New Project For Airport On Koh Phangan

[Rooo]

Runway is proposed to be 1,100 meters long (NOT 1,500 meters)

Huston, we have a problem:

Bombardier Q400 turboprop.

Minimum Take Off Distance: 1,402 metres

Minimum Landing Distance: 1,287 metres

Mai Pen Rai Same Same OK?

[Jose]

Runway is proposed to be 1,100 meters long

Minimum Take Off Distance: 1,402 metres

I certainly wouldn't like to be inside that bungalow, the one they always seem to build metres from the end of Thai runways...

[AngThong]

The last time I was at the KP airstrip site about a year ago, I could clearly see Than Sadet from what's left of the seaside hill of the site. The closest part of the runway is just 1km from Than Sadet beach, and only about 500m to the sea shore below.

AT, the road to the airstrip site is the dirt track before Than Sadet - see map here.

Un-f***ing-believable. I thought it was much further south.

That's the road you take to Had Yao East as well, no? Been down there on my bike. There's a crossroads at one point, one road to the left (goes to the airport?), one to the right (Had Yao East) and one straight ahead (only seems to go to a group of houses).

[Jose]

That's the road you take to Had Yao East as well, no? Been down there on my bike. There's a crossroads at one point, one road to the left (goes to the airport?), one to the right (Had Yao East) and one straight ahead (only seems to go to a group of houses).

Yes, that's basically right, AT.

At that crossroad (point "B" on this map):

Left - go to the soon-to-be-infamous Koh PhaNgan International Airport;

Right - takes you towards Had Yao east;

Straight - to the best waterfalls on KPG (that's before they were destroyed by a greedy local who last year cut a steep dirt road through it), and a rock face climb down to the island's best-kept secret, tiny Nam Tok beach.

Edited December 12, 2013 by Jose

[Jose]

Map with tracks in & around KPG airport.

Very light traffic there at the moment according to MapQuest's "live traffic".

Edited December 12, 2013 by Jose

[AngThong]

That's the road you take to Had Yao East as well, no? Been down there on my bike. There's a crossroads at one point, one road to the left (goes to the airport?), one to the right (Had Yao East) and one straight ahead (only seems to go to a group of houses).

Yes, that's basically right, AT.

At that crossroad (point "B" on this map):

Left - go to the soon-to-be-infamous Koh PhaNgan International Airport;

Right - takes you towards Had Yao east;

Straight - to the best waterfalls on KPG (that's before they were destroyed by a greedy local who last year cut a steep dirt road through it), and a rock face climb down to the island's best-kept secret, tiny Nam Tok beach.

Ah. I went straight for a while, but clearly not far enough to reach Nam Tok, turned back. I guess it won't be a secret much longer since it's on Thaivisa now...

Someone has been building a road to Had Yang, but it was unfinished in September when I visited, and didn't look like anyone had been working on it for a while. Was maybe halfway down but still way above the beach, surrounded by thick jungle. No road there from Had Yao, so I'd say Yang is still only reachable by boat or a jungle trek.

Edited December 12, 2013 by AngThong

[AngThong]

Map with tracks in & around KPG airport.

Very light traffic there at the moment according to MapQuest's "live traffic".

There's a road from Had Yao to Had Why Nam/Had Thien??? Surely it's just a jungle track, not passable on a vehicle of any kind?

[Jose]

Map with tracks in & around KPG airport.

Very light traffic there at the moment according to MapQuest's "live traffic".

There's a road from Had Yao to Had Why Nam/Had Thien??? Surely it's just a jungle track, not passable on a vehicle of any kind?

I only made it to Had Yang last year (by scooter from Nam Tok), but it may be passable to Had Tien/Yan by now - depending on any rain damage and irregular road "maintenance".

[AngThong]

Map with tracks in & around KPG airport.

Very light traffic there at the moment according to MapQuest's "live traffic".

There's a road from Had Yao to Had Why Nam/Had Thien??? Surely it's just a jungle track, not passable on a vehicle of any kind?

I only made it to Had Yang last year (by scooter from Nam Tok), but it may be passable to Had Tien/Yan by now - depending on any rain damage and irregular road "maintenance".

Had Yang - you mean you walked down to the beach from the road since there is no road down to Had Yang? Or did you mean Had Yao?

[Jose]

Straight - to the best waterfalls on KPG (that's before they were destroyed by a greedy local who last year cut a steep dirt road through it), and a rock face climb down to the island's best-kept secret, tiny Nam Tok beach.

Ah. I went straight for a while, but clearly not far enough to reach Nam Tok, turned back. I guess it won't be a secret much longer since it's on Thaivisa now...

The guy that built a simple bar hut (see pic below) on Nam Tok beach is counting on it.

View from the sharp bend on the new dirt road above the beach:

BTW, this is the road (left at the crossing) leading to KPG airport:

Steepish road - make sure your passenger(s) hang on tight. Turn left at the T-junction at bottom, and follow the road loop around to the airport site.

Liquid amounts greater than 100ml allowed through.

[Jose]

I only made it to Had Yang last year (by scooter from Nam Tok), but it may be passable to Had Tien/Yan by now - depending on any rain damage and irregular road "maintenance".

Had Yang - you mean you walked down to the beach from the road since there is no road down to Had Yang? Or did you mean Had Yao?

Had Yang, the small beach/cove on the northern side of Had Yao east - I followed the road that cuts across the waterfall (was barely passable then) and turns south just above Nam Tok beach (see pic in above post).

You may also be able to get to Had Yao east through the track to the right at the airport turnoff intersection. There is a tiny spot down there, surrounded by mountainous jungle, with minimal dtac phone coverage! Signal must have bounced off several hills because there is no line of sight to any infrastructure around there.

[AngThong]

I only made it to Had Yang last year (by scooter from Nam Tok), but it may be passable to Had Tien/Yan by now - depending on any rain damage and irregular road "maintenance".

Had Yang - you mean you walked down to the beach from the road since there is no road down to Had Yang? Or did you mean Had Yao?

Had Yang, the small beach/cove on the northern side of Had Yao east - I followed the road that cuts across the waterfall (was barely passable then) and turns south just above Nam Tok beach (see pic in above post).

You may also be able to get to Had Yao east through the track to the right at the airport turnoff intersection. There is a tiny spot down there, surrounded by mountainous jungle, with minimal dtac phone coverage! Signal must have bounced off several hills because there is no line of sight to any infrastructure around there.

So there is a road to Had Yang. I'll probably head there later this month...

You can indeed get to Had Yao East going right at the crossroads. It's not too hairy if it's dry, I made it there on my Click, though I did fall heading back home, breaking both mirrors - fell into a crack going up a steep slope, made it on second try. Wouldn't try it on a Click again, next time I'll rent a proper dirt bike.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/125263-images-of-samui-phangan-and-tao/page-15#entry6854266

[Bsd]

Runway is proposed to be 1,100 meters long (NOT 1,500 meters)

Huston, we have a problem:

Bombardier Q400 turboprop.

Minimum Take Off Distance: 1,402 metres

Minimum Landing Distance: 1,287 metres

I thought this is why they were going with the ATR-42 originally, take off and landing run just under 1100 metres. I know the figures quoted above are at maximum take off/landing weight, so if you skipped a few (dozen) passengers you could fly from a runway that short, or they could just accidently make the runway longer than planned.

Perhaps like the Q400's big brother the CS-100 (110 seat jet) there is an alternate take off profile for short runways.

CS-100 standard take off - 1,463 m range - 5,463 km

CS-100 urban (london city airport) take off - 1,219 m range - 3,148 km

[Jose]

You can indeed get to Had Yao East going right at the crossroads. It's not too hairy if it's dry, I made it there on my Click, though I did fall heading back home, breaking both mirrors - fell into a crack going up a steep slope, made it on second try. Wouldn't try it on a Click again, next time I'll rent a proper dirt bike.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/125263-images-of-samui-phangan-and-tao/page-15#entry6854266

Nasty bit of road that... hard yet loose coarse sandy surface crisscrossed with deep ruts. Back in '09 I got stuck on the same steep hill for almost an hour, axle-deep in a rut. Quite slippery even on a proper dirt bike with good tyres.

[Jose]

Runway is proposed to be 1,100 meters long (NOT 1,500 meters)

Bombardier Q400 turboprop.

Minimum Take Off Distance: 1,402 metres

Minimum Landing Distance: 1,287 metres

I thought this is why they were going with the ATR-42 originally, take off and landing run just under 1100 metres. I know the figures quoted above are at maximum take off/landing weight, so if you skipped a few (dozen) passengers you could fly from a runway that short, or they could just accidently make the runway longer than planned.

Perhaps like the Q400's big brother the CS-100 (110 seat jet) there is an alternate take off profile for short runways.

CS-100 standard take off - 1,463 m range - 5,463 km

CS-100 urban (london city airport) take off - 1,219 m range - 3,148 km

Either way, it doesn't leave much room for error...

I can now see everyone on the island lining up to watch the first landing and take-off, if it ever happens.

Reminds me of the spectacle on the first hill to Haad Rin (see pic below c. 2000), back in '95-'98 when it was a steeper rut-covered dirt road. On FMP nights Thais and backpackers would sit on the top of the hill, and take bets about which overloaded songthaew taxis would make it up there. Whenever backpackers got out to push the taxi all bets were off - unless it rolled back and overturned. I can only imagine the thrill of taking off in fully-booked Q400 FMP special out of KPG's 1100m cliffhanger of an airstrip.

[PoorSucker]

The take off should be no problem as they can free fall for a while after the runway ends.

Something like this..

or this...

[Jose]

A free-fall takeoff from KPG airstrip on a screaming turboprop... now, that is what I'd call an adventure tour!

[Gatorade]

FWIW

Looking at "quoted" data without reference to the aircraft type performance manual for take off and landing can be misleading and is unsafe..

The KPG quoted length is just the physical distance from end to end. .Actual operational considerations will include engine out

requirements and the ability to clear any obstacles in the take off and landing funnel following an engine failure. Cross winds and tailwinds will play an important part in the calculations.

The quoted data is derived from manufacturers figures and the actual performance will vary considerably

The standard parameters used are figures are based on factors such as +15C no Headwind or tailwind and at Sea level with a standard pressure.

To get the actual figures, the Perfomance manual has to be used and figures extracted may require a significant reduction in payload or fuel carried to meet the laid down safety requirements. Google is not good enough.

It should also be taken into account that the performance figures are based on a new aircraft, flown by a manufacturers test pilot and engineer.

Over the years there will be dents, knocks, damage through hailstones etc. all of which will affect the performance albeit slightly.

In my opinion this airfield will only be "suitable" for aircraft such as the Cessna Caravan and light Cessna and Piper twins and Visual only.

Why on earth build an airfield from scratch which will be unsafe from the very beginning?

I cannot see the Thai DCA issuing an operating licence for a Commercial operation as things stand. But hey, this is Thailand!

To take Jose's point, it is hardly going to be a profitable operation.

[Jose]

FWIW

Looking at "quoted" data without reference to the aircraft type performance manual for take off and landing can be misleading and is unsafe..

The KPG quoted length is just the physical distance from end to end. .Actual operational considerations will include engine out

requirements and the ability to clear any obstacles in the take off and landing funnel following an engine failure. Cross winds and tailwinds will play an important part in the calculations.

The quoted data is derived from manufacturers figures and the actual performance will vary considerably

The standard parameters used are figures are based on factors such as +15C no Headwind or tailwind and at Sea level with a standard pressure.

To get the actual figures, the Perfomance manual has to be used and figures extracted may require a significant reduction in payload or fuel carried to meet the laid down safety requirements. Google is not good enough.

It should also be taken into account that the performance figures are based on a new aircraft, flown by a manufacturers test pilot and engineer.

Over the years there will be dents, knocks, damage through hailstones etc. all of which will affect the performance albeit slightly.

In my opinion this airfield will only be "suitable" for aircraft such as the Cessna Caravan and light Cessna and Piper twins and Visual only.

Why on earth build an airfield from scratch which will be unsafe from the very beginning?

I cannot see the Thai DCA issuing an operating licence for a Commercial operation as things stand. But hey, this is Thailand!

To take Jose's point, it is hardly going to be a profitable operation.

Excellent points.

Never gave most of this much thought... and perhaps the golf course airstrip builders haven't either. Or maybe they have, but perhaps it's another case of mai pen rai.

[Bsd]

FWIW

Looking at "quoted" data without reference to the aircraft type performance manual for take off and landing can be misleading and is unsafe..

The KPG quoted length is just the physical distance from end to end. .Actual operational considerations will include engine out

requirements and the ability to clear any obstacles in the take off and landing funnel following an engine failure. Cross winds and tailwinds will play an important part in the calculations.

The quoted data is derived from manufacturers figures and the actual performance will vary considerably

The standard parameters used are figures are based on factors such as +15C no Headwind or tailwind and at Sea level with a standard pressure.

To get the actual figures, the Perfomance manual has to be used and figures extracted may require a significant reduction in payload or fuel carried to meet the laid down safety requirements. Google is not good enough.

It should also be taken into account that the performance figures are based on a new aircraft, flown by a manufacturers test pilot and engineer.

Over the years there will be dents, knocks, damage through hailstones etc. all of which will affect the performance albeit slightly.

In my opinion this airfield will only be "suitable" for aircraft such as the Cessna Caravan and light Cessna and Piper twins and Visual only.

Why on earth build an airfield from scratch which will be unsafe from the very beginning?

I cannot see the Thai DCA issuing an operating licence for a Commercial operation as things stand. But hey, this is Thailand!

To take Jose's point, it is hardly going to be a profitable operation.

You are absolutely correct that the figures that I pulled off google are unsafe for determining the actual requirements for flying from this airport, I hope that the pilots are working from the manuals supplied by the manufacturer.

My main point was that they won't be able use the Q400 to its full carrying capabilities, as you said specs are at +15C and the higher temperatures here will reduce the capacity even more. As a passenger I cannot tell how much fuel the plane is carrying but if I got onto a full ATR42/Q300 I would be probably sure that it would take off, a ATR72/Q400 probably not.

A former pilot that I know agrees with you that a Cessna Caravan would be more suitable, but in saying that I wouldn't want to spend 2 hours over the gulf in a single engine aircraft.

[Bsd]

Well after nothing reported for about 9 months and all the images of the airport disappearing of Kan Air's website there is a new article in the other paper today. The executive summary for those that don't want to look it up.

Construction is 70% complete, 500 million spent so far from a total of 1 billion (up from 900 million when a figure was last published).

They are back to using ATR72s.

Flights will start by the end of the year.

There will be flights to Suvarnabhumi, Chang Mai, Phuket and Krabi.

I could leave some smart comments on here about how long 70% of the construction took combined with the estimate of how long the rest will take, bu instead I will just note that they have still be doing blasting on the site (I am sure I heard them yesterday, I know they we doing some a couple of weeks ago).

[AngThong]

Thanks for sharing. Do you live close by, Bsd? Close enough to hear the blasts?

[Bsd]

TNP, which means on a quiet day you could probably hear it in Haad Rin. Just think of the sound of distant thunder over the hills, but on a clear sunny day. Mostly it happens on Sundays, occasionally Saturday or Monday.

[Aeiou7]

recent status update, drone view:

[Birdman]

very nice and very good to see, that there are still so many tense forests on KPG. It should stay like that forever!

[thefactoryoutlet]

Well after nothing reported for about 9 months and all the images of the airport disappearing of Kan Air's website there is a new article in the other paper today. The executive summary for those that don't want to look it up.

Construction is 70% complete, 500 million spent so far from a total of 1 billion (up from 900 million when a figure was last published).

They are back to using ATR72s.

Flights will start by the end of the year.

There will be flights to Suvarnabhumi, Chang Mai, Phuket and Krabi.

I could leave some smart comments on here about how long 70% of the construction took combined with the estimate of how long the rest will take, bu instead I will just note that they have still be doing blasting on the site (I am sure I heard them yesterday, I know they we doing some a couple of weeks ago).

So this island is dead by the end of the year ?

No way that the constructions won't be finished ?

So sad...

[Tropicalevo]

So this island is dead by the end of the year ?

No way that the constructions won't be finished ?

So sad...

Sorry, but I am not quite sure what you are saying. KPN dead by December? Only if there is a nuclear war.

My personal view is -

From Wikipedia (and we should treat the information with suspicion!)

'Due to its topography, the population hugs the coastline. The mountainous interior is generally inaccessible. More than half the island designated as national park and Ko Pha Ngan has more than 80 km² of relatively unspoiled rain forest with diverse flora and fauna. It is also considered a spiritual place, with numerous Buddhist temples around the island and a thriving spa, retreat, and meditation industry.'

So a lot of unspoilt areas to elplore.

No way there will be flights this year. (From years of observing Thai construction projects on the islands and Thai bureaucracy. Permits etc.)

I live on Samui but I do go to KPN for my holidays I believe that this airport, if it is finished, will have a very small impact on the island. This is because of high air fares and small planes.

[Bsd]

No way there will be flights this year. (From years of observing Thai construction projects on the islands and Thai bureaucracy. Permits etc.)

I live on Samui but I do go to KPN for my holidays I believe that this airport, if it is finished, will have a very small impact on the island. This is because of high air fares and small planes.

Kan Air have always been saying that the airport would be done at the end of the year it has just been the year that has changed, looking at the drone film (which matches what I saw from a flight in September), they would be lucky to be finished by the end of next year.

There are still a lot of earth works to complete, 1500 * 40m of concrete that can handle a plane hitting it, plus a terminal to build.

Even when it is finished they will be limited to 16 flights a day in daylight hours, with only 66 passengers at most on each flight that means about 1,000 people on and off the island each day (and then only if they used all 16 flights). Reality is that for the first few years that the airport is open there will be less people passing through it than Lomprayah delivers on a single boat.

[Bsd]

The other paper is reporting this morning that the airport has been found to be encroaching on Than Sadet National Park (by 20 rai); that there are now 3 separate investigations going on and that all of the land titles are being investigated. Two weeks ago I was told that they were encroaching but only onto privately held land so I wonder what has changed since.

I think we can file this one under "D" for "Dead as a dodo", which is a shame because now there is that nasty scar on the eastern side of the island that will take forever to grow back (if ever).

[Gatorade]

Yes the damage has been done. The forest in the area totally ruined. How on earth could the access roads be built without going into the National Park? Let alone the airstrip.

I cannot imagine a more unsuitable and dangerous place to site an airport. However I have written many posts ad nauseum regarding my views.

Hopefully the developer will be made to return the area back to it's original condition, yeah!

As an aside, when flying over the place I noticed that the ugly monstrosity of a house sited next to the strip seemed to

have provision made for a taxiway to it. So perhaps it could all end up as a Hi So personal airstrip.??