Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Our priorities...

  1. #1
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,962

    Default Our priorities...

    Kind of sad...a plane load of folks go down and our thread activity centers on how an airline handles carry-on violins. (Yes, I am among the guilty).

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/myanmar-m...115123895.html
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    5,832

    Default

    A plane in Lukla broke off the clouds shortly before landing, the pilot pulled up. stalled and the plane crashed short of (and down below) runway and then went a quite bit more down the slope. 3 crew members, all rescued alive but badly hurt, one died upon arrival to the hospital, the other died that night, the third one seems to be recovering.

    AVH report with Video:
    http://avherald.com/h?article=4a9877a9&opt=0

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

  3. #3
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,962

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    A plane in Lukla broke off the clouds shortly before landing, the pilot pulled up. stalled and the plane crashed short of (and down below) runway and then went a quite bit more down the slope. 3 crew members, all rescued alive but badly hurt, one died upon arrival to the hospital, the other died that night, the third one seems to be recovering.

    AVH report with Video:
    http://avherald.com/h?article=4a9877a9&opt=0
    Never forget an approach I did in MSFS...Yes, there was some cowboy improvisation involved, but I was trying to be serious, and there was adequate ceiling and visibility. There were no paying passengers and my virtual butt was not on the line.

    Brief inattention and, then, "Cool, I broke out, I better [splat]". Since it was MSFS, I did say "pull up", and live to post about it. It was a valuable learning that extremely slight inattention could result in breaking out with too much negative vertical speed.

    Sad deal.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    5,832

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    adequate ceiling... "Cool, I broke out, I better [splat]".
    Sounds sort of incompatible, unless with "adequate" you mean adequate for an ILS appraoach. Lukla has no instrument approach, it's VFR only. And this pilot did have time to pull up. Too much.

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

  5. #5
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Sounds sort of incompatible, unless with "adequate" you mean adequate for an ILS appraoach. Lukla has no instrument approach, it's VFR only. And this pilot did have time to pull up. Too much.
    Isn't Lukla a sort of one-shot deal with little chance of a go around not ending in [splat!]? I guess when you break out low at 9,334 ft, there isn't much chance of climbing either. Your choices sir: CFIT or STALL? I guess I'd go with stall.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    5,832

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Isn't Lukla a sort of one-shot deal with little chance of a go around not ending in [splat!]? I guess when you break out low at 9,334 ft, there isn't much chance of climbing either. Your choices sir: CFIT or STALL? I guess I'd go with stall.
    So the first question is should't they have aborted the approach when they were at say 10100 ft (that is 1000 ft above the runway) and the runway was not in sight, or a soon as they lost the visual with the runway?

    As for CFIT or STALL, well, stall leads to OOCFIT, while you are in control you have a chance to recover or at least to try to crash smoother in a place of your choice (amnog the fe options you may have, like the crown of a leafy tree.

    Yes, go arounds in Lukla are tricky at best or impossible if started late, both for the high altitude that impacts climb performance as for the "box canyon" type of runway. But... airplanes approach Lukla in a descent (of course) what means that they were able to climb higher in the first place (typically at least 4500 ft higher to clear the mountains and get into the valley), so unless there is an engine failure the plane should have the ability to climb, even if not a "wow, look what a climb!" climb. And the terrain around the runway leaves room for a flat ample turn to the left.

    It is not something that I would recommend doing for fun, but if the alternative options are a CFIT or a stall-crash, I would give it a try.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LD5JhGMxow

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1DtWfPSVxs

    This video gives a nice view of the terrain to the left of the runway:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpzI6LUl71E

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

  7. #7
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,962

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    ...unless with "adequate" you mean adequate for an [ILS deleted] appraoach...
    Yes.

    AND, I have seen numerous, actual 2000 fpm descents in actual aircraft at some fairly low (< 4000 feet) altitudes...The point is, a relatively short attention lapse and you break out with a significant downward clip and inadequate time to react- even though the altitude is adequate for 'proper' operations.

    I note in the video, there was something of a 'big clear' dome around the airport, theoretically one might land visually 'without acrobatics' (except for Evans comments regarding EXTREME topography).
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Yes, go arounds in Lukla are tricky at best or impossible if started late, both for the high altitude that impacts climb performance as for the "box canyon" type of runway. But... airplanes approach Lukla in a descent (of course) what means that they were able to climb higher in the first place (typically at least 4500 ft higher to clear the mountains and get into the valley), so unless there is an engine failure the plane should have the ability to climb, even if not a "wow, look what a climb!" climb. And the terrain around the runway leaves room for a flat ample turn to the left.

    It is not something that I would recommend doing for fun, but if the alternative options are a CFIT or a stall-crash, I would give it a try.
    From the videos you posted, it doesn't appear that these aircraft have much climb performance in the go-around, especially in a constant bank, but they clear the trees and live to tell about it (or perhaps not tell about it).

    In the crash video, they seem to successfully arrest the descent rate but are misaligned. And then the climb/bank/stall which I take to be a go-around attempt. I suppose the pilot was pulling up relentlessly at that point out of tree trimming avoidance instinct, but it seems, with the luxury of hindsight and a clear thought process, the best move may have been to pull back just enough to arrest the descent, go full power, manuever as best you can and continue for a crashworthy landing somewhat on the runway. Kind of anti-intuitive though...

  9. #9
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,962

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    ...the best move may have been to pull back just enough to arrest the descent, go full power, manuever as best you can and continue for a crashworthy landing somewhat on the runway...
    Apologies for the following cowboy improvisation:

    I would also consider:

    -go to full power, pull back just enough to arrest the descent, maneuver as best you can and continue...

    -simultaneously go to full power (using right hand) and pull back just enough (left hand) to arrest the descent, maneuver as best you can and continue...

    Hopefully they consulted and ran the memory checklist, with call outs, so as to do all of this in the right procedural order, and did not confuse procedures on this aircraft vs. a C-130, C-172, or a C-5A.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •