'Plane crash' at Nepal's Kathmandu airport
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’.”
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’.”
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.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Leeds
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Looking at the sketch there appears to be an older disused runway and from the sketched drawing appears they maybe mistook that?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: bkk
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: uk
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not familiar with the approach flown: I heard it was a VOR/DME.
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
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Runway 20 is authorized for daytime circle to land:
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: n/a
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aterpster
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 
That implied to me there were no IAP CTL minima for Runway 20