Date: 16th September 2007
Location: Phuket International Airport, Phuket, Thailand
Aircraft: McDonnell Douglas MD-82, registration HS-OMG
Flight Number: OG269
Operator: One-Two-Go Airlines
Flight Route: Bangkok (Thailand) to Phuket (Thailand)
Passengers: 123
Crew: 7
Summary of Events
On 16th September 2007, One-Two-Go Flight OG269, a McDonnell Douglas MD-82, crashed while attempting to land in adverse weather conditions at Phuket International Airport. The aircraft veered off the runway during landing, broke apart, and caught fire. The accident resulted in the tragic loss of 87 lives, with 40 survivors, many of whom sustained serious injuries.
The investigation revealed that poor weather conditions, combined with pilot error and potential crew fatigue, contributed to the crash. The incident highlighted the challenges of landing in adverse weather, as well as issues surrounding training and adherence to standard operating procedures.
Aircraft and Crew Information
The aircraft involved was a McDonnell Douglas MD-82, a twin-engine narrow-body jet widely used for short- to medium-haul flights. The specific aircraft, registration HS-OMG, was approximately 24 years old at the time of the accident and had accumulated thousands of flight hours. Maintenance records showed the aircraft was airworthy and compliant with regulatory requirements.
The flight crew consisted of an experienced captain and a first officer. However, the investigation raised concerns about crew fatigue and the adequacy of training related to landing in adverse weather. The captain had extensive flying experience, but both pilots were under pressure due to the demanding operational schedule, which likely contributed to their performance on the day of the accident.
Sequence of Events
Flight OG269 departed from Bangkok and headed towards Phuket on a scheduled domestic flight. As the aircraft approached Phuket, it encountered severe weather conditions, including heavy rain and strong crosswinds. Despite these conditions, the crew opted to proceed with the landing attempt instead of diverting to an alternate airport.
As the aircraft descended on final approach to Phuket’s Runway 27, the challenging weather conditions intensified, and the aircraft began to experience instability due to the strong crosswinds. Witnesses reported that the aircraft seemed to approach the runway at an angle, deviating from the centreline.
During landing, the aircraft touched down hard on the runway but failed to maintain directional control. The MD-82 veered off the runway, slid down a slope, and broke into sections before catching fire. Emergency response teams arrived quickly, but the crash’s severity and the resulting fire made rescue efforts difficult. Out of the 130 people on board, 87 were killed, while 40 survived with varying degrees of injuries.
Weather and Runway Conditions
At the time of the crash, Phuket was experiencing heavy rain and strong crosswinds as part of the seasonal monsoon weather. The adverse conditions significantly reduced visibility and created a challenging landing environment. These conditions were within operational limits but required precise handling and decision-making from the crew.
The runway was wet from the rainfall, and the strong crosswinds contributed to the aircraft’s deviation from the runway centreline, ultimately leading to the loss of control.
Investigation and Analysis
The investigation was conducted by Thailand’s Department of Civil Aviation, with support from international aviation safety experts and representatives from the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and Boeing. The investigation focused on several key aspects, including weather conditions, crew decision-making, and the aircraft’s handling characteristics in adverse weather.
Weather-Related Factors: The challenging weather was a significant factor in the crash. The strong crosswinds and heavy rain created an unstable approach, making it difficult to control the aircraft during landing. Investigators noted that while the weather was within operational limits, it required a high level of precision and situational awareness from the flight crew.
Crew Decision-Making: The investigation found that the crew decided to proceed with the landing despite the adverse weather conditions. Given the intensity of the weather and the availability of alternate airports, the crew’s decision to attempt the landing was questioned. The investigation highlighted a potential lack of adherence to standard operating procedures, which typically encourage diverting under such conditions.
Crew Fatigue and Human Factors: Evidence of crew fatigue was found, with investigators noting the demanding flight schedules at One-Two-Go Airlines. Fatigue can impair cognitive function, reaction times, and decision-making abilities, especially during high-stress situations like landing in adverse weather. Fatigue likely affected the crew’s judgment and ability to manage the landing safely.
Crosswind and Wet Runway Landing Techniques: The investigation noted that the crew’s handling of the crosswinds and wet runway conditions was not optimal. Proper crosswind landing techniques and strict adherence to runway alignment are crucial in such conditions, and deviations from these practices contributed to the loss of control during landing.
Conclusions
The crash of One-Two-Go Flight OG269 was primarily attributed to the crew’s decision to proceed with the landing in adverse weather, combined with fatigue and inadequate handling techniques. The strong crosswinds, low visibility, and wet runway created a challenging landing environment, but the decision to land rather than divert heightened the risk of an unstable approach. The investigation concluded that crew fatigue likely impaired the pilots’ decision-making ability and contributed to their handling errors.
The accident highlighted the importance of proper weather assessment, adherence to standard operating procedures, and the need for effective fatigue management in airline operations.
Recommendations
In response to the findings, several key recommendations were made to enhance aviation safety and prevent similar incidents in the future:
1. Strengthened Fatigue Management Protocols: Airlines should implement comprehensive fatigue management programs to ensure that crew members are well-rested before undertaking demanding flights. Monitoring crew schedules and limiting consecutive flights in challenging conditions can help reduce fatigue-related errors.
2. Enhanced Training for Adverse Weather Landings: Airlines should provide additional training for crews on handling adverse weather conditions, including crosswind and wet runway techniques. Such training should be incorporated into regular simulation exercises to ensure proficiency.
3. Clear Guidelines for Diversion in Adverse Conditions: Airlines should enforce clear guidelines for diversions under adverse weather conditions. This includes empowering crews to make decisions to divert when necessary, prioritising safety over operational schedules.
4. Crew Resource Management (CRM) and Decision-Making Training: Airlines should strengthen CRM training to improve crew communication and collaborative decision-making in high-stress scenarios. Emphasis should be placed on assessing risk factors and adhering to standard operating procedures.
Safety Lessons and Industry Impact
The crash of Flight OG269 underscored the importance of weather-related decision-making, particularly regarding crosswind landings in adverse conditions. The incident highlighted the dangers of fatigue in aviation and the critical need for robust crew resource management and decision-making protocols.
Following the accident, airlines worldwide reviewed and reinforced protocols for landing in adverse weather, fatigue management, and diversion guidelines, helping to improve safety standards across the industry.
Disclaimer
If you are the rightful owner of the photo and wish it to be taken down, please email takedown@cockpitking.com.
Our investigation reports are based on all the evidence and facts we have at the time of writing and posting. We apologise if any details are missed or are not fully accurate.
