Jump to content

TG pilot under probe in Frankfurt for alleged violation of aviation safety standards


webfact

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Khun Paul said:

Expensive, poor customer service, useless staff, any more ??

 

Add almost unedible food, cheap drinks and bad lounges in BKK.
Unfortunately TG is the only carrier that flies nonstop from FRA to BKK.
Yes, there's also Lufthansa, but they have a 2-2-2 abreast in their business class (thats why I call it premium eco). I insist on a single seat when flying intercontinental, so LH isn't an option for me despite much better catering and service (compared with TG, not other airlines!)

Edited by Peterbilt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And did the German aircraft controller advise him of this or was he making a cup of coffee ?

Let's just wait & see the outcome. Too low approaches happen hundreds of tmes a day but surprised he was actually flying the aircraft at this time & not just observing the ILS system 

doing the approach

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PETERTHEEATER said:

Thank you for spelling 'brake' correctly. It's  a complete break from TV convention????

Surely it could’ve been either. He might have on his break and forgot to look what was happening....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Grusa said:

I knew a TG senior pilot, now thankfully deceased, who went on after retirement from TG to fly with other Thai airlines. He was a keen light aircraft pilot and owner. He was a likeable, but often also an arrogant, ignorant, and incompetent hiso <deleted>.

He had many avoidable accidents in his and others' light aircraft. Blame was always deflected to weather, mechanics, or system failures, when in fact pilot stupidity was invariably the cause. The one that killed him (and seriously injured three passengers) was blamed on "wind". In fact the aircraft was overloaded, underpowered, and he was showing off at low altitude in the face of a mountain. Stupidity.

 

Ah yes, the Thai blind spot. A much-fabled part of the broader but uniformly obnoxious Thai culture.

 

Sometimes it's a bit of a challenge to understand why these people aren't more humble. After all, they've got such a lot to be humble about.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Fore Man said:

As a former aviator, I am sure that is probably exactly what happened. You do not fly into any major TCA...must always be under ILS approach guidance unless an emergency was declared requiring manual flight control.  

 

From what I have been (I believe reliably) told that is exactly what happened. There was a medical emergency onboard and they were given a priority landing by ATC using a different approach at higher altitude than planned which was outside the glide slope parameters. They needed to lose altitude quickly and unfortunately that resulted in a missed approach hence the subsequent go-around.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, thedemon said:

 

From what I have been (I believe reliably) told that is exactly what happened. There was a medical emergency onboard and they were given a priority landing by ATC using a different approach at higher altitude than planned which was outside the glide slope parameters. They needed to lose altitude quickly and unfortunately that resulted in a missed approach hence the subsequent go-around.

 

That's far too prosaic and also logical for all the Guillotine watchers on here.

 

It MUST be a Thai pilot at fault.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, 30la said:

Microsleep again? It seems that it is truly a Thai disease!

Happened to me just last month while I was driving. Nodded off for a second or two. Snapped out of it just in the nick of time! Scared the bejesus out of me!

So, it really can happen to anybody.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/17/2020 at 5:42 AM, observer90210 said:

Scary....are they trained by the toughest international standards ? ...or is the primary training on Flight Simulator V ?

Food for thought. Quote from Wikipedia regarding the crash of flight TG311 from Bangkok to Kathmandu in 1992 ( yes, I know 27 years ago but) when the plane made a controlled flight into a mountainside whilst attempting to land:-

 

Nepalese authorities found that the probable causes of the accident were the captain's and controller's loss of situational awareness; language and technical problems caused the captain to experience frustration and a high workload;[8] the first officer's lack of initiative and inconclusive answers to the captain's questions; the air traffic controller's inexperience, poor grasp of English, and reluctance to interfere with what he saw as piloting matters such as terrain separation; poor supervision of the inexperienced air traffic controller; Thai Airways International's failure to provide simulator training for the complex Kathmandu approach to its pilots; and improper use of the aircraft's flight management system.[6]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

(I’m not going to get into what happened, but I will clarify a few too general or flat out incorrect statements that people have posted.

 

“He was not using the auto-pilot ILS system which navigates and lands the aircraft for you”

 

The ILS approach consists of ground equipment and aircraft equipment. The ground equipment has different levels of protection based on the type of approaches in use. When Low Vis Operations are in use, ATC will have different standards of separation between aircraft (even departing aircraft stopping near the rwy will be different), in order to ensure accurate transmissions are sent to the aircraft systems. The greater the requirement, the more restrictions are in place. This is only done when it is a legitimate LVO situation exists otherwise there will be more holding and less aircraft arriving and departing. So given the weather conditions on the day, it would have been a normal “CAT 1” ILS in use. This doesn’t mean to say that a full automatic landing can’t be carried out - it’s just that the signal can be more easily disrupted and aircraft systems will just follow them regardless (they will alert the pilot if the guidance is disrupted for too long - but the aircraft will generally go into an attitude stabilization mode and not magically save everyone). A CAT 1 autoland is probably more problematic than a CAT3B autoland (where ATC have complied with all the restrictions required to land in zero visibility), because the pilot has to do greater monitoring of system.

 

”you do not fly into any major TCA... must always be under ILS approach guidance unless an emergency was declared requiring manual control flight”

 

Frankfurt 07R alone has two ILS approaches, two LOC / DME approaches, a VOR approach, 2 RNAV approaches and 2 GLS approaches. In fact, most major airports have similar - so I’m not sure what you’re talking about “must always be under ILS approach guidance”. not to mention visual approaches. There are legal requirements for pilot take off and Manual landing recency which must be met and therefore most landings are done manually. It’s a matter of pilot preference when the autopilot is disconnected.
 

[paraphrased] Altitude and speed restrictions, MDA’s and glideslope intercept [/paraphrased]

 

Every state has their own flight rules as to minimum altitudes, speeds etc. Descent into any USA airport it is a federal requirement not to exceed 250kts. (other than in an emergency). Most other airports have the restriction, however it can be requested to be lifted and high speed can be approved. Same for the 1,500’. 
 

MDA’s are not all 250’ AGL.

HKG has a baro of 222’ for 07L/25R (both 200’ AGL)
SVB 01L has a baro of 230 - 225’ AGL
SVB 19R has a baro of 205’ - 200’ AGL
and Frankfurt 07R has a baro of 528’ which is 200’ AGL


anyway. In the following link, there is some further speculation as to what happened, but the most realistic so far would be this - he knows what he is talking about.

 

“By busdriver on Tuesday, Jan 14th 2020 15:49Z
 
This looks like they mucked up the energy management and then tried and failed to intercept from above, either manually but most likely via the automatics.

A quick peek at the ADS-B data shows the following. They were 10,000ft abeam the runway (quite high if they were expecting radar vectors). They were on an intercept heading at 5,500ft at 12nm (putting them maybe 1000ft high - not the end of the world). At 10nm they were at 4000ft, still above the glideslope at approx 800ft high. At this point, VS increased to 2000fpm (not totally inappropriate given the intercept from above). Then at around 9nm it increased to a VERY inappropriate 3000fpm. In 3nm they dropped from 4000ft to 700ft. I'd guess something along the lines of they were flying the GS intercept from above technique without being established on the Localister so it never captured the glideslope passing it.”

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some detail/discussions here and here...seems like it was a significant incident. The BFU investigation and report should be interesting.

 

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1439109

 

https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/thai-airways-royal-orchid-plus/2004157-tg-flight-serious-incident-frankfurt-too-low.html

 

http://avherald.com/h?article=4d1e782d&opt=0

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/17/2020 at 8:42 AM, NanLaew said:

The inveterate Thai  (and THAI) bashers are simply gonna love this thread so specially, just for you...

 

Brake failure!

There's so much to bash these days, I don't think many have the time for these smaller ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...