Pasengers refuse to board Phuket Air flight

[Shit-Spattered Dog]

buffalo_bill said:

suadum,

 

** Received by KLM Royal Dutch Airlines 21.09.1979, converted (to what?) 01.1985 **

 

Used to be a semi cargo , as KLM had many . Passengers in front , cargo aft.

 

BuBi [/quote

 

They were advertised as " combi " filght. Cargo in front ( ie the passengers ) and the paying customers in the back ( ie fright.)

 

Actually airplanes can run forever, minus a crash or major accident.

I't's a question of how much cash does it take to keep an 1972 era plane up to current ( manadory ) standards. My guess is an older plane, remodeled can be as fun and cosy as as anything newer. I also guess that Phuket Air bought the older planes at discount and are playing cheap in keeping them flying. That's to say only asbsoulte mimimum is spend to keep than in the air. But also remember that's it's the pilot's neck up there along with the passages....When you start to see mass quiting's of flight crew from Phuket Air, than it's time to bail.

Have a safe trip.

 

Btw, was not Asia Air=Phuket Air?

Shit.

[..]

Shit-Spattered Dog said:

Actually airplanes can run forever, minus a crash or major accident...

Well, for the most part correct. However, as and engineer and airplane geek, while I do know that while I have faith in properly maintained/designed equipment, I do not have faith enough in ANY corporation to do the right thing when it comes to major expendatures such as complete maintenance on a 30 year old airframe. I mean, they bought the old plane in the first place to save money, what makes one think that they will not cut corners afterward too? Even US carriers get nicked for doing this.

 

Cheers,

SD

[..]

buffalo_bill said:

Yeah . They overfilled it . <tirade snipped>

Actually, you can overfill it in that you take on more fuel weight that you want/need/can handle. In this case, the fuel was coming from the fuel overflow valves. Perfectly natural for a aircraft and route of this size. The fuel was probably being dumped which in theory would make the flight safer for the pax as there is less chance of it not making it off the ground before the end of the runway. Not a concern at Sharjah as they have a very long runway, but the Captain was prolly just following procedures.

 

You can see it in this photo. Take a look at the left wing tip:

 

Cheers,

SD

[buffalo_bill]

Suadum,

 

give me break , dou you think an airliner is dumping fuel during takeoff by opening the valves while it is not even airborne ? Are you currently under the influence of intoxicating drinks or trying to recover from an unexpected orgasm ? These valves are not for overflow as such but to get rid of fuel if the plane is too heavy for landing in emergency cases.

 

What you show on your photo is a kind of "fog " that you can see on many planes during takeoff or landing , or if you watch a Formula 1 race.

 

BuBi , aerodynamics

[Guest]

Haha Aircon water.

Anyone remember flying on the old 707's ?

When leaving Bangkok once in the late 60's (from the very old airport, the one that had huge spiders in the corners and the sign about 'No Hippies') the plane practically filled with condensation that looked like a London fog. It cleared pretty soon but as the plane lifted off we wer showered with water from all the condensation build up.

[dddave]

I've written about this before, so I won't go to any length with the story, but 3 years ago I flew on a China Airlines 747-200 that two weeks later, came apart at 29,000 feet between Taiwan and HK.

The pieces recovered suggested that a patch put in place after a take-off mishap about 20 years before had hidden a crack that ticked away untill it finally let go. 747's are massive aircraft with countless components that flex and stress with every cycle. Even the best maintainance isn't going to catch everything, especially hidden hazzards that haven't happened to let go before. Some of these birds are into their 4th decade of use, thats a long time for any piece of machinery.

 

By the way, the particular aircraft I'm referring to had already been sold to---Guess?????-------Orient Thai!!!!

 

No more 747-200's for me, I've used up my luck.

 

David

[Guest]

The following is a link to an article in Todays Independent (UK Newspaper) which includes details about a Phuket Air 747 which was grounded in London on Wednesday.

 

Independent Newspaper

[Guest]

One-More

Yep I read it but people will still travel on the airline.

Christ, people used to fly Tarom in the 80's when on the London to Romania section they were still using old Russian planes, the ones with the Bomb-Aimer type plexiglass domes under the front of the thing and on the Romania to Bangkok leg, ancient old 707's

[Flashermac]

<< (from the very old airport, the one that had huge spiders in the corners and the sign about 'No Hippies') >>

 

 

If you want to see that old airport, watch The Killing Fields. That was filmed around 1982, when the old airport terminal was no longer used but still standing. It is long gone now.

[Flashermac]

THE NATION

 

 

FAULTY AEROPLANES: UK clips Phuket Air's wings

9 Apr 2005

 

After one too many scares, UK transport agency inspects jets and discover faults

 

United Kingdom's safety inspectors have grounded a Phuket Air jet and banned another from carrying passengers after uncovering a series of major defects, according to a report of Times Online.

 

The collision-avoidance system on one Boeing 747-200 was found to be broken and the evacuation safety lights were not working on another.

 

The faults were discovered when the Department for Transport ordered emergency inspections of the Thai company's aircraft after three safety scares in four days, Times Online said.

 

Several thousand Britons are booked to fly with Phuket Air over the next three weeks and it was unclear last night how the airline would accommodate them.

 

The UK's Transport Department yesterday contacted Thailand's aviation authority, which regulates Phuket Air, to demand that "all future flights must be operated in accordance with international safety standards".

 

The department ordered the first checks on Monday after reports of two aborted take-offs by a Phuket Air jet bound for Gatwick.

 

Passengers at Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates had seen fuel gushing from a wing and threatened to storm the cockpit unless the flight was halted.

 

The 25-year-old aircraft was inspected by the Civil Aviation Authority on Monday.

 

It was discovered that there was a fault with the lights, which are meant to illuminate the escape route during an emergency evacuation.

 

Phuket Air said that it would fix the problems back in Thailand, but the authority's inspectors refused to allow passengers on the aircraft. It returned to Bangkok empty.

 

On Wednesday, inspectors found more defects on another Phuket Air 747-200, which had been forced to return to Gatwick.

 

The aircraft had taken off 18 hours late on Wednesday after repairs. But an engine failed an hour into the flight and the pilots returned to Gatwick.

 

Inspectors found that an oil seal had been damaged by a mechanic during repairs in Sharjah.

 

A Transport Department spokesman said, "the reason that the engine shut down was because it had an oil leak resulting from damage to the gearbox oil seal."

 

He said Phuket Air had allowed the aircraft to take off from Gatwick on Wednesday despite knowing that the collision-avoidance system was not working.

 

The spokesman added that the aircraft would not be allowed to take off until it had passed further inspections.

 

Marie Prince, Phuket Air's British spokeswoman, said she had been unable to obtain any information from the airline's senior managers.

 

"I have no idea what is going on because they are not returning my calls. I haven't had any information since 3pm yesterday, yet I have had 85 calls from journalists," she said.

 

Darran Lockie, 26, of Aldershot, Hampshire, was on board the aircraft which had the fuel leak and was later switched to the second aircraft which had the hydraulic problems.

 

"They were insisting that there was no problem, but it's now obvious that both planes were potential death traps," he said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:: :: ::