Thai airways BKK incident
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: R4808E
Posts: 422
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thai airways BKK incident
I inadvertantly came across this story about a Thai A300 which slid off the runway at BKK.
The professionalism of Thai Airways International's cockpit crew has been questioned by aviation experts after one of its pilots supposedly failed to report a recent incident in which a THAI aircraft skidded off the runway at Suvarnabhumi airport.
The 260-seat Airbus A300-600 was landing after an afternoon flight from Phuket about two weeks ago in 24-knot winds and rain when it skidded off the left side of the runway, according to industry sources.
Most passengers on board the THAI jetliner were unaware of the incident which caused only minor damage to the aircraft and the runway, with no injuries or fatalities.
The aircraft's left landing gear sank into the soft soil on the edge of the runway before the cockpit crew managed to pull the wheels back up on the tarmac and proceeded to park the plane safely, the sources said.
The jetliner's left-side landing gear and a section of the aircraft's fuselage were damaged, while some guiding lights on the tarmac were broken. The runway underwent a clean-up.
It took 3-4 days to repair the aircraft in a secretive manner and the runway was forced to close for about one hour so that it could be put back into a good and safe working condition, the industry sources said.
Only the higher authorities of the national carrier and the Airports of Thailand Plc (AoT), which operates Suvarnabhumi airport, were informed of the incident, while the new pilot of the aircraft refrained from reporting the incident which sources said he was legally and ethically obliged to do.
Neither were the aviation regulatory bodies, such as the Department of Civil Aviation, officially notified of the matter.
Aviation experts believe that the pilot might have considered it a minor incident or he did not want to tarnish the airline's reputation.
''But it is strange for a pilot not to report such an incident. Even the smallest thing, such as spotting a large bird at the airport, is normally reported to the aviation authorities,'' a veteran pilot said.
The main principle behind the reporting is to alert others about all possible obstacles that could endanger other flights and compromise safety, he said.
The behaviour of the THAI pilot calls into question how the airline is training its cockpit crew and whether they are taking safety standards seriously enough.
Airport officials say they have the whole incident on a videotape and have launched an investigation with a view to claiming compensation from the national carrier.
While several parties have confirmed to the Bangkok Post that the incident did take place, THAI executive vice president Narongsak Sangapong yesterday flatly denied that it ever took place.
''There was no such incident. I have not received any reports about it,'' he stated, insisting the story was based on ''imagination and hearsay''.
''The pilot would have certainly reported to the parties concerned if the incident had really occurred,'' ACM Narongsak said.
The professionalism of Thai Airways International's cockpit crew has been questioned by aviation experts after one of its pilots supposedly failed to report a recent incident in which a THAI aircraft skidded off the runway at Suvarnabhumi airport.
The 260-seat Airbus A300-600 was landing after an afternoon flight from Phuket about two weeks ago in 24-knot winds and rain when it skidded off the left side of the runway, according to industry sources.
Most passengers on board the THAI jetliner were unaware of the incident which caused only minor damage to the aircraft and the runway, with no injuries or fatalities.
The aircraft's left landing gear sank into the soft soil on the edge of the runway before the cockpit crew managed to pull the wheels back up on the tarmac and proceeded to park the plane safely, the sources said.
The jetliner's left-side landing gear and a section of the aircraft's fuselage were damaged, while some guiding lights on the tarmac were broken. The runway underwent a clean-up.
It took 3-4 days to repair the aircraft in a secretive manner and the runway was forced to close for about one hour so that it could be put back into a good and safe working condition, the industry sources said.
Only the higher authorities of the national carrier and the Airports of Thailand Plc (AoT), which operates Suvarnabhumi airport, were informed of the incident, while the new pilot of the aircraft refrained from reporting the incident which sources said he was legally and ethically obliged to do.
Neither were the aviation regulatory bodies, such as the Department of Civil Aviation, officially notified of the matter.
Aviation experts believe that the pilot might have considered it a minor incident or he did not want to tarnish the airline's reputation.
''But it is strange for a pilot not to report such an incident. Even the smallest thing, such as spotting a large bird at the airport, is normally reported to the aviation authorities,'' a veteran pilot said.
The main principle behind the reporting is to alert others about all possible obstacles that could endanger other flights and compromise safety, he said.
The behaviour of the THAI pilot calls into question how the airline is training its cockpit crew and whether they are taking safety standards seriously enough.
Airport officials say they have the whole incident on a videotape and have launched an investigation with a view to claiming compensation from the national carrier.
While several parties have confirmed to the Bangkok Post that the incident did take place, THAI executive vice president Narongsak Sangapong yesterday flatly denied that it ever took place.
''There was no such incident. I have not received any reports about it,'' he stated, insisting the story was based on ''imagination and hearsay''.
''The pilot would have certainly reported to the parties concerned if the incident had really occurred,'' ACM Narongsak said.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: R4808E
Posts: 422
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The article was in the Bangkok Post newspaper, probably Saturdays edition.
Some of you may well take the view that the incident did not occur, as for myself, I couldn't possibly comment
Some of you may well take the view that the incident did not occur, as for myself, I couldn't possibly comment
I have seen many similar cases in the news in the past. I seem to recall that most of them were nothing more than one wheel dropping off the tarmac into the soft grass while manuevering to taxi to the terminal. Certainly not a reportable incident.
These things make it into the news because the passengers don't know the difference between landing and taxi in to the gate after the fllying has ended
These things make it into the news because the passengers don't know the difference between landing and taxi in to the gate after the fllying has ended
N4790P
Lomapaseo,
There’s lots of discussion and basic crap on local sites here too, however the one common comment has been that (if indeed any significant event did happen!!!) the pax were unaware of it.
The Bangkok Post who first ran the story cites ‘airport officials’ as their source.
Just seems very odd that it took 2 weeks for the story to break. Quiet news day?
There’s lots of discussion and basic crap on local sites here too, however the one common comment has been that (if indeed any significant event did happen!!!) the pax were unaware of it.
The Bangkok Post who first ran the story cites ‘airport officials’ as their source.
Just seems very odd that it took 2 weeks for the story to break. Quiet news day?
Paxing All Over The World
lomo
But I think that most would say that there IS a difference if the wheels roll off the tarmac. If such a thing happened, it would likely need some additional thrust to move them back onto the tar?
You appear to be saying that if such an incident occurred it is trivial? To a simple pax, it would appear to be nothing of the sort.
However, if this occurred, then many people would know about it. Folks in the tower for starters, ground crew for second and lastly, the maintenance technicians that fixed the a/c.
Therefore, there will be enough people to be able to confirm or deny this rumour, It may take some time but you can no longer keep this kind of event a secret. Time will tell.
These things make it into the news because the passengers don't know the difference between landing and taxi in to the gate after the fllying has ended
You appear to be saying that if such an incident occurred it is trivial? To a simple pax, it would appear to be nothing of the sort.
However, if this occurred, then many people would know about it. Folks in the tower for starters, ground crew for second and lastly, the maintenance technicians that fixed the a/c.
Therefore, there will be enough people to be able to confirm or deny this rumour, It may take some time but you can no longer keep this kind of event a secret. Time will tell.
You are kidding, aren't you? 
N4790P
Take this with a big a pinch of salt. I’m now advised that an incident did take place, not whilst taxiing but upon landing. This aircraft apparently had a history of recent brake problems and on this landing within 1 sec of auto brake application the aircraft veered significantly to the left.
Obviously controlled by the crew else would have made immediate news!! No idea about the lack of reporting comments but would take an even bigger pinch of salt with any local media aviation reporting.
Obviously controlled by the crew else would have made immediate news!! No idea about the lack of reporting comments but would take an even bigger pinch of salt with any local media aviation reporting.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bangkok
Surely, whether the aircrat was landing or taxiing, if it ran off the runway or taxiway and repairs of some sort were required to either the airport facilities or the aircraft, it must be reported?
The airport authorities say they have the entire incident on videotape, so why all the cloak and dagger? What's so hard about releasing the footage to the airline and showing it to the VP?
It may be that he really doen't know about it, or it may be that he has not had an official report about it - these are two completely different things, so it could be that they are playing with semantics.
If AOT have it on tape, as they claim, then there is absolutely no question one way or another.
If the airport or the aircraft needed repairs, then it is a reportable incident, as it could impact the safety aspects of the aircraft concerned or of other users of the airport.
Simple - whats so hard about it?
The airport authorities say they have the entire incident on videotape, so why all the cloak and dagger? What's so hard about releasing the footage to the airline and showing it to the VP?
It may be that he really doen't know about it, or it may be that he has not had an official report about it - these are two completely different things, so it could be that they are playing with semantics.
If AOT have it on tape, as they claim, then there is absolutely no question one way or another.
If the airport or the aircraft needed repairs, then it is a reportable incident, as it could impact the safety aspects of the aircraft concerned or of other users of the airport.
Simple - whats so hard about it?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Above 30,000 ft
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it may vary slightly from country-to-country & company-to-company, but i agree. From accounts so far, this would constitute both a landing gear malfunction (which includes braking) & a runway excursion - both of which are mandatory reportable occurances/incidences in most jurisdictions that i am aware of.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what I have read of the posts so far the first mistake was to set autobrake. If the pilot reads in the tech log that the aircraft had a known history of braking problems you wouldn't set autobrake on the approach, surely? Use reverse thrust and then gingerly apply the brakes once the aircraft had slowed significantly with your hand firmly on the nose wheel steering to compensate for any swerve.
It is not unusual with a big aircraft like the A330 to have to apply quite a lot of extra thrust to keep it moving when you leave the runway. Therefore the pilots may have not noticed. Bear in mind when doing a 180 on a runway you end up sitting well over the edge of the runway as you turn. So a sharp left turn on to a taxiway would require to be sitting over the right edge of the taxiway as you turned. If the pilot wasn't in the correct position he may have cut the corner and gone off the paved surface.
The engineers would have then noticed the damage afterwards and may have been advised by management to keep it quiet. The pilots don't do an external check after shutdown. Once the aircraft is shutdown you pick up your bags and leave.
It is not unusual with a big aircraft like the A330 to have to apply quite a lot of extra thrust to keep it moving when you leave the runway. Therefore the pilots may have not noticed. Bear in mind when doing a 180 on a runway you end up sitting well over the edge of the runway as you turn. So a sharp left turn on to a taxiway would require to be sitting over the right edge of the taxiway as you turned. If the pilot wasn't in the correct position he may have cut the corner and gone off the paved surface.
The engineers would have then noticed the damage afterwards and may have been advised by management to keep it quiet. The pilots don't do an external check after shutdown. Once the aircraft is shutdown you pick up your bags and leave.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: London
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thai Airways agree to compensate...
The latest news is that Thai Airways have allegedly agreed to pay for the damage its aircraft caused on landing and veering to the left of the runway insodoing, destroying some runway lamps...
[Source = Bangkok Post]
"Thai Airways International (THAI) has agreed to compensate Suvarnabhumi airport for damage caused to a runway by one of its aircraft earlier this month, Suvarnabhumi airport director Serirat Prasutatnont said yesterday. The aircraft in question, an Airbus A300-600 which arrived from Phuket, caused the damage when it momentarily slid off the runway at Suvarnabhumi airport during heavy rain at around 5.30pm on July 7. But the pilot never reported the incident, Mr Serirat said. The plane partly missed the runway and smashed some runway lights. Its left rear wheels slid off of the runway and ran on the grass beside the tarmac, leaving behind a track about 100 metres long in the soil. However, its pilot managed to bring the aircraft back onto the runway and stop safely at the B4 parking bay.
About an hour later, the pilot of a Thai AirAsia flight informed the control tower of dirt tracks on the eastern runway. The runway was then closed from 7pm on July 7 to 6am the following morning for maintenance and inspection. The pilot of the Thai Airways flight reportedly failed to inform the Airports of Thailand (AOT) of the incident.
The Thai Airways flight smudged the tarmac as mud was spread all over its left rear wheels and the underneath of its fuselage.
The plane also smashed four sets of runway lamps. The repair of the lamps cost the Airports of Thailand 72,800 baht on top of 98,000 baht required for cleaning the eastern runway.
Mr Serirat said the Airports of Thailand has written to Thai Airways seeking compensation and the national carrier has agreed to take financial responsibility for the damage.
Airports of Thailand board member and spokesman Chirmsak Pinthong said the board had ordered an investigation into the incident which proved the problem did not stem from any runway defect."
[Source = Bangkok Post]
"Thai Airways International (THAI) has agreed to compensate Suvarnabhumi airport for damage caused to a runway by one of its aircraft earlier this month, Suvarnabhumi airport director Serirat Prasutatnont said yesterday. The aircraft in question, an Airbus A300-600 which arrived from Phuket, caused the damage when it momentarily slid off the runway at Suvarnabhumi airport during heavy rain at around 5.30pm on July 7. But the pilot never reported the incident, Mr Serirat said. The plane partly missed the runway and smashed some runway lights. Its left rear wheels slid off of the runway and ran on the grass beside the tarmac, leaving behind a track about 100 metres long in the soil. However, its pilot managed to bring the aircraft back onto the runway and stop safely at the B4 parking bay.
About an hour later, the pilot of a Thai AirAsia flight informed the control tower of dirt tracks on the eastern runway. The runway was then closed from 7pm on July 7 to 6am the following morning for maintenance and inspection. The pilot of the Thai Airways flight reportedly failed to inform the Airports of Thailand (AOT) of the incident.
The Thai Airways flight smudged the tarmac as mud was spread all over its left rear wheels and the underneath of its fuselage.
The plane also smashed four sets of runway lamps. The repair of the lamps cost the Airports of Thailand 72,800 baht on top of 98,000 baht required for cleaning the eastern runway.
Mr Serirat said the Airports of Thailand has written to Thai Airways seeking compensation and the national carrier has agreed to take financial responsibility for the damage.
Airports of Thailand board member and spokesman Chirmsak Pinthong said the board had ordered an investigation into the incident which proved the problem did not stem from any runway defect."
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is that all it was? Now I see why he didn't report such a trivial excursion from the runway.
Off the paved surface for 100 metres, damaged runway lights, mud all over the aeroplane are bad enough, but I wonder...how did the respective Commander so quickly assertain that there was no damage to the aeroplane, that he felt it not necessary to report the incident.
Where I have worked, this sort of nonsense is immediate grounds for suspension...and likely dismissal.
Going off the paved surface is one thing, not reporting is quite another...and not good.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dinbangkok makes what happened somewhat clearer. To swerve that much on landing that the aircraft left the runway and not to report it is highly significant.
To have set autobrake on the approach with a known history of braking problems was a poor decision. To have had the incident and then just walked away from the aircraft without checking it after shutdown was irresponsible.
To have set autobrake on the approach with a known history of braking problems was a poor decision. To have had the incident and then just walked away from the aircraft without checking it after shutdown was irresponsible.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was onboard!
I've just read all your comments with interest. Was there an incident? YES! I was onboard that flight and believe me it all happened. We ran off the runway when landing. Not taxiing. We were going fast and ran off the runway and everyone onboard heard it and felt it. I could see it because I was watching the wing fill with mud and grass. The noise was deafening. People were screaming "Oh my God" and other scary stuff. Who are they kidding saying the passengers didn't know? The guy next to me broke into tears! I had to get back on a flight to return to Hong Kong and I had to call a pilot friend to help me get over my fear just to get back on another flight! The thing that made the whole experience so bad was that there was no announcement over the PA. Just get off the plane and all the flight crew pretending nothing happened. I can't believe people are saying IF and incident occured. There must have been 20 passesgers who leant over my seat to take photos. Believe me it took place!
