Nepal Plane Crash
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another long time lurker here (I am not a professional pilot).
About the video (again): as others have already said, it is not necessary to have 10,000 followers to go live on Facebook. , that limit is for the in-stream advert program. What is technologically possible is exactly what is stated in the media: the passenger was streaming live to his facebook page which was restricted, but others who had access to it subsequently shared it.
The other point made is that there is a difference in the time gap between the wing drop and the crash in the external and internal videos. I went back and looked at this. In the external video, the difference is approximately 5.5 seconds. In the internal video, it is about 3 seconds. These are approximate times as there is no one very clear moment of roll or crash in the internal video. If we take into account that sound travels about a kilometre in three seconds, the times seem about right.
This is a Rumour Network and always seems to me like a healthy outlet for relatively respectful speculation, but I was under the impression that Aviation Herald was taken to be somewhat of an online paper-of-record for the industry, but it seems like it is just run by one person and is still very confidently stating with certainty that this video is fake (and calling it "dilettantish"). Maybe the video will turn out to be fake (I doubt it), but anyway, with the current evidence such a certain statement makes the site look bad.
On the crash - the comment by B0OM is helpful. One question I would add: given how common you say the situation is, is there a risk of alarm fatigue with the stick shaker? How often in a pilot's career might they have the shaker activate? And what does the stall recovery procedure say to do with the flaps?
About the video (again): as others have already said, it is not necessary to have 10,000 followers to go live on Facebook. , that limit is for the in-stream advert program. What is technologically possible is exactly what is stated in the media: the passenger was streaming live to his facebook page which was restricted, but others who had access to it subsequently shared it.
The other point made is that there is a difference in the time gap between the wing drop and the crash in the external and internal videos. I went back and looked at this. In the external video, the difference is approximately 5.5 seconds. In the internal video, it is about 3 seconds. These are approximate times as there is no one very clear moment of roll or crash in the internal video. If we take into account that sound travels about a kilometre in three seconds, the times seem about right.
This is a Rumour Network and always seems to me like a healthy outlet for relatively respectful speculation, but I was under the impression that Aviation Herald was taken to be somewhat of an online paper-of-record for the industry, but it seems like it is just run by one person and is still very confidently stating with certainty that this video is fake (and calling it "dilettantish"). Maybe the video will turn out to be fake (I doubt it), but anyway, with the current evidence such a certain statement makes the site look bad.
On the crash - the comment by B0OM is helpful. One question I would add: given how common you say the situation is, is there a risk of alarm fatigue with the stick shaker? How often in a pilot's career might they have the shaker activate? And what does the stall recovery procedure say to do with the flaps?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Spain
Age: 69
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Taking the mentioned video as example, may happen that in some PREVIOUS FLIGHT (there's a problem in this case because the airfield is only two weeks operative) a person takes a video (more or less same time, same weather conditions, same airline/type, has to be a real PAX) and saves it in his cellphone or the cloud to show later to the family and friends or to forget he did. Without any special intention of a forgery. But sometimes things have some coincidences and some brains are brainless, my grandma said.
The accident happens, no survivors, not too much info (this is all real). The "clever" forger (in forgery there is always the aim of some kind of profit: fame, money) makes a mix of his recording on board and adds the "confusion plus fire" section and publishes in "social media".
Nobody would make "a new airplane crashing" in order to be famous or earn some money, but using REAL DATA may make a good forgery merging images, videos, etc.
Apparently (I'm not sure of anything about this accident YET) the poor man in the video was aboard the 9N-ANC ATR. I can accept THAT'S REAL.
I'm not any sure if we come to talk about the "second part": the supposed moment of the bank, then the crash and the following FIRE.
The whole or a section of the second part could be added afterwards in order to make it more "fatal and bloody", very usual to be found in videos of road and train accidents in INDIA.
NB: the forger (always talking about the on-board video) could be a friend of the deceased with access to the video (AFAIK it's not any difficult to copy-paste videos from Facbook, Twitter, etc)
Join Date: Jan 2023
Location: UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Yo_You_Not_You_you I guess you have to think not so much in black and white terms about whether they 'were going to the old airport or not'.
Clearly they had stated their intention to land on RWY12 of the new airport but this doesn't mean that some small subconscious familiar action (muscle memory) wasn't mistakenly taken by one of the flight crew that was applicable to landing at the old airport but not the new one, i.e. something that set the aircraft's speed, altitude, attitude or configuration suitable for the old airport approach but not the new one.
The external video taken just before the crash shows the aircraft was very low - and yet still 2km away from RWY12 at PIA. To me when I watch that video I imagine a scenario where the AOA was slightly less and the plane didn't stall - with its sink rate it looks like the aircraft would have intercepted the ground in 10 or 15 seconds anyway.
Something else to observe in the external video is the ratio of the vertical and horizontal distance between the cameraman and the aircraft. The aircraft looks quite small initially, but to what extent is that because of its height above ground vs the horizontal distance from the camera person. Note the aircraft is also flying towards the cameraman as well as descending.
At the point of the stall I'd say the aircraft is less than 200ft, maybe even 150ft AGL.
Comment #35 from @DroneDog has a useful slow mo of the external video and AI sharpened image of the aircraft just before the stall.
Clearly they had stated their intention to land on RWY12 of the new airport but this doesn't mean that some small subconscious familiar action (muscle memory) wasn't mistakenly taken by one of the flight crew that was applicable to landing at the old airport but not the new one, i.e. something that set the aircraft's speed, altitude, attitude or configuration suitable for the old airport approach but not the new one.
The external video taken just before the crash shows the aircraft was very low - and yet still 2km away from RWY12 at PIA. To me when I watch that video I imagine a scenario where the AOA was slightly less and the plane didn't stall - with its sink rate it looks like the aircraft would have intercepted the ground in 10 or 15 seconds anyway.
Something else to observe in the external video is the ratio of the vertical and horizontal distance between the cameraman and the aircraft. The aircraft looks quite small initially, but to what extent is that because of its height above ground vs the horizontal distance from the camera person. Note the aircraft is also flying towards the cameraman as well as descending.
At the point of the stall I'd say the aircraft is less than 200ft, maybe even 150ft AGL.
Comment #35 from @DroneDog has a useful slow mo of the external video and AI sharpened image of the aircraft just before the stall.
Roll Following yaw, resulting from letting speed drop below vmca after an engine failure. It would be nice to think that two pilots with the amount of experience these had between them wouldn’t let it happen, more likely if inexperienced in a light twin.
Does it make more sense if the correct case is used? If you have a web browser try a search for "Vmc roll". Vmc - airspeed minimum controllable (air).
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Thailand
Posts: 11
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.
However, a reverse-image search of the footage reveals it shows the 2021 crash of a prototype military transport plane that was conducting a test flight outside Moscow. The plane crashed in a forested area as it was coming in for a landing at the Kubinka airfield 45 kilometers (28 miles) west of Moscow, killing all three crew members on board, Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation told the Tass news agency.
https://apnews.com/article/fact-chec...y-981061218160
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Kathmandu
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was first to Post the Said video here . When i first saw the video i ignored it . But slowly the views shown from the window starts to make sense with respect to the crash location and outside crash video . In fact it could provide vital evidences for investigators . https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?m...TE&usp=sharing
The major reason for this live stream to have survived the final moments is because the phone survived the impact .
and it was able to upload the video to the cloud .
The live streamer's position is at near the Tail section . The plane actually made first impact on one side of the gorge , by the tail section ( the staircase is there) , then up over on the other side where the fireball was . After the impact most likely some part fell down the river gorge. The phone we see might have fallen back down halfway or fully to the gorge , after it filmed the fire .
The major reason for this live stream to have survived the final moments is because the phone survived the impact .
and it was able to upload the video to the cloud .
The live streamer's position is at near the Tail section . The plane actually made first impact on one side of the gorge , by the tail section ( the staircase is there) , then up over on the other side where the fireball was . After the impact most likely some part fell down the river gorge. The phone we see might have fallen back down halfway or fully to the gorge , after it filmed the fire .
Last edited by Yo_You_Not_You_you; 19th Jan 2023 at 10:38.
However,
The comment on the inhibit of the stick shaker is going to be an interesting report matter for the compliance of Part 25 103, 171, 173, 175... 201, 203, 207... They may need to reassess some assumptions....
fdr, … yes
The stick shaker comment is also very interesting. Such a change in normal operation should have been justified by a discoverable a certification deviation.
An alternative might be a misinterpretation of changes required by retrospective inflight icing requirements; advanced, re-datumed alerting.
Any ATR operators able to confirm the stick shaker operation in these circumstances.
The stick shaker comment is also very interesting. Such a change in normal operation should have been justified by a discoverable a certification deviation.
An alternative might be a misinterpretation of changes required by retrospective inflight icing requirements; advanced, re-datumed alerting.
Any ATR operators able to confirm the stick shaker operation in these circumstances.
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Italy
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As regards the calculations to match events/seconds from the video: sometimes, due to bad coverage, the video "froze/jumped", so I guess calculating precise seconds is not so easy in this case.
Last edited by ele; 19th Jan 2023 at 09:26.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MODS : can you start a new thread with " real of fake videos" somewhere and remove all those posts that clutter the tecnical discussion here ?. Whether this video is real or not will not reveal the cause of this accident , and frankly Facebook streaming issues are not for this thread.
There is a generation that say fake if they don’t understand, find it disturbing or disagree but can’t make an argument to defend their point . It’s a branch of wokisim.
"Anyone able to explain what is meant by "vmc roll"?
After an entire career as a commercisl pilot this is the first time I've ever heard that expression."
Hmmm, have you ever flown a twin prop ?.
Vmc is Velocity of minimum control.
Say on landing or takeoff of a twin prop the left engine fails.
1) You have immediate asymmetric thrust from the right engine yawing the plane to the left
2) You have loss of thrust from left engine and some loss of lift as the engine airflow over the left wing reduces, reducing the lift
3) You have increase drag on left side due to windmilling prop, (need to feather it immediately)
4) So the plane yaws to the left and drops the left wing (quickly) and at low altitude you are usually dead.
So in a twin on landing stay above that speed for as long as possible, on take off get to that speed as soon as possible otherwise with an engine failure its uncontrolable.
Even above that speed a pilot needs to be alert and react quickly by putting in right rudder, reducing thrust on right engine and feathering left engine and keeping wings levels and maybe puttiing nose down to gain airspeed (if possible).
All the more complicated by temperature, humidity, air pressure, undercarriage down etc etc etc.
After an entire career as a commercisl pilot this is the first time I've ever heard that expression."
Hmmm, have you ever flown a twin prop ?.
Vmc is Velocity of minimum control.
Say on landing or takeoff of a twin prop the left engine fails.
1) You have immediate asymmetric thrust from the right engine yawing the plane to the left
2) You have loss of thrust from left engine and some loss of lift as the engine airflow over the left wing reduces, reducing the lift
3) You have increase drag on left side due to windmilling prop, (need to feather it immediately)
4) So the plane yaws to the left and drops the left wing (quickly) and at low altitude you are usually dead.
So in a twin on landing stay above that speed for as long as possible, on take off get to that speed as soon as possible otherwise with an engine failure its uncontrolable.
Even above that speed a pilot needs to be alert and react quickly by putting in right rudder, reducing thrust on right engine and feathering left engine and keeping wings levels and maybe puttiing nose down to gain airspeed (if possible).
All the more complicated by temperature, humidity, air pressure, undercarriage down etc etc etc.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Morten Harkett, Dorset
Age: 100
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I completely realise there have been no recorded incidents of mobile phones bringing down an aircraft, but:
Could a mobile phone have caused an erroneous reading from the AoA sensor?
Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_on_aircraft
"A NASA publication details the fifty most recent reports to the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) regarding "avionics problems that may result from the influence of passenger electronic devices." The nature of these reports varies widely. Some merely describe passengers' interactions with flight crews when asked to stop using an electronic device. Other reports amount to crews reporting an anomaly experienced at the same time a passenger was witnessed using a mobile phone. A few reports state that interference to aircraft systems was observed to appear and disappear as that particular suspect device was turned on and off. One entry in the ASRS, designated ACN: 440557, reports a clear link where a passenger's DVD player induced a 30-degree error in the display of the aircraft's heading, each time the player was switched on. However, this report dates back to 1999 and involves a Boeing 727, an old type of aircraft that is no longer in use by airlines today.A 2003 study involved three months of testing with RF spectrum analyzers and other instruments aboard regular commercial flights, and one passage reads:
...our research has found that these items can interrupt the normal operation of key cockpit instruments, especially Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers, which are increasingly vital to safe landings. Two different studies by NASA further support the idea that passengers' electronic devices dangerously produce interference in a way that reduces the safety margins for critical avionics systems.
There is no smoking gun to this story: there is no definitive instance of an air accident known to have been caused by a passenger's use of an electronic device. Nonetheless, although it is impossible to say that such use has contributed to air accidents in the past, the data also make it impossible to rule it out completely. More importantly, the data support a conclusion that continued use of portable RF-emitting devices such as cell phones will, in all likelihood, someday cause an accident by interfering with critical cockpit instruments such as GPS receivers. This much is certain: there exists a greater potential for problems than was previously believed.
A 2000 study by the British Civil Aviation Authority found that a mobile phone, when used near the cockpit or other avionics equipment location, will exceed safety levels for older equipment (compliant with 1984 standards). Such equipment is still in use, even in new aircraft. Therefore, the report concludes, the current policy, which restricts the use of mobile phones on all aircraft while the engines are running, should remain in force.
Critics of the ban doubt that small battery-powered devices would have any significant influence on a commercial jetliner's shielded electronic systems. Safety researchers Tekla S. Perry and Linda Geppert point out that shielding and other protections degrade with increasing age, cycles of use, and even some maintenance procedures, as is also true of the shielding in PEDs, including mobile phones.
Several reports argue both sides of the issue in the same article; on the one hand they highlight the lack of definite evidence of mobile phones causing significant interference, while on the other hand they point out that caution in maintaining restrictions on using mobile phones and other PEDs in flight is the safer course to take.[size=8333px]"[/size]
...our research has found that these items can interrupt the normal operation of key cockpit instruments, especially Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers, which are increasingly vital to safe landings. Two different studies by NASA further support the idea that passengers' electronic devices dangerously produce interference in a way that reduces the safety margins for critical avionics systems.
There is no smoking gun to this story: there is no definitive instance of an air accident known to have been caused by a passenger's use of an electronic device. Nonetheless, although it is impossible to say that such use has contributed to air accidents in the past, the data also make it impossible to rule it out completely. More importantly, the data support a conclusion that continued use of portable RF-emitting devices such as cell phones will, in all likelihood, someday cause an accident by interfering with critical cockpit instruments such as GPS receivers. This much is certain: there exists a greater potential for problems than was previously believed.
A 2000 study by the British Civil Aviation Authority found that a mobile phone, when used near the cockpit or other avionics equipment location, will exceed safety levels for older equipment (compliant with 1984 standards). Such equipment is still in use, even in new aircraft. Therefore, the report concludes, the current policy, which restricts the use of mobile phones on all aircraft while the engines are running, should remain in force.
Critics of the ban doubt that small battery-powered devices would have any significant influence on a commercial jetliner's shielded electronic systems. Safety researchers Tekla S. Perry and Linda Geppert point out that shielding and other protections degrade with increasing age, cycles of use, and even some maintenance procedures, as is also true of the shielding in PEDs, including mobile phones.
Several reports argue both sides of the issue in the same article; on the one hand they highlight the lack of definite evidence of mobile phones causing significant interference, while on the other hand they point out that caution in maintaining restrictions on using mobile phones and other PEDs in flight is the safer course to take.[size=8333px]"[/size]
Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_on_aircraft
Approach Plate..?
Are there any Approach Plates for this airfield...?
I just wonder why a commercial airplane carrying 70+ persons should be doing a 90 degree intercept to a 1 mile final. Has the concept of a 'Stabilised Approach' been forgotten in this case..?
I just wonder why a commercial airplane carrying 70+ persons should be doing a 90 degree intercept to a 1 mile final. Has the concept of a 'Stabilised Approach' been forgotten in this case..?
It's called a circling approach. They are actually designed to be close in to the airfield for obstacle protection of which there is much in Nepal. Normal stabilisation criteria is standard plus wings level by 300ft above airfield. Clearly this flight became unstable in the most extreme manner but circling approaches are flown safely around the world every day and make air travel possible to many often remote places
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Kathmandu
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MODS : can you start a new thread with " real of fake videos" somewhere and remove all those posts that clutter the tecnical discussion here ?. Whether this video is real or not will not reveal the cause of this accident , and frankly Facebook streaming issues are not for this thread.
The video has so far given the approximate route in unavailability of FR24 map and is helpful in that sense , pilot did not by memory head to the old airport .
to bring up google earth.
you are above the old airfield with the new airfield top right
move yourself over the new airfield.
use the keys to do a 360 rotation and you will see why it was a circling approach, it doesnt leave a lot of room for 5 mile finals.
google earth is really cool for this sort of perspective.