Lots of factual information and data still missing of course - some examples:
A. At minimum sketches of the final flight paths from different witnesses.
B. Part of the communication between the older sounding male pilot exchange with ATC is garbled/missing. You would expect some motivation/explanation of some his actions. Could give some insight in the 02/20 mix up impression.
A x B synchronizing...
C. I wonder whether there were two or three people om the flightdeck. The young sounding female at the start of the tapes. The older sounding muffled sounding male - who in a later tape part sounds clearer by the way. And a clearer younger male voice appearing to make one remark.
D. The Nepalese chatter post... Would be interesting to get a transcript of that... @Ps7 could you provide that?
Pilots dont just fly into KTM. You expect that the airline requires the captain to fly the approach and landing. In that sense the PNF role with comms change appears to be the opposite of what you expect. Or, it could mean that the captain took over both the flying and the comms. Which might have increased confusion. Or, if there was a third person in the cockpit, that this person was monitoring the female pilot, who might or might not have been PF on finals.
ATC was not perfect in their comms (from the livenet tapes). Some minor slip ups and a double negative for example. The female pilot appeared clear and correct. The older male pilot comms are confusing.
Mixing up north and south is not as exceptional as some appear to suggest. It has happened to very professional and experienced people. First impression is that a discussion of cognitive dissonance will end up in the text of the final report.
More questions than answers as usual.