Korean Air low approach over central Bangkok last night?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Asia
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Korean Air low approach over central Bangkok last night?
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 shows only KE 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 for disco-goers to wonder why they were looking down at an airliner.
Does such a low attitude put aircraft underneath radar over Bangkok?
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 shows only KE 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 for disco-goers to wonder why they were looking down at an airliner.
Does such a low attitude put aircraft underneath radar over Bangkok?
Last edited by enkei; 24th Oct 2007 at 12:16. Reason: Forgot this point earlier...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Asia
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Asia
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only flight that fits 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." 
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Age: 63
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Asia
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
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?
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?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Asia
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Europe
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
So what happened?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 60
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Above 30,000 ft
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
What DO the ATC tapes say?
And the QARs will have the rest of the story.
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.
We had a 777 nearly get hit by another aircraft in the BKK TMA and BKK ATC will not reply to our letters.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Asia
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Wunderbra
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Bedford, UK
Age: 44
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Wunderbra
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Bedford, UK
Age: 44
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: North west UK
Age: 64
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!!
Just because it has 2 engines they think it is smaller than a jumbo, and the optical illusion is that it is nearer!!!