It's happened before and will happen again. Maintenance errors shouldn't but do occur.

I remember marshaling a jet in that lost a nose wheel on landing. I plugged in and let the pilot know. His response "Ah I thought a rabbit ran across the strip"

Poor maintenance. Nothing more, nothing less. Who made the aircraft has nothing to do with it.

Mae Fah Luang Airport director Damrong Klongakkhara ordered an investigation of the cause of the accident.

Report will be in favor of big fish and they will blame manufacturers for not providing proper parts.

I usually always trust Nok air more than others because they do not seem too greedy and do not expand too much their routes, am I wrong ?

Nok Air is the budget airline of Thai Airways International. Their fleet consists mostly of repainted and refurbished former Ryan Air, Turkish Airlines etc. planes and the average age of the aircraft is currently 15-17 years old. Earlier this year they took delivery of a first brand new 737-800. The second one is not expected till next year.

Bearing that in mind some parts falling off does not surprise me so much...

What was Capt. Ron's favorite saying? Let's kick the tires and lite the fires. .. Maybe they kicked the tire too hard..

From some of the comments here you would think this was happening all the time. I fly regularly with Nok and have nothing but praise for them. I agree this sounds poor, but it wont get me rushing to book with Orient thai.

What was Capt. Ron's favorite saying? Let's kick the tires and lite the fires. .. Maybe they kicked the tire too hard..

or maybe the First Officer forgot to kick the tyres

Boeing 738 ? A new model ....

//wait Google tells me it's a 737-800

TV armchair experts at their best!

That's what happens when you use Chinese knock-off spare parts

Hey!! Totally possible. Have you read the Chinese bolts on the San Francisco Bay Bridge (not the Golden Gate, the other one.) are breaking? Wow!

Wheel, not tyre, other reports make clear. Another poor piece of English journailism -- but hey, in most countries you don't get anything like the abundance of English language reporting that you do here, so we should just cope with the inevitable mistakes made by non-native speakers writing in English.

Well if the wheel fell off surely the tyre would come with it! The next day Sombat opened his tool bag and found 6 bolts and tossed them away unsure what they were for.

By the way, I have been in many many non native English speaking countries and many have had an English newspaper or two (Africa, Middle east, Sub Continent) and I was surprised how well they were written.

very good job farang pilot

crew nr 1 took the wheel off for inspection, crew nr 2 that had to screw it back on, were on a break and did not manage to do it in time and tell the pilote / airway company the job was not done yet

555

The headline is misleading, the wheel actually came off, NOT only the tire.

The right wheel is completely missing, I bet it caused a decent nose wheel shimmy !

Source thaivisual.com

“The pilot felt that the landing was not soft as normal and then slowly piloted the plane to the drop off point and later found out that an axle was broken and a wheel was missing, the passengers weren’t even aware of the issue Patee Sarasin said. more.......

But The Nation says in the OP, "While landing, the plane's left front tyre fell off, causing the plane to tremble and the passengers said they heard a loud noise."

But my favorite but is this, "Mae Fah Luang Airport director Damrong Klongakkhara ordered an investigation of the cause of the accident." Maybe he can lead the investigation Thai Style !!!!!!! Maybe this mob will will burst his bubble.

Below is a normal B738

Source b737,org.uk

The right wheel is completely missing, I bet it caused a decent nose wheel shimmy !

Source b737,org.uk

Thank you for the images and other information, it's what this thread needed for the opening post.

@ Chao Lao Beach

Nice pic of the main gear..Coudn't you find one of the nose gear?

My money is on pilot error as opposed to a maintenance issue.

@ Chao Lao Beach

Nice pic of the main gear..Coudn't you find one of the nose gear?

The pic in this link shows the nut holding the wheel.

http://www.b737.org.uk/images/nosewheeldoor.jpg

.

This question is sort of related.

It's always bemused me ... why doesn't either the plane have a system or motor which spins the wheels up to speed before contact with the runway?

If a mechanism is to difficult because of the loads involved, why not a 'V' shaped tread design which picks up some air resistance and spins the tyre in direction of travel?

.

Who here would be surprised if they decided to prevent this happening again by strapping a man to the outside of the plane to hold the wheels in place? Works with dangerously overloaded pickups......

.

It's always bemused me ... why doesn't either the plane have a system or motor which spins the wheels up to speed before contact with the runway?

If a mechanism is to difficult because of the loads involved, why not a 'V' shaped tread design which picks up some air resistance and spins the tyre in direction of travel?

.

It bemused me many years ago, the answer is well documented on various flying forums. Any motor pre-spin system consumes too much fuel-weight to justify the saving in rubber, 'wind' bleed-off or routed exhaust from the engines is too complex/difficult maintenance wise to be justified and the effects on stability (while coming in to land) of the sudden appearance of a gyroscopic mass under and to the front of the plane's center of gravity was not good in terms of flight characteristics, there is a write up here with data from tests in 1945, so it's not a new idea.

I see that there is a wheel spin kit available for some light-aircraft that benefit if they are landing on gravel runways and there is some military aircraft I believe with such systems fitted.

.

It's always bemused me ... why doesn't either the plane have a system or motor which spins the wheels up to speed before contact with the runway?

If a mechanism is to difficult because of the loads involved, why not a 'V' shaped tread design which picks up some air resistance and spins the tyre in direction of travel?

.

It bemused me many years ago, the answer is well documented on various flying forums. Any motor pre-spin system consumes too much fuel-weight to justify the saving in rubber, 'wind' bleed-off or routed exhaust from the engines is too complex/difficult maintenance wise to be justified and the effects on stability (while coming in to land) of the sudden appearance of a gyroscopic mass under and to the front of the plane's center of gravity was not good in terms of flight characteristics, there is a write up here with data from tests in 1945, so it's not a new idea.

I see that there is a wheel spin kit available for some light-aircraft that benefit if they are landing on gravel runways and there is some military aircraft I believe with such systems fitted.

Good answer. I had thought about that a long time ago and started drawing up a design and realized the cost effectiveness and complexity, as mentioned above, didn't make it practical.

Cheers for the pilot.

Real pilots ride Harleys, not rice-rockets.

.

It's always bemused me ... why doesn't either the plane have a system or motor which spins the wheels up to speed before contact with the runway?

If a mechanism is to difficult because of the loads involved, why not a 'V' shaped tread design which picks up some air resistance and spins the tyre in direction of travel?

.

It bemused me many years ago, the answer is well documented on various flying forums. Any motor pre-spin system consumes too much fuel-weight to justify the saving in rubber, 'wind' bleed-off or routed exhaust from the engines is too complex/difficult maintenance wise to be justified and the effects on stability (while coming in to land) of the sudden appearance of a gyroscopic mass under and to the front of the plane's center of gravity was not good in terms of flight characteristics, there is a write up here with data from tests in 1945, so it's not a new idea.

I see that there is a wheel spin kit available for some light-aircraft that benefit if they are landing on gravel runways and there is some military aircraft I believe with such systems fitted.

I remember landing on a Marden Mat runnway at Port moresby in a cesna and did not know what struck we with the things the nosewheel did. Similarrly in Farwin on the huge long runway I was doing touch and goes and nearly did an emergency landing on the rest of the strip as I had bounced the nose wheel and it vibrated a hell of a lot as the wheel kept spinning. THought just in tiime to touch the foot brakes and it stopped. My heart started working again.

Actually, the wheels falling off an aircraft in SE Asia is quite normal. One of the certified aircraft mechanics simply forgot to put a cotter key and lock nut on the axle shaft after hanger inspection. This is the same type of accident as when a wing on a 737 (Thai Air Narathiwat) at Don Muang blew up because the plane had a "faulty" air-conditioner installed. The fact that the Prime Minister was do to board had absolutely nothing to do with it.

BKK.jpg

A little off topic, but.

I made that very mistake one time after replacing the right rear wheel of my little, old, red, 1968, Volkswagen Beetle car, when I forgot put a cotter key in the lock nut. At least I replaced the lock nut!

It created a very exciting few seconds for me, when the nut unscrewed and the wheel fell off at 55 MPH!

Also it created a very, very nice rooster tail of sparks in the dark night!

.

This question is sort of related.

It's always bemused me ... why doesn't either the plane have a system or motor which spins the wheels up to speed before contact with the runway?

If a mechanism is to difficult because of the loads involved, why not a 'V' shaped tread design which picks up some air resistance and spins the tyre in direction of travel?

.

For the motor idea, weight is a problem. For the V design, probably concerned about vibration.

Boeing 738 ? A new model ....

//wait Google tells me it's a 737-800

738 is the IATA equipment subcode. Commercially known as 737-800.

Calling it a 738 is perfectly correct and understood by anyone in the aviation industry. Most punters would only know it as a 737-800

From some of the comments here you would think this was happening all the time. I fly regularly with Nok and have nothing but praise for them. I agree this sounds poor, but it wont get me rushing to book with Orient thai.

That would be going from bad to worse. Orient Thai's aircraft are even older....