PPRuNe Forums

Go Back   PPRuNe Forums > Misc. Forums > Airlines, Airports & Routes
Forgotten your Username/Password?

Airlines, Airports & Routes Topics about airports, routes and airline business.


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 17th Sep 2007, 21:35   #101 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: washington,dc
Posts: 486
Windshear Warning Issued Prior To Landing

accoding to an AP report in an Australian Newspaper, the tower issued a windshear warning prior to the crash...pilot elected to continue.

try google news "windshear" as copyrighted articles are not allowed to be posted.
bomarc is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2007, 21:59   #102 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 33
Amazing amateur video, moments after crash

Incredible footage apparently shot by a survivor; also helps suggest how seconds can make the difference for survival:
http://www.iltasanomat.fi/videot/?id=1437166&ap=1
(footage after an ad)


Note: Thanks to alexmcfire for correcting my original post. The video was shot by a Swede who survived.

Last edited by wideman; 18th Sep 2007 at 09:42. Reason: Correct nationality of video-taker
wideman is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2007, 22:19   #103 (permalink)
AlwaysOnFire
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: **** you PPRUNE!
Age: 14
Posts: 227
Wideman, its shot by one of the two Swedes who survived, they sat at the
emergency exit and was the first off the plane.
alexmcfire is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2007, 22:42   #104 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South Africa / Thailand
Age: 61
Posts: 10
So much for the emergency response ...

Anyone like to extrapolate how long it should have taken for the fire truck(s) to roll?

I wonder just how many minutes it actually took for the first responders to arrive.

I also wonder if the survivor listed in 6A had not moved back to sit with others. It seems fairly clear cut that those upfront died from the consequences of rapid deceleration and those in the back were able, in most cases, to walk away.
BoughtMyPoints is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2007, 22:45   #105 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Costa del Thames
Posts: 499
Quote:
Was the MD aircraft in question not equipped for a fully blind landing in zero visibility or does Phuket airport not have the necessary equipment installed?

Surely in a similar situation at say Gatwick Airport there would be no problem with landing in near non existent visibility.
I'm not saying that it can't be done but bare in mind the localizer is offset by one or two degrees if I'm not mistaken, and the downslope on 27 prohibits, at least my operator, from even attempting an autoland even if it wasn't an offset approach.
Brenoch is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2007, 23:24   #106 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Melbourne, China
Posts: 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by asia757 View Post
Tell me.....how did he get so close to the runway with NO visual contact as reported by the surviving pax and the tower report that he was going missed?
We can get some idea of the visibility on the runway at the time from this video.

http://www.iltasanomat.fi/videot/?id=1437166&ap=1

Whether it's below the minima or not, is up to the investigators, I guess.
mingalababya is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2007, 23:54   #107 (permalink)

Controversial, moi?
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Quote:
Phuket weather is always unstable.
Having said that the UK is a lot worse.

Thailand is an easy country to fly across with very predictable weather.

We do not yet know the full details on this accident but as a private pilot I would have sat on the ground elsewhere or at the worst turned back.
I rarely post on these speculative threads but the above comment cannot pass without comment.

Such a sweeping generalisation about respective weather conditions is inaccurate. Rarely do we get the sort of storms in the UK which are commonplace in the Far East at certain times of the year. To then go on and declare what you would have done as a private pilot is as impossible to predict as it is irrelevant.

Quote:
Was the MD aircraft in question not equipped for a fully blind landing in zero visibility or does Phuket airport not have the necessary equipment installed?

Surely in a similar situation at say Gatwick Airport there would be no problem with landing in near non existent visibility.
A common misunderstanding about low visibility landings is that it is not as simple as plugging the autopilot in and sitting back. Apart from relevant visibility minima, (it is never 'zero', the lowest my company can operate to is 75 metres), the aeroplane autoflight systems have to be certificated to autoland to a specified minima, the airfield equipment has to be of sufficiently high standard (calibrated, maintained and certificated to the appropriate level and there are numerous levels) and there are tailwind, crosswind and aircraft defect limitations, etc.

Few airports in the world have ground equipment to the required standard, usually only the major ones in developed and wealthy countries.

These threads bring out the very worst in people with so many posts made by people who want to take part in a willy waving contest when all they do is prove there ignorance, illogical thinking, immaturity or all three.

If somebody has something worthwhile to say it becomes lost in the reams of garbage and false sincerity (RIP, condolences, etc. referring to unknown people never met and probably scarcely thought about therafter) expressed by people who could do PPRuNe and its readers a favour by reading instead of posting and waiting until the true causes of this accident become known.
M.Mouse is online now  
Old 18th Sep 2007, 00:25   #108 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Not Pluto
Posts: 58
Ironic

Very sad indeed.

What is ironic is that the airport just went through disaster management drills.

Page two of the Phuket Gazette September 15th - Phuket Airport disaster drill hailed a 'success'.

I have no idea how emergency response was and sure they did a great job. Its just ironic how things are sometimes.
Pluto's gone is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2007, 00:29   #109 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 494
The mouse has spoken; many a true word seeking knowledge with sentiment.

Time to revisit Managing the Threats and Errors during Approach and Landing.

Also see Safety aspects of aircraft operations in crosswind. (2001)
PEI_3721 is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2007, 00:34   #110 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: wales (new south)
Posts: 81
A few thoughts

Idle speculation I guess but based on information availible

Chief pilot + newbie = Possible CRM issue

Aircraft came to rest directly opposite tower, who having been alerted to the go around would probably be watching, so maybe we should take seriously the eyewitness account of the "aircraft became unbalanced" and maybe interpret this as a stall while attempting a go around (hard bounce on runway giving to much nose up?). The accident site does not show too much evidence of forward motion or ground contact (skid)
RogerTangoFoxtrotIndigo is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2007, 00:37   #111 (permalink)
IGh
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Castlegar
Posts: 635
N912tw

Jacdec reports that this mishap a/c was one of the original batch of twenty delivered to TWA (company tab/nose # 9012 ?); delivered in '83, went over to AA, then to storage.
IGh is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2007, 02:14   #112 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Singapore
Posts: 19
Aircraft Age??

According to Boeing's response to the crash:

The airplane, serial number 49183, Variable 80C211, was delivered to a different operator in December 1983. At last report, it had accumulated approximately 64,679 hours and 34,202 cycles.

Seems dear Mr Udom did not do the math correctly and cut the age of the aircraft in half in the media report. Also keep in mind there is the likely fact that nothing had been reported on times and cycles since this aircraft arrived in Thailand.

As to the visual effect of the video taken after the crash and what may have been present on the approach. Anyone who has spent any time in a monsoon downpour can attest that minutes and even seconds can mean the difference between some visibility and none.

Just more fuel for the fires of speculation!!!
asia757 is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2007, 03:43   #113 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Oztrailia
Posts: 1,440
Some observations from the video and other pictures:
it does look like they landed on rwy 27, no doubt about it.
You can see the smoke from the fire indicating a westerly wind of about 10 to 15 kts.
The wx to the north seems to be fairly ok, but the view to the east ( the rwy 27 approach ) does seem to have quite reduced vis in heavy rain.
It's still raining when the video was shot and the Finnish survivors are all dripping wet.
It's been a while since I've flown in HKT, but it can be a tricky place in bad wx.
I have several mates that have had a few heart stopping moments trying to land in HKT in 767's. Due to x/wind and rain.
The rwy is not grooved and QF forbid landings in mod to heavy rain.

My condolences to all, another sad day in Asian aviation for all.

Seems it might be time to actually enforce some rules.
ACMS is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2007, 05:26   #114 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: London
Posts: 12
time of response...

Looking at the video, I guess it must have taken the person who took the film at least 60 seconds to leave the plane, get to the edge of the runway and then start filming, yet at the end of the video clip (a further 56 seconds), there still appears to be absolutely no sign of rescue services.

Sadly - from experience - this doesn't surprise me. But as a resident in Thailand and someone who flies very frequently, I find this apparently tardy response rather alarming.
dinbangkok is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2007, 05:50   #115 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: asia
Posts: 548
Insurance and leasing?

This from the Bangkok Post

http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_....php?id=121741

Quote:
- The Department of Insurance cautioned Orient Thai Airlines this morning that it is fully responsible for compensating victims involved in the crash of Flight OG269 at Phuket, Radio Thailand reported.
News reports have said that Orient Thai has said it carried no insurance on the fatal flight, but promised to compensate Thai victims and their families.
But Radio Thailand's report quoted the Director General of the Department of Insurance, Chanthra Booranarik, as saying Orient Thai Airlines, also known as One-Two-Go Airlines, is responsible for paying for medical expenses and compensation to all victims of the One-Two-Go flight.
Mrs Chanthra affirmed her agency will coordinate in expediting aid to crash victims.
She said regulations were clear: Global civil aviation protocol dictates that airlines must properly insure their aircrafts and passengers onboard.
Orient Thai Airlines is reported to have leased Flight OG 269 from a foreign company, and has procured full insurance for the plane and its passengers, therefore the airline is capable of reimbursing air crash victims for medical treatment and other expenses.
Mrs Chanthra added that if passengers involved in the air crash feel that they are being treated unjustly, they are welcomed to contact the Department of Insurance at 1186, the Radio Thailand report said.
Orient Thai Airlines chief executive officer Udom Tantiprasongchai has also promised to compensate the victims and injured.
02:46 Sep 16, 2007
stickyb is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2007, 06:19   #116 (permalink)

 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Asia
Posts: 165
Life and Limb are cheap in Asia, same as pilots. The Department of Insurance, by making this obvious statement are either in collusion with Udom, or there really is problem from hospital about who will pay medical bills.
Guava Tree is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2007, 06:21   #117 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Quote:
Originally posted by Max Stryker :
As for someone commenting on the MD-80 not being the easiest to land, I wouldn't agree, however there are two points to make here. The plane is tricky in only two situations...
You forgot the crosswind case! Like any aircraft with tail mounted engines, you have a big tendency of yaw forces with reversers on in crosswind. It's obvious that they had very strong crosswind (well, not as strong as in the northern hemisphere, but here with most likely a contaminanted runway). As soon as you revers full, you can get a huge turn movement on the vertical axis. The only solution is to reduce the reversers. So they did several attemps to land, then finally saw the runway, wanted to stop, stop quickly because of the runway condition (after the end there is only sea until India), pulled full reverse and where surprised they got off the runway, blaming the crosswind.

When you continue the ILS track (which is offset by 1) straight after the minimum, you stop exactly where they stopped, right of the runway, on the hillside around in the middle of the runway length.

It's also most likely that pilots in the tropics very rarily experience crosswind landings, since there is no wind at all, and thus lack training. Add to this all the other factors mentioned before, this could very likely happen.

Dani
Dani is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2007, 06:52   #118 (permalink)
The Reverend
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Quote:
It has been suggested that the captain had lost his medical.
Lost or suspended? I very much doubt that any pilot, regardles of ethnicity, would operate an aircraft without a valid Class 1 medical certificate. You can have your medical certificate suspended for many reasons and varying periods. Changing your blood pressure medication for instance, comes with a month of suspension and is re-issued after a satisfactory medical clearance.
HotDog is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2007, 07:01   #119 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: there
Posts: 666
Quote:
It's also most likely that pilots in the tropics very rarily experience crosswind landings, since there is no wind at all, and thus lack training


What a load of shyte! There are some places in 'the tropics' where the wind never basically stops blowing - any oceanic island with a runway running with the lay of the land can give you 20 kts crosswind on a good day!
slice is online now  
Old 18th Sep 2007, 07:16   #120 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 5945'36N 1027'59E
Posts: 911
Quote:
how long it should have taken for the fire truck(s) to roll?
30 seconds to roll, another 60 to reach the a/c IF it had crashed at the point furthest away from the fire station. Total 90 to water on fire.
That's the ICAO standard I believe, at least the norm in most of Europe.

The question is how long it took for ATC to realize they had crashed, and hit the alarm. (Was the visibility good enough to see the crash site)

I guess most in this forum has seen the time / temperature graphs for aircraft fire. At more than 90 secs you are rapidly getting cooked no matter what.

I watched them remove the wreckage on CNN last night. Hope they don't need it for post crash analysis, they where a tad rough with the heavy equipment.
M609 is online now  
Closed Thread
 
 
 


Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 23:41.


vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network