Nepal Plane Crash

[lederhosen]

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.

[mobov98423]

the phone itself kept recording until it was destroyed by fire. it was held in his hands, then at the end it lets go and drops. you can also hear faint breathing. the video was lived streamed on fb. his relatives confirmed this and his name. i don't get why all the discussion about it being fake. it is real

[mobov98423]

simon is too high on his high horse lately. the video is confirmed legit by his relatives and his name is out. everyone doubting it please quit. you're making a fool of yourselves. just because SIMON SAYS something that doesn't mean anything. next

[parkfell]

Originally Posted by Claybird

It did, beginning at a speed of 108 knots (vs the 134 projected) and the captain's move to move flaps setting from 30 to 25 gave clearance of a 58 extra, meters preventing the strike of the ILS column by the aircraft. It's in the AAIB report of 2010. Anyway...

BA038 was a unique accident. Totally unremarkable flight all the way from China until within a minute of landing, when a loss of power to both engines caused by ice, entered the equation. FO Coward as PF. Fortunately the captain retracted one stage of flap & effectively glided past the aerodrome boundary. The passenger injuries were mainly suffered during the slide evacuations.
The unfortunate ATR appears to have stalled during a base leg turn onto final, resulting in a rapid rate of roll & increasing ROD. Once past the incipient stage probably insufficient height to recover? Students will now appreciate why stalling with flap in a descending turn is in the syllabus.
Just why will become clearer once FDR/CVR data is known. I suspect rich in CRM aspects for pilots to learn from?

[michaelbinary]

I hear your points.
I dont think post 103 is showing the actual track unless they have access to a much longer video or FR24 coverage.
The video I saw only shows effectively base leg and I commented at the time it was rather close in, measured on google maps its about 2K give or take a bit.
There is high ground to the north and to the west so limiting how large a circuit can be made.
The downwind leg could have been extended a little thus making the turn to final less than 90 degrees.
Looking on google earth 3D gives a really good perspective from the old airfield to the new and location of the gorge.
They were nowhere close to making the turn to final on 12.
Look on the video for a road running top to bottom with a distinct right kink in it, then get the same perspective on google earth and you can see how close in they were and late in turning.
I flattened the perspective a bit so you can see the new airport.
https://earth.google.com/web/@28.201...9.58734423t,0r
and this video(for easy reference) at 7secs

Twitter

See how long it will be before they release info from CVR/FDR

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by Claybird

It did, beginning at a speed of 108 knots (vs the 134 projected) and the captain's move to move flaps setting from 30 to 25 gave clearance of a 58 extra, meters preventing the strike of the ILS column by the aircraft. It's in the AAIB report of 2010. Anyway...

On the contrary, the AAIB think not:

[Austrian Simon]

Originally Posted by macboydus

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.

Now that I find a bit of time, let me share my view and reasons on this video:

So far I found out that there was never a livestream out of the cabin, it was not possible to livestream for this user. Facebook permits livestreams only for users with more than 10,000 followers. The passenger had about 2 dozen followers (and since the crash no new have joined, how could they have been approved even if they requested, if the account owner is dead?) However, the video was uploaded to that account a long time after the crash. This makes clear that somebody else has access to the account and placed the video there a long time later. Only THEN the livestream became public (and this explains why the livestream became known only a day after the crash. Had the video been around as a livestream indeed, it would have been known within an hour after the crash just like the ground observer video).

In the time between the crash and the upload of the video was more than enough time to combine two videos. The first, showing the correct passenger, however, on a previous flight into the old airport (hence before Jan 1st 2023) and the second blurred video, that pretends to show the crash sequence. The transition from the first to the second video is dilletantic. The last fully clear and crystal sharp frame of the first video is followed by the totally blurred first frame of the second video without any transition. The last clear frame still shows the passenger happily and relaxed, the next frame is blurred without transition, there is no visible refocussing of the camera, no movement of the camera, no movement before the camera, no reason for the sudden blur is visible. However, only this first blurred frame "starts" the crash sequence, and the video remains blurred to the very end.

People of Pokhara tell me, that the video in its clear part clearly show the straight final approach to old Pokhara Airport's runway 22, all landmarks etc. are correct. The approach is visible to relatively low height.

Witnesses of the crash however say, that the aircraft was already on a final approach in straight flight (not turning anymore) west of the old airport, crossed the old airport in a nearly perpendicular and straight wings level trajectory across the old runway, and shortly afterwards rolled left and impacted the ground (this is also what the ground observer video shows, the aircraft was wings level until the final roll left!). This approach however is definitely not visible in the cabin video (even if the aircraft was turning base still before the aircraft rolled left, that turn would have been visible in the cabin video too but wasn't).

In the cabin video the development of trouble is also not visible. According to the groundvideo the aircraft increased its pitch progressively, accelerating the pitch rate towards the end. Passengers would not be alerted by this pitch increase and would also not recognize the unusual attitude, however, the trained eye would instantly see the high pitch in the video while showing the outside through the cabin video (this pitch movement was not just a few seconds long, on the ground video the aircraft becomes visible already at a high pitch attitude). Not in the cabin video.

The initial left roll, according to the ground video, was relatively slow at first, hence no big forces onto the passengers, however, clearly noticeable that the aircraft would turn. This is not visible in the cabin video, also no reaction by the passengers. The passengers would have recognized they were on short final having seen the old airport pass by the windows flying over the old runway in a near right angle and would have known, that now a turn would be entirely wrong. Hence the passengers would have been alerted. Nothing visible/audible on the video.

Then the aircraft rolls in with quite some violence, the forces onto the passengers must have been huge and the people would have screamed with certainty in panic. Nothing on the video however.

One of my readers gave me an additional hint, a very good observation: comparing the ground observer video and the cabin video the time in the cabin video between the first blurred frame (before only happy cabin) and the impact is much less than the ground observer video shows.

How did the video get to the public? The BBC writes:

Quote:
Abhishek Pratap Shah, a former lawmaker in Nepal, told Indian news channel NDTV that rescuers had recovered the phone on which the video was found from the plane's wreckage.

"It [the video clip] was sent by one of my friends, who received it from a police officer. It is a real record," Mr Shah told NDTV. Officials in Nepal have not confirmed his claim or commented on the footage.
Endquote

So, on this way the video got the public according to the BBC, possibly also onto the Facebook Account of the passenger. The BBC also raises the question, how even an Internet contact or a live stream could have been accomplished, but nonetheless states the video is authentic because the family confirmed they had seen the video live. However, a live stream was not possible (and the video was uploaded many hours after the crash only), this statement is disproven. I do not think the family is behind the fake (but can't rule this out either), but under this assumption that the family is not part of the fake I believe they are strained with the grief over their lost family member and the sudden interest by media and all those inquiries and said "Yes" and "Amen" to everything, hence the reporter only needed to ask the right question to get his story confirmed (I would even think, had the reporter asked whether his interview partner was already dead, the interview partner would also have said "yes").

However, the BBC story raises one more question: how could one access the mobile phone and get to the video without PIN/password in this time? This all doesn't fit together.

Servus, Simon

[Yo_You_Not_You_you]

Originally Posted by Yo_You_Not_You_you

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

At the time where the outside video starts , I think the pilot are aware of the stall and have aborted the turn and moving straight to deal with it. The base doesn't go that far along the river as per the witness who has seen rare runway 12 landings.

Thus a Vmc roll in my limited knowledge.

[mobov98423]

simon the blur is from quick motion blur
also from heavy smartphone video codec compression (becomes even heavier when u fast move the phone)

pin and unlock : many people have their phones unlocked with no pin

you make some good points, but let's see what is the truth at the end. the video could very WELL be true

and there was a post crash fire. photos and videos from ground on impact point show this

[mobov98423]

also u say the passengers didn't react in the violent pull up of the nose
it doesn't seem so violent in the external video

they did react later on
there IS screaming heard when the wing dropped

[aerolearner]

Originally Posted by Austrian Simon

However, the BBC story raises one more question: how could one access the mobile phone and get to the video without PIN/password in this time? This all doesn't fit together.

Servus, Simon

Not sure about the specific mobile phone here, but it might be that the camera was set to save media on a removable SD memory card rather than on the device memory. If they removed the card and read it on another device, they may have been able to retrieve the video.

Edited to add:
Even more so, in case the phone had been damaged by fire and not functioning anymore.

[passenger51]

Originally Posted by aerolearner

Not sure about the specific mobile phone here, but it might be that the camera was set to save media on a removable SD memory card rather than on the device memory. If they removed the card and read it on another device, they may have been able to retrieve the video.

Where does this Simon guy get the idea you need 10,000 followers to live stream on Facebook. That is simply not true, anyone with an account can live stream on Facebook. If the video is genuine then it was a live stream as recovering the video from an SD card recovered from a phone which was likely incinerated is just too far fetched.

[mobov98423]

indeed. many android models take sd cards and record media on them

[MEA_mann]

Why all this conspiracy theorizing about faked video footage?
So far as I am aware, there has been no suggestion that the crash was caused by someone using a mobile phone and interfering with the on-board electronics.

[alexmclean]

Originally Posted by Austrian Simon

So far I found out that there was never a livestream out of the cabin, it was not possible to livestream for this user. Facebook permits livestreams only for users with more than 10,000 followers.

This is incorrect. I just checked my app, and I am able to start a Facebook livestream with just a few hundred friends/followers.
I was also sceptical of the cabin video when it first surfaced. There are people who would fake that kind of thing for social media engagement. And while the video doesn't show enough to prove that it is genuine, everything in the video matches the known facts. If it was a fake for somebody's social media fame, I'd be surprised if they got even the right aircraft model.

As it is, the video shows

• The correct aircraft/airline
• The correct flight path
• Passengers reacting to the sudden roll
• Plausible crash & post-crash

It's possible that somebody found a video of a matching approach and appended the crash sequence. But that doesn't explain the passenger reaction to the roll. And they couldn't have started with any publicly available video, or somebody would have found the source by now.

The simplest and most plausible explanation is that it's a genuine video.

[Claybird]

Originally Posted by DaveReidUK

On the contrary, the AAIB think not:

I stand corrected, I must admit I did not remember, after all these years, that the FO pushed the column forward. Thank you for that! Back to Nepal, sorry all for the deviation (pun unintended)

[aox]

BBC item about the video, which names the person involved https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-64287331

Local journalist Shashikant Tiwari told the BBC that Kashyap showed him the video on Jaiswal's Facebook profile, which is set to private.

[michaelbinary]

Using the video 1 - 7s on post 228 and google maps you can see the rough track of the plane and its not perpendicular to the old runway at all.
@7secs you can see a road wth a kink in it at right angles to the plane, so just draw line from that and perpendicular to that line is the approximate track of the aircraft, which is starting a left turn for runway 12. This puts the plane around 300 - 400 feet above the old airfield, its not on final approach, its not trying to land at the old airfield at all. The old airfield is below the aircraft as it heads on base leg to turn final for 12.
So stop spouting nonsense.
Go check the landmarks s1 - 7 in the video with what you can see on google maps or even google earth https://earth.google.com/web/@28.201...9.58734423t,0r and you will see it all ties in with an approach to 12.
As the plane crosses the intersection of the kinky road the left wing tip drop starting a turn to the left, it never completed that 90 degree turn, and you can see if you dont complete the turn the gorge where the crash happened will be straight ahead of you.

[Kerosine]

Really appreciate the interesting and enlightening comments. The conspiracy theory minded will cling to this "it's a fake!" ideology till the day they die regardless of the counter evidence. Human psychology.

[Tobin]

Whether the cabin video is fake, I cannot say for sure, but some of the "analysis" "proving" it's fake is quite sad.

I'll pick one post to respond to, but it's one among many.

Originally Posted by Austrian Simon

So far I found out that there was never a livestream out of the cabin, it was not possible to livestream for this user.

It need not have been a Facebook livestream. It may have been another platform. It may have been a private stream that that immediately uploads to some cloud storage.

People of Pokhara tell me, that the video in its clear part clearly show the straight final approach to old Pokhara Airport's runway 22, all landmarks etc. are correct. The approach is visible to relatively low height.

Which other comments have said is the correct approach to runway 12 at the new airport. The approach overflies the old airport so it looks very similar, just a bit higher.

. The last clear frame still shows the passenger happily and relaxed, the next frame is blurred without transition, there is no visible refocussing of the camera, no movement of the camera, no movement before the camera, no reason for the sudden blur is visible.

Autofocus isn't instant, and it can struggle greatly when there are sudden movements, sudden changes in focus distance, and extremely up-close shots. All of that happened in the video, with the passenger aiming the camera out the window, then toward himself, then toward other passengers, then toward the seat backs only inches away, then repeating the process, and when the actual extreme left bank takes place, it's likely he tries to grab onto the seat on front of him or his own, and that's when the phone's camera is aimed as something so close as to be unable to focus on it, which is then followed only a second or two later by the camera being flung to who-knows-where, again unable to gain focus until it's mostly stationary. Add typical digital video artifacting and I don't see how you can conclude a whole lot just because some frames are "blurry".

The passengers would have recognized they were on short final having seen the old airport pass by the windows flying over the old runway in a near right angle and would have known, that now a turn would be entirely wrong. Hence the passengers would have been alerted. Nothing visible/audible on the video.

How do you expect passengers to react? For them to even notice something is "different" you'd need a significant number of the passengers to have experienced this approach at this airport. In fact, probably none of them had. They have no idea what's "normal". And even something out of the ordinary would not automatically be cause for panic. They have no idea when something is a serious problem.

Passengers will scream and panic at normal turbulence, but kill all the engines and they'll get quiet and whisper "Oh, it's really quiet all of a sudden. Does that normally happen?"

Then the aircraft rolls in with quite some violence, the forces onto the passengers must have been huge and the people would have screamed with certainty in panic. Nothing on the video however.

What video are you watching? I hear the passengers shouting just before the crash.