Bangkok Airways Crash in Koh Samui

[animatic]

Agreed long time till definitve report,

and sadly likely partly white-washed as per typical here.

I still plan to pick planes with a nice wide wheel base from now on.

There are MORE than enough anecdotal reports to justify this.

Narrow wheel base planes flying in regular high crosswinds environments

are a recipe for disaster. Having experienced this first hand more than once

at this airport, I will pick other planes from now on, even if it throws off my schedules.

I suspect BA is still flying these older birds, which are fine much of the time,

cause they are hard to sell off, no matter how nicely painted up,

and because buying replacements without selling them off is not cheap.

If 80% of the time the weather fits the bird OK, but not me in one for that other 20%

[Samui Coconut]

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

Thanks

The way it looks like the airport will stay closed today. Passengers are being ferried to Surat and from there flown to Bangkok or to Phuket by bus.

That is the latest news as of 9.30am.

[Brewsta]

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.

Firstly, lucky escape it seems and, some excellent balanced detail/synopsis on the event fromthis Forum - thanks.

I fly regularly UK/ Saudi / China.....et al to do my work and fully endorse the view that flying is the least of evils vis-a-vis necessary travel....

Hoping that any lessons are learned and applied and swift recovery to all involved.

rgdz

Brewsta

[Brewsta]

Oh and on a lighter note - don't forget that it is Mothers Day here in LOS in a week on the 12th (Dads and Hubbys note).....

I fear many fatalities and injuries if the event is overlooked (certainly in my household anyway ).

Please forgive the brief humanitarian 'off-topic' note, George & MODS, eh?

Rgdz,

Brewsta

[jfchandler]

All I can say is.... I hope the official Thai investigation into the crash produces a real cause answer sooner than.... the official Thai investigation into the deaths of the two tourist women recently on Phi Phi Island... Still waiting on that investigation, if you can really call it that...

[gburns57au]

gburns:

Do these investigations consistently bring to light what actually happened? People have cited the Surat crash as an investigation that appears to have been masked somewhat preventing the identification of the true cause of the accident.

Bring to light to whom? Does every investigation result have to be released to the public?

The Surat crash investigation was completed as I recall. A number of factors were deemed to have contributed to it.

[george]

Samui airport to resume operation this afternoon

Full story:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Samui-Airpor...Af-t286080.html

[dale8]

Hello, I am sorry for the man killed and the people hurt and all their families. The medical response was very good to minimalize any injuries, and thank God there was no fire after the fire fighters put foam on the fuel.

[OldgitTom]

Well, pace the ‘experts’, some useful info has come out of the ‘speculation’ here. Don’t fly on planes with narrow undercarts, for one. Another might be, keep on speculating. The air accident experts might take a year or two to produce a detailed report. In the meantime, most of the public will have forgotten about the crash.

Whitewashing in air accident reports is not confined to Thailand, unfortunately. I remember a case many years ago. Modifications recommended by a plane manufacturer had not been carried out. The manufacturer knew this, yet was under no legal obligation to inform the air safety authority – manufacturers rarely snitch on their airline customers.

And the ‘safety’ boys & girls are sometimes similarly pressured not to blame manufacturers or the airline operators – bad for business. Much easier to find pilot error, or, “Just one of those things”.

Recall that recent terrible Air France accident? Speculation wandered to the airspeed indicator pitots. Latest mods had not been carried out.

Of course air traffic control can close an airfield down if conditions are bad enough, but how often do they actually do it? Google ‘aircraft crosswind landings’ for some hairy evidence. I suspect the attitude is, “We don’t want to lose landing fees, so we’ll leave it to the pilots to decide. Anyhow, Blog Air just landed safely, so it’ll probably be OK.” It is OK, most of the time. That’s how hazardous practice becomes routine. The difference between the two is demarcated by accidents.

I notice no-one has given an insider opinion on if , or how much, pilots are pressured now to save fuel by landing first try. And talk about air being safer than bus is hardly relevant where there is no alternative to flying.

Beware public: listen to the experts, but remember their dependance on the industry’s vested interests. Ask yourself if your air trip is really necessary. If you decide no, you save a little bit of the environment. OldgitTom

[cdnvic]

Well, pace the ‘experts’, some useful info has come out of the ‘speculation’ here. Don’t fly on planes with narrow undercarts, for one.

That would exclude flying on almost every jetliner, save for a few old Russian models. The plane didn't roll over, that's for sure. We probably won't know what happened for quite awhile.

[animatic]

Well, pace the ‘experts’, some useful info has come out of the ‘speculation’ here. Don’t fly on planes with narrow undercarts, for one.

That would exclude flying on almost every jetliner, save for a few old Russian models. The plane didn't roll over, that's for sure. We probably won't know what happened for quite awhile.

No it didn't roll over...

But my last arrival wings came WAY to close to the ground compare to all other planes used there.

With in ONE meter of the tarmac is to F'n close in my book.

I am telling you mate, I don't normally get scared on landings, I just read. Been flying for 45 years.

This plane model scared me on landings...multiple times. Simple as that.

Find myself arriving at this plane and get a sinking feeling.

'Never more'; said the raven.

You get the wing up too much AND then the bad gust...well we saw what can happen,

even if this is NOT the clear single cause this time.

[cdnvic]

I know the kind of feeling you're talking about. Myself, I feel more comfortable on low wing aircraft like the Saab 340 than those such as the ATR or Dash 8. Just guessed that they'd belly land better. Still won't keep me out of ATRs or the other high wings though. I have confidence in them all.

[Who, me ?]

^^ very rightly

[Datsun240Z]

Yup, I saw it in the Dutch news yesterday.

[LukDod]

From the Deputy Manager of the airport:

August 5, 2009

RE: CLARIFICATION ON THE PLANE CRASH ACCIDENT AT SAMUI AIRPORT

SAMUI AIRPORT PROPERTY FUND (SPF),Number 2

Dear Sirs,

Due to the accident of Bangkok Airways' plane skidded on runway and

collided into an old traffic control tower at Samui airport on August 4,2009

at 14.10 hours, Siam City Asset Management Company Limited

(Management Company), as a fund manager of the Samui Airport Property

Fund (SPF), have informed Bangkok Airways, who is a sub-leasee and an

airport operator, to explain the incident. The explanation is as follows;

The incident

On August 4, 2009, Bangkok Airways aircraft, Flight PG 266 operating from

Krabi Airport skidded on the runway and collided into an old control tower

on landing at Samui Airport at approximately 14.10 hours.

The latest report of the situation stated that the 70-seat aircraft,ATR72-500,

series number MSN670, delivered on July 15, 2001, was carrying 68

passengers and two pilots and two flight attendants all of whom had been

safely evacuated from the aircraft. Most unfortunately, the Co-pilot were

seriously injured and hospitalized and the Captain passed away. All injured

passengers and crew had been taken to the hospital and altogether nine

passengers were receiving medical treatments.

Damages effective to the airport

A preliminary inspection revealed there were no damages to the runway,

passenger terminals or to the control tower which is fully functional.What

was damaged was an empty technical building. At present the damages

cannot be evaluated until after inspections by relevant authorized officials.

Insurance coverage

Bangkok Airways has taken an all risks insurance of Samui Airport (including

risks against disruption of business) with Bangkok Insurance Company

details as follows:

1. All risks coverage 561,711,300 Baht

2. Business interruption 948,514,164 Baht

Total insurance coverage 1,510,225,464 Baht

In addition to the above, Bangkok Airways has taken an insurance policy

that covers damages to passengers and third party at a total of USD 250

million per incident.

Following procedures at the airport

Officials from Department of Civil Aviation are conducting an inspection of

the airport to ascertain that it is safe for the aircraft to take off or land.

It is expected that the airport will be open for business within today

(August 5,2009).

For the total cancelled flights caused by this incident, Management Company

will follow up and make an announcement shortly. Nevertheless, from the

agreement between the fund and Bangkok Airways, the fund is subject to

receive minimum fee equivalent to 6% of the amount of initial capital of the

fund per year or equals to 570 million baht.

We will immediately notify you further once we have received additional

information on the incident.

Please be informed accordingly.

Yours Sincerely,

Mrs. Sutida Suriyodorn

Deputy Managing Director

[george]

Names released of 9 injured in Samui incident

BANGKOK: -- Nine passengers from five countries -- Britain, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, and Switzerland -- injured in Tuesday’s incident at an airport serving aThai tourist venue are being treated at three nearby hospitals in the southern province of Surat Thani, according to Surat Thani hospital's rescue centre.

Two Dutch nationals, Abreheam Gzaaf, 42, and Lucar Gzaaf, 11, are at Ban Don Inter Hospital.

Five persons, Nicholas Havel, 39, British, Panteli Patelis, 39, British, Elodie Lacovangelo, 41, Swiss, Mirella Gastaldi, 39, Italian, Amilie Bahne, 19, Denmark are being treated at Bangkok Samui Hospital.

Two others, Joyce Gosleng, 26, and Claire Ballantyne, 33, both British, are being treated at Thai International Hospital.

-- TNA 2009-08-05

[Stuart8]

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.

- 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.

- 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.

Stick to the facts.

Landing in thunderstorms - accepted industry practice? That is an extraordinary statement! Tropical thunderstorms over your destination will always result in holding off the approach or a go around. Tropical thunderstorms are a known severe hazard to be avoided anywhere, especially on the approach.

There is certainly such a 'thing' as a copilot. It is just the term used to describe the first officer or 2nd pilot. Indeed they are equally trained as the captain, they just don't have the experience. Experience is crucial in a situation like this.

In this case the fatality and lack of further fatalities was down to just luck, both good and bad. Clearly the situation took them by surprise and they would have reacted instinctively to try to control the aircraft. It could have ended better, but it could have ended much worse.

Stick to the facts indeed, but know the facts first.

[kolohe]

There is certainly such a 'thing' as a copilot. It is just the term used to describe the first officer or 2nd pilot. Indeed they are equally trained as the captain, they just don't have the experience. Experience is crucial in a situation like this.

This is not completely true. Becoming a captain has more to do with seniority at a carrier than experience relative to the other crews. There are many instances of first officers having more experience than the captains they are flying with. This happens normally with people leaving carriers for greener pastures, when airlines furlough or close their doors.

Also, a first officer doesn't necessarily equal inexperience. There are many carriers with first officers that have been at the carrier for 20 years. There's not an unlimited supply of captain positions where everyone becomes a captain when they have X number of years in the company. You become a captain when there is a position available. There are first officers out there with 10,000 hours of flight time.

Stuart8, I know you know this as a DA crew. This is more of an explanation for the rest of the members.

[Stuart8]

There is certainly such a 'thing' as a copilot. It is just the term used to describe the first officer or 2nd pilot. Indeed they are equally trained as the captain, they just don't have the experience. Experience is crucial in a situation like this.

This is not completely true. Becoming a captain has more to do with seniority at a carrier than experience relative to the other crews. There are many instances of first officers having more experience than the captains they are flying with. This happens normally with people leaving carriers for greener pastures, when airlines furlough or close their doors.

Also, a first officer doesn't necessarily equal inexperience. There are many carriers with first officers that have been at the carrier for 20 years. There's not an unlimited supply of captain positions where everyone becomes a captain when they have X number of years in the company. You become a captain when there is a position available. There are first officers out there with 10,000 hours of flight time.

Stuart8, I know you know this as a DA crew. This is more of an explanation for the rest of the members.

You are absolutely correct. I was being general for the less knowledgeable. Indeed first officers can have a lot of experience, especially in large airlines where it can take many years to reach command. I think however you will find there are a lot of inexperienced young first officers in Bangkok Airways though. These smaller airlines with smaller turboprop aircraft tend to be the starting out point in pilot's careers.

Where pilots are F/O's because they are new to the airline they may have had a lot of previous experience but they are new to that airlines operations and may also be new to that aircraft type aswell. However windshear and wet runways are problems common to all aircraft types, although each type may be more or less susceptible.

By the way it's KA not DA.

Edited August 5, 2009 by Stuart8

[reallyok]

I echo BkkJames. Pressure on pilots must be great. In dodgy conditions, extra fuel is used to divert or 'go round again & have another try'. Airlines are in cut-throat competition. Extra fuel may be the differance b/ween profit & loss. Pilots who do not land first try - do they get a black mark, or lose a fuel economy bonus? If you want to see how many aircraft land in severe weather, Google YouTube, 'cross-wind landings'. It's frightening.

Most of the time, most pilots get away with it, but it is still dangerous. As far as I know, the rule is that air traffic control informs pilots of local landing conditions, then it is up to the pilot to decide whether to land or not. Cop-out! ATC should know if landing conditions are dangerous or not. THEY should decide whether to close down an airfield.

I suspect airfield operators don't want to carry the decision can. I also suspect the insurance companies find it cheaper to lay the blame on 'pilot error' when an accident occurs. WRONG: the first priority should be passenger safety. This is not a Thai problem, it's global.

You get what you pay for. Cheapo airlines must trim their budgets somewhere. If you save $100 & end up dead, don't blame the pilot. Remember the BA plane that recently landed short at Heathrow, or the similar incident at Schipol?

My deep sympathy goes to the family of this dead pilot. He was very experienced. I only hope he doesn't get unfairly condemned. OldgitTom

Not sure what you are saying OLDGIT. But its generally more expensive to fly BKK - SAMUI with Bangkok Air or Siem Riep air. They just ain't one of the cut price airlines.

[reallyok]

Well, pace the 'experts', some useful info has come out of the 'speculation' here. Don't fly on planes with narrow undercarts, for one. Another might be, keep on speculating. The air accident experts might take a year or two to produce a detailed report. In the meantime, most of the public will have forgotten about the crash.

Whitewashing in air accident reports is not confined to Thailand, unfortunately. I remember a case many years ago. Modifications recommended by a plane manufacturer had not been carried out. The manufacturer knew this, yet was under no legal obligation to inform the air safety authority – manufacturers rarely snitch on their airline customers.

And the 'safety' boys & girls are sometimes similarly pressured not to blame manufacturers or the airline operators – bad for business. Much easier to find pilot error, or, "Just one of those things".

Recall that recent terrible Air France accident? Speculation wandered to the airspeed indicator pitots. Latest mods had not been carried out.

Of course air traffic control can close an airfield down if conditions are bad enough, but how often do they actually do it? Google 'aircraft crosswind landings' for some hairy evidence. I suspect the attitude is, "We don't want to lose landing fees, so we'll leave it to the pilots to decide. Anyhow, Blog Air just landed safely, so it'll probably be OK." It is OK, most of the time. That's how hazardous practice becomes routine. The difference between the two is demarcated by accidents.

I notice no-one has given an insider opinion on if , or how much, pilots are pressured now to save fuel by landing first try. And talk about air being safer than bus is hardly relevant where there is no alternative to flying.

Beware public: listen to the experts, but remember their dependance on the industry's vested interests. Ask yourself if your air trip is really necessary. If you decide no, you save a little bit of the environment. OldgitTom

Beware public ..............Bugger you OldgitTom, now i feel guilty !

[MarkyM3]

Oldgit, you are lumping everyone in the same boat.

BKK Airways is not a cheapo airline and I've been on two flights with them in bad landing conditions at Samui when they had to perform a go-around. All appeared very professional and they have a decent reputation, check pprune.org.

BA also have very high standards. The B777 plane landed short at LHR did so because of an engine malfunction due to a design problem with it, not due to poor maintenance or pilot error. The Turkish crash in Amsterdam definitely has more question marks surrounding it however. And in Thailand, 1-2-Go and Orient Thai are best avoided, they are banned from EU airspace due to various documented malpractice. Read what some of the ex-pilots say about them on pprune, frightening stuff!

Generally speaking, aircraft can land in cross winds of up to 30 or so knots. They are tested for this before certification. Pilots know the limits and practice for it in the simulator.

Regarding facilities at Samui, do they have any wind shear detectors installed there btw??

Edited August 5, 2009 by MarkyM3

[animatic]

.....Generally speaking, aircraft can land in cross winds of up to 30 or so knots. They are tested for this before certification. Pilots know the limits and practice for it in the simulator.....

Regarding facilities at Samui, do they have any wind shear detectors installed there btw??

Not as far as I can tell,

though the ought to not having an alternate runway/direction to land in in differing winds.

[Hermano Lobo]

Apparently an ATR 72, which has a curious description on the airline's website:

The ATR 72-500, a joint venture between France and Italy, is an airworthy 70-seater turbo-prop aircraft

http://www.bangkokair.com/information-serv...;code=OUR_FLEET

Probably because the aircraft has propellers. I once flew to Hamburg from Stansted on a Gillair ATR. The German woman in the seat next to me said, "This is a good service, but they use such old aeroplanes.!"

Yes, I said, it is at least three months old ! Which it was.

When British Airways had them, there was a sign pinned up on the crew room about the ATR 72.

It was a pun on the old BA motto = To Fly to Swerve

Apparently they are a little tricky when at speed on the ground.

Edited August 5, 2009 by Hermano Lobo

[Nana]

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!

Yes it is......I didn't see the letters before you pointed it out. It was also the same plane we flew down to phuket with a few days before. Have checked the pictures I took. Allthough the landing in Phuket was fine.

[Nana]

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

Didn't notice the letters under the wing until after I posted. I see from my pictures that we used the same plane both down to Phuket and up.

Are you living in Chayiaphum? Reason I ask is that I moved up there from Bangkok myself a few months ago.

Nana

[geriatrickid]

Landing in thunderstorms - accepted industry practice? That is an extraordinary statement! Tropical thunderstorms over your destination will always result in holding off the approach or a go around. Tropical thunderstorms are a known severe hazard to be avoided anywhere, especially on the approach.

There is certainly such a 'thing' as a copilot. It is just the term used to describe the first officer or 2nd pilot. Indeed they are equally trained as the captain, they just don't have the experience. Experience is crucial in a situation like this.

In this case the fatality and lack of further fatalities was down to just luck, both good and bad. Clearly the situation took them by surprise and they would have reacted instinctively to try to control the aircraft. It could have ended better, but it could have ended much worse.

Stick to the facts indeed, but know the facts first.

Ok, so you have an issue with my statements. Apparently you are a crew member on a Hong Kong based regional. I don't know if you are a flight attendant or if you actually sit on the flight deck, but please refer to your company's FOM. True or false; The final decision to land in severe weather rests with the PIC. If he or she says they have to land and cannot divert or or wait, then down the plane comes. Although the guidelines worldwide are to avoid thunderstorms, the PIC can still land the plane. Yes, it is recommended to not land in severe weather, but everyday major airline carriers do land in terrible conditions.

Look at the severe weather incidents. I gave you the example of the AB incident in YYZ that resulted in a total loss of the hull. Despite severe weather and a very bad thunderstorm, the crew was not faulted for that aspect of the overshoot. Look at the Sept. 1999 Qantas Flight 1 where 747-400 (VH-OJH) overran the runway in Bangkok. It happened while landing at Bangkok during a heavy thunderstorm. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau criticised numerous inadequacies in Qantas' operational and training processes but didn't cite the weather specifically. Can you cite one incident report for a major airline where a PIC's decision to land during a storm was condemned based upon the weather?

The fact is that you do not know why the PIC made the decision to land, do you? You are in no position to render judgement without the data recordings, mechanical autopsy, ATC report or company logs. You are not a pilot are you? You don't know the precise weather conditions at the time of the landing either. Did you review the weather logs and match it up with the flight data?

Of course the incident took the flying crew by surprise. Do you think they intentionally crashed for the thrill of it? Follow your own advice, and know the facts first before speculating. The mechanical inspection hasn't been completed and it seems possible there was an issue with the control and braking subsequent to the landing. We won't know until the inspection and analysis is completed. There are multiple factors and speculating now is unfair to the pilots and Bangkok Airways.

Nice backpedal on the co-pilot issue. What does your employer's human resources manual use for a definition? I think you will see no reference to a co-pilot job position. For regulatory purposes in many countries, the co-pilot isn't even considered a position as the Pilot in Command and First Officer are more specifically defined. What does your governing regulatory agency say? I'd bet that the Captain/PIC and FO jobs are defined in your employers manual, just as the flight attendant jobs are defined.

How can you comment on Thanawat Premruedee's experience as a pilot? He's 35 years old and I don't think fresh off the farm. Do you know the guy? Even if he was a freshly minted pilot, the captain was still Pilot in Command. And even if the PIC was not responsbible for physically landing the plane, he would have been functioning as the Pilot Monitor and still in charge.

There is a reason why Bangkok Airways was picked as the Asian Regional carrier of the year. Let the investigators do their job. Surely the quick public statements made by Bangkok Airways should impress on people that they take the matter seriously. PG responded a heck of alot faster than some western air carriers have done in similar circumstances.

[namoo]

Landing in thunderstorms - accepted industry practice? That is an extraordinary statement! Tropical thunderstorms over your destination will always result in holding off the approach or a go around. Tropical thunderstorms are a known severe hazard to be avoided anywhere, especially on the approach.

There is certainly such a 'thing' as a copilot. It is just the term used to describe the first officer or 2nd pilot. Indeed they are equally trained as the captain, they just don't have the experience. Experience is crucial in a situation like this.

In this case the fatality and lack of further fatalities was down to just luck, both good and bad. Clearly the situation took them by surprise and they would have reacted instinctively to try to control the aircraft. It could have ended better, but it could have ended much worse.

Stick to the facts indeed, but know the facts first.

1. Tropical Thunderstorms over or in the surrounding area WILL NOT ALWAYS result in holding or a go-around by any means. Yes holding maybe initiated or a missed approach be commenced should conditions dictate. It is completely situational and is not as black & white as you state.

2. Co-Pilot is not used by those in the industry or those knowledgeable about it. Captain, First Officer and with certain carriers Second Officers.

3. First Officers are not equally trained as a Captain in that they have not completed a Command Upgrade Course consisting of many elements such as Simulator, Line Orientated Flight Training and Line Flying. They may hold a Airline Transport Pilot License (required for Public Transport Command) and be working as a First Officer however many just hold Commercial Pilot License. However First Officers are trained to fly the airplane in most situations but usually with restrictions to the conditions in which they can operate, ie. Wind Limitations, Visibility Limitations or any time the Captain feels conditions dictate that he should fly the airplane.

Edited August 7, 2009 by namoo

[dangersnake]

So the plane must have broken up or did they find him in the plane

He was in the cockpit they said, they also said they're afraid it might explode, this from my other half

how many people injured?

[mitmig]

So the plane must have broken up or did they find him in the plane

He was in the cockpit they said, they also said they're afraid it might explode, this from my other half

how many people injured?

Which planet are you living on?!