Thai TG040 flight misses a simple approach

[Phil Space]

Thai Airways A300 failed this simple approach this morning:ok:

Runway length is 3050m with VOR/DME on the field.

I live near the airport and my estimated vis at the worst was 800 m in rain and base at 600ft agl.

They diverted to Udon which is 20 mins away but it appears they orbited for 2 hours!!!
From the Bangkok Post.

Khon Kaen - Heavy downpours, which resulted in poor visibility here Friday morning, forced a Thai Airways International passenger plane to land at the Udon Thani Airport instead.

Khon Kaen Airport chief Atthaya Larpmak said the heavy rains continued since Thursday morning.

He said the THAI Flight TG040, which left the Suvarnabhumi International Airport at 6:15 am, was scheduled to land at the Khon Kaen Airport at 7:10 am.

But the poor visibility forced the plane to fly to the Udon Thani Airport and landed there at 9:40 am.

[bfisk]

...and...? :ugh:

[Phil Space]

What is difficult about 800m and 600ft?

[vapilot2004]

Monks on the runway?

[bfisk]

Phil Space:

Before making a mockery of a large, international airline, please do show us their operative minima, METARs, NOTAMs about airfield unservicabilities, and you could probably care to inform us about the MEL status of the aircraft, too?

Come on, this is completely a non-event. I'm absolutely positive the crew had their reasons to divert. Happens every day all over the world. Move along.

[Bealzebub]

I am not sure why you posted this in Rumours & News, before it was moved to this forum? Even as a question it seems you are simply alluding to some sort of ill informed mockery?

Thai Airways A300 failed this simple approach this morning :ok: Whilst I can understand somebody failing an examination, or failing to understand something, I have never heard of an aircraft "failing an approach." I suspect you mean it failed to complete a landing from this approach? In which case that is not at all unusual or remarkable. Approaches are based on navigation aids that facilitate an arrival in visual or instrument meterological conditions. There are many factors beyond just the aid or type of approach that determine whether an aircraft crew can complete a landing.

Runway length is 3050m with VOR/DME on the field.
This is relevant to what?

I live near the airport and my estimated vis at the worst was 800 m in rain and base at 600ft agl.

Your estimates are not relevant meterological observations, nor are they runway visual ranges determined by any accepted competency. Even if they were, what does this have to do with the published minima for this type of aid on this particular runway? Further, the reported visibility and cloudbase measured above the point of determination may be significantly different from that experienced at the point of the pilot making a decision. The figures you have "estimated" would in themselves be quite marginal for this type of non precision approach even if they had a modicum of accuracy.

They diverted to Udon which is 20 mins away but it appears they orbited for 2 hours!!!

So what? If you have the fuel to do so, you can hold (rather than orbited,) for as long as you elect to do so. Another airport may be close by, but there are many other considerations beyond just that. If there is an expected improvement in the weather a crew may choose to hold and wait. Diversions may be less economic with regards to airport charges, crew hours, aircraft utilization, than simply holding. Sometimes despite the best of intentions and sound judgment, circumstances ultimately conspire to force a crew to have to revert to an alternate plan that might have proved less costly with the benefit of hindsight, but that is largely irrelevant.

What you have described is no different to what every single professional pilot with any degree of significant experience, would have experienced many times in their career. It is a complete non event and certainly nothing for you to get excited about. If this was your first post I could perhaps understand the naivety of the post, but it isn't, so I am a bit lost as to why you think this is front page Rumours & News stuff?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

So a PPL holder and almost certainly not a qualified meteorological observer questions the professional decisions of commercial pilots...? What gives?

[Capt Chambo]

What is difficult about 800m and 600ft?

Nothing except that according Jeppessen the minima for the VOR/DME approach requires a visibility of 2.8 KM and the MDA(H) is 1125 (524') for runway 03 and 1200' (530') for runway 21. NDB approaches have similar minima.

If they use Jepps. minima then they would not be able to make the approach if the visibility was the 800m you estimated. They may of course have been other factors that we do not know about.

[mad_jock]

At a guess as it was pishing down with rain the runway was contaminated.

If the airport is reporting the runway outside limits yes you can go around in circles for hours waiting for an improvement. With modern runways with grooves the rain just has to let up for 10 mins for the surface to become within limits. You might only have 5 mins to get the beast on the ground before its out of limits again. But was it a grooved maintained runway?

Added to the fact there is issues with runways covered with rubber in wet conditions the Captain made his choice and decided that he wasn't going to be the next one to go sliding off the runway and risk ending up in court with his career finished.

Until you have experenced the joy ride of an aircraft hydroplaning down the runway you will never know the utter sense of lack of control you have. At least on the TP's we can split the throttles and play with the reverse to keep it in a semi straight line, all the time hoping the tyres don't blow out because of the steam eating through them.

I am sure the NPA was well within thier capabilities but quite rightly they didn't fancy their chances on a flooded runway which is covered with rubber.

[Groundloop]

mad jock, Chambo gave the corect answer!