THAI flight skids off runway at Khon Kaen airport

[blazes]

Some intriguing (non Thai Visa) comments on this site:

http://avherald.com/h?article=47ccaba9&opt=0

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Seems to be another opportunity to slam Thailand, Thai Airways, the pilots, the Burmese and other targets. These juvenile comments speak volumes about how the writers view such incidents.

I'm glad the passengers were not injured, a point that seems lost in the sea alcoholic-like comments.

A couple of points here... Yes, it's fortunate that no passengers were injured in this mishap, and everyone can agree about that.

However:

1. IF this was a case of pilot error (we can only wait for an official accident report some years into the future), then pilots who make these kinds of mistakes also have the potential to make more serious ones.

2. This latest incident now makes something like 4 of these types of mishaps by the combination of Thai Air and sister airline Nok Air at Thai airports in just a bit more than the past year, and I posted links on those above.

3. How many of these kinds of incidents has Thai Air Asia had during the same period, or any comparable period, within Thailand?

4. Thai aviation regulation and safety enforcement hardly has the top reputation in the world. Look back at the flawed mishap investigation into the Thai Air jet that exploded on the tarmac at Don Mueang, or the famous safety mishaps case that led to the disbanding of One-Two-Go Airline.

From the Wiki entry on the latter:

• On September 16, 2007, One-Two-GO Airlines Flight 269, an McDonnell Douglas MD-82 flying from Bangkok with 123 passengers and seven crew members, crashed in strong winds and heavy rain after attempting to land at Phuket International Airport. The aircraft was mostly destroyed in the blazing inferno that soon developed after the crash as the fuselage tore in two. 89 people were killed. 45 of the dead were tourists.^[8]Thai aviation officials initially claimed that weather was a probable factor.^[9][10] The cause of the crash was later determined to be multiple flight crew errors caused by systemic failures including corruption and lack of training at One-Two-GO and within Thailand's Civil Aviation Authority, Department of Civil Aviation.^[11]

Three years after the crash, the British Coroner's Inquest examining the cause of the British nationals' deaths^[12] cited the "flagrant disregard for passenger safety" at One-Two-GO and said "the primary failure so far as I am concerned relates to the corporate culture which prevailed both One-Two-Go Airlines and Orient Thai Airlines prior to and following the air crash."

I would contend, a healthy amount of skepticism is warranted.

Edited November 5, 2014 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Khon Kaen Airport reopens:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/774162-tg-aircraft-recovered-from-khon-kaen-runway/

[Jay Sata]

For those of you who have some misguided opinion the runway is short here is what it looks like from the air.You can see the Thai Airways lunchtime arrival on the runway has plenty of space left ahead and only ever uses half the available distance to stop and taxi to the terminal.

This is what we see on the approach with the golf club at the far end.Notice how large the turning area is.

Edited November 5, 2014 by Jay Sata

[bdenner]

I'm not going to read all this BS!

All you armchair "Air Crash" investigators need to get a life and stop polluting this site with your ill informed rhetoric!

Hardly "ill informed", just 25 years of operating experience and some good old deductive reasoning. Those pictures in the Post were quite clear, you can find them easy. I agree on having to get a life, but how did you know..?

As Jay Sata posted above, [momentary] asymmetrical thrust is also possible, but clearly the left engine was still producing thrust as the aircraft path curves to the right in the mud. Certainly they did not reduce power quickly once off the edge of runway.

What?? 25 years of some sort of experience gives you the answer to this particular incident and allows you to specify conclusions before the black boxes are analyse --- give me a break!

[Jay Sata]

I take it you are an experienced pilot then?

By black boxes I take it you mean the flight recorders?

This was a ground incident not a flying issue.

It is reassuring there are so many experts who have never sat in the left hand seat.

Edited November 5, 2014 by Jay Sata

[harrry]

For those of you who have some misguided opinion the runway is short here is what it looks like from the air.You can see the Thai Airways lunchtime arrival on the runway has plenty of space left ahead and only ever uses half the available distance to stop and taxi to the terminal.

This is what we see on the approach with the golf club at the far end.Notice how large the turning area is.

Bit high weren't you?

Edited November 5, 2014 by harrry

[Jay Sata]

For the threshold yes..for a nice quick turn off by the intersection no

[MrY]

I take it you are an experienced pilot then?

By black boxes I take it you mean the flight recorders?

This was a ground incident not a flying issue.

It is reassuring there are so many experts who have never sat in the left hand seat.

Thanks for the reply. Saved me the trouble.

And BTW, this "accident" certainly wasn't serious enough to turn those "black boxes" black (Guess what color they are before an accident?) I've been on sites of that kind of accidents too as part of initial accident site inspection team. (No, I'm not a "Certified Accident Investigator" but one of our Captains in South Africa was an experienced ICAO accident investigator on call and could recruit other experienced pilots on the spot.)

[Jay Sata]

For those who do not know the aircraft black boxes are bright orange.

Depending on what happened the cockpit voice recorder may hold the key however the info may be overwritten by the ground crew who taxied it back to the far stand which is where I suggested it would be parked prior to removal to Bangkok.

I doubt we will ever discover the name of the first officer who in my opinion as a pilot of 30 years was the guy in command.

[Thai at Heart]

Seems to be another opportunity to slam Thailand, Thai Airways, the pilots, the Burmese and other targets. These juvenile comments speak volumes about how the writers view such incidents.

I'm glad the passengers were not injured, a point that seems lost in the sea alcoholic-like comments.

Live and Let Live

Well, its not like he didn't drop the plane off a runway. I mean KKC airport has a handful of flights per day, so no time pressure.

[balo]

I only fly Air Asia in Thailand. Good pilots and relatively new planes.

[lostinisaan]

The tower said: U- turn.......and that's what they're trying to do.....

Edited November 7, 2014 by lostinisaan

[arunsakda]

Tea ( no bikkies ) with the Chief Pilot.

[3SoiDogNight]

A330 for KK to Bangkok ?

Yep, which is one of many reasons I LOVE Thai Airways!

They use nice wide-bodies on short-haul flights. They're able to carry more passengers at a lower price. I log miles on my short-haul TG flights so I can get upgrades to Business Class and First Class flights on long-haul flights.

the A300 was used the longest on this route.

[Jay Sata]

A330 for KK to Bangkok ?

Yep, which is one of many reasons I LOVE Thai Airways!

They use nice wide-bodies on short-haul flights. They're able to carry more passengers at a lower price. I log miles on my short-haul TG flights so I can get upgrades to Business Class and First Class flights on long-haul flights.

the A300 was used the longest on this route.

I agree with you on Thai's superb domestic fleet. Despite flying short legs they offer passengers comfort not found else where.

I was cramped in a Dreamliner from Guangzhou to Bangkok last year wishing I was on a Thai Airbus.

[sandyf]

You must excuse those less knowledgeable, to the uninitiated it would appear to be a 5 minute job.

I used to tow aircraft and if the nosewheel is sunk in mud then you tend to have a bit of a problem. I was on Buccaneers which in comparison are quite small, when they got stuck they lifted them out with a crane. Even that was a bit tricky as the crane had be on a solid footing. No idea how they would deal with an Airbus in such a position. It certainly is not a matter of a rope round the tail and pulling.

I would doubt very much if the equipment required for such a task is available at KK airport.

I haven't checked the news on this since this morning. But early in the day, they were talking on the news about using some kind of inflatable balloons under the plane to lift it up and out.

I had imagined some arrangement with pontoons and jacks but inflatables is an interesting option.

Thanks for the post

[sandyf]

For those of you who have some misguided opinion the runway is short here is what it looks like from the air.You can see the Thai Airways lunchtime arrival on the runway has plenty of space left ahead and only ever uses half the available distance to stop and taxi to the terminal.

This is what we see on the approach with the golf club at the far end.Notice how large the turning area is.

Nice pics. At most airports the aircraft approach the runway via the 'peri' track which is obviously non existant at KK.

It would appear that KK was built with the smaller a/c in mind. I should imagine some modifications are already on the table.

[MrY]

It's doubtful they see any need for a parallel taxiway yet. Since it is mostly a domestic airport accepting short-haul flights with highly predictable arrival times, [in theory] they will just adjust arrivals and departures so that backtracking on the runway will not cause delays to other aircraft. It takes quite a few aircraft movements per day to arrive at that point. Then it still takes quite a few 'events' (diversions due to holding until low on fuel, departure delays for arriving aircraft, ramp congestion due to the delays, BKK departure holds due to KKC ramp delays, a few close calls for a good measure, etc.) before anyone will see the need for a taxiway. Once there's enough traffic to make delays, mishaps, negative publicity, and airline and passenger complains a constant issue, then they will start planning. When that translates into action is anyone's guess.

When I started flying to KKC in '95 it was already recognized the runway needed to be extended. Due to the short runway and a steep drop at the arrival end of runway 03 (still there, it seems) it was affectionately called USS King Kong (should have been HTMS, I guess) amongst us. I'd love to know what year did they finally extend the runway.

[arunsakda]

There is not much information in the article to justify all the vast speculations on this thread. One thing I wish to point out is that this is by NO MEANS a short runway! Although this is a small regional airport a 150x10,000 foot runway is very suitable for widebody operations. Perhaps a certain North American power laid it down a few years back for their F104s and B52's while they were in a life and death struggle with another "idea" known as Communism, I don't know.

Anyway I checked the limitations info for the A330. If the pilot attempted a 180 mid runway ( that is not clear at all in the article) without going to the turnout on the end he/she would have been operating with little margin for error. I fly 737's and on the 737-800 the minimum 180 distance is about 79 feet. That is a Boeing test limitation however proven under controlled conditions and requiring differential power and max differential braking. I wouldn't try it without a spotter.

Edited November 16, 2014 by arunsakda

[Baghdad]

This is old news and only come out now. Why?

[sandyf]

There is not much information in the article to justify all the vast speculations on this thread. One thing I wish to point out is that this is by NO MEANS a short runway! Although this is a small regional airport a 150x10,000 foot runway is very suitable for widebody operations. Perhaps a certain North American power laid it down a few years back for their F104s and B52's while they were in a life and death struggle with another "idea" known as Communism, I don't know.

Anyway I checked the limitations info for the A330. If the pilot attempted a 180 mid runway ( that is not clear at all in the article) without going to the turnout on the end he/she would have been operating with little margin for error. I fly 737's and on the 737-800 the minimum 180 distance is about 79 feet. That is a Boeing test limitation however proven under controlled conditions and requiring differential power and max differential braking. I wouldn't try it without a spotter.

Good post. Nice to see some facts.

[MrY]

There is not much information in the article to justify all the vast speculations on this thread. One thing I wish to point out is that this is by NO MEANS a short runway! Although this is a small regional airport a 150x10,000 foot runway is very suitable for widebody operations. Perhaps a certain North American power laid it down a few years back for their F104s and B52's while they were in a life and death struggle with another "idea" known as Communism, I don't know.

Anyway I checked the limitations info for the A330. If the pilot attempted a 180 mid runway ( that is not clear at all in the article) without going to the turnout on the end he/she would have been operating with little margin for error. I fly 737's and on the 737-800 the minimum 180 distance is about 79 feet. That is a Boeing test limitation however proven under controlled conditions and requiring differential power and max differential braking. I wouldn't try it without a spotter.

Good post. Nice to see some facts.

Eh,.. ...no. He has not read the thread through. It has been noted that the runway was short but has been extended in recent years. Also, [as he would know if he spent a minute on Google first] KKC it was not a USAF B52 base , so that's just more speculating. If he clicked on the BKK Post link, he'd seen the pictures, and wouldn't speculate on a mid-runway 180 degree turn as this was obviously not the case. Furthermore, the pavement width requirement for a Boeing 737-800 is for a normal turn under most conditions (not snow and ice obviously) and has been demonstrated for a "Slow continuous turning with minimum thrust on all engines. No differential braking." (The quote is verbatim from the Boeing 737 NG manual that he was quoting the 79 feet from. Same page even.) There is no requirement for differential thrust or braking to achieve a 79 foot turn, as he would be well aware had he ever taxied a 737. The 737 can actually turn a bit tighter than that (or so I read somewhere...)

[arunsakda]

Nobody cares how tight she turns in the AVSIM world cobber but I did not quote from the Boeing manual (never seen it) but from our mobs' FCOM. The notes therein state otherwise. Maybe the notes are wrong. I would not stake my job on it.

The rest of what you said is a total misrepresentation of what I posted.

- regards, arunsakda

(For those of you who are interested I can recommend a site called pprune.org where every aviation incident wordwide, no matter how minor, such as this KKC excursion, is commented on, in obsessive detail by professionals and wannabe's alike until the bloody cows come home.)

Edited November 19, 2014 by arunsakda

[harrry]

Nobody cares how tight she turns in the AVSIM world cobber but I did not quote from the Boeing manual (never seen it) but from our mobs' FCOM. The notes therein state otherwise. Maybe the notes are wrong. I would not stake my job on it.

The rest of what you said is a total misrepresentation of what I posted.

- regards, arunsakda

(For those of you who are interested I can recommend a site called pprune.org where every aviation incident wordwide, no matter how minor, such as this KKC excursion, is commented on, in obsessive detail by professionals and wannabe's alike until the bloody cows come home.)

I thought they were complaining too many people were moving to the site from here arunsakda.l

[harrry]

There is not much information in the article to justify all the vast speculations on this thread. One thing I wish to point out is that this is by NO MEANS a short runway! Although this is a small regional airport a 150x10,000 foot runway is very suitable for widebody operations. Perhaps a certain North American power laid it down a few years back for their F104s and B52's while they were in a life and death struggle with another "idea" known as Communism, I don't know.

Anyway I checked the limitations info for the A330. If the pilot attempted a 180 mid runway ( that is not clear at all in the article) without going to the turnout on the end he/she would have been operating with little margin for error. I fly 737's and on the 737-800 the minimum 180 distance is about 79 feet. That is a Boeing test limitation however proven under controlled conditions and requiring differential power and max differential braking. I wouldn't try it without a spotter.

It was used I think more by Air America and its like back in the days they were flying tins of biscuits into Laos, Light cargo aircraft mostly.

[MrY]

Nobody cares how tight she turns in the AVSIM world cobber but I did not quote from the Boeing manual (never seen it) but from our mobs' FCOM. The notes therein state otherwise. Maybe the notes are wrong. I would not stake my job on it.

The rest of what you said is a total misrepresentation of what I posted.

- regards, arunsakda

(For those of you who are interested I can recommend a site called pprune.org where every aviation incident wordwide, no matter how minor, such as this KKC excursion, is commented on, in obsessive detail by professionals and wannabe's alike until the bloody cows come home.)

AVSIM? I've been rated on the 737 since 1993. I guess that was an attempt at an insult. Yo mama so fat...

I was just quoting directly from Boeing [for your benefit] as I've never seen any manual mention your procedure, but mainly my reply was directed to the poster that thought your post was somehow factual or insightful.

And Have a Nice Day.

[MrY]

Nobody cares how tight she turns in the AVSIM world cobber but I did not quote from the Boeing manual (never seen it) but from our mobs' FCOM. The notes therein state otherwise. Maybe the notes are wrong. I would not stake my job on it.

The rest of what you said is a total misrepresentation of what I posted.

- regards, arunsakda

(For those of you who are interested I can recommend a site called pprune.org where every aviation incident wordwide, no matter how minor, such as this KKC excursion, is commented on, in obsessive detail by professionals and wannabe's alike until the bloody cows come home.)

...and I did go [as suggested] to www.pprune.org (that's Professional Pilots Rumour Network), which I'm a long time member of.

http://www.pprune.org/south-asia-far-east/550587-tg-stuck-mud.html

You should check it out ]t won't take much of your time as it is a whole 13 posts long and spans a whole two days from 4th to 6th of November. (Hint: On the 6th they hadn't even dug the plane out of mud yet....)

Here's the cheat sheet;

#1 - A link to Flight Global initial article. Short, factual, no insight.

#2 - Links to the same BKK Post article I recommended. Check it out. No need to read, it's got pictures...

#3 - Two pics from the same BKK Post article I... OK, you got the picture. A plane in mud. Plane and golfers.

#4 - Comment on rwy width. Some 'speculation' based on photos. Golfers 555.

#5 - Question on what "Khon Kaen’s single runway has no taxiways" in news might mean.

#6 - Comment contemplating if the cause might have been differential thrust. Comment on another similar event.

#7 - A non-pilot commenting on necessity of u-turns at such 'small' airports and the dangers thereof.

#8 - An A330/340 pilot saying the turn is easy and that "These guys either screwed up or there are other factors".

#9 - Wondering it a 70m turn is easy or not.

#10 - Quotes 46m turning width from A330 FCOM

#11 - Reply to #4. Golfers 555.

#12 - Yes, 70m turn is easy, harder at night. Thinks they didn't start the turn the correct, turned fast, went off. Looks like.

#13 - "Flew out of there last week, the runway condition where it went off is appalling."

So there. That is it. Wow. Just wow. Ming bottling.

Edit: Bold added.

Edited November 23, 2014 by Support