Releasing floating lanterns near Thai airports may be punishable by death

[jabis]

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.

The one US Airways 747 airliner that landed in Hudson river, ca. ~2009, prooves the occurrances (with birds) can be catastrophic - luckily an amazing captain on that flight, that managed a water landing with that sized airliner, thus no fatalities. Investigative result: Both engines failed amidst takeoff, when hit by a flock of geese. Further note about the case: none of the people that simulated the same conditions managed to get the plane on any of the nearby airfields in the given timeframe, with or without the emergency checklist, so 0 tally on lives was all the mastery of the captain's actions.

Now regarding the lanterns, or any other flying debris objects, themselves - you really don't want that burning crap into the engines, no matter how big or small the objects are. There are even some military fighters (Mainfly F-16's and F-18's) out there which won't even take off if the respective runway isn't properly cleaned up by a maintenance crew - the same technology safeguards (if not stricter) are in place in that tech also. The term is FOD-damage (Foreign Object Debris, for the non-googler ones), and it costs the aerospace industry billions of dollars per year.

Here a couple of example pricetags;

- $25,000: a set of fanblades for a MD-11 ( they're the ones that get to chew the metal debris and keep the bird up in the sky )

- $500,000 up to $1,600,000: overhaul of the aforementioned MD-11 engine for FOD-damage.

(above numbers are courtesy of Boeing Foreign Object Debris and Damage Prevention report)

[japsportscarmad]

Has any jet been brought down by a floating lantern? They objected last year to them on the grounds of a fire risk.

Edited November 5, 2014 by japsportscarmad

[hawker9000]

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.

If an airline goes down because of a floating paper lantern, I think the blame needs to lie with the airline manufacturer, not the lantern flyer. But what do I know, I'm just a trained engineer.

This story really sounds like the government is about to catch someone they want silenced in the coming days under the cover of "national security".

One engineer to another, that's an incredibly ignorant comment for someone who claims to be a "trained engineer". Obviously the "training" isn't in aircraft powerplants!

[japsportscarmad]

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.

Have to raise the BS pennant on that: "ingestion is unlikely to result in damage". A small screw or bolt or washer sucked up into a turbine engine is certainly enough to damage them, and the damage can be, but is not necessarily always, catastrophic. Carrier crews do walkdowns (flight deck crew line up literally shoulder to shoulder and walk the length of the flight deck, heads down, looking for & collecting any and every "foreign object" they find) before every flight ops cycle, day & night. It actually takes incredibly little to damage a turbine engine if sucked up into one while it's running, and yes, it's happened to me. I've seen plenty but haven't handled one of these lanterns and am not too familiar with their construction, but if there's any wire or metal involved, they're definitely a FOD hazard. Even wood. Even a candle. The blading in the engines is manufactured and installed to very tight specs, and very intolerant of any impact damage. Spinning at very high speed it's not impossible for most any solid object sucked up in the intake (the suction is more powerful than some realize) to knock one loose, and if that happens, it sails back through the remaining compressor stages, and then into the turbine stages, knocking off other blades & stuff as it goes. With blades knocked off, the spinning rotors immediately become unbalanced and, well, it's like knocking one blade off of a propeller while it's running...

Not saying every encounter's going to result in a crash or explosion or engine fire or something catastrophic. The degree of damage is rather unpredictable, and can range from the unnoticed to loss of power to an overheat condition to complete engine failure or fire to an explosion. I'd compare it to bird strikes (like the ones that silenced Sullenberger's engines causing him to have to ditch in the Hudson - he lost power in both engines). In my case I just got a Fire light and had to shutdown one engine and land. The engine was pulled & replaced.

Wow actually someone who actually knows something about the topic, and isn't just full of BS.

[japsportscarmad]

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.

Just curious, & not saying it isn't dangerous, but how does a laser affect an aircraft?

They need to be quiet strong but if they are they can blind the pilot albeit temporarily, possibly more difficult with a commercial as the pilot sits at the top so doesn't see the ground unless the lasers on a hill higher than the plane but is a big problem with helicopters in the UK at the moment, particularly with the Police as in a helicopter even temporarily blinding the pilot can be very bad due to how low helicopters fly (airspace to recover) and how they are controlled with the delicate pilot input required to fly them, compared to a fixed wing.

In the UK there's a limit to laser strength that can be bought ( laser pens, pointers etc) but you can buy pretty much what you want on eBay.

[JAG]

Just how many aircraft have crashed during the large number of years that Loy Krathong and air travel have co existed? What is the problem with doing exactly as has happened in the last few years like rescheduling flights etc? Could it be that with the junta in control, the various airlines have decided to chance their arm and are lobbying furiously so that we now end up with these knee jerk reactions?

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 )

Good grief! Can you not discuss anything on this forum without trying to tie it back to a political party you hate? Pathetic.

Look here, dont be so negative. The paper on these lanterns may well be coloured red, releasing them is well known to be a favoured pastime of the ill educated and evil intentioned " bubulus amee" inhabitants of the Northern and North Eastern reaches of The kingdom, they may even be thinking of their favourite politician, Darling of Isaan, at the very moment they release them! We should take no chances - ban, death penalty, aargh..... (reaches for whisky bottle, the one with the reassuring yellow label).

PS:Bubulus Amee - Admit it, you googled it!

Edited November 5, 2014 by JAG

[pasak]

Release a floating lantern and you may be executed but feel free to rape and murder tourists, especially if you are poo yai.

[hawker9000]

The death penalty thing is over the top. But around airports the lanterns would constitute a hazard. I've read they've been known to start fires, too. So someone's just trying to inject a little safety into the traditional practice, and got carried away. Pretty obviously no one's actually going to be executed, so the steam-letting hereabouts probably really isn't necessary.

[JohnThailandJohn]

Regardless of anyone's opinion on this, does it not seem absurd they would use this timing on the matter? After all, the sellers have by now likely sold massive amounts of these already. That might be good for the sellers but how about the buyers? Nobody care that they've spent their money already? And, of course the sellers also have spent on stock they now won't be able to sell. I mean, this is the day before it begins for crying out loud! Is one legally required to be up on the news? If so, what would be sufficient, reading the newspapers, checking it out on t.v., or going to a fortune teller? Is whoever thought this up an

infant or an elder with Alzheimers?

So you think it is too late for people because by having a lantern it means you must release it near an airport?

[MJP]

The death penalty thing is over the top. But around airports the lanterns would constitute a hazard. I've read they've been known to start fires, too. So someone's just trying to inject a little safety into the traditional practice, and got carried away. Pretty obviously no one's actually going to be executed, so the steam-letting hereabouts probably really isn't necessary.

Think these things are banned in the UK now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-23123549

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-23150245

[jabis]

The death penalty thing is over the top. But around airports the lanterns would constitute a hazard. I've read they've been known to start fires, too. So someone's just trying to inject a little safety into the traditional practice, and got carried away. Pretty obviously no one's actually going to be executed, so the steam-letting hereabouts probably really isn't necessary.

Think these things are banned in the UK now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-23123549

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-23150245

Also banned in Washington DC area, since 1892, with a hefty penalty of US$10 each released 'fire balloon' Inflation calculation on that fine would bring it to be ~$263 in todays money, so it would've been a harsh punishment back in the day

[japsportscarmad]

The death penalty thing is over the top. But around airports the lanterns would constitute a hazard. I've read they've been known to start fires, too. So someone's just trying to inject a little safety into the traditional practice, and got carried away. Pretty obviously no one's actually going to be executed, so the steam-letting hereabouts probably really isn't necessary.

Think these things are banned in the UK now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-23123549

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-engljand-birmingham-23150245

Funny enough I saw a pack of 6 for sale in a shop today in London, and they were Red.

[MJP]

The death penalty thing is over the top. But around airports the lanterns would constitute a hazard. I've read they've been known to start fires, too. So someone's just trying to inject a little safety into the traditional practice, and got carried away. Pretty obviously no one's actually going to be executed, so the steam-letting hereabouts probably really isn't necessary.

Think these things are banned in the UK now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-23123549

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-engljand-birmingham-23150245

Funny enough I saw a pack of 6 for sale in a shop today in London, and they were Red.

LOL!

[F4UCorsair]

Does anybody think that a paper lantern weighing just a few ounces at most poses a serious threat threat to a modern aircraft weighing several tons whose engines are specifically designed to withstand strikes from large birds? The pointing of laser beams is another matter and should be rigorously stamped out.

Prior to 24th June 1982, did anybody think that flying through a bit of volcanic ash/dust might cause all four engines to fail on a B747-200, Flight BA9 with Captain Eric Moody in control? Nah, not a concern. That is a sequence that is now practised in simulators, so the layman may see that regular checking is more than necessary; it is imperative. The workload on the flight deck after all engines have failed, flying the aircraft, clearing the cloud, advising air traffic control, briefing the cabin crew to prepare for an emergency landing/crash, along with trying to restart engines, often against the odds, is enormous.

Engines are not 'specifically designed to withstand strikes from large birds'. One of the tests conducted is throwing frozen chickens into an engine, and noting the level of destruction, and whether it may, or may not, continue, operation. It's not necessarily that ingesting something will cause the engine to fail, but that the internal damage may require a precautionary engine shutdown before further damage occurs, and at a critical stage of flight, i.e., takeoff, with rising terrain a factor, that can create a very difficult (at best) situation. Airlines have 'escape manoeuvres' (English spelling) for those situations, but once again, the aircraft must be flown very accurately at some of those airports, and those sequences are practised in a simulator under exam conditions.

I've seen an A300 engine that ingested a single small wading bird (only one seen by the crew) on climb out of Coolangatta in Australia about 20 years ago, and the engine was destroyed. The vibration was so bad that it had to be shut down lest it tear itself off the wing. I may even be able to find pics I took at the time, and if so, I'll post them (if my computer skills permit).

Something as 'simple' as an expired medical, particularly if it is out of sequence with the regulatory flying testing, is not an issue except from an insurance point of view, and that's serious enough in itself The pilot's proficiency is not affected by not having his medical on the due date, but it is a regulatory requirement, and he is flying illegally as a consequence.

Another good example of simulator training is Jet Upset Training. Many years ago a Boeing 737 taking off in the US experienced a steep nose up pitch that couldn't be controlled. The crew didn't realize it at the time, but it was due to mountain wave activity (google that) and with the Captain flying, he tried to force the nose down, but it was precariously close to a stall, losing control and crashing. The Copilot, took over and kicked in full rudder, an action that would have seemed catastrophic at low level, but with the wings vertical, the nose dropped, the aircraft accelerated, and he flew it out of the predicament. Only an experienced aerobatics pilot would have thought to do that (aerobatic training isn't a part of normal airline operations!!), and the Copilot flew his own aerobatic aircraft on days off. That sequence, among others where the flight regime is not consistent with attitude and power settings, are now regularly practised in simulators, so regular checking is very necessary. A 'rudder hard over', caused by a design fault but now hopefully designed out, is another sequence that is practised because crashes have occurred as a result.

On a Boeing 737 there has never been a total hydraulic failure, i.e., all systems failed including the standby, but that sequence is practised, largely because it can happen. Because it hasn't doesn't mean it can't.

Once again, holding a licence to fly a 400+ tonne aircraft is not even similar to holding a licence to operate a fork lift.

Edited November 5, 2014 by F4UCorsair

[hawker9000]

The death penalty thing is over the top. But around airports the lanterns would constitute a hazard. I've read they've been known to start fires, too. So someone's just trying to inject a little safety into the traditional practice, and got carried away. Pretty obviously no one's actually going to be executed, so the steam-letting hereabouts probably really isn't necessary.

Think these things are banned in the UK now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-23123549

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-23150245

Also banned in Washington DC area, since 1892, with a hefty penalty of US$10 each released 'fire balloon' Inflation calculation on that fine would bring it to be ~$263 in todays money, so it would've been a harsh punishment back in the day

I'd be amazed if there weren't currently prohibitions (with bigger teeth) on these things in the U.S., too, esp. since 9-11, and esp. around airports or airport flight paths.

Incidentally, WRT #181, Capt. Sullenberger was flying an A320, not a 747, when he ditched in the Hudson in 2009. The bird strike disabled both engines, and some passengers reported seeing the left engine actually on fire. Turbine engines are definitely NOT designed to withstand foreign object damage. That's ANY foreign object damage, and that means ANY foreign objects. Such a design would be nearly impossible. Turbine engines depend on high-volume airflow to the compressor section, and high rotational speeds and high temperatures WRT the moving parts (which are many) within the guts of the engine. Any debris caught up in that airflow is going to cause problems (including for the debris, if it happens to be a human...). They ARE designed to give the pilot as much time as possible to react to an emergency condition and take immediate action to minimize too uncontrollable a progression to a catastrophic event, like disintegration of the engine or explosion. You wouldn't believe how fast a military pilot can shutdown his engines on deck if he gets a frantic cut signal...

Edited November 5, 2014 by hawker9000

[Strangebrew]

So then the meteorologists Can get death when checking weather Don't sound like a career type job.

[jabis]

The death penalty thing is over the top. But around airports the lanterns would constitute a hazard. I've read they've been known to start fires, too. So someone's just trying to inject a little safety into the traditional practice, and got carried away. Pretty obviously no one's actually going to be executed, so the steam-letting hereabouts probably really isn't necessary.

Think these things are banned in the UK now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-23123549

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-23150245

Also banned in Washington DC area, since 1892, with a hefty penalty of US$10 each released 'fire balloon' Inflation calculation on that fine would bring it to be ~$263 in todays money, so it would've been a harsh punishment back in the day

I'd be amazed if there weren't currently prohibitions (with bigger teeth) on these things in the U.S., too, esp. since 9-11, and esp. around airports or airport flight paths.

Incidentally, WRT #181, Capt. Sullenberger was flying an A320, not a 747, when he ditched in the Hudson in 2009. The bird strike disabled both engines, and some passengers reported seeing the left engine actually on fire. Turbine engines are definitely NOT designed to withstand foreign object damage. That's ANY foreign object damage, and that means ANY foreign objects. Such a design would be nearly impossible. Turbine engines depend on high-volume airflow to the compressor section, and high rotational speeds and high temperatures WRT the moving parts (which are many) within the guts of the engine. Any debris caught up in that airflow is going to cause problems (including for the debris, if it happens to be a human...). They ARE designed to give the pilot as much time as possible to react to an emergency condition and take immediate action to minimize too uncontrollable a progression to a catastrophic event, like disintegration of the engine or explosion. You wouldn't believe how fast a military pilot can shutdown his engines on deck if he gets a frantic cut signal...

Ah - my bad checking the type - just refreshed my memory by googling downed in hudson and the first video was named "Boeing 747 Emergency Landing Hudson River". Were it the case 747 was flown, then it would've had two more engines to keep the jet up in the sky, so in retrospect too bad it wasn't a 747 variant. Anyways thanks for pointing it out

As per the fire balloons aka sky lanterns, what I've read so far, is that they're banned in at least a dozen of states per fire regulation codes, or municipality/city regulations, and everywhere tightening. In many states they are considered high altitude fireworks, and where they're legally sold they're adviced to be tethered. Also a lot of country wide bans around the globe, as well as the birthplace of the chinese lantern (), the city of Sanya in mainland China, has banned them. Reasons for most bans are both a fire hazard, and obstructing air traffic, so it is safe to say they are considered a risk.

[catweazle]

I think the death threat in the headline shows clearly that this country is tumbling towards insanity.

[hawker9000]

I think the death threat in the headline shows clearly that this country is tumbling towards insanity.

Nah. Just the usual thai hyperspeak (the sheer silliness of which I've never been able to reconcile with their concept of "face").

[GentlemanJim]

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.

Furthermore, those violators from a wealthy family, whose actions result in the downing of an aircraft with the loss of life of all onboard will face a telling off and a 22 baht fine.

Execution for launching a lantern, but a policeman who kills half a family in cold blood and is found guilty is allowed out on appeal (and absconds), A politicians son who shoots a policeman in the head in view of eye witnesses is never charged and given a job as a small arms instructor in the same organization, and a drunk drugged Ferrari driving retard who mows down a policeman and tries to blame the family driver is allowed a one year stay in Singapore to get rid of a cold because he cant fly back while 'sick'. Amazing Thailand.

Edited November 6, 2014 by GentlemanJim

[F4UCorsair]

Has any jet been brought down by a floating lantern? They objected last year to them on the grounds of a fire risk.

Not to my knowledge, but good risk management dictates that the circumstances that can lead to such an event aren't permitted to occur.

Edited November 6, 2014 by F4UCorsair

[harrry]

My brother's house caught fire 3 years ago on ok pansaa due to lanterns.

Death is a bit severe.

If he and 400 other people had been locked inside while it burned what would you have said?

[fantom]

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.

Just curious, & not saying it isn't dangerous, but how does a laser affect an aircraft?

Laser does not affect the plane directly, it affects the pilots by ruining vision at critical points of flight particularly at night.

Pointing lasers at the cockpit of an aircraft is a stupid and dangerous thing to do, I have experienced it and it is most unpleasant and frightening

If you are interested look it up and the penalties

[h90]

Do they only execute the father who, or also the children and the mother who helped releasing the floating lanterns?

[h90]

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.

Well the turbines get tested by throwing in a full size big duck at full speed of the turbine. And an airplane should be able to handle a problem at one turbine.

I doubt that such a light lantern can cause a serious problem.

Of course it shouldn't be done near the airport but the penalty (execute only the father or also the children who helped?) is way off. a 5000 Baht fee would be OK.

[Thormaturge]

Just trying to think of a "return address " I can put on a few lanterns before releasing them near Dom Mueang tonight.

[A1Str8]

I am sure there will be some idiots, who are going to do it nonetheless.

[mojorison]

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.

Just curious, & not saying it isn't dangerous, but how does a laser affect an aircraft?

Laser does not affect the plane directly, it affects the pilots by ruining vision at critical points of flight particularly at night.

Pointing lasers at the cockpit of an aircraft is a stupid and dangerous thing to do, I have experienced it and it is most unpleasant and frightening

If you are interested look it up and the penalties

Yeah, and also the similarity to laser sights used on guns. It is threatening for sure. Hundreds of balloons go up at Hadrin beach, which is right on the flight path to BKK, and because of KPG closeness to Samui, the altitude is very low also... the planes are coming over at about 1800 feet. That to me suggests a real risk... but it's been going on for years and no one has done anything, probably have not even considered it... being Thailand. I think the humour with this announcement is the completely over the top threat of lethal injection.

[fab4]

My brother's house caught fire 3 years ago on ok pansaa due to lanterns.

Death is a bit severe.

If he and 400 other people had been locked inside while it burned what would you have said?

He's got a big house?............................

[harrry]

My brother's house caught fire 3 years ago on ok pansaa due to lanterns.

Death is a bit severe.

If he and 400 other people had been locked inside while it burned what would you have said?

He's got a big house?............................

He hasn't any more has he. Just like the 400 in the airliner don't have an airplane.