Copy from another forum:-
“To improve safety, what could be learnt from this.
Paro is one of those airports “that you don't fly into unless you have done it before”; a guide pilot is recommended - required for authorisation, the third crew member.
There is little or no part of the required approach path which can be described as ‘stable’, thus little value in comparing fixed requirements vs required adaptations.
High altitude airport - high TAS, faster over the ground, possibly slower aircraft response. Need to change gear, speed up, think ahead, well briefed - a flight plan for the mind.
Impressive, awe-inspiring mountainous terrain - subconsciously challenges thoughts of a Go Around; ground-loving, ‘land’ goal dominated biases.
Many incidents with two Captains (or more); PM thinks ‘Captain thoughts’, may not adequately monitor (as a lesser ranked pilot might do).
Jump seat does not intervene; how to impart tacit knowledge of this approach.
Briefing - knowledge, what to expect - 3D imagination. Beware distraction; attention on the task. Have a plan which includes a change of plan - GA, know the trigger points for this: final turn abeam and same altitude as ‘Mr Smiths’ house (local knowledge).”
Many more opportunities for learning by looking at the overall situation, greater value than blaming people.
Also aircraft with FMS RNAV approach (A318 ?) may have EGPWS ‘softening’ logic for reduced alerting compatible with the terrain during a visual approach.
P.S. Boeing evaluation and demonstration flights:
https://www.boeing.com/commercial/ae...-700Bhutan.pdf
Did not achieve any aircraft sales.
‘Mr Smiths House’ top centre in photo on opening page ?
.