Nok Air Fails To Lift Off, Skids Off Runway

[cdnvic]

wow, after those detailled informations are now being made public I must say, that was very very close to a big distaster..... and who said here b4 that thai is a world class airline ? when it comes to safety, they are one of the WORST big airlines in the world, their safety record (based on FACTS and numbers) is even worse than those of GARUDA or Philippine Airlines....

Here are the Facts & Numbers. Your erroneous statement and lack of research is rather unfair to the company you disparage. Next time do some research before talking about facts and numbers.

cv

[AsiaWolfie]

XEQUE, I fly THAI INTER as well and have almost 50.000 miles with them, and would fly them in the future as well (but now, as an Expat living in Thailand, their 6 or 12 months tickets are just not affordable) but that doesnt mean we dont have the right to put the finger in the wound.... in hope they will improve.... and as I mentioned earlier in this thread: in the end, its all destiny.... doesnt really matter if u crash with ThaiAir or with nevercomeback-Air..... it CAN happen at any time..... but the risk is less if u choose an airline with a modern flight and a decent maintenance policy....

[Xeque]

Nice one CV!!

[AsiaWolfie]

wow, after those detailled informations are now being made public I must say, that was very very close to a big distaster..... and who said here b4 that thai is a world class airline ? when it comes to safety, they are one of the WORST big airlines in the world, their safety record (based on FACTS and numbers) is even worse than those of GARUDA or Philippine Airlines....

Here are the Facts & Numbers. Your erroneous statement and lack of research is rather unfair to the company you disparage. Next time do some research before talking about facts and numbers.

okay, here is MY INFO, and I wonder how u can say I did no research..... I am involved in that kind of business: click here http://www.planecrashinfo.com/rates.htm

but i guess we dont want to have a fighting here, isnt it ? we are just concerned about safety and all do our research the best way we can.....

Edited February 5, 2006 by AsiaWolfie

[cdnvic]

Just a note:

This website gets tens of thousands of visitors every day, most travel to Thailand regularly. If you are going to make fair comments about an airline's operations, be it safety, service or otherwise that's fine. But considering the exposure they get here it is unfair, and borderline slanderous to start stating things that could be damaging to their business without checking, and quoting your facts. Doesn't matter if it's a dive shop or a major airline, they all deserve fair treatment.

Ask questions if you don't know, but don't state uninformed opinions as fact please.

cv

[chuchok]

wow, after those detailled informations are now being made public I must say, that was very very close to a big distaster..... and who said here b4 that thai is a world class airline ? when it comes to safety, they are one of the WORST big airlines in the world, their safety record (based on FACTS and numbers) is even worse than those of GARUDA or Philippine Airlines....

Here are the Facts & Numbers. Your erroneous statement and lack of research is rather unfair to the company you disparage. Next time do some research before talking about facts and numbers.

cv

That web site says "fatal events" not incidents.Where would they rate if you put the total number of Airlines with NO fatal events first?Orrrr Airlines with no "incidents"......

Edited February 5, 2006 by chuchok

[Xeque]

Asia Wolfie

We're not talking ticket money here - we're taking how you run the airline itself.

[cdnvic]

Airdisasters.com has a more complete listing compiled from official sources, the other has many omissions, but isn't a bad site for casual interest, so I'll stick with ad.com and other sources for hard info.

cv

[AsiaWolfie]

Just a note:

This website gets tens of thousands of visitors every day, most travel to Thailand regularly. If you are going to make fair comments about an airline's operations, be it safety, service or otherwise that's fine. But considering the exposure they get here it is unfair, and borderline slanderous to start stating things that could be damaging to their business without checking, and quoting your facts. Doesn't matter if it's a dive shop or a major airline, they all deserve fair treatment.

Ask questions if you don't know, but don't state uninformed opinions as fact please.

I agree with that 100%, CDNVIC, and I do my postings here being aware of my responsibility. But this webboard has gained its reputation because of being 100% honest and not trying to hide the truth.... and what I said is not "I have heard that" or "somebody told me that...." its just based on facts and numbers, so I think it cannot be wrong, and by clicking both our links we posted, people can now make up their own mind..... anyway, no fighting please, I am off to bed now, lets be happy with those people who are safe back on earth from that NOKAIR flight today

[cdnvic]

Just a note:

This website gets tens of thousands of visitors every day, most travel to Thailand regularly. If you are going to make fair comments about an airline's operations, be it safety, service or otherwise that's fine. But considering the exposure they get here it is unfair, and borderline slanderous to start stating things that could be damaging to their business without checking, and quoting your facts. Doesn't matter if it's a dive shop or a major airline, they all deserve fair treatment.

Ask questions if you don't know, but don't state uninformed opinions as fact please.

I agree with that 100%, CDNVIC, and I do my postings here being aware of my responsibility. But this webboard has gained its reputation because of being 100% honest and not trying to hide the truth.... and what I said is not "I have heard that" or "somebody told me that...." its just based on facts and numbers, so I think it cannot be wrong, and by clicking both our links we posted, people can now make up their own mind..... anyway, no fighting please, I am off to bed now, lets be happy with those people who are safe back on earth from that NOKAIR flight today

Fair enough

cv

That web site says "fatal events" not incidents.Where would they rate if you put the total number of Airlines with NO fatal events first?Orrrr Airlines with no "incidents"......

It's difficult to judge sometimes as there are so many variables in size of aircraft, number of flights, load factors, etc, but I like using fatal events as an indicator.

"Incident" is a vauge term that depends on the opinion of a country's civil aviation authority, and what's reported and whats not is also open to broad interpretation.

"Fatal events" are hard facts, and cannot go unreported. Also, a routine "incident" handled properly is just a minor event, wheras one handled poorly can be fatal.

Numbers of fatalities is decieving as one crash of a loaded 767 can net 250 fatalities, where 4 crashes of loaded CRJ200's will still have less total fatalities. So one may have a lower number of fatalities, but if each airline has 10 aircraft, which one are you going to be the worried about most?

cv

[sprq]

As so often with journalists' reports on aviation, especially crashes or incidents like this, a lot of garbage is written. The first report is seriously wrong, indeed it is irresponsible trash, as you can see from the second report and from Nok Air's press release which I have received.

Press Release: Nok Air Flight in Emergency Landing

Bangkok, 5 February 2006 – Nok Air Flight DD7506 was forced to make an emergency landing this afternoon at Bangkok ’s Don Muang Airport. All 110 passengers and 5 crewmembers are safe, with only two minor injuries incurred during the emergency disembarking procedures.

The Nok Air flight left Bangkok at 13:48 for Phuket. All take off procedures were normal and without incident. Upon reaching an altitude of 1500 feet a noise was heard from the right wing, which required investigation. The right wing engine then lost power and the Captain made the decision to return to Bangkok.

Following set guidelines and procedures the Captain climbed to 3000 feet and then brought the plane down for a smooth landing. Upon touch down there were apparent issues with the brake system and the plane went off the end of the runway as it came to a stop. At this point the Captain turned the plane to the left so that it would come to rest on a grassy area, thus insuring the safety of the passengers. Following safety procedures the plane was evacuated via the door slide. The plane was undamaged and the causes of these technical issues are under investigation.

-End-

[sonthaya]

Wonder which version is the correct one…does anyone have more info?

It the first post is says:

Nok Air fails to lift off, skids off runway

The Boeing 737-400 was departing Bangkok to the southern resort island of Phuket Sunday afternoon but was forced to abort its takeoff shortly after the left engine developed trouble and stopped functioning before it lifted off.

But in this post is says:

A Nok Air plane makes emergency landing

Officials from the Control Tower said the DD 7506 flight of Nok Air heading to Bangkok made the emergency landing at 2 pm after taking off at 1:48 pm.

In the first version the engine failure occurred on the runway forcing the pilot to do they right thing and abort take off. And then the skidding is a clear factor with that much trust on engine 1.

But in the second version the plane was airborne, flying a go around for 12 minutes.

Now if that was a bigger machine it would have had to dump fuel before landing. Instead they might have been using the "dirty up the airplane" using more fuel by dropping the gear or flaps.

Flying on one engine is not a major issue. But I don’t see why it would have to skidd of the runway after flying for 12 minutes. Unless they calculated their weight on landing wrongly.

sonthaya are you awake to answer

Oishi

I'm awake, but what do you want me to answer, I was referring to the version where the aircraft lost an engine after V1, the speed after which you have to continue the take off.

Keeping in mind that landing with one engine out is not a major problem, but it's possible that other problems developed which affected the brake system on that side, together with the fact that he already had lost half the braking power ie. no reversetrust on that side and asymetric braking.

I still think the crew did a good job, but we don't have all the facts.

[GuestHouse]

Hats off to the flight crew and also to the ground support, air traffic controllers and all others that had to have played their part in getting the aircraft down on the ground withou major incident.

Interesting accident statistics per airline. BA my favourite sit right out there in the top three and 9 times less accidients per flight than Thai.

I've always said, it couldn't give a toss what the aircrew look like so long as they know what to do in an emergency.

[tiresias]

Nice! I was just about to book them........

this is the best time to fly that airlines. as with rollercoasters, the best time to use them is right after an incident like this.

[ronz28]

Maintenance may have been perfect too. There is always Foreign Object Damage to consider too. Did a large bird get sucked through the engine? Or is it an engine design weakness now showing up after years of use? I am sure the folks from Boeing and GE or Pratt and Whitney engine manufactures will participate in the investigations and they will ultimately figure it out.

[udon]

Hands up if you can spell QANTAS!

[Steely Dan]

Maintenance may have been perfect too. There is always Foreign Object Damage to consider too. Did a large bird get sucked through the engine? Or is it an engine design weakness now showing up after years of use? I am sure the folks from Boeing and GE or Pratt and Whitney engine manufactures will participate in the investigations and they will ultimately figure it out.

Hmmm, 'Did a large bird get sucked through the engine?' With an airline called Nok air that would be unfortunate to say the least. I always have been amazed by that golf course built so close to Don Muang, as with my slice I reckon I could make the control tower with a head wind.

[Rinrada]

Hands up if you can spell QANTAS!

Thinking of my wee boat in Chiang Mai.....gone fishing.....

.....think I found it again or maybe sunk...MK jai

[Anon999]

well, as THAI INTERNATIONAL is already ranking around 87/88 out of 90something big airlines when it comes to safety, what would u expect from its own low-budget carrier ? NOK is using the old B 737-aircrafts which are unwanted at THAI due to their age.....

but honestly, this can happen to any of those airlines...... the "1-2-go" planes are even more scary.... but in the end its all destiny anyway.... wish me luck for my next ThaiAirAsia flight in a couple of days..... "NOW EVERYONE CAN......SKID OFF THE RUNWAY"

I'm interested to know where you obtain your information from. There are lists for US international and domestic airlines which do not include any foreign carriers because each country that actually compiles records uses different criteria. That is in respect of accidents or incidents/1,000,000 take offs or mid-air near misses, etc. Some of the US carriers are terrible.

The UK has data but don't know if all of 'Europe' collects the same data let alone makes it available for public consumption.

The following links list the 100 worst accidents the second one includes people on the ground. Thai Airways are not listed but most of the well known carriers are.

http://aviation-safety.net/statistics/wors...?list=worstcoll

http://aviation-safety.net/statistics/wors...ist=worstground

The biggest problem is that, for instance, where a country bans an aircraft or carrier from its airspace due to safety concerns, the information remains confidential.

Edited February 5, 2006 by Anon999

[bob/nyc]

I don't think should this should tarnish Nok Air's reputation. I have used them many many times over the past year and never had even a minor problem. Accidents happen and we should feel good about the fact that the captian and crew were knowledgeable and experienced enough to land with everyone being safe.

[Diablo Bob]

My hays off to the crew of this Nok Air flight. Sitting in the back of an aircraft is a little different then sitting in the front. S__t happens pretty fast, decisions have to be made fast.

You can't argue with the stats though can you! The figures don't lie....... but liars can figure! One set of stats presented only consider 3 factors in the presentation of their data, and also use almost as much space in disclaimers and and explanations as to the inaccuracy of the data.

If this set of data is to be believed , explain why they list Hawaiian Air with no accidents and no fatalities! Back in the 70s they had a 737 enroute from Kauii to Honolulu which had the top pealed right off the airplane due to metal fatigue and had a passenger and stewardess sucked right out of the aircraft....... to many holes in the data! The aircraft landed safely.......

NTSB stats over the last 40 years have shown that in more than 90% of all accidents it has been PILOT ERROR, not the aircraft, not the manufacturer, not the maintenance, THE PILOT! And yes, the NTSB will have a representative here in Thailand to review this incident since this aircraft was manufactured by a US firm, consequently they have become involved.

Again, good work Nok Air, GREAT Crew.

[Oishi]

If this set of data is to be believed , explain why they list Hawaiian Air with no accidents and no fatalities! Back in the 70s they had a 737 enroute from Kauii to Honolulu which had the top pealed right off the airplane due to metal fatigue and had a passenger and stewardess sucked right out of the aircraft....... to many holes in the data! The aircraft landed safely.......

Maybe because it was Aloha Airlines and not Hawaiian Air and on April 28, 1988

[lampard10]

Sounds to me like a fantastic piece of Airmanship, rather than the cowboys that most of you are making them out to be.15 out of 10 for the aircrew. Still all you know alls that know nothing, keep posting. Sometimes it's fun.FLYING IS AND ALWAYS WILL BE SAFER THAN WALKING.

I bet a lot of you didn't know the worst crash in aviation history involved KLM, which is considered one of the safest airlines around.

Edited February 6, 2006 by lampard10

[Rinrada]

The Tenerife disaster March 27, 1977, when two Boeing 747 airliners collided on the island of Tenerife, Canary Islands, killing 583 people. One of the aircraft was on the ground when the collision occurred.

The aircraft involved were Pan Am Flight 1736, and KLM Flight 4805

sad.....

[on-on]

QANTAS did the same a couple of years ago......

I have several friends who have worked in the airline industry in America for some years and most of them have mentioned to me that QANTAS not having crashed is an absolute miracle since they are considered quite lazy on the maintenance. So, you know, your mileage may vary, but I found that interesting since QANTAS has a reputation in America for being very safe (thanks, no doubt, to Rain Man). Edited February 6, 2006 by on-on

[Krub]

wow, after those detailled informations are now being made public I must say, that was very very close to a big distaster..... and who said here b4 that thai is a world class airline ? when it comes to safety, they are one of the WORST big airlines in the world, their safety record (based on FACTS and numbers) is even worse than those of GARUDA or Philippine Airlines....

and about CDNVIC's comment on 1-2-go: maybe u had the luck to sit in a newer plane.... but I was forced to travel them (for the first and last time, I hope) from BKK to HKT in November 2005, and though the c-crew was friendly (unprofessional, but in a charming way) and even they had a Farang pilot, that was the most scary aircraft out of about 200 flights I ever boarded....

Put me naytime on a Thai International flight rather than Philippines or Garuda. They are very professional (I fly more than 120.000 miles a year).

The pilot's of this flight surely saved all their passengers from a mechanical failure.

Job well done.

[sriracha john]

If this set of data is to be believed , explain why they list Hawaiian Air with no accidents and no fatalities! Back in the 70s they had a 737 enroute from Kauii to Honolulu which had the top pealed right off the airplane due to metal fatigue and had a passenger and stewardess sucked right out of the aircraft....... to many holes in the data! The aircraft landed safely.......

Maybe because it was Aloha Airlines and not Hawaiian Air and on April 28, 1988

ROFLMAO....

great catch, Oishi

[cdnvic]

I get a chuckle out of people who go all paranoid about an airline after one incident yet they hop in the first bangkok taxi they can find to get to the airport.

I'll take any Thai airline's accident rate over that of their buses and taxis any day.

cv

[klongmaster]

If this set of data is to be believed , explain why they list Hawaiian Air with no accidents and no fatalities! Back in the 70s they had a 737 enroute from Kauii to Honolulu which had the top pealed right off the airplane due to metal fatigue and had a passenger and stewardess sucked right out of the aircraft....... to many holes in the data! The aircraft landed safely.......

Maybe because it was Aloha Airlines and not Hawaiian Air and on April 28, 1988

Research definately floored

They list Air New Zealand as never having had a fatality...did they forget Mt Erubus?

Surveys can always be twisted to say whatever people want them to say

[taxexile]

I get a chuckle out of people who go all paranoid about an airline after one incident yet they hop in the first bangkok taxi they can find to get to the airport.

chuckle away all you want !!

this has nothing to do with logic , but all to do with peoples irrational fears about being imprisoned in a tube thousands of feet up in the air with no visible means of either support or propulsion ,you have absolutely no control over what is happening , and the almost certain knowledge that should something go wrong , then after a possible lengthy period of having to think about it whilst the plane loses altitude , a violent death awaits.

in a car , even in a bangkok taxi , a passenger has some form of control , they can at least ask the driver to slow down or stop and let you out should the ride get to be too scary , and once out you are on the ground , home safe , and should there be an accident in a car , death is by no means a certainty.

as for the nok air incident , to bring a plane down safely after an engine seemingly exploded seems to me at least miraculous , and those passengers should be thanking the pilots and crew for saving their lives rather than whinging about delays and the non-appearance of refreshments.

i still prefer the train wherever possible.

Edited February 6, 2006 by taxexile