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).

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:

http://static.sky.com/images/pictures/1586455.jpg

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? :confused:

I don't think so. The deep drainage ditch is also on the north side. The accident site seems in-line with the edge of the forest and the terminal ramp area in the background, as you say. From the photo inserted, (of the whole airfield), that line would be approximately half way, perhaps a bit further, down the north side of the runway.

Very sad day for world aviation.

while the METAR doesn't reflect it, does anyone know if:

lightning had been seen in the area?

or

if the low level windshear alert system had issued a warning?

Eyewitness account from Canadian survivor.

"We started to go for the landing and he just about hit the runway, but couldn't make it, so he lifted back up. We started to circle. I thought he was going to circle back around and try again, and then we took a sharp right and we started going for the ground."

Passenger says she adopted brace position at this point.

"We bounced once and then went straight into an embankment with trees and bushes.

"It was raining really hard. We saw a couple of people who were on fire."

It's most certainly on 09. The accident site is nearly at the end of the runway, which would have been the beginning of 27, so hardly possible.

The tail lays this way because the aircraft bounced into the wall and started to turn.

Dani

It looks like 27 to me, you can see planes in the background in one of the pictures which suggests that the picture was taken facing south, which puts the wreckage half about half to two thirds down 27.

I think it is 27
 

I think it is 27 because the slope of the runway seen in the background appears to be downhill...elevation of 27 is 82 feet sloping down to 19 feet on the other end.

does this make sense?

Dani, how do you account for the wreckage trail, clearly visible on one of the photos, if the a/c had turned around. The FACTS will emerge soon enough, but to me it looks pretty sure that it was 27. [note the survivor report re the right turns too).

It was raining very hard today in south Phuket and with a lot of sudden, but short-lived, gusts of wind. It's raining again now.
One poster on Thaivisa.com stated that he lives near the runway and the wind was very strong just at the time the plane was landing.

Just watched BBC News ar 10 (Sunday night). According to the fragrant Emily Maitlis, the a/c came in "fast and hard" Fast? what was Vref? What was the additive for prevailing wind/gusr? What was the actual approach speed? And therefore was it "fast"? Why don't journos (of which my daughter is one) consult one of us before publishing?

What is meant by hard?

Oh dear.

microburst/windshear?
 

this reminds me so much of a crash in the US about 13 years ago...go around and then hit by microburst.

right now that is what I have to think in this scenario.

long ago, I decided that if a go around and windshear were mixed...might be better to put it on the runway and take your chances there.

Deepest sympathy to all affected by this tragedy.

I have been through Phuket once, and on the morning of departure it received extremely heavy rainfall. I suspected that the standing water was deep enough to constitute a contaminant. Initially I could get no information from the airport authority and a request to inspect the runway surface was met with resistance - so I refused to depart. By the time that I persuaded them to take me out to the runway, the rain had been stopped for a while and the surface was drying. During this time other aircraft continued to use the runway. My aircraft docs class a 3mm depth of water as contaminated and the landing distance and crosswind limit are then heavily factored.

Let's hope some old lessons have not just been re-learned.

Dani;

Re 27 vice 09, the following image may assist:

(removed)

The "geometry" of your suggested position doesn't work. The X's mark areas where I believe you are suggesting the site is, but there isn't any other place on the airfield where the view that is being widely broadcast, can look like the inset. The arrow marks an approximate line of sight, give or take...

The tail didn't "swing around" as there are no tell-tale gouges in the ground.

As mentioned, comments from passengers indicate a right turn.

You'd be amazed at the nonsensical "facts" I've been fed by the "one of us" brigade - usually when they're basing their "expertise" entirely on shaky crash footage from (ironically) Sky News. :hmm:

The wind direction implies that it should have been 27, I agree that the red dot seems the most resting spot from the view of planes in the background

Either way as it looks like it came to rest halfway up the runway there must have been a lot of energy left to disipate

PJ2- good bit of research. However I believe you can recognise the gap in the tree line by the coast, and lining that up with the trees at the corner where the taxiway meets the apron, it would appear that the site is halfway between your X and the red circle?

Runway 27 ILS doesn't quite line up with the runway and while it wil help you find it, it's not an approach I would like to fly right to the minima with those hills either side.

Usual journalistic rubbish coming out "Pilot was given permission to abort his landing." I didn't think I had to ask if I needed to go around.:rolleyes:

Rainboe;

TwoOneFour's notion got me looking more closely. I'm still looking at the various photos/video-stills. I see what you mean in re the trees/gap etc. I think it could perhaps be a bit closer to the X (north side) but not much. In GoogleEarth for example there is a road from the north which comes up to the perimeter of the field and then T's east and west. I'm thinking that it came to rest near that road, slightly before or after. Any location well before that point begins to place the 737 on the ramp "out of position", (not enough out in the open). Here's another view:

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/5...irportxsr9.jpg

The whole exercise will be academic shortly - we'll all know quite quickly where the actual scene was with continued photo coverage.

I often wish the news media would do this kind of elementary homework. A lot of basic questions can be answered with a general layout of the accident scene but the media just never get it or even think to ask these kinds of questions.

The BBC video purporting to be "right after" the accident doesn't verify "strong" winds but there appears a 10 to 15kt wind blowing - nothing dramatic, and while there is rain, it's not the kind described by many including the media - one expected the kind of weather that Singapore 006 encountered for example, which was far more "severe" (that is the term used by eyewitnesses), than the weather both video'd and reported in the METARs at the time of the accident. An interview with another gentlemen from Flight International mentions windshear but such phenomena almost always come from thunderstorms and there were none reported in the METARS - the METAR is entirely unremarkable, so we'll have to wait to see what went unreported, unobserved, if anything.

Are we getting the impression from passenger accounts that this occurred on the first go-around? It will be interesting too, to learn what the words "then we took a sharp right and we started going for the ground" and the report that the a/c "bounced" before colliding with the embankment/drainage ditch. Several scenarios present themselves.

PJ

Indonesian pilot killed in the crash
 

Read the headlines in today's The Jakarta Post that an Indonesain pilot was killed in the crash.

Does anyone know if he was flying the aeroplane or was he just a passenger?

Thanks.

According to local Thai TV news, both captain and first officer survived.

Monday morning and the armchair quarter backs are in full swing!

(1) PJ2, you say, the whole thing will be academic shortly - we'll know where the actual scene was, etc. Mate - the people who need to know already know where the crash site is, which rwy they were using, etc. All this analysis with colour pics, lines, etc, sits up there with people who slow down in their cars passing a car accident. Frankly, it's pointless speculating - what we do know is that the aircraft crashed, people are dead. Drawing lines on photos is pretty "academic".

(2) Trying to analyse METARs, ATIS's etc is similarly pointless. Anyone who has flown into Thailand knows that actual conditions and reported METARs or ATIS's can be like chalk and cheese. I too thought the METARs looked pretty benign - but then I remembered the location... the country. Armchair analysis from afar achieves nothing. The FDR and the airspeed/ground speed parameters, plus any recorded weather parameters from ATC are what's needed. Can't analyse that via PPrune.

My broad point is: once again there is way too much Monday morning analysis going on about yet another LoCo accident. I'm actually GLAD the media doesn't do this sort of analysis - can you imagine the waffle that would fill the rags then? And as professional pilots we really should be refraining from speculating.

Let's pray for the souls and leave it to the experts on the scene to figure out.

For the uninitiated in Monsoon rains. 2000m vis in Rain is not the same as 2000m vis in Miist. 2000m vis in Rain at 150 knots gives you 500m Forward Vis. ie near Cat 2. :ooh: Monsoon driver.

The Jakarta Post article actually goes on to say he was the pilot.

From The Jakarta Post.
Here's the link to the Jakarta Post (click on the "Today's front page" link top left corner to launch the PDF of the frontpage).

re
'' Let's pray for the souls and leave it to the experts on the scene to figure out.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/...er_offline.gif http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/buttons/report.gif http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/...eply_small.gif
This is a forum- whats wrong with conjecture, it is not morbid as you imply and hopefully may illuminate others
iron sharpens iron as the bible says
it also says we are not to pray for the dead
y

Thanks mingalababya
 

Thanks for the posting The Jakarta Post website.

It's clear that one of the dead pilots is Indonesian.

Contrary to my earlier post, my local news channel is now reporting captain and first officer did not survive, and also confirming that the PIC was Indonesian.

Apologies for the earlier mis-information.

Nonsense, and the fact that this forum exists and thrives shows it.

Many experienced contributors have provided informed, knowledgeable input and insight into the causes and pathways to an accident. Not only should professional airmen not refrain from thinking about and considering an accident but they should do just the opposite of what you are suggesting and fully engage the process if for no other reason than to continue learning. The TAM thread, though it has now run it's course, has shown the great value in such a discussion, and where true, uninformed non-professional speculation occurs, it is winnowed out not by those who would have us all sit on the sidelines to wait for final pronouncements from experts but in the marketplace of ideas and notions where very often such expertise can and does exist. This is, after all, a forum format, ostensibly for professionals and not a judiciary or a formally convened board.

Part of any informal positing of causes involves the examination of available information as I and others are doing, and that includes the weather even though we know from experience that it can vary from the recorded values - that too, is "knowledge" and it does not occur only in these areas - try St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada, on any February evening...

In fact you state, and I couldn't agree with you more, which is why the METARS have been noted and commented upon.

Absolutely the formal, final report ought to be left to IIC and his/her team but learning does not need to wait, providing opinions and thoughts are supported by the evidence as gathered and known. The whole idea of drawing "academic" diagrams is to help that process and to avoid the path that these kinds of discussions take on other forums where speculation is truly rampant and sometimes even silly.

There is no Monday-morning work here, no "J'accuse", and certainly there is no discussion re Lo-Co operators and safety even hinted at, so please set aside such notions in favour of curiosity. I am keenly aware that the greatest, though by no means the sole arbiter of facts, are the DFDR, CVR and associated ATC, weather, runway and crew data and as this data is slowly made available, it will be examined and again, commented upon.

As for praying for their souls, I could not agree with you more strongly and thank you for saying it again.

I second PJ2's reply to Ron Johns.

I presume that few people have a problem with the process of picking up data from QARs and analysing them in quasi-real time to determine safety and unsafety trends and feed them back ASAP into line flying. Why would it be then, that in the case that someone dies, we are supposed to stop discussing and shut up for a couple of years?

Surely what works in the one case works in the other. If feedback on QAR parameters helps line flying, then so does analysing accidents. Waiting one or two years for a report may mean one or two years of lessons not learned.

Assuming also that the report is accurate. About half the reports we look at have easily identifiable mistakes in the causal reasoning. Public discussion of the analysis beforehand might have alerted the report writers to mistakes they were making.

PBL

Only opinions...
 

Ron & Edna Johns, this is a forum and from this you should expect that there will be discussion, speculation and analysis. While everyone is acutely aware of the importance detailed investigation plays in matters such as these, I think you are inferrring that no discussion should take place at all, what would that achieve? Most of the contributors here are seasoned professionals not fox news affiliates so the "opinions" expressed usually have a reasonable grounding.
As for prayer.. you are 100% correct.

From the Bangkok Post
A Thai passenger, Chawalert Jitjamnong, who suffered back injury fleeing the chaos, said the plane's captain had notified the passengers the ''weather was very bad and he could see nothing'' only a short time before he lost control of the plane and it went skidding off the runway.

Without wishing to jump to any conclusions, this airline is a subsidiary of Orient Thai, which were subject to great scrutiny regarding their safe operation some time ago, widely covered by this forum as I recall.

If PIC was indeed Indonesian, I would hazard an educated guess that an expatriate Indonesian pilot would be significantly more cost effective than a domestic Thai one.

A tragic accident. The METARS suggest nothing too bad weatherwise, however evidently something was not quite right. This guy tries an approach from what I hear and he quite rightly doesn't like it so goes around - good call. Why then did he try again straight away - maybe press-onitis, maybe he was watching the fuels guages and didn't have the option of holding, maybe he hadn't thought about taking extra fuel before leaving Bangkok or maybe the company pressurised him to take flight plan fuel and no more??. You know the scenario, short flight, weather seems ok, 3% or 5% contingency fuel on a short flight in reality is NOT MUCH, the weather changes unexpectedly, hence he tries again as the options are running out. Maybe the vis wasn't too good but not bad enough for this to happen. We will have to wait and see the outcome. Don't want to put blame soley on him, maybe company has to take some blame.
Again a tragic accident - there but the grace of god go many of us - IF IN DOUBT TAKE MORE FUEL - GIVES YOU OPTIONS.

Not that I know, but I suspect the nominated alternate had a similar forcast to detination, so sometimes diverting can just move your options with less fuel to play with. (Better to hold off at destination rather than divert and hold off there.) I do hope fuel was not an issue forcing an approach, but as you say some company policies verge on stupidity. Not saying that was the case here.

Intertview on CNN with mother of one survivor stated that the survivor overheard crew discussing emergency evac procedures before landing. I am not implying anythng, just stating that what was said and heard and reported by CNN seems to indicate that (Direct Quote) they knew they were going to crash!

Strange one that

Terrible accident, and so sad for all the families involved

If the approach was on 09 with an attempted go around at touch down the significant up slope to the runway would make it difficult, especially with possible downdrafts.

What is to be gained from the wild speculation espoused in this thread? If there is a KNOWN safety aspect to the discussion that requires wide dissemination, then let it flow, otherwise please wait for some FACTS!

According to nippysweetie;

Eyewitness account from Canadian survivor.

"We started to go for the landing and he just about hit the runway, but couldn't make it, so he lifted back up. We started to circle. I thought he was going to circle back around and try again, and then we took a sharp right and we started going for the ground."

Could he have stalled during go-around?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070917/...nd_plane_crash

Data recorders found in Thai plane crash
By SUTIN WANNABOVORN, Associated Press Writer 22 minutes ago
Authorities on Monday found the two flight data recorders from a plane that crashed and killed 90 people — mostly foreigners — on Thailand's resort island of Phuket, while an airline official said wind shear may have doomed the flight.
The budget One-Two-Go Airlines flight was carrying 123 passengers and seven crew from Bangkok to Phuket when it skidded off a runway Sunday while landing in driving wind and rain, catching fire and engulfing some passengers in flames as others kicked out windows to escape.
Kajit Habnanonda, president of Orient-Thai Airlines, which owns One-Two-Go, said wind shear — the rapid change in wind speed which can impact takeoffs and landings — was a possible cause of the accident. Heavy rains could have contributed to the plane skidding off the runway, Kajit added.
At least four Americans were among the 54 foreign tourists killed and one survived the crash, according to a U.S. Embassy spokesman in Bangkok who spoke on condition of anonymity citing protocol.
An Israel Embassy official who spoke on condition of anonymity for the same reason said there were 10 Israelis on the passenger list. Two were injured, the official said.
Passengers from France, Sweden, Iran and Australia also were killed, as were the plane's Indonesian pilot and Thai co-pilot, according to the airline's list of dead passengers, which was obtained by The Associated Press.
Survivors described how the McDonnell Douglas MD-82 was preparing to land in heavy rains when it suddenly lifted off again and then came crashing down on the runway. It rammed through a low retaining wall and split in two after it crashed.
"I think he realized the runway was too close or he was too fast or the wind had hit him," Robert Borland, a survivor who lives in Australia, told The Associated Press. "He accelerated and tried to pull out. I thought he is going around again and the next thought was everything went black and there was a big mess and we hit the ground."
Borland, 48, managed to drag himself to an exit where he was pulled by another survivor from the plane to safety.
"People were screaming. There was a fire in the cabin and my clothes caught fire," he said.
Parinwit Chusaeng, who was slightly burned, said some passengers were engulfed in flames.
"I stepped over them on the way out of the plane," Parinwit told The Nation TV channel. "I was afraid that the airplane was going to explode, so I ran away."
Parts of the twisted plane lay smoking at the side of the runway, while officials wearing masks carried bodies wrapped in white sheets to an airport storage building.
Transport Minister Theera Haocharoen said the plane's black boxes would be sent to the United States for analysis.
"Hopefully, we will learn in a few weeks the cause of accident," he said.
Many of the passengers had been planning to vacation at Phuket, a popular beach resort that was among the areas hit hardest by the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, which killed more than 8,000 people on the island.
The accident was likely to raise new questions about the safety of budget airlines in Southeast Asia, which have experienced rapid growth in recent years and often scramble to find qualified pilots. None of Thailand's budget airlines had previously suffered a major accident, but there have been several deadly crashes in Indonesia.
Many budget airlines use older planes that have been leased or purchased after years of use by other airlines. According to Thai and U.S. aviation registration data, the plane that crashed in Phuket was manufactured and put into use in 1983, and began flying in Thailand in March this year.
One-Two-Go Airlines began operations in December 2003 and is the domestic subsidiary of Orient-Thai Airlines, a regional charter carrier based in Thailand.

rmac, you ask too many questions for day two of an investigation. It is just as likely that One Two Go take round-trip fuel from Bangkok to Phuket so fuel shortage would not have been a factor. However, that is purely speculation on my part.