whybother Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 At least it didnt end up like this http://www.airdisast...os/qf1/15.shtml "The aircraft came to rest on a golf course." Given the golf course is/was in the middle of Don Mueang, it's not so bad for the plane to stop there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAffer Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 This is boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazmlb Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 At least it didnt end up like this http://www.airdisast...os/qf1/15.shtml "The aircraft came to rest on a golf course." Given the golf course is/was in the middle of Don Mueang, it's not so bad for the plane to stop there. "came to rest" with the fuselage sitting on the ground and it got disassembled and put back together to get it out to keep Qantas' record in tact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 At least it didnt end up like this http://www.airdisast...os/qf1/15.shtml "The aircraft came to rest on a golf course." Given the golf course is/was in the middle of Don Mueang, it's not so bad for the plane to stop there. "came to rest" with the fuselage sitting on the ground and it got disassembled and put back together to get it out to keep Qantas' record in tact. Their "record" is for no fatalities (with jet airliners). This accident didn't affect that record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueSkyCowboy Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 This is 1,000 ft lower than what got Tiger airways grounded in Australia. (2,000) Thai Airways have a lot of explaining and back pedling to do on this one. There is no back peddeling on this one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F4UCorsair Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 (edited) I wouldn't get too excited, or even a little excited (read 'wouldn't believe') anything the press reported. I've seen the reporting of the Tiger incidents and that does not accord with the facts. I'm a retired airline pilot, know many of the Tiger pilots, and have inside knowledge of the (busting altitude) incidents. As for the press reporting permitted altitude, minimum altitude, etc., there are so many references. Lowest Safe Altitude, Minimum Sector Altitude, Radar Lowest Safe Altitude, DME Step, Minimum Descent Altitude, Decision Height, Instrument Approach (ILS) Minima, Minimum Circling altitude (day and night), altitude required to maintain the aircraft within controlled airspace, and a few others. Some are referenced Above Ground Level (AGL), some are referenced Above Mean Seal Level (AMSL). There are different altimeter (QNH, QFE) settings for the last two. Air Traffic Control can instruct pilots to Go Around for many reasons, but one wouldn't normally be because they thought the aircraft too low. My understanding is that the Tiger aircraft and Thai aircraft were approaching different runways, so I believe no parallels can be drawn. Edited July 27, 2011 by F4UCorsair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkkjames Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 My understanding is that the Tiger aircraft and Thai aircraft were approaching different runways, so I believe no parallels can be drawn. Unless of course if the runways we're parallel (no idea if they were) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrtoad Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 Surprised the pilot didn't flee the scene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F4UCorsair Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 At least it didnt end up like this http://www.airdisast...os/qf1/15.shtml "The aircraft came to rest on a golf course." Given the golf course is/was in the middle of Don Mueang, it's not so bad for the plane to stop there. "came to rest" with the fuselage sitting on the ground and it got disassembled and put back together to get it out to keep Qantas' record in tact. Do you know what the record they wanted to keep intact was Bazmlb? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F4UCorsair Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 (edited) My understanding is that the Tiger aircraft and Thai aircraft were approaching different runways, so I believe no parallels can be drawn. Unless of course if the runways we're parallel (no idea if they were) No parallel runways in Melbourne...yet, and I hope not for years. They would still be different runways though, even if parallel. A parallel runway (either one) may create more noise for me. Edited July 27, 2011 by F4UCorsair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VictorOne Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 blah, blah, blah... "the ATSB said in a part-summary of its investigation so far. It called it a "serious incident" "The plane landed safely without incident." @ ASTB.... get a life! Incident have to be considered. Not respecting the Safety Altitudes is something serious even if there is no accident. In Civil Aviation, Cow boys behaviors have been at the origin of numerous accidents, this is no more acceptable by Civil Aviation standards Quite right it was a serious incident but shouldn't we wait for the resuts of the Civil Aviation investigaton? I don't know of any or have ever heard of criticism re Thai Airways like other Asian airlines get. I wouldn't travel with any other airline but Thai unless there's no choice in the matter. Getting on a Thai plane in Melbourne is like getting into Thailand before we get there. What exactly are you attempting to say in the last line. It sounds like you have engaged your keyboard before your brain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F4UCorsair Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 (edited) At least it didnt end up like this http://www.airdisast...os/qf1/15.shtml "The aircraft came to rest on a golf course." Given the golf course is/was in the middle of Don Mueang, it's not so bad for the plane to stop there. "came to rest" with the fuselage sitting on the ground and it got disassembled and put back together to get it out to keep Qantas' record in tact. Their "record" is for no fatalities (with jet airliners). This accident didn't affect that record. I believe the record was 'no hull losses' (insurance write off) of a jet aircraft, but could also apply to a 'no fatalities accident'. Qantas, incidentally, classed this as an incident, not an accident. They could have been in politics with that twisting of facts/terminology. The reason they repaired the aircraft, at greater cost than buying one of similar age/condition was definitely so that they wouldn't have a hull loss on their insurance record and as a consequence millions more in premiums. QF paid tens of millions above the insurance payout to repair the aircraft, and whilst we'll never know exactly, I think the figure of $200 Million was close. They trashed a few propeller powered aircraft with loss of life in at least one. Edited July 27, 2011 by F4UCorsair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregb Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 Commercial aircraft are required to fly an instrument approach on an instrument flight plan to most airports, and so follow a glide slope, with a formal proceedure under the control of Air traffic control radar would be assumed. Most airports that I am aware of have a MEA pattern altitude for heavy aircraft of 2000 feet AGL or above for a visual approaches. So how did they go below pattern altitude, if they were flying a visual approach? Something went quite wrong. Lots of ways to do it. All involve pilot error. One of the most common is forgetting to reset your altimeter as you come out of the flight levels to the local setting. Rookie mistake, but even experienced pilots screw up sometimes when they are distracted. Thus, you think you are flying at the correct altitude based on your instruments, but you're alot closer to the ground than they indicate. You have to be on a visual approach, forgot to reset your altimeter, not looking or not in possession of a radar altimeter, and ignoring the GPS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witsawakorn Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 Juliar probably won't be welcome in Thailand if this goes much further. Well if Tiger get grounded and still not flying, for decending to 2,000 ft one could asume that Thai will be grounded for decending to 1,000 ft. Sunshine is 3-400 ft above sea level so they actually came in around 6-700 ft off the deck. I think they came in at 1000 ft off the deck didn't they? Anyway interesting logic:-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ginjag Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 (edited) Surprised the pilot didn't flee the scene Maybe the pilot was an ex dambuster and forgot his self for a few mins :lol:anyway he could have bribed the authorities with 400 bht for undertaking at the wrong time. Edited July 27, 2011 by ginjag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozzieman05 Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 Thai Wife says can not be Thai Pilots fault They built houses to high near airport Don't you just love them ha ha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swerver Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 (edited) The permitted height and minimum height will vary due to the distance from the airport. All this around-and-around the rosy we go information is similar as with the B737-400 impounded in Germany. With this altitude debacle can the readers be told if the Thai Airways B777 was on an ILS approach or on a VFR approach? There is a big difference regarding the approach to landing altitude between ILS and VFR. For you uninitiated: ILS = Instrument Landing System VFR = Visual Flight Rule When it was ILS the aircraft computer does all the work based on the information it receives from the ILS system, the pilot is along for the ride to make sure everything goes as required. When it is VFR the pilot is manipulating the flight controls and the minimum altitude over a buildup area (town – city) is 3,000 feet until entering the approach corridor when the altitude gradually diminishes until the aircraft is on the ground at the airport runway. Now what was the Thai Airways B777 on? As for the B737-400 the numbers on the aircraft on the photos are not civil aviation international standard numbers. All civil aviation aircraft flying international have what is referred to as N number (N=USA, PH=Holland and so on for every country in the world that has aircraft flying international) on the tail end of the aircraft both sides. On the B737-400 are not there. The B737-400 is a bought and paid for RTAF aircraft. RTAF cannot just give away an aircraft. But it can issue a letter of assignment as a designated pilot to fly a certain aircraft. In this case a B737-400. Years ago it was a Northrop F-5 after the F-5 it was an F-16 If the B737-400 is a registered civil aircraft then on the inside above the main entrance door is located the registration certificate behind a fiberglass window in a metal frame permanently attached with screws to the aircraft body. To put an end to all the heehaw pls. show the readers a photo of that registration certificate. If you cannot is the proof that it is not a civil aviation aircraft, and that is exactly what the German Court is following. Pay the €20-million bail bond and the B737-400 will be released to the rightful owner and/or its designated letter, pilot. Simple isn’t it? Edited July 28, 2011 by metisdead Font reset, use default forum font when posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyjune Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 (edited) I see your point but there is 0.001% it was not on an IFR approach Sir with the approach linked before. Serous fuk up. Edited July 27, 2011 by happyjune Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanaloa Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 blah, blah, blah... "the ATSB said in a part-summary of its investigation so far. It called it a "serious incident" "The plane landed safely without incident." @ ATSB.... get a life! Edit: typo Don't you realise that other aircraft my be flying below the IFR minimum (ie 2500 feet) helicopters & light aircraft, it is so dangerous that's it's beyond belief! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TackyToo Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 So what? Just pray to god they don't send Thai-helicopters! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnsonspot Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 blah, blah, blah... "the ATSB said in a part-summary of its investigation so far. It called it a "serious incident" "The plane landed safely without incident." @ ASTB.... get a life! It is a serious incident in regards to breach of safety. Are you saying that aircraft should be allowed to fly at any hieght they want to? A serious safety breach and you say ASTB get a life. I think what warfie is implying is that, This is a Thai aircraft crewed by thais flying over farang residential area and things are done differently in Thailand. A little like the road rules in Thailand, they are there but not generally used or enforced all the same in the air or on the ground. So he is saying that Aussie farangs should just get a life and get over it. It is Thai kullchurrrr to do this, so Aussies, just get over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dickyknee Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 With this altitude debacle can the readers be told if the Thai Airways B777 was on an ILS approach or on a VFR approach? There is a big difference regarding the approach to landing altitude between ILS and VFR. the flight in question landed at night time, if that narrows it down for ya. VFR or IFR is a trivial matter, ATSB/CASA wouldn't be investigating if the flight in question wasn't flying too low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeyserSoze01 Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 (edited) After having flown thousands of approaches, both VFR & IFR, at night, in mountainous terrain, I can speak from experience that with the type of approach the Thai Air flight was flying, things get very busy in the cockpit... Still, to "bust" minimums by 1000' in a heavy 5 miles out indicates the PIC was "behind" the airplane on the glide slope... A heavy at approach speed, flying dirty (flaps & gear down) is much like a ship in the ocean, it doesn't react as quickly as you might think it should to control inputs... Even if the pilot had recognized the problem and throttled up, it takes the turbines a few critical seconds to spool up and actually start making power... The further "behind" the airplane the pilot is, the worse the outcome, especially on approach... Then there is the possibility of weather-related interference, such as down drafts, wind shear or wake turbulence which can and will cause an aircraft to rapidly loose altitude... Lots of explainable reasons for the Thai Air flight crew to save face... EDIT: typo.... Edited July 27, 2011 by KeyserSoze01 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wandrinstar Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 Thanks to the Barstool Pilots,we are all a lot wiser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlastikbinLina Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Come on people ... it's NORTH SUNSHINE <deleted>.. Nothing up there anyway apart from dole *&%(%s and *(*)&% addicts - and the occasional decent person trying to survive between them. It's the "self proclaimed birthplace of the 'Ashes'" no less ... and has anyone forgotten that the Tiger aircraft had incorrect data in their OBCs? Maybe Thai has the same data? errr pilot flyig too low because computer says so. Typical crap from Oz news agencies (where it no doubt originated) Cheers, Ken Good on yer Ken. Absolutely dead right. And when one dies and is sent to pugatory they'd end up in Sunshine, the birth place of The Ashes. What an absolute hole of a place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KKK Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 1000 feet Isn't it about time the airline industry went metric! Oops, I forgot that it's dominated by the USA: one of the last countries in the world to still use imperial measurements Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tartempion Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 I don"t no why the aircraft came down so low as there is Nothing to see in North Sunshine. It was on final approach to land. That requires it to get very low. At a certain point, it actually touches the ground when it lands. TH In this particular case the plane would have touched ground BEFORE the runway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ableguy Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Commercial aircraft are required to fly an instrument approach on an instrument flight plan to most airports, and so follow a glide slope, with a formal proceedure under the control of Air traffic control radar would be assumed. Most airports that I am aware of have a MEA pattern altitude for heavy aircraft of 2000 feet AGL or above for a visual approaches. So how did they go below pattern altitude, if they were flying a visual approach? Something went quite wrong. Because my friend pilots and the guy in the right hand seat have to do approach and landings hands on occasionally as not all class 1 and class 2 airports have the equipment for auto landings, also note an instrument approach is for direction only when flying hands on ( the controls ) here is a straight forward pilot error, even if the guy in the right hand seat ( co pilot ) was flying the aircraft the guy in the left hand seat is PIC ( pilot in command ) and so his responsability . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tolsti Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Not the first time this has happened to TG Low Thai Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F4UCorsair Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 (edited) I see your point but there is 0.001% it was not on an IFR approach Sir with the approach linked before. Serous fuk up. If it was approaching Runway 34, and there would be no reason to be over Sunshine if it wasn't, there is 100% chance it was NOT an ILS (distinct from IFR [see below] approach) because there is no ILS on that runway, unless it was installed last week. It's highly likely it was radar vectors positioning to join an instrument approach (non precision) or for a visual approach onto R34. Whenever an aircraft is west of the airport (then south west and south) it is probably under radar vectors. It's seeming to me as though he went below an assigned altitude whilst on a radar heading and that would be Radar Lowest Safe Altitude, which is sometimes (but not always) below Minimum Sector Altitude or Lowest Safe Altitude. There is no such thing as an IFR Approach, but there is an Instrument Approach; it could be ILS/RNAV or Non Precision (VOR/NDB). IFR refers to Instrument flight Rules as distinct from Visual Flight Rules (and a whole different set of rules apply), not an approach type. Edited July 28, 2011 by F4UCorsair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now