Some more here on Flyertalk. Non Asian.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...ter-crash.html

Waterproof paint?? Kind of a hassle to paint it while it's floating in the river but ok I guess.

Fireproof paint??? I get that not everyone seems to agree with or understand why airlines do this and I'm not saying it's right, wrong, or otherwise, but why would you use a burned up and destroyed air frame as the basis of your argument?

Firstly, you are assuming the landing gear just collapsed on its own. I don't. TG has already demonstrated that it will lie through its teeth to avoid blame for an incident (e.g., "We just followed Star Alliance guidelines").

A330s operate around the world for well over a decade without a demonstrated flaw in the landing gear system. I am assuming, without verification yet, that the pilot struck the runway too hard, causing the gear to collapse. Even if the pilot didn't, the gear is maintained by TG so they are still responsible.

Secondly, did you not note my reference to "outside the normal parameters of the flight envelope"? Perhaps not.

Seems like a pretty small cross-section. I'd be willing to bet that for every one photo you can find of a logo being covered after a serious incident, I can find at least ten where the logos weren't covered.

Funny how the tail in this one wasn't masked: http://avstop.com/news/thai.html

Have you looked at the photo links others have posted? I have. Noted any of the drapes over logos? There are more ways to cover a logo than paint.

Fair enough on that one. I forgot that UA 232 was completely destroyed by fire.

That EAD requires replacement of the bogie beam once a certain number of landings or flight hours have occurred. TG apparently decided that inspections were sufficient.

http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/2011-0122-E

What we don't know is how many hours and landings this airplane had, or if TG had received authorization from Airbus to conduct inspections in lieu of replacement, which seems rather unlikely in the case of a use limited lifetime part.

What we do know is that there has not been a rash of other A330s having such failures.

There has been previous failures of main gear axles on A330s. Subsequent inspection requirements should have eliminated that particular risk but your statement is incorrect.

Probably many more than ten. The point was it's not only Asian thing.

Examples of the bogie beam failing? The EAD didn't mention previous actual failures, just the possibility of it.

The emergency airworthiness directive required replacement, not inspections.

Appears to be overwhelmingly an Asian thing.

From EASA's AD for landing gear of A330/A340.

The MLG bogie beam life limit for A330-301/-321/-322/-341/-342 models is 19,250 LDG or 28,900 FH

And from the news, the bogie beam for this aircarft was installed since 2004.

Assume; If this aircaft are in service everyday for 9 years with 5 LDG/day, the landing service for this bogie beam is 16,425 LDG. But in reality, she can't operate everyday for 9 years because of maintenance programs (C/D checks).

From pprune.org (#46), an A330 bogie beam broke up while taxiing in munich (2007).

Since 2004, it would be expected to have exceeded the flight hour replacement requirement.

Paint, drapes, whatever...my point was that the plane was floating in the middle of the river. It wasn't that easy to cover and therefore not the best example to use as a basis for supporting your point.

TG is the only one to tell whether it exceeded or not.

Assume; If this aircraft operates everyday with 8.8 FH/day, it may exceed the life limit. However, she can't operate everyday as previous said.

Yes, and TG will no doubt be honest and forthcoming with all relevant information.

And I look forward to Santa Claus on Christmas Day too.

If it is not flying more than 8.8 hours a day, TG's fleet management needs a lot of improvement.

The 8.8 flight hours a day is an average value based on she was in services everyday for 9 years, it isn't actual value.

Exemple for A330 utilization (HS-TEF) on 7 Sep 2013.

THA679 seen @ 2013-09-07 11:34 UTC on route from CAN to BKK

THA678 seen @ 2013-09-07 09:24 UTC on route from BKK to CAN

THA206 seen @ 2013-09-07 05:32 UTC on route from HKT to BKK

THA205 seen @ 2013-09-07 03:18 UTC on route from BKK to HKT

THA226 seen @ 2013-09-07 01:15 UTC on route from HKT to BKK

The above shown that she had 5 landing and 9:40 (or 9.66) total filght hours (3 x 1:25 hr for HKT routes, 2:50 hr for BKK-CAN and 3:00 for CAN-BKK) in that day.

From the link, it also shown that she was not active during 20-24 Aug 2013.