Nok Air plane nearly hits hospital building

[webfact]

Nok Air plane nearly hits hospital building

BANGKOK: -- A Nok Air plane from Don Mueang airport nearly hit an under construction hospital building while it made a landing amid heavy smog at Mae Sot airport yesterday.

The plane on its Flight DD 8126 took off from Don Mueang at 4.10 pm for Mae Sot with scheduled landing at 5.20 pm.

But as the plane arrived, and was about to descend after the landing gear was released, the pilot noticed that the plane was missing the runway and was on the direction of the building.

He managed to ascend the plane to avoid hitting the building, causing passengers on board to go panic.

He circled his plane for 15 minutes before making a safe landing amid the relief of all frightened passengers.

A villager near the airport said he saw the plane descending as if it was about to land though the runway is still over a hundred metres away.

But the plane ascended immediately until it disappeared into the heavy smog and later returned again and landed safely, he said.

He said the smog from farm burning a few days earlier had obstructed the visibility of the runway.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/content/150530


-- Thai PBS 2016-02-11

[ratcatcher]

Well done the pilot, but I suppose if you are going to be in a crashing plane, best to hit a hospital.

[Melyn]

I'm sure the runways are not equipped with the equipment required for an unsighted landing which begs the question.......

[NeverSure]

Of course the runways and planes have instrument landing equipment. They couldn't operate year around if they didn't. That doesn't mean the pilots were paying any attention or had a clue what they were doing. Obviously he was way off the glideslope and out of sync with the ILS (instrument landing system) but...

If the plane was working properly he would have had alarms going off such as the Ground Proximity Warning System (GPWS).

"In the late 1960s, a series of controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) accidents took the lives of hundreds of people. A CFIT accident is one where a properly functioning airplane under the control of a fully qualified and certified crew is flown into terrain, water or obstacles with no apparent awareness on the part of the crew.

Beginning in the early 1970s, a number of studies examined the occurrence of CFIT accidents. Findings from these studies indicated that many such accidents could have been avoided if a warning device called a ground proximity warning system (GPWS) had been used."

Cheers.

Edited February 11, 2016 by NeverSure

[thesetat2013]

This is just another notch in Thai aviation safety. This could have and should have been avoided. Visual confirmation is always a good thing to have but, without it, they should have been redirected. Also, wasn't the tower supposed to be watching that would have immediately showed was off course or too low for the runway? I am no aviation expert but have seen enough to know the pilot and the tower were in error here. Luckily, the pilot kept his wits and escaped crashing. But this story could have taken a turn for the worst and in turn, many dead. They should investigate this thoroughly

[NongKhaiKid]

The pilot NOTICED the plane was missing the runway ...

Has a very casual sound to it.

[scorecard]

The pilot NOTICED the plane was missing the runway ...

Has a very casual sound to it.

This is the same airline that recently scored 2/7 on a safety check.

[trainman34014]

Sounds morbid i know but perhaps if there had been a disaster the Authorities would have been forced into doing more about the smog problem from unnecessary burning. All they do at the moment is talk.

[NeverSure]

Yes, the tower would receive a warning if the plane was below the glideslope, which it was.

There is a small tower at the end of the runway that has two transmitters on it, each transmitting on a different frequency. They are highly directional signals and pointing up at an angle of about 3 degrees, one a bit higher than the other. As a plane approaches the airport it will intercept these glideslope signals and the indicator on the instrument panel will show that. As the plane approaches while flying level, the instrument will show that it is below the glideslope. If it goes through the glideslope flying level the instrument will read as above the glideslope. The pilot's job is to intercept that glideslope and then "fly the plane down that glideslope" to the touchdown point on the runway. As the plane begins to intercept the glideslope the needle begins to center, where it must stay.

Both the Tower and the pilots have visual reference to instruments, the tower has an audible warning and the pilots as a last case have the GPWS which is audible.

Here's a graphic that might help. It's what the pilots see. The one that's centered is right on and the other two correspond to being high and low as where they are placed in the graphic.

Edited February 11, 2016 by NeverSure

[canopus1969]

Of course the runways and planes have instrument landing equipment. They couldn't operate year around if they didn't. That doesn't mean the pilots were paying any attention or had a clue what they were doing. Obviously he was way off the glideslope and out of sync with the ILS (instrument landing system) but...

If the plane was working properly he would have had alarms going off such as the Ground Proximity Warning System (GPWS).

"In the late 1960s, a series of controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) accidents took the lives of hundreds of people. A CFIT accident is one where a properly functioning airplane under the control of a fully qualified and certified crew is flown into terrain, water or obstacles with no apparent awareness on the part of the crew.

Beginning in the early 1970s, a number of studies examined the occurrence of CFIT accidents. Findings from these studies indicated that many such accidents could have been avoided if a warning device called a ground proximity warning system (GPWS) had been used."

Cheers.

Who said they have ILS ?

[thesetat2013]

Yes, the tower would receive a warning if the plane was below the glideslope, which it was.

There is a small tower at the end of the runway that has two transmitters on it, each transmitting on a different frequency. They are highly directional signals and pointing up at an angle of about 3 degrees, one a bit higher than the other. As a plane approaches the airport it will intercept these glideslope signals and the indicator on the instrument panel will show that. As the plane approaches while flying level, the instrument will show that it is below the glideslope. If it goes through the glideslope flying level the instrument will read as above the glideslope. The pilot's job is to intercept that glideslope and then "fly the plane down that glideslope" to the touchdown point on the runway. As the plane begins to intercept the glideslope the needle begins to center, where it must stay.

Both the Tower and the pilots have visual reference to instruments, the tower has an audible warning and the pilots as a last case have the GPWS which is audible.

Here's a graphic that might help. It's what the pilots see. The one that's centered is right on and the other two correspond to being high and low as where they are placed in the graphic.

gs-1.jpg

So quite obvious they are blaming weather conditions whereas they should be blaming themselves AND the tower for this near disaster!

[Tywais]

@Neversure - It would appear that that Mae Sot airport does not have glide slope indicators by looking at the Google Earth of the runway. Nothing on either end of the runway. That is a very small airport. Also, the only beacons shown are DVOR-DME and no ILS shows in the tables. Also this site shows the same but with the inclusion of NDB (non directional beacons) so appears it is a VFR only field (World Aero Data). As for ground proximity detection, the aircraft is a Bombardier Q400 turbo prop and appears to support EPGWS (Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System).

In other words, that airport appears to have very limited instrumentation support.

[NeverSure]

^^^ My apologies. I've never heard of an airline being allowed to make scheduled flights under visual flight rules (VFR).

So at a minimum he was flying with visibility below what was legal for VFR, and didn't have or ignored the GPWS built into the plane.

I must learn to expect such "surprises" from Thailand. A scheduled airline flying VFR???

Cheers.

[chainarong]

Well done the pilot, but I suppose if you are going to be in a crashing plane, best to hit a hospital.

possibly the best location would be a cemetery

[Chicog]

^^^ My apologies. I've never heard of an airline being allowed to make scheduled flights under visual flight rules (VFR).

So at a minimum he was flying with visibility below what was legal for VFR, and didn't have or ignored the GPWS built into the plane.

I must learn to expect such "surprises" from Thailand. A scheduled airline flying VFR???

Cheers.

I supposed this would explain why pretty well every year during burning season they close at least one provincial airport due to lack of visibility.

I wouldn't be surprised if they close this one.

Correction: I woudn't have been surprised, but this is Thailand.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Chicog

[thesetat2013]

@Neversure - It would appear that that Mae Sot airport does not have glide slope indicators by looking at the Google Earth of the runway. Nothing on either end of the runway. That is a very small airport. Also, the only beacons shown are DVOR-DME and no ILS shows in the tables. Also this site shows the same but with the inclusion of NDB (non directional beacons) so appears it is a VFR only field (World Aero Data). As for ground proximity detection, the aircraft is a Bombardier Q400 turbo prop and appears to support EPGWS (Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System).

In other words, that airport appears to have very limited instrumentation support.

Capture.JPG

But! Didn't this airport just rate itself as one of, if not THE best airports in the world? Why would they lay claim to this if the failed to have what to me would be standardized flight safety equipment.

[Gsxrnz]

I work on the assumption that the Air Traffic Controllers in Thailand are as professional as the Royal Thai Police, The Justice System, The immigration Department, The Bus Companies, the Railways Department etc. etc.

I mean really, why should we assume the ATC people are any better? Or the pilots come to that.

So I never fly on a Thai air company. I always fly Emirates and whenever entering or leaving Thai air space, I'm shitting bricks, re-reading the safety card, and timing my run to the closest exit.

In most other countries I sleep through the landings and take-offs.

[canopus1969]

^^^ My apologies. I've never heard of an airline being allowed to make scheduled flights under visual flight rules (VFR).

So at a minimum he was flying with visibility below what was legal for VFR, and didn't have or ignored the GPWS built into the plane.

I must learn to expect such "surprises" from Thailand. A scheduled airline flying VFR???

Cheers.

Yes not just in Thailand

[cloudhopper]

^^^ My apologies. I've never heard of an airline being allowed to make scheduled flights under visual flight rules (VFR).

So at a minimum he was flying with visibility below what was legal for VFR, and didn't have or ignored the GPWS built into the plane.

I must learn to expect such "surprises" from Thailand. A scheduled airline flying VFR???

Cheers.[/quoste]

Many small airports have instrument approaches that do not use ILS. Approaches using VOR or NDB (and nowadays GPS) just have higher minimum altitudes to visually contact the runway. I suspect the pilot took this approach a bit lower than allowed...

[Tywais]

Many small airports have instrument approaches that do not use ILS. Approaches using VOR or NDB (and nowadays GPS) just have higher minimum altitudes to visually contact the runway. I suspect the pilot took this approach a bit lower than allowed...

Yep, they are referred to as non-precision approaches.

[VIPinthailand]

Navy pilot here...

Thai pilots as far as I know don't descend to minimum, they descent until the see something. then they'll do whatever they want... land, go around , or crash.

usually pilot should start their watch from the outer marker which is 5 to 8 Miles from the airport, that give them an estimated time to execute a go around in case no runway in sight. going below minimum descend altitude with no runway in sight is a crime punishable by ICAO.

always consider that the ILS could fail during the approach and all you have left are your watch and your compass.

worked for me for years.

Edited February 11, 2016 by VIPinthailand

[bark]

Ok guys relax and calm down. No one died. Chill out.

The problem as I see it is that they are burning the farms; a few hundred meters from the airport.

[prakhonchai nick]

Flying with Nok next week. Are these grounds to cancel and get money back?

[isanbirder]

I wonder how many of you have actually landed at Mae Sot?

I have.

The airfield is small, with a short runway which can only accommodate small planes (I don't know what the one I was in was). Even then, the pilot has to jam on all the brakes as you land, and you judder to a stop.

Instrumentation? I doubt whether there is much.

Note that this happened "in thick fog".

[Chicog]

I wonder how many of you have actually landed at Mae Sot?

I have.

The airfield is small, with a short runway which can only accommodate small planes (I don't know what the one I was in was). Even then, the pilot has to jam on all the brakes as you land, and you judder to a stop.

Instrumentation? I doubt whether there is much.

Note that this happened "in thick fog".

I thought it was thick smog?

[gandalf12]

Maybe TAT will advertise Adventure Flights or "Find the missing runway". Lucky no one was hurt. Definitely not an airline I will ever be flying. Pilot will probably get a bonus for realizing someone had stolen the runway

[Emster23]

Anthony Burgess once advised "Never fly an airline with pilots who believe in reincarnation"

[SABloke]

Wouldn't be surprised if it was found that the hospital was closer to the airport and/or taller than is permitted by the law.

[Jip99]

Flying with Nok next week. Are these grounds to cancel and get money back?

Fortunately you are not flying to Mae Sot!

[tukkytuktuk]

Video from channel 3 this morning of the incident.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=gAjxe82NHNs