Thai Airways Hits Bottom 10 In Safety Survey

[Sturbuc]

... Any other THAI mishaps that I have missed?

Surat Thani 1998 ...

http://airsafe.com/e...rlines/thai.htm

but actually i would ever choose Thai if in scope (pricing, flight-times...).

Edited January 12, 2013 by Sturbuc

[uptheos]

Another nice chance to bash something Thai, provided for us by Thai Visa. The Thai Visa headline reads " Thai Airways Hits Bottom 10 In Safety Survey " --- by contrast the headline at eGlobal Travel reads "The 60 Safest Airlines in the World", which of course includes THAI Air in the top 60.

Yes, but at number 53 above only these, doesn't say much for it!

54 Turkish Airlines

55 Saudia

56 Korean Air

57 GOL

58 Air India

59 TAM Airlines

60 China Airlines

[NanLaew]

Another nice chance to bash something Thai, provided for us by Thai Visa. The Thai Visa headline reads " Thai Airways Hits Bottom 10 In Safety Survey " --- by contrast the headline at eGlobal Travel reads "The 60 Safest Airlines in the World", which of course includes THAI Air in the top 60.

If webfact had merely copy/pasted the original article heading, I doubt that the topic would get anywhere near 5 pages.

I can hear the cash register all the way back here, in seat 58C on flight CI66.

Edited January 12, 2013 by NanLaew

[EyesWideOpen]

Another nice chance to bash something Thai, provided for us by Thai Visa. The Thai Visa headline reads " Thai Airways Hits Bottom 10 In Safety Survey " --- by contrast the headline at eGlobal Travel reads "The 60 Safest Airlines in the World", which of course includes THAI Air in the top 60.

Yes, but at number 53 above only these, doesn't say much for it!

54 Turkish Airlines

55 Saudia

56 Korean Air

57 GOL

58 Air India

59 TAM Airlines

60 China Airlines

Hahah I was thinking the same thing, those are some rough neighbors...

[zakk9]

You surprised people really need to bone up on airline history. Thai Airways has lost aircraft with no survivors in Nepal over the last 30 years. And numerous near misses. Taksin's fire comes to mind right off. Even Air France has a better record than Thai Airways. I hope their new A380's help them some. Because their service is only one step better that Air Asia.

After having flown Air Asia, Bangkok Air and Thai on domestic flights regularly for years, I feel much more confident about Air Asia than the two others. They are efficient and seem to know what the are doing. Hopefully, that's also the case when it comes to maintenance.

[Vinny1967]

I've worked a lot in the aviation industry over the last 20 odd years and I can tell you that a lot of "incidents" go unreported to the public.Having worked in England (Heathrow) and in Holland (Schiphol and Rotterdam) I've seen things that would shock people and put them off flying forever.The incidents have to be reported to the airline but most are never made public.The reports are then forwarded to the relevant safety board.That's how they come up with these lists.It's not just about the ones you know about

Well Vinny I have to assume when you worked at Heathrow it was not as an engineer or pilot as you do not

seem to be aware of the UK CAA MOR ( Mandatory Occurence Reporting ) confidential incident reporting

system. It has been in place for about the 20 years you claim to have worked in "the aviation industry".

I didn't mention any safety boards because I'm just speaking in general.Did you want me to include the names of all the safety/investigative authorities worldwide ?

[Nisa]

Another nice chance to bash something Thai, provided for us by Thai Visa. The Thai Visa headline reads " Thai Airways Hits Bottom 10 In Safety Survey " --- by contrast the headline at eGlobal Travel reads "The 60 Safest Airlines in the World", which of course includes THAI Air in the top 60.

Yes, but at number 53 above only these, doesn't say much for it!

54 Turkish Airlines

55 Saudia

56 Korean Air

57 GOL

58 Air India

59 TAM Airlines

60 China Airlines

A more positive and possibly accurate headline would simply be to say THAI didn't make the top 50. I have no idea how many airlines are out there but would guess they actually rate some where in the middle or all airlines. But maybe I am wrong and there are only about 60 airlines in the world.

[NewlyMintedThai]

I'd prefer to see rankings that are current, not based on something that may have happened 20 or 30 years ago.

Regardless, I am no fan of TG and will always choose an alternative if available.

[F4UCorsair]

This is a report compiled by aviation enthusiasts!! As such, I don't believe any credit can be placed on it. Anybody can set himself up as an authority on anything, and the gullible will fall for his protestations. If a points system was used to arrive at the conclusion, as is most likely, arbitrarily setting points for particular incidents can skew the outcome any way the 'enthusiasts' choose, or don't choose. I would want to see the criteria used to establish the relative positions in detail.

I'm not a former Qantas pilot so have no axe to grind, but a couple of serious incidents, which were attributable to manufacturer issues, not the airline, could easily drag their position way down, particularly the A380 engine disintegration out of Singapore, and the autopilot malfunction over Western Australia. They were potentially disastrous, but in no way attributable to airline maintenance, pilot error, or (lack of) pilot training.

Edited January 12, 2013 by F4UCorsair

[DavoTheGun]

As a Retired Pilot, I( have bean watching this thread with a little interest, it seems to me we have many so called "Experts" on everything on this forum, of course some people who actually do have some knowledge do make some worthwhile comments, simply because they know what they are talking about!

But the many ill informed comments made by many, again "Experts" is disconcerting.

Thai Air is a very good airline and does not deserve the crap that some people are saying about it, in my opinion is is streets ahead of Qantas, in terms of service, food, civility. The aircraft may be aging and do not really like B777, noisy on climb, but can put up with that!

I have made an earlier post! and as an aside I am from Aus./

[F4UCorsair]

Googling JACDEC may give at least an impression of the credibility of the organization.

Admittedly, they weren't responsible for the following absurd statement made about their findings

Of those studied, China Airlines came in dead last, followed by TAM Airlines, Air India, GOL Transportes Aereos and Korean Air.

JACDEC seems to me to be little more than a vehicle to sell books for the two owners, a means of establishing some credibility, but even that goes amiss.

[bra]

Incidents and accidents

• 30 June 1967 - Thai Airways International Flight 601, a Sud Aviation SE-210 Caravelle III with registration HS-TGI, crashed into the sea while on approach to Kai Tak Airport in a typhoon. 24 out of the 80 passengers and crew on board were killed.
  
• 25 December 1967 - A Thai Airways International Douglas DC-3 with registration HS-TDH crashed at Chiang Mai Airport, killing 4 out of 31 passengers and crew on the flight.^[34]
  
• 10 May 1973 - A Douglas DC-8-33 with registration HS-TGU overran the runway on landing at Tribhuvan International Airport in Kathmandu. There was 1 fatality out of 100 passengers and 10 crew on board.^[35]
  
• 27 April 1980 - Thai Airways Flight 231, a Hawker Siddeley HS 748, crashed after entering a severe thunderstorm on approach to Khon Kaen Airport. 44 of the 53 people on board were killed.^[36]
  
• 10 November 1990 – Flight 306, an Airbus A300-600 flying from Yangon to Don Muang International Airport was the target of an attempted hijacking by individuals demanding to be taken to Kolkata.^[37]
  
• 31 July 1992 – Flight 311, an Airbus A310-300 hit the side of a hill 23 miles north of Kathmandu while descending toward Tribhuvan International Airport from Bangkok. All 113 on board (99 passengers and 14 crew) died. The accident was caused by technical failures, a lack of radar equipment at Tribhuvan International Airport.^[38][39]
  
• 11 December 1998 – Flight 261, an A310-200, bound for Surat Thani from Bangkok, crashed into a rice paddy about two miles from Surat Thani airport during its third landing attempt in heavy rain; 102 of 143 on board were killed.^[40]
  
• 3 March 2001 – Thai Airways International Flight 114, a Boeing 737-400 with registration HS-TDC, bound for Chiang Mai from Bangkok, was destroyed by an explosion of the center wing tank resulting from ignition of the flammable fuel/air mixture in the tank while the aircraft was being serviced at the gate in Bangkok. The source of the ignition energy for the explosion could not be determined with certainty, but the most likely source was an explosion originating at the center wing tank pump as a result of running the pump in the presence of metal shavings and a fuel/air mixture. One crew member was killed.^[41]
  

Dont know from where the above was sourced, but the causes of the 31 July 1992 crash at Kathmandu are not correct. The aircraft had a flap problem on the approach which is on a track close to north, and a missed approach was initiated. Due to the significant terrain in the vicinity of the airport, this procedure involved a 270 deg turn to the right then track to the west climbing to 11,500 ft. But instead the crew allowed the aircraft to continue the turn back to the original near north track. The flight crashed at 11,500 ft into an almost vertical cliff 16,000 ft at 300 kts - obviously no survivors. There were problems in communications on the flight deck, with ATC and the flaps. If radar had been installed the tracking mistake would have been detected.

However I was part of an Australian Aid survey team in Nepal in 1989, and we looked for radar sites but due to the terrain none could be found. Radar is line of sight coverage - and terrain will block the signals. There are now different technologies for airspace surveillance which can be used for airports loke Kathmandu - and are already installed at Innsbruck Austria , Juneau Alaska, sevaeral airports in Colarado and Queenstown NZ to name a few. Also modern aircraft have enhanced navigation systems facilitating safe approaches in mountanious areas.

I fly frequently with Thai domestically and internationally, economy and business classes and have very few complaints. I agree with another poster with aviation experience that its amazing how some of your contributors jump immediately to some amazing conclusions on crimes, road accidents and and other items based on early news reports. As an ex Air Safety Investigator I strongly recommend that you find some RELIABLE facts before going to print. Newspapers are not good sources for facts.

[siam2007]

I guess the haters will be frantically googling for all the incidents and accidents that THAI have had over the past 30 years to see exactly why they are in the lower reaches of this 'Crash Division'.

I recall that Thai Airways Corporation (TAC) that used to cover only domestic routes before they 'merged' them with the current THAI, had a fair few fatal accidents in the 1970's and 1980's so maybe that is included in the database? The only memorable THAI accident I recall was a 737 crashing into the sea on approach in Phuket after ignoring an indecisive ATC and dive-bombing past a Dragonair 737 that had been approved to land ahead of the THAI plane.......

...... because unfortunately the THAI captain said "this is my country, I am coming first......."

[F4UCorsair]

bra said, "Don't know from where the above was sourced, but the causes of the 31 July 1992 crash at Kathmandu are not correct. The aircraft had a flap problem on the approach which is on a track close to north, and a missed approach was initiated. Due to the significant terrain in the vicinity of the airport, this procedure involved a 270 deg turn to the right then track to the west climbing to 11,500 ft. But instead the crew allowed the aircraft to continue the turn back to the original near north track. The flight crashed at 11,500 ft into an almost vertical cliff 16,000 ft at 300 kts - obviously no survivors. There were problems in communications on the flight deck, with ATC and the flaps. If radar had been installed the tracking mistake would have been detected".

Radar may have helped, but there was a serious lack of situational awareness issue with the crew, actually a number of issues. If they were trying to resolve a problem, they should not be doing it at 300 knots (if in fact it was 300 knots)??

It is the responsibility of the PIC to ensure terrain clearance at all times, except when operating under 'radar lowest safe altitude' (which is frequently lower than the lowest safe altitude on flight deck charts). Even so, when operating under radar lowest safe, pilots should be acutely aware of the chart lowest safe altitude, and any significant difference between the two, and I've refused, many times, to descend to radar lowest safe altitude for no reason other than I felt uneasy about doing so.

That would have been one of the few places on the planet that the Ground Proximity Warning System (it should have been fitted by 1992) would not have extricated them from their predicament and given them the command to climb, but if at 250 knots, and that's the speed they should have been at (probably less if trying to resolve a flap problem, but definitely no more), they may have been able to out climb the terrain if they'd acted decisively on the command. 300 knots would have precluded that even if they had firewalled the throttles and given it full back stick.

It's said that there is no place on earth that a jet transport can't out climb if a GPWS warning is acted on urgently, and whilst that may not be entirely true, there wouldn't be many places where it doesn't apply. The Air NZ DC-10 crew would have easily out climbed Mt Erebus if they'd acted promptly instead of not believing what they were hearing, and whilst Erebus is not vertical terrain, it shows what a diabolical predicament hesitating can put you in.

Edited January 13, 2013 by F4UCorsair

[Brian Allen]

... for exploding A380 engine Qantas was compensated by Rolls Royce. Control losses in two A-330s glitches in Airbus systems. Records of manufactures also likely interesting ....

Yes and yes -- but lesson for QANTAS/Jetstar: Don't buy Europeon-Neo-Soviet-taxpayer-subsidized (sc)Airbus bombs with low-bidder RR engines. Wait a bit in line for superior Boeings and Pratts or GE engines!