up at the front there, someone!!

[Camelot]

Possibly the reason why it wasn't demolished was because it had been converted into the airport's fire station.

[Chayaphum]

In the afternoon 6th of march earlier this year, me and a friend landed with Bangkok air at U-Tapao airport coming up from Phuket. After the touchdown the plane veered heavily left and right 4 or 5 times before the pilot gained control again. My first thought was that the plane was going to flip over. After the plane came to a halt, the cabin was dead quiet. And there was no wind what so ever. I am not sure if it's the same type of plane. I'll let the experts deside.

"HS-PGL" is "HS-PGL"

why you are not sure?

my picture from 30.01.2008

Chayaphum

[Stuart8]

I was going by the Canadair Regionaljet's system. Ok I found info on the ATR72's braking system:

The four main gear wheels are equipped with multidisc carbon brakes which are each operated by a set of hydraulically powered pistons. Normal braking is controlled by brake pedals which are part of the rudder pedals and permit the use of differential braking to assist with steering. The aircraft is fitted with an antiskid system which operates on all four main wheels at speeds above 10 kt. The system measures each wheel speed and moderates the pilot commanded brake pressure to obtain maximum stopping performance without skidding. The ATR 72 is not equipped with an autobrake system but, maximum brakingis possible without restriction down to a stop, regardless of runway condition, provided that antiskid is operative.

Seems like the anti-skid system should have kept the plane in a straight line if it was functioning correctly.

Anti skid only prevents the wheels from locking up under braking. If the left wheel's tyre gripped the runway and right wheel's tyre did not the right wheel would continue to rotate while the left wheel slowed under braking. This would cause a sharp left turn and a daparture from the runway.

I too can read manuals, however I also have a lot of experience handling landings in these sort of conditions. The primary rule is to brake gently on landing, feel the amount of grip you have and allow plenty of runway to slow down. Anti skid does not allow you to defy the laws of physics.

Edited August 4, 2009 by Stuart8

[khaosai]

Hi,

a sad day for Thai aviation. I have flown on Bangkok airways, and was very impressed by the level of service provided, including the safety aspect of the operation.

The airport operator can close an airport due to weather conditions. The Captain always has the ultimate responsibility for the safety of the passengers, crew and aircraft. If he/she deems it unsuitable to land in certain types of weather conditions then he/she will either hold until the conditions clear up, or divert to another suitable airport.

Landing in strong gusty conditions on a dry, slippery or contaminated runway can be quite challenging for sure. Its important to make a firm touchdown on a slippery/contaminated runway so the tyres punch though the layer of contamination on the runway to avoid aquaplaning. Directional control can be an issue, but the aircraft will have a reduced crosswind limit depending on whether the runway is dry slippery or contaminated. Some runways are grooved or porous which helps to disperse the water. Its very difficult to know the actual runway surface conditions. You would get an indication from Air Traffic Control of contamination depth and based on that you would then work out your landing performance.

If the fire engines are all damaged then the airport could potentially be closed for a while as there is no fire cover available for the operation of commercial flights.

My experience is that localised weather patterns normally pass through the airport within 30 minutes so the best policy is to stay on the ground or hold if airborne and fuel is sufficient.

Rgds

Edited August 4, 2009 by khaosai

[spongeman]

Good post there.

I will be sticking to THAI, however.

[JonW]

Seems be a few aviation experts here. Though, nobody has commented the ATR72´s quite unusual landing gear. The main gear is located in the extended belly of the plane and not under the wings as usual. This of course gives a more narrow wheel track. I´ve experienced some really bumpy landings with those planes on Samui, and always suspected it got something to do with this.

What do you experts think; couldn´t this have contributed to instabilize the plane at touch down especially in tricky wind??

Edited August 4, 2009 by JonW

[monoli87]

Maybe the tower authorities didn't warned the plane about bad weather.... if bad weather like storms or heavy rain, it's so dangerous for plane to continue...

more people seems phobia to flight when they heard this....

[geriatrickid]

Some of these comments are the product of vivid imaginations. How about a reality check reminder before the inquisition and 2nd guessing continues;

- Landing in a thunderstorm is an accepted industry practice and is allowed by air transport safety regulators around the world. The most classic illustration of this point was the crash of the Airbus 340 in 2005 at YYZ which resulted in a total loss of the aircraft. Despite multiple lightening strikes in the landing zone and severe storm conditions, there was no fault associated with the decision to land in the storm.

- Until the conditions of the runway are stated, one won't know if that was a factor. Or, maybe there was a sudden tailwind. It is easy to blame the Captain, but all of the conditions must be identified first.

- Speculating over who was in control at the time of the landing is silly. There is no such thing as a co-pilot, just 2nd pilot. That is because that pilot is supposed to be capable of flying a plane either during takeoff or landing. A second in command can function as the pilot in command, but the Captain retains final authority and accountability.

- Bangkok Airways has an excellent reputation. It has no history of cutting corners of safety.

- The ATR has a good safety record. Previous ATR incidents relate to pilot error and the areas in which the planes were flown. The last big fatality was in 1994 on an AA commuter flight that was forced to hold in ice conditions for an hour because O'hare was busy. Wings iced over.

- The aircrew must have done something right once the incident was in motion as the fatalities were limited and there was no post crash fire.

A good investigation is going to take months since all of the information must be gather and analyzed. Simulations have to be done. If you want a quick verdict, it aint going to happen, so quit speculating. Stick to the facts.

Edited August 5, 2009 by geriatrickid

[orosee]

For the record, it's not a jet (see photos).

All the news agencies had to do was Google ATR 72.

For the record it was. It's a turboprop. It has gas turbine engines.

It's just that the blades (propellors are visible).

Wouldn't it be a nice change to have all the armchair experts hold back from

their pontificating until the accident investigators have done their job.

Wrong. Don't look at the source of power. You have to look at the source of thrust or the method of propulsion. A jet plane is driven largely by the thrust generated by the gas turbine exhausts (the jet engine). A turboprop plane is driven largely by the thrust generated by the propeller. You will also notice that the exhaust of a typical turboprop engine is at a downward angle rather than "straight" as in a real jet engine.

A gas turbine is not the same as a jet engine. You will find gas turbines in power plants, locomotives, even road vehicles. None of the former have been called "jet airplanes", and the presence of a gas turbine is not even necessary for some jet aircraft (e.g. ram jet). More interesting things including visuals on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turboprop).

A much more interesting question coming out of this thread is whether it is possible to send prayers by email.

[Mark Wolfe]

The wind was blowing hard yesterday, as it does every year at this time, and blowing the light rain almost perfectly parallel to the ground.

This had to be a major factor, but then other planes have landed in this sort of weather for years without incident.

[churchill]

Portsmouth honeymoon couple injured in Thai jet crash on Ko Samui

A British man on his honeymoon described yesterday how he and his wife feared for their lives after an aircraft skidded off the runway at Ko Samui airport in Thailand, killing the pilot and injuring passengers.

Nick Harvey’s leg was broken and he was pinned to his seat for nearly an hour by metal wreckage after the Bangkok Airways twin turboprop airliner crossed a grass verge as it landed in heavy rain and crashed into a former control tower.

Although he was in severe pain he urged his wife, Claire, who was less seriously injured, to leave the aircraft in case it exploded or caught fire.

“You think of horrible things when plane problems happen so I said, ‘Get out as soon as you can’,” Mr Harvey, 32, said from hospital on the southern island of Ko Samui. The couple, from Portsmouth, were flying from the resort town of Krabi on Thailand’s southwest coast to Ko Samui for the second half of their honeymoon and were in the front row of the aircraft.

“We landed as you would normally, you expect a bit of a bounce,” Mr Harvey said. “Then the plane seemed to be going slightly sideways, and we hit something.”

Aviation officials said that the ATR 72-500 aircraft ran off the runway in strong winds and heavy rain and crashed into a former control tower, which had been converted into a fire station. At least seven people were badly injured, including the co-pilot, who was trapped in the cockpit for more than two hours. Two other Britons among the 68 passengers were taken to hospital.

Aoife Creamer, 25, a teacher from Rush, Co Dublin, who suffered bruising, told how passengers ran from the aircraft amid fears of a fire. “The plane stopped and everyone started to panic and scream. We tried to calm people down,” he said.

“People started climbing over seats and grabbed their bags and we told them to leave them and get off. Everyone was pushing and we were just trying to get people off. We ran down the runway. They were telling us to run, run, run. I think that they were afraid it was going to explode too.”

Frans Denster, the co-ordinator at Bangkok Samui Hospital on the island, said that doctors there had treated several passengers including two Britons, one French national, one Dane, one Swiss national and two Thais. “Most of the badly injured patients have broken legs,” he said.

Puttipong Prasarttong-Osoth, managing director of Bangkok Airways, said that the pilot, Chartchai Pansuwan, had 19 years’ experience. “The cause of the accident isn’t known yet,” Mr Puttipong said. “We are still investigating. We are not sure if it was caused by bad weather or if it was human error.”

Mr Harvey said that he feared his leg would have to be pinned, and that his health insurance details were still in his luggage on the aircraft. He said that his wife had been admitted to another hospital and he had been told that she was faring well. A representative of the British Embassy had visited him and spoken to his family.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle6739447.ece

[iang]

Does anyone know if Koh Samui Airport has reopened yet & if not, when it may be?

[Samui Coconut]

Does anyone know if Koh Samui Airport has reopened yet & if not, when it may be?

No flight has left yet. Still investigating the plane. I would think about 2.00pm

[Who, me ?]

Some of these comments are the product of vivid imaginations. How about a reality check reminder before the inquisition and 2nd guessing continues;

- Landing in a thunderstorm is an accepted industry practice and is allowed by air transport safety regulators around the world. The most classic illustration of this point was the crash of the Airbus 340 in 2005 at YYZ which resulted in a total loss of the aircraft. Despite multiple lightening strikes in the landing zone and severe storm conditions, there was no fault associated with the decision to land in the storm.

- Until the conditions of the runway are stated, one won't know if that was a factor. Or, maybe there was a sudden tailwind. It is easy to blame the Captain, but all of the conditions must be identified first.

- Speculating over who was in control at the time of the landing is silly. There is no such thing as a co-pilot, just 2nd pilot. That is because that pilot is supposed to be capable of flying a plane either during takeoff or landing. A second in command can function as the pilot in command, but the Captain retains final authority and accountability.

- Bangkok Airways has an excellent reputation. It has no history of cutting corners of safety.

- The ATR has a good safety record. Previous ATR incidents relate to pilot error and the areas in which the planes were flown. The last big fatality was in 1994 on an AA commuter flight that was forced to hold in ice conditions for an hour because O'hare was busy. Wings iced over.

- The aircrew must have done something right once the incident was in motion as the fatalities were limited and there was no post crash fire.

A good investigation is going to take months since all of the information must be gather and analyzed. Simulations have to be done. If you want a quick verdict, it aint going to happen, so quit speculating. Stick to the facts.

Excellent!

[sabaijai]

Friends tell of air crash terror

04/08/2009 - 19:30:47

Three Irish women tonight told how they climbed through mangled wreckage suffering only cuts and bruises after the plane they were on crashed in Thailand.

The friends, who had been travelling around south-east Asia, were in row ten - just four seats away from a crushing impact – as the jet slid on landing and smashed into a disused control tower.

The pilot of the Bangkok Airways’ ATR72 died in the accident on a rain-soaked runway in the holiday resort of Koh Samui.

Aoife Creamer, 25, a teacher, from Rush, north Co Dublin told how panicked passengers ran from the jet amid fears of a fire.

“We were in the tenth row, about six rows back from where it came in through our side of the plane, the left-hand side,” she said.

“The tower was basically inside the plane so I don’t know how anybody who was sitting in those front rows was alive.

“We don’t even know if they are.”

The teacher at St Brendan’s Primary School, Loughshinny, suffered bruising in the crash while her sister Orlagh, a 20-year-old student from Swords, hurt a knee and their friend Lesley Dowdall, 23, also from Swords sprained a wrist.

Aoife went on: “The plane stopped and everyone started to panic and scream. We tried to calm people down.

“People started climbing over seats and grabbed their bags and we told them to leave them and get off. We were afraid it was going to go on fire. It was mental.

“Everyone was pushing then and we were just trying to get people off.

“We ran down the runway. They were telling us to run, run, run. I think they were afraid it was going to going to explode too.”

The fire brigade was on the scene in seconds but the three friends have vowed to cut short their six-week holiday and return home.

They were among 68 passengers, two cabin crew and two pilots on board the plane which ended up embedded, nose down in the old control tower.

“We’re definitely coming straight home. The airport is closed today but we’re going to go back to Bangkok as soon as we can and then we’re heading home,” Aoife said.

“We just can’t get home quick enough at this stage.

The friends said the flight had been a little bumpy but it felt like regular turbulence before coming into land but then it began to tilt severely from side to side.

Aoife said despite it being the rainy season they were not worried.

“I got a bit nervous and said it to Orlagh, she said ’it’s grand’.

“But I never thought we were goners. Just when we were coming down we all held hands. I said to Orlagh this is a plane crash, but when we landed on the grass I thought we’d just come to a stop on it.”

The friends said they did not panic until the air hostesses started to look worried.

A fourth friend, Aine Deasy, 21, from Swords, had been travelling with the group but she left Thailand two days ago after suffering a serious head injury in a fall.

source: www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/eycwkfcwidcw/rss2/#ixzz0NGqQji4F

[samuijack]

The wind was blowing hard yesterday, as it does every year at this time, and blowing the light rain almost perfectly parallel to the ground.

This had to be a major factor, but then other planes have landed in this sort of weather for years without incident.

If you read my previous post, you will see that I the plane's approach and landing, from the time it turned final. I saw it make a textbook landing.eg: right on the numbers: right on the centre line: wings level. It continued down the centre line slowing down normally. When it arrived at the old tower, (more htan 500 meters) I would guess it was not doing more than 20kts. It then turned left. I thought it did this on purpose so as not to go to the end and backtrack. It seemed there was no problem until the brakes were applied, as up to this time the pilot would be steering on the rudder.

The winds played no part in this accident and would have no effect at this speed and if they did, it would have blown the plane the opposite way. Winds were 290/18kts. No reports on the ATIS or from the tower of gusting.

[RKASA]

Those of you that worry about flying should start to buy lottery tickets, because your chance of winning the big one are as good as any odds of being killed in a crash.   about 1 and never.  With the number of aircraft in use everywhere things happen from time to time.  I would worry more about getting to and from the airport.  Buses with the same number persons aboard crash almost daily in Thailand and other places as well.  I always take trains and planes, never a bus.

[tourleadersi]

Does anyone know if the airport is open and functioning today? Are flights being redirected?

Thanks

[Who, me ?]

The wind was blowing hard yesterday, as it does every year at this time, and blowing the light rain almost perfectly parallel to the ground.

This had to be a major factor, but then other planes have landed in this sort of weather for years without incident.

If you read my previous post, you will see that I the plane's approach and landing, from the time it turned final. I saw it make a textbook landing.eg: right on the numbers: right on the centre line: wings level. It continued down the centre line slowing down normally. When it arrived at the old tower, (more htan 500 meters) I would guess it was not doing more than 20kts. It then turned left. I thought it did this on purpose so as not to go to the end and backtrack. It seemed there was no problem until the brakes were applied, as up to this time the pilot would be steering on the rudder.

The winds played no part in this accident and would have no effect at this speed and if they did, it would have blown the plane the opposite way. Winds were 290/18kts. No reports on the ATIS or from the tower of gusting.

If what you say is true (and we have no reason not to believe what you saw), then it might mean that the right brakes did not work properly. A sharp left turn while applying brakes can only be the result of a malfunction.