PPRuNe Forums - Thailand : One-Two-Go Airlines to get warning in wake of near miss

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- Rumours & News (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news-13/)

- - Thailand : One-Two-Go Airlines to get warning in wake of near miss (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/324432-thailand-one-two-go-airlines-get-warning-wake-near-miss.html)

Thailand : One-Two-Go Airlines to get warning in wake of near miss

Quote:

The Department of Civil Aviation will issue an official warning to One-Two-Go Airlines, requiring its pilots to strictly follow safety standards after an investigation indicated one of its pilots may have failed to do so in a near miss with a Nok Air plane last December.

Wuthichai Singhamanee, deputy director-general of the department in charge of air investigation, said yesterday his team had already concluded its investigation into the near miss between the One-Two-Go and Nok Air planes. The two budget airlines' planes were flying in opposite directions between Bangkok and the North on Dec 15 last year. It put the blame on One-Two-Go.

According to Mr Wuthichai, the One-Two-Go plane _ flight OG 8104 from Bangkok to Chiang Mai _ had its autopilot system disengaged. It suddenly descended and its pilot tried to raise it. While the pilot was trying to gain altitude, the plane was heading for a mid-air collision with the Nok Air plane, flight DD 8715 from Chiang Rai to Bangkok.

The Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TACS) alarms on both planes sounded when they were one kilometre apart over Takhli district in Nakhon Sawan province. However, the pilots of both planes avoided colliding as they were about 300 metres apart in altitude.

Mr Wuthichai said that under aviation safety standards when an autopilot was disengaged the pilot had to turn his plane either left or right by 45 degrees to leave his flight route.

The One-Two-Go pilot failed to follow this procedure, while air traffic controllers also failed to monitor the situation or give instructions. The pilot did not report the incident to air traffic controllers, which is compulsory.

''Therefore, the department needed to give the airline a warning, telling it to have its pilots strictly follow standard practices,'' Mr Wuthichai said.

Source: BangkokPost http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/26Apr2008_news02.php

I am sure there must be a misunderstanding or mistranslation in the above : the 45 degree turn statement doesn't sound right.

If I'm going to be flying about in Thailand over the next couple of months would it be wise to avoid one-two-go?

Quote:

If I'm going to be flying about in Thailand over the next couple of months would it be wise to avoid one-two-go?

:uhoh::eek::uhoh::eek::uhoh::eek::uhoh:

Yeah, but at least an unexpected encounter with a ladyboy will only end in a funny story to tell your friends.

Being the back of a plane that is flown by a couple of ding-bats is a bit less funny. :uhoh:

The dangers of Orient Thai & One-Two-Go

Regarding the dangers: see www.InvestigateUdom.com, see the video and letter linked on the home page, then click on the "more information link" on the upper right.

This action from the DCA is only the beginning.

"The Department of Civil Aviation will issue an official warning to One-Two-Go Airlines"

I would have thought that OG269 would have triggered that, but then again, TIT (This is Thailand):eek:

For my flights in Thai airspace I use PG, BR and TG with also a Nok Air (XL) crew and aircraft.
I can remember watching those Orient Thai classic 747s departing Don Mueng, thinking that they looked a little long in the tooth.

Quote:

flight OG 8104 from Bangkok to Chiang Mai _ had its autopilot system disengaged. It suddenly descended and its pilot tried to raise it. While the pilot was trying to gain altitude, ...

and

Quote:

Mr Wuthichai said that under aviation safety standards when an autopilot was disengaged the pilot had to turn his plane either left or right by 45 degrees to leave his flight route.

can someone explain to a simple ppl-holder why it is so hard to keep the altitude when the autopilot disengages?
... and why does one have to turn 45 degrees when disengagement happens?

sf25

Re - descent - I think the reason is that it is very difficult to hand fly an aircraft at high altitude. The aircraft needs to be in denser air therefore a descent is required. The ATPL guys will correct me I'm sure.

Aircraft travel in airways. Drop below your assigned Flight Level and you run the risk of hitting someone coming the other way at a lower level or colliding with someone going the same way - again at a lower level. A 45 degree turn gets you out of harms way quickly.

Quote:

The aircraft needs to be in denser air therefore a descent is required.

.... sooooo difficult, that one has to descent so immediately that one can´t even check with atc? (... and therefor has to leave the airway?)

could be. thanx xeque but still maybe an atpl-expert could enlighten us more.

sf25,

I normally fly a light twin. I had a chance some time ago to hand fly an HS125 (light jet) at altitude and can tell you that it took me a significant amount of concentration to maintain heading and altitude to acceptable tolerances in that thin air ( I also understand that the airspeed envelope is very narrow so sudden attitude changes are not recommended).

Quote:

Originally Posted by rmac (Post 4087856)

I normally fly a light twin.

:E My manegement wished it had 100 or so seats less than the present state :}

Jokes aside. the 45 deg turn does not mean 45 deg BANK turn, lets chill. If the proper procedure for AP loss in the relevant airspace (such as RVSM) is to leave it and leaving it should include 45 deg sway from route axis, then so it is.
Mr Wuthichai did not certainly reach his nominated position by being an unteached idiot, so yes, I concurr that a lot must have been lost in the translation, or more specifically on communication gates.

I've placed the mute NTSB animation of the crash on Youtube.

I've placed the mute NTSB animation of the crash on Youtube.

This adds quite another dimension to written reports.

YouTube - Phuket, crash One-Two-Go Air MD 82 OG269 accident NTSB animation
.

Quote:

If I'm going to be flying about in Thailand over the next couple of months would it be wise to avoid one-two-go

If you can, yes!

Gentleman Jim

It is NOT difficult to fly manual at higher flightlevels. The controls are more sensitive but any (professional) pilot will be able to maintain altitude and heading etc. For flight into RVSM airspace, the rules require the autopilot to be used (and servicable).

When receiving a TCAS resolution advisory, you do NOT change course but follow vertical commands like "climb climb" , "descend descend" etc.

If the autopilot fails in RVSM airspace, you fly manual (maintaining altitude!!) and get a reclearance to a lower, non RVSM flightlevel.

If you cannot maintain altitude, ie engine failure, then you turn away from the airway (usually 45 degrees course change) and start your descend. In this case you will make a distress call and try to get formal clearance.

I've finally found enough time to add annotations to an originally mute animation.

The annotations are based on the 66 page report.

YouTube - Phuket, crash One-Two-Go Air MD 82 OG269 accident NTSB animation
.

Quote:

I think the reason is that it is very difficult to hand fly an aircraft at high altitude

Not true. I currently fly a heavy wide-body aircraft. In non-RVSM airspace, I've hand flown this aircraft (and several other heavies) at high altitude - up to 41000 feet without any difficulty what-so-ever - and held altitude, track, etc, to the same standard as the autopilot (Which may not necessarily being saying much)

Quote:

Re - descent - I think the reason is that it is very difficult to hand fly an aircraft at high altitude.

If you have no basic flying skills, flying is difficult at all levels. What are you kids gonna do when computers fail "Terminator-style"??

Gotta go and re-new my Bahn Card!