Nepal Plane Crash
Maybe giv it a try >>>
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chin...nes_Flight_140
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chin...nes_Flight_676
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chin...nes_Flight_140
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chin...nes_Flight_676
the Asiana crash at SFO might have got the stick shaker a few seconds before collision, but not sure they were ever technically stalled. Recorded as CFIT rather than LOC I believe but happy to be corrected.
a nice list can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catego...used_by_stalls
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would submit that stalling on approach is unheard of in the airline transport world. There have been many accidents of this nature in GA, but in airline ops?
Oh, someone will always be able to pull up an outlying incident, but airliners don't stall on approach. Millions of movements per year...
Oh, someone will always be able to pull up an outlying incident, but airliners don't stall on approach. Millions of movements per year...
Last edited by Gizm0; 17th Jan 2023 at 15:47. Reason: Grammar
I would submit that stalling on approach is unheard of in the airline transport world. There have been many accidents of this nature in GA, but in airline ops?
Oh, someone will always be able to pull up an outlying incident, but airliners don't stall on approach. Millions of movements per year...
Oh, someone will always be able to pull up an outlying incident, but airliners don't stall on approach. Millions of movements per year...
MODS:
Why has this thread been removed from the main page??? Indeed there is now no longer any link to it from there.
It would seem to me that this thread - all about an extremely serious, fatal accident - should be easily visible to all in the aviation community including ALL current pilots. Yes at first sight this appears to be a stall from a mis-handled visual / circling approach - and almost certainly it was - but we don't yet know why. So why do you MODS think that this discussion should not be at the forefront of pilot thinking? Yes indeed there is an awful lot of uninformed rubbish being spouted here (that is the nature of PPRuNe) but the underlying fact is that there is potentially an awful lot to be learnt from this disaster. Just because it was in Nepal, with it's worrying incident rate, does not mean it is irrelevant. I would submit that this could have happened anywhere - including Western Europe & the USA. Stalling on an approach is not unheard of in our part of the world and the fact that the F/O is now known to be experienced, with some 6400 hrs, means that this was overall an extremely experienced crew. Certainly, hours wise, they had more than enough experience (& presumably local knowledge) to have completed this flight safely. WHY did they not is the question - and, as such, this should be afforded more visibility than it is now getting. MODS: Please reconsider this decision and move it back to the mainstream discussion - that way lessons from this horrific accident are more likely to be learned by those who fly day in & day out such NPAs in older, less well equipped aircraft - often also in difficult circumstances.
Why has this thread been removed from the main page??? Indeed there is now no longer any link to it from there.
It would seem to me that this thread - all about an extremely serious, fatal accident - should be easily visible to all in the aviation community including ALL current pilots. Yes at first sight this appears to be a stall from a mis-handled visual / circling approach - and almost certainly it was - but we don't yet know why. So why do you MODS think that this discussion should not be at the forefront of pilot thinking? Yes indeed there is an awful lot of uninformed rubbish being spouted here (that is the nature of PPRuNe) but the underlying fact is that there is potentially an awful lot to be learnt from this disaster. Just because it was in Nepal, with it's worrying incident rate, does not mean it is irrelevant. I would submit that this could have happened anywhere - including Western Europe & the USA. Stalling on an approach is not unheard of in our part of the world and the fact that the F/O is now known to be experienced, with some 6400 hrs, means that this was overall an extremely experienced crew. Certainly, hours wise, they had more than enough experience (& presumably local knowledge) to have completed this flight safely. WHY did they not is the question - and, as such, this should be afforded more visibility than it is now getting. MODS: Please reconsider this decision and move it back to the mainstream discussion - that way lessons from this horrific accident are more likely to be learned by those who fly day in & day out such NPAs in older, less well equipped aircraft - often also in difficult circumstances.
It's also been in the top 2 of the Trending Threads every time I went round that way, currently top
The only fact known for sure so far is that the plane stalled, most likely on approach/final to runway 12 and configured to land (gear extended, flaps probably too) Yes, thou shall keep your airspeed up, but there may be many reasons for a stall other than pour flying, like: one or both prop malfunction (e.g. fine or even reverse pitch), asymetric engine failure, asymetric flap extension, fuel feed problem, severe windshear or turbulence, people moving aft in the cabin etc with a cg close to limits, trim problem, just to name a few. Why always bash the lady F.O first? Red face
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catego...uel_exhaustion
la Mia flight probably the most recent in 2016 and quite infamous https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaMia_Flight_2933
there’s a good air crash tv episode for the TunInter ATR that crashed in the med due incorrect fuel gauges that I’d recommend watching.
It is unclear who was in the left seat and indeed who was flying the aircraft. Given that the co-pilot was reported to have 6000 hours and to be in the upgrade process it is plausible that she was. If it was a check flight normally the check airman would be on the jumpseat with an experienced co-pilot in the right hand seat, so that seems unlikely. It does however continue to look, as I suggested earlier, like a mishandled circling approach. A much earlier post from someone purporting to be an ATR training captain suggested the machine could be a handful if it got off speed, which is obviously what happened. The voice and data recorders will give us the facts. But I would expect something along the lines of ‚weather is good let’s do a circling approach for training purposes‘, followed in due course by ‚we are going through the centerline‘ and then ‚watch your speed‘ accompanied by various GPWS warnings.
Last edited by lederhosen; 17th Jan 2023 at 15:53.
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess that is because I don't know how to use the forum properly! I just log on and it takes me straight to "Rumours & News" - from where that thread has disappeared. My apologies to all - and certainly to the MODS - for not being more "forum literate". Further studying of PPRuNe is obviously required!
Last edited by Gizm0; 17th Jan 2023 at 15:34. Reason: Wording
I would submit that stalling on approach is unheard of in the airline transport world. There have been many accidents of this nature in GA, but in airline ops?
Oh, someone will always be able to pull up an outlying incident, but airliners don't stall on approach. Millions of movements per year...
Oh, someone will always be able to pull up an outlying incident, but airliners don't stall on approach. Millions of movements per year...
PS, my bad about the F/Os experience. Just trying to think of scenarios and reasons why a crew would stall in this day and age, with training supposedly getting ever more comprehensive.
That would mean he has removed the rest - as it also stated that both were fake (there was apparently a fake video showing the aircraft bank right with an engine fire) - which obviously was fake.
As someone above said, I don't get the logic of the fact he stated that because you couldn't see the pitch up, from a camera inside the plane with no reference points, that it was fake.
Hopefully now the BBC and Guardian have confirmed with the families that it was real, This whole “Real not real” is put to bed.
The most scary thing for me is that people are so accustomed to fakes now and such is the levels of complexity to them, that people literally cannot tell what is real and what isn’t - that is alarming.
As someone above said, I don't get the logic of the fact he stated that because you couldn't see the pitch up, from a camera inside the plane with no reference points, that it was fake.
Hopefully now the BBC and Guardian have confirmed with the families that it was real, This whole “Real not real” is put to bed.
The most scary thing for me is that people are so accustomed to fakes now and such is the levels of complexity to them, that people literally cannot tell what is real and what isn’t - that is alarming.
Sadly, Simon appears to have painted himself into a corner by maintaining that black is white, i.e. that the video is fake, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, not least from his own contributors.
Now he has thrown his toys out of the pram by disabling all further comments so that nobody else can disagree with him. Oh dear.
Thanks for your feedback michaelbinary. I am glad you agree. In all seriousness I fail to see what the problem is in my suggesting what might have gone on in the cockpit. If you can tell me why my theory of a botched circle to land is less plausible than running out of fuel on a 25 minute flight or mistaking the runway in severe CAVOK I will be happy to learn. We fill find out soon enough what happened.
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Kathmandu
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the channel that captured the outside video .
As per him , The other flights coming to the new airport for runway 12 , begin to end their turn (almost lined up ) at The point where the video starts . This plane however was late . It suddenly lost some altitude and proceeded a bit and thus all of this happened .
Flight path for runway 12 . but with a turn from different side over the old airport .
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/a...n-amz#2ed30fdb
Compared with Approximate observed path from video .
https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?m...TE&usp=sharing
Last edited by Yo_You_Not_You_you; 17th Jan 2023 at 18:08. Reason: cleared wording
The likelihood of the aircraft coming to grief in the way it did is also minute but it happened…..what is your point?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: edinburgh
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Approach
Apologies if this message is not correctly formatted—it appears I last commented in 2009—now that's impressive lurking!
What makes this analysis rather challenging is that
a) flights have only commenced into this new airport this year; hence, there are only few samples available to get an idea of what is a typical approach (previous flights, as has already been stated, have come in straight along into runway 30). Comparative data are lacking!
b) the approach to runway 12 at this new airport in fact will look like an approach into the old airport, but it will be high for the latter (as appears to be the case here). I've not been able to find an approach chart for PIA, and because this appears to be the first
to use this end of the runway, it's hard to know whether this is a normal approach. For me, it appears to be not much time to stabilise for 12 (but hey, I used to live under Sydney Airport's parallel runway approach from the north....where they would stabilise up near didgabringyagrogalong!)...I do see on the map rather many challenging hills for aircraft to be stabilised any further up that way towards the Northwest....so perhaps this rather late turn over the old airport is standard? Approach charts would be more than helpful....anyone?!
Anyway, as per usual, I'm enjoying the machinations of the minds here attempting to fathom this incident. It's rather frustrating to see the other site I check—AVHerald—completely close the comments and so adamantly state that the cabin video for this crash is fake. As a scientist, I like to keep an open mind about things. Certainly it's surprising to see such a video, but having examined it, I thought right (!), off to Google maps and attempt to match....sure enough, those tennis courts next to the stadium were a bit of a give away....my only guess is that Simon is just overloaded and has to stop comments out of frustration and a lack of time to moderate.
What makes this analysis rather challenging is that
a) flights have only commenced into this new airport this year; hence, there are only few samples available to get an idea of what is a typical approach (previous flights, as has already been stated, have come in straight along into runway 30). Comparative data are lacking!
b) the approach to runway 12 at this new airport in fact will look like an approach into the old airport, but it will be high for the latter (as appears to be the case here). I've not been able to find an approach chart for PIA, and because this appears to be the first
to use this end of the runway, it's hard to know whether this is a normal approach. For me, it appears to be not much time to stabilise for 12 (but hey, I used to live under Sydney Airport's parallel runway approach from the north....where they would stabilise up near didgabringyagrogalong!)...I do see on the map rather many challenging hills for aircraft to be stabilised any further up that way towards the Northwest....so perhaps this rather late turn over the old airport is standard? Approach charts would be more than helpful....anyone?!
Anyway, as per usual, I'm enjoying the machinations of the minds here attempting to fathom this incident. It's rather frustrating to see the other site I check—AVHerald—completely close the comments and so adamantly state that the cabin video for this crash is fake. As a scientist, I like to keep an open mind about things. Certainly it's surprising to see such a video, but having examined it, I thought right (!), off to Google maps and attempt to match....sure enough, those tennis courts next to the stadium were a bit of a give away....my only guess is that Simon is just overloaded and has to stop comments out of frustration and a lack of time to moderate.
Thanks for your feedback michaelbinary. I am glad you agree. In all seriousness I fail to see what the problem is in my suggesting what might have gone on in the cockpit. If you can tell me why my theory of a botched circle to land is less plausible than running out of fuel on a 25 minute flight or mistaking the runway in severe CAVOK I will be happy to learn. We fill find out soon enough what happened.
Yes something happened, but what ?, apart from the stall what happened ?, you dont know, I dont know, nobody knows.
The only facts generally available are: (correct me if there are more known)
1) The video from the ground shows a plane stalling, followed by wing drop, followed by a crash.
2) The video from within shows the plane flying straight and level with I think at least 1st stage flaps deployed.
3) Everybody in the cabin is calm and happy up to 10 seconds before the crash, so they hadnt been briefed about any emergency unfolding.
4) The plane appeared to be doing a normal left hand circuit approach to runway 12 and was on effectively base leg starting a left turn to line up for 12.
Nobody knows the "WHY", I am sure we could generate a list of 30 - 50+ reasons why the plane ended up stalling, but it doesnt help anybody to guess,
it wont make you a better pilot. When its not a guess then maybe you can learn something from it.
In response to your post 220 michaelbinary I refer you to post 85 where someone with ATR experience makes the point that the machine can be tricky and drop a wing in this situation. You make the assertion that it does not help anyone to guess. As an experienced airline captain I am merely sharing my opinion based on what we have seen so far as to what I think might have happened. That is pretty much what pprune is about.
Post 103 attempts to show a possible flight path in relation to the runway. It is certainly not the way I would teach someone to fly a circling approach in an airliner, for example it has a way too short parallel segment to the runway. I see from your profile that you are a PPL so you probably know more about flying than many on here. However flying an airliner is different from a light aircraft and involves a lot less manual flight. The track if it was flown as suggested in post 103 would have put the aircraft in a less than ideal position to land, for example it would probably have been difficult to see the touchdown point from either seat until relatively late.
I am a jet pilot used to autothrust so the details of ATR power management are not particularly clear to me. But it would obviously be an added factor in the equation and if the focus was on terrain and seeing the runway it may not have got the attention it required.
Post 103 attempts to show a possible flight path in relation to the runway. It is certainly not the way I would teach someone to fly a circling approach in an airliner, for example it has a way too short parallel segment to the runway. I see from your profile that you are a PPL so you probably know more about flying than many on here. However flying an airliner is different from a light aircraft and involves a lot less manual flight. The track if it was flown as suggested in post 103 would have put the aircraft in a less than ideal position to land, for example it would probably have been difficult to see the touchdown point from either seat until relatively late.
I am a jet pilot used to autothrust so the details of ATR power management are not particularly clear to me. But it would obviously be an added factor in the equation and if the focus was on terrain and seeing the runway it may not have got the attention it required.
Last edited by lederhosen; 17th Jan 2023 at 18:49.