Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 41

Thread: Nepal plane crash: Aircraft bursts into flames at Kathmandu airport

  1. #1
    Member ErezS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Ra'anana, Israel
    Posts
    446

    Default Nepal plane crash: Aircraft bursts into flames at Kathmandu airport

    A PASSENGER jet has crashed at Tribhuvan International Airport in Kathmandu, Nepal, leaving many feared dead.

    Witnesses reported seeing the plane crash while descending to Tribhuvan International Airport in Kathmandu, Nepal before crashing at a nearby football ground.
    Officials have not confirmed the status of passengers but fatalities are expected after the plane erupted into flames after crashing.
    Airport officials said 67 people were on board the plane when it crash landed at the airport, skid off the runway and burst into flames.
    Tourism Ministry Joint Secretary Suresh Acharya said 17 injured passengers were rushed to hospital. He did not confirm the status of the other passengers.


    Shocking photos taken at the scene of the crash show the extent of the damage to the plane.
    One image shows dozens of soldiers searching the wreakage of the plane, which is burned and crumpled.
    Another photos show emgergency crews facing a huge fire engulfing an area off the runway.


    The plane is believed to have been travelling from Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh, when it crashed in Kathmandu.
    An aviation official said the plane lost control as it attempted to land.
    Sanjiv Gautam said: “The aircraft was permitted to land from the Southern side of the runway flying over Koteshwor but it landed from the Northern side.
    “We are yet to ascertain the reason behind the unusual landing.”


    Flight trackers Air Live said: "A Bangladesh passenger aircraft ‘became unstable’ while descending, crashes at Nepal’s Kathmandu airport – airport official.
    "Casualties are feared after a plane crashed at the airport in Kathmandu, Nepal, sending a huge cloud of smoke into the air, say eyewitnesses."
    FlightRadar24 said the aircraft involved is a “17-year-old Bombardier Dash 8 Q400”.
    A spokesman for the airport said: “We are trying to bring the fire under control. Details are awaited.”



    One witness said on Twitter: “An Airplane just crashed at the Kathmandu International Airport. I saw it when it happened. OMG!"
    Rescue and emergency teams are at the scene.
    Officials said there were suspected “technical glitches” which made the plane “unstable” as it landed.


    https://www.express.co.uk/news/world...port-us-bangla



    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Kathmandu-plane-crash-930434.jpg 
Views:	68 
Size:	64.0 KB 
ID:	14339

  2. #2
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1

    Default

    I read a quote from the director general of the Civil Aviation Authority of Nepal that the plane landed from the north, but was supposed to approach from the south.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,129

    Default

    The avherald article has much more and interesting information.
    I can't extract just a part of it and I should not reproduce it here entirely due to (c), so go and read it by yourself:

    http://avherald.com/h?article=4b5fa1cb&opt=0

    My first bottom line is... I don't understand a thing of what transpired there or what was the plane doing or where it was going. It's not that RW 02 and RW 20 are close one to the other, they are the same strip of asphalt but in opposite directions.

    --- 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 ---

  4. #4
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,367

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    ...I don't understand a thing of what transpired there or what was the plane doing or where it was going...
    You don't think "serious on board problem, possibly including fire and/or control problems" might be consistent with what we are hearing?

    That has happened once or twice- so while it's speculation it's not total off-the-wall speculation.

    OR

    Do we just wait for the final report?

    Concur that it would be nice to get a little bit more information- in particular- the final final approach...if the plane made a halfway normal approach and touch down and then departed the runway...or if it the approach appeared ragged/distressed...or did the thing just fall out of the sky and happen to land on the airport?
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    You don't think "serious on board problem, possibly including fire and/or control problems" might be consistent with what we are hearing?
    I don't.

    --- 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 ---

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    I don't.
    I agree with Gabriel here, I listened to the ATC recording and it sure seems like the instructions were messed up.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
    I agree with Gabriel here, I listened to the ATC recording and it sure seems like the instructions were messed up.
    Oh, boy. Ok, here we go, let's copy-paste. Flyboy, forgive me for double-posting.

    Yes, that and more:

    Airplane is on final approach to Kathmandu's runway 02, cleared to land [Ok, so it's flying roughly North?]
    Then the aircraft turns left [Turn left like in small adjustment or like in make a left?]
    Tower: Do not turn towards runway 20, turn right [Uh? how can a left turn when in final approach to 02 will be an indication of going for 20?]
    Tower: Cleared to land runway 02
    Plane: Request to land on runway 20
    Tower: Ok, cleared to land runway 20
    Tower: Do you have runway 20 in sight? [Ok, so where on Earth is the plane heading at this point???]
    Plane: Negative
    Tower: Do you have runway 02 in sight?
    Plane: Affirmative
    Tower: Cleared the flight again to land on runway 02
    Then the plane buzzes the tower which is west of the runway
    And crashes in a football/soccer field east of the runway.

    What the heck???????


    Disclaimer: the radio conversation show above is not the actual one, it is a reconstruction from news reports, mainly from avherald, saying things like "the pilot said that he had the runway 02 in sight and the tower cleared them to land".

    --- 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 ---

  8. #8
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,129

    Default

    A couple dozens of high quality pictures of the crash scene here:

    Warning, one of the photos shows charred bodies. Discresion advised and watch at your own risk.
    https://www.infobae.com/america/foto...o-en-katmandu/

    The state of the plane (not talking about it being burned out, but the deformation and relative position of the parts) strengthens my thought that this was not a simple overrun or runway excursion.

    --- 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 ---

  9. #9
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,367

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    I don't.
    Well, since you can't figure how to explain what happened and you don't like my explanation, then I think your only choice is to wait for some more data.

    Until there's decent data from investigators (ideally including CVR and FDR information) (and not reported via questionable channels)- I think you are stuck waiting for a preliminary report, at best.

    I suppose it could have been a 'simple' unstabilized approach and failure to watch airspeed*...does not explain some of the crazy radio communication...but S-turns to burn altitude, desire to fly over and come back (and burn altitude)...

    Strange crashes call for broader speculation...

    *Gabe cites evidence it may have 'fallen from the sky' versus a touchdown/off-the-side.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,665

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Tower: Do not turn towards runway 20, turn right [Uh? how can a left turn when in final approach to 02 will be an indication of going for 20?
    DId they think he was just following the VOR down for 20 and then breaking off for a "downwind" to 02? The VOR is located about 4000ft before the 02 threshold on the extended centerline.

    That's a 5.5° final!

  11. #11
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,367

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    You don't think "serious on board problem, possibly including fire and/or control problems" might be consistent with what we are hearing?
    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel
    I don't.
    Semi-factual review: (with one bit of speculation)

    20 min of holding with no problems being mentioned at this point.

    Several indications of an intention to switch to 20...and a left turn towards downwind. (Possibly something bad is going wrong and they can't make runway 2 due to being too high/a number of other causes?).

    [missing data]

    Plane flies low over the terminal & Tower in a SE direction and crashes.

    Parlour Speculation regarding [missing data]:

    They indeed join a downwind BUT something bad has gone wrong and the plane turns back towards the airport in a last-ditch emergency landing effort...maybe they can't quite make the field (in terms of a decent approach to the runway), but they get close, on a Southeastish heading eventually wind up pulling up as best as they can to extend the glide, eventually reach that relentless level as they are out of altitude, speed and ideas and stall out...
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  12. #12
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,665

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Tower: Do not turn towards runway 20, turn right [Uh? how can a left turn when in final approach to 02 will be an indication of going for 20?]
    Like so?
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	vnkt_visual_circuits.jpg 
Views:	34 
Size:	64.5 KB 
ID:	14381  

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    189

    Default

    Latest comments on avherald say the plane landed on taxiway D which runs perpendicular to the runway...

  14. #14
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,367

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
    Latest comments on avherald say the plane SORT OF CRASH LANDED IN A SE DIRECTION on taxiway D which runs perpendicular to the runway AFTER PASSING LOW AND CLOSE TO THE TOWER AND TERMINAL...
    Fixed, I think.

    I think "landed on taxiway D" may be conveying way too much in the way of an 'intentional controlled action" as opposed to "a desperate non-ideal action or maybe even just a random occurrence".
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  15. #15
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,367

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Like so?
    I think Gabriel is saying, "How can the mere initiation of a left turn (which may have happened before any discussion) tell the tower that the plane is wanting to enter a right downwind for the other runway."

    Changing runway is a possibility, but that's not the only thing a left turn might indicate.

    Gabriel knows that a left turn is 'a method' to change runways.

    All that being said, I don't find anything here of remarkable significance, while Gabriel may be a bit more fixed on it. I believe that we don't have 'the full story' and that any number of things (or slightly different order of events) could have 'told' the tower they were thinking about 20.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  16. #16
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    I think Gabriel is saying, "How can the mere initiation of a left turn (which may have happened before any discussion) tell the tower that the plane is wanting to enter a right downwind for the other runway."

    Changing runway is a possibility, but that's not the only thing a left turn might indicate.

    Gabriel knows that a left turn is 'a method' to change runways.

    All that being said, I don't find anything here of remarkable significance, while Gabriel may be a bit more fixed on it. I believe that we don't have 'the full story' and that any number of things (or slightly different order of events) could have 'told' the tower they were thinking about 20.
    I was not fixed on anything, just confused.

    There is a bunch of new information in AvHerald, which adds both more clarity in some areas and not so much in others.

    Apparently, the plane entered the pattern for 20 after being cleared to land on 02. TWR advised that there was another plane approaching 02 and that they cannot land on 20 and to hold there, the plane was making 360s north to the airport in a position where it would make the base leg to RWY 20. Then TWR informed that the other plane had landed and the RWY was clear, cleared the plane to land RWY 20, and asked if they had the RWY on sight. When the crew said "no", TWR cleared to land on RWY 02. The plane entered a left pattern for RWY 02 and asked if they were cleared to land, TWR affirmed. Then the plane was seen overflying the international terminal in a southwesterly direction and "lanidng" on the perpendicular TWY.

    So maybe 3WE is right and something did happen in the downwind leg to RWY 02?

    --- 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 ---

  17. #17
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,367

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    I was not fixed on anything, just confused.
    Based on that original order of events (which is not known to be 100% accurate) your question was valid....Plane turns left, tower says, NO DON'T CHANGE RUNWAYS!...huhwuh?

    Then Evan puts up two posts to address it (and you seem to not buy into my onboard problem theory until now).

    Debate yes, foul no.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  18. #18
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,367

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    ***There is a bunch of new information in AvHerald, which adds both more clarity in some areas and not so much in others.***
    [...]

    Quote Originally Posted by The Everpresent Correct Statement
    Wait for the final report.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  19. #19
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,129

    Default


    --- 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 ---

  20. #20
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,665

    Default

    I'm interested to see the blood test results. There are some serious some cognitive issues there.

Posting Permissions

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