Verdict and Cover-up on Surat Thani Thai Airways Crash-International Experts to Be Called In by Phairath Khampha 16 December 1999 Flight-control problems involving a rudder and aileron caused Thai Airways Flight TG261 to crash at Surat Thani in late 1998, a Thai government investigation subcommittee concluded. The December 11, 1998 tragedy left 101 people dead, including the pilot. Dozens survived after Flight TG261, an Airbus A310-200, crashed a few kilometres from Surat Thani airport. However, in classic Thai style, the old boys network hampered the investigation. The lives of other airline passengers could be put at risk by the committee looking into the cause the Thai Airways crash if it bows to vested interests demanding a cover-up. The panel investigating the air crash decided it would select an international aviation organisation to determine the exact cause. The selection of foreign experts would ensure transparency in the investigation into the crash. The committee, chaired by Vichai Prateeprecha, director of the Aviation Department's Air Safety Division, found that the problems had occurred while the pilot was in the middle of a third "go around" after three unsuccessful landing attempts in poor weather conditions. The committee's findings were still to be endorsed by an official investigation panel chaired by ACM Terdsak Sajjarak, Air Force Chief of Staff. However, a source, who asked not to be named, said the findings of the subcommittee were traditionally accepted. "Although we can't regard the findings as final, it is the subcommittee which has been involved in real investigation," said the source. If the Terdsak committee rejects the findings, "a whole new analysis has to be made," the source said. The Terdsak committee was initially scheduled to consider the findings on December 16, but that was postponed by about a week. The findings are an anti-climax to the tragedy, in which tentative blame was placed on the pilot, who was said to have violated flight-safety rules by attempting to land the aircraft three times in bad weather. Speculation about what had caused the crash also revolved around the lack of an instrument landing System (ILS), a crucial navigational device allowing aircraft to land safely in poor visibility, at the Surat Thani Airport, insufficient runway lights and poor communication between the pilot and the control tower. The subcommittee ruled out engine problems in the Airbus after studying information in the flight-data recorder and cockpit voice-recorder and interrogating all people involved, said the source. The subcommittee said the pilot had needed to make three landing attempts because of bad weather and poor runway lights. "In the third and final 'go around', problems occurred with aileron and rudder, and the pilot could not solve them. That made the aeroplane crash," said the source. The source said that when the Terdsak committee endorsed the findings Thailand would officially notify the United States, the country where the aeroplane engines were manufactured, and France, where Airbus aircraft were manufactured, of the results. If those countries do not agree with the findings, they can challenge the committee. If the panel stands by its findings, they can make their arguments public, the source said. The old boys network hampers investigation Pressure from vested interests on the committee investigating the Surat Thani air crash highlighted the need for a major shake-up of how Thailand's Aviation Department handles investigations into accidents. Twelve months after the Thai Airways Airbus A310-200 plunged into a mangrove swamp in driving rain, killing 101 passengers and crew, the families of the victims were becoming increasingly frustrated at the failure of the crash panel to release even a preliminary report. There were fears that the makeup of the aviation industry in Thailand makes it very difficult for the national carrier to be held accountable for a crash on Thai soil. The close ties between Thai aviation authorities and the national carrier meant that the playing ground was not level when an inquiry comes down to pilot error or the fault of the manufacturer. The head of the crash panel, ACM Thersdak Sajjark, conceded to the Bangkok Post on December 9 that vested interests were preventing the official inquiry from completing its report. Without naming these interests, it was clear he was referring to Thai Airways and the manufacturer of the aircraft, Airbus. Although the only information on the crash was based on media leaks, it appeared the crash committee was leaning towards mechanical problems. A senior official with the Aviation Department's air safety division said in the middle of December, in yet another leak, that the aeroplane crashed because of "rudder and aileron" problems. An aileron, a wing tip device similar to the feathers at the tip of a bird's wing, is used to maintain control of a plane at lower speeds, and is used by pilots to balance an aircraft when it wobbles. The Thai press was conducting the investigation into the crash of Flight TG261 to Surat Thani in the South rather than the crash panel. But the role of the press has been a double-edged sword. A free press forced accountability to some extent, but it also was a convenient conduit for vested interests to leak information to strengthen their stand. A classic ploy in Thailand. Thailand has certaintly been more accountable than Indonesia, where aeroplanes crash regularly almost every month without a strong press clamouring for details or even being allowed to report incidents, but less so than Singapore. In Singapore, authorities surprised the industry by acknowledging a press report that the cause of the Silk Air crash in Indonesia in late 1997 was probably due to pilot suicide. The reporting on the Thai crash had been characterised by a deluge of leaks from "high-placed sources" on the investigation committee. There had been constant speculation about the lack of an instrument landing system (ILS) at Surat Thani, and mobile telephones interfering with the aircraft's electronic equipment and pilot error. An early report claimed a VIP partly caused the crash by barging into the cockpit to order the pilot to land rather than divert to another airport. There also was considerable speculation that the pilot broke Thai operating procedures by attempting to land for a third time without any visible improvement in the conditions. Overseas aviation analysts who had heard cockpit recordings of the crash said a stall warning went off. "A stall usually means pilot error unless there has been severe mechanical failure," said one analyst. "All that the stall warning tells us at this stage is that the plane was not flown fast enough by the pilot. This means the plane was flown badly. "The question is why was it flown so badly. Did something else happen which caused the plane to stall? Did some other system fault enter the equation? The so-called trim or rudder problem seems something of a red herring to most observers, as all planes have trim problems if they are incorrectly trimmed, meaning the wrong flap or control settings are in place. "This is less of a problem in later model Airbuses because the plane's attitude and flap settings are largely pre-programmed so that it won't allow the wrong combination of speed and flap setting to occur," said the analyst. Analysts, more prone to believe pilot error than rudder or a trim problem, want edto know why the Thais had not informed other operators of the aircraft if mechanical failure was the cause. Airbus officials were expected to launch an official complaint if the panel rules mechanical failure and claim that a team sent to the crash site in 1998 were refused access to the wreckage of the jet. The stakes are so high, with airline and manufacturer facing huge litigation if found accountable, that it is not surprising that there were attempts to influence the committee, resulting in disagreement over the findings. A ruling of pilot error would clearly affect the privatisation of the airline. Thai Airway's partners in the Star Alliance were also closely following the investigation as several airlines have privately raised doubts about the national carrier's safety record. The Star Alliance had recently appointed an investigating committee to monitor the safety record of members. The safety of alliance partners became a major issue in the wake of Korea Airlines being ditched by its partners. Several alliance members have said in private that another crash involving Thai Airways would probably lead to the carrier being expelled. Several other alliances, including Oneworld, comprising Qantas and British Airways, expressed an interest in taking a stake in Thai Airways as part of the carrier's privatisation. The failure of the panel to release even preliminary findings highlighted the dangers of an aviation industry in which there are too many incestuous links between Thai Airways and aviation authorities. There were growing calls for the Thai Aviation Department, undergoing a restructure to take more of a leading role in setting aviation policy rather than be little more than an extended maintenance department, to become an independent industry watchdog. Aviation in Thailand comes down to the air force and Thai Airways, with such a small pool of expertise to draw upon that officials invariably come from the armed services or the national carrier. Thai Airways, still partly owned by the Transport Ministry, has tremendous lobbying power among aviation officials and is not frightened to use it, say industry sources. There has still not been a report published in Thailand into the crash of a Thai Airways jet in Nepal in 1994. And the mysterious crash of the Air Lauda jet over Suphanburi was covered up although most Thais know and will say the Thai air force planted a bomb aboard to kill the governor of Chiang Mai Province, Dr. Phairat Decharin, who was waging a very successful war against corruption in very high places within the government and the police and against drug warlords in the region. Again vested interests not only interfered in the subsequent investigation, but were directly involved in bringing down an aircraft. At that time Boeing, the manufacturer of that aircraft, stated that its investigations revealed no mechanical failure. People soon forget what actually, and Boeing eventually bowed to diplomatic expediency and piped down in favour of continued business. Officially a reverse thruster brought the aircraft down, although Thais all seem to know otherwise. Many of the country's crash investigators are little more than engineers with little formal training. Aside from a pilot training school in Hua Hin, there are few institutions providing the necessary training to produce aviation officials who are more than just mechanics. There are still too many links between the Aviation Department, the Transport Ministry, the air force and Thai Airways to rule out the independence of the crash panel. Air safety officials concede that they are overworked and lack the budget to act effectively. In the case of the Qantas crash in Bangkok on September 23, Australian aviation officials initially feared that the Thais would not have the resources to handle the inquiry. The Aviation Department is faced with stringent budget cuts at a time when it is attempting a new role in setting aviation policy, forcing it to give up control of more than 21 airports nationwide and to off-load its terminals to a private sector that does not really want them. To act as a proper industry watchdog, the department needs to be funded properly and have a sufficient pool of expertise to draw upon. And like most such institutions in Thailand, to be effective its members have to be much, much less venal and not be part of the vested interests. Crash experts to be called in The panel investigating theair crash decided it would select an international aviation organisation to determine the exact cause, an air force source said on December 23. The selection of foreign experts would ensure transparency in the investigation into the crash . The investigation panel, chaired by ACM Therdsak Sajjarak, air force chief-of-staff, resolved to contract an international agency to handle the job. It was also agreed that the foreign team be neutral and have no business links with Airbus Industrie Co, the maker of the A310-200 which crashed . The International Civil Aviation Organisation and the Federal Aviation Authority have expressed an interest in the task, said the source.