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

[Evan]

Good thing that shutting down the good engine never happened before. Especially not in an ATR. Especially not in an ATR that stalled and dropped a wing before crashing. Otherwise one may feel tempted to bring that hypothesis to the table.

That's definitely on the table. Of course. But, if I remember correctly, that stall occurred while trying to clear tall buildings and might have involved some desperate up-pulling.

[Gabriel]

That's definitely on the table. Of course. But, if I remember correctly, that stall occurred while trying to clear tall buildings and might have involved some desperate up-pulling.

What stall would not involve that? If they were busy with the doble engine failure, they would not stall UNLESS they pull back hard. The plane has speed & AoA stability. If the power disappears at once, the AoA doesn't increase.

[TeeVee]

yeah, this appears to have happened very quickly, but if the lead up to what we saw in that tiny video snippet was just the end, i may be surprised that there was no mayday...

[3WE]

But even both props going into feather at the same time is not a good reason in itself to stall.

Head Bang GIF - Drcox Scrubs Head - Discover & Share GIFs (tenor.com)

C'mon man...it's a pretty GOOD reason to stall...It's not like they had lots of altitude to burn...geemanity, didn't the video look like they were low, slow, and someone tried to get a little more altitude with a modest pull up...

By the way- did SOMEONE SAY ENGINE PROBLEM EARLIER?, because it's kind of unusual to just outright stall an ATR for no good reason...

AND HOW GD HARD IS IT TO "DOWNLOAD" THE CVR. You think there might be some important things there?

[Gabriel]

http://avherald.com/h?article=503c63e9&opt=0

Even more incredible. They didn't shut down the wrong engine, they shut down the wrong engines. It seems that they moved the condition levers to feather or something similar, instead of moving the flaps handle

[Gabriel]

And they flew almost 1 minute with no power without realizing. And then when the stickshaker shook, they stalled, which means they pulled up.

[flashcrash]

And they flew almost 1 minute with no power without realizing

How hard is it to notice in a twin-engine turboprop that both engines are feathering?

[Evan]

http://avherald.com/h?article=503c63e9&opt=0

Even more incredible. They didn't shut down the wrong engine, they shut down the wrong engines. It seems that they moved the condition levers to feather or something similar, instead of moving the flaps handle

That sort of error can only go undetected when the crew are distracted and neglecting to cross check. The levers are quite different. A major causative factor here seems to be the decision to break off the safer RWY 30 approach to familiarize with the new instrument approach to 12. Again, they seemed to be tunneling on navigation to the detriment of safe procedure.

[Evan]

And they flew almost 1 minute with no power without realizing. And then when the stickshaker shook, they stalled, which means they pulled up.

I don’t think so.

At 10:57:26, a second sequence of stick shaker warning was activated when the aircraft banked towards the left abruptly.

That would imply that the plane was not stalled or within the stickshaker regime when the turn was initiated, and that the turn was therefore intentionally abrupt.

The report suggests they first pulled up, got stickshaker, released back pressure to silence the warning and then turned abruptly, causing the accelerated stall.

[Gabriel]

I don’t think so.

At 10:57:26, a second sequence of stick shaker warning was activated when the aircraft banked towards the left abruptly.

That would imply that the plane was not stalled or within the stickshaker regime when the turn was initiated, and that the turn was therefore intentionally abrupt.

The report suggests they first pulled up, got stickshaker, released back pressure to silence the warning and then turned abruptly, causing the accelerated stall.

You are reading between the lines and interpreting it the way it fits your narrative. So I am going to do the same.

The report says that the aircraft banked to the left abruptly. Contrast that with the previous sentence "The flight crew then carried out the “Before Landing Checklist” before starting the left turn onto the base leg". See the active subject of the sentences? The aircraft vs the crew?

Then, we don't only have the report, we also have the video. In the video WE SEE that the plane pitches up immediately before the abrupt left bank. I don't see any other way that the plane can pitch up other than the crew pitching up. And the abrupt left bank that WE SEE in the video is clearly not intentional. The ailerons simply lack so much roll authority at such a low speed. That abrupt bank is undoubtedly the result of the left wing stalling before the right wing.

Finally, your sentence "they first pulled up, got stickshaker, released back pressure to silence the warning and then turned abruptly, causing the accelerated stall" makes no sense. Banking by itslef doesn't increase the load factor. You need to pull up, which you do after you bank, not before. And the abrupt bank and fall are simultaneous. And the pull up we can clearly see comes before both.

They pulled up causing or as a result of the second stickshaker, stalled, and the left wing abruptly dropped uncommented. I feel very confident about this being the correct sequence that explains what we see in the video and what we read in the report.

I agree that being distracted focused on navigating the pattern for the visual approach to runway 12 instead of the easy straight-in to 30, in detriment of paying attention to everything else, was a big factor in this accident. However, while being distracted is clearly a CAUSAL factor, electing that approach cannot be put in the causal chain, any more than electing to take off. The pilots NEED to be able to safely fly a pattern. It is a necessary and frequently used maneuver. These were 2 captains, and one of them was an instructor, for God's sake.

[Gabriel]

And they flew almost 1 minute with no power without realizing. And then when the stickshaker shook, they stalled, which means they pulled up.

I don’t think so.

Now, let's be absolutely clear on one thing. Aerodynamics 101 for pilots.

Think whatever you want. Regarding of whose interpretation is correct, the above sentence above is necessarily correct and almost tautological as 1+1=2. If they stalled is because they pulled up. Bank or no bank. No pull up, no stall. Period. Full Evan black-and-white mode here.

[Evan]

Now, let's be absolutely clear on one thing. Aerodynamics 101 for pilots.

Full Gabriel micromanaging mode. YES, they would have had to pull up in the turn BECAUSE they didn’t want to descend. Aerodynamics 101 for pilots.

The point of speculation here is whether that final bank was intentional and triggered the stall or was a consequence of the stall.

The wording of the report is not optimal in pointing this out, but, as it implies that the second stall warning came WHEN the bank was initiated, and that stall comes AFTER stall warning, it supports the speculation that the bank triggered the stall and not the other way around.

[Evan]

I agree that being distracted focused on navigating the pattern for the visual approach to runway 12 instead of the easy straight-in to 30, in detriment of paying attention to everything else, was a big factor in this accident. However, while being distracted is clearly a CAUSAL factor, electing that approach cannot be put in the causal chain, any more than electing to take off. The pilots NEED to be able to safely fly a pattern. It is a necessary and frequently used maneuver. These were 2 captains, and one of them was an instructor, for God's sake.

My stand on this is that, on revenue flights, the pilots should ALWAYS choose the safest available approach. ALWAYS. Period.

From the information I have gathered, that appears to be the nice, stabilized ILS approach to RWY 30. The winds information I have found does not indicate a tailwind component strong enough to cause concern. Furthermore, the other flights on this route on this day for which I could find tracks all landed on RWY 30. It seems pretty clear to me that the choice to fly a more dangerous first run on a visual circle to land at an unfamiliar aerodrome was done for training purposes. That training should be done in the sim (desktop would suffice for navigational training) or on non-revenue flights. If you lost someone on this flight because the airline was elevating risk to train pilots, you would understand.

When 12 is safer than 30, that’s the time to practice it on revenue flights.

[Gabriel]

Full Gabriel micromanaging mode. YES, they would have had to pull up in the turn BECAUSE they didn’t want to descend. Aerodynamics 101 for pilots.

The point of speculation here is whether that final bank was intentional and triggered the stall or was a consequence of the stall.

The wording of the report is not optimal in pointing this out, but, as it implies that the second stall warning came WHEN the bank was initiated, and that stall comes AFTER stall warning, it supports the speculation that the bank triggered the stall and not the other way around.

I just deleted my replay explaining why you are wrong. Because you are NOT wrong. You are delusional. You have become a flat earther.

I will just say one thing. What I CAN SEE in the video just doesn't fit your narrative. But it fits mine, and it doesn't contradict the preliminary report. It's like I am seeing a video of a cat jumping after seeing a cucumber, a not perfectly clear description of the video talks about an animal doing a sudden movement when it discovers a vegetable, and you interpret the description of the video as the dog waved his tail when he saw the pumpkin. I won't waste my time anymore.

But you are wrong. One final attempt and I am feeling pretty stupid for even trying: The stalled because they pulled up (we at least agree that there is no way around that), and they pulled up before the bank. PERIOD. Good luck.

[Gabriel]

My stand on this is ...

I don't care. But not surprisingly, you are wrong again. Pilots don't always take the safest course of action. Nor they should. You don't like it? Too bad. Fly your own plane, drive, or swim. That for sure is safer than a pilot taking a course of action that is less safe than the safest one.