Thai A330 Incident In Bangkok

LH648 · Sun Sep 08, 2013 6:35 pm

TG679 CAN - BKK.

Pic from twitter. No more info available so far.

SpaceshipDC10 · Sun Sep 08, 2013 6:41 pm

Nose landing gear collapsed after what looks like a runway overrun. It seems there's smoke coming from the right side of the aircraft.

KarelXWB · Sun Sep 08, 2013 6:42 pm

Found another picture:

SpaceshipDC10 · Sun Sep 08, 2013 6:44 pm

So now we know the aircraft is HS-TEF

KarelXWB · Sun Sep 08, 2013 6:54 pm

View from behind:

LH648 · Sun Sep 08, 2013 6:55 pm

First Flight: 02-03-1995

I think it's a write-off.

TheRedBaron · Sun Sep 08, 2013 6:59 pm

Aircraft looks pretty bad.... I wonder if weather is a factor here...anyone knows the METAR ?

TRB

evomutant · Sun Sep 08, 2013 7:09 pm

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 6):
Aircraft looks pretty bad.... I wonder if weather is a factor here...anyone knows the METAR ?

VTBS 081900Z 33003KT 9999 FEW020 BKN120 BKN300 25/22 Q1011 NOSIG
VTBS 081830Z 31003KT 9999 FEW020 BKN120 BKN300 25/22 Q1011 NOSIG
VTBS 081800Z 30002KT 9999 FEW020 BKN120 BKN300 25/22 Q1012 NOSIG
VTBS 081730Z VRB01KT 9999 FEW020 BKN120 BKN300 25/22 Q1012 NOSIG
VTBS 081700Z 00000KT 9999 FEW020 BKN120 BKN300 25/22 Q1012 NOSIG
VTBS 081630Z 00000KT 9999 FEW020 BKN120 BKN300 26/23 Q1012 NOSIG
VTBS 081600Z 00000KT 9999 FEW020 BKN120 BKN300 26/22 Q1012 NOSIG
VTBS 081530Z VRB01KT 9999 FEW020 BKN120 BKN300 26/22 Q1013 NOSIG

Would suggest weather is not an issue.

KarelXWB · Sun Sep 08, 2013 7:09 pm

All 298 persons on board are safe.

http://twitter.com/nationnews/status/376781132261785600

[Edited 2013-09-08 12:18:24]

kaitak · Sun Sep 08, 2013 7:13 pm

Damage doesn't look too bad; the No2 is probably going to have to be replaced, but there doesn't seem to be major structural damage; ok, it's an old frame, but after a wash, a lick of paint and a new No2, it should be ok.

Good load too ... presumably that's about 282 pax and 16 crew? Still a good load factor.

BKK is now operating again; departures from 19R, so presumably this happened on 19L.

KarelXWB · Sun Sep 08, 2013 7:15 pm

The damage is pretty obvious. Some reports on Twitter say it was a crash landing, but this has not been confirmed yet.

Picture via http://twitter.com/MalengSaab

[Edited 2013-09-08 12:16:07]

SpaceshipDC10 · Sun Sep 08, 2013 7:30 pm

Quoting kaitak (Reply 9):
but there doesn't seem to be major structural damage;

Both engines seem to be damaged and I'm curious to see how the front belly looks, especially regarding the landing gear collapse.

Spacepope · Sun Sep 08, 2013 7:33 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 10):
The damage is pretty obvious. Some reports on Twitter say it was a crash landing, but this has not been confirmed yet.

Looking at that photo, I'd be surprised if #1 didn't ingest anything too. So bot engines FUBAR, pylons need inspection, same with MLG, nose gear replaced, structural work in that area, skin work... Those insurance adjusters are going to have a big job ahead of them. Where's the avionics bay relative to the nose gear?

KarelXWB · Sun Sep 08, 2013 7:36 pm

Quoting kaitak (Reply 9):
Good load too ... presumably that's about 282 pax and 16 crew? Still a good load factor.

The aircraft has 305 seats (42 J, 263 Y) and 298 people including 14 crew were on-board. So 284 of the 305 seats were full, which means a load factor of 93%.

DocLightning · Sun Sep 08, 2013 7:52 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 10):
The damage is pretty obvious. Some reports on Twitter say it was a crash landing, but this has not been confirmed yet.

What else was it? It appears to have departed the pavement at high speed, traveling at least a few plane-lengths before it came to rest. The #2 engine apparently caught fire at some point given that there is smoke and/or extinguishing fog coming from the starboard side and none of those slides are deployed.

The news story posted said it was during a landing. From the looks of it, the NLG not down, but whether that occurred before departure from the runway or after is not clear. Same is true of the starboard MLG which looks as if it was down (gouged out trenches) but has apparently failed in some way, again unclear whether it occurred before or during the departure from the pavement.

The ground looks dry and none of the personnel are in rain gear, so it doesn't seem to be rain-related.

KarelXWB · Sun Sep 08, 2013 7:57 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 14):
What else was it?

Maybe it just overshot the runway?

shanxz · Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:05 pm

Thai Airways Twitter account just posted first official statement:

The flight 679/8SEP Guangzhou - Bangkok wheelbase crashed while landing at the airport. There are 14 people slightly injured passengers were taken to hospital.

KarelXWB · Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:06 pm

Close-up pictures of the left hand engine are coming in:

Prost · Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:08 pm

A little speed tape...

Anyways, another great job by the flight attendants getting everybody out. Only 14 injuries is pretty good. Whereas I'm sure they aimed for zero, that can't always happen in these situations.

DocLightning · Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:28 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 15):
Maybe it just overshot the runway?

That would count as a "crash landing" in my book. It crashed during the landing. The landing isn't over until you are either stopped or safely off the runway.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 17):
Close-up pictures of the left hand engine are coming in:

Oughta buff right out.

Quoting shanxz (Reply 16):
Guangzhou - Bangkok wheelbase crashed while landing at the airport. There are 14 people slightly injured passengers were taken to hospital.

Wheelbase crashed? Huh?

sankaps · Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:34 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 19):
That would count as a "crash landing" in my book. It crashed during the landing. The landing isn't over until you are either stopped or safely off the runway.

Sorry to nitpick especially since I normally agree with your posts, but there is a difference, IMO. A crash landing is when the aircraft crashes into the runway -- ie the crash occurs at the point the aircraft impacts the runway. A runway overrun can occur even after a perfectly normally touchdown or landing, and even if it results in a write-off, it is different from a crash-landing.

Fantikerz · Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:36 pm

"According to the Thai Daily news website the Right hand side tires had blown on landing causing fire to number 2 engine. The right wing touched the runway causing the A/C to veer off causing significant damage to Runway 19. In coming flights are diverted to Don Muang."

http://avherald.com/h?article=4681fccd

DocLightning · Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:37 pm

Quoting sankaps (Reply 20):
Sorry to nitpick especially since I normally agree with your posts, but there is a difference, IMO. A crash landing is when the aircraft crashes into the runway -- ie the crash occurs at the point the aircraft impacts the runway.

Is there an official or conventionally-accepted definition?

There are formal definitions of "accident" vs. "incident" and this definitely counts as an "accident."

kc135topboom · Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:52 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 22):
Quoting sankaps (Reply 20):Sorry to nitpick especially since I normally agree with your posts, but there is a difference, IMO. A crash landing is when the aircraft crashes into the runway -- ie the crash occurs at the point the aircraft impacts the runway.
Is there an official or conventionally-accepted definition?

Actually there does not need to be a runway in a 'crash landing'. A crash landing occurs during a landing attempt, it can be an emergency landing out in a field somewhere, on a highway, or a ditching at sea. Although most do occur on or near a runway that the landing is attempted on. The crash of the OZ B-77E several weeks ago in SFO was actually a crash landing.

A crash landing can result in damage levels from no damage at all, to minor damage, or a full write off and everything in between, to the aircraft.. There can be no injuries to fatalities to the crew and passengers.

DocLightning · Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:56 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 23):
Actually there does not need to be a runway in a 'crash landing'. A crash landing occurs during a landing attempt, it can be an emergency landing out in a field somewhere, on a highway, or a ditching at sea. Although most do occur on or near a runway that the landing is attempted on. The crash of the OZ B-77E several weeks ago in SFO was actually a crash landing.

A crash landing can result in damage levels from no damage at all, to minor damage, or a full write off and everything in between, to the aircraft.. There can be no injuries to fatalities to the crew and passengers.

So assuming, for the moment (as it seems to be the case), that the aircraft crashed during the landing sequence, what would you call this?

KarelXWB · Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:01 pm

Statement from Thai Airways on their Facebook page:

"Thai Airways International Flight TG 679, Guangzhou – Bangkok operated with Airbus 330-300 aircraft departing Guangzhou at 16:03 hrs. (local time) scheduled to arrive at Suvarnabhumi Airport at 23:00 hrs. (local time) experienced incident while landing at Suvarnabhumi Airport. As the aircraft was landing and the landing gear touched the runway, the nose gear has failed. As a result, the plane skidded off the runway. The captain took control of the aircraft until it stops and the passengers were evacuated using slides. The aircraft was carrying 287 passengers and 14 crew members. 8 passengers were slightly injured. Injured passengers were taken care and sent to hospital for medical treatments."

sankaps · Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:21 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 22):

There are formal definitions of "accident" vs. "incident" and this definitely counts as an "accident."

Yes, it certainly does. Even if this were an over-run, the final state of the aircraft definitely amounts to an accident, maybe even a crash.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 23):

Actually there does not need to be a runway in a 'crash landing'. A crash landing occurs during a landing attempt

Fully agree.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 24):
So assuming, for the moment (as it seems to be the case), that the aircraft crashed during the landing sequence, what would you call this?

A crash landing, based on what is known so far -- the touchdown itself caused the crash, as per below.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 25):
As the aircraft was landing and the landing gear touched the runway, the nose gear has failed. As a result, the plane skidded off the runway

[Edited 2013-09-08 14:25:24]

BoeingMerica · Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:29 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 8):

All 298 persons on board are safe.

Really this is all that matters.

The aircraft can be written off, Thai will get there money from insurance and the investigation will yield a cause. Sad the bird is a goner more than likely but everyone walked away, and that's fantastic news.

BoeingMerica

awthompson · Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:59 pm

So this is not a runway overrun but an excursion off the side of the runway?

nimool · Sun Sep 08, 2013 11:14 pm

Would this be a right off? hope not!

Thank god everyone on board are safe

skipness1E · Sun Sep 08, 2013 11:16 pm

Quoting BoeingMerica (Reply 27):
Sad the bird is a goner

Perhaps we should wait until qualified peeps have had a wee look?

trex8 · Sun Sep 08, 2013 11:38 pm

It's one if their early A 330s delivered 95 so the insurers may be more likely to write it off. Was going to be replaced by the newer delivery roller powered ones anyway.

OldAeroGuy · Mon Sep 09, 2013 12:45 am

Don't know if it's a crash landing but it's at least a landing with a crash.

Tommy525 · Mon Sep 09, 2013 2:19 am

18 year old A330? May not be worthwhile to repair.

It may be the planes last landing.

cloudyapple · Mon Sep 09, 2013 2:41 am

Logos and rego's painted out. Pretty definitive.

davidho1985 · Mon Sep 09, 2013 3:32 am

Quoting cloudyapple (Reply 34):
Logos and rego's painted out. Pretty definitive.

Normal practices. Noone will want their company's logo appearing on an aircaft sitting on the runway in a major airport, with nose gears down; engines damaged and slides deployed. It will seriously demange their brand and customers' impression.

AY-MD11 · Mon Sep 09, 2013 5:21 am

Not good month for Thai Airways. First the A380 turbulence incident and now this. It's still possible to repair this A330 if they dont want to have another write off in theyr books.

Starlionblue · Mon Sep 09, 2013 5:24 am

Quoting sankaps (Reply 20):
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 19):
That would count as a "crash landing" in my book. It crashed during the landing. The landing isn't over until you are either stopped or safely off the runway.

Sorry to nitpick especially since I normally agree with your posts, but there is a difference, IMO. A crash landing is when the aircraft crashes into the runway -- ie the crash occurs at the point the aircraft impacts the runway. A runway overrun can occur even after a perfectly normally touchdown or landing, and even if it results in a write-off, it is different from a crash-landing.

"Crash landing" is neither an industry nor a legal term. An accident is defined as an event where there is serious or fatal injury or where there is structural damage. Thus this is an accident.

A landing can be "hard" or "forced", but not a "crash landing".

Qatara340 · Mon Sep 09, 2013 6:03 am

Is this the first A330-300 crash? I think all the others were -200.

ADent · Mon Sep 09, 2013 7:08 am

Kind of looks like the right main gear is rotated 90 deg.

KarelXWB · Mon Sep 09, 2013 7:13 am

The tiles have been covered already.

sankaps · Mon Sep 09, 2013 7:37 am

What is amazing is that there was no fire that followed the crash. Typically in such accidents it is the fire more than the impact that causes the most havoc. Very fortunate it did not happen in this case.

checksixx · Mon Sep 09, 2013 7:53 am

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 6):
Aircraft looks pretty bad....

Wow...I was thinking the polar opposite....aircraft looks in great shape to me considering....

SA7700 · Mon Sep 09, 2013 8:03 am

Quoting QatarA340 (Reply 38):
Is this the first A330-300 crash? I think all the others were -200.

If written off it will be the second A333 hull loss, the first being MH (9M-MKB) which was damaged beyond economical repair when a chemical spill occurred in the cargo hold.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

frigatebird · Mon Sep 09, 2013 8:20 am

Quoting SA7700 (Reply 43):
Quoting QatarA340 (Reply 38):Is this the first A330-300 crash? I think all the others were -200.

If written off it will be the second A333 hull loss, the first being MH (9M-MKB) which was damaged beyond economical repair when a chemical spill occurred in the cargo hold.

Don't forget the A330-300 that crashed at a test flight in 1994, which, incidentally, was to become TG's first A330 (HS-TEA): http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19940630-0

HAWK21M · Mon Sep 09, 2013 8:25 am

Quoting tommy525 (Reply 33):
18 year old A330? May not be worthwhile to repair.

Economics will decide that.....

SpaceshipDC10 · Mon Sep 09, 2013 8:36 am

So the NLG failed at touch down not when the aircraft left the runway which is still better, damage-wise.

SA7700 · Mon Sep 09, 2013 8:36 am

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 44):
Don't forget the A330-300 that crashed at a test flight in 1994, which, incidentally, was to become TG's first A330 (HS-TEA)

Thanks for that info, I did not know about the incident.

Regards,

SA7700

pegasus1 · Mon Sep 09, 2013 9:36 am

Quoting cloudyapple (Reply 34):
Logos and rego's painted out. Pretty definitive.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 40):
The tiles have been covered already.

From Sky News:

"Thai Airways official Smud Poom-On said that the "blurring the logo" after the accident came after a recommendation from Star Alliance - a global group of 29 airline partners - known as the "crisis communication rule".

It is meant to protect the image of both the airline and other members of Star Alliance."

Starlionblue · Mon Sep 09, 2013 9:44 am

Quoting cloudyapple (Reply 34):
Logos and rego's painted out. Pretty definitive.

This has nothing to do with whether it will be repaired. It is a standard brand protection measure.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net