Airport operating in severe weather

[PhuketSarah]

...and a really low level flight wandering around up there in it.  Good grief. 

[PhuketSarah]

Purple being severe weather 

[Pomthai]

Just a squall passing through, pretty normal for this time of year.

 

http://weather.tmd.go.th/pkt120Loop.php

 

 

 

[Pilot3Boz]

Planes holding for weather is very normal procedures.... 

[Belzybob]

Phuket has both ILS (ground based nav aid) and RNAV (GPS) instrument procedures. The ILS allows an aircraft to descend down to about 500' above aerodrome level on instruments.

[simon43]

What the runway lacks, (according to regular news reports), is lack of a decent water run-off.  So when there is a sudden squall or heavy rain downpour, planes cannot safely land...

[happyas]

16 hours ago, PhuketSarah said:

Purple being severe weather 

 The plane is not "wandering around up there" at all.

In IFR weather such as this, there is an internationally recognised set of proceedures.

Each airport depending on many factors has its own strict criteria inc headings, altitudes etc and this proceedure must be followed.

Airplanes fly all over the world day and night in far worse conditions than this.

Imagine the chaos if they did not/could not?

[PhuketSarah]

On 7/13/2017 at 10:40 PM, Pilot3Boz said:

Planes holding for weather is very normal procedures.... 

No doubt,  but this plane was taking off and seemed to not be under full power, which I believe  the density of the clouds was transmitting the sound waves to my ear more clearly than usual. No doubt a  Thai Air Asia  flight which operates  routinely  at  half the altitude and distance of all other aircraft taking off, even the  Nok prop is higher on take off as it goes over where I'm at.   I see a lack of concern for safety in all aspects of  life in Thailand, is the airport really going to be any different? Reading about the 1 2 go crash, seems a whole lot of mistakes and lax safety procedures led to that crash. Maybe things tightened up for a few years, but I suspect all is back to the usual My Pen Rai status. 

Edited July 15, 2017 by PhuketSarah
Punctuation.

[PhuketSarah]

On 7/14/2017 at 8:43 AM, simon43 said:

What the runway lacks, (according to regular news reports), is lack of a decent water run-off.  So when there is a sudden squall or heavy rain downpour, planes cannot safely land...

 Which was cited as another factor in the  severity of the 1 2 go crash,  and  not remedied?  Also reading about the water runoff ditch of near the runway in violation of international standards, where the crash ended up is still there. 

[Belzybob]

1 hour ago, PhuketSarah said:

No doubt,  but this plane was taking off and seemed to not be under full power, which I believe  the density of the clouds was transmitting the sound waves to my ear more clearly than usual. No doubt a  Thai Air Asia  flight which operates  routinely  at  half the altitude and distance of all other aircraft taking off, even the  Nok prop is higher on take off as it goes over where I'm at.   I see a lack of concern for safety in all aspects of  life in Thailand, is the airport really going to be any different? Reading about the 1 2 go crash, seems a whole lot of mistakes and lax safety procedures led to that crash. Maybe things tightened up for a few years, but I suspect all is back to the usual My Pen Rai status. 

Very few modern jets take off with full power unless they have to due to weight, temperature or wind.. They use what is known as 'flex-thrust' and use the amount of power that is computed to get the aircraft aloft within the specific runway dimensions. The altitude or distance that an aircraft is climbing/flying to is irrelevant.

[simon43]

 Also reading about the water runoff ditch of near the runway in violation of international standards, where the crash ended up is still there. 

 

The run-off problem has not been resolved.

 

The runoff ditch (which impeded the rescue vehicles) has not been modified

 

The proximity of the hill to the runway (breaches international regulations) has not been resolved.

 

The use of Thai language (not English) on control tower radio-comms still common-place.

 

(I know all this because I owned Phuket Airport Hotel at the time of the one-2-go crash, worked as a police volunteer, and am a radio 'ham' with access to the airport radio-comms frequencies).

 

So, everything as normal, nothing to worry about 

[Jimi007]

11 hours ago, PhuketSarah said:

No doubt,  but this plane was taking off and seemed to not be under full power, which I believe  the density of the clouds was transmitting the sound waves to my ear more clearly than usual. No doubt a  Thai Air Asia  flight which operates  routinely  at  half the altitude and distance of all other aircraft taking off, even the  Nok prop is higher on take off as it goes over where I'm at.   I see a lack of concern for safety in all aspects of  life in Thailand, is the airport really going to be any different? Reading about the 1 2 go crash, seems a whole lot of mistakes and lax safety procedures led to that crash. Maybe things tightened up for a few years, but I suspect all is back to the usual My Pen Rai status. 

I certainly remember the weather the day of the One to Go crash! The wind was howling and the rain was blowing horizontal. They should have never tried to land that plane in the conditions at that time. Now many flights are diverted or circle until a let up in the squall, not the same back then! Anyone remember Phuket Airlines. Their planes were scary old! I like this software. Works anywhere in the world too! https://www.flightradar24.com/7.71,97.24/7

[natway09]

There is a maximum cross wind tolerance for every aircraft, The 1,2 go looks like pilot error

along with a wind shear that the tower may have noticed too late for a go around order

I would like to see a video of the landing before commenting further

[Belzybob]

Just now, natway09 said:

There is a maximum cross wind tolerance for every aircraft, The 1,2 go looks like pilot error

along with a wind shear that the tower may have noticed too late for a go around order

I would like to see a video of the landing before commenting further

Towers do not order go-arounds for cross winds or wind shear reports, they inform the pilot of any reported condition. The decision is the pilot's.

[PhuketSarah]

On 7/15/2017 at 11:30 AM, Belzybob said:

Very few modern jets take off with full power unless they have to due to weight, temperature or wind.. They use what is known as 'flex-thrust' and use the amount of power that is computed to get the aircraft aloft within the specific runway dimensions. The altitude or distance that an aircraft is climbing/flying to is irrelevant.

I see what I see in the air above my head. Thai Air Asia  are half the speed and half the altitude of all other airlines- except for a Eva flight now and again. They are doing this to save money.  One day a TAA flight is going to have trouble, and will going  down on  population because it hasn' t  the altitude or velocity  for any  other  options.  

[PhuketSarah]

On 7/16/2017 at 2:36 PM, natway09 said:

There is a maximum cross wind tolerance for every aircraft, The 1,2 go looks like pilot error

along with a wind shear that the tower may have noticed too late for a go around order

I would like to see a video of the landing before commenting further

The  pilot error was not flying the plane- apparently   Interesting video here  ( very subdued  soundtrack-) 

 

[Flying Clog]

Clearly a mishandled approach/go around. You pay peanuts, and you get monkeys. End of. It's really that simple.

 

But, of course, everyone wants cheap tickets, so you get what you pay for. I personally don't fly with Air Asia anymore after a few scares, and being in the airline industry, I know full well how they run their operation. History speaks for itself.

 

Again, cheap tickets equals crap safety standards and, most importantly, crap pilots who won't speak up with regards safety/fatigue/management and make a stand when they need to or take the initiative/be professional. Or simply don't have the experience to handle these situations. After all, cheap tickets means low costs mean lousy pay for the pilots. So only the desperate Captains will work for them, and First Officers entering the industry with zero experience. Not a good combo.

 

Notable exceptions are Southwest, easyJet and Ryanair. They're of extremely high standards because they ran the low cost model correctly. All these other copy cats cherry pick the low-cost model and cut corners where necessary to compete. That means an accident is inevitable. Thanks to the bean counters, and ignorant punters.

 

Interesting to read many of your misinformed comments above! PhuketSarah is particularly way off the mark!

 

Before I get flamed, I'm a Boeing 747 Captain with one of the world's safest, most reputable airlines, who commutes to Phuket on his days off...

 

FC

[Jimi007]

26 minutes ago, Flying Clog said:

Clearly a mishandled approach/go around. You pay peanuts, and you get monkeys. End of. It's really that simple.

 

But, of course, everyone wants cheap tickets, so you get what you pay for. I personally don't fly with Air Asia anymore after a few scares, and being in the airline industry, I know full well how they run their operation. History speaks for itself.

 

Again, cheap tickets equals crap safety standards and, most importantly, crap pilots who won't speak up with regards safety/fatigue/management and make a stand when they need to or take the initiative/be professional. Or simply don't have the experience to handle these situations. After all, cheap tickets means low costs mean lousy pay for the pilots. So only the desperate Captains will work for them, and First Officers entering the industry with zero experience. Not a good combo.

 

Notable exceptions are Southwest, easyJet and Ryanair. They're of extremely high standards because they ran the low cost model correctly. All these other copy cats cherry pick the low-cost model and cut corners where necessary to compete. That means an accident is inevitable. Thanks to the bean counters, and ignorant punters.

 

Interesting to read many of your misinformed comments above! PhuketSarah is particularly way off the mark!

 

Before I get flamed, I'm a Boeing 747 Captain with one of the world's safest, most reputable airlines, who commutes to Phuket on his days off...

 

FC

So who do you fly domestically?  Thai is worse than Nok IMHO. I'm not an Air Asia fan either. 

[observer90210]

20 minutes ago, Jimi007 said:

So who do you fly domestically?  Thai is worse than Nok IMHO. I'm not an Air Asia fan either. 

 Whatever......but those busty, chesty, cutie female cabin attendants on Air Asia sure save the company money as they don't need life jackets...they would just float their way thru!!

[Jimi007]

2 minutes ago, observer90210 said:

 Whatever......but those busty, chesty, cutie female cabin attendants on Air Asia sure save the company money as they don't need life jackets...they would just float their way thru!!

Thanks for your response, very informative! I guess you're abreast of the domestic airlines!

 

[observer90210]

3 minutes ago, Jimi007 said:

Thanks for your response, very informative! I guess you're abreast of the domestic airlines!

 

...

 

Thanks for your response, had a good laugh...happy flying!

[perthperson]

I wonder how many hours of commercial flying experience as a Pilot Ms Sarah has. Perhaps non and she is a senior ATC officer --- If neither what does qualify her to make comment about how aircraft are being flown? 

Edited July 17, 2017 by perthperson
typo removed

[Flying Clog]

Jimi007,

 

Domestically, when I go through Bangkok I use Bangkok Airways and Thai, who are both excellent. Nok and Air Asia? Fill your boots! Just pull a number and take your chances. Not for me after 2 major scares with Air Asia in the last couple of years.

 

Internationally, Thai and Dragonair to Hong Kong. Both excellent.

 

Beyond HKG, Cathay!

[Belzybob]

15 hours ago, PhuketSarah said:

I see what I see in the air above my head. Thai Air Asia  are half the speed and half the altitude of all other airlines- except for a Eva flight now and again. They are doing this to save money.  One day a TAA flight is going to have trouble, and will going  down on  population because it hasn' t  the altitude or velocity  for any  other  options.  

What nonsense.

[PhuketSarah]

9 minutes ago, Belzybob said:

What nonsense.

 You're mistaken.  "Speed is life, altitude is  insurance..." And TAA is taking big chances to save money.

[PhuketSarah]

8 hours ago, Flying Clog said:

Jimi007,

 

Domestically, when I go through Bangkok I use Bangkok Airways and Thai, who are both excellent. Nok and Air Asia? Fill your boots! Just pull a number and take your chances. Not for me after 2 major scares with Air Asia in the last couple of years.

 

Internationally, Thai and Dragonair to Hong Kong. Both excellent.

 

Beyond HKG, Cathay!

What happened with TAA?  Going too slow for the weather conditions?  Seen that, too.  

[PhuketSarah]

11 hours ago, Flying Clog said:

Clearly a mishandled approach/go around. You pay peanuts, and you get monkeys. End of. It's really that simple.

 

But, of course, everyone wants cheap tickets, so you get what you pay for. I personally don't fly with Air Asia anymore after a few scares, and being in the airline industry, I know full well how they run their operation. History speaks for itself.

 

Again, cheap tickets equals crap safety standards and, most importantly, crap pilots who won't speak up with regards safety/fatigue/management and make a stand when they need to or take the initiative/be professional. Or simply don't have the experience to handle these situations. After all, cheap tickets means low costs mean lousy pay for the pilots. So only the desperate Captains will work for them, and First Officers entering the industry with zero experience. Not a good combo.

 

Notable exceptions are Southwest, easyJet and Ryanair. They're of extremely high standards because they ran the low cost model correctly. All these other copy cats cherry pick the low-cost model and cut corners where necessary to compete. That means an accident is inevitable. Thanks to the bean counters, and ignorant punters.

 

Interesting to read many of your misinformed comments above! PhuketSarah is particularly way off the mark!

 

Before I get flamed, I'm a Boeing 747 Captain with one of the world's safest, most reputable airlines, who commutes to Phuket on his days off...

 

FC

So how am I way off the mark ? You agree TAA is unsafe-  would not flying low and slow be as unsafe as it gets?  I can see TAA is so much lower, and slower that ALL other  flights. 

Edited July 18, 2017 by PhuketSarah

[perthperson]

35 minutes ago, PhuketSarah said:

So how am I way off the mark ? You agree TAA is unsafe-  would not flying low and slow be as unsafe as it gets?  I can see TAA is so much lower, and slower that ALL other  flights. 

 

Have you submitted a report to The Civil Aviation Authority of Thailand (CAAT)?

 

I am sure they would be interested in aircraft being flown low, slow and 'unsafely'  

 

Are you qualified to make these judgement? 

 

 

 

 

[Belzybob]

6 hours ago, PhuketSarah said:

 You're mistaken.  "Speed is life, altitude is  insurance..." And TAA is taking big chances to save money.

You are making claims and commenting on things you obviously know nothing about.

[Old Croc]

53 minutes ago, Belzybob said:

7 hours ago, PhuketSarah said:

 You're mistaken.  "Speed is life, altitude is  insurance..." And TAA is taking big chances to save money.

You are making claims and commenting on things you obviously know nothing about.

Blah, blah, blah, Heard it all before. 

 

Here actually:

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/659155-low-and-slow-take-offs-caveat-thai-air-asia-qatar/

 

Those low flying planes are probably upsetting any horses quartered under the flight path.

 

Edited July 18, 2017 by Old Croc