- I know that Lukla is quite a solid and safe base compared to the others in Nepal. That doesn't mean that it compares well to the western world.
Because in the western world there is mostly no need for such operations.
- I agree that in Nepal, there has to be some sort of aviation, especially for the local population. You cannot ban such airports.
Well, yes. Neither should they be banned.
I just want to WARN all people from abroad, people with maybe little knowledge of aviation and its application, to consider very carefully a trip like this. If you are climbing up an 8000m peak, you have to take that way, because everything else is way more dangerous, including your final goal. But if you are just one of the 1000's of normal trekking tourists, think about it.
You have to think of everything you do in your life. Leaving the bed in the morning is a risk, without which life becomes exceedingly bleak. As the various crash databases show, in aviation risks often sit where you least expect them, whereas "hazardous" operations (by some opinions) work beautifully for years. I reckon anyone going in these regions would have to think of a lot of things, but knowing some of the risks involved in the himalayas I still think that the flight up there is probably one of the lesser risks.
- How can you say that the Twotter is more safe than the porter? Because it has two engines? A B777 is even more safe, there is no single casualty until now, still I wouldn't operate it in Lukla. The problem is the size of this airport, and the smaller you are the better your chances. It's not only the wing span and the number of engines, but also the approach speed and the turn rate. While you are unable to turn back into the valley with a full loaded Twotter, you still can try it with an overpowered PC6.
In such mountainous areas I prefer going with two engines, yes. Whether a plane is suitable for an airport is of course a question of performance. The Twin Otter has the performance to do it and then some, so I don't see a problem operating it in there. It's not just the landing and take off there, but you still have 40 minutes flying time over pretty rough terrain, where a second engine can make all the difference.
Of course the PC-6 is a great plane, I flew on it several times. So is the -12, which would probably also work up there nicely. It does fly into Courchevel all the time. With the reliability of today's turboprops, I agree that the risk of a single vs a twin up there is probably only marginally higher.
- contrary to your opinion, we also have airports like this in Europe. Mainly in the Western Alps. There are certain efforts to do line oriented commercial flights to those airports. But I as a normal tourist would also go the same risk analysis like for Nepal.
Oh, I am well aware of Courchevel, Megeve and some of the others. There was some efforts to do it, also to Samedan (which is not anywhere as critical) and I remember the 737 operations up there. I am also well aware of the operations with the Dash 7 and PC12 into Courchevel. I've been into Sion as well. The major difference is however that none of these airports are lifelines to a whole region just as Lukla is.
Best regards
AN2 driver.