Thai airbus "blown off the runway" landing in Phuket resulting in near miss

[OnTheRun]

6 hours ago, Xircal said:

Why on earth would Thai use an A350-900 long haul aircraft on such a short trip? It's no wonder they're in financial straits if that's an example of how they propose to utilise this type of aircraft.

 

It'll be interesting to see what the CVR and FDR reveal once they're published.

 

I think they use it on short haul initially to give pilots more landing / take off experience faster, for example BA used 777's on the London - Paris route when they received initial delivery back in the mid 90's.

[terry Meltham]

Cathay on their A350 used the new jets on Hong Kong Bangkok and other short haul before put into Long haul London and Dussaldolf first

[merijn]

5 hours ago, Jdietz said:

They are indeed doing training flights for a while on these short hauls (more cycles for the "pilots"). Later these planes will be moved to long haul routes.

And normally the pilot will select "auto land", sit back and relax, and let the plane handle the wind sheer..

 

So far i know auto land can't handle windsheer and a turnaround has to be performed.

50 Mph crosswind is above what is allowed for landing and the landing should be aborted unless they are in a emergency.

Looks like that they where on the limit but decided to land anyway and overreacted.

 

[lvr181]

2 hours ago, n210mp said:

 

 

Absolute rubbish!

 

Really? I would refer you to: 

 

 

 

[AlQaholic]

I've always wondered how those planes you see coming down at almost 45 degree angle with the runway because of the winds actually does it? I always assumed the whole thing is taken care of automatically like side adjustments and stuff, but now it seems the pilots have a bigger play in the happenings than I thought? That makes flying a bit scary for me. Anyone have some info on this?

Ahh...never mind, just googled it.....

Seems it's all done by the pilot, which really scares me now......because that's a really complicated maneuver.

Edited September 23, 2016 by AlQaholic

[hobobo]

17 hours ago, lvr181 said:

An inexperienced pilot. No more, no less. Pilots all around the world deal with worse landing situations in tricky winds.

The pilot probably convinced the management that he didn't need any simulator training for the A350 because he flew A320 for a couple of years already

[Guest]

The weather conditions were difficult at the time of the accident. This Silk Air plane did three aborted approaches to the Phuket Airport.

Screenshot timestamp is 21.9.2016 at 20:08.

 

I live east of the Phuket Airport, and check the flight radar every now and then, when the winds and rain becomes really bad at my home.

[Jdietz]

Interesting read:

 

http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_gallery/files/safety_library_items/AirbusSafetyLib_-FLT_OPS-LAND-SEQ05.pdf

 

Extract:

 

[biplanebluey]

On 9/22/2016 at 11:59 AM, merijn said:

Planes are not blown off a runway.

Pilots that don't control their plane correctly are blown off.

This is classed as a runway overshoot and is considered a serious incident. (not a minor one)

Sorry matey but youre wrong,an "overshoot" is as it sounds,is a plane going off the END of the runway.This one was battling a cross wind and was blown off the SIDE.Modern aircraft like this one are big and heavy,but they also have large wings,which mean larger wing areas and so more area for the wind to put pressure on.If the wind was very strong and blowing from90* either left or right it may have been virtually impossible holding it on course.It will be interesting if we get a follow up with more facts.

[Xircal]

16 hours ago, OnTheRun said:

 

I think they use it on short haul initially to give pilots more landing / take off experience faster, for example BA used 777's on the London - Paris route when they received initial delivery back in the mid 90's.

 

Yes, I suppose that could be the case. Didn't get off to a good start then.

[balo]

16 hours ago, AlQaholic said:

Seems it's all done by the pilot, which really scares me now......because that's a really complicated maneuver.

 

For the pilots its standard procedure. One of the things they get to practice a lot in the simulator.   I experienced a very windy approach in Dublin , and it was really shaky all the way down, the passengers had a nightmare.  I talked to the pilot afterward and he told me it's normal for them  during that time of the year in Dublin .   

 

 

[n210mp]

12 hours ago, biplanebluey said:

Sorry matey but youre wrong,an "overshoot" is as it sounds,is a plane going off the END of the runway.This one was battling a cross wind and was blown off the SIDE.Modern aircraft like this one are big and heavy,but they also have large wings,which mean larger wing areas and so more area for the wind to put pressure on.If the wind was very strong and blowing from90* either left or right it may have been virtually impossible holding it on course.It will be interesting if we get a follow up with more facts.

 

 

Actually if some one said  " I overshot the road, exit or my turning " under normal circumstances, then your interpretation would be a correct one  and a Pilot who had literally overshot the runway by running out of runway as it were, well you would be technically correct.

 

However in the circumstances that we are discussing here  and in aviation parlance If a pilot said to me "I had to overshoot"  or a Pilot on the last part of an approach said to  the ATC  approach controller, 

" I am overshooting!  I would know he was talking about doing a "go around" this would be  because of a number of factors that  could have stopped him from  making a safe  landing .

 

The "judgement question"  which will inevitably be the first issue at any inquiry with regard to this pilot  will be , Should he have elected to go for the  "overshoot procedure" or to go to his alternate destination if the weather conditions were so bad

 

He made a "call" to continue the approach and land the aircraft, 90% of the time a pilot gets away  with with with no damage other than to his pride  but plenty of wet seats, in this case he wasn't so lucky!

Edited September 24, 2016 by n210mp
inclusion of omission

[The Old Bull]

Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing.

[sanukjim]

Total pilot error, and the incident will be noted by many aviation authorities around the world as such.Is stupid to report that a large commercial aircraft "is blown off the runway".

[LivinginKata]

4 hours ago, n210mp said:

 

<snip>

He made a "call" to continue the approach and land the aircraft, 90% of the time a pilot gets away  with with with no damage other than to his pride  but plenty of wet seats, in this case he wasn't so lucky!

 

Like One-Two-Go flight 269 where 89 souls perished at the side of Phuket runway.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-Two-GO_Airlines_Flight_269

[sanukjim]

32 minutes ago, The Old Bull said:

Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing.

This is quoting a dumb statement by one ignorant of any aviation practises.

Edited September 24, 2016 by sanukjim

[n210mp]

The worst scenario for any experienced  pilot is to have exceptional frontal activity on the final approach to landing especially at night.

Monsoon type weather brings its own special brand of vindictiveness and is an experienced  pilots worst nightmare  (and any other  sentient pilots nightmare for that matter )

The problem is that no matter how good .experienced, qualified, the pilot is these conditions can  and do catch you out and it all happens in  a nano second 

 

To fly and operate these multi million dollar  aircraft under these conditions and also have the lives of hundreds of passengers, crew   to be responsible for  means that the Pilots have to be especially   highly qualified , efficient and at the top of their profession.

 

To suggest otherwise or that the  Capt  got his job and his licence other than pure ability is scandalous, unfair and  shows more about the workings of the mind of the  various malicious posters than it does about the pilots credentials or ability

 

Slanderous comments about qualifications, or how the pilot got the job belong in the gutter press not in an informed discussion.

 

 

Maybe the pilot  under these exceptional circumstances and  in this particular situation was under just too much pressure to make that landing, especially in those conditions.

 

However In my opinion there is no excuse for not  overshooting, having a second attempt at  another approach and if the  second approach was too bad then diverting to his alternate airport.

 

I dont know how many attempts he made to land, was  this a first attempt?

 

Depending on the severity of the  weather on the approach to the landing runway  it is acceptable for a pilot to hold off until there is a discernible break between these highly active fronts .

Fuel allowances are built into the flight plan for both holding and going to an alternate destination airport in the event   of bad weather or disruption so there is no excuse for "having to land at all costs"

 

If it looks as though there will be no breaks in the weather then a pilot must make the decision whether to abandon landing and go to his designated alternate or to attempt an approach to land 

 

decisions by the crew would be to consider the exercise in two parts, the first whether to even try an approach  and the second, whether to attempt a landing at the end of the approach.

 

It will be interesting to learn just what did happen, and all the circumstances  if this incident  was in the UK or the USA we would after a couple of years get the full facts! 

 

But to the negative and  condemning  posters in this thread;

 

Until we do learn some facts have the grace to hold back on your unmitigated bile against people who are not able to either defend themselves or indeed have a  need to answer to your uninformed comments /  criticisms 

 

 

 

If the investigation  was in the hands of the CAA or the FAA  we would get to know the facts .

[LivinginKata]

"To fly and operate these multi million dollar  aircraft under these conditions and also have the lives of hundreds of passengers, crew   to be responsible for  means that the Pilots have to be especially   highly qualified , efficient and at the top of their profession.

 

To suggest otherwise or that the  Capt  got his job and his licence other than pure ability is scandalous, unfair and  shows more about the workings of the mind of the  various malicious posters than it does about the pilots credentials or ability"

 

Really - read the OG269 report findings -->  http://investigateudom.com/files/OX.pdf

 

 

Edited September 24, 2016 by LivinginKata
trouble formatting and replying

[n210mp]

LivinginKata  

 

you should try to stick to my post and what it was saying about the unfair comments on Thai Visa forum  about the flight crew or the Captain of this particular aircraft.

Any comment you have about the state of the South Asian aviation situation is totally irrelevant to what I was saying about the unfair treatment of people not yet chafed with any offence!

 

Your link from 

 

from an unsigned,   unsubstantiated , undated and possibly unauthorised source  lacks gravitas for all  those aforementioned reasons. 

 

It  may be also illegal  in this Country.  (Think about the draconian Libel laws) Its integrity may well be 100% prior to the incident on Phuket  but it does sound as though the writer whilst  making some very  valid points has an axe to grind

( He or she may well be justified, though its relevance to what I said is totally unrelated )

 

The content of it sounds as though it was possibly written by a first class engineer or Captain possibly from Qantas,   totally disgruntled with what was in the past happening in Civil aviation in South East Asia

 

The very accident mentioned in that missive was also responsible for a massive shake up in Thailand's Civil aviation industry ( Thailand along with other miscreants  were in danger of being in a no fly zone set up by  the "Convention on international civil aviation" because of their apparent lack of zeal in adopting  safety standards set by the signatories to the convention for those who would fly in the western hemisphere   

 

In any event,  you took my post completely off the point I was making .

 

I am not interested in defending aviation in any of these places that your spurious link refers to.

 I was only interested in having some fair play when it comes to making negative posts about Pilots who in the main in this modern day and age are extremely professional people.

 

At least give  the Authorities  time to consider and deliberate , who/what/was the cause of the incident before  blackening the name and character of the flight crew concerned. 

At this stage of the game all the facts have not yet been presented!

[LivinginKata]

^

Good and fair response ...

[khaosai]

It's an interesting and often challenging airfield to operate into. Terrain close to the runway, often affected by weather with possibly the month of September having the most rainfall.

 

The runway is 45 metre wide with a pronounced down slope when landing to the West and its not grooved. Offset Instrument approach by 2 degrees laterally, steeper approach vertically and a bit of a black hole at night due to simplified approach lighting. Higher vertical minima required and with a visibility requirement of 1.8km for the instrument approach. 

 

Lucky there were no aircraft on the parallel taxi way as its not that far from the runway. 

 

I would put it down to a runway excursion as mentioned previously. 

 

Glad all safe. 

[khaosai]

Repost removed

Edited September 24, 2016 by khaosai

[Dipterocarp]

On 9/23/2016 at 10:32 PM, biplanebluey said:

Sorry matey but youre wrong,an "overshoot" is as it sounds,is a plane going off the END of the runway.This one was battling a cross wind and was blown off the SIDE.Modern aircraft like this one are big and heavy,but they also have large wings,which mean larger wing areas and so more area for the wind to put pressure on.If the wind was very strong and blowing from90* either left or right it may have been virtually impossible holding it on course.It will be interesting if we get a follow up with more facts.

You are actually partially wrong also "overshoot" is British English for going around/rejected landing. Old days they had "Airscrews" for propellers and "alighting gear" for landing gear also .（I have been looking this stuff up　recently because I had no idea what a Kitchen "Hob" was. Most people on this site use British English as a matter of course). I have been flying around all my life and I have only been on one flight that did a "go around" going into Houston, TX. It was daytime and I don't remember it was particularly bumpy. A terrifying experience where just before landing the plane suddenly shot up at extreme angle then flew around for a while with absolutely no info from the crew. Eventually  the pilot announced  there had been another plane on the runway.  I told this to my ex who used to be check in girl and flight attendant for Delta. She said this was BS, it is just an excuse to make passengers feel at ease. Good news is the airlines in the US encourage pilots to do go arounds if anything doesn't look right as there have been many accidents due to continuing a bad approach (too high fast or whatever). The pilots are protected by union contracts for decisions made in the interest of safety as well. Nobody wants delays or missed connections but  it is the cost of doing business properly and putting safety first is the right thing to do (and cost effective in long run). Totally opposite from the Thai attitude where jobs/promotions are handed out based connections and fancy names and the safety culture consists entirely of "Mai Pen Rai". Surely this happens in the aviation sector as well? The 12Go accident happened because they tried to land in a thunderstorm when they could have diverted to Surratthani and waited it out. Management or headquarters pushing pilots to get in on time perhaps?

Edited September 26, 2016 by Dipterocarp

[lvr181]

Abba's "Money Money Money" song comes to mind.......................

[Aussie69]

 
I think they use it on short haul initially to give pilots more landing / take off experience faster, for example BA used 777's on the London - Paris route when they received initial delivery back in the mid 90's.

That's exactly what they are doing.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ulic]

On ‎24‎/‎09‎/‎2016 at 4:05 AM, LivinginKata said:

"To fly and operate these multi million dollar  aircraft under these conditions and also have the lives of hundreds of passengers, crew   to be responsible for  means that the Pilots have to be especially   highly qualified , efficient and at the top of their profession.

 

To suggest otherwise or that the  Capt  got his job and his licence other than pure ability is scandalous, unfair and  shows more about the workings of the mind of the  various malicious posters than it does about the pilots credentials or ability"

 

Really - read the OG269 report findings -->  http://investigateudom.com/files/OX.pdf

 

 

A head shaker. All I can say is WOW.

[prestburypark]

Its obvious...the brakes failed.

[siam2007]

On 23/09/2016 at 7:42 AM, OnTheRun said:

 

I think they use it on short haul initially to give pilots more landing / take off experience faster, for example BA used 777's on the London - Paris route when they received initial delivery back in the mid 90's.

 

 

Thai has SINCE DECADES employed large aircraft on busy domestic routes to CNX and HKT, for example. I sat on the B747 morning flight to CNX many times. Still today, all THAI main line flights to CNX and HKT are large aircraft, with the A320 flights operated by ThaiSmile.  There was a time about 3 years ago when THAI INTERNATIONAL did only own two single-aisle-aircraft, after they retired almost all of their B737-400 and all the new A320 went to ThaiSmile. Only recently they have assigned one A320 back to THAI, and they seem to still operate two B737-400, as they took over some of the routes that had been served by ThaiSmile. Thai Smile 18 months ago or so served only Macau as the only international destination, but now it is once again going into the opposite direction and THAI SMILE is taking over a lot of short haul destinations from THAI main line (PENANG recently, for example), with THAI main line now using those few single-aisle aircraft on short haul international flights (PNH and VTE me thinks).

Edited October 5, 2016 by siam2007
sawasdee krab

[Dipterocarp]

[Dipterocarp]

True. Modern planes are used flying by themselves on autopilot these days. Accidents mostly are caused by bad judgement and crew communication issues. Same as maritime industry. Costa Concordia Schettino captain took his ship carrying thousands off a safe autopilot tracking to make a close pass to show off cowboy style to people on shore (Perhaps personal friends wearing budgie snuggler/speedos drinking on beach ? ) Unbelievable. Man should be in jail but from what I hear regards Italian Justice system not likely.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk