Bangkok Airways Crash in Koh Samui

[GungaDin]

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?!

He's been asleep for 12 days!

[Gatorade]

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.

Well said Geriatrickid!

Isn't it just amazing how many so called 'experts' have emerged from the woodwork! Speculation ranging from pilot inexperience, narrow indercarriage, windshear, X-winds and even the lack of a X-wind runway are all being put forward as the possible/probable cause.

There will be a report published as indeed there was in the Surat accident.

Because Aviation remains an emotive subject it always seems to attract those who seek to

show others how knowledgeable they are! This is a bit of a concern as a few people who are not involved in Aviation

may believe that these speculating posters actually know what they are talking about!

[ParadiseLost]

may believe that these speculating posters actually know what they are talking about!

Did you mean to say posers?

[cyb]

It seems to me the only ones that had any real expertise. Were the ones that supplied us with the excellent photos at the beginning of this thread.