« Prev Page 19 of 36 17 18 19 20 21 Next » This topic is locked Go to first unread post 893 replies to this topic

[Sunderland]

Although the reasons for the crash in Phuket probably have nothing to do with the age of the aircraft, is it worth considering the age of budget airlines when booking your trip? Here are some stats from http://www.airfleets.net/home/ concerning the average age of the airline's currently active fleet. While the list is incomplete, there seems no good reason to have budget airlines that are more than 20 years old, as Thai AirAsia and Orient Thai Airlines.

I am not suggesting that pilot errors and weather conditions would not effect newer aircraft and I am sure the skills of both pilots and air traffic controllers varies throughout the world. However, I will think twice about flying on such old aircraft in the future. Personally I would not choose to jump in a 20-year-old taxi to take me from Bangkok to Rayong and remain unconvinced that such old aircraft are really maintained to the highest standard. If such old aircraft were so reliable, then why would other budget airlines invest so heavily in brand new aircraft???

BUDGET AIRLINES

1.4 years Cebu Pacific

1.9 years Tiger Airways

2.4 years JetStar Asia

2.6 years Easyjet

3.0 years Ryanair

3.1 years JetBlue Airways

4.3 years Bangkok Airways

6.4 years Germanwings

6.5 years Flybe

6.5 years Air Asia (Malaysia)

14.7 years Lionair (Indonedia) (2 crashes)

15.9 years Nok Air

19.2 years Adamair (Indonesia) (2 crashes)

19.5 years Indonesia AirAsia

21.7 years Thai AirAsia

22.7 years Orient Thai Airlines (1 crash)

30.3 years Air Philippines (1 crash)


A SELECTION OF SCHEDULED INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES

3.4 years Etihad

5.1 years Qatar Airways

5.5 years Emirates

6.0 years Virgin Atlantic

6.4 years China Eastern Airlines

6.5 years China Southern Airlines

6.6 years Singapore Airlines

6.7 years Aeroflot

7.5 years Air Algerie

7.9 years Air China

8.0 years Philippine Airlines

8.8 years Air France

9.5 years Ethiopian Airlines

9.7 years All Nippon Airways

9.7 years Continental Airlines

9.8 years Southwest Airlines

9.9 years Egyptair

10.4 years Thai Airways

10.8 years Garuda International

10.8 years Qantas

11.1 years Northwest Airlines

11.1 years British Airways

11.2 years Japan Airlines

11.3 years Cathay Pacific

11.8 years Malaysian Airlines

12.1 years US Airways

12.5 years Lufthansa

12.5 years Pakistan International Airlines

13.1 years United Airlines

13.5 years Delta Airlines

14.3 years Air India

14.4 years American Airlines

14.5 years Lao Airlines

15.5 years Indian Airlines

16.8 years Varig (Brazil)

20.5 years Biman Bangladesh

25.1 years Ariana Afghan Airlines




Admittedly the figures for Air Asia in Malaysia include a mixture of new A320 aircraft and the same old A737 airplanes used by Thai AirAsia

[cdnvic]

Sunderland, on 2007-09-18 21:16:43, said:

If such old aircraft were so reliable, then why would other budget airlines invest so heavily in brand new aircraft???

Because the are more fuel efficient and require less maintenance.

[keemapoot]

^^ that list is very impressive and I love flying Tiger because of the new planes and efficiency. Again, typical of Singapore.

Interesting that Southwest, perhaps the most successful budget airlines worldwide, has 10 year old planes.

[markr]

Older planes require more maitenance, therefore the cost starts to out weigh the price of a new one.

Mark

[jeebusjones]

Does anyone know what is considered an acceptable response time for emergency crews in a crash like this? I would think no more than a couple of minutes.

This crash seems very similar to a China Airlines incident in Hong Kong in 1999. It really illustrates the huge difference a timely emergency response can make. An MD-11 decided to land during a typhoon, even though the weather conditions exceeded the limits of the plane. Upon landing, the plane flipped over and a massive explosion was seen.

Because of the quick response of the superb emergency teams at Hong Kong airport, only 3 out of 300 people died. There is actual footage of the crash, and it's amazing that more people weren't killed:



This makes you wonder how many more people could have been saved.

(http://en.wikipedia....ines_Flight_642)

Edited by jeebusjones, 2007-09-18 21:44:48.

[greenwanderer108]

Sunderland, on 2007-09-18 21:16:43, said:

...long long list of incomplete statistics...

It would be interesting if you re-did this list with all the airlines as listed above but listed crashes for all of them, to see if age of fleet is reoccurring factor in crashes.

Lets hear it fact junkies:

What is the smallest age of a commercial aircraft accident crash with fatalities in the last 10 years?

[jeebusjones]

greenwanderer108, on 2007-09-18 21:54:37, said:

Lets hear it fact junkies:

What is the smallest age of a commercial aircraft accident crash with fatalities in the last 10 years?

This may not be the answer but I'll bet it's pretty close. China Airlines has a fleet age of 5.4 years, but it has one of the worst safety records in the world. The last major crash was in 2002 when a plane broke up in mid-flight killing more than 206 people.

That particular plane was more than 22 years old. However, just last month a brand new China Airlines Boeing 737 burst into flames after landing in Japan. It was very lucky there were no fatalities.

So I'd concur that the age is not really the most crucial factor. I think the most important factor is the airline and what sort of safety policies they have.

[cdnvic]

jeebusjones, on 2007-09-18 22:10:14, said:

greenwanderer108, on 2007-09-18 21:54:37, said:

Lets hear it fact junkies:

What is the smallest age of a commercial aircraft accident crash with fatalities in the last 10 years?

This may not be the answer but I'll bet it's pretty close. China Airlines has a fleet age of 5.4 years, but it has one of the worst safety records in the world. The last major crash was in 2002 when a plane broke up in mid-flight killing more than 206 people.

A week later the aircraft was to have been delivered to, of all airlines, Orient Thai.

[TAWP]

markr, on 2007-09-18 21:30:23, said:

Older planes require more maitenance, therefore the cost starts to out weigh the price of a new one.

Which only becomes true if you indeed perform the required maintenance and checkups to the fullest.

[george]

Air Force chief calls for end to air accident criticism

BANGKOK: -- Thai Air Force Commander-in-Chief ACM Chalit Pukbhasuk on Tuesday called on parties not involved in the probe of the One-Two-Go aircraft tragedy at Phuket International Airport to end their criticism, saying their action would do more harm than good to the country's image.

He said investigators had not yet been able to determine the cause of the disaster.

Marshal Chalit said they required more time to determine the actual cause of Sunday's air crash, because such incidents normally occur due to many factors.

Regarding criticism of the safety standards of the airport, which could undermine public confidence among other airlines, he said that the investigation had not yet found whether the airport's environment is one of the factors that caused the accident.

Asked to comment on foreign media criticism that pilots should not land the plane when they are awareness that their vision is poor, Marshal Chalit said what had happened at that time is something that no one knew about when it was happening.

He added that no pilot wished to take unwarranted risks because they all had families to care for like other people.

"They must attempt to their best to save the plane at that time. But an accident can occur any time if the environment is poor," he said.

"No one knows exactly what is the real cause of the accident at present. I want parties not involved in the investigation to stop criticism because it is not good for Thailand's image," Marshal Chalit said.

--TNA 2007-09-18

[Supaporn]

geriatrickid, on 2007-09-18 21:13:55, said:

taxexile, on 2007-09-18 19:03:18, said:

this is from a post on the phuket crash thread on the pprune web forum.
f

This is pusing the envelope. It is uncorroborated and perhaps the work of a disgruntled employee, past or current.
The investigation will take a year or more, but will be thorough. Please let the investigators do their job. The complainant can submit his views to the hearing board where it will be duly examined. Air incident investigations may not always provide the answers the public wants but they do have a track record of providing the facts and an honest assessment based upon those facts.

I do believe that the conditions this pilot relates do indeed exist. To think that he would be asked to testify before a hearing board is almost laughable. I am confident this is not the workof a disgruntled employee - past or present.
Believe what you will, but there are many that would love to corroborate these conditions and see the end of the likes of 1 -2 - Go.

[canuckamuck]

This was not an emergency landing and the tower would have only known about the crash by visual. The unsuspecting emergency crews would then have to be scrambled and they would have to wait for a signal that the active runway was safe to cross. I can't imagine they could have been there in less than five minutes. It probably took three minutes just to make sure the runway was safe. I don't think there was any chance that the fire crews could have been in time to save anyone trapped.

I think everyone who got out did so in two minutes or less. Witness claim to have seen fire in the cabin right away. The escape time would have been very limited. I think a few who got out would have spent some time looking to see how they could rescue any more at least another minute.

After watching the video, I think several minutes have passed by the time the clip was shot. The remaining survivors are slowly walking away, an obvious sign they know it is now too late for anyone else. The guy with the video is more concerned with the people around him, as if he too knows it's too late for any more survivors. He's far enough passed panic that he remembers his video camera (amazing he still has it) and he shoots at least a minute of video. My guess is that we are looking at the scene no sooner than five minutes after the crash. It would be interesting to know if he kept taping or not, or how long it really did take for emergency vehicles to arrive.

[TAWP]

The requested 3 minute respond-time is during non-prealerted events.

So not arriving after 5 minutes...or driving off chocked passangers before after 45 minutes...

[Mrjlh]

TAWP, on 2007-09-17 00:05:16, said:

The type of plane:

I want any pilots out there to carefully study the photo of the crash. I want you to tell me what do you see? I see several things in this one photo many people are missing. Look very carefully. Was he trying to land? Was he trying to go around? Was he turning left or right? Was he going up or down? Very reveling things here in this photo.

Before the results of the "black boxes" are back here are my predictions of what they will tell us.
1. He was not trying to land. Tale tell sign if you see it.
2. He was pulling up. Tale tell sign again
3. Turning to the right. (whether to over correct I'm not sure) again there is a sign.

The nose section, maybe rows 16 and forward took the full brunt of the crash and came off on the second bounce. That section lies to the right of the main section and is totally destroyed. All but one person died in that section according to rescuers. The center fuel tank exploded and the resulting fire temperature reached in excess of 1000 Degrees F in less than a few seconds (quick death.. thankfully). You can see the aluminum skins melted. Alum melts between 962-1200 Degrees F. Very few survivors will be forward of the fire and most will be aft of the fire zone. This is my prediction. Now only time will tell.

My heart goes out to all the families for your loss.

[jetjock]

Mid, on 2007-09-18 03:25:59, said:

taxexile, on 2007-09-18 17:17:52, said:

Quote

(the pilot) Arief Mulyadi's son told media in his home country that Phuket authorities said his father had wanted to turn back for Bangkok, but that the control tower said he should land.

how on earth did the son of the pilot get that information ?

from Phuket authorities ??

From an experienced airline pilot perspective, I have found this second guessing, monday morning quarterback, speculative debate which has emerged due to this tragic accident to be interesting to read but unfortunately IMHO it contains quite a bit of sometimes inaccurate and misleading information. I have tried to stay on the sidelines as much as possible but think it is appropriate to make a few comments regarding some statements that I have read.

The Captain of an airplane is the final authority on the safe operation of his aircraft. Air traffic control can issue instructions but the Captain can invoke his emergency authority to do what he wants to do (he many be required to justify invoking his emergency authority at a later hearing). With regard to the above quote, the statements do not make any sense since a control tower does not tell a pilot 'he should land' but instead clears him to land. If the pilot wanted to turn back then he would advise the tower in this instance that he wanted to be cleared to an alternate or hold until the weather got better. I must reinterate that the the pilot in command (PIC) is ultimately responsible and the final authority for the operation of his aircraft.

I will have no idea what caused this accident until the accident investigation team has finished and the final findings are published. For those posters who have made speculative comments regarding the pilots it should be pointed out that there are certain situations that a pilot can inadvertently find himself in that regardless of his degree of experience, may exceed the capability of the aircraft or that there is no safe way out . A few examples of this are severe wind shear and microburst which may or may not have been involved in this accident. It should be always be remembered that although experience is one of the most valuable tools of the pilot, it is never any guarantee of safety.

Edited by jetjock, 2007-09-18 22:56:33.

[chrislarsson]

Mrjlh, on 2007-09-18 22:47:34, said:

Before the results of the "black boxes" are back here are my predictions of what they will tell us.
1. He was not trying to land. Tale tell sign if you see it.
2. He was pulling up. Tale tell sign again
3. Turning to the right. (whether to over correct I'm not sure) again there is a sign.

I'm surprised you can tell all these things from this picture. Are you sure you haven't had a sneak in the news, as this analysis is consistent with the testimonies of survivors and air control staff

[Farma]

chrislarsson. A little hint. Look at the position of the flaps and control surfaces.

[onethailand]

Forgive me if this has been mentioned already, but CNN has reported that the transcript of the conversation between the control tower and the pilot has been released and the last communication clearly showed that the tower advised the pilot of possible wind shear. I hadn't heard this before even though we've read a number of reports in the press, so not sure whether CNN was just repeating this information or reporting the release of the transcript as new news.

[chrislarsson]

Here is my prediction:

Considering what happened with Phuket Air (it got bust in early 2006 after a troubling safety record, although it never caused any casualties), I think One-Two-Go will head the same way regardless of the outcome of the upcoming investigations. Thai Airways can probably afford an accident like this, but I doubt a small carrier like One-Two-Go can.

[Mid]

Pilot in Thai crash 'ignored warnings'
RIA Novosti


the Russians are hanging the pilot out to dry .

[A_Traveller]

And the "image" brigade arrive on the scene.
Bangkok Post

Quote

Chalit calls for end to air accident criticism
Thai Air Force Commander-in-Chief ACM Chalit Pukbhasuk on Tuesday called on parties not involved in the probe of the One-Two-Go aircraft tragedy at Phuket International Airport to end their criticism, saying their action would do more harm than good to the country's image.
He said investigators had not yet been able to determine the cause of the disaster.
Marshal Chalit said they required more time to determine the actual cause of Sunday's air crash, because such incidents normally occur due to many factors.
Regarding criticism of the safety standards of the airport, which could undermine public confidence among other airlines, he said that the investigation had not yet found whether the airport's environment is one of the factors that caused the accident.

/Emphasis added//
LINK

Edited by A_Traveller, 2007-09-18 23:58:17.

[chinthee]

A_Traveller, on 2007-09-18 23:56:58, said:

And the image brigade arrive on the scene.
Bangkok Post

Quote

Chalit calls for end to air accident criticism
Thai Air Force Commander-in-Chief ACM Chalit Pukbhasuk on Tuesday called on parties not involved in the probe of the One-Two-Go aircraft tragedy at Phuket International Airport to end their criticism, saying their action would do more harm than good to the country's image.
He said investigators had not yet been able to determine the cause of the disaster.
Marshal Chalit said they required more time to determine the actual cause of Sunday's air crash, because such incidents normally occur due to many factors.
Regarding criticism of the safety standards of the airport, which could undermine public confidence among other airlines, he said that the investigation had not yet found whether the airport's environment is one of the factors that caused the accident.

/Emphasis added//
LINK

Is he referring to thaivisa and the other internet forums or are there debates raging on Thai language fora as well?

Edited by chinthee, 2007-09-18 23:59:35.

[mrtoad]

chinthee, on 2007-09-18 23:58:54, said:

A_Traveller, on 2007-09-18 23:56:58, said:

And the image brigade arrive on the scene.
Bangkok Post

Quote

Chalit calls for end to air accident criticism
Thai Air Force Commander-in-Chief ACM Chalit Pukbhasuk on Tuesday called on parties not involved in the probe of the One-Two-Go aircraft tragedy at Phuket International Airport to end their criticism, saying their action would do more harm than good to the country's image.
He said investigators had not yet been able to determine the cause of the disaster.
Marshal Chalit said they required more time to determine the actual cause of Sunday's air crash, because such incidents normally occur due to many factors.
Regarding criticism of the safety standards of the airport, which could undermine public confidence among other airlines, he said that the investigation had not yet found whether the airport's environment is one of the factors that caused the accident.

/Emphasis added//
LINK

Is he referring to thaivisa and the other internet forums or are there debates raging on Thai language fora as well?

Just the usual posturing from these type of people trying to deflect any potential bad publicity that an incident involving the death of peolple may cause.

Condolences to those involved, and I hope that the investigation and findings are not hindered by certain people trying to portray and protect a certain image of the countries tourism industry or personal interests, rather than point to real reasons of the accident, weather that be pilot error, safety standards etc...much better publish the truth than try to hide it. As we all know, at the moment everything is is speculation and conjecture.

Edited by mrtoad, 2007-09-19 00:11:19.

[A_Traveller]

From The Nation

Quote

... the air traffic controller asked the Indonesian pilot for a confirmation of his decision, according to Kumtorn Sirikorn, executive vice president of Aeronautical Radio of Thailand.
"Request your intention," the air traffic controller asked.
The pilot 56-year-old Arief Mulyadi replied: "Landing".
This was one of the last words of communication between the air traffic controller at Phuket airport and Arief, who decided to land the ill-fated One-Two Go aircraft. ... Kumtorn provided this account of conversation between the air traffic controller and Arief. He had listened to the tape recording replaying what happened at the critical moment before the aircraft landing. ... "There was a warning of wind shear from the pilot of the previous flight, which landed four minutes ahead of One-Two-Go," he told Agence France-Presse in a separate interview.
Arief and his co-pilot also listened to this conversation between the air traffic controller and the pilots of Orient Thai Airlines since their radio receivers were tuned to the same wave- lengths. ... The pilot's son told Jakarta-based Tempo newspaper that a senior officer of One-Two-Go Airlines told him that his father had asked to turn back to Bangkok.
Arief Mulyadi once told his son that of all the places he had flown, Phuket had the worst weather, according to the Jakarta Post. But it also had the most beautiful scenery from above.

Emphasis added
/Whole report is well worth reviewing.//
Regards
LINK

Edited by A_Traveller, 2007-09-19 00:13:56.

[chrislarsson]

onethailand, on 2007-09-18 23:28:19, said:

Forgive me if this has been mentioned already, but CNN has reported that the transcript of the conversation between the control tower and the pilot has been released and the last communication clearly showed that the tower advised the pilot of possible wind shear. I hadn't heard this before even though we've read a number of reports in the press, so not sure whether CNN was just repeating this information or reporting the release of the transcript as new news.

I apologize. I have to admit that I have relied a bit on Swedish news. Two Swedish guys were the first ones off the plane and the only ones escaping injuries.

Then I can add that according to them, just before the crash, the landing gears were pulled in and the pilot started to accelerate, but the plane still lost height and hit the ground.