Flight TG669 skids off runway at Suvarnabhumi Airport

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Meanwhile, on the subject of plane painting, I've already pointed out that Nok Air, a THAI Air subsidiary, didn't seem to do it with their mishap jet at Trang Airport last month.

And, in looking now, neither it seems did Asiana Air (at least not soon after the crash) with their recently crashed jet at San Francisco International, as per the photos below. So it hardly seems like painting out the logo is some kind of prevailing policy in commercial aviation.

And of course, they already tried claiming the painting was the result of a STAR Alliance policy, which turned out to be untrue and thus furthered the appearance of a lack of credibility.

If someone wants to argue that THAI Air isn't the only airline to have ever painted out a fuselage, the facts support that. But they certainly don't support the notion that all or most airlines do it in the wake of crashes or mishaps.

Nok Air is a 39% owned subsidiary of THAI Air, so I was curious to see how Nok handled the fuselage painting issue after their jet somewhat similarly ran off the runway at Trang Airport last month.

PS0247.jpg PS0248.jpg

PS0249.jpg PS0250.jpg

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Trang-Airport-closed-after-Nok-Air-flight-slides-o-30212149.html

Perhaps the plane painters were on vacation that day???

[NeverSure]

I think it's very possible that something malfunctioned in the landing gear, perhaps the right main gear on landing causing the plane to veer off. Otherwise, how does one explain the deep gouges in the runway?

http://avherald.com/h?article=4681fccd&opt=0

[Crossy]

I think it's very possible that something malfunctioned in the landing gear, perhaps the right main gear on landing causing the plane to veer off. Otherwise, how does one explain the deep gouges in the runway?

PPrune are suggesting a right hand main gear bogie-beam failure, similar to an incident in Munich a few years back.

[GentlemanJim]

I think it's very possible that something malfunctioned in the landing gear, perhaps the right main gear on landing causing the plane to veer off. Otherwise, how does one explain the deep gouges in the runway?

PPrune are suggesting a right hand main gear bogie-beam failure, similar to an incident in Munich a few years back.

That is not entirely accurate is it. One poster on PPRuNe is suggesting that, and says quite clearly that it is speculation. That is akin to stating that Thai Visa are suggesting the the Pilot intended to land in the Mud, because TallGuyJohninBKK said so 8 posts ago..

[joboss]

Sounds like the flight deck crew did a good job.

There was a claim posted earlier in this thread saying that some passengers aboard the airplane said the cabin crew bailed the aircraft as soon as the exit doors opened -- ahead of the passengers.

Haven't seen any further mention or elaboration of that issue. Perhaps not true, but an odd allegation to be floating around.

Possible scenario

A330. 12 cabin crew. Emergency procedure..

3 slides deployed from the port side. (Starboard side has engine fire)

2 crew per slide down first to assist pax at ground level… 2 crew per emergency exit to assist pax exiting.

IMHO. High fives all round and some awards to cockpit and cabin crew for excellence are in order.

I fly Thaiair with confidence.

[ThePinkPanther]

Not really about Thai Airways this one hey. AIRBUS is very WELL known to be a problematic piece of machinery. I simply just DON'T like flying in an Airbus aeroplane. FULLSTOP. No debate about this please? Only my personal opinion for what it's worth and you ARE welcome to your opinion regarding air travel and its technology. (Really, I do NOT mean to rock-the-boat here, just saying).

[GentlemanJim]

Sounds like the flight deck crew did a good job.

There was a claim posted earlier in this thread saying that some passengers aboard the airplane said the cabin crew bailed the aircraft as soon as the exit doors opened -- ahead of the passengers.

Haven't seen any further mention or elaboration of that issue. Perhaps not true, but an odd allegation to be floating around.

Possible scenario

A330. 12 cabin crew. Emergency procedure..

3 slides deployed from the port side. (Starboard side has engine fire)

2 crew per slide down first to assist pax at ground level… 2 crew per emergency exit to assist pax exiting.

IMHO. High fives all round and some awards to cockpit and cabin crew for excellence are in order.

I fly Thaiair with confidence.

Sorry, I don't get it, are you high fiveing yourself because of your possible scenario, or do you believe that your possible scenario actually happened, where have you heard that, and if you have not heard it, isn't it a little bit premature to be handing out awards. The reports that there were no CC at the bottom of the slides are a little problematic when it comes to the award ceremony.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Here was The Nation's report today on the airplane painting issue:

Star Alliance

THAI backtracks on 'Crisis Communication Rule'

September 10, 2013 4:59 pm

Photo : Suphakit Khumkun

Star Alliance network has denied a claim by Thai International Airways, one of its members, that it has a policy of obscuring the logo of a plane in case of accident, CNN reported Tuesday.

A THAI flight from Guangzhou in China skidded off the runway at Suvarnabhumi Airport as it attempted to land on Sunday night, slightly injuring 13 passengers.

After the accident, CNN published a photo showing workers on a crane painting over the Thai Airways logo on the tail and body of the aircraft in black.

The Guardian online quoted in its online version a Thai Airways official, Smud Poomon, who said blurring the logo after an accident was a recommendation from Star Alliance known as the "crisis communication rule", meant to protect the image of both the airline and other members of Star Alliance.

The Star Alliance spokesman for the airline group, Markus Ruediger, told CNN, "The Star Alliance crisis communications policy does not state that logos are to be covered," in the event of an accident.

Thai Airways later issued a statement "clarifying" its policy.

"Though Thai generally practices the deidentifying of an aircraft after an incident ... the company also clarifies that this is not a Star Alliance policy."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/THAI-backtracks-on-Crisis-Communication-Rule-30214574.html

Meanwhile, the Bangkok Post has an entirely different article today recounting the complaints from various passengers on the airplane of how they were handled in the wake of the mishap. Can't quote or link to it here because of ThaiVisa policy. But it's worth reading for anyone interested in what happened.

The BKK Post article actually gives voice to some of the passengers on the airplane, whereas the MCOT report below only quotes a THAI Air official on refuting the complaints, but doesn't quote or include any comments from any passengers.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/666864-thai-denies-staff-ignored-passengers-during-landing-incident/?p=6809579

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

That is not entirely accurate is it. One poster on PPRuNe is suggesting that, and says quite clearly that it is speculation. That is akin to stating that Thai Visa are suggesting the the Pilot intended to land in the Mud, because TallGuyJohninBKK said so 8 posts ago..

Maybe you need reading glasses, because that's not what I said... never said or even implied anything about "intended"

I simply said, as is true, they did end up putting their airplane in the mud.

[joboss]

You really think they wait for the seatbelt sign to be turned of?? ROFLMAO!

while pushing and shoving everyone else out of the way , once the seatbelt off signal is given.

Hmm...12 people injured, some due to smoke inhalation..they do not sound "safe" to me.

Most likely, the injured parties were uncouth Chinese passengers, who had opened their seatbelts and trying to collect their carry-on luggage from the overhead storage immediately after the plane touched down....... that is the usual scenario on most Chinese flights.

I have seen them get up while the plane is still in reverse thrust mode and the poor staff screaming at them to sit down.

I'm sure if you placed an electrically-controlled lock on the seat belt clasp, some bozos would find a way to defeat it or do something like chew the belt in two.

Just lock the overhead bins when seatbelt sign is on. Pax will get used to it.

[razorramone]

Beechguy you're going to get a rash if you keep riding so hard on Thai Airway's dick.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Mike, obviously, you're more interested in making those kinds of comments that looking at the legitimate questions regarding the mishap.

Some of them include:

--Why is a former Bangkok Governor candidate who was on the plane talking about the pilot making an announcement prior landing saying there was maintenance work on the runway.

--Since Thai Air now claims it's their policy to have one cabin crew go down each emergency slide first to assist passengers at the bottom, why are the passengers complaining there were no cabin crew to assist them at the bottom of the slide and that led to some injuries?

--Why are the passengers complaining that injured passengers were kept sitting on the runway in bus or buses for 20 minutes?

And of course ultimately, what caused the landing mishap -- equipment failure, maintenance failure, human error, runway problem or who knows what else.

I don't know the answers to those questions, and I've never said I do. But those are among the questions that deserve answering.

One thing I do know, however. And that's that Thai Air's handling of the fuselage painting issue has given them a far bigger international public relations black eye than they would have received from the landing mishap alone. And that had absolutely nothing to do with any comments made here on ThaiVisa.

[beechguy]

Beechguy you're going to get a rash if you keep riding so hard on Thai Airway's dick.

Not riding anything dude, just stating the facts or lack of. But that's ok, you guys just keep hashing out the rumors.

[MaxYakov]

You really think they wait for the seatbelt sign to be turned of?? ROFLMAO!

while pushing and shoving everyone else out of the way , once the seatbelt off signal is given.

Hmm...12 people injured, some due to smoke inhalation..they do not sound "safe" to me.

Most likely, the injured parties were uncouth Chinese passengers, who had opened their seatbelts and trying to collect their carry-on luggage from the overhead storage immediately after the plane touched down....... that is the usual scenario on most Chinese flights.

I have seen them get up while the plane is still in reverse thrust mode and the poor staff screaming at them to sit down.

I'm sure if you placed an electrically-controlled lock on the seat belt clasp, some bozos would find a way to defeat it or do something like chew the belt in two.

Just lock the overhead bins when seatbelt sign is on. Pax will get used to it.

Yeah, why not? After the last decade of TSA harassment, pax will get used to anything!

[Tchooptip]

About the painting over of the Logo, that is standard practice for evey airline I have worked for.

Really??

YES sometimes!

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

If anyone wants to get a feel for how Thailand air accident investigations can go, go back and read up on the March 3, 2001 explosion of a THAI Air 737 jet parked on the ground at Don Muang Airport, awaiting a flight that was supposed to carry Thaksin and others.

I wasn't around here back then, but the various reports at the time had Thai authorities and Thaksin sure it was a bomb and attempted assasination attempt, and the Thai official accounts at the time claimed bomb component residues had been found in the plane. They also issued a reward for the supposed bomber and talked about having identified a suspect.

A lot of that is recounted here. And by Thai Air's own announcements at the time such as the following:

TG Special/Issue No. 8

Date of Report: 6 March 2001
Time: 19:00 hours

THAI Announces Reward for Leads to Suspects Involved in TG 114 Bombing

Thai Airways International Public Company Limited has announced offer of a reward for those who may have information or witnessed the suspect(s) involved in the bombing of THAI’s Boeing 737-400 aircraft flight TG 114 on 3 March 2001, bestowed the aircraft name “Narathiwat”, registration number HS-TDC.

Mr. Bhisit Kuslasayanon, THAI’s President, stated that the incident resulted in the death of one cabin crew and injured several other cabin attendants working nearby. In addition, the airline incurred total loss of its aircraft and suffered substantial damages from the explosion of flight TG 114 on 3 March. The Accident Investigation Board (AIB) has issued a press statement confirming that the incident was sabotage caused by a man-made explosive device.

Thai Airways International thereby has set a reward in at the amount of THB 500,000 (five hundred thousand Thai baht only) for information leading to the apprehension of the suspect(s) involved in the bombing of flight TG 114 on 3 March. Informants must provide leads or information concerning suspects to the Royal Thai Police and cooperate through the indictment process according to the law, by contacting...

Later however, the U.S. NTSB in April 2001 issued the following announcement:

.....

The Government of Thailand, in conjunction with the NTSB, is releasing the following information:

On March 22, 2001, Deputy Prime Minister Chavalit Yongchaiyudh related that the investigation is actively pursuing all potential causes for the loss of the airplane and that nothing has been ruled out at this time.

Physical evidence has been found that the center wing tank exploded. The accident occurred at 2:48 p.m. on a day with temperatures in the high 90s Fahrenheit. The initial explosion of the center wing tank was followed 18 minutes later by an explosion in the right wing tank. Air conditioning packs, which are located directly beneath the center wing tank and generate heat when they are running, had been running continuously since the airplane's previous flight, including about 40 minutes on the ground.

Although chemical traces of high energy explosives were initially believed to be present, samples have been submitted to the FBI for confirmation by laboratory equipment that is more sensitive than equipment available in Thailand. Although a final report has not yet been issued, the FBI has found no evidence of high explosives in any of the samples tested to date.

Despite a thorough examination of the wreckage by Thai and American bomb experts, no physical evidence of a bomb has been found to date.

In the end, the U.S. authorities concluded the Thai Air explosion was caused by the same kind of center fuel tank problem that brought down TWA Flight 800 off New York in 1996 -- and not any explosives or bomb.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2001-04-12-thai-jet.htm

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

And apparently, no THAI Air fuselage painting out in the wake of that episode.

[Somchai Mao]

If anyone wants to get a feel for how Thailand air accident investigations can go, go back and read up on the March 3, 2001 explosion of a THAI Air 737 jet parked on the ground at Don Muang Airport, awaiting a flight that was supposed to carry Thaksin and others.

I wasn't around here back then, but the various reports at the time had Thai authorities and Thaksin sure it was a bomb and attempted assasination attempt, and the Thai official accounts at the time claimed bomb component residues had been found in the plane. They also issued a reward for the supposed bomber and talked about having identified a suspect.

A lot of that is recounted here. And by Thai Air's own announcements at the time such as the following:

TG Special/Issue No. 8

Date of Report: 6 March 2001

Time: 19:00 hours

THAI Announces Reward for Leads to Suspects Involved in TG 114 Bombing

Thai Airways International Public Company Limited has announced offer of a reward for those who may have information or witnessed the suspect(s) involved in the bombing of THAIs Boeing 737-400 aircraft flight TG 114 on 3 March 2001, bestowed the aircraft name Narathiwat, registration number HS-TDC.

Mr. Bhisit Kuslasayanon, THAIs President, stated that the incident resulted in the death of one cabin crew and injured several other cabin attendants working nearby. In addition, the airline incurred total loss of its aircraft and suffered substantial damages from the explosion of flight TG 114 on 3 March. The Accident Investigation Board (AIB) has issued a press statement confirming that the incident was sabotage caused by a man-made explosive device.

Thai Airways International thereby has set a reward in at the amount of THB 500,000 (five hundred thousand Thai baht only) for information leading to the apprehension of the suspect(s) involved in the bombing of flight TG 114 on 3 March. Informants must provide leads or information concerning suspects to the Royal Thai Police and cooperate through the indictment process according to the law, by contacting...

Later however, the U.S. NTSB in April 2001 issued the following announcement:

The Government of Thailand, in conjunction with the NTSB, is releasing the following information:

On March 22, 2001, Deputy Prime Minister Chavalit Yongchaiyudh related that the investigation is actively pursuing all potential causes for the loss of the airplane and that nothing has been ruled out at this time.

Physical evidence has been found that the center wing tank exploded. The accident occurred at 2:48 p.m. on a day with temperatures in the high 90s Fahrenheit. The initial explosion of the center wing tank was followed 18 minutes later by an explosion in the right wing tank. Air conditioning packs, which are located directly beneath the center wing tank and generate heat when they are running, had been running continuously since the airplane's previous flight, including about 40 minutes on the ground.

Although chemical traces of high energy explosives were initially believed to be present, samples have been submitted to the FBI for confirmation by laboratory equipment that is more sensitive than equipment available in Thailand. Although a final report has not yet been issued, the FBI has found no evidence of high explosives in any of the samples tested to date.

Despite a thorough examination of the wreckage by Thai and American bomb experts, no physical evidence of a bomb has been found to date.

In the end, the U.S. authorities concluded the Thai Air explosion was caused by the same kind of center fuel tank problem that brought down TWA Flight 800 off New York in 1996 -- and not any explosives or bomb.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2001-04-12-thai-jet.htm

Off topic but that is of course if you believe TWA Flt 800 really did suffer from a fuel tank problem.

I think Thai Airways have made themselves a total laughing stock for the painting out of the logo incident. On the other hand nobody on here or outside of the investigation team know what really happened. I do know however that any nation who put face above everything apart from money are not to be relied upon 100% when it comes to aircraft maintenance where honesty and integrity are paramount. Do Thai outsource their maintenance?

[EyesWideOpen]

On a side note, I was just talking to a friend of mine tonight. He was expecting a friend of his coming from Hawaii.

The friend was flying on a Thai airways flight on an Airbus 330 I believe. One of the engines blew up shortly after take off on the flight headed to Bangkok. The plane then limped back to Hawaii . Any news of this yet ??

[Tywais]

I think it's very possible that something malfunctioned in the landing gear, perhaps the right main gear on landing causing the plane to veer off. Otherwise, how does one explain the deep gouges in the runway?

http://avherald.com/h?article=4681fccd&opt=0

After looking up a dimensional drawing of the A330 the distance between the nose gear and the starboard landing gears is around 4+ meters. That is very close to what the photo shows from the runway center line to the gouge marks. Plus another article indicating reports of sparks coming from the right side or gear area.

[JoePai]

About the painting over of the Logo, that is standard practice for evey airline I have worked for.

Which airlines have you worked for ?

(this should be interesting !)

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

The BKK Post this morning has an article quoting a government Civil Aviation guy as saying they're focusing on the likely cause of the landing failure as a structural element of the landing gear called a "bogie beam" that joins together the two main axles of the gear. And also a element that I believe has been blamed in a prior jet mishap in a different country.

Can't link to the article or quote it here under ThaiVisa policy, and The Nation's article today doesn't deal with the potential cause of the mishap at all.

But the Post article's lead interestingly uses the term "defective landing gear" -- and then goes on to say the "initial investigation" says the mishap "may have been caused" by a "faulty" part. If you read thru the rest of the article, it pretty much looks like the investigating agency as yet doesn't actually have any physical evidence to show that was the cause, but that the circumstances suggest it.

Of course, with THAI being Thailand's national carrier and owned in part by the Thai government, blaming the crash on a "faulty" part in a jet manufactured and sold by a foreign entity is a pretty good out.

Meanwhile, the article raises yet another discrepancy in accounts of what happened -- with the Civil Aviation guy saying everything was normal prior to the landing and THAI officials saying there were only sparks once the plane skidded on the runway. But then the article reports that Air Traffic Control reported the fire broke out before the landing.

Meanwhile, if you go back and read about the Thai government's prior accident investigations of both the 2001 THAI Air jet explosion on the ground at Don Muang, or the 2007 crash of a One-Two-Go jet at Phuket airport, you might well come away more than a bit wary about the prospects for an accurate, objective inquiry.

FWIW, the bogie beam issue has been blamed on prior Airbus jet mishaps...

Including a Singapore Air jet on the ground in 2005.

And apparently has been the subject of an FAA Airworthiness Directive.

This AD was prompted by reports of corroded bogie stop pads, including some with cracking. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct deformation or damage under the bogie stop pad of both MLG bogie beams, which could result in a damaged bogie beam and consequent detachment of the beam from the airplane or collapse of the MLG and departure of the airplane from the runway.

This AD becomes effective June 28, 2013.

And it looks like the European Aviation Safety Agency issued a similar directive back in 2011.

http://www.aviationtoday.com/categories/maintenance/EASA-Issues-Emergency-AD-for-A330-300-A-340-200-300-MLG-Bogie-Beam_73757.html#.Ui_lY38l9EI

During ground load test cycles on an A340-600 aeroplane, EASA found the MLG bogie beam to be prematurely fractured, due to high tensile standing stress, resulting
from dry-fit axle assembly method. This condition has improved with a grease fit axle assembly method, according to EASA.

Under high speeds, a fracture of the MLG bogie beam could cause an airplane to depart from the runway or the bogie beam to detach from the aircraft, or a MLG collapse, which the AD states could cause structural damage and possible injury to the aircraft occupants.

[Crossy]

Beat me to it John ^^^

Pretty well every aviation authority has issued various AWDs on A330 bogie beams after a number of failures. Prime suspect.

Google "a330 bogie beam failure" for a comprehensive list of incidents and AWDs.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Which raises an interesting question... and one I'm doubtful we'd ever hear a truthful answer to...

Did THAI Air maintenance on the mishap plane comply with the various airworthiness directives on the landing gear by shortening the required replacement cycle for the suspect part?

[beechguy]

The BKK Post this morning has an article quoting a government Civil Aviation guy as saying they're focusing on the likely cause of the landing failure as a structural element of the landing gear called a "bogie beam" that joins together the two main axles of the gear. And also a element that I believe has been blamed in a prior jet mishap in a different country.

Can't link to the article or quote it here under ThaiVisa policy, and The Nation's article today doesn't deal with the potential cause of the mishap at all.

But the Post article's lead interestingly uses the term "defective landing gear" -- and then goes on to say the "initial investigation" says the mishap "may have been caused" by a "faulty" part. If you read thru the rest of the article, it pretty much looks like the investigating agency as yet doesn't actually have any physical evidence to show that was the cause, but that the circumstances suggest it.

Of course, with THAI being Thailand's national carrier and owned in part by the Thai government, blaming the crash on a "faulty" part in a jet manufactured and sold by a foreign entity is a pretty good out.

Meanwhile, the article raises yet another discrepancy in accounts of what happened -- with the Civil Aviation guy saying everything was normal prior to the landing and THAI officials saying there were only sparks once the plane skidded on the runway. But then the article reports that Air Traffic Control reported the fire broke out before the landing.

Meanwhile, if you go back and read about the Thai government's prior accident investigations of both the 2001 THAI Air jet explosion on the ground at Don Muang, or the 2007 crash of a One-Two-Go jet at Phuket airport, you might well come away more than a bit wary about the prospects for an accurate, objective inquiry.

FWIW, the bogie beam issue has been blamed on prior Airbus jet mishaps...

Including a Singapore Air jet on the ground in 2005.

And apparently has been the subject of an FAA Airworthiness Directive.

This AD was prompted by reports of corroded bogie stop pads, including some with cracking. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct deformation or damage under the bogie stop pad of both MLG bogie beams, which could result in a damaged bogie beam and consequent detachment of the beam from the airplane or collapse of the MLG and departure of the airplane from the runway.

This AD becomes effective June 28, 2013.

And it looks like the European Aviation Safety Agency issued a similar directive back in 2011.

http://www.aviationtoday.com/categories/maintenance/EASA-Issues-Emergency-AD-for-A330-300-A-340-200-300-MLG-Bogie-Beam_73757.html#.Ui_lY38l9EI

During ground load test cycles on an A340-600 aeroplane, EASA found the MLG bogie beam to be prematurely fractured, due to high tensile standing stress, resulting

from dry-fit axle assembly method. This condition has improved with a grease fit axle assembly method, according to EASA.

Under high speeds, a fracture of the MLG bogie beam could cause an airplane to depart from the runway or the bogie beam to detach from the aircraft, or a MLG collapse, which the AD states could cause structural damage and possible injury to the aircraft occupants.

Good post except for the dumb ass comment in the fourth paragraph. How is it ok for other carriers to find defective parts, but for the Thai's it's a convenient out?

[beechguy]

Which raises an interesting question... and one I'm doubtful we'd ever hear a truthful answer to...

Did THAI Air maintenance on the mishap plane comply with the various airworthiness directives on the landing gear by shortening the required replacement cycle for the suspect part?

It may not be made public, but I would surprised if Airbus doesn't ask about it and check maintenance records, never mind the Thai authorties and others involved in the investigation.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Good post except for the dumb ass comment in the fourth paragraph. How is it ok for other carriers to find defective parts, but for the Thai's it's a convenient out?

I'n not talking about finding defective parts. I'm talking about the prospect of having an accurate and impartial investigation that gets at the truth.

As I posted above, if you actually go back and read the histories of the official accident investigations into the Don Muang and Phuket mishaps, the poor caliber of official inquiries is pretty breathtaking...and sad.

In both cases, the Thai authorities tried pretty hard to blame the two mishaps on the wrong causes (a bomb in the first case and wind shear in the second) and it was only because of outside (non-Thai) investigatory involvement that the final reports showed entirely different causes (fuel tanks in the Thai jet and pilot error and human system failures in the One-Two-Go jet that led to that carrier ultimately being dissolved.)

You can't examine those histories and not come away with a deep skepticism about the objectivity of the official investigation process here... especially if it's handled entirely in-house.

Maybe the cause here was/will be the bogie beam... And if it is/was, as I said, it would be interesting to see if THAI Air maintenance complied with the airworthiness directives on the subject. That's where the issue of, essentially, the Thai government (Civil Aviation) investigating itself (THAI Air) comes into question.

Meanwhile, as for Airbus, considering that THAI Air is a major customer and purchaser of their jets, I'd be wondering whether Airbus would be willing to go after THAI publicly even if something hadn't been handled correctly from a maintenance standpoint. That would be a potential public pissing match that neither one would be likely to emerge well from.

[cloudhopper]

Good post except for the dumb ass comment in the fourth paragraph. How is it ok for other carriers to find defective parts, but for the Thai's it's a convenient out?

I'n not talking about finding defective parts. I'm talking about the prospect of having an accurate and impartial investigation that gets at the truth.

As I posted above, if you actually go back and read the histories of the official accident investigations into the Don Muang and Phuket mishaps, the poor caliber of official inquiries is pretty breathtaking...and sad.

In both cases, the Thai authorities tried pretty hard to blame the two mishaps on the wrong causes (a bomb in the first case and wind shear in the second) and it was only because of outside (non-Thai) investigatory involvement that the final reports showed entirely different causes (fuel tanks in the Thai jet and pilot error and human system failures in the One-Two-Go jet that led to that carrier ultimately being dissolved.)

You can't examine those histories and not come away with a deep skepticism about the objectivity of the official investigation process here... especially if it's handled entirely in-house.

Maybe the cause here was/will be the bogie beam... And if it is/was, as I said, it would be interesting to see if THAI Air maintenance complied with the airworthiness directives on the subject. That's where the issue of, essentially, the Thai government (Civil Aviation) investigating itself (THAI Air) comes into question.

Meanwhile, as for Airbus, considering that THAI Air is a major customer and purchaser of their jets, I'd be wondering whether Airbus would be willing to go after THAI publicly even if something hadn't been handled correctly from a maintenance standpoint. That would be a potential public pissing match that neither one would be likely to emerge well from.

Airbus and every company that operates this model has a vital interest in the truth and they will have it. Sure the locals will do everything they can to keep it all as quiet as possible, but the truth will be known, if forever denied, just like it was in the other 2 cases you cited.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

U.S. authorities (NTSB and FAA) were involved in the Phuket and the Don Muang investigations because the airplanes involved (a Boeing and an MD) were U.S.-built. And that led to very different investigation conclusions from what the Thais were headed toward concluding on their own.

In this latest THAI Air case, there's no indication thus far that the NTSB or FAA will be involved, as the mishap occurred in Thailand with a Airbus/European jet. Some of the THAI Air officials have talked in the news reports about sending materials to Airbus for examination.

But I haven't seen anything yet that tells me this will be anything more than a Thai government run investigation. As I noted above, the government investigating itself, given that the Ministry of Finance is the majority owner of THAI.

Now I see there's a new thread here on the investigation itself.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/667044-probe-of-sundays-thai-aircraft-accident-begins/

Voradej Harnprasert, Department of Civil Aviation director general, said the investigation was to find the causes of the accident and preventive measures, not to find fault or punish anyone.

He said reports from the Control Tower and the Airports of Thailand (AoT) on the malfunctioning right landing gear and sparks near the area of the landing gear were conflicting.

Conclusions from the preliminary investigation, together with the flight data recorder or black box, would be submitted to experts abroad for an in-depth probe, he said.

“We do not know how long the investigation will take. It takes years in some cases,” he said.

[joboss]

Most likely, the injured parties were uncouth Chinese passengers, who had opened their seatbelts and trying to collect their carry-on luggage from the overhead storage immediately after the plane touched down....... that is the usual scenario on most Chinese flights.

I have seen them get up while the plane is still in reverse thrust mode and the poor staff screaming at them to sit down.

I'm sure if you placed an electrically-controlled lock on the seat belt clasp, some bozos would find a way to defeat it or do something like chew the belt in two.

Just lock the overhead bins when seatbelt sign is on. Pax will get used to it.

Yeah, why not? After the last decade of TSA harassment, pax will get used to anything!

I find TSA harassment invasive and mostly unnecessary. Locking the overhead bins when the fasten seat belt sign is activated just seems to be a practical and smart complementary connection