Plane's landing gear had history of problems, Thai Airways says

[lee b]

Why on earth is it still part of the fleet then?

[beechguy]

Why on earth is it still part of the fleet then?

Well, if you could bother to read the article, you would see that it is a known Airbus problem, not just a Thai one. But, I guess understanding something like that would require some thought, apparently that is beyond many of our members.

[Jay Sata]

Beechguy

I believe you were an A and P engineer.

Any thoughts on why it appears they are not doing regular dye crack tests?

Reading the AD

Failure to comply with the reduced life limit of the MLG bogie beam with
dry fit axle might jeopardize the MLG structural integrity.
For the reasons described above, this AD requires the replacement of the
affected MLG bogie beams before reaching the new reduced life limit.

I seem to have read somewhere the suspect components were approaching life under that AD.

Speaking from experience as a pilot in Thailand I've found some local airframe and powerplant work to

be of dubious quality compared to Australia,the US and Europe.

A friend of mine once told me he would never let a Thai engineer touch his aircraft.

Edited September 12, 2013 by Jay Sata

[Bender]

Airbus gear has had a history of problems. I really don't like flying them.

yes but if it was a Boeing, the plane would have crashed, but in fire with 200 casualties...

anyday i will fly A330 over a B787

[Soutpeel]

Beechguy

Any thoughts on why it appears they are not doing regular dye crack tests?

Wait for the official report....as we keep getting told..

[cloudhopper]

I am sure the official investigation report will conclude THAI did a good job as far as maintenance is concerned.

How can you be so sure?

[Goshawk]

i recall one time a few years ago now, i flew out of DMK bound for CNX on Thai. Shortly after take off i could sense something was wrong, the aircraft seemed slow or heavy in the climb. Not long after this the captain came on the loud speaker announcing that we were turning back to don mueang because of 'technical problems'.

Turned out that some or all of the landing gear was not retracting properly once we got airborne... they fixed it, we took off again. It was an Airbus, i forget the type, but an A300 probably.

[Briggsy]

The deflection, aka smoke and mirrors has begun.

When you read these stories, always carefully check the source.

[Johnnie99]

I have to add my bit - better maintenance and buying genuine - note genuine - replacement parts would have obviated this problem.

[Johnnie99]

I am sure the official investigation report will conclude THAI did a good job as far as maintenance is concerned.

How can you be so sure?

It's THAI Airways in THAILAND. That should be certainty enough

[Cuban]

Airbus gear has had a history of problems. I really don't like flying them.

Why don't you like flying with them?

It's only the take-offs and landings that require the wheels - otherwise they are not used at all!

[Spare]

This is a big disgrace of Airbus. Nothing to do with THAI.

While paining over the THAI logo, the painter should paint a large capital caption "THIS IS AN AIRBUS, AND NOT BOEING".

Seattle may help pay some of the repairs.

Edited September 12, 2013 by Spare

[beechguy]

I have to add my bit - better maintenance and buying genuine - note genuine - replacement parts would have obviated this problem.

Well thanks for the input, but supposedly Airbus representatives were working on the inpections and maintenance with Thai Air. I wouldn't give up my day job if I were you.

Edited September 12, 2013 by beechguy

[beechguy]

The deflection, aka smoke and mirrors has begun.

When you read these stories, always carefully check the source.

Yes, according to Bangkok Post, if they can be believed, and I don't yet, Airbus representatives were working with Thai Air on the maintenance and inpections. So, you think Airbus is in on this coverup too?

[thaidrew]

 

I am sure the official investigation report will conclude THAI did a good job as far as maintenance is concerned.

How can you be so sure?

It's THAI Airways in THAILAND. That should be certainty enough

 

Well if the landing gear was the problem, how come the pilot had knowledge enough to warn the passengers???

[retell]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnolcCiidAA

this is how it happened ???

Edited September 12, 2013 by retell

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Sometimes, timing does odd things. Noticed via Thai Air's website today:

The airline and the Association of Asia Pacific Airlines last week in Bangkok (Sept. 3-5) were hosting the 5th AAPA Emergency Response Conference, which involved more than 100 aviation crisis management and emergency response professionals, as well as a trip for participants to visit the airline's aircraft recovery and maintenance facility at Suvarnabhumi Airport.

http://www.prthaiairways.com/news/node/601.html

http://www.aapairlines.org/resource_centre/AAPA_PR_Issue12_EmergencyResponseConference2013_03Sep13.pdf

Dr. Sorajak Kasemsuvan, President, Thai Airways International said, “Airlines are committed to the highest standards in customer service and the well-being of passengers. In emergency situations, airlines cannot resolve emergencies alone and rely on professional support and expertise provided by local and international organisations in emergency response efforts. Through the sharing of lessons amongst international and local experts, this conference is an important opportunity to further improve aviation crisis management skills and emergency response preparedness within the region.”

Little did they know...

[saab]

This whole "cover up" is just the same as the Thai men at a wedding etc, holding a glass of alcohol whilst hiding it with the other hand, so laughable, so pathetic

[Spare]

Told ya, you should have bought Boeing.

[GentlemanJim]

This is a big disgrace of Airbus. Nothing to do with THAI.

While paining over the THAI logo, the painter should paint a large capital caption "THIS IS AN AIRBUS, AND NOT BOEING".

Seattle may help pay some of the repairs.

You really have no clue do you. Do you have any idea how many defects are found on fleets of aircraft that are managed by specific maintenance routines on ALL aircraft types, on all aircraft fleets, including AIrbus AND Boeing.

 

It's THAI Airways in THAILAND. That should be certainty enough

 

Well if the landing gear was the problem, how come the pilot had knowledge enough to warn the passengers???

What warning did the Pilot give to the passengers?

[beechguy]

Beechguy

I believe you were an A and P engineer.

Any thoughts on why it appears they are not doing regular dye crack tests?

Reading the AD

Failure to comply with the reduced life limit of the MLG bogie beam with

dry fit axle might jeopardize the MLG structural integrity.

For the reasons described above, this AD requires the replacement of the

affected MLG bogie beams before reaching the new reduced life limit.

I seem to have read somewhere the suspect components were approaching life under that AD.

Speaking from experience as a pilot in Thailand I've found some local airframe and powerplant work to

be of dubious quality compared to Australia,the US and Europe.

A friend of mine once told me he would never let a Thai engineer touch his aircraft.

Yes, an A&P for about 25 years, but working on smaller stuff. But what the hell would I know compared to the experts on here.

Seriously, I haven't read the whole AD and it's requirements. Maybe the engineers ran out of luck on projecting the life limit, or as you said before, maybe there were other factors, hard landings, overweight, corrosion, etc. I think once they get parts in a lab, they'll be able to have a better idea, so I just don't want to speculate too much.

Anyway, so far as maintenance, supposedly Airbus Reps were involved at some point, so it will be interesting to see what happens.

[cloudhopper]

I am sure the official investigation report will conclude THAI did a good job as far as maintenance is concerned.

How can you be so sure?

It's THAI Airways in THAILAND. That should be certainty enough

THAI won't be doing the official investigation. The government report of the 1-2-GO crash in Phuket was actually quite damning of not only the airline's corporate culture and pilots, but AOT and the RTAF as well.

[Jay Sata]

Beechguy

I believe you were an A and P engineer.

Any thoughts on why it appears they are not doing regular dye crack tests?

Reading the AD

Failure to comply with the reduced life limit of the MLG bogie beam with

dry fit axle might jeopardize the MLG structural integrity.

For the reasons described above, this AD requires the replacement of the

affected MLG bogie beams before reaching the new reduced life limit.

I seem to have read somewhere the suspect components were approaching life under that AD.

Speaking from experience as a pilot in Thailand I've found some local airframe and powerplant work to

be of dubious quality compared to Australia,the US and Europe.

A friend of mine once told me he would never let a Thai engineer touch his aircraft.

Yes, an A&P for about 25 years, but working on smaller stuff. But what the hell would I know compared to the experts on here.

Seriously, I haven't read the whole AD and it's requirements. Maybe the engineers ran out of luck on projecting the life limit, or as you said before, maybe there were other factors, hard landings, overweight, corrosion, etc. I think once they get parts in a lab, they'll be able to have a better idea, so I just don't want to speculate too much.

Anyway, so far as maintenance, supposedly Airbus Reps were involved at some point, so it will be interesting to see what happens.

You'll always get speculation Beechguy and that's what free speech is all about.

A heavy landing weeks ago can cause this sort of damage if the ground guys don't do their inspections but we'll have to wait and see.

I take it you used to fly a Beechcraft?

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

THAI won't be doing the official investigation. The government report of the 1-2-GO crash in Phuket was actually quite damning of not only the airline's corporate culture and pilots, but AOT and the RTAF as well.

Presumably, it will be the Aircraft Accident Investigation Committee of Thailand within the Thai Department of Civil Aviation, Ministry of Transport, that will be the lead agency for the official investigation, and certainly Airbus will be involved as the manufacturer of the mishap aircraft. I don't think we've heard much as yet about what other aviation safety entities might play some role.

As I've noted elsewhere, it kind of ends up being one arm of the Thai government investigating another arm of the Thai government, since THAI Air is majority owned by the Ministry of Finance.

As for the One-Two-Go report, I read the final report the other day and I'd concur it was pretty critical of many, many failings found with the airline and its crew, who ended up getting the brunt of the blame, and to a lesser and subsidiary extent, the Phuket airport's preparedness and setup.

However, from what I've read on the background of it, the initial Thai investigation didn't start out that way, and instead was focusing a primary cause of wind shear (which presumably would have ended up being more kind to the airline and airport than what finally was judged). But there was a lot of Thai public outrage over the passenger deaths, and along the way, the U.S. NTSB ended up getting heavily involved.

The Wikipedia page on the crash of One-Two-Go Flight 269 includes a lot of discussion about how the final investigation report was prepared. I can't vouch for the accuracy of all the details, but this is part of what it says:

Thai crash investigators from the Thailand Department of Civil Aviation initially speculated that wind shear was the cause of the crash. Two years later, National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) reported that wind shear was not a factor in the crash.^[1]

A two-year investigation by NTSB resulted in a report ^[1] mainly incorporated into the crash report published by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Committee of the Ministry of Transport.

As requested by the Thai Government, the NTSB ghost-wrote the crash report for the Thai authorities who thanked the NTSB for their assistance.

Edited September 12, 2013 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[beechguy]

Beechguy

I believe you were an A and P engineer.

Any thoughts on why it appears they are not doing regular dye crack tests?

Reading the AD

Failure to comply with the reduced life limit of the MLG bogie beam with

dry fit axle might jeopardize the MLG structural integrity.

For the reasons described above, this AD requires the replacement of the

affected MLG bogie beams before reaching the new reduced life limit.

I seem to have read somewhere the suspect components were approaching life under that AD.

Speaking from experience as a pilot in Thailand I've found some local airframe and powerplant work to

be of dubious quality compared to Australia,the US and Europe.

A friend of mine once told me he would never let a Thai engineer touch his aircraft.

Yes, an A&P for about 25 years, but working on smaller stuff. But what the hell would I know compared to the experts on here.

Seriously, I haven't read the whole AD and it's requirements. Maybe the engineers ran out of luck on projecting the life limit, or as you said before, maybe there were other factors, hard landings, overweight, corrosion, etc. I think once they get parts in a lab, they'll be able to have a better idea, so I just don't want to speculate too much.

Anyway, so far as maintenance, supposedly Airbus Reps were involved at some point, so it will be interesting to see what happens.

You'll always get speculation Beechguy and that's what free speech is all about.

A heavy landing weeks ago can cause this sort of damage if the ground guys don't do their inspections but we'll have to wait and see.

I take it you used to fly a Beechcraft?

Oh I don't mind a little speculation, but the crap some of these guys come up with is just unbelievably silly.

Anyway, as to your earlier question about Dye penetrant inspections, NDI, etc. I have worked on some aircraft where we were doing dye penetrent inspections every 150 hours on nose gear parts, and on other models, replacing torque links and sending them out for testing really often. It's possible the maintenace people missed something, but as you know there can be internal problems that may not even be visible too.

Anyway, I don't fly, but I still do some maintenance support for companies, most have military contracts that use Beechcraft products.

[Wimbledon]

Time for thisairlime to go belly up !the landing that plane is in is symbolism for,the stare of that company

[market trader]

A friend of mine delivers new aircraft worldwide for Boeing. Granted he is biased but he describes Airbus products as "disposable aircraft" I think about that every time I board one.

I think your friend is right. Compare the number of accidents of Air Bus to those of Boeings.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

From what I can see, there appears to be a whole series of airworthiness directives issued by the EASA (European Aviation Safety Agency) on the subject of the so-called bogie beam and related parts primarily in Airbus A330 and A340 aircraft dating back at least to the 2007-2008 period of time and continuing with new updated directives at least thru 2012.

Reading through various of them, the regulators started with receiving failure reports, which led to requirements for an initial inspection, then later to an order for recurring inspections, and appearing to set timelines for the ultimate replacement of the problematic parts over a pretty long period of years.

In the BKK Post article, the Thai Air exec talked generally about having done inspections every two years. Lining up with that, one AD dated March 30, 2012 (2012-0053) talks about ongoing required inspections at intervals not exceeding 26 months for main and center landing gear bogie pivot pins.

Here's an excerpt from a Jan 23, 2012 EASA AD (2012-0015) [titled Landing Gear – Main Landing Gear Bogie Beam – Inspection /
Repair / Modification] that lays out some of the history on the issue. I've bolded below the reference that shows the discussion dating back at least to 2007, and then more recently, another section appearing to show a longer time period being granted for replacement of the problem structures.

The operator of an A330 aeroplane (which has a common bogie beam with the
A340) reported a fracture of the right-hand (RH) main landing gear (MLG) bogie
beam, which occurred while turning during low speed taxi maneuvers. The bogie
fractured aft of the pivot point and remained attached to the sliding tube by the
brake torque reaction rods. After this RH bogie failure, the aeroplane continued
for approximately 40 meters on the forks of the sliding member before coming to
rest on the taxiway.

The preliminary investigations revealed that this event was due to corrosion
pitting occurring on the bore of the bogie beam. Investigations are ongoing to
determine why bogie beam internal paint has been degraded, leading to a loss of
cadmium plating, thereby allowing development of corrosion pitting.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to a runway excursion
event or to detachment of the bogie from the aeroplane, or to MLG collapse,
possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane and injury to the occupants.

To enable early detection and repair of corrosion of the internal surfaces, EASA
issued EASA AD 2007-0314 to require a one-time inspection of all MLG bogie
beams, except Enhanced MLG bogie beams, and the reporting of the results to
Airbus. EASA AD 2007-0314 was revised and later superseded by EASA AD
2008-0093, reducing the inspection threshold.

The results of subsequent investigations showed thin paint coats and paint
degradation, confirmed as well on Enhanced MLG bogie beams. To address this
additional concern, EASA issued EASA AD 2011-0141, retaining the
requirements of EASA AD 2008-0093, which was superseded, to require a onetime
visual inspection of all MLG bogie beams, including a visual examination of
the internal diameter for corrosion or damage to protective treatments of the
bogie beam and measurement of the paint thickness on the internal bore,
accomplishment of the applicable corrective actions and a modification of the
MLG bogie beam to improve the coat paint application method, and application of
corrosion protection.

Prompted by in-service requests, this AD retains the requirements of EASA AD
2011-0141, which is superseded, and introduces repetitive inspections of the
MLG bogie beams, which allows extension of the compliance time for the MLG
bogie beam modification from 15 years to 21 years. Modification of a MLG bogie
beam constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections for that MLG
bogie beam.

Here's a group of the various EASA AD's I've been reading on the subject:

2011 04-28.pdf

2011-06-29.pdf

2011 07-25.pdf

2011 10-31.pdf

2012 01-23 & 30.pdf

2012 03-30.pdf

Edited September 12, 2013 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Bagwan]

Airbus gear has had a history of problems. I really don't like flying them.

I won't be boarding a Dreamliner any time soon.

[NeverSure]

I don't think this is a debate about which is better - Airbus or Boeing. I'm waiting for official reports about what the history is of maintenance and inspection of the aircraft in question.

I've tried to find out which is better of the two brands but Boeing has been making planes for so much longer and has so many more models and planes in service that I can't get an apples to apples comparison.

I know I won't fly THAI. The last time I was on one the interior was so shabby that it made me question whether they could afford important maintenance, or to replace planes as needed. Maybe everything's fine, but perception matters to me.