ATR-72 crash at PKR, Nepal. Many fatalities feared.

[Evan]

evan, there are lots of airports around the world that do NOT have long, easy, straight in finals, and require substantial maneuvering up to very late. this is one of the reasons for having "captain only" take-offs and landings.

again, i'm pretty sure we are going to see that this terrible tragedy was related to the singular act of feathering, nothing else. yeah, i know you're all gonna jump on me and say to add their failure to realize the mistake....

I don't need to jump on you. The Interim Report already places focus on the RWY 12 visual approach and implies that it is unsafe.

2 SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION

2.1 The investigation will focus on:
a)The Circumstances under which both propellers went into the feathered condition
b(Human Factors
c)Visual approach procedures into Pokhara International Airport including simultaneous operation of both national and international airports.

3 INTERIM SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 The Aircraft Accident Investigation Commission has recommended the following interim safety recommendation:
 The CAAN should conduct a comprehensive study to determine the appropriate flight path that allows the criteria for a stabilised visual approach to be met, taking into consideration of the simultaneous operations at both VNPK and VNPR airports before resuming visual approach on Runway 12 of VNPR.

Specifically, it does not afford stability on the final:

1.8.4 From the retrieved FDR data, the investigation team was able to recover the flight path of the event flight and another flight on 12 Jan 23, where another set of crew landed on Runway 12 of VNPR.
1.8.5 Due to the shortened final approach leg for runway 12, in both the flight the stabilization criteria for a visual approach could not be stabilized at the height of 500ft AGL.

But, more germane to this accident, it is a time-compressed, high-workload approach, particularly for those who have not been familiarized with the navigation and maneuvering criteria.

Did I mention that a nice long, perfectly stable ILS approach was available here?

[Gabriel]

I don't need to jump on you. The Interim Report already places focus on the RWY 12 visual approach and implies that it is unsafe.

The issue I have with that is that, in general, there are no specific visual approach charts for most runways in most airports. In most cases, there is a lot of latitude on how a visual approach can be flown. A long straight in, a right base to a 5-miles final, a traffic pattern, etc, etc, etc...

There are runways that have limitations (traffic pattern south of the runway only), there are more specific visual approach procedures in busy or complex airspace (La Guardia) or where the terrain is particularly challenging (I am familiar for example with the approach to Ushuaia's old airport, you would die of multiple harts attack). But the investigators didn't mention any of that. They didn't say that the pilots followed the visual F4-J20 visual approach to runway 12.

If, as I suspect, there is not specific visual approach chart published for this runway, and there is no reason to have one, then the problem can never be that "the visual approach is unsafe", only, perhaps, that what they did, what they elected to execute, was unsafe.

So when you, and the investigators, talk about "the approach", are you talking about an external factor (a visual approach procedure) or about how the pilots flew?

Did I mention that a nice long, perfectly stable ILS approach was available here?

Objection. Irrelevant. Nice long perfectly stable ILS approaches are available many times when however non-straight-in visual approaches are flown. Pilots need to be able to fly visual approaches safely. If not, they need to be trained so they do, or they need to stop being pilots.

[Evan]

If, as I suspect, there is not specific visual approach chart published for this runway, and there is no reason to have one, then the problem can never be that "the visual approach is unsafe", only, perhaps, that what they did, what they elected to execute, was unsafe.

I suspect you are right. I think what the investigators will recommend is a published approach that can allow for a longer final. But it will still involve a short base leg and challenging terrain.

Objection. Irrelevant. Nice long perfectly stable ILS approaches are available many times when however non-straight-in visual approaches are flown. Pilots need to be able to fly visual approaches safely. If not, they need to be trained so they do, or they need to stop being pilots.

Pilots need to fly the safest approach available, especially when the visual is this challenging. Or they need to stop being airline pilots.

[Gabriel]

Pilots need to fly the safest approach available

Once again, no. Pilots don't need nor should take the safest course of action. Just one that meets the required safety level, which is very high. The safest course of action is, many times, inconvenient in one way or another, be it for the current mission or longer term objectives. Practicality, schedule, economics, and other factors almost always take precedence to replace "the safest course of action" with another one that, not being the safest one, is still safe. Again, if you don't like it, you can fly your own plane the way you like, or drive, or swim.

[3WE]

Cement Head (not_Gabriel):

I don't know that your head will blow up, but you are at a really critical juncture for your black and white mind...

You have a point- did this crew rush themselves, and was that a contributing factor???...might be.

But, as Gabriel has said, landing a plane is a busy time, and if you dig too much deeper, I fear you may never get on a plane again. And you better get started on a letter-writing campaign, including firing a whole shit pot of people at many organizations, and at least a temporary grounding of most of the world aviation system.

Look at this. United 737 Wing Hits Runway on Landing - YouTube Sure, naughty pilots, but look at the approach....look at that incredible turn that must be made at ZLINGER....surely 73 degrees of bank is required. And this challenging approach and some weather is definitely a factor in this wingtip scrape. Listen to Kelsey: "I was soooooooo busy, I never had a chance to look out the window. Shit, that sort of workload can lead to pulling the wrong lever! Seems to me that we should be using runway 31 and a much longer, relaxed ILS...you think?

Then let's look at what pilots often consider one of the bigger challenges as they become Jetpilots: Everything happens so fast...arrival at landing fixes, markers, critical altitudes.

And remember, the worst part isn't the rush...it's the familiarity! Yep, I'm comfortable with the bicycle...just another day landing this big, fat ATR with it's long narrow glider wings and nice gentle flight characteristics.

It doesn't really mean a whole lot to be "stabilized" at 500 feet and not_on a full ILS approach. It's much more about "do we have it together, or are we truly behind".

OH SHIT LOOK AT THIS!!!!! ILS approach into Boston on Cape Air - YouTube

BAN ALL AIRPLANES!

Footnote: Oh shit, we crashed a bicycle: https://youtu.be/Y0f4EPTtBeI

Big Wheel 1978 Toy Commercial - YouTube (Excessive PSI to the brakes here)

[3WE]

Once again, no. Pilots don't need nor should take the safest course of action. Just one that meets the required safety level, which is very high. The safest course of action is, many times, inconvenient in one way or another, be it for the current mission or longer term objectives. Practicality, schedule, economics, and other factors almost always take precedence to replace "the safest course of action" with another one that, not being the safest one, is still safe. Again, if you don't like it, you can fly your own plane the way you like, or drive, or swim, or ride a bicycle.

Fixed.

[Evan]

Once again, no. Pilots don't need nor should take the safest course of action. Just one that meets the required safety level, which is very high. The safest course of action is, many times, inconvenient in one way or another, be it for the current mission or longer term objectives. Practicality, schedule, economics, and other factors almost always take precedence to replace "the safest course of action" with another one that, not being the safest one, is still safe. Again, if you don't like it, you can fly your own plane the way you like, or drive, or swim.

Were just going to disagree on this. Aviation safety has competing philosophies, like protected aircraft vs pilot-supremacy. My philosophy is that the approach should always be done on the safest path available, meaning also not impractical, not economically unreasonable. And always, always, always stable by the final gate. And any pilot in any commercial cockpit must be able to fly whatever approach is available BEFORE they get to revenue flights.

Any flight that I've paid to be on IS my own plane when it comes down to risk. If they don't like it, they can fly their own plane the way they like.

In this flight, there was nothing preventing them from taking the safer precision RWY 30. Nothing inconvenient or costly about it. Instead, they took an unfamiliar, non-precision approach involving tight terrain conflicts and tight maneuvering. And they did this for training purposes. With passengers on board. Who are now all dead. Let me know if you ever come to see the problem with that.

[Gabriel]

I mentioned Ushuaia before.

Start watching from about 1/2 of the video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7TrAiUo6Iw

This is same approach, same aircraft type, different day, seen from outside:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNVGWavG1ro

Not even a PAPI or VASI was available.

[Gabriel]

Were just going to disagree on this. Aviation safety has competing philosophies, like protected aircraft vs pilot-supremacy. My philosophy is that the approach should always be done on the safest path available, meaning also not impractical, not economically unreasonable. And always, always, always stable by the final gate. And any pilot in any commercial cockpit must be able to fly whatever approach is available BEFORE they get to revenue flights.

Actually, I pretty much agree with that. If you include other factors inside the word "available". And it is not immediately clear to me that any of these concepts were violated in this accident.

Any flight that I've paid to be on IS my own plane when it comes down to risk. If they don't like it, they can fly their own plane the way they like.

Nope. Airlines and pilots do things that are riskier than they could in a specific flight, because of reasons, which may ironically include safety.
For example, if the pilot of your flight doesn't need to do visual traffic pattern approach, because another safer approach is available, you (Evan) will not want him to do it. But if he NEEDS to do it, I am sure that you would like that your pilot practiced a visual traffic pattern approach more recently than 2 years ago in the sim. Right? So guess what? The pilot may say "screw Evan, I have a nice straight in but I have the opportunity to practice a riskier visual traffic pattern to keep my skills honed". And Evan will screw. Not the pilot. Not the airline. They, not you, decide how to operate their flights. Your only choice is flying with them or not. If YOU don't like it, you can fly another airline that flies like you want. But because you are not going to find it, you can fly your own plane or drive. I am sure that that will be safer. We can say the same about disconnecting the AP at the IAF and hand-flying an approach in IMC, instead of disconnecting at 200ft just for the flare. Or about reduced thrust take-offs. Or about RIF instead of leaving payload (like Evan) off the plane, or intersection take-offs, or ATC landing planes in a crosswind because the runway that is aligned with the wind is being used for take-off, or, or, or...

And note: riskier doesn't mean risky.
The secret is not to take the safest option but to make sure that the least safe option is more than safe enough.

they did this for training purposes. With passengers on board.

Happens all the time. Or do you think that you can practice everything that there is to be practiced in the sim every 6 months and then you can keep your proficiency until the next session? Or have you heard of training captains? Or initial line experience? You don't like it? Well, you know what to do.

[3WE]

I mentioned Ushuaia before.

Start watching from about 1/2 of the video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7TrAiUo6Iw

This is same approach, same aircraft type, different day, seen from outside:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNVGWavG1ro

Not even a PAPI or VASI was available.

Extremely unstable by Evan’s procedural definition.

Extremely stable and on target by true definitions.

Impossible to reconcile, unless you can comprehend gray areas and recognize that the crew is flying competently and safely.

[TeeVee]

very relevant. hell even the same aircraft type.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Duq9GUAesHQ

note: up to 200' they were still banking pretty steeply.

[Not_Karl]

Yep, I'm comfortable with the bicycle...

INSANITY.

BAN ALL AIRPLANES!

CONCUR.

I mentioned Ushuaia before.

Evan was Not_a paying customer in those flights, therefore the aeroplanie wasn't his to take the safest course of action (which is always Not_taking off in the first place).

Fixed.

NO.

[Evan]

For example, if the pilot of your flight doesn't need to do visual traffic pattern approach, because another safer approach is available, you (Evan) will not want him to do it.

Correct. Safety takes precedence.

But if he NEEDS to do it

Then safety takes precedence and it is the thing to do.

I am sure that you would like that your pilot practiced a visual traffic pattern approach more recently than 2 years ago in the sim.

Indeed. As would anyone on any flight. But if pilots are going to get that first practice on a revenue flight, then someone's flight HAS to be that first time flight.

Better them than us, is that what you're saying? Let them be the crash test dummies?

Better to get that practice on the sim and/or a non-revenue training flight, or, if the airline is too cheap to care that much about safety, then at least when it comes along with the justification of being the wiser approach for other reasons. Consider the fallout here: It will come out that this flight would not have crashed if they had remained on their assigned ILS approach. Then the question will be asked: "why didn't they?" If the answer was, "Due to strong tailwinds, a visual approach to the opposite runway was deemed the safer path to take", then it could seem justified.

If the answer is merely, "Because we wanted our pilot to be practiced on a brand new, unfamiliar, challenging, terrain-restricted, tight-maneuvering and definitively unstabilized visual traffic pattern approach", I can see some justified anger amongst the families of the victims.

[Evan]

I mentioned Ushuaia before.

Start watching from about 1/2 of the video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7TrAiUo6Iw

This is same approach, same aircraft type, different day, seen from outside:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNVGWavG1ro

Not even a PAPI or VASI was available.

That's awesome. Just never do this on a revenue flight unless there is absolutely no safer alternative. It's not 1993 anymore. Thank god.

Ushuaia RWY 25 now has an ILS precision approach. When it is available, it's much safer.

[Evan]

Also, I'm not saying ban all non-precision visual approaches. I've been on quite a few of these, multiple maneuvers, obviously handflown, never time compressed or rushed. But they always established on final above 500'. The problem with Pokhara is that such an approach to RWY 12 does not seem possible inside the local terrain. It seems rather obvious that the runway alignment was chosen to align with the valleys that accommodate long stable finals from either runway. The only safe visual approach there for large passenger flights might have to be done at higher altitudes much further afield.