PDA

View Full Version : Korean Air low approach over central Bangkok last night?


enkei
24th Oct 2007, 07:46
Does anybody know anything about a Korean Air at low altitude over central Bangkok last night?

Korean Air twin engine jet was seen/heard passing at what was almost definitely below 1000ft AGL. It was headed roughly in the direction of Don Muang and passed a few hundred metres East of Victory Monument.

When I say seen/heard, three of us saw it as it flew almost directly over our heads. A pilot friend of mine lives in a condo tower very close to where we were. He confirms hearing it and having wondered at the time why it was so low.

This was at 2300-2330 last night.

Flightstats (http://www.flightstats.com/go/FlightStatus/flightStatusByAirport.do?&airportCode=BKK&airportQueryType=1&airportQueryTimePeriod=8&sortField=5&airlineCode=&airportQueryDate=2007-10-23) shows only KE 653 (http://www.flightstats.com/go/FlightStatus/flightStatusByFlight.do?&id=107592423&airlineCode=KE&flightNumber=653) 37 minutes late for its scheduled 2345 arrival at BKK. Boeing 777-300 tallies with the twin engines I saw but I am not familiar enough with the type to confirm.

Surely at least one passenger on this flight must have wondered why they could look straight into condos in central Bangkok. The flight path must have taken it close enough to Baiyoke 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baiyoke_Tower_II) for disco-goers to wonder why they were looking down at an airliner.

Does such a low attitude put aircraft underneath radar over Bangkok?

akerosid
24th Oct 2007, 11:18
Possibly flight plan/descent planning for Don Muang and crew advised by ATC that Suvarnabhumi might be a better choice?

enkei
24th Oct 2007, 11:56
Hmmm.... only problems are:

1. That point is roughly 20km from Don Muang.
2. That flight is regularly scheduled into Suvarnabhumi.
3. That altitude on that path is suicidal.

ACMS
24th Oct 2007, 17:20
I assume they were arriving from SEL? if so they should have been no where near downtown?

If arriving from Europe they could have flown over downtown for a left base onto 01R. But one would expect them to be around 4000' or so.

enkei
24th Oct 2007, 17:31
The only flight that fits (http://www.flightstats.com/go/FlightStatus/flightStatusByFlight.do?&id=107592423&airlineCode=KE&flightNumber=653) was out of ICN and yes, 4000ft sounds bit more like it. Unless ATC said, "Come in down Sukhumvit and hang a right round the Baiyoke tower." :ok:

I honestly can't recall the last time I saw the underside of a heavy from so close and the landing gear was not down.

Tolsti
24th Oct 2007, 20:22
enkei has already posted this inquiry on a local site (thaivisa) and not got a lot of response.... my Q is this... OK... it might well have been a 777 (if familiar with this type) but how the heck did he know it was a KE flight? was it really that low as to enable the logos to be read? In the BKK pollution?.... best idea... go to Lebua @ State Tower and ask the barmen they'll have seen it

Rainboe
24th Oct 2007, 21:44
Why was my post questioning the reliability of a non-expert witness to this alleged low flying event removed? I stated that as the witness had trouble identifying a 777-300, it might not be advisable to leave it here identifying the alleged airline involved when it was probably a complete nonevent.

enkei
25th Oct 2007, 05:44
1. Whether or not it was or was not a 777 or was or was not Korean Air Lines, I think I have provided enough evidence that it was far lower than normal and almost certainly outside legal minima.

2. I do not work in aviation and I am not particularly fascinated by civilian jets. I was sitting on the street. When a large jet passes within a 1000 feet overhead and you are between two sides of a built up inner-city neighbourhood, you have maybe 1.5 seconds before it is out of visual range.

3. Rather than question my reliability (and that of 3 witnesses) might you not ask yourself that if it was so easy to identify the airline in central Bangkok in the middle of the night, perhaps it really WAS very low?

4. There is a big difference between recognising a vehicle type in which you have little interest and recognising a globally-recognised logo or the words, "Korean Air"

5. Given that I am roughly sure of the time of the event and 100% certain about identity of the airline, and based on available information about arrivals into Bangkok, the only option is Boeing 777.

6. I am certainly not an expert in my ability to visually identify an exact 1000 foot distance. However, I have lived in this area for many years, have been interested in aviation since I was ten years-old, have flown a considerable amount, have visited the sites and general areas of many major airports, etc. I have a good idea about what is and what is not normal for the altitude of any aircraft in that part of Bangkok. Furthermore, as I state, a pilot friend whose condo is perhaps 200m from the path of the aircraft also witnessed to what appeared to be very low pass.

Yes, it really was that low. That's why I'm seriously wondering why nobody is reporting it.

I am not seeking to fight or argue with anybody. I am only looking for answers. This is a global forum. Is it not natural that I would expect maybe to get more response from someone in a more narrow and regionally-relevant forum?

If you prefer, let's call this an alleged low-flying event, allegedly by Korea Air Lines and allegedly by a Boeing 777. I really don't care.

I just want to know what happened. Is this too much to desire?

etrang
25th Oct 2007, 11:34
1. Whether or not it was or was not a 777 or was or was not Korean Air Lines,

3. might you not ask yourself that if it was so easy to identify the airline in central Bangkok in the middle of the night, perhaps it really WAS very low?


So could you identify it or not?

enkei
25th Oct 2007, 13:50
1. No. I did not identify it. My friend, who was at the time sitting 2 feet away from me, however, did. I checked with him again today to confirm it. He identified the airline from the logo on the tail.

2. I spoke today with a Western news cameraman who was with several other people from the news business on a balcony at the 15th floor of a building in Chidlom. For those of you who are not familiar with Bangkok, this is pretty well smack in the centre of the city.

When I get a chance, hopefully on Friday, I will try to talk with more of the witnesses from that building. They all saw the airplane fly past. Their first thoughts were that they were seeing a terrorist attack. From their vantage point, it appeared the aircraft was indeed below the top of Baiyoke II.

Not including the mast, Baioyoke II is about 1000ft high and roughly 1km from where the plane flew over me.

I think we now have enough evidence to conclude that a Korean Air jet flew straight through the center of Bangkok at roughly 1000ft. No more "allegedly" please.

If you wonder why I am going at this like a bull terrier on a, well, bull terrier, then you have not seen or noticed the number of buildings in central Bangkok that are totally invisible to aircraft at night.

Not only are there many buildings of 15, 20 or more stories, with masts, that lack any functioning illumination, but there are many more, some much taller, either empty carcasses left over from the 1997 crash, or unfinished towers. The abandoned towers are completely unlit. Many of the unfinished buildings are full height and have construction cranes projecting above them, again usually lacking any type of illumination at night.

And if that isn't enough, this morning I had a good look as I passed and the Army base (as well as the surrounding neighbourhoods) over which this jet flew are littered with tall radio masts. If you don't know Bangkok, take it from me, they have lots of tall radio masts.

I did actually consider going to the hotel in Baiyoke II today and asking if anybody had seen the jet but was too busy/hot/tired. It does sound like a faintly horrifying but jolly jaunt for the weekend, however.

QNH1013
25th Oct 2007, 19:57
If the aircraft was heading in to Don Meung it would still be too low at said altitude at said position for a 'normal' straight in approach. Even so, aircraft are restricted on the extended centreline of Don Meung towards Bangkok city due to the King's Palace, even the SID's out of there involved a pretty close turn away after takeoff.

So what happened?

rmac
25th Oct 2007, 21:21
Theres a very nice open air bar on top of the Banyan Tree Hotel in Bangkok, and very occasionally a "stray" much lower than all the others comes wandering by. I have scratched my head on occasions, and not surprised by this thread.

gengis
25th Oct 2007, 23:45
As to the alleged altitude of this airplane, ATC tapes will have all the mode C readouts. That is conclusive, laymen eyewitness' judgement of altitude is not (just like after a crash every witness claims to have seen a fireball/explosion etc etc).

What DO the ATC tapes say?

And the QARs will have the rest of the story.

ACMS
26th Oct 2007, 03:41
Ha that's a joke, you don't really expect the "experts" in BKK ATC to say anything do you?
We had a 777 nearly get hit by another aircraft in the BKK TMA and BKK ATC will not reply to our letters.

HEATHROW DIRECTOR
26th Oct 2007, 07:26
Just a small point - it is virtually impossible for an inexperienced observer to accurately determine the altitude of an aeroplane. Hence the complaints we received at Heathrow about airliners flying down Windsor High Street at 300 ft when they were closer to 2000ft!

enkei
26th Oct 2007, 09:29
Oh don't be silly, now. Windsor High St takes you in totally the wrong direction! :}

Yes, I don't doubt for a minute that it would be easy for most casual observers to judge that wrong. Must get annoying to deal with such complaints all the time. What about plastering West London and Berkshire with stickers: "The sky is farther away than it appears."

However, at the point where I saw the plane, the closest runway is 20km away.

Actually, most of the things we're debating here (while interesting and edumakashunul for me) are pretty well inconsequential. I'm really just trying to find out if anybody KNOWS anything about this, rather than seeking supposition from anybody (including myself) about what might have happened. Anybody who truly believes that an event I think appears to have happened could pass without any official statement does not know this part of the world.

I appreciate that if it was a non event, there will be little or anything to KNOW about it. However, the few experienced aviation people with whom I have discussed the witness accounts I have so far collected have come to the same conclusions:

1. the jet was too low
2. the jet was outside the normal traffic patterns

I was thinking further about it last night. I think (and I readily admit to being a total ignoramus on this point) that the jet was lit up like it was on final approach. Which brings me back to the point about identifying the airline concerned: the plane was very low and it was very well lit.

So, here's a question for any airline pilots out there: is there a standard point during approach at which you normally turn on all external lights?

matt_hooks
26th Oct 2007, 09:51
Most commercials have landing lights on below Fl100 (that's 10000 feet with standard pressure set)

And most aircraft with landing gear mounted lights have them set to illuminate once the UC is locked down.

So if it was in landing config then the chances are all the lights would be on.

matt_hooks
26th Oct 2007, 09:51
Most commercials have landing lights on below Fl100 (that's 10000 feet with standard pressure set)

And most aircraft with landing gear mounted lights have them set to illuminate once the UC is locked down.

So if it was in landing config then the chances are all the lights would be on.

GearDown&Locked
26th Oct 2007, 10:13
Did you saw the gear down on that plane enkei?

PA38
26th Oct 2007, 10:42
I live just outside the Manchester(uk) TMA and the number of times people have complained about low flying aircraft..When it turns out to be a big airbus or 777.
Just because it has 2 engines they think it is smaller than a jumbo, and the optical illusion is that it is nearer!!!

BillS
26th Oct 2007, 11:35
I vividly remember attending a conference in London and seeing one of the first 747s passing overhead - and a broad Geordie voice saying "Hey, they fly a lot slower down here than they do up our way"

Avman
26th Oct 2007, 13:57
A B777 300 series at 2000 feet above ground will give the appearance of being very low especially around a built up area. I think, enkei, that what you saw was unusual in as much as aircraft are generally not normally that low in that area, but that it was in fact NOT below minimum safe altitude.

Centaurus
27th Oct 2007, 15:05
Bloody amazing. An obviously articulate person is shaken enough to drop a line to Pprune and explains perfectly clearly what he witnessed. And all he gets is rubbishing and general disbelief. Nah! It would not possibly Korean Air again in the news, would it? LNAV and VNAV gone a little bit wrong, maybe?

enkei
27th Oct 2007, 16:06
No, I saw the gear was up.

ChristiaanJ
27th Oct 2007, 18:13
"Landing lights" makes no sense.
... the plane was very low and it was very well lit ...Since people identified it as Korean Air, it must have had the lights illuminating the tail on as well. At 2300 an aircraft with landing lights on is a black shape behind a bright light.
Enkei, I hope you will get to the bottom of this. But so far you do not seem to get a lot of help....

enkei
29th Oct 2007, 15:45
Sigh... yes, it is rather unfortunate how the online world has so become the domain of the killjoy, the naysayer, and the skofflaw to reason. I won't lavish such praise as to deem them cynics (http://www.i-cynic.com/whatis.asp).

By the way, does anybody happen to have approach plates for Bangkok? They ought to settle a certain amount of debate.

flyguykorea
30th Oct 2007, 01:40
How about this....missed approach RWY 19R, following the missed approach procedures, straight ahead to SVB VOR, right turn on SVB VOR R-215, climb to 3000 and hold at D7.0 SVB. Extended x-wind leg, before vectoring to a right turn to downwind, and vectoring again for a final again for RWY 19R...