Releasing floating lanterns near Thai airports may be punishable by death

[JohnThailandJohn]

Obviously passenger safety is a high priority but this announcement only serves to create dis-information and the frankly stupid notion that a paper lantern which ways a few hundred grams could bring down a passenger airliner weighing several hundred tons.

Just remember that passenger engines are tested in the following ways before being certified safe for use;

1) have over 4.5 tons of water are sprayed into the engine in 1 minute

2) 3/4 of a ton a hail is sprayed into an engine in 1 minute

3) the infamous frozen chicken gun - A frozen chicken is fired into a engine

4) designed to withstand the worst of a lightening strike (if that is at all possible)

All these test need to be passed repeatedly over a test period which averages at least 2 years (probably more) before the engines are used.

As a previous poster mentioned birds are more dangerous than paper lanterns to aircraft.

While I don't disagree with the content of your engine testing information, I think you are missing the point.

To not regulate the release of floating, or other flying things, into the controlled airspace near airports, really does "fly" in the face of modern day common sense and aviation safety standards. Wouldn't you agree?

Remember the threats by the residents around Swampy, upset about aircraft noise? Think it was around 2007/08 or so.

Competently agree that flying things require regulation especially around an airport . I disagree with the idea that they are 'highly dangerous' to aircraft.

Terrified passengers were forced to flee an aircraft via its emergency slide after a bird was sucked into an engine, sparking a fire moments before the plane was due to take off.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-2721757/JetBlue-passengers-terror-bird-sucked-plane-s-engine-Puerto-Rico.html#ixzz3IAwopE4a

This Is What A Bird Strike Can Do To A Plane's Engine

http://www.businessinsider.com/this-is-what-a-bird-strike-can-do-to-a-planes-engine-2013-11#ixzz3IAx719Xa

How Birds Can Down a Jet Airplane

http://www.livescience.com/3239-birds-jet-airplane.html

Bird strike causes engine fire, plane to return to Sugar Land airport

http://www.click2houston.com/news/bird-strike-causes-engine-fire-plane-to-return-to-sugar-land-airport/25958388

Keep in mind too that not only big commercial passenger jets fly out of airports.

Edited November 5, 2014 by JohnThailandJohn

[JohnThailandJohn]

Violators may face execution or a life sentence or serve a lighter sentence of 5 to 10 years in prison, if damages done were not too severe. In addition, such offenders are also guilty of violating Section 232 of the Criminal Code and that alone carries a sentence of 6 to 7 years in prison and a fine up to 1,000 to 14,000 baht.

Seems VERY reasonable.

In the US if you point a laser and interfere with the operation of an aircraft, it is a felony punishable by up to 20 years in federal prison and a quarter of a million dollars fine. I imagine if it brought down the plane killing people then you would received a life sentence or possibly the death penalty.

Happens in your neck of the woods in Oakland often John?

What in the world are you ignorantly babbling about? Oakland?????

Edited November 5, 2014 by JohnThailandJohn

[JohnThailandJohn]

"According to Acting Provincial Police Chief Region 1 Pol. Maj. Gen. Amnuay Nimmano, such action is deemed very dangerous to the safety of aircraft and is a violation of the Act on Certain Offenses Against Air Navigation B.E. 2521 (1978)."

Soon to be former " Acting Provincial Police Chief Region 1" if he makes any more pronouncements like this.

Maybe he should be recognized for common sense and bringing this to the attention of people who clearly think it cannot pose a risk to launch things in the sky around an airport.

Never fly sky lanterns within 5 miles of an airport.

http://www.skylanterns.us/Sky-Lantern-Safety-and-Usage-s/83.htm

Sanya, the city in China where paper lanterns were first created, put a stop to lantern lighting, after flights at a nearby http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/19/sky-lanterns-raise-safety-issue-they-go-up-then-co/#ixzz3IB2ee0uw

Sky lanterns when released into the air, besides being a fire hazard, can pose a hazard to aircraft operating in the vicinity... For safety of air navigation, the release of sky lanterns into the air is not allowed within 5 kilometres of Seletar Airport or Changi Airport

http://www.caas.gov.sg/caas/en/Regulations/Airspace_Management/Air_Navigation_Hazard_x_Obstruction_Policies/Release_Sky_Lantern.html

In Great Britain the use of sky lanterns is not illegal, but notification requirements by the Civil Aviation Authority are set out in CAP 736, and endangering an aircraft is punishable with up to 2 years imprisonment and a £5,000 fine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_lantern#Legal_status

[Commerce]

Obviously passenger safety is a high priority but this announcement only serves to create dis-information and the frankly stupid notion that a paper lantern which ways a few hundred grams could bring down a passenger airliner weighing several hundred tons.

Just remember that passenger engines are tested in the following ways before being certified safe for use;

1) have over 4.5 tons of water are sprayed into the engine in 1 minute

2) 3/4 of a ton a hail is sprayed into an engine in 1 minute

3) the infamous frozen chicken gun - A frozen chicken is fired into a engine

4) designed to withstand the worst of a lightening strike (if that is at all possible)

All these test need to be passed repeatedly over a test period which averages at least 2 years (probably more) before the engines are used.

As a previous poster mentioned birds are more dangerous than paper lanterns to aircraft.

While I don't disagree with the content of your engine testing information, I think you are missing the point.

To not regulate the release of floating, or other flying things, into the controlled airspace near airports, really does "fly" in the face of modern day common sense and aviation safety standards. Wouldn't you agree?

Remember the threats by the residents around Swampy, upset about aircraft noise? Think it was around 2007/08 or so.

Competently agree that flying things require regulation especially around an airport . I disagree with the idea that they are 'highly dangerous' to aircraft.

Obviously, you didn't read page one before spouting off with your own opinion.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-12324047

[ginjag]

Ah PTP logic.. no planes have crashed so its safe to light laterns around airports. I guess you think driving drunk is ok too. I mean most of the time nothing happens so its ok.

I think its a sensible thing to put a stop to an unsafe practice, the punishment is overkill but could be seen as a deterrent. (i somehow doubt it would ever put in practice )

Go back to wherever you came killjoy. Leave our Thailand alone. Loykratong has had lanterns realeased surrounding the CM airport for 40 years. We aint going to change for nobody robblok or the police..

No one has suggested that the lanterns be banned, but it's where they are selfishly set off from.

I suggest you circle in an aircraft over the sites of lanterns to prove that they are not dangerous. are you suggesting flocks of birds are not dangerous ?? So when the first aircraft crashes because of this YOU will be the first one to clamp up/or go missing.

[sawati]

And bla bla bla!! And bla bla bla!!...Same O S.

[gbswales]

There is a lot of pressure in the UK to have these things banned altogether or at the very least apply the same restrictions as fireworks. There have been cases reported where these have caused fires and injured animals.

[Thai at Heart]

Sure, there's no denying that releasing floating lanterns near airports is dangerous, not to mention the environmental impact of these things.

But why release such a ridiculous statement about it being punishable by death?

What a ludicrous thing to say.

Why is it ludicrous?

If after the event, it was found that pieces of lantern wire got sucked into a few Airbus engines, bringing it down (although they can run on one engine, so it would take all engine failures, i.e. 4 catastrophic engine failures upon approach), would not everybody be screaming blue murder, and thehang 'em dry brigade would step in after the event? Prevention is better than cure, or in this case the potential of 500 deaths.

Death penalty might sound harsh... but if it the death penalty for causing 500 deaths, I'm sure you'd agree that is befitting... retrospectively, of course????

a freak accident should not be punished by death. Unless one person releases 100 ligths knowing a plane is coming even then what are thw chances the plane will crash.

This is not really a freak accident. People wouldn't be allowed to chuck buckets of water onto speeding cars, and then say it was a freak accident if it caused the driver to crash.

Maybe the police should propose that people sign each one so they can find out who did it. Maybe a barcode or an RFID chip in each one, or a DNA sample of every owner.

Oh woops. I forgot where we are that cause and effect works differently in Thailand. Not to worry, I am off to take the kids base jumping.

Edited November 5, 2014 by Thai at Heart

[Thai at Heart]

There is a lot of pressure in the UK to have these things banned altogether or at the very least apply the same restrictions as fireworks. There have been cases reported where these have caused fires and injured animals.

One serious fire and they will be banned.

[garyinhuahin]

Pre-emptive strike. Kill all the people near airports before they can release balloons. And get rid of those birds, too! Hazardous and messy.

[khunJeroen]

And I thought here in Singapore the law and punishment were severe.

Anyhow, think it makes sence.

[F4UCorsair]

self censored.

But well over the top.

Not if a large one is ingested by a jet engine!

[Thormaturge]

Very few lanterns ever reach a height that would be remotely dangerous to an aeroplane and even if an aeroplane did hit one I cannot imagine there would be any serious consequences. These are flimsy constructions with a candle for propulsion. Are we seriously expected to believe that a 747 can be brought down by a candle?

Come to think of it I am now concerned about flying at any time if that is the case.

Death penalty my rump.

[Jim walker]

And stabbing a foreign tourist fine going up to a dizzy 800 baht that will be the next reckless statement.

[Dogmatix]

All Burmese near Thai airports should ensure they have irrefutable alibis during Loy Kratong or they might find themselves on death row after a spell of water boarding sport.

[wileycoyote]

I suppose the problem is the scale.,thousands of lanterns will be launched on Loy Krathong

Edited November 5, 2014 by wileycoyote

[Commerce]

Very few lanterns ever reach a height that would be remotely dangerous to an aeroplane and even if an aeroplane did hit one I cannot imagine there would be any serious consequences. These are flimsy constructions with a candle for propulsion. Are we seriously expected to believe that a 747 can be brought down by a candle?

Come to think of it I am now concerned about flying at any time if that is the case.

Death penalty my rump.

Another poster who does not read previous content.

They are not flimsy at all; they are made with wire, which if it got into an engine would cause catastophic failure. In addition, they generally reach up to 3,000 ft, and pilots have reported them as high as 5,000 ft. If you think that could not interfere with a descent, then I suggest you understand that planes descend from 5,000 ft downwards through 3,000ft downards, and below, in order to reach the runway!

[Lupatria]

The cry's to chop of the heads of people for this and that are dangerously increasing here.

Unfortunately in most cases they ask for the wrong heads to be cut off and for the wrong reasons.

Am I right Khun Chalerm?

[DrTuner]

The hallmark of military governments everywhere, death sentences for farting in public. I was wondering how long it would take.

Edited November 5, 2014 by DrTuner

[Dogmatix]

This military junta illegal government are going too far now.

This military are not fit for purpose.

They would run a mile at any real conflict and only have a history of repressing their own people.

The next government should seriously look at replacing the lot of the military command.

If anyone has committed crimes punishable by death are the succession of high ranking military personnel.

Come now. They are good at modelling their nice tight green uniforms, medals and braid which look much better than the obese BiB. But if it came to a fire fight I would put my money on the battle hardened Burmese military in their baggy, poorly cut fatigues.

[moe666]

probably should be banned along the approach line as oppossed to around the airport.

[useronthenet]

I can hear it now on the aircraft tannoy system, "This is your Captain speaking, welcome to Thailand. We will be landing in 20 mins time. Those wishing to enjoy the festivities of Loy Krathong, are to be reminded that anyone caught releasing lanterns near the airport, is punishable by a swift death sentence..... we hope that you will enjoy your stay !"

Of course an alternative solution is that lanterns could be constructed entirely of wood, thus no risk to aircraft, as it would totally burn up if they got sucked into the engine.

Statistically speaking, you have a greater chance of being hit by a bird which can cause problems to an aircraft than a lantern.

[loumaripol]

Its going quite far of course.. however I feel that floating lanterns near an airport is a real dangerous thing. If an airplane crashes because of one many lives are lost. Making a threat with a big stick might prevent this from happening.

The lanterns are not capable of brining down a turbine or turbo prop aircraft. They are flimsy and even engine ingestion is unlikely to result in damage. They are a hazard to navigation in large numbers. Pilots would, I am sure, much prefer that they are kept from departure and approach paths. In the 8 years we have lived here I can no trecall a reported incident.

Drack the impaler might agree with the proposed sanctions. I can not.

[Commerce]

The hallmark of military governments everywhere, death sentences for farting in public. I was wondering how long it would take.

Dunno about in public, but on a plane yes in a confined space - for sure, and that's also a cert fire hazard also, judging by some of the stinkers I've had next to me.

[gemini81]

Its going quite far of course.. however I feel that floating lanterns near an airport is a real dangerous thing. If an airplane crashes because of one many lives are lost. Making a threat with a big stick might prevent this from happening.

Actually, its going quite farce.

Imagine you were out of range but heavy winds pushed it along course, and...... They aren't thinking things through.

[loumaripol]

Very few lanterns ever reach a height that would be remotely dangerous to an aeroplane and even if an aeroplane did hit one I cannot imagine there would be any serious consequences. These are flimsy constructions with a candle for propulsion. Are we seriously expected to believe that a 747 can be brought down by a candle?

Come to think of it I am now concerned about flying at any time if that is the case.

Death penalty my rump.

Another poster who does not read previous content.

They are not flimsy at all; they are made with wire, which if it got into an engine would cause catastophic failure. In addition, they generally reach up to 3,000 ft, and pilots have reported them as high as 5,000 ft. If you think that could not interfere with a descent, then I suggest you understand that planes descend from 5,000 ft downwards through 3,000ft downards, and below, in order to reach the runway!

Ingestion of thin wire might cause damage. Improbable though. Worst case: engine shutdown on climb out or approach. Not good but little chance of a major problem. Engines are tested for foreign object impact with a large frozen turkey. The fan blades would cut the wire, the hot section melt the residue. Bird strikes are worse but not catastophic. If you are flying tomorrow evening relax.

[brain150]

Insanity as the new normal ...

[sitti]

If one day an airliner goes down and kill every passenger onboard, I think everybody's opinions will change whether punishment is too harsh or not.

[Commerce]

If one day an airliner goes down and kill every passenger onboard, I think everybody's opinions will change whether punishment is too harsh or not.

c.f. post #29

Edited November 5, 2014 by Commerce

[Fat Haggis]

The chances of a catastrophic failure in a single jet engines caused by paper are quite remote and that chances of 3-5 engines ingesting these lanterns are probably about a billion to one but that's not to say it can't happen.

Today's hi tec aircraft have so many inbuilt safety features that shutting down a single engine most passengers would probably never even notice it.

However I do believe that they are a risk of sorts , but the importance of these festival and the history there is no reason to have a time allocated for their release and flights delayed for landing during those times.