The reason that IMO they are using larger aircraft is becasue  of many issues but mainly  has go to  do with the  economy of volume and the ability to use larger passenger aircraft on shorter  runways.

 

These larger  aircraft, with bigger and more economical engines , these days   are much more fuel efficient and can carry more cargo and passenger per unit of thrust than they could ever achieve in the past with a smaller aircraft

 

Crew training has nothing to do with the operation of commercial aircraft in operating  commercial conditions other than the acquiring of a "minimum requirement," of  a  number of  PIC ( pilot in command)  landings, in a pilots log book  possibly by the co pilot who needs so many PIC landings achieved, to be able to qualify for Captaincy.

( these conditions are the result not of any doubt of the competency of the Co pilot  but conditions set  by the insurance companies who insist that the co pilot before he can be a Captain  on any commercial aircraft has done a set minimum number of landings in his control, signed off by the acting Captain

 

The co pilot who has passed his "Type rating" on this aircraft in procedural training both  in flight simulators and the actual aircraft is already competent and legal to fly the aircraft!

 

The Captain and the first officer or 2nd pilot need to remain "valid or current " on the privileges of their licences by the renewal  of their Instrument ratings      ( The rating that gives the pilot the  privilege of flying  an aircraft in "Instrument conditions" 

 

Competency checks are also legally required for the renewal of a commercial pilot certificate or licence .

 

The only checks of a pilots and crew  competency in an operational flight are by the companies own Flight training Captains who do nothing more than sit on a jump seat in the cockpit and observe that all the  operating procedures are being done according to the flight manual and the companies operations policy 

 

Training of the sort that is being mentioned in derisory and critical posts herein,  is  as usual totally uncalled for,  as it is patently untrue and as usual the authors are totally ignorant and  unaware of the strict procedural training a pilot has to have and achieved before he can get PIC or 2nd pilot on any commercial aircraft!

You are way off "crew training has nothing to do with the operation of commercial aircraft" Check out most of the recent accidents where crew cockups caused the problem (Asiana SFO, ATR in Taiwan where crew reacted to engine failure by shutting down the only engine still running! Planes fly themselves mostly and unlike in the past when mechanical failure caused accident planes are saved by competent pilots with high skills. Check miracle on Hudson and BA double engine flameout into London. I know flying is safer than crossing the street but still have some worry with Thai airlines knowing jobs/promotionsbare likely sometime handed out by bribes and cronism, nothing to do with competence.

If the side wind was too strong the A350 should have returned to BKK or another airport with ligher winds and no rain. Is that what happened here?

The other thing when you have a true safety culture you have to admit mistakes, you then as a company/organisation openly discuss the errors and chain of events to learn from it a non-punative atmosphere.

Maybe you didn't read all the posts on this topic mainly the ones of mine where I precisely say what you have just said.

 

As far as your "safety culture" comment is concerned there should be no "culture" involved, There will be an enquiry where responsibility is placed and in this case I would assume that a case will be made that the pilot should indeed have adopted the overshoot procedure but he made a call and in this case it led to the incident occurring.