« Prev Page 15 of 36 13 14 15 16 17 Next » 893 replies to this topic

[Asian Frog]

Sorry,
But the experts know that they have to stay out of the debate in order not to fuel controversial positions which may biase the result of investigations and may be used during the trials which will follow as there is a judiciary need for determining responsabilities particularly for Insurances.
If you want to know the real reasons of accident please go on the NTSB website (or equivalent Civil Aviation Authorities) in 6 months, time which is required for analysing all data. Analysing all contributing factors, including forensic expertise of the pilot bodies, analysis of their activities during the last 48 hours, analysis of their training, as well as check of all maintenance operations during the last month, analysis of weather conditions, analysis of all recorders (Aircraft and ATC)....
Proper experts will not give you any opinion until all parameters have been analysed, only week end pilots are doing and their interventions are lacking accuracy

[elkangorito]

Asian Frog, on 2007-09-18 02:50:10, said:

It is urgent to wait the results of investigations. Too much non professional speculations on this forum.
An aviation accident is often due to a combination of factors. We have to wait and let the professionals analyse the contributing factors.
It is particularly important to be quite accurate in our vocabulary in those circumstances and yes, to operate an airliner is a complex operation, which requires a lot more than flying a cessna.
For your information, VFR flights are forbidden in Operation Manuals of most Airlines, so our aircraft are flying IFR. However we can be IFR and flying VMC (Visual Meteorological Conditions) or to be IFR and make a visual approach.

It's (not) funny how 'visual' always seems to come into the equation.

The bloke who taught me how to fly was a bus driver. That was his claim to fame even after being a pilot for over 40 years. He learnt to fly before he could touch the pedals of a motor vehicle.

A guy, with whom I went to school, is now a Qantas captain...has been for many years.  He was taught by the same bloke as I was. Both he (the Qantas guy) & me understand the realities about flying by the 'seat of your pants'. It is my belief & my friend from Qantas, that under extreme circumstances, a good pilot will not rely on the unreliable. Nor is it sensible to simplify matters by saying such things as "to operate an airliner is a complex operation, which requires a lot more than flying a cessna". Complete rubbish!!! Have you ever tried to land a light aircraft in crosswinds that exceed its' capability? For larger aircraft, this is a simpler thing to do. Not so for light aircraft. From this is where a pilot is created.

When it comes to the crunch, if all else fails, look out of the window. Oops!!! That is against the rules, (VFR flights are forbidden in Operation Manuals of most Airlines) even though the situation may clearly require it. I'm pretty darn sure that most pilots have enough 'common sense' to save themselves, & their passengers, from a dire situation, even if it means resorting to 'looking out of the window'.

As soon as you mention VMC or IFR, you remind me of when I had to wear the plastic headwear, which basically restricted my vision to nothing. There is no pilot in the world who chooses to fly 'blind' when, quite clearly, he has the option to 'see'.

[keemapoot]

Jingjok, on 2007-09-18 03:09:03, said:

cdnvic, on 2007-09-18 02:56:57, said:

Discussion, speculation, questioning and correcting each other is what makes it a forum. We discuss, debate, and learn. Waiting for the experts to tell us everything would make it more akin to a library than a forum.

Hear hear Cdnvic!

BTW, there's some interesting 'speculation' on pprune (The Professional Pilot's RUmour NEtwork):

www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=292331

Including posts from former employees of the airline.

That's very interesting reading, and even though they are professional pilots they are all bickering over the same issues as this forum!

*post #79 is quite worrisome from a former Orient Thai pilot!  Not a ringing endorsement of 12go.

Edited by sbk, 2007-09-18 06:07:00.

[Asian Frog]

ELKANGORITO

You are confusing VMC/IMC and VFR/IFR. Under IFR rules (pleonasm), the aircraft separation has to be done by ATC. Under VFR, it is the responsability of the pilot. So you can be under IFR rules and make a visual approach which means that the responsability of the aircraft separation is still ATC one

Edited by Asian Frog, 2007-09-18 03:34:10.

[elkangorito]

Asian Frog, on 2007-09-18 03:26:39, said:

ELKANGORITO

You are confusing VMC/IMC and VFR/IFR. Under IFR rules (pleonasm), the aircraft separation has toi be done by ATC. Under VFR, it is the responsability of the pilot. So you can be under IFR rules and make a visual approach which means that the responsability of the aircraft separation is still ATC one

Rubbish!!! A good pilot will always keep a visual lookout as to what is going on around him in these airspaces, albeit rather busy at this time. If this is not the case, why bother to have windows in the cockpit? (obviously to look at the lovely weather). Just fly by IFR/IMC.

Anyway, the aircraft in question just happened to be landing during daylight hours, albeit under very bad weather conditions. Also, aircraft separation is not the issue here. The aircraft was on finals & needed to go-around for reasons yet unknown.

[peterpanner]

Having worked as ground staff when I was young, I can only confirm - pilot misses landing, informs tower, then ops inform the pilot what hight to circle on until it's safe to try another landing. In some cases, the pilot won't even try to land and inform tower. He will then get info what his next best option is from "weather". They comm quite a lot, and no youngster is allowed to land when it get's really bad. It derpends on flying hours of the capt and the type of aircraft who can try a landing and who can't. That is decided from the ground, not by the pilot. I saw Fokkers allowed to land when Boeings had to move on. When asked, ops told me - "He's too young" meaning not enough hours.

One thing is for sure, no normal pilot crashes on purpose.

[Jingjok]

Asian Frog, on 2007-09-18 03:14:56, said:

Sorry,
... But the experts know that they have to stay out of the debate in order not to fuel controversial positions which may biase the result of investigations and may be used during the trials which will follow as there is a judiciary need for determining responsabilities particularly for Insurances...

Are you seriously suggesting that anonymous comments made on TV will be admissable evidence in judicial proceedings?

Asian Frog, on 2007-09-18 03:14:56, said:

... Proper experts will not give you any opinion until all parameters have been analysed, only week end pilots are doing and their interventions are lacking accuracy ...

Do you include pprune posters (I assume you are a member) in that category?
If you indentify inaccuracies (OK, Elkangorito's RT procedure was a bit odd, but you must get his point), please correct them - that is helpful to all who follow this forum. Including me.
I have never liked the term 'expert'.  I have been accused of being one (in a totally unrelated field) and absolutely hate it.

Edited by Jingjok, 2007-09-18 04:05:31.

[Asian Frog]

ELKANGORITO

Suggest you read ICAO Annex 2 rules of the Air to understand the difference. - (or can go on website UK-CAA  to find the rules of the Air). Rules which does not mean that flying IFR, you do not have to look outside, sure it is good practice when VMC-

[elkangorito]

peterpanner, on 2007-09-18 04:03:55, said:

Asian Frog, on 2007-09-18 03:56:25, said:

ELKANGORITO

Suggest you read ICAO Annex 2 rules of the Air to understand the difference. - (or can go on website UK-CAA to find the rules of the Air). Rules which does not mean that flying IFR, you do not have to look outside, sure it is good practice when VMC-

Only "insiders" know what ICAO, UKCAA, IFR, VMC mean - so your post just informed 1% of the readers here.

So did your post (re above).

I can just imagine myself inbound & on final to Phuket. I've done all the pre-worrying (& pre-final checks) & am now on approach according to normal procedure/rules. Obviously, the weather is not in my favour. All of a sudden, I decide that landing is not a good idea (for what reason is unknown...yet).

What do I do now?

Oh & BTW, you are correct when you say that flying IFR you can look 'outside', particularly if it is  DAYTIME. But if it is daytime, you CAN look outside (excepting that low level cloud cover can obscure any vision).

Come on!!! Give me a break!!! The poor guy was obviously under immense pressure to land the beast under those conditions. Ok, he may have been a bit sloppy in his decision making but this does not relate to the rules. I think it relates more to aircraft performance & his performance. Perhaps if he had made his 'go-around' decision a bit earlier, things could've been quite ok. I am not suggesting that this is causal to the incident.

Can somebody please tell me that this particular pilot had daytime vision restricted to such a degree, that it was necessary to do a go-around as a result of such a problem? Maybe he did? (unless he was flying strictly IFR, in which case he would have no need to look at anything.)

Performance, performance, performance....key issues when taking off & landing, I'm sure you know.

Anyway, I am happy to admit that I am probably wrong in many of these aspects but having previously been involved in 2 'incidents' (in one of which I was the pilot), I really don't think that blindly following the rules solves any problem. It sounds like an engineer who has just emerged from university & then tells all & sundry how to do things 'by the book'. The weather & particularly humans, do not 'play by the book'. Nor should they.

Until the results hit the streets, we will never know.

So, asianfrog, what would you have done under such circumstances?

[peterpanner]

There is also a human limit to assume stress. Some can, some cannot. Pilots must assume a lot of stress. I.m no great fan of pilots as I know how arrogant and even ignorant many are, but I wouldn't blame one. They sit in the same boat whatever they do (should be plane I know)

[farang prince]

Has a list of the dead been released yet?  If so, would Thai Visa be so kind as to reprint it when it becomes available?  Many thanks.

[LaoPo]

MD-80 does not have frequent crash history

The US-made McDonnell Douglas MD-80 series aircraft like the one that crashed in Phuket on Sunday does not have a poor safety record or a history of frequent crashes. Since the mid-size, medium-range airliner, with the distinctive feature of having two rear fuselage-mounted turbofan engines, small wings and a T-tail, was introduced in 1980s, it has been involved only four accidents. Three, including Sunday's One-Two-Go tragedy, involved fatalities.

The three previous incidents were:

On Dec 27, 1991, SAS flight 751, an MD-81 aircraft, OY-KHO ''Dana Viking'' crash-landed in Gottrra, Sweden.

In the initial climb, both engines ingested ice breaking loose from the wings, which had not been properly de-iced before departure. Both engines were destroyed, leaving the aircraft with no propulsion. The aircraft landed in a field and broke into three parts. No fire broke out and all aboard the plane survived.

On Jan 31, 2000, Alaska Airlines Flight 261, an MD-83 aircraft, crashed in the Pacific Ocean, about 4.3km north of Anacapa Island, California, due to the inadequate maintenance of the jackscrew assembly.

The two pilots, three cabin crew, and 83 passengers on board were killed, and the airplane was destroyed.

On Oct 8, 2001, SAS flight SK686, an MD-87 aircraft, SE-DMA, collided with a small Cessna jet during take-off at Linate Airport, Milan, Italy.

The Linate Airport disaster left 114 people dead. It has been established that the cause of the accident was a misunderstanding between air traffic controllers and the Cessna jet, and that the SAS crew had no role in causing the accident. Another factor was the ground movement radar not being in operation at the time of the accident.

Article continues here:

http://www.bangkokpo...2007_news11.php

LaoPo

[LaoPo]

Financial compensation guaranteed for all victims

One-Two-Go Airlines and the Civil Aviation Department have guaranteed financial compensation for all victims of Sunday's plane crash. A notice in Thai and English posted on the budget airline's website yesterday expressed regret for the accident and said it would ''definitely provide support and take full responsibility'' for all injured and dead passengers.

The airline's chief executive officer and founder Udom Tantiprasongchai also promised the victims' relatives the company would meet all expenses when he visited Phuket immediately after the tragedy.

Civil Aviation chief Chaisak Angkhasuwan said the airline must pay the relatives of each dead victim 100,000 baht for funeral expenses as soon as possible.

The airline's insurance company would have to cover the medical expenses of the survivors, Mr Chaisak said.

The airline carries more than US$300 million (10.2 billion baht) in insurance cover with UK based-underwriter Penloyd. The insurance covers damage to the aircraft, passengers and third parties, Mr Chaisak said.

Chantra Purnriksha, secretary-general of the Office of the Insurance Commission, said the airline had two accident insurance policies with Penloyd.

In addition to the $300-million insurance covering passengers for death, medical expenses and transport after an accident, it had another policy, worth US$5 million, covering damage on the aircraft and its passengers.

Article continues here:

http://www.bangkokpo...2007_news12.php

LaoPo

[LaoPo]

Authorities yet to identify 13 bodies

DNA matching needed for charred bodies

Authorities have not yet identified 13 out of 89 people killed in Sunday's airliner crash in Phuket, saying those charred bodies must be identified through DNA matching. Nitinai Sorasongkhram, a Phuket-based forensic officer, said 13 of the 89 bodies were totally burnt. His team would collect tissue samples from the bodies and wait for relatives to match their DNAs with the samples.

Acting national police chief Seripisuth Temiyavej said rescue workers have retrieved all dead bodies from the wreckage of the crashed plane. He also set up a body identification panel, chaired by Pol Lt-Gen Potjanee Sunthornket of the Police Hospital.

He said the forensic team should finish identifying all the dead as soon as charred bodies can be identified from DNA samples, fingerprints and teeth.

Pol Gen Seripisuth also assigned his deputy, Patcharawat Wongsuwan, to head a team that would find out if the crash was caused by any human error or recklessness.

Local authorities said relatives have already claimed the bodies of 36 Thai passengers, two Israelis and one Indonesian. The remaining 50 bodies are being kept at a multi-purpose building of Phuket international airport.

Relatives who want to have the bodies of their loved ones flown home may seek assistance for free-of-charge air transport from the cargo section of Thai Airways International, officials said.

Meanwhile, Foreign Ministry deputy spokesman Piriya Khempon said the ministry has set up a coordination centre to assist relatives of foreign passengers on board the crashed airliner as well as embassy staff. The centre could be reached at Tel 0-2644-7245 and 0-2643-5522.

According to local authorities, among the 89 dead victims were five senior officials based in Phuket and Phangnga. They were two judges and three provincial office heads.

Article continues here:

http://www.bangkokpo...2007_news13.php

LaoPo

[jetjock]

peterpanner, on 2007-09-17 14:03:55, said:

Asian Frog, on 2007-09-18 03:56:25, said:

ELKANGORITO

Suggest you read ICAO Annex 2 rules of the Air to understand the difference. - (or can go on website UK-CAA to find the rules of the Air). Rules which does not mean that flying IFR, you do not have to look outside, sure it is good practice when VMC-

Only "insiders" know what ICAO, UKCAA, IFR, VMC mean - so your post just informed 1% of the readers here.

From reading through the posts, it appears that some of the posters and readers are not aware of the meaning of some of the aviation acronyms or are not using them correctly so here is a brief description of some of the terms I have seen used on this topic.
ICAO--International Civil Aviation Organization which is an agency of the United Nations that codifies principles and techniques of of Int'l air navigation and development of air transport.

IFR--instrument flight rules

IMC--instrument meteorological conditions

VFR--visual flight rules

VMC--visual meteorological condition

Go around-- If for some reason the pilot decides not to land, he can fly back up to traffic pattern altitude and fly another circuit in preparation for another landing or leaving the pattern.

Missed Approach--Flight conducted under instrument flight rules (IFR) execute a 'Missed Approach' which rather than 'going around' is a pre-defined missed approach procedure published on an published approach chart.

As a sidenote, this accident is just another grim reminder that aviation can be very unforgiving. I have lost several of my pilot friends and acquaintances in airplane accidents during my many years in the aviation community.  My deepest condolences go out to the families and friends of the passengers and crewmembers that died in this tragic accident--And for my fellow pilots : "To fly west, my friend, is a flight we all must take for a final check."

edited:spelling

Edited by jetjock, 2007-09-18 06:20:11.

[Asian Frog]

I have begun to fly long time ago. I have gotten the privilege flying Boeing 707 with those commanders, World War II veterans: yes, some were arrogant and too much self confident. After several incidents and accidents, my Airlines Management has decided to introduce a psychological selection in order to avoid “maladjusted” people like some of those veterans (Very good military pilots, experienced but poor human performances - not due to stress-), then following incidents, some European Airlines, followed by nearly all worldwide other Airlines, have introduced cockpit voice recorders, anonymous and systematically  flight analysis in order to detect deviations: a patient and long hunting after any possible source of incident/accident.
Human Performances and Limitations have been introduced in the Pilot Training, Crew Resources Management and very recently “Threat Error Management”… All this constitutes what is named the “Civil Aviation Culture”.
This culture and the safety improvements have been done by an in-depth work, analysing every detail of every accident and incident. This work is going on, far from the sensational foam of the news.
During this long period of time, I have lost some friends. Every time, the same scenario, the foam of sensational news, a short period when everybody writes anything then as new sensational thing arises, it is forgotten….except by the experts who are working for improving procedures and equipment. But this work is done silently ….The foam and all the comments have only one result: to hurt unnecessarily relatives of dead people, particularly those of the crew.
Please, can you understand that your comments are inappropriate in this mourning period.

[cdnvic]

LaoPo, on 2007-09-18 05:52:21, said:

MD-80 does not have frequent crash history

Aside from the A330/A340 which has no fatal accidents in airline service, the MD-80 series has the best safety record of all jetliners (Latest accident not factored in) in terms of fatal events per one million flights.

For comparison:

MD-80: 0.45 per 1,000,000
737: 0.62 per 1,000,000
747: 1.62 per 1,000,000

[Burr]

[quote name='elkangorito' date='2007-09-17 11:28:26' post='1541859']
[

Almost all airliners fly IFR, it's nothing to them. they still lookout the window from time to time but at the speed they are going it's not worth it. They use their radar to look 30 miles ahead but ATC tells them everything to do and everything close to them. They are always 1000 feet above or below another plane and well clear on the sides.

By going IFR the ATC does the work!!!

Burr

[mr_hippo]

Asian Frog, on 2007-09-18 03:14:56, said:

If you want to know the real reasons of accident please go on the NTSB website (or equivalent Civil Aviation Authorities) in 6 months, time which is required for analysing all data. Analysing all contributing factors, including forensic expertise of the pilot bodies, analysis of their activities during the last 48 hours, analysis of their training, as well as check of all maintenance operations during the last month, analysis of weather conditions, analysis of all recorders (Aircraft and ATC)....

Sometimes the truth does not always come out, the report on Saudia SV163 is mainly fabricated.

Edited by mr_hippo, 2007-09-18 06:56:08.

[wpcoe]

LaoPo, on 2007-09-18 05:52:21, said:

MD-80 does not have frequent crash history

The US-made McDonnell Douglas MD-80 series aircraft like the one that crashed in Phuket on Sunday does not have a poor safety record or a history of frequent crashes. Since the mid-size, medium-range airliner, with the distinctive feature of having two rear fuselage-mounted turbofan engines, small wings and a T-tail, was introduced in 1980s, it has been involved only four accidents. Three, including Sunday's One-Two-Go tragedy, involved fatalities.

The three previous incidents were:

On Dec 27, 1991, SAS flight 751, an MD-81 aircraft, OY-KHO ''Dana Viking'' crash-landed in Gottrra, Sweden.

In the initial climb, both engines ingested ice breaking loose from the wings, which had not been properly de-iced before departure. Both engines were destroyed, leaving the aircraft with no propulsion. The aircraft landed in a field and broke into three parts. No fire broke out and all aboard the plane survived.

On Jan 31, 2000, Alaska Airlines Flight 261, an MD-83 aircraft, crashed in the Pacific Ocean, about 4.3km north of Anacapa Island, California, due to the inadequate maintenance of the jackscrew assembly.

The two pilots, three cabin crew, and 83 passengers on board were killed, and the airplane was destroyed.

On Oct 8, 2001, SAS flight SK686, an MD-87 aircraft, SE-DMA, collided with a small Cessna jet during take-off at Linate Airport, Milan, Italy.

The Linate Airport disaster left 114 people dead. It has been established that the cause of the accident was a misunderstanding between air traffic controllers and the Cessna jet, and that the SAS crew had no role in causing the accident. Another factor was the ground movement radar not being in operation at the time of the accident.

Article continues here:

http://www.bangkokpo...2007_news11.php

LaoPo

It seems the Bangkok Post uses Wikipedia for its source.  See  http://www.airdisast...i?aircraft=MD-8  for a significantly different set of detailed statistics.   (Or see previous post #328 where it is quoted)

[geriatrickid]

cdnvic, on 2007-09-18 06:19:42, said:

LaoPo, on 2007-09-18 05:52:21, said:

MD-80 does not have frequent crash history

Aside from the A330/A340 which has no fatal accidents in airline service, the MD-80 series has the best safety record of all jetliners (Latest accident not factored in) in terms of fatal events per one million flights.

For comparison:

MD-80: 0.45 per 1,000,000
737: 0.62 per 1,000,000
747: 1.62 per 1,000,000

The values provided above, particularly those that relate to the B747, can lead folks to draw inaccurate conclusions. It is important to differentiate between mechanical failure and human error or intent. The numbers given include fatalities due to such events as terrorism (Lockerbie) or total pilot error (Tenerife). For PAX like me that worry about aircraft reliability and safety, the B747 has an excellent record. Pilot error can occur with any airplane and I would think it is more airline carrier and route specific, i.e. Quantas, Air canada - great; Aeroflot - scary.

Edited by geriatrickid, 2007-09-18 08:49:08.

[cdnvic]

But its also entirely possible that good aircraft design makes for less pilot error.

[peterpanner]

geriatrickid, on 2007-09-18 08:46:39, said:

cdnvic, on 2007-09-18 06:19:42, said:

LaoPo, on 2007-09-18 05:52:21, said:

MD-80 does not have frequent crash history

Aside from the A330/A340 which has no fatal accidents in airline service, the MD-80 series has the best safety record of all jetliners (Latest accident not factored in) in terms of fatal events per one million flights.

For comparison:

MD-80: 0.45 per 1,000,000
737: 0.62 per 1,000,000
747: 1.62 per 1,000,000

The values provided above, particularly those that relate to the B747, can lead folks to draw inaccurate conclusions. It is important to differentiate between mechanical failure and human error or intent. The numbers given include fatalities due to such events as terrorism (Lockerbie) or total pilot error (Tenerife). For PAX like me that worry about aircraft reliability and safety, the B747 has an excellent record. Pilot error can occur with any airplane and I would think it is more airline carrier and route specific, i.e. Quantas, Air canada - great; Aeroflot - scary.

These stats say not much. I feel a lot safer on a 747 than a 737 and that has nothing to do with size. Also, some carriers like Thai and 12go (we don't even start to mention Africa where all outdated planes go) use very old planes, repaint them to make them look new. Just check the betamax they use for safety instructions.

[madjbs]

Just because you "feel" safe it doesnt meen it is safe. Lots of people feel safe in cars and not in planes even though the chances of dieing in a road accident are far greater.

[taxexile]

Quote

In the MD-80 International Forum, sources close to One-Two-Go report that the deceased Captain Arief M., 56, Indonesian, had lost his medical earlier this year, but was nevertheless flying, despite having been grounded for two months. He was the Chief Pilot of One-Two-Go and a retired air force officer.

this , from another forum.

some very interesting comments about this awful incident over at pprune ( a pilots ( and others in the air biz) forum)