Pilot of Lao plane was 'told to change course'

[webfact]

LAO CRASH
Pilot of Lao plane was 'told to change course'
The Nation, Agencies

BANGKOK: -- A Lao Airlines pilot was told to change course shortly before his turboprop plane slammed into the murky Mekong River in southern Laos, killing all 49 people on board, including five Thai nationals.

The Phnom Penh Post reported yesterday that the control tower at the Pakse airport had issued the instruction to Cambodian-born pilot Young San, 56, as the plane was on a landing approach in extreme weather.

"During strong winds, the air controller told [Young San] to change course," said the Cambodian State Secretariat of Civil Aviation's safety and security director, Mak Sam Ol, who has been briefed on the cause of the crash by Laotian authorities.

"He followed instructions but the plane faced strong winds and it couldn't get through," Mak Sam Ol told The Phnom Penh Post. Young San, who had more than 30 years' flying experience, had worked for the airline for almost three years.

"He had a contract with Laos' aviation [authority] for three years and had been there almost all that time," Mak Sam Ol said.

He was a former pilot with Cambodia's defunct state carrier Royal Air Cambodge after having trained in Russia and later France, the Post said. Laotian officials and airline engineers are investigating the cause of the crash of the French-made ATR-72 twin-propeller aircraft that left deep skid marks before careering into the river on Wednesday and disappearing.


-- The Nation 2013-10-19

[Chittychangchang]

RIP to the 49 and condolences to the family's.

CCC

[noitom]

What about the black box? Is he making these statements based on black box recording? According to international air protocol, the home country of the crash, in this case Laos leads the investigation. The airplane was Laos Airlines, and Pakse airport is in Laos. Why is the Thai press reporting comments by a Cambodian state secretary of aviation? What is going on here? The Thai press fails its responsibility to get at the truth. Thai people were killed - why does the newspaper stand for a comment by a Cambodian aviation official with a Laos Airline aircraft crashing in Laos? Where is the voice recorder?

[Shurup]

^^^ The black box is still on the plane which is still on the bottom of the river.

And why Thai press can't report on the accident and investigation? How the plane being Laotian can prohibit other countries' press from reporting?

[whybother]

What about the black box? Is he making these statements based on black box recording? According to international air protocol, the home country of the crash, in this case Laos leads the investigation. The airplane was Laos Airlines, and Pakse airport is in Laos. Why is the Thai press reporting comments by a Cambodian state secretary of aviation? What is going on here? The Thai press fails its responsibility to get at the truth. Thai people were killed - why does the newspaper stand for a comment by a Cambodian aviation official with a Laos Airline aircraft crashing in Laos? Where is the voice recorder?

How do you know that what the Cambodian state secretary of aviation has said is not the truth? He has said something because the pilot was Cambodian.

Having said that, he seems to be implying that the pilot being to change course was the cause of the accident, therefore blaming air traffic control. It's possible he was told to change course for a number of reasons, including so that he didn't come down on houses.

[Bakseeda]

What about the black box? Is he making these statements based on black box recording? According to international air protocol, the home country of the crash, in this case Laos leads the investigation. The airplane was Laos Airlines, and Pakse airport is in Laos. Why is the Thai press reporting comments by a Cambodian state secretary of aviation? What is going on here? The Thai press fails its responsibility to get at the truth. Thai people were killed - why does the newspaper stand for a comment by a Cambodian aviation official with a Laos Airline aircraft crashing in Laos? Where is the voice recorder?

Perhaps air traffic control for this airport is in Cambodia... Just a thought..!

[fittobethaied]

Perhaps the air traffic controller has been instructed to lie in an attempt to brush off any accusations that he might have been negligent, and at the same time shift the blame to the pilot who is unable to defend himself. Also he has offered an explanation that "saves the pilot's face" by saying that he obeyed the instructions but the plane was caught up in the winds and it was too late. The Lao government and airline is off the hook, the black box will never be found, air traffic control recordings disappear and the families of the innocent victims are screwed as always. What else would you expect from a communist regime?

[Trouble]

Perhaps we should just wait for the investigation to be completed before we jump to any conclusions. The Cambodian's comment was probably just a comment based on preliminaries from the Lao government. I will wait for the investigators' report(s).

[Bpuumike]

What about the black box? Is he making these statements based on black box recording? According to international air protocol, the home country of the crash, in this case Laos leads the investigation. The airplane was Laos Airlines, and Pakse airport is in Laos. Why is the Thai press reporting comments by a Cambodian state secretary of aviation? What is going on here? The Thai press fails its responsibility to get at the truth. Thai people were killed - why does the newspaper stand for a comment by a Cambodian aviation official with a Laos Airline aircraft crashing in Laos? Where is the voice recorder?

How do you know that what the Cambodian state secretary of aviation has said is not the truth? He has said something because the pilot was Cambodian.

Having said that, he seems to be implying that the pilot being to change course was the cause of the accident, therefore blaming air traffic control. It's possible he was told to change course for a number of reasons, including so that he didn't come down on houses.

Exactly and a river landing would minimise ground casualties.

I would call the pilot a hero, but would question why he did not go around?

[shaurene]

The Thai press are reporting what they hear from Laos press. Obvious bad weather and was told to change course, the pilot could have been off coarse due to cross winds blowing him off the magnetic course.

Lets say the mag course was 090 and there was a cross wind of 30knots from his left side, to keep the correct course for the runway he would need to compensate and possibly steer 070 to compensate the plane being pushed to the right.

They will get the box when the weather calms down.

[siampolee]

They will get the box when the weather calms down

Personally I wonder if that will be the case?

Or if it is recovered no doubt we will be told after the contents have been analysed by those who want the facts to be favourable to official policy but they are at odds with government censorship guidelines

''The box (although supposed to be indestructible) was damaged and the data contents were not retrievable. Or we were unable to locate the Black Box due to the flood conditions in the Mekong river..''

.

[marell]

The tower at Pakse should have their own voice recording of the event. Procedurally, transmissions between an aircraft on approach and terminal control should have been recorded by the ground facility. These tapes could shed light on a number of issues.

Edited October 19, 2013 by marell

[hanno]

Good to see that the conspiracy fans don't limit themselves to Thailand

[coma]

Due to the apparent severity of the weather at the time the accident occured. Me thinks that that aircraft had no business being anywhere near attempting a landing at the airfield in Pakse or even be in its airspace. We see it way to often in SEA. Pilots attempting to land when they should not be due to extreme weather condition at the destination.

Just a couple of bad weather related examples off the top of my head.

Thai Flight 261 carrying 146 people on board took off from Don Mueang International Airport at 11:40 UST on a two hour flight to Surat Thani. When the aircraft began to descend to Surat Thani Airport, the weather was bad with heavy rain and poor visibility, and the pilot executed a missed approach two times. On a third attempt to land, the aircraft stalled and crashed two miles southwest of the airport, killing 101 people and injuring 45 people. 90 passengers and 11 crew members died.^[1]

One-Two-GO Airlines Flight 269 (OG269), a McDonnell Douglas MD-82, crashed into a non-frangible embankment beside runway 27 at Phuket International Airport (HKT) bursting into flames upon impact on September 16, 2007, at about 15:41 ICT during an attempted go-around after an aborted landing, killing 89 of the 130 persons on board.

Edited October 19, 2013 by coma

[MikeOboe57]

I do not want to put a lid on the wild speculations and the first conspiracy theories, but as a retired air traffic controller, certified ICAO PANSOPS procedure designer and former holder of a multi engine instrument rating I feel inclined to add my few cents.

1. Pakse Airport VLPS is located on the banks of the Mekong River with a runway direction of 33/15 (327°/147°) nearly parallel to the river. It has the following restrictions: Landing RWY 15, takeoff RWY 33, meaning that all landings have to come in from the NNW and all departures have to leave in opposite direction to the NNW, irrespective of the prevailing wind direction. Reason seems to be (according to the terrain map) that there is mountainous terrain in the departure sector of RWY 15, SSE of the airport.

2. Pakse Airport does neither have radar, nor an Instrument Landing System (ILS) which would provide the pilot with an electronic glide slope on the last miles of the approach. The airport has an on-field NDB (non-directional radio bacon) and a VOR/DME (VHF omnidirectional radio range/distance measuring equipment) at 4.7 nautical miles on a magnetic bearing of 327° from the airport, on the final approach track for RWY 15. For details on the two radio navigational aids see wiki.

3. There are two instrument approaches for Pakse Airport, a VOR/DME RWY 15 and an NDB RWY 15. Both approaches require a minimum weather condition for landing. These are defined by ground visibility at the airport and the lowest layer of clouds covering more than half of the sky. Based on their accuracy (VOR/DME offers a higher one) the pilot may only descend to a procedure-specified MDA (minimum descent altitude) unless he has the ground or airport in sight and can continue by terrestrial navigation until touchdown on the runway. These instrument approaches are specifically designed for each airport and prescribe mandatory flight paths and minimum altitudes during any phase of the approach. Pilots may not deviate from these procedures unless authorized by air traffic control under exactly defined circumstances ("visual approach" - the pilot has visual contact to ground or airport and wishes to shorten the approach while observing obstacle clearance on his own).

4. As there are no actual approach charts for Pakse Airport to be found on the net I have to speculate a bit on the layout of the VOR/DME approach. The pilot will have to cross the VOR/DME station at an altitude (either "not below" or "at") and fly on the 147° radial with a predetermined descent rate or calculated "not below" altitudes for each mile outbound from the VOR/DME station, levelling off at the MDA - unless he has ground/airport in sight - and continue until passing the MAPt, the Missed Approach Point, when he would start a climb or climbing turn (depending on procedure layout) that would take him back to the beginning of the approach - the IAF (Initial Approach Fix), from where he could either safely proceed to his alternate aerodrome or try a second approach.

As the reporting by press and authorities is extremely shoddy I have to interpret the bits and pieces flung around:

1. Pakse Airport weather was below the minima required for landing. The pilot was made aware of that

2. The airplane crash was a CFIT - Controlled flight Into Terrain - meaning that a probably fully operational aircraft was flown into the ground.

3. The crash happened at a position where the aircraft should have been at least 500 meters/1500 feet above ground - 5 nautical miles from the airport

4. The pilot was obviously advised by ATC to proceed to his alternate destination - distorted to "change course", which is BS as the Control tower never saw the aircraft and most probably was not aware what the pilot was actually doing. Towers do not advise pilots "to change course", Radar Control Units do that, and only if the aircraft is at a certain minimum altitude above ground/obstacles. Aircraft in the final stages of an approach are usually in a procedure sector below the Minimum Radar Vectoring Altitude, so even Radar would not have given a "change course" order to the pilot.

5. In a clear deviation from the Instrument Approach Procedure the aircraft was apparently flying low level along the Mekong river in poor visibility. This was most probably done by using the onboard RNAV (Area Navigation) - GPS with detailed moving map display. I can only speculate whether that island was displayed on that map. It seems that the pilot used this approach to avoid obstacles. This indicates that the plane at least occasionally flew below 30 meters/100 feet above ground in an attempt not to lose visual reference and in consequence lead to a crash into the suddenly appearing island.

The facts that the plane had just recently be purchased from the manufacturer, that the pilots did not report any irregularities or emergencies, that the crash happened at a location where the aircraft should have been at least 500 meters/1500 feet above ground level, that the weather was most probably below the minima for this approach, make it highly probable that the pilot decided to resort to a non standard, illegal and irresponsible low level approach to enforce a landing, thus wiping out 44 lives.

edit: typos, QFU

Edited October 19, 2013 by MikeOboe57

[hanno]

Thanks for that Mike. If true, I find it amazing that a pilot with 30 years experience pulled a stunt like that.

[Bagwan]

The Thai press are reporting what they hear from Laos press. Obvious bad weather and was told to change course, the pilot could have been off coarse due to cross winds blowing him off the magnetic course.

Lets say the mag course was 090 and there was a cross wind of 30knots from his left side, to keep the correct course for the runway he would need to compensate and possibly steer 070 to compensate the plane being pushed to the right.

They will get the box when the weather calms down.

Magnetic course? In this day and age? Surely every commercial aircraft has two gyros fitted, one being a standby in case the primary topples.

Calculating the course to steer cannot be computed unless you know the airspeed. Given that then the course to steer and the speed over the ground can be calculated. simple trigonometry really.

[Cuban]

POI there is no ILS at this airport.

So if the pilot was not eyes on (storm) he needed to be guided in by radar talk down.

[shaurene]

The Thai press are reporting what they hear from Laos press. Obvious bad weather and was told to change course, the pilot could have been off coarse due to cross winds blowing him off the magnetic course.

Lets say the mag course was 090 and there was a cross wind of 30knots from his left side, to keep the correct course for the runway he would need to compensate and possibly steer 070 to compensate the plane being pushed to the right.

They will get the box when the weather calms down.

Magnetic course? In this day and age? Surely every commercial aircraft has two gyros fitted, one being a standby in case the primary topples.

Calculating the course to steer cannot be computed unless you know the airspeed. Given that then the course to steer and the speed over the ground can be calculated. simple trigonometry really.

I would say Mike has given all of us the answers so back to the TV boys.

[negreanu]

I do not want to put a lid on the wild speculations and the first conspiracy theories, but as a retired air traffic controller, certified ICAO PANSOPS procedure designer and former holder of a multi engine instrument rating I feel inclined to add my few cents.

Huge speculations in your post...amongst some decent factual information

In a clear deviation from the Instrument Approach Procedure the aircraft was apparently flying low level along the Mekong river in poor visibility. This was most probably done by using the onboard RNAV (Area Navigation)

Impossible to say at this stage.

highly probable that the pilot decided to resort to a non standard, illegal and irresponsible low level approach to enforce a landing, thus wiping out 44 lives.

Impossible to say at this stage.

[MikeOboe57]

This is the VOR/DME approach for Pakse, found it on pprune.org.

As you can see the approach path is nowhere near the river and the Minimum Descent Altitude is a whopping 645 feet above ground. It is obvious that the aircraft was outside the procedure area and below any minimum altitudes when it crashed.

[davehowden]

Thanks for that Mike. If true, I find it amazing that a pilot with 30 years experience pulled a stunt like that.

Maybe he didn't want to "lose face" by not being able to land and diverting?

[marell]

Good to see that the conspiracy fans don't limit themselves to Thailand

<deleted>?

[MikeOboe57]

I do not want to put a lid on the wild speculations and the first conspiracy theories, but as a retired air traffic controller, certified ICAO PANSOPS procedure designer and former holder of a multi engine instrument rating I feel inclined to add my few cents.

Huge speculations in your post...amongst some decent factual information

In a clear deviation from the Instrument Approach Procedure the aircraft was apparently flying low level along the Mekong river in poor visibility. This was most probably done by using the onboard RNAV (Area Navigation)

Impossible to say at this stage.

highly probable that the pilot decided to resort to a non standard, illegal and irresponsible low level approach to enforce a landing, thus wiping out 44 lives.

Impossible to say at this stage.

Let us have a look at the approach procedure. The most likely action by pilots attempting to land below the weather minima is to "ride" further down below the MDA as there is a safeguarding zone extending from the runway outward with a required obstacle free zone. By using radio altimeter and GPS or DME values there is a good chance to reach the runway, although it is illegal and an unnecessary risk to lives on ground and on board. Minima are there for a reason. The Kaczinsky crash should serve as a warning.

The pilot apparently did not follow this procedure, there is also no report that he attempted and aborted an approach before the crash. So it is open to speculation if he ditched on an illegal low level missed approach track trying to fly a "visual pattern" for RWY 15 on overshooting from the previous approach. This would have put him over the Mekong and as there is no report on the heading of the aircraft during impact this is another possible scenario. But this would also be a reckless and irresponsible manoeuvre.

If the pilot had flown the correct procedure he would not have been able to land at Pakse and would have had to fly to an alternate or back to his departure point, but everybody on board would still be alive.

The only excuse I can find is a complete electrical failure and double engine failure forcing him to ditch the aircraft into the Mekong. There is no indication that this was the case.

P.S. The aircraft was delivered in April this year.

[nomad127]

Trained in Russia and France to be a pilot? I would never fly Aeroflot or Air France as they always seem to be having accidents.

[negreanu]

If the pilot had flown the correct procedure he would not have been able to land at Pakse and would have had to fly to an alternate or back to his departure point, but everybody on board would still be alive.

The only excuse I can find is a complete electrical failure and double engine failure forcing him to ditch the aircraft into the Mekong. There is no indication that this was the case.

There are far more failures/errors/reasons/weather conditions that may have caused this accident.

[hanno]

Thanks for that Mike. If true, I find it amazing that a pilot with 30 years experience pulled a stunt like that.

Maybe he didn't want to "lose face" by not being able to land and diverting?

Hmm, I have also read about airlines pushing the pilots to land ASAP to save fuel and planes flying with not enough fuel to get to an alternate airport. Both cases happened in Europe incidentally and involved budget airlines.

[hanno]

Good to see that the conspiracy fans don't limit themselves to Thailand

<deleted>?

I was referring to some of the posts stating that the black box would never be found or it would be "damaged" and rendered unusable. As far as I know, a manufacturer's rep will be on the scene prettty quickly as they have a vested interest in finding out what happened.

[Sydebolle]

It was an almost brand new ATR72-600 (72-212A) with the serial 1071, immatriculation RDPL-34233. Enclosed hereto a picture of test flight of F-WWEH c/n 1071 (and underwing RDPL-34233) of March 6th, 2013. Test flight from TLS-TLS on March 6th, 2013 with test flight immatriculation F-WWEH; passed on first attempt. Transfer flight to the customer QV TLS-VTE with transfer immatriculation F-WKVC on March 29th, 2013; final immatriculation RDPL-34233.

In 99% it was not the plane malfunctioning, it was not the tower. Was it the captain's wrong assessment of the situation, was it the ferocious weather, was it the captain's human decision to ditch the plane in the Mekong rather over inhabited area? A 56-year veteran in the cockpit has no intention to commit suicide after being in the business for 30 years; I would assume. Let's wait and see what the experts will tell us and hope, that this never happens again.

[MikeOboe57]

If the pilot had flown the correct procedure he would not have been able to land at Pakse and would have had to fly to an alternate or back to his departure point, but everybody on board would still be alive.

The only excuse I can find is a complete electrical failure and double engine failure forcing him to ditch the aircraft into the Mekong. There is no indication that this was the case.

There are far more failures/errors/reasons/weather conditions that may have caused this accident.

There are, but, as in a game of chess not every move makes sense, there are certain aspects that can be excluded. I have rummaged through the internet and have found no source that hinted that the aircrew reported any emergency or technical trouble on board. Yet the plane crashes way off the mandatory flight path after flying level at low altitude in bad visibility.