Getting low on landing is not_the biggest risk: Nepal, 7,2024

[3WE]

https://avherald.com/h?article=51b861c3&opt=0

[3WE]

Of note: The plane bank to almost 90 degrees immediately after liftoff, and then recovers to roughly 15 degrees (someone at AvHeraldie), but apparently too late.

[Not_Karl]

From AvieHeraldie:

...the aircraft carried 2 pilots, 17 technicians but no passengers on a flight to Pokhara where maintenance was to be done.

[3WE]

That's why as part of a stall recovery you must never use ailerons without reducing the AoA first.

¿Por qué estás usando términos absolutos? ¿Qué hay de malo en evitar el uso de alerones y centrarse en el timón verboten?

Not_Karl’s suggestion of something NEEDING to be fixed is interesting.

The timeline seems a little short for a takeoff, stall and bank to 90 degrees, I’d bet more on something else causing the bank…but we shall see.

[Gabriel]

That's why as part of a stall recovery you must never use ailerons without reducing the AoA first.

¿Por qué estás usando términos absolutos?

Because, in this case, it's quite absloute. NO AILERONS WHILE STALLED (if your intention is to recover).

¿Qué hay de malo en evitar el uso de alerones y centrarse en el timón verboten?

What's wrong with avoiding using the ailerons and focus in the verboten rudder?

I don't know what's verboten, but there's nothing wrong with that. It's the same than I am saying. No ailerons.

The timeline seems a little short for a takeoff, stall and bank to 90 degrees, I’d bet more on something else causing the bank…but we shall see.

I tend to agree with that. But if the take-off was no flaps / no slats by mistake, perhaps they were stalled since liftoff. (note the IF)

[elaw]

I tend to agree with that. But if the take-off was no flaps / no slats by mistake, perhaps they were stalled since liftoff. (note the IF)

Concur.

My other (parlour-talking of course) theory is an engine failure* on takeoff, plus unwillingness to push the nose down due to (real or perceived) large chunks of granite in the flight path.

* Or accidental/uncommanded prop feather?

[Gabriel]

engine failure*
* Or accidental/uncommanded prop feather?

You surely can't be serious. Do you know what the J stands for in CRJ?

[elaw]

engine failure*
* Or accidental/uncommanded prop feather?

You surely can't be serious. Do you know what the J stands for in CRJ?

Yeah and I also know I'm an idiot! I get this accident mixed up in my head with the TransAsia 235 crash, because to me the videos look similar.

I do still think "unexpected loss of power on one side" could have been a thing here.

[Not_Karl]

Quote: Berntie, there.
A no-flaps takeoff would have meant that the takeoff config warning would have been inop...

Or ignored (it has happened).

...plus the stick pusher must have been inop too...

Or overridden (it has happened).

[Gabriel]

Quote: Berntie, there.
A no-flaps takeoff would have meant that the takeoff config warning would have been inop...

Or ignored (it has happened).

Líneas Aéreas Privadas Argentinas

...plus the stick pusher must have been inop too...

Or overridden (it has happened).

Mmmm. I crave for a Diet Pepsi at four one oh.

[Verbal]

Incorrect speed record card caused 2024 Nepal plane crash, panel says
Reuters 07/18/2025
Author: Gopal Sharma

KATHMANDU (Reuters) -A passenger plane crash in Nepal last year that killed 18 people was caused by faulty information about the aircraft's takeoff speed in the flight documentation, a report issued on Friday by a government-appointed investigation panel said.

A CRJ-200LR aircraft, owned by Nepal's Saurya Airlines, crashed shortly after taking off from the capital Kathmandu in July last year, killing all 17 passengers and the co-pilot. Only the captain survived.

The crash was caused by a "deep stall during take-off because of abnormally rapid pitch rate commanded at a lower-than-optimal rotation speed", the report submitted to the government said.

Aviation expert Nagendra Prasad Ghimire told Reuters the aircraft made a premature takeoff before gaining the necessary speed.

The report said errors in a speed card - a document that provides important airspeed information for a specific aircraft, particularly during takeoff, climb and landing - had gone unnoticed and the airline had failed to address previous cases of a high pitch rate - the rate at which an aircraft's nose rotates up or down - during take-off.

It said there had been gross negligence and non-compliance by the operator during the entire process of cargo and baggage handling.

It recommended all operators review their speed cards and comply with the requirements of cargo and baggage handling.

The panel also asked the Civil Aviation Authority of Nepal (CAAN) to review the procedure for permitting non-scheduled flights.

CAAN spokesman Babu Ram Paudel declined comment, saying he had not seen the report.

Saurya Airlines will do "everything necessary" to implement the recommendations, operation manager Bivechan Khanal said.The crash focused attention on the poor air safety record of landlocked Nepal, which is heavily dependent on air connectivity.

In 2013 the European Union, citing safety concerns, banned air carriers certified in Nepal from flying the European sky.

[Gabriel]

Deleted.

[Verbal]

Okay.

[3WE]

Deleted.

I’m guessing it was a bunch of word’s about how fundamental stall avoidance is and how stall warning systems are pretty decent and how Gabe flew Bobbie’s simulator through something similar using his basic aeroengineer and Tommahawk credentials.

My response is that after a bazillion flights focusing 100% on procedures and recurrent engine cuts within 1 knot of V-1 where you are evaluated on making the correct call on go/no-go, you get so focused, and tunnel visioned and ingrained on nailing the book speeds, that nose-lowering is somewhat forgotten.

[3WE]

…or at least, takes a few extra seconds to come back to your brain while the plane is doing nasty, WTP? things you weren’t expecting from your otherwise totally normal day.

…a few extra seconds you don’t have…

[Gabriel]

Deleted.

I’m guessing it was a bunch of word’s about how fundamental stall avoidance is

Yes

and how stall warning systems are pretty decent and how Gabe flew Bobbie’s simulator through something similar using his basic aeroengineer and Tommahawk credentials.

No.

My response is that after a bazillion flights focusing 100% on procedures and recurrent engine cuts within 1 knot of V-1 where you are evaluated on making the correct call on go/no-go, you get so focused, and tunnel visioned and ingrained on nailing the book speeds, that nose-lowering is somewhat forgotten.

Well that's a problem because, well, how fundamental stall avoidance is. Stall avoidance / recovery should be prioritized over any other procedure or action. The stickshaker was shaking continuously and the stick pusher also pushed a few times. Trying to control the roll with the airplane still stalled was the ultimate cause of the accident. Like in most stall accidents, the plane didn't stall and fall. It stalled, rolled uncontrollably (in response to pilot's input but in a condition of seriously degraded lateral controllability and stability) and THEN fell.

The reason why I deleted my post is because, after posting it, I downloaded and red (partially) the final report instead of just the news. The cause is mentioned as DEEP stall caused by the initial over rotation. Once you are in a DEEP stall, with the stabilizer blanked in the wake of the wing, the elevator may not be super effective to lower the nose. In fact, the FDR plot show that the elevator, short of being shoved forward, did return to a more normal position after the initial stall but the AoA did not reduce, with the investigators mentioning the DEEP stall as a probable cause for that behavior. So maybe the pilot di a reasonable, albeit unsuccessful, effort to recover from the stall after all.

[3WE]

Deleted.

I’m guessing it was a bunch of word’s about how fundamental stall avoidance is.

Yes

Ha!

[Deep stall]

Interesting.

[3WE]

or not_?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RA7nMA ... cJAYcqIYzv