Nepal Plane Crash
I also don't understand exactly how Facebook features work,not being on it myself
However, I did quote this from one of the BBC articles:
To expand that point slightly, if the account is set to private, then presumably only friends and family can view it. Thus, anyone pretending on here or elsewhere to be authoritative about it, without talking to those friends and family, has either been clairvoyant enough to befriend this person before he died, or may be fabricating or wildly assuming the pretended direct knowledge about it, such as timestamp when it was recorded, and/or time when it was posted to the account.
However, I did quote this from one of the BBC articles:
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.[/]
Local journalist Shashikant Tiwari told the BBC that Kashyap showed him the video on Jaiswal's Facebook profile, which is set to private.[/]
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Spain
Age: 69
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now that I find a bit of time, let me share my view and reasons on this video:
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).
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).
Based on the video, when the camera captures the football stadium (rather far) and then closer in a wide turn to the left, with the three tennis courts BEFORE the stadium YOU CAN SEE THE 22 HEADING OF THE OLD AIRPORT "under" the AC (gray tarmac, easily recognizable). There the AC had to be 400- 450 feet AGL.
It's IMPOSSIBLE to "then" cross the old airfield in a PERPENDICULAR to the runway. Where did go the AC before "crossing perpendicular"? Nonsense is the word. Sorry.
I'm sorry, Austrian Simon, but you're ABSOLUTELY WRONG.
Based on the video, when the camera captures the football stadium (rather far) and then closer in a wide turn to the left, with the three tennis courts BEFORE the stadium YOU CAN SEE THE 22 HEADING OF THE OLD AIRPORT "under" the AC (gray tarmac, easily recognizable). There the AC had to be 400- 450 feet AGL.
It's IMPOSSIBLE to "then" cross the old airfield in a PERPENDICULAR to the runway. Where did go the AC before "crossing perpendicular"? Nonsense is the word. Sorry.
Based on the video, when the camera captures the football stadium (rather far) and then closer in a wide turn to the left, with the three tennis courts BEFORE the stadium YOU CAN SEE THE 22 HEADING OF THE OLD AIRPORT "under" the AC (gray tarmac, easily recognizable). There the AC had to be 400- 450 feet AGL.
It's IMPOSSIBLE to "then" cross the old airfield in a PERPENDICULAR to the runway. Where did go the AC before "crossing perpendicular"? Nonsense is the word. Sorry.
Not a straight in approach on 12. He describes a turn in the rough area on previous flights, and compares this one.
Last edited by aox; 18th Jan 2023 at 10:02.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Spain
Age: 69
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of points to remark...
1.- IF the CVR is going to be analysed in Nepal, forget to have any certain clue. By one side YETI and by the other the Gvmnt will make this appear as "fatality and bad luck" in oriental mood, just to avoid tourists cancellations due to FEAR.
2.- In France some analysts are making calculations (after some data received from Kathmandu airport, mainly a couple of videos showing the cargo procedure previous to the flight) for a possible CARGO EXCESS/UNBALANCE plus LOW SPEED aboard the 9N-ANC which may be not included in the MANIFEST. Being Nepal, not strange not unusual.
3.- About the cell phone and the live-video, etc: There is one thing that it's not too clear to me. Provided we accept the FLIGHT part is real, what puzzles me is the "fire section".
a.- the phone had to go anyplace but with the CAMERA SIDE focusing "something" (this meaning didn't end with the objective against ANYTHING CLOSE, a matter of luck).
b.- as I've worked in SAR, something had seen about fire(s) and "normally" in the PLACE OF IGNITION of a fire fed by kerosene/diesel there are poor or directly NO FLAMES. Flames try to find OXYGEN outside the place of ignition and IN PLACE the regular thing is SMOKE (white, brown or gray-black). This is not a "rule" but a general approach to what happens in those fires and what makes me "think" in relation to the video fire is that IT'S LIKE THE FIRE OF A STOVE, too clear, too bright, too orange-red, no somoke.
1.- IF the CVR is going to be analysed in Nepal, forget to have any certain clue. By one side YETI and by the other the Gvmnt will make this appear as "fatality and bad luck" in oriental mood, just to avoid tourists cancellations due to FEAR.
2.- In France some analysts are making calculations (after some data received from Kathmandu airport, mainly a couple of videos showing the cargo procedure previous to the flight) for a possible CARGO EXCESS/UNBALANCE plus LOW SPEED aboard the 9N-ANC which may be not included in the MANIFEST. Being Nepal, not strange not unusual.
3.- About the cell phone and the live-video, etc: There is one thing that it's not too clear to me. Provided we accept the FLIGHT part is real, what puzzles me is the "fire section".
a.- the phone had to go anyplace but with the CAMERA SIDE focusing "something" (this meaning didn't end with the objective against ANYTHING CLOSE, a matter of luck).
b.- as I've worked in SAR, something had seen about fire(s) and "normally" in the PLACE OF IGNITION of a fire fed by kerosene/diesel there are poor or directly NO FLAMES. Flames try to find OXYGEN outside the place of ignition and IN PLACE the regular thing is SMOKE (white, brown or gray-black). This is not a "rule" but a general approach to what happens in those fires and what makes me "think" in relation to the video fire is that IT'S LIKE THE FIRE OF A STOVE, too clear, too bright, too orange-red, no somoke.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Morten Harkett, Dorset
Age: 100
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
*If* the pilot was intending to land on the new runway, why hadn't they made that turn? It's further evidence that they *might* have been heading for the old airport.
Join Date: Jan 2023
Location: Italy
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I Just came accross another video where there is a right engine or wing fire Prior to the stall/crash. The right wing drops instead of the left wing, not sure if the clip had been mirrored.
can’t post the link as I am new here, but go to itemfix a check it out: the top video. maybe someone else van post the link here.
can’t post the link as I am new here, but go to itemfix a check it out: the top video. maybe someone else van post the link here.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Spain
Age: 69
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please read my previous post (three comments before: #268) and you'll realize they weren't heading for the old airport.
Last edited by guadaMB; 18th Jan 2023 at 10:16. Reason: put nº of post
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Kathmandu
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/a...n-amz#2ed30fdb
The difference is that this is coming from the left while the crash flight is coming from the right . Both would mean getting over the old airport . https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?m...TE&usp=sharing
He is too much above the old airport and old runway is visible the whole time straight ahead and pilot have eyes on the new airport during the downwind , base phase .
As per the witness , he has seen other runway 12 approach from his house , at the point the video starts , the plane should have entered approach but surprised him that it continued on base . That would mean : We have either
A . overshooting aircraft and need to turn more for approach , > Resulting in stall
B . Fixing the stall that happened earlier( By whatever reason, engine failure , circling approach stall,weight ) by straightening the wings thus overshooting the approach , putting in more power and causing a VMC roll .
My view is that the pilots are aware things have gone bad as they have missed approach due to stalling and crashed due to stalling or crashed due to vmc roll fixing the stall .
France24 fact checking on videos.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=1b3p6vNP5g4
Last edited by Yo_You_Not_You_you; 18th Jan 2023 at 11:09.
barrymug
for god sake give up.
They were not heading for the old runway.
They were on top of it.
They did start to make the left turn.
You can see all this on the video and sketch of aircraft track post 241
Stop digging yourself a hole.
They were clearly overhead the old airfield at 300 - 400 feet heading for the new airfield.
Yo_You_not_You_you
you dont get a vmc roll fixing a stall. !!
A vmc roll MAY occur because of an engine failure, but not always, depends on the particular circumstances.
for god sake give up.
They were not heading for the old runway.
They were on top of it.
They did start to make the left turn.
You can see all this on the video and sketch of aircraft track post 241
Stop digging yourself a hole.
They were clearly overhead the old airfield at 300 - 400 feet heading for the new airfield.
Yo_You_not_You_you
you dont get a vmc roll fixing a stall. !!
A vmc roll MAY occur because of an engine failure, but not always, depends on the particular circumstances.
Last edited by michaelbinary; 18th Jan 2023 at 10:58.
Join Date: Jan 2023
Location: UK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Your first paragraph is wrong (including the assumption that a live stream shared privately with a handful of people would have become public immediately), and therefore everything that follows is also wrong as it is based on an incorrect premise.
All the evidence is that this video is genuine.
We have a FR24 for a flight on runway 12 on the new airport that goes over the old airport .
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/a...n-amz#2ed30fdb
The difference is that this is coming from the left while the crash flight is coming from the right . Both would mean getting over the old airport . https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?m...TE&usp=sharing
He is too much above the old airport and old runway is visible the whole time straight ahead and pilot have eyes on the new airport during the downwind , base phase.
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/a...n-amz#2ed30fdb
The difference is that this is coming from the left while the crash flight is coming from the right . Both would mean getting over the old airport . https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?m...TE&usp=sharing
He is too much above the old airport and old runway is visible the whole time straight ahead and pilot have eyes on the new airport during the downwind , base phase.
In their blog, they make reference to the aircraft having stopped sending ADS-B position squitters about 7 minutes prior to impact (obviously beyond FR24's control), but continuing to send Mode S EHS (which FR24 did capture) for the remainder of the flight down to 175' AAL(!).
So far, and despite requests to do so, they haven't shared anything except the truncated ADS-B and a not-very-illuminating altitude plot:
For those not familiar with EHS, it contains lots of interesting parameters including track, heading, TAS, IAS, groundspeed and even bank angle, from which it would be relatively easy to reverse-engineer the horizontal trajectory with a fair degree of accuracy - certainly enough to resolve the "heading-for-the-wrong-airport" scenario.
I really don't understand FR24's reluctance to post that data - unless they don't actually have it at all.
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Kathmandu
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will something like this happen, say , one of the engine has failed with pilots unaware that that was the reason the plane's speed has slowed down instead of usual suspect like stall during circling approach, hence to get out of the condition,they straighten wings ,throttle the engines up, but end up providing only one engine with max thrust. Hence causing a roll.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Home
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anju Khatiwada
Certificate: AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOT
Date of Issue: 10/20/2014
All sorts of Information on Anju Khatiwada and the fateful flight .
- She was Co-pilot on the Flight . But had recently became a captain .
- She was about to be a Captain . Hence this was a Check flight with an experienced Instructor Pilot .
- She was the pilot flyig . She requested the runway change
What's true?
thanks
Certificate: AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOT
Date of Issue: 10/20/2014
All sorts of Information on Anju Khatiwada and the fateful flight .
- She was Co-pilot on the Flight . But had recently became a captain .
- She was about to be a Captain . Hence this was a Check flight with an experienced Instructor Pilot .
- She was the pilot flyig . She requested the runway change
What's true?
thanks
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Italy
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Live video
Some have been asking how a video set to “'friends only'” on Facebook could be possibly shared.
Well even if the video is not “public”, as a Facebook friend you can still download it as a file to your mobile phone or PC (no consent of the video owner required), and send it as a normal video, or upload it on YouTube or such. There are simple ways to download a Facebook video (I just tried it myself 5 minutes ago and it works, very easily), you just have to be a “friend” of the video owner to have direct access to it, and you can do it.
So no need to have a sim card or whatever, live videos remain stored anyway on Facebook pages.
Regarding the fact that (at the beginning) passengers in the video didn’t scream: they simply had no idea it would get SO tragic, plus, as a pax, steep turns when landing in mountainous regions are somehow expected. Let me add this: I had (as a passanger) an aborted landing in Mexico city airport last March 2022 (just 30 meters or so from the tarmac), and nobody screamed. Just an example.
Also, all the details “match”: even the Yeti logo on the seat, even the ad (in red, with 2 actors on it) on the back of the seat in front of the person recording the video (the ad has been identified). This level of “reality-perfection” in a matter of hours can only be reached if the video is genuine.
By the way a list of foreign passangers on that flight has surfaced on Twitter (including passport numbers, ehm…) and the Indian man from the video is on the list, as a foreigner, with his others friends from Ghazipur.
Well even if the video is not “public”, as a Facebook friend you can still download it as a file to your mobile phone or PC (no consent of the video owner required), and send it as a normal video, or upload it on YouTube or such. There are simple ways to download a Facebook video (I just tried it myself 5 minutes ago and it works, very easily), you just have to be a “friend” of the video owner to have direct access to it, and you can do it.
So no need to have a sim card or whatever, live videos remain stored anyway on Facebook pages.
Regarding the fact that (at the beginning) passengers in the video didn’t scream: they simply had no idea it would get SO tragic, plus, as a pax, steep turns when landing in mountainous regions are somehow expected. Let me add this: I had (as a passanger) an aborted landing in Mexico city airport last March 2022 (just 30 meters or so from the tarmac), and nobody screamed. Just an example.
Also, all the details “match”: even the Yeti logo on the seat, even the ad (in red, with 2 actors on it) on the back of the seat in front of the person recording the video (the ad has been identified). This level of “reality-perfection” in a matter of hours can only be reached if the video is genuine.
By the way a list of foreign passangers on that flight has surfaced on Twitter (including passport numbers, ehm…) and the Indian man from the video is on the list, as a foreigner, with his others friends from Ghazipur.
Last edited by ele; 18th Jan 2023 at 18:06.
The check airman could’ve wanted to see if the commander could shoot an approach into the said rwy, good weather so shouldn’t deter a training scenario as rwy 12 is often used.
this may be true but I was making a general point that recovering from a stall with working plane doesnt cause a vmc roll.
Obviously if you have 1 engine out then depending upon the plane, the speed, the vmc speed, the attitude, the reactions of the pilot you could be in a lot of trouble.
Every plane is different.
Need the input from a pilot on type who has trained for this on a sim.
Obviously if you have 1 engine out then depending upon the plane, the speed, the vmc speed, the attitude, the reactions of the pilot you could be in a lot of trouble.
Every plane is different.
Need the input from a pilot on type who has trained for this on a sim.
I think somebody said she had 6000+ hours, she is a really experienced pilot not a beginner, and who is to say they hadn't practiced in the sim already ?
The fact is you, I and anyobdy else knows nothing yet.
The fact is you, I and anyobdy else knows nothing yet.
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Kathmandu
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Approach to the Old Airport is even wild .
Old Airport landing , Goes on the same path but with low altitude ,sharper turns . The Stadiums , etc are not visible . Anyone still suggesting that they wrongly went to the old airport should be convinced . Plus this is a approach that they always used to do before the new airport .
Old Airport landing , Goes on the same path but with low altitude ,sharper turns . The Stadiums , etc are not visible . Anyone still suggesting that they wrongly went to the old airport should be convinced . Plus this is a approach that they always used to do before the new airport .
Thats a great video......BUT, hmmm...................doesnt look like Pokhara old airport to me.
Ah ok, got you !!, the airport you can see is the new one, but they landed at the old one, all makes sense now.
Ah ok, got you !!, the airport you can see is the new one, but they landed at the old one, all makes sense now.
Last edited by michaelbinary; 18th Jan 2023 at 19:59.
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Kathmandu
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
