ATR, Nepal, Jan 2023

[3WE]

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

Includes a video of low, slow, dragging flight, and apparent stall/spin in severe VMC.

Speculative ass-umption of engine failure fb energy mismanagement…or some bigger failure.

[Gabriel]

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

Includes a video of low, slow, dragging flight, and apparent stall/spin in severe VMC.

Speculative ass-umption of engine failure fb energy mismanagement…or some bigger failure.

I will not_link the video taken from inside the cabin.

[3WE]

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

Includes a video of low, slow, dragging flight, and apparent stall/spin in severe VMC.

Speculative ass-umption of engine failure fb energy mismanagement…or some bigger failure.

I will not_link the video taken from inside the cabin.

Sooner or later that (video of on-board death dive from 23A) was going to happen…and indeed, disturbing.

Edit: Can’t say for certain, but the mood of the passengers seems like nothing was KNOWN to be wrong until the wing drop, although the plane did look low, something was possibly wrong.

[3WE]

I don’t buy in to Evan’s idea of an inadvertent stall from a flap-less go-around…

Conversely, this was apparently some sort of for-rating flight, were they doing something unusual?…a little slow flight? (grasping at straws acknowledged)

[Gabriel]

Can’t say for certain, but the mood of the passengers seems like nothing was KNOWN to be wrong until the wing drop

I had the same impression. It was all hey we are arriving, nice, oh shit, crash, fire.

although the plane did look low, something was possibly wrong.

I mentioned there that it looked to me that the plane was low.
Now, the plane was less than 1.5 NM from the touchdown zone. That would put it at some 400 ft above the runway in a 3deg glide slope. If the terrain was higher in the zone of the crash, that may explain the apparent low altitude.

[Gabriel]

And an Argie woman was killed in the crash.

[3WE]

I see the discussion, there about right rudder (and maybe an engine not powered.)

Back to my first comment…

I see all these press conferences and cameras, and reporters and official spokespersons, and data like: “The pilots did/didn’t report problems to ATC”… can’t be found.

[3WE]

Whoops… when you are typing/reading on internet fora, beware crashes in good weather with an engine out…Subscripts take extra effort and creativity.

[Gabriel]

From AvHerald:

​​​​​​​There are currently two fake videos making the rounds:

1) The "onboard" passenger video claimed to have been streamed live. This was another flight until the point the video suddenly gets blurred and shows some sort of crash scene. It does NOT show the aircraft rolling in etc. Clearly falsified video.

2) The video from the other side showing an engine fire. This aircraft rolls to the right rather than the left. There is no evidence of fire on the authentic video published in the coverage. This video from the right is thus not credible whatsoever with respect to this Yeti Crash.

There is no point in trying to discuss either of these videos here in the reader comments, any reference to them will be deleted.

[3WE]

From AvHerald:

​​​​​​​***The "onboard" passenger video claimed to have been streamed live. This was another flight until the point the video suddenly gets blurred and shows some sort of crash scene. It does NOT show the aircraft rolling in etc. Clearly falsified video.***

The dude, there, makes an interesting argument that he confirmed landmarks out the window, and that the guys name checked out (less convincing- just because the internet can be wonky).

BUT, if that video exists elsewhere, and I guess someone has already analyzed it and possibly detected hard breaks...

I redundantly state that the modern dichotomy of near nothing in official information and a plethora of cowboy monkey information (some of which IS correct) makes things difficult.

[3WE]

The two Evans:

The dude who seems to have committed all old Airbus manuals to memory.

The one who looks at a map and decides that the pilots may have done an accelerated stall in a 60 degree bank, and that there would be no warning, all because the pilots are not familiar with an approach.

[3WE]

Here’s some bizarre speculation:

Aircraft dirty AND burned some altitude and speed making a turn (I don’t disagree that they may have done a “big” turn as part of the approach), so we move the palm oil levers forward AND THEN THE ENGINE FAILS and resulting speed loss and distraction leads to a stall.

[3WE]

All the talk there is as though the FB live video is real…

Well, is it, or isn’t it?

[Gabriel]

All the talk there is as though the FB live video is real…

Well, is it, or isn’t it?

I think it is. It is an ATR. It is the right location. It is a clear sky daytime flight. And I saw several news report where the family confirmed that the guy was live-streaming and did dieded in the crash. Maybe it is confirmation bias but I also seem to see that the plane is nose-high.

If it is fake, it is a very good (and very bad taste) deep fake.

That said, Simon is usually good at uncovering fakes.

[3WE]

All the talk there is as though the FB live video is real…

Well, is it, or isn’t it?

I think it is. It is an ATR. It is the right location. It is a clear sky daytime flight. And I saw several news report where the family confirmed that the guy was live-streaming and did dieded in the crash. Maybe it is confirmation bias but I also seem to see that the plane is nose-high.

If it is fake, it is a very good (and very bad taste) deep fake.

That said, Simon is usually good at uncovering fakes.

Discussion/dissection, not _argument:

The turn to crash, and the crash itself seem too brief.

Aside from that, who knows.

FDR and CVR would be useful.

[ocelot]

The BBC decided they thought it was real: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-64287331

They do not know any more about aviation than the rest of the popular press, but they do probably know something about fake videos. On the other hand, so does Simon. So I dunno. Not enthusiastic about watching it to form my own opinion.

Anyway, though, even if this one isn't real, sooner or later one will be, and it definitely raises questions.

[3WE]

***Not enthusiastic about watching it to form my own opinion.***

If you have reservations, don’t watch it. There is one bit of useful information (As already stated), it appears to show a very normal environment and then the floor as the wing falls.

[3WE]

Double posting: Wanton Speculation that a problem with the pitot-static system was telling them they were faster than they were (based on some reports of altitude anomalies/radar contact issues earlier in the flight)?

[Gabriel]

Double posting: Wanton Speculation that a problem with the pitot-static system was telling them they were faster than they were (based on some reports of altitude anomalies/radar contact issues earlier in the flight)?

Well, icing was certainly not an issue. And other than icing or human error on the ground (leaving pitot covers on the pitots, leaving masking tape on the static ports), which should have been caught very early in the flight, or the unlikely multiple bird strike, I can't think of another way of failing both pitot-static systems at the same time. So impossible? No. But very unlikely. (I know, airplane crash are very infrequent so the cause doesn't need to be a likely one).

But maybe ONE system was telling the PF that they were high/fast? And the PM didn't M?

Where did you get the wanton speculation from?

[3WE]

Double posting: Wanton Speculation that a problem with the pitot-static system was telling them they were faster than they were (based on some reports of altitude anomalies/radar contact issues earlier in the flight)?

Where did you get the wanton speculation from?

I think comments over at AvHerald, and maybe PPRUNE... a few comments of very low altitude readouts and loss of radar contact ENROUTE (not_the approach phase). THAT BEING SAID, there were other comments that the plane had an old POS transponder that was sending bad data... That explanation makes things a little more wanton.

By the way- while Evan is driving me crazy with his off-base steep turns on unfamiliar approaches- DO WE THINK THAT MAYBE the pilots DID make a big turn (lots of degrees at a reasonable bank) which CERTAINLY CAN BURN AIRSPEED/ALTITUDE, and then arrived on final dangerously slow, just shy of stall warning speed and then a little sloppiness and pull up and...???

That goes in the "Not Monitoring Airspeed" bucket NOT_the "Poorly Designed Approach Forcing Unfamiliar Pilots to Make 60 Degree Banks" bucket.

[Gabriel]

Double posting: Wanton Speculation that a problem with the pitot-static system was telling them they were faster than they were (based on some reports of altitude anomalies/radar contact issues earlier in the flight)?

Where did you get the wanton speculation from?

I think comments over at AvHerald, and maybe PPRUNE... a few comments of very low altitude readouts and loss of radar contact ENROUTE (not_the approach phase). THAT BEING SAID, there were other comments that the plane had an old POS transponder that was sending bad data... That explanation makes things a little more wanton.

By the way- while Evan is driving me crazy with his off-base steep turns on unfamiliar approaches- DO WE THINK THAT MAYBE the pilots DID make a big turn (lots of degrees at a reasonable bank) which CERTAINLY CAN BURN AIRSPEED/ALTITUDE, and then arrived on final dangerously slow, just shy of stall warning speed and then a little sloppiness and pull up and...???

That goes in the "Not Monitoring Airspeed" bucket NOT_the "Poorly Designed Approach Forcing Unfamiliar Pilots to Make 60 Degree Banks" bucket.

I don't think that this last turn had to be anything out of the ordinary. I also think that if they had cranked the aileron left after the pull up, the right wing would have dropped (kind of a snap roll).

My absolute and baseless speculation is that they came to the realization that the approach was horrible and decided to go-around, for which they pulled up and the rest can be seen in the video.

[ocelot]

I don't think there's any reason to think the bank we know about was commanded and I don't think there's any reason to suppose a different earlier one.

[3WE]

My absolute and baseless speculation is that they THEY WEREN'T MONITORING AIRSPEED and came to the realization that the approach was horrible and decided to go-around, for which they pulled up and the rest can be seen in the video.

1. Fixed.

2. I agree with most of us that they stalled from a mundane ATTITUDE, but why? Your idea may be right, I'm still thinking an engine problem, and there's other straws to grasp at.

3. Still no word on CVR or FDR to address some of the big questions like these.

[3WE]

...I don't think there's any reason to suppose a different earlier one.

There was a different, earlier turn of about 180-degrees (+).

Evan has been all hung up that a steep 60 degree turn caused an accelerated stall (with no stalll warning) because the approach was poorly designed and the crew had never flown the approach before.

While he's been grossly off-base, it's a fact that a 180 degree turn might be expected to burn some speed and/or altitude IF NORMAL AIRPERSONSHIP IS NOT_USED TO ADDRESS IT.

And Evan said "It might be a FACTOR".

So, I put on my science hat and say, yeah, a big (reasonable) turn MIGHT have burned some airspeed and (if they weren't paying attentinon) left them low and or slow...he MIGHT have a point.

We have tried to explain the other fallacies in his statements, but we haven't used enough acronyms and do not_have paragraph references to the ATR-72-212A FCOM, therefore our comments are not_worth considering.

[Gabriel]

3. Still no word on CVR or FDR to address some of the big questions like these.

Just that they were recovered and sent for analysis.