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 17th Sep 2007, 20:12
  #101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: EFHK (Finland)
Age: 62
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I wonder where the OG management's talk about a "12 year old" airplane comes from. If the pax manifest carries the correct reg, the plane was an early-production 24 year old ex-TWA.
md80forum is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2007, 20:19
  #102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Wales, UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
OG management's talk about a "12 year old" airplane
From yet more speculation I've no doubt...
Doctor Smurf is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2007, 20:28
  #103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: California
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Australian survivor tells his story:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7fc_1190048017
BClouds is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2007, 20:45
  #104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Central London
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I have to put my hand up as an old pilot but not bold pilot.
Having flown across most of the world in my own light aircraft over 25 years I know when to say no.

Turning back is never easy.
I suspect a lot harder when you have pax in the back.

This was an old pilot/young sprog in conditions that you want to say no.

In my aircraft I say no.

Flying a bus or truck is a different matter.
Take a look at the Halifax MK accident. Cheap crew and pressure.

Corporate pressure is to blame here.
Phil Space is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2007, 21:15
  #105 (permalink)  
PJ2
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: BC
Age: 76
Posts: 2,484
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Phil;

Re,
Corporate pressure is to blame here.
Perhaps, but we can't "name" causes at present as we don't have all the information.

In information-gathering stages of investigation, the immediacy of data such as DFDRs, CVRs, METARS (both official, and, I see, "unofficial" (rapidly unfolding/changing wx, perhaps?) must be intelligently interpreted and combined with the gathering of "softer" information which is typically the human-factors side such as the obvious crew history as well as the factors which you have mentioned here.

Corporate pressures absolutely play a role in employee behaviours but cannot be singled out, first because such a project demands a very wide examination of cultures and not just this one accident. We only know that there is a smoking mess where there was once an airplane. All the rest is speculation - some of it reasonably conceived, a though I have expressed elsewhere, but much of it is still in the "eye/ear-witness accounts and second/third-hand anecdotes stage.

Such anecdotes do point somewhat, but all possibilities must remain open until eliminated through the data. "Soft" causes such as fatigue-related crew error, while having made it into accident reports a few times, (the Guantanamo accident is one of the few which cite fatigue as a primary cause, the AA1420 Little Rock accident comes close), but reports generally favour hard data because change is so difficult to cite and support in soft causes. (Don't get me wrong though - I have been fighting the fatigue-issue for years and Canada still has a long way to go in escaping a Monrovia-like regulatory environment when it comes to fatigue-risk management. - sorry for the momentary lapse!)

I cite these broader examples because they each have arisen in this thread as "the" cause of this terrible tragedy. Not so. There is only the possibility of a hierarchy of causes at present, and unless there is an unequivocal, immediate cause such as a deployed reverser, we must be cautious, (I am not citing this as a potential "cause", I am expressing the notion of "clear-and-present" mechanical "failure" such as the Cranbrook B737 accident, vice what are almost certainly broader factors which must be considered as speculation turns to knowledge). Almost certainly, "one factor" will not be the case here and so speculation must take that into account.

BTW, I sure like your approach....it takes a short time to teach someone how to fly but it takes a lifetime to teach them when not to...
PJ2 is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2007, 21:35
  #106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: washington,dc
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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, 21:37
  #107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Central London
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
CPL's employed by budget airlines do not have the same choice.
Get home itus is the biggest killer.

What I find amazing is the fact that very experienced CP pilots forget the basics and never fly small aircraft that bite in bad weather very quickly.
Phil Space is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2007, 21:59
  #108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
  #109 (permalink)  
AlwaysOnFire
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: **** you PPRUNE!
Age: 24
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wideman, it´s 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
  #110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South Africa / Thailand
Age: 71
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
  #111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Costa del Thames
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
  #112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Melbourne, China
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by asia757
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
  #113 (permalink)  

Controversial, moi?
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,606
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
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.

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 offline  
Old 18th Sep 2007, 00:25
  #114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Not Pluto
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
  #115 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: England
Posts: 979
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 1 Post
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
  #116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: wales (new south)
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
  #117 (permalink)  
IGh
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Castlegar
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
  #118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Singapore
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
  #119 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Oztrailia
Posts: 2,991
Received 14 Likes on 10 Posts
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
  #120 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: London
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.