Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

'Plane crash' at Nepal's Kathmandu airport

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

'Plane crash' at Nepal's Kathmandu airport

Old 15th Mar 2018, 06:29
  #141 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,789
read the updated at The Aviation Herald, the last paragraph above the comments sheds some light..
ironbutt57 is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2018, 07:44
  #142 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,642
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry View Post
Paywalled.. and I'm on the road but they regularly pick up stories from this site...
Could well be the case here:

Kathmandu crash pilots confused runway codes

Charles Bremner

March 14 2018, 12:01am
The Times

There was confusion among disoriented pilots and stressed air traffic controllers in the moments before the crash of a Bangladeshi aircraft in Nepal on Monday with the loss of 49 lives.

Kathmandu airport and US-Bangla Airways blamed each other for the events that caused the Bombardier Dash 8 turboprop aircraft to plunge into a field just off the mountain-ringed single runway on the edge of the Nepalese capital. The four crew died but 22 passengers survived by escaping the burning wreckage.

Recordings of six minutes of radio conversations between the pilots and the control tower showed deep confusion over which direction the airliner was to land in as it approached and began circling on a flight from Dhaka. Captain Abid Sultan and Prithula Rashid, the first officer, were cleared to land from the south on runway 02 but controllers told them “you are going towards runway 20”, approaching the strip from the opposite end.

“Do not turn towards runway 20, turn right,” the controller said. The pilots were nevertheless cleared to land on 20, then seemed to be heading back for 02. The controllers, who were dealing with several other aircraft, displayed confusion over the instructions they were giving. When the airliner appeared low over the airport unaligned with any runway, a controller barked: “I say again, turn!”

On the same frequency a voice in Nepali said: “They appear to be extremely disoriented. Looks like they are really confused.” It was not clear whether the speaker was a pilot or a controller.

The Canadian-made jet came down just after flying over the control tower in a turn as the pilots apparently manoeuvred to start a new approach. Passengers reported a sharp turn just before the crash.

“I had asked the air hostess, what is happening, is everything fine?’ She gave a thumbs up, but I could see she was panicking,” said Ashish Ranjit, 35, who escaped through a window on the aircraft’s right. “It was so low and it took such sharp turns.”

Imran Asif, chief executive of the airline, said: “We suspect wrong signals from Kathmandu air traffic control room might have led to the crash.”

Captain Sultan was a highly experienced pilot who had landed more than 100 times at Kathmandu, it said.

Raj Kumar Chetri, general manager of the airport, said: “The tower repeatedly asked if the pilot was OK and the reply was ‘Yes’.”
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2018, 08:29
  #143 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 269
This accident simply confirms that the most dangerous manoeuvre in civil aviation these days is a circling approach. It has to be planned and carefully pre briefed, with a clear understanding of what the escape plan is when it all goes wrong.
777fly is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2018, 08:59
  #144 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Leeds
Posts: 174
Maybe someone can shed some light for me, i am still confused as to what runway they where supposed to be landing on, seems they flew the approach on 02, and appears to be to a circle to land on 20? but ATC transcript stresses they are not to land on 20 because of a conflict?

Looking at the sketch there appears to be an older disused runway and from the sketched drawing appears they maybe mistook that?
Livesinafield is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2018, 11:02
  #145 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 487
777fly- circling approaches were banned from most major's SOPs donkeys years ago. Very dangerous. Big difference to letting down with an aid to visual minima. The intention then to break out for a left or right downwind to the runway in use. Good fun in the little stuff but care needed in the big stuff. Wouldn't do it in anything at KTM.
Landflap is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2018, 11:10
  #146 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: bkk
Posts: 286
I dont agree with the last post entirely.Some time ago when my job was to route and airport check Captains into VNKT, one of the required checks was a VOR approach to 02 but followed with a circling approach to 20.This was practiced first in the SIM.The actual circle, WX permitting followed.No one failed to my knowledge, but I would not call it an easy exercise.Very good planning and handling was required.This was in a very large jet.
piratepete is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2018, 13:26
  #147 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Anvya
Posts: 4
It was F/O’s first flight into KTM ? Was this a training flight ?
KAPAC is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2018, 13:33
  #148 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: uk
Posts: 179
ATC says " you are going to 20" probably because they saw aircraft visually going right downwind for 20 having been too high for landing on 02. Now there's a potential problem because the next aircraft is already on finals for 02. For the uninitiated it is not normal to have aircraft landing from opposite directions at the same time on the same strip of concrete, so 211 has to keep out of the way until the runway is clear again.

One clue to this accident is likely to be that 211 had cancelled IFR and therefore the responsibility for avoiding other aircraft was his and not ATC.
portmanteau is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2018, 14:18
  #149 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,789
Originally Posted by Landflap View Post
777fly- circling approaches were banned from most major's SOPs donkeys years ago. Very dangerous. Big difference to letting down with an aid to visual minima. The intention then to break out for a left or right downwind to the runway in use. Good fun in the little stuff but care needed in the big stuff. Wouldn't do it in anything at KTM.
normal practice was to descend to a visual traffic pattern altitude then fly a proper downwind, base and final...it was done in both the 767, and the A-340..circling right down at circling minimums is another matter entirely
ironbutt57 is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2018, 14:22
  #150 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,220
Originally Posted by piratepete View Post
I dont agree with the last post entirely.Some time ago when my job was to route and airport check Captains into VNKT, one of the required checks was a VOR approach to 02 but followed with a circling approach to 20.This was practiced first in the SIM.The actual circle, WX permitting followed.No one failed to my knowledge, but I would not call it an easy exercise.Very good planning and handling was required.This was in a very large jet.
The plane, which was flying from the Bangladeshi capital, Dhaka, was a Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 turboprop and was 17 years old.
Not exactly a very large jet.
aterpster is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2018, 14:54
  #151 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,510
ATC says " you are going to 20" probably because they saw aircraft visually going right downwind for 20 having been too high for landing on 02

And then the question arises is how they came to be too high to land a turbo prop on a mega long runway. I'm not familiar with the approach flown: I heard it was a VOR/DME. Why would that be so difficult to be Soooo high at visual time?
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2018, 14:58
  #152 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 210
Originally Posted by iflytb20 View Post
. As per him it was the lady FO’s first flight to KTM.

^^
The above is a second hand information so I can’t vouch for the accuracy but it seems to correlate with what the other eyewitnesses saw.
Certain parts of the world, they seem to make a point of always stressing the pilot's gender after an incident if a woman was in the cockpit. Times of India seems particularly consistent on this point.
Gauges and Dials is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2018, 16:01
  #153 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 69
Posts: 2,609
I'm not familiar with the approach flown: I heard it was a VOR/DME.
Just a reminder ; there is no published VOR-DME approach for runway 20 , only for 02 .
20 is only VFR/Visual APP .
The Nepalese AIP is online if you want to check the various published approaches : Civil Aviation Authority Of Nepal
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2018, 16:12
  #154 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,789
watching the very tiny video of him climbing suddenly while turning toward the south east makes me wonder if he may have fallen to somotographic illusion to some degree, hence the descent as he crossed the runway and subsequent crash
ironbutt57 is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2018, 16:14
  #155 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,220
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher View Post
Just a reminder ; there is no published VOR-DME approach for runway 20 , only for 02 .
20 is only VFR/Visual APP .
Runway 20 is authorized for daytime circle to land:
Attached Images
File Type: jpg
VNKT-1.jpg (336.3 KB, 179 views)
File Type: jpg
VNKT-2.jpg (304.9 KB, 172 views)
File Type: jpg
VNKT-3.jpg (280.3 KB, 173 views)
aterpster is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2018, 16:29
  #156 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 69
Posts: 2,609
Runway 20 is authorized for daytime circle to land:
Yes, of course and all local domestic carriers are using 20 but but my point was that there is no published VOR-DME Approach for runway 20.
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2018, 16:32
  #157 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,220
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher View Post
Yes, of course and all local domestic carriers are using 20 but but my point was that there is no published VOR-DME Approach for runway 20.
Indeed you did. But, you also stated, "20 is only VFR/Visual APP." That implied to me there were no IAP CTL minima for Runway 20.
aterpster is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2018, 17:03
  #158 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 1,493
Originally Posted by portmanteau View Post

One clue to this accident is likely to be that 211 had cancelled IFR and therefore the responsibility for avoiding other aircraft was his and not ATC.
Despite being asked towards the end confirm you're VFR, I doubt you can take the utterly confused exchanges on the radio to be a genuine considered cancelling of IFR.
Daysleeper is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2018, 17:06
  #159 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 69
Posts: 2,609
aterpster
That implied to me there were no IAP CTL minima for Runway 20
You are right, there is in daytime. A 777 did one landing in 20 last year, caused a lot of rumbles and even made news headlines as locals were not used to see such a big one a few feet above their houses
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2018, 20:15
  #160 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 129
Have they found FDR/CVR?
Smott999 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.