Only heard about them pulling out about 3 weeks ago so a pretty quick development.

Sorry to take this slightly off-topic though!

Can someone advise on the reason they drop into SHJ. I was under the impression the classic would go to the UK with a full load. Rgds.

Not from the heat of a BKK departure.

There was a a similiar incident in India towards the end of 2003 , soon after Air Deccan started operations. One of their inaugral flights from Hyderabad with an ATR full of passengers had a venting incident on start up. Unfortunately the then Minister of Civil Aviation was sight seeing out of the window and promptly came to the "heroic rescue" of his fellow passengers (most of who were fellow politicians - such an invaluable national asset) by screaming FIRE and exiting the aircraft post haste! The minister then went on to enjoy his ten minutes of glory by speaking to every media channel within reach about his heroic act, much to the glee of the full service competitors of Air Deccan like Jet and Sahara whose officials for months afterwards never forgot to whisper to willing and unwilling ears about the risks of flying a low cost airline pointing to the above "accident". All the time, the Air Deccan guys had to grin their teeth and bear it !!

Fortunately the bureaucrats under the honourable minister had enough sense to keep quiet and not encourage the minister to do anything drastic (unlike a previous bloke who prompty grounded the Indian Airlines A320s without any sort of investigation after the tragic accident at Bangalore). As I understand in the case of Air Deccan , the same aircraft flew the next day (not sure whether the VIPs were on board!).

The saga continues. From The Times on-line today:


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...556670,00.html

Re The Times article.

i.e. The tanks were late shutting off and the fuel was in the surge tanks and vented out of the venturi air inlet.
I'm only surprised that Phuket Air didn't leave them in Sharjah.

So passenger Cripps has elected himself some sort of aviation expert and obviously taken over as leader and spokesman of the group. They took over and decided what the aeroplane was to do. I hope Phuket Air washes its hands of them, and even charges them for the disruption! And to read in the newspapers comments about the 'Brits with spirit taking the initiative'.....purrlease!

Fuel spills are not dangerous. They are a common incident. The 747 frequently vents fuel from the wing overflow piping. As long as the spill is not large, there is absolutely no problem. Jet fuel is really very inert- it doesn't burn at all well unless sprayed. Iomapaseo may be more cautious, but the fuel commonly used in the US is not as safe as the rest of the world. It is so inert I am told you can stand in a puddle of it and drop lighted matches in it, and you will still be around for tea. If this is disputed, I would love to hear of any minor fuel spills that developed into serious incidents! I can think of none.

Those people have brought this upon themselves, and disrupted the operation through ignorance. They would not take the word of the people looking after them. When they come back, they will be here as 'heroes'. They are self appointed busybodies
.

To add to their week of woe Phuket's HS-VAN tried departing LGW this morning and has now returned about an hour later with one engine out. The week just gets better for them doesn't it!

An ignorance that could have been corrected, but apparantly wasn't. It certainly appears to be an over-reaction on the part of the pax, but whilst they must shoulder most of the blame, there are other players involved that could have dealt with the situation better. In my own humble opinion, of course.

Rainboe, hope you're not flying the ship next time I 'm travelling with that attitude towards your customers.

The problem with most airlines is that nobody explains anything to anyone outside the system. whilst something might be 'normal' to the pilots, how are the passengers supposed to know that? after all no passengers have ever been flown to their deaths by professional pilots switching off the wrong engine because they couldn't see which one was on fire from the cockpit
have they?

I've seen it many times on the TV prog about easyjet, where passengers have remonstrated about not being let onto the flight although it is still on the ground. I've often thought that if passengers were informed about having to close the plane off to do weight loading and takeoff calcs etc prior to departure, they may be more understanding as to why once the gate is closed they can't be allowed on.

As a pilot (private) myself I understand enough about the airline system and flying to understand why some things which are normal to the crew, appear frightening to passengers, such as windsheer on approach etc. but I think I would also be concerned if I saw fuel venting overboard, as it could have been a problem similar to the BA one with a fuel tank panel missing etc.

If the crew or airline had taken the time to explain what the problem was to the passengers, in sufficient detail to reassure them, not just "oh it's ok its normal", then it may have been a none issue.

It seems a lack of communication was at fault here even if a technical issue wasn't.

That's quite a judgement to make for someone that wasn't there.

Well like it or not, when I explain something, I do it pretty thoroughly, but then you do when you are employed in a full service airline to do so. These people paid to go with a startup foreign airline with old equipment and crews with limited English. I know why they booked there- I have seen the fares offered. They chose an uncertain carrier to save money. Presumably they were aware certain aspects of their handling and backup may be deficient? But suddenly they want full service treatment- put up in hotel and full organisation etc? There is a reason for that saving over the other airlines that operate the route- perhaps they are learning the lesson?

That's quite a judgement to make for someone that wasn't there, how do you know what the crew's English was like?

(BBC) I would assume from this the crew being foreign and the engineers local, there must have been a language problem otherwise they would have been told 'no problem'. As for 'engineer going white', that is the opinion of someone totally hysterical!

Rainboe..I apologise for only being a PAX but...

Did this a/c return to the gate after (a) Fuel spillage was initially observed and crew advised..(ie crew also observed problem and deemed it serious enough to warrant engineering inspection), and (b) same spillage was observed for a 2nd time...

I'm sorry but if I give great credence to the crew so if (a) warranted inspection as far as I'm concerned I'm damn sure (b) did as well.

:sad:
Plenty of good comments here... I'm by no means a pilot, I just work for a freight company... but come on - this airline just looks as dodgy as a bad Thai takeaway. They can keep it. When I fly long haul I try and stick to a real airline.

To be honest, in the first instance, I applaud the pax for standing up and saying something. Afterall, you can say the pax may be amateurs, but the flight attendants are just as clueless. In fact, most of them don't even look out the window on departure, they just chat amongst themselves.

So if someone did see something, better to be safe than sorry, I reckon. At least that way the passengers can be calmed down, and you yourself aren't left wondering.

But then, the crew probably had a duty to explain to the pax why the aircraft was venting fuel. The next couple of attempts, IMO if that was the problem, probably didn't need to happen. However, it could have been the ground engineer's failure to disclose the actual problem (which could be highly likely), or perhaps just pax not understanding proper English.

Pax overreact, that's the general consensus. So what? They pay (well, in this case, not an overly generous amount) to travel from point A to point B, we're paid to make sure they get from point A to point B. If they feel unsure, you either explain exactly what happened so that they understand, or you offload them. That's also our job.

which, of course, would result in another PR disaster... :rolleyes:

Slightly off topic (but related nonetheless): a few years ago, my brother was on a Thai Airways flight from BKK to SIN (if I recall correctly), a 737 EFIS. The take-off run was aborted, and the only "explanation" given by the flight crew was "sorry, engine problem"!

Then, without further ado (not even the usual brake-cooling delay), the aircraft taxied back to the threshold and attempted another take-off - this one successful.

My brother told me that while the Thai nationals onboard seemed totally oblivious to the safety implications, the foreigners (including himself, a VERY experienced and seasoned short- and long-haul traveller) looked quite aghast!

Bottom line: he hasn't flown on Thai Airways since.

Apparently, not only CRM but also PAX information seems to have a different meaning in the Far East... :ooh:

Cheers

Allow me to tell you of my Flights with Phuket Air!!

Aircraft arrived 4 hours late at LGW, but departed only 1 hour late.

Some problem after push back. Travelling Spanner came down to look at something out of the other side followed shortly by two pilots. Door opened.

Aircraft continued to taxi slowly with door open. Lots of noise, looking and chin wagging. Door eventually closed at the holding point and take off commenced!

Climbed out towards Manston at numerous different power settings and never felt in balance. Flaps raised some distance past Manston!

All night long (10 hours) flying spanner walked around the cabin with a torch looking in every toilet and along the ducting near the cabin bins!
Arrived BKK and passed numerous PA aircraft in canabialised states!

Home trip. Cancelled. Received a text message saying ring BKK!

Went home a day early.

Overhead reading lights flashed incessently! Couldnt be controlled!

Changed seats, then no audio! Changed again.

Of all the seats I sat in (6) NONE of the seat belts were correctly installed. All buckled ends mounted upside down...

Never Again!!!

ATPL Holder, professional pilot.

UV

Assumptions
 

There seem to be a great many assumptions about Phuket Air on this topic. Whilst I am happy to listen to anyone who has actually flown with them...some of the people on this post seem to be denigrating the airline..and worse in my opinion their people just on the content of some so called 'news' articles and quoted comments from 'non expert' passengers, without having flown the airline.
As mentioned previously I know and have met on several occasions some of the cabin crew of Phuket Airlines....those same people of whom has been said 'crews with limited English' and 'flight attendants just as clueless'. Whilst Phuket Air does have some new crew without previous experience...it also has crew who have worked for airlines including, JAL, Qantas, Asiana, Royal Brunei, and others. All the crew that I have met spoke good English, luckily since my Thai is severely limited, and some have held senior crew posts in their previous Companys who are not known for scrimping on their crew or training.
So whilst it is fair game perhaps to denigrate the airline, perhaps those without personal knowledge of its people should be careful with their assumptions.