Aircraft down in Nepal 18 dead

[daz211]

Eighteen people have died after a small passenger plane crashed in Nepal's Everest .

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Plane crash in Nepal 'kills 18' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7658258.stm)

[Finn47]

A Twin Otter, apparently:

Plane crash kills 12 Germans, 2 Swiss in Nepal (1st Lead) (http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/southasia/news/article_1435475.php/Plane_crash_kills_12_Germans_2_Swiss_in_Nepal__1st_Lead__)

[Thaihawk]

According to www.bangkokpost.com (http://www.bangkokpost.com,one) ,one of the pilots survived the crash.

[silverelise]

Story on Reuters:

By Gopal Sharma
KATHMANDU, Oct 8 (Reuters) - A small private plane crashed in the remote mountains of northeast Nepal on Wednesday, killing at least 18 people, airline and airport officials said.
Twelve Germans and two other foreign nationals were among the dead. "There were 19 people on board," said Vinay Shakya, an official of Yeti Airlines, a domestic airline.
A crew member survived and was taken to hospital in the capital Kathmandu by helicopter.
The aircraft, a Twin Otter carrying 16 passengers and three crew, crashed shortly before it was due to land at Lukla, known as the gateway to Mount Everest, about 125 km (80 miles) northeast of Kathmandu.
"According to initial reports we have it crashed before it was to land and caught fire," said Yagya Prasad Gautam, chief of the Civil Aviation Authority of Nepal (CAAN). "The accident was probably caused by a last minute change in the weather."
The remote airport at Lukla was built in the 1960s by mountaineer Sir Edmund Hillary to facilitate expeditions to Mount Everest and bring development to the impoverished area where the Sherpa community, known for their climbing skills, live.
Airport official Pratap Bista told state-run Nepal Television that the Lukla airport was among the most difficult ones in the world to take off and land.
In 2002, 18 people including 13 Germans, were killed when a small plane crashed in bad weather near Pokhara town in west Nepal. Nine people died in a similar crash in 2006.
About a dozen private airlines operate in Nepal. Many fly to remote areas that have no roads, mostly carrying foreign tourists to the Himalayan foothills, including Mount Everest. (Writing by Krittivas Mukherjee; Editing by Simon Denyer and Alex Richardson)

[golfyankeesierra]

Looks challenging enough...
http://bp3.blogger.com/_AeEq2KTB8Pw/R4-ZjK265VI/AAAAAAAAAr0/wDsDlN1-PdE/s320/Lukla+Airport.jpg

[sanjosebaz]

Check out the other end of the runway at Lukla airport! YouTube - Lukla Airport landing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUQ8K1V0MQc&feature=related)

Looks like there is only one way in or out. Go-arounds look a little tricky too. :ooh:

[Dani]

well, I hate to say it, but you just don't go to places like this. There is always a certain risk, even if every detail is planned.

On the other hand, climbing on a 8000m peak is more dangerous... :suspect:

[cats_five]

Not only is the topography challenging, it's high (9,380') and weather conditions rapidly become difficult as the sun warms the mountains and gets the convection going.

I haven't seem Lukla, but have seen Manang, which is west of Kathmandu and a little higher than Lukla. The one flight arrives early in the morning when it's still, flying up the valley below Annapurna which is one of the 8,000m peaks in Nepal. It lands up the strip, turns around, gets rid of the incoming pax and luggage, loads the outgoing asap, takes off down the strip and flies back down the valley towards Pokera. At the time at which this happens it's still. A bit later and the anabatic wind has started, and walking into it is an unpleasent experience.

So why do people take internal flights in Nepal? The roads in the mountains. Horrendous, as is the driving, and if you happen to look down the slopes you will often see wreckage below. One road we went along had two cracks on a corner, and the bit of road between them had dropped slightly and was probably waiting to get washed away in the next monsoon. I admit it is very difficult terrain to build roads in - lots of rather unstable glacial deposits - but the whole road travel experience in the mountains is hair-raising, and slow.

[pobmate]

I've done this flight with Yeti Airlines in 2000. We were using the service to get to Lukla to start a trek to Everest basecamp. Basically most of the trekking groups will use Lukla as otherwise you add 5-7 days walking to get to this point. When we did it, Lukla was still a dirt airstrip, but I see it is now tarmac

It's a hairy ride in on the Twin Otter (yes I've seen the YouTube films and it's pretty much like that). The airstrip is on a small shoulder on the mountainside, and the runway is aligned INTO the mountain so you appear to be flying straight at a hillside. There is nowhere to go if things go wrong. If you land short you will crash into the mountainside, and if you overshoot you will crash higher up.....

Whilst we were trekking there was a crash landing at Lukla, the aircraft involved had been pushed off to the side and covered in a tarpaulin, so we went past it on the way out.

[raffele]

BBC reporting doesn't quite tally up with the airline press release regarding the survivor: Yeti Airlines | Newscast (http://www.yetiairlines.com/press_room.php?section=press&action=show&press=14)

Deepest sympathy to all families involved

[sanjosebaz]

BBC reporting doesn't quite tally up with the airline press release regarding the survivorBBC appear to be the only people claiming a passenger survived! Check out the other press releases (linked in posts above).

[Old Fella]

Australian TV news claims two Australians among those who perished.

[sanjosebaz]

Australian TV news claims two Australians among those who perished.Indeed - Their names appear in the airline press release (see post #10).

[miss petal]

According to the Yeti website and CNN, there's sudden fog covered the airport. Could be the cause of the crash? I had goose bump all over, I was there beginning of this year..

[EladElap]

I trained with the co-pilot that passed away, a few years ago... Great guy always had a permanent smile. RIP Bikas my friend...

[AN2 Driver]

Dani,

well, I hate to say it, but you just don't go to places like this. There is always a certain risk, even if every detail is planned.

On the other hand, climbing on a 8000m peak is more dangerous...

Yes it's a hairy airport yet accidents seem pretty rare. Like with many other such "dangerous" places, it's a question of who goes there and if they know what they are doing. Once in a while things do go terribly wrong, be it on this airport or on 3000+ m runways with flatlands for the next tens of miles.

I believe the pilots who operate up there know their job, as we know ours. Not everyone is allowed up there, you can fly there only after training and introduction. I've never been up there myself (yet) but have studied the airport intensively for another line of work and I do know people who have been, including one close aquaintance who is a 330 FO. She's been up there many times (also been up several of the mountains around it) and told me that while she as a pilot is often more scared than others, she can't but admire the precision these pilots display up there.

From what is circulated, they were no 3 on approach, the two preceeding Otters having landed just before. While they were on short approach, a piece of cloud obscured their view of the runway and they crashed into it, sliding back some distance after they did.

[BUSHJEPPY]

The Nepal civil aviation environment is one of the most challenging in the world due to its unforgiving mountainous terrain and sub-tropical weather system, combined with high altitude wind pattern and unpredictable cloud built-up. Also the high altitude airfields with extremely short runways have been designed for Pilatus PC-6 Porter aircraft and are now mostly used by DHC6 Twin-Otter, which require longer runways in order to provide the level of safety that is legally expected for public transport with commercial carriers using multi-engine aircraft.

One example is Dolpa: 457 meters of runway at 2'500 meters elevation with a 5 % slope :uhoh:

[Halfbaked_Boy]

Please, I mean no disrespect to anybody in saying this, but something of this nature was an accident waiting to happen at Lukla. One could compare this airfield with Courchevel in France - without wishing to speculate, there is a certain pressure regarding runways of this length to have your mainwheels down and brakes applied as soon as possible - having watched a few videos of landings at these two airfields, it's surprising that somebody hasn't 'caught their mainwheels on the edge' before.
Then again, we all know the risks associated with aviation, and we shouldn't feel too sorry because unfortunately these things happen and in the grand scheme of things is simply the price to pay for the furtherance of mankind's exploration of the world we live in.

All the best, Jack.

[ecureilx]

I was told by a friend who flew in there, that the best plane to fly in is the Turbo Porter, with a shorter landing and take off parameter, and apparently all the Turbo Porters in Nepal had crashed probably due to being operated in narrower margins of safety.

RIP to those who lost their life.

[robbreid]

Yeti Twin Otter 9N-AFE

Yeti Airlines | Newscast (http://www.yetiairlines.com/press_room.php?section=press&action=show&press=14)

[Airbus Girl]

I have flown in there as a passenger - the video on youtube doesn't show the slope there - there is a serious upslope on landing (toward the mountain), and very little room - to the side of the runway at the uphill end is a small apron, big enough for maybe 3 small aircraft. Its not that long, has a serious slope, particularly at the top end and as mentioned, the go-around and overshoot options are pretty limited. However, there are many flights into Lukla and accidents do seem rare. But I can understand that you wouldn't want to land long and the approach is over a deep valley. Many flights come in here because above Lukla the only transport (certainly when I went there) was by Yak or by Porter. So all supplies for the higher villages get flown in to Lukla, as do trekkers, particularly those climbing up to the higher trails, like Everest Base Camp, because it saves time doing the lower stuff, and also it is used for flying out people who suffer altitude sickness, but its main thing is as a supplies airport. As soon as aircraft land, the local villagers all turn up to help unload and carry supplies to the village, from where, they are loaded onto Yaks (or Zopyos (don't know spelling! but cross between cow and Yak)) and taken up the mountainous paths to the outlying areas.
There were no roads above Lukla when I was there, only trails.

[TripleBravo]

Gee, whole families perished, according to the list of the deceased, the airline's boss lost a relative too (the CC).

As far as I know (not been there, I stand corrected) the decision point is way before short final, because there is no option to go around due to the mountainuous terrain. So, even with things getting massively wrong at the last seconds, you could end up "condemned to land", whatever the odds.

Said that, I can imagine that with the reportedly suddenly upcoming fog the pilots could have been faced with no other choice but to try to land, even when they already (did not) saw the runway obscured by local clouds. In one report I heard something like visibility 400 m, not confirmed...

RIP

[PaperTiger]

According to Aviation Herald (http://www.avherald.com/h?article=40df1dd9&opt=0) the aircraft undershot and clipped the fence.

Warning: graphic image of crash site.

[Dani]

Quote by AN2driver:
Once in a while things do go terribly wrong, be it on this airport or on 3000+ m runways with flatlands for the next tens of miles

You don't want to assume or imply that safety is the same in every type of operation? Traffic rate in those extreme airports is just so small because there is less traffic. If you would move as many pax as in the western world, you would have an accident every second day.

ecureilx, of course the PC-6 (Turbo Porter) is better suited for Lukla, but you cannot compare the Porter with the Twotter, that is about double in size.

Be it as it is, if it would work all the time, they would even build an airport in more remote areas, maybe if 600m and 10° upslope is enough, we can make it on 300m and 15°? Where is the limit? What do we want to accept as a "normal" accident rate?

I would never ever go on such a trip. OK, so I cannot visit Nepal. Well, I have to live with that. I also don't want to do Base Jumping or play russian roulette. What is worse is that every accident counts towards to normal airline operation, so people are afraid even if they have to board a plane that operates on standard airports. I wish the public would be more aware of the risks of out-of-area operation and difficult airports. It starts by saying "no, I don't go there". Period.

Dani

[himalaya]

Too bad this happened. Sincere condolence and sympathies to the families of the depared souls. But This could have been avoided.

1. By holding
2. By making a missed approach.

When you turn final 06 to lukla and you are assured that you are going to land, then you take full flaps ( i.e. 37.5 degrees in twin otter). If you are not sure or you have doubts then you dont ask for full flaps. Even if you have selected full flaps, you can still make a missed approach (turning left) if you haven't crossed the river ( dudh Koshi river).

People say the runway is short etc. etc. however, if you are on profile, you dont select reverse after landing instead, you have to add power to go to the apron after landing. And when you are taxing, if you take a look at the VSI, u are climbing 500ft/min.

Moving fog is common in this place during this time however, like I mentioned above, you dont ask for full flaps if you are not sure or have doubts about the airfield and you can still make a missed approach if you havent crossed the river.

There are other Airports in Nepal which are equally or slightly more challenging than Lukla (ex. Dolpa, Simikot,Taplejung, Manang etc.)

[FlyTCI]

Sad news indeed.. RIP

With 2000+ hrs in the twotter it would be interesting to try this strip ONCE but to do this on a daily basis, no thanks :=. Brave guys operating down there..

Looking at the u-tube links in the article I noticed them entering the rwy before the landing traffic had exited. Is the ramp not big enough, or is this simply a common procedure to save time? If so, not worth it IMO. Things can go wrong so easily and it wouldn't be worth a few seconds of saved time.

[manrow]

In fact FlyTCI, a single visit could be the most dangerous!

If part of a regular series it could be possible to experience all of the variables at least enough to know when to throw the approach away at a safe stage?!

[cloudwalkerK2]

I departed Lukla (as a passenger) the morning before the accident. I did find it a little unnerving that they had an aircraft in position on runway 24 while another aircraft was landing on runway 6. Missed approaches need to be decided rather early due to the terrain. A Twin Otter does not take much space to turn around at the speeds they fly on approach, however the airport is VFR only and to try a missed approach in the clouds one would have to feel really, really lucky. It is a safe bet that the aircraft was not equipped with EGPWS. DO-228s are also common at Tenzing-Hillary Field.
Wikipedia has the runway length at 527M (1,600 feet), an upslope of 11.75 degrees (20%), and elevation of 2,800M or 9,380 feet.
On one of my previous trips, the pilot was scud-running due to low ceilings and we had to climb to get to the threshold of the runway.
It also seems like takeoffs would be very scary with an engine failure. The runway is so steep that I don't know if the brakes and one prop in reverse would stop the aircraft prior to the accelerate-go speed.
Getting stoppped on landing is guaranteed as there is a 30 foot solid wall at the end of the runway that has the mass of an 18,000 foot mountain behind it.

[bravolima553]

Does aynbody know or can remember whether the pilots in LUKLA use GPS-Devices (Garmins) for their navigation and orientation?

[middlepath]

Hi Dani
There is always a certain level of risk we face in life, accident is not limited to third world countries. Even swiss air MD11 in Halifax.

Flying to lukla is all visual(no papi or vasi), one way landing whith about 11%upslope TDZH 9000 feet rwy length 1700 feet.Twin otter is most suitable for these operations. In this accident weather may have contributed major role, marginal weather due to drifting cloud(fog). Flying to Lukla in marginal weather require ducking below the cloud and climb to land or timing to aim the runway while fog is drifting away(it seems like runway is doing a hide and seek in drifting fog rising from the valley below the airfield). Local knowledge is vital and all PIC must have landed there many many times before cleared to solo.
As any accident there are more than one reason what has happened at Lukla.

[BUSHJEPPY]

BL 553!

On your question

QUOTE
Does aynbody know or can remember whether the pilots in LUKLA use GPS-Devices (Garmins) for their navigation and orientation?
UNQUOTE

They do. On a Yeti Twin-Otter I saw an held one taped on the yoke. It was a Garmin GPSMAP 195. By clear weather, the pilots know the terrain. In IMC, they use the GPS to find their way.

[flash8]

In IMC with high ground all around I'd be somewhat nervous depending on a Garmin GPS - those boys are certainly braver than I am. Can't an unstable GPS signal give Map Shift?

[bad_attitude]

no GPS approaches though, in this part of the planet. :ouch:

[himalaya]

Like I mentioned earlier, You have to decide before you cross the river on the final approach whether landing is possible or not. If you feel landing is confirmed then only you ask for full flaps and you proceed. There is no looking back after this point.

However, if you feel you are high or rwy is not completely clear (due to fog or other aircraft) or you have any doubts then you make a missed approach before crossing the river. Which is perfectly possible.

In any case you must be completely VFR. If anyone approaches Lukla when it is partially VFR then the pilot is putting everyones lives at great danger.

Approaching Lukla when you are not completely visual or not on profile or using GPS is a suicide for sure.

here are my observations

A. Pressure to complete the mission.
B. 2 other twinotters landed minutes earlier from the same airline
C. Corporate culture
D. Qualifications and knowledge of the PIC


It just hurts so much to see innocent people losing their lives. God bless their souls :(

[punkalouver]

no GPS approaches though, in this part of the planet. :ouch:

I would suspect that there are homemade GPS approaches in this part of the world.

[middlepath]

Hi Dani

excuse me for saying this, are you from CH? do you speak Deutsch?
The world we live is so beautiful because we are all bit different.
Ciao

[AN2 Driver]

@himalaya

question.

I saw an approach chart to Lukla, only it did not look very official. However, it was some sort of an instrument let down, starting at an IAF named Fluffy, then proceeding north to a missed approach point at DME 4 Lukla (I did not realize Lukla HAD a DME, does it or is that a GPS fix?

Do you know if there is an official such chart or is there a source for this? Is the Nepali AIP online and open?

@Dani

You don't want to assume or imply that safety is the same in every type of operation? Traffic rate in those extreme airports is just so small because there is less traffic. If you would move as many pax as in the western world, you would have an accident every second day.

There are many such operations, not only in Nepal, which certainly would not gain your seal of approval. Have you ever been to the Maldives? The "barefoot pilots" there and their Twin Otters do a great job flying their seaplanes, yet also there you have other standards than on the flight deck of a jet over Europe. Their accident rate is minimal, in terms of loss of life it's basically zero. Would you fly with them? At the same time, would you fly with airlines who are perfectly modern equipped, fly only airways and huge airports but have smashed several jets over the last few years?


ecureilx, of course the PC-6 (Turbo Porter) is better suited for Lukla, but you cannot compare the Porter with the Twotter, that is about double in size.


Hmm. Would I be more comfortable flying in this terrain with a single or a twin? I like the Porter, but in this environment I'd prefer to take a Twin Otter anytime. Maybe you know but as we write here, a Turbo Porter IS up there, they operate from Syangboche, which in comparison with Lukla is one step further into the land you don't want to go. I know one of the guys and frankly, at the moment I take on a slight shade of green with envy not to be there with them.


Be it as it is, if it would work all the time, they would even build an airport in more remote areas, maybe if 600m and 10° upslope is enough, we can make it on 300m and 15°? Where is the limit? What do we want to accept as a "normal" accident rate?


Look, here in Europe there is no need for this, even tough I can tell you I have taken the aircraft mentioned in my user name to some places where I would have appreciated the "comforts" of Lukla, not in our common homecountry, but "interesting" nevertheless. The fact is, there are people who climb mountains or who simply want to have a look at the Himalaya. I personally think the ops into Lukla is a sight safer than maybe a road-bound ops in this area, not to speak of going up there by Yak (the animal, not the plane :cool: ). Also, for the people who live up there, it is a lifeline.


I would never ever go on such a trip. OK, so I cannot visit Nepal. Well, I have to live with that.

That is your decision to which you are perfectly entitled. I would not climb Everest or even the Säntis on foot, because I am not a mountaineer. Does not mean I tell everyone else they should not do it either.


I also don't want to do Base Jumping or play russian roulette.


Interesting comparison.


What is worse is that every accident counts towards to normal airline operation, so people are afraid even if they have to board a plane that operates on standard airports.


So do I get this right, because you are concerned about the PR of YOUR airline, you'd like regulators to ban places like Lukla? I don't think that many people who go up to Lukla are the pax you have on your European city hoppers, not many anyhow. Who goes up there will have other things to worry about, the flight maybe being the least dangerous of them all.


I wish the public would be more aware of the risks of out-of-area operation and difficult airports. It starts by saying "no, I don't go there". Period.


Again, it is up to you to decide for yourself. But to imply that because YOU feel that anything with less than a 10'000 ft runway with CAT IIIc installed is hazardous and for cowboys only, does not mean everyone else should be prohibited to go where they want to go. Sir Hillary and all the folks crawling up to mountains or other explorers must be nitwits in your picture then? Well, be happy with what you do, just do me a favour and don't think of a career change to work with EASA, even tough you'd fit perfectly. :ok: After all, they are the reason I most probably need to put an EX- in front of my username if they get their way quite soon.... :ugh:


Best regards
AN2 Driver

[himalaya]

There no GPS approach for Lukla and there should never be one.

Unfortunately and fortunately, GPS is being used very widely in this part to fly/Approach in marginal weather somtime really getting pilots and aircraft out of trouble and sometimes inviting more trouble and putting everyone in great danger. Sadly, there are more cases of the later part.

After GPS was introduced, Pilots started developing their own waypoints and It used be very common to fly (IMC) before entering Lukla Valley from lamjura Pass to DudhKoshi river DECENDING up to a certain altitude and if you are not VFR by then, make a climbing right turn towards Lamidada Airport. It stopped for a while When the other yeti Air crashed at the mountain left of Lamjura pass in 2004.

There is a technique with nepalese Pilots flying DHC-6, they only select full flaps only when landing is assured (i.e. runway completely visible, clear,on profile and wind favorable). As airports like, Lukla, Simikot have point of no return, meaning to say if you decided to continue, and then you feel something is not right and want to make a missed approach, then there is no way you can make a missed approach. However, missed approach is perefectly possible on approach if you have not crossed the point of no return.

As you approach near the airport , landing become so very tempting this is when a pilot starts to get into the trap. The time is so short, you are so preoccupied with landing and runway that you just dont realise that you are high or low and that you have crossed the point of no return.

Thats is where your qualifications,skills and experience comes in handy, you never get in to a situation where there is even a bit of a doubt about landing due to altitude, visibility, and wind.

However, people do make mistakes knowingly and thats sad.

Otherwise, Lukla is just like any other airport, if flown without deviating from SOPs its pefectly safe and the risks are minimized. Infact, for a person in love with flying, this is one of the most beautiful runways to take off and land.

[ecureilx]

"The subscription requires, that you sign up for an account first, then subscribe from your account. The subscription is only 240 € including 20% VAT per year, subscribers outside of the European Union save the VAT and pay only 200 €."

Is there any other site with pics ?

[Dani]

An2driver, I cannot and wont answer all your posts because it would be going very long, but:

- I know that Lukla is quite a solid and safe base compared to the others in Nepal. That doesn't mean that it compares well to the western world.

- I agree that in Nepal, there has to be some sort of aviation, especially for the local population. You cannot ban such airports. I just want to WARN all people from abroad, people with maybe little knowledge of aviation and its application, to consider very carefully a trip like this. If you are climbing up an 8000m peak, you have to take that way, because everything else is way more dangerous, including your final goal. But if you are just one of the 1000's of normal trekking tourists, think about it.

- How can you say that the Twotter is more safe than the porter? Because it has two engines? A B777 is even more safe, there is no single casualty until now, still I wouldn't operate it in Lukla. The problem is the size of this airport, and the smaller you are the better your chances. It's not only the wing span and the number of engines, but also the approach speed and the turn rate. While you are unable to turn back into the valley with a full loaded Twotter, you still can try it with an overpowered PC6.

- contrary to your opinion, we also have airports like this in Europe. Mainly in the Western Alps. There are certain efforts to do line oriented commercial flights to those airports. But I as a normal tourist would also go the same risk analysis like for Nepal.

Dani

[Machaca]

http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n385/motidog/nepal_luk_1.jpg

[broadreach]

damn! so near, just a few metres to the right.

[Just a Grunt]

Is the Nepali AIP online and open?


Civil Aviation Authority of Nepal (http://www.caanepal.org.np)

Most of the links on the page are broken/dead. No online AIP, although Eurocontrol suggests that it is "coming soon".

[AN2 Driver]

himalaya,

There no GPS approach for Lukla and there should never be one.

I agree and thanks for confirming that.


Otherwise, Lukla is just like any other airport, if flown without deviating from SOPs its pefectly safe and the risks are minimized. Infact, for a person in love with flying, this is one of the most beautiful runways to take off and land.

Again, I fully agree. Thanks a lot for your valuable input here.

Best regards

AN2.

[AN2 Driver]

- I know that Lukla is quite a solid and safe base compared to the others in Nepal. That doesn't mean that it compares well to the western world.


Because in the western world there is mostly no need for such operations.


- I agree that in Nepal, there has to be some sort of aviation, especially for the local population. You cannot ban such airports.

Well, yes. Neither should they be banned.


I just want to WARN all people from abroad, people with maybe little knowledge of aviation and its application, to consider very carefully a trip like this. If you are climbing up an 8000m peak, you have to take that way, because everything else is way more dangerous, including your final goal. But if you are just one of the 1000's of normal trekking tourists, think about it.


You have to think of everything you do in your life. Leaving the bed in the morning is a risk, without which life becomes exceedingly bleak. As the various crash databases show, in aviation risks often sit where you least expect them, whereas "hazardous" operations (by some opinions) work beautifully for years. I reckon anyone going in these regions would have to think of a lot of things, but knowing some of the risks involved in the himalayas I still think that the flight up there is probably one of the lesser risks.


- How can you say that the Twotter is more safe than the porter? Because it has two engines? A B777 is even more safe, there is no single casualty until now, still I wouldn't operate it in Lukla. The problem is the size of this airport, and the smaller you are the better your chances. It's not only the wing span and the number of engines, but also the approach speed and the turn rate. While you are unable to turn back into the valley with a full loaded Twotter, you still can try it with an overpowered PC6.

In such mountainous areas I prefer going with two engines, yes. Whether a plane is suitable for an airport is of course a question of performance. The Twin Otter has the performance to do it and then some, so I don't see a problem operating it in there. It's not just the landing and take off there, but you still have 40 minutes flying time over pretty rough terrain, where a second engine can make all the difference.

Of course the PC-6 is a great plane, I flew on it several times. So is the -12, which would probably also work up there nicely. It does fly into Courchevel all the time. With the reliability of today's turboprops, I agree that the risk of a single vs a twin up there is probably only marginally higher.

- contrary to your opinion, we also have airports like this in Europe. Mainly in the Western Alps. There are certain efforts to do line oriented commercial flights to those airports. But I as a normal tourist would also go the same risk analysis like for Nepal.

Oh, I am well aware of Courchevel, Megeve and some of the others. There was some efforts to do it, also to Samedan (which is not anywhere as critical) and I remember the 737 operations up there. I am also well aware of the operations with the Dash 7 and PC12 into Courchevel. I've been into Sion as well. The major difference is however that none of these airports are lifelines to a whole region just as Lukla is.


Best regards
AN2 driver.

[CMS]

Yeti airlines appears to have pulled its press release.

[punkalouver]

Makes you wonder if he tried to set himself up on the GPS on final with landing flaps and at an altitude just above the runway expecting to pop out over the threshold but misjudged the altitude.

[India Four Two]

Looks like cloud

YouTube - Only Footage of the Lukla (Nepal) Crash (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fa5XRR88uPY&feature=related)

That is the saddest thing I have ever seen.

[Rockhound]

Indeed, it is inexpressibly sad. But you don't land in a cloud under VFR conditions, no matter if you're at JFK, LHR or Lukla.
For decades in the Canadian Arctic Islands, Twin Otters with low-pressure tundra tires have been involved in offstrip operations, landing on raised beaches, gravel pans and assorted tundra, often where no one has ever landed before. Six hundred feet of more or less level, dry ground is all you need for takeoffs and landings (1000' and you're laughing). With skilled and experienced pilots at the controls, these operations are routine. But they don't land if they can't see the ground.
Rockhound

[ManaAdaSystem]

Another accident that shouldn't have happened.

If two other aircraft landed just prior to this one, then I really wonder what kind of conditions they had when they landed. Yes, I know conditions change, but those clouds didn't just pop up right out of the blue.

[India Four Two]

Rockhound,

I agree with you. Perhaps my post should have been a little longer. My feeling of sadness was for the passengers, sitting there trusting the pilot to get them safely to the start of their trek.

I've had 20-30 hours as a passenger in a DHC-6 in the Canadian north (back in the days when Omega was a big deal), so I have some knowledge of what you are talking about.

It stuns me that a pilot on a VFR flight would deliberately fly into cloud near the threshold of a very tricky airport. I wonder if we will ever find out what was going on - was there some unofficial GPS approach procedure that routinely worked well and suckered this pilot into making an approach in worse conditions than previously experienced?