Thai Airways Blamed For Near-miss Incident

[Diablo Bob]

As a fairly restricted vocabulary is needed for communications in these circumstances I would have thought that fluency in English is not necessarily required?

In normal circumstances you are correct, but in emergency situations (system malfunctions etc.)where the description of the problem becomes complex, fluency or near fluency would be required. Describing a problem as "It's <deleted> BROKE" doesn't give ATC much to go on........".

[JimGant]

Airline spokesman Chang You-peng said the plane was told by flight controllers to reduce altitude from 35,000 feet to 34,000 feet.

According to air traffic control instructions, THAI's aircraft, TG659 routed Seoul - Bangkok, was flying in its right position with lateral and vertical navigation at 34,000 feet

Well, duh, ATC descended the Chinese guy level with the THAI (FL340). Even if ATC thought he had adequate lateral separation, the 1000ft descent makes no sense -- unless he got confused about the actual altitude of the THAI (which is hard to do today with altitude reporting transponders).

why didnt the alarm on the thai airways jet sound an alarm as well ?

It did:

THAI's airplane indicated a warning (TCAS) that another airplane was approaching. THAI's pilot-in-command followed the procedure indicated by TCAS

ICAO requires *all* airliners to have the latest version of TCAS II. And, so, as the reports indicate, this was a coordinated TCAS/TCAS event, with the THAI getting the warning to either maintain altitude or to climb -- while the Chinese is getting the command to crash dive.

Sure looks like an ATC foul-up. But I also wonder if the Chinese wasn't ignoring some initial TCAS advice as he responded to the ATC order to descend. TCAS trumps ATC, a lesson hammered home after that mid-air over Germany a few years back. So, if initially the Chinese ignored the TCAS to "climb", thus preventing a crossing altitude, at some point the TCAS computes that a climb is too late, thus an emphatic "descend" order -- the kind that splatters passengers against the ceiling.

Anyway, fun to speculate. The only thing that sounds certain is that the title of this thread is misleading.

[Scott]

Generally, I have found that some of those non-native speakers seem to really easily understand others. I can't, but they seem to be able to.

[Soju]

Anyway, fun to speculate. The only thing that sounds certain is that the title of this thread is misleading.

Yes, I wonder if Agence France-Presse as quoted by the OP is the source of this trashy journalism or if they just copied it from someone else. Never ceases to amaze me at the garbage being produced by news organizations these days.

[Tywais]

Well, duh, ATC descended the Chinese guy level with the THAI (FL340). Even if ATC thought he had adequate lateral separation, the 1000ft descent makes no sense -- unless he got confused about the actual altitude of the THAI (which is hard to do today with altitude reporting transponders).

Definitely appears ATC made an error. The following are the FL rules:

----------------------------------------

Semicircular rule

* Track 000 to 179° - odd thousands (FL 250, 270, etc.)

* Track 180 to 359° - even thousands (FL 260, 280, etc.)

At FL 290 and above, 4000 ft. intervals are used to separate same-direction aircraft (instead of 2000 ft. intervals below FL 290), and only odd flight levels are assigned, depending on the direction of flight:

* Track 000 to 179° - odd flight levels (FL 290, 330, 370, etc.)

* Track 180 to 359° - odd flight levels (FL 310, 350, 390, etc.)

Next time you fly, listen to the captain say what flight level you're at - it will obey this rule according to what direction you are flying in. On the return trip, notice the altitude difference (e.g., FL 290 or FL 330 eastbound, and then perhaps FL 310 or FL 350 westbound).

[edit] Reduced Vertical Separation Minima

Main article: Reduced Vertical Separation Minima

Reduced Vertical Separation Minima or RVSM reduces the vertical separation above FL 290 from 2000 ft. to 1000 ft. This allows aircraft to safely fly more optimum routes, gain fuel savings and increase airspace capacity by adding six new flight levels. Only aircraft that have been certified to meet RVSM standards, with several exclusions, are allowed to fly in RVSM airspace. RVSM went into effect in Europe between FL 290 and FL 410 on January 24, 2002. The United States, Canada and Mexico transitioned to RVSM between FL 290 and FL 410 on January 20, 2005.

* Track 000 to 179° - odd thousands (FL 290, 310, 330, etc.)

* Track 180 to 359° - even thousands (FL 300, 320, 340, etc.)

At FL 410 and above, 4000 ft. intervals are resumed to separate same-direction aircraft and only odd Flight Levels are assigned, depending on the direction of flight:

* Track 000 to 179° - odd flight levels (FL 410, 450, 490, etc.)

* Track 180 to 359° - odd flight levels (FL 430, 470, 510, etc.)

Source: Wiki

[Jai Dee]

Taiwanese plane almost crashed into Thai plane in midair, 21 injured

Twenty-one people aboard a Taiwanese plane were injured yesterday when it was forced to change course to avoid another aircraft while approaching South Korea's Jeju island. Officials from Taiwan’s Far Eastern Air Transport Corporation revealed that Eastern Air’s Boeing 757 was flying at 35,000 feet above ground near Korea’s Cheju Island but was alerted by a Korean aviation control center to reduce altitude to 34,000 feet as there was another plane, suspected to be a Thai Airways, coming at the same altitude.

With the sudden instruction, the Taiwanese aircraft descended immediately without informing the passengers as the alarm was out of order, causing 21 injuries. Two of which suffered from broken ribs and one from brain haemorrhage. A total of 137 passengers and crew were on board.

Meanwhile, Korea’s ministry of transport dispatched four officials to the Cheju island to investigate the accident.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department -17 November 2006

[Spenthouse]

THAI Clarification on Flight TG 659 incident

Today (16 November 2006), in clarification to news that an aircraft of Far Eastern Air Transport from Taiwan avoided an incident with Thai Airways International aircraft.

the Corporate Communications Department of Thai Airways International Public Company Limited provides the following clarification.

Far Eastern Air Transport of Taiwan, Flight EF 306 routed from Taipei, Taiwan to Jeju, South Korea, at 11.00 hrs. (Korean local time) THAI's pilot-in-command was notified of communication between Far Eastern Air Transport and the air traffic control of South Korea, which advised that Far Eastern Air Transport should descend according to the order given by air traffic control as a sick passenger was on board.

According to air traffic control instructions, THAI's aircraft, TG659 routed Seoul - Bangkok, was flying in its right position with lateral and vertical navigation at 34,000 feet above South Korean airspace and the air traffic system on board THAI's airplane indicated a warning (TCAS) that another airplane was approaching. THAI's pilot-in-command followed the procedure indicated by TCAS system and operated the flight as usual and landed in Bangkok at 13.40 hrs.

In addition, THAI's flight TG659 utilizing Boeing 777-300 routed Seoul - Bangkok departed Seoul at 09.50 hrs. (Korean local time) arrived Bangkok at 13.40 hrs. with 356 passengers and 20 aircrews.

i think they forgot to mention that the toilets were also flushing properly...

[sriracha john]

Anyway, fun to speculate. The only thing that sounds certain is that the title of this thread is misleading.

Yes, I wonder if Agence France-Presse as quoted by the OP is the source of this trashy journalism or if they just copied it from someone else. Never ceases to amaze me at the garbage being produced by news organizations these days.

I agree... and thank goodness the Bangkok Herald-Examiner, with it's bedrock solid level of accuracy and honesty, is still out there publishing its Pulitzer-Prize-caliber reporting.

Edited November 17, 2006 by sriracha john

[cdnvic]

Anyone notice the difference in response by the Thai crew and the Taiwanese crews to the same situation? There doesn't seem to have been any major drama on the Thai Airways flight yet the Taiwanese aircraft makes a panic dive. I also find it odd that even though the Taiwanese aircraft was on a track higher than the Thai aircraft, it dived to "avoid" a collision, even though that dive took it across the track of the Thai aircraft, not away from it.

Is it not possible that the Taiwanese crew misunderstood and over-reacted to the situation? These collision avoidance systems are designed to give adaquate warning and avoid the need frantic manouvers. In a high desity traffic situation such as would happen near an airport it can happen but in the cruise phase of flight it's a little odd.

[Tywais]

Is it not possible that the Taiwanese crew misunderstood and over-reacted to the situation? These collision avoidance systems are designed to give adaquate warning and avoid the need frantic manouvers. In a high desity traffic situation such as would happen near an airport it can happen but in the cruise phase of flight it's a little odd.

It seems that should be the case.

"TCAS II

TCAS II is the second and current generation of TCAS, used in the majority of commercial aviation aircraft (see table below). It offers all the benefits of TCAS I, but will also offer the pilot direct, vocalised instructions to avoid danger, known as a "Resolution Advisory" (RA). The suggestive action may be "corrective", suggesting the pilot change altitude by announcing, "descend, descend" or "climb, climb". By contrast a "preventive" RA may be issued which simply warns the pilots not to deviate from their present altitude, announcing, "monitor vertical speed". TCAS II systems coordinate their resolution advisories before issuing commands to the pilots, so that if one aircraft is instructed to descend, the other will typically be told to climb — maximising the separation between the two craft."

Source: Wiki

[Diablo Bob]

Anyone notice the difference in response by the Thai crew and the Taiwanese crews to the same situation? There doesn't seem to have been any major drama on the Thai Airways flight yet the Taiwanese aircraft makes a panic dive. I also find it odd that even though the Taiwanese aircraft was on a track higher than the Thai aircraft, it dived to "avoid" a collision, even though that dive took it across the track of the Thai aircraft, not away from it.

Is it not possible that the Taiwanese crew misunderstood and over-reacted to the situation? These collision avoidance systems are designed to give adaquate warning and avoid the need frantic manouvers. In a high desity traffic situation such as would happen near an airport it can happen but in the cruise phase of flight it's a little odd.

cdnvic - I think the question that screams in my mind is how these two aircraft got into a position where TCAS came into play....... where was ATC? Imagine looking at a radar screen and see two blips converging, and NOT checking to see the altitudes assigned to these two aircraft?

TCAS did its' job, me thinks ATC dropped the ball. Now we might be looking at a situation where an aircraft is handed over from one center or controller to another. But generally speaking the screens overlap significantly (10-15Nm) so the convergance should have been noticed by someone!

[JimGant]

Hmmm. THAI says it was level at FL340. ATC says he was co-altitude at FL350 with the Chinese guy, thus the descend order to FL340 for China. Makes sense the assigned altitude for THAI was FL340 -- but did he "bust" this altitude during his climbout? Can't imagine ATC basing their understanding of THAI's altitude on anything but a transponder-sent number.

THAI, if he's busted his altitude, is probably no higher than FL343 -- but the collision avoidance system at ATC is probably going nuts, especially if it hasn't noted that THAI has ceased his climb. (I'm sure both machinery as well as controllers are still trying to get used to the new 1000ft separations above FL290.) So, the controller tells China to descend (makes more sense to have THAI descend -- but maybe he wasn't on frequency yet).

Meanwhile, TCAS is monitoring the situation, notes the unacceptable altitude separation, but sees that THAI is not climbing, and is actually probably inching back to FL340. So, if TCAS is giving any 'resolution advisory,' it would be for China to climb. But for sure, don't descend.

Which, of course, is what ATC directs.

Whether ATC's descend order is the 'expedited' version is not clear. But at some point China realizes he needs to lao lao downward, and this could well be from the TCAS once it realizes the new parameters.

So, did THAI bust its assigned altitude? Equipment malfunction? Too much Soju the night before by the controller? Hmmm.

[Diablo Bob]

Hmmm. THAI says it was level at FL340. ATC says he was co-altitude at FL350 with the Chinese guy, thus the descend order to FL340 for China. Makes sense the assigned altitude for THAI was FL340 -- but did he "bust" this altitude during his climbout? Can't imagine ATC basing their understanding of THAI's altitude on anything but a transponder-sent number.

THAI, if he's busted his altitude, is probably no higher than FL343 -- but the collision avoidance system at ATC is probably going nuts, especially if it hasn't noted that THAI has ceased his climb. (I'm sure both machinery as well as controllers are still trying to get used to the new 1000ft separations above FL290.) So, the controller tells China to descend (makes more sense to have THAI descend -- but maybe he wasn't on frequency yet).

Meanwhile, TCAS is monitoring the situation, notes the unacceptable altitude separation, but sees that THAI is not climbing, and is actually probably inching back to FL340. So, if TCAS is giving any 'resolution advisory,' it would be for China to climb. But for sure, don't descend.

Which, of course, is what ATC directs.

Whether ATC's descend order is the 'expedited' version is not clear. But at some point China realizes he needs to lao lao downward, and this could well be from the TCAS once it realizes the new parameters.

So, did THAI bust its assigned altitude? Equipment malfunction? Too much Soju the night before by the controller? Hmmm.

Jim,

Have reread the arcticles, can't find where it says the Thai was co share on FL350, I did see where ATC said that Thai was at FL340 though........

[Pink Mist]

love this language, can you guys give brief synopsis of your terms ie FL340 etc

[JimGant]

Have reread the arcticles, can't find where it says the Thai was co share on FL350, I did see where ATC said that Thai was at FL340 though........

DB,

I got the FL350 from the news article Jai Dee posted above, namely:

Taiwan’s Far Eastern Air Transport Corporation revealed that Eastern Air’s Boeing 757 was flying at 35,000 feet above ground near Korea’s Cheju Island but was alerted by a Korean aviation control center to reduce altitude to 34,000 feet as there was another plane, suspected to be a Thai Airways, coming at the same altitude.

"Coming at the same altitude" must mean FL350 in the context of having China leave 35 for 34. Also, I never saw any article where ATC said THAI was at FL340. Only the article where THAI said they were at FL340.

Bronco, sorry for the shorthand. "FL" means flight level and is a reference using a standard altimeter setting (29.92 inches of mercury) that is dialed in above a certain altitude (18,000 feet in the States), where you're no longer concerned about actual altitude above sea level and, more importantly, above pesky mountains and stuff. With everyone on the same altimeter setting, relative separation is easier to handle by ATC. So, FL350 is 35000 feet indicated altitude when altimeter is set to 29.92 barometric pressure. If actual barometric pressure is different, which it usually is, actual altitude will not correspond to one's FL.

[sriracha john]

In keeping with the blame game theme of the thread title... we have our latest entry:

Taiwan Blames Seoul for Thai Airways Near-miss

Taipei - Taiwan's Far Eastern Air Transport on Friday rejected turbulence as the cause of its passenger jet's near collision with a Thai jetliner, which resulted in 21 people being injured on the Taiwanese plane. It stressed that the control tower of South Korea did not alert its pilot of the approaching Thai airliner, forcing the Taiwanese pilot to take swift action in diving some 4,000 feet to avoid the collision. The incident occurred Thursday morning when FAT's Boeing 757 - carrying 129 tourists and eight crew - approached Cheju, a tourist resort off South Korea's south coast. "Our pilot saw the flashing signal of the Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) and in swift response made the accurate decision to dive to avoid collision," Chang Yu-peng, public relations manager of the airline, told reporters. He said the pilot was following the direction of the South Korean control tower to fly to an altitude at 35,000 feet when suddenly the TCAS of flight FE306 flashed the warning signal of an approaching plane. Chang said the pilot, identified as Chen Shih-han, also heard from the radio the pilot of the Thai airliner asking the control tower why there was another plane flying at the same altitude. * "arai nai?!?!" * "Our pilot later asked the air tower what had happened after diving to 31,000 feet, but got no response from them," Chang said, adding the control tower officials finally responded after the pilot requested priority landing and medical aid. The pilot, who returned to Taipei Friday afternoon with his crew, confirmed that the TCAS of the plane activated when another airliner came close to his jet. "The air tower did not alert me of the approaching airliner," Chen Shih-han told reporters. He also denied South Korean news reports that turbulence was the cause of the accident. "The air current was quite stable after FE306 took off from Taipei," he stressed. The sudden loss of attitude sent some passengers and flight attendants tumbling to the ceiling, leaving 21 injured, 16 Taiwanese tourists and five crew.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/b...s.php?id=114295

Edited November 18, 2006 by sriracha john

[cdnvic]

Love how Taiwan calls it Thai Airways' near miss. Doesn't a collision take two aircraft?

[Diablo Bob]

Have reread the arcticles, can't find where it says the Thai was co share on FL350, I did see where ATC said that Thai was at FL340 though........

DB,

I got the FL350 from the news article Jai Dee posted above, namely:

Taiwan’s Far Eastern Air Transport Corporation revealed that Eastern Air’s Boeing 757 was flying at 35,000 feet above ground near Korea’s Cheju Island but was alerted by a Korean aviation control center to reduce altitude to 34,000 feet as there was another plane, suspected to be a Thai Airways, coming at the same altitude.

"Coming at the same altitude" must mean FL350 in the context of having China leave 35 for 34. Also, I never saw any article where ATC said THAI was at FL340. Only the article where THAI said they were at FL340.

Bronco, sorry for the shorthand. "FL" means flight level and is a reference using a standard altimeter setting (29.92 inches of mercury) that is dialed in above a certain altitude (18,000 feet in the States), where you're no longer concerned about actual altitude above sea level and, more importantly, above pesky mountains and stuff. With everyone on the same altimeter setting, relative separation is easier to handle by ATC. So, FL350 is 35000 feet indicated altitude when altimeter is set to 29.92 barometric pressure. If actual barometric pressure is different, which it usually is, actual altitude will not correspond to one's FL.

Jim, Found it........ Got lost in the clutter, alot like the Thai Air flight.... Still looking like ATC though, isn't it?

[Digger]

I believe this is why Cathay Pacific has virtually no Chinese born captains working in its fleet and I have heard it before from many HKG based expats that in times of 'hi stress' incidents, the Chinese have a tendancy to panic. No idea how accurate it is but seems to be consistent with what I have heard and seen in my time in Asia.

Incidentally to an earlier poster, after probably 500 Thai airways flights in last 10 years, I have only ever heard Thai captains and first officers voices coming from the cockpit - never a foreigner, unlike aformentioned Cathay and Singapore airlines who have a very high percentage of foreign pilots, notably from UK, Australia, US and Canada.

[pumpuiman]

I frequently tune in to the radio channel available to passengers on their headsets, which broadcasts communication between the tower and the aircraft. On approach to Tokyo/Narita I was nervously listening as the pilot had to re-confirm heading and altitude instructions six or seven tmes, due to the lack of english language skills of the female air traffic controller. I thought at that time, that it is surprising that more accidents dont occur.

[JimGant]

Sure a lot of tap dancing going on (or 'face saving,' in this context).

He said the pilot was following the direction of the South Korean control tower to fly to an altitude at 35,000 feet

Wait a minute. Every article but this one points out that ATC instructs China to leave 35 for fright revel 340 because ATC thinks -- most likely erroneously -- that THAI is also at 35:

A spokesman of Far East Air Transport said pilots of the Boeing 757 plane were told by flight controllers to reduce altitude from 35,000 feet to 34,000 feet to avoid another aircraft.

So, once China leaves 35 for 34 (where THAI is, or close thereto), China's TCAS says 'climb' (my theory, anyway), which he's supposed to do (again, TCAS has priority over ATC instruction), but doesn't. Instead, he follows ATC's instruction to FL340. But China is certainly curious about why ATC and TCAS are giving conflicting guidance:

Far Eastern Air Transport spokesman Chang Yu-peng said Korean air controllers failed to respond promptly to the Taiwanese pilot's inquiries after the plane's alarm was triggered by the oncoming airliner.

Hi, Chejudo control. You told me to descend and maintain FL340. But my TCAS told me to climb, which I didn't. What the phuck, over?

At which time he looks up, craps in his pants, and pushes over:

"When I raised my head, I saw a plane approaching rapidly, so I had to take action fast," he said.

So, it's VFR time (visual flight rules, Bronco). TCAS instruction, whatever that had become, became irrelevant, at least to China (THAI, however, apparently reacted to TCAS, not visual sighting, although this is not 100% clear, like everything else with this incident.) However, TCAS activation no doubt got China's eyes out of the cockpit, resulting in the visual on THAI.

Far Eastern Air officials said the plane descended 4,000 feet (1,200 meters) from a height of 34,000 feet (10,300 meters) in about 15 seconds.

Lemme see. A trip of this length normally takes 2 minutes, 40 seconds (at the assumed 1500 feet per minute). Doing this in 15 seconds would certainly once again prove the theory of negative G forces.

"The pilots said they suspected it was a Thai jetliner flying nearby on the same altitude," he added, praising their "correct and proper" handling of the incident.

Not if they ignored the TCAS.....

But why did ATC think THAI was at (or climbing to) FL350, which started this whole chain of events.....?

The investigation could take between six months to one year.

I can hardly wait.

Oh, if any quotes above look unfamiliar, they're from the IHT and China Post, here:

IHT

China Post

[Diablo Bob]

I believe this is why Cathay Pacific has virtually no Chinese born captains working in its fleet and I have heard it before from many HKG based expats that in times of 'hi stress' incidents, the Chinese have a tendancy to panic. No idea how accurate it is but seems to be consistent with what I have heard and seen in my time in Asia.

Incidentally to an earlier poster, after probably 500 Thai airways flights in last 10 years, I have only ever heard Thai captains and first officers voices coming from the cockpit - never a foreigner, unlike aformentioned Cathay and Singapore airlines who have a very high percentage of foreign pilots, notably from UK, Australia, US and Canada.

I don't buy this theory.......

A pilot handles emergencies in accordance with his/her trainig and experience. Less training & experience, the less prepared.

A pilot spends numerous hours flying right seat under the guidance of an experienced Captain before they are deemed qualified to be Pilot-in-Command by an airline.

The propensity to freeze under strss conditions is a human factor that the airlines attempt to ascertain in simulators and students who show this trait wash out of a program rather quickly.

Regardless of this, the Chinese pilot didn't freeze, he acted. Maybe due to previous mistakes and maybe incorrectly but none the less he didn't freeze.

Just last week I was flying right seat on a King Air 200 between Kabul and Kandahar. While on approach into Kandahar we started taking ground fire from an assault rifle (AK47). The PIC calmly turned away from the fire exposing our smallest cross section, not saying a thing. Myself! The whole time I was watching the tracers, forgot about flying. Afterwards the first thing out of my mouth when everything was back to normal was "Cool!" This is the difference, he was an ex-military pilot trained to deal with these types of situations, I am not!

[Spenthouse]

a fair percentage of Thai Airways pilots are of non thai nationality, folks, including English, Australian and americans

I would say a percentage are and on international routes mainly

Never struck one yet.

that's because they are consultants and as consultants they are not allowed to make welcome aboard announcements for fear of losing their work permits!