TG679 Runway incident at BKK
#76
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,304
Some pics of 'covering up' attempts by other airlines.
http://pantip.com/topic/30956470
http://pantip.com/topic/30956470
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...ter-crash.html
#77
Join Date: May 2005
Location: PHX
Programs: AA Gold, WN A+ & CP, HH Diamond, Hyatt Platinum, National Executive Elite
Posts: 3,240
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?
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?
#78
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London; Bangkok; Las Vegas
Programs: AA Exec Plat; UA MM Gold; Marriott Lifetime Titanium; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,745
I never said a plane must collide with another aircraft in order to be considered a crash.
I'm well aware that an aircraft can crash into the ground (or a building, or construction equipment, etc...).
If a landing gear failure is a crash to you, then so be it.
If you feel this A330 crashed into the ground, fantastic!
If every time an aircraft slides off the runway is a crash to you, great!
I (and perhaps the person who changed the title of this thread from "crash landing" to "incident" ) didn't feel as though this was.
Oh, and .
I'm well aware that an aircraft can crash into the ground (or a building, or construction equipment, etc...).
If a landing gear failure is a crash to you, then so be it.
If you feel this A330 crashed into the ground, fantastic!
If every time an aircraft slides off the runway is a crash to you, great!
I (and perhaps the person who changed the title of this thread from "crash landing" to "incident" ) didn't feel as though this was.
Oh, and .
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.
Funny how the tail in this one wasn't masked: http://avstop.com/news/thai.html
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?
#79
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 368
#80
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 368
#81
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London; Bangkok; Las Vegas
Programs: AA Exec Plat; UA MM Gold; Marriott Lifetime Titanium; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,745
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.
Last edited by Always Flyin; Sep 11, 2013 at 9:08 pm
#82
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,304
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
Probably many more than ten. The point was it's not only Asian thing.
#83
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London; Bangkok; Las Vegas
Programs: AA Exec Plat; UA MM Gold; Marriott Lifetime Titanium; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,745
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.
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.
#84
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bangkok, Thailand
Programs: ROP
Posts: 471
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.
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.
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).
#85
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bangkok, Thailand
Programs: ROP
Posts: 471
#86
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London; Bangkok; Las Vegas
Programs: AA Exec Plat; UA MM Gold; Marriott Lifetime Titanium; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,745
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).
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).
#87
Join Date: May 2005
Location: PHX
Programs: AA Gold, WN A+ & CP, HH Diamond, Hyatt Platinum, National Executive Elite
Posts: 3,240
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.
#88
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bangkok, Thailand
Programs: ROP
Posts: 471
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.
#89
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London; Bangkok; Las Vegas
Programs: AA Exec Plat; UA MM Gold; Marriott Lifetime Titanium; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,745
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.
And I look forward to Santa Claus on Christmas Day too.
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.
#90
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bangkok, Thailand
Programs: ROP
Posts: 471
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.
Last edited by joy16; Sep 12, 2013 at 2:30 am