Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Misc. Forums > Airlines, Airports & Routes
Reload this Page >

MD80 plane crash in Phuket, Sep. 07

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

MD80 plane crash in Phuket, Sep. 07

Old 16th Sep 2007, 14:08
  #21 (permalink)  
I'm in one of those moods
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 760
.. they hit something hard at that tree line
.
Flight deck windows (eybrow) visible on top mid section fuse in the photo link at top of this page
Scurvy.D.Dog is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2007, 14:30
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: washington,dc
Posts: 486
some people are saying a go around attempted , others a blown tire, others that the plane skidded off the runway...

does this sound at all like little rock?
bomarc is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2007, 14:31
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Unstable Thailand
Posts: 106
Was the A/C a vintage MD80?
Seaman Staines is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2007, 14:34
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: washington,dc
Posts: 486
supposedly an md82...can only guess it was an earlier one...perhaps 25 years old but no real data
bomarc is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2007, 14:40
  #25 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 787
Public Radio is reporting 66 deaths confirmed so far. The story says the crew were attempting a go around when they crashed.
weasil is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2007, 14:42
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: washington,dc
Posts: 486
from a blogger

A surviving Thai passenger said the plane "landed hard" and "bounced" and then skidded off the runway. Civil aviation official Chiasak Angkauwan said, "the airplane requested to land but due to the weather in Phuket -- strong wind and heavy rain -- maybe the pilot did not see the runway clearly."

"The plane then fell onto the runway and broke into two. It is expected that there will be a lot of casualties."

"We are rescuing people from the aircraft ... we know now there were 123 passengers and five crew," he told the news channel.

"We won't know what really happened until we get information from the black box."
bomarc is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2007, 14:42
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: My Kitchen...
Posts: 84
Angel

Very sad to hear....

I understand that two cabin crew have survived....no word on the thrid CC and the two pilots.

Condolences to those who lost loved ones.

I have a lot to say having worked there in the past, but here is not the place. I hope good things come out of this unfortunate event.

Heavy...
b747heavy is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2007, 14:59
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Here
Posts: 19
Apparently both pilots survived: (Go to picture 4 and read the caption)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/6997598.stm

Last edited by VOR_DME; 16th Sep 2007 at 15:00. Reason: Correction
VOR_DME is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2007, 15:06
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: washington,dc
Posts: 486
could the spoilers have deployed and then it bounced?

if this happened, the second touchdown would have been rather hard.

do any photos show the position of thrust reversers, spoilers?
bomarc is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2007, 16:06
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: washington,dc
Posts: 486
so, it seems that we have another plane skidding off a runway? like TAM airbus it was during rain.

unlike TAM airbus, this is not a fly by wire plane.

according to one person on this forum the runway was 9600feet long and that is pretty long...about 3000 feet longer than the TAM crash.

anyone in thailand know for a fact if the runway lights were on? (even if this was in daylight, runway lights can really help during rain)
bomarc is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2007, 16:08
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,043
CNN -- Thailand's health ministry says 87 people died in an airline crash Sunday in Phuket, and 43 people survived.
forget is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2007, 16:23
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: washington,dc
Posts: 486
of interest

I've just seen a 10-9 chart for this airport...more than 9000 feet after a glideslope touchdown...though one end is at 82 feet, the other at 19 feet (threshold of 27 at 82 feet msl)

a low level windshear system is installed...

IT IS IMPORTANT to find out for sure which direction the plane was landing...even though it might make sense to land on 27 due to winds...it is something we need to find out FOR SURE.

ILS only on 27...PAPI ON BOTH but 3.2 degree on 27 I think (correct me if i am mistaken please)

sad...


by the way, there is a small over run on each end and I don't think that this runway will be the problem...it looks like a pretty good, more than long enough runway...the plane may not have gone off the end...more details I hope will be forthcoming
bomarc is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2007, 17:13
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: washington,dc
Posts: 486
published report of "go around"

there is a published report that the pilot had radioed and indicated he was going around.

certainly to be taken with a grain of salt, but if there was microburst etc the go around could have ended up on the runway

recall that a dc9 in charlotte was going around and then went down due to microburst some dozen years ago or more.
bomarc is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2007, 18:16
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: washington,dc
Posts: 486
one photo may indicate the position of the flaps of the plane in question.

while it is impossible for me to tell, I do ask others to look closely...could the flaps be at the go around position or the landing position...?

of course it is possible they were retracted after the landing to allow for evacuation, BUT with the plane broken apart, it is doubtful the hydraulic lines are fully intact.

we shall see.

I could not see the spoiler position...
bomarc is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2007, 18:39
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Kent
Posts: 56
87 fatalities, according to local officials. Britons confirmed among dead but at least five Britons among survivors. Not surprisingly, many nationalities on board flight
nippysweetie is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2007, 18:59
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Citizen of the World
Posts: 174
Approximately westerly wind at about 10 - 12 kts with 3000m in rain is not particularly bad weather IMHO. Must have been something else wrong? Why was it trying to land on 09 (VOR/DME approach) instead of 27 ILS and into wind?

Phuket is not known for awkward winds. So was there some other factor at work? Hardly a difficult approach?
SIDSTAR is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2007, 19:08
  #37 (permalink)  
MDJETFAN
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
MD-82 accident.

I note in the referenced blog that the aircraft was fitted with 175 seats. I'm not sure if this is a typo, but as a former MD-80 salesman, I am sure the aircraft was FAA certified for a maximum of 165 seats based on the number and type of doors and overwing exits.
 
Old 16th Sep 2007, 19:17
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 723
Phil

Should the PNL details and 'status' be on PPRuNe?
Another very sad day
boredcounter is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2007, 19:40
  #39 (permalink)  
Stercus Accidit
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Swimming with bowlegged women
Posts: 262
Terrible, reminds me of the 1998 Surat Thani plane crash with a THAI Airbus, also bad weather and multiple approaches.

Arrived many times on HKT, usually the 27 (saves the long return to the terminal).
Capt.KAOS is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2007, 20:01
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Closer than you think
Posts: 90
Direction of landing

I don't think it landed on 09.

Look at the shots of the tail fin below - you can clearly see other aircraft parked on the apron, on the other side of the taxiway/runway, in the far background:



That surely means the crash site is on the northern side of the airport, not underneath the tower (which, like the apron, is on the south side).

It also suggests, from the debris trail in some of the panning video shots, that the aircraft would have landed on runway 27 - which makes far more sense.

Or am I just talking rubbish?

Last edited by TwoOneFour; 16th Sep 2007 at 20:24.
TwoOneFour is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.