Turkish Airlines A330-300 has crash-landed in Kathmandu (Nepal)

[sn26567]

A Turkish Airlines A330-300 has crash-landed in Kathmandu (Nepal) this morning. After a second approach due to fog, the aircraft veered left off the runway and came to a stop with all gear on soft ground and the nose gear collapsed. Four people were injured during the evacuation.



Story in The Aviation Herald: http://avherald.com/h?article=482a5e9e&opt=0

[sn26567]

Another view of the crash:



The A330-300 operating flight TK726 (TC-JOC) is less than 1 year old.

[cathay belgium]

Hi,

Don't think it will be a hull loss... what do you think?

CXB

[sn26567]

I also think that the aircraft can be fully recovered.

[jan_olieslagers]

And I think the pilots managed to lose zero human lives - bravo! Who cares about the aircraft hull, well covered by insurance anyway?

[Flanker2]

Jan, wait to call the pilot heroes... Accidents don't happen without cause and it looks like there was a thick fog and avhearld says:

Nepal's Civil Aviation Authority reported one of the wheels had touched down off the runway, the tyre burst, the aircraft subsequently veered left. 4 people received minor injuries during the evacuation.

IMO there was no need to evacuate the aircraft through the slides. I think that cabin crew opened the doors too soon out of panic, explaining why there were so many open doors.
Sliding off an A330 can be impressively high and cause injury to older/weaker people.
Passengers could have waited until stairs were available as they were all calmly seated if we see the video's.
In fact, you either evacuate through the slides and order them to leave their belongings behind, or you allow them to take their belongings with them and calmly disembark from the stairs, avoiding injuries and unnecesary commotion.


Imo TK has problems in the safety department as I noticed last week. Their IST taxiways, ramps and runways are covered with FOD ranging from fist-sized stones to plastic and even metal pieces large enough to be seen from the cabin.
Inside the aircraft: broken tray tables, misaligned cabin side panels showing poor workmanship, leaking airco ducts whistling air into the cabin (other pax probably didn't realise that it's not supposed to be like that).
Mechanically, engines vibrating at flight idle, probably due to fan imbalance.
And that's only what I was able to notice as pax on a single flight...

At first glance it's repairable, but at least one engine, will be write-off and weather radar and landing gears can be replaced. One has to see what the damage is at the front bulkhead and front structure as well as the pylon area.
In anyway, it will be a nightmare to do that at such a small and poorly equipped airport. On Google maps, I don't see a hangar big enough for an A330. It will be very expensive to bring in staff, tooling, equipment and large assemblies for the repairs.

[Passenger]

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

[Flanker2]

If we may believe this chart posted on PPrune, the RVR for RNP Approach (the highest precision available) to the given runway requires a RVR of 720 meters and visibility of 800 meters.
In the after landing video, you can see the fog filling up the cabin... 720 meters is a long distance...IMO clearly below minima in the above video.

Where is the megaphone? Why didn't they use the PA system to communicate calmly with pax (the dong suggesting that it was still working). Why did she say that they were not going to evacuate in such a way, and then ended up evacuating anyway?
What a great attitude from the cabin crew towards the inconvenienced pax She was clearly overwhelmed.

Also, no cabin crew visible on the ground. In an evacuation, cabin crew must play a vital role on directing pax away from the wreckage and to a safe assembly point (like on the ships) smoothly and in an organised way, with a megaphone stuck to their hands and giving instructions.



http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5575 ... ndu-2.html

[Flanker2]

This is plain stupid. Look how steep that chute is.



No way there was 720 meters of RVR.

[Homo Aeroportus]

Duh !

Disembarking via chutes, i.e. evac, while the bus is already waiting on the taxiway?
Why not bringing stairs then? If no real emergency it would be better to calmly leave using 1L instead of risking injuries.

By looking at the (small) pics below, it looks like the viz is well below Cat I (*).
The first pic shows how thin the fog layer is with the sun about to come out. This usually give a rather OK visibility (vertical and slant) until you get into the layer and this is basically when you have almost touched down already.

B_OK4UcUoAAEGwa.jpg (7.84 KiB) Viewed 6310 times

B_OK4UfUwAEeUIH.jpg (3.48 KiB) Viewed 6310 times

B_OK4UfUQAAYPV9.jpg (5.13 KiB) Viewed 6310 times

B_OK4UhUsAAdbq6.jpg (3.55 KiB) Viewed 6310 times

Apparently no cross wind, no wind at all actually per METAR, so how come they went off the runway ? Long touch down or contaminated surface (wet, rubber)?
They cannot have left the RWY much before the final position seen the soaked unpaved terrain that must have stopped them quite quickly.

@Flanker.
Thanks for the plate.
For the min viz, you need to enter the table using the appropriate approach speed category i.e. "C" for an A330. (121 to 140kts). That gives min 900 m, and 1800m if the Approach Lighting System is inop.

(*) CAT I : RVR no less than 550m.
RVR is Runway Visual Range, the distance at which you can acquire the high intensity runway edge lights.
CAT II : RVR not less than 300m.
Very difficult to determine the visibility on the photos available. Moreover it is very difficult to convert RVR to visibility (i.e. distance at which an object is seen against its background, which involves its luminance). But I would say that at the moment these pics have been taken, this was below CAT I.
I don't thing GPS allow for lower than CAT I approaches.

They went into holding for +30 minutes, then went around after a first approach tentative.
Just wonder how much fuel left.

H.A.

[Flanker2]

@Flanker.
Thanks for the plate.
For the min viz, you need to enter the table using the appropriate approach speed category i.e. "C" for an A330. (121 to 140kts). That gives min 900 m, and 1800m if the Approach Lighting System is inop.

Ahhh you're right. I've only ever flown up to Cat. A

Regarding Cat I Cat II, this airport doesn't have ILS.
The given RNP Approach (GNSS) has the lowest minima, below the VOR/DME approach.
So 900 meters RVR (in the direction of the runway) was a minimum requirement. IMO, even at Decision Altitude it's hard to believe that they had a good visual with that kind of fog.

[sean1982]

, no cabin crew visible on the ground. In an evacuation, cabin crew must play a vital role on directing pax away from the wreckage and to a safe assembly point (like on the ships) smoothly and in an organised way, with a megaphone stuck to their hands and giving instructions

No they dont? Once the evacuation is complete and everybody is out of the aircraft yes. But not when the evac is still in progress. Please refrain from commenting on professionals if you dont know what you're saying is right!

[sean1982]

, no cabin crew visible on the ground. In an evacuation, cabin crew must play a vital role on directing pax away from the wreckage and to a safe assembly point (like on the ships) smoothly and in an organised way, with a megaphone stuck to their hands and giving instructions

No they dont? Once the evacuation is complete and everybody is out of the aircraft yes. But not when the evac is still in progress. Please refrain from commenting on professionals if you dont know what you're saying is right!

In fact, this whole topic is making my toes curl.

[cnc]

Duh !

Disembarking via chutes, i.e. evac, while the bus is already waiting on the taxiway?
Why not bringing stairs then? If no real emergency it would be better to calmly leave using 1L instead of risking injuries.

because they had to. i agree it looks and actually has been badly handled but they followed standard procedure. once crashed the crew couldn't know there was for example a fuel leak and or fire.
as sean points out cabin crew are to leave the a/c once all pax are out, not before.

[regi]

just saw the ticker at the TG website that flights are suspended to Kathmandu because of runway closure.
sad detail: TG had its worst incident at Kathmandu.

[tolipanebas]

Oh boy, flanker is at it once again...

Firstly, at many airlines, a highspeed gear collapse MUST be followed by an evaction as per company SOP, just to make sure passengers are off by the time a subsequent fire might develop. It's may not always be needed in hindsight, but hindsight is always 20/20 as they say; better a few broken bones, than 300+ passengers burnt alive.
Secondly, cabin crew should be at their doors during an evacuation to make sure all people jump out and don't hesitate when it's their turn to go down the slide: jumping out from (the rear of) an A330 is impressive to say the least, especially if the fuselage is tilted like it was here. I do it every so many years during my evacuation recurrent, and it's perfectly understandable many passengers will need a 'little push' in the back at the moment of truth, which is exactly why you need cabin crew UPSTAIRS doing exactly that, rather than at the end of the slides, waving and shouting scared passengers to jump towards them. That's what they are to do should one of them be dragged along by a pax and end up outside too soon.
Thirdly, that rear door evacuation slide is indeed still perfectly usable, in case you'd doubt; nothing wrong with using it; it's fully inflated and reaching the ground, so go for it.

The internet at its best once again, I agree with sean1982 for once.

[Homo Aeroportus]

Duh !

Disembarking via chutes, i.e. evac, while the bus is already waiting on the taxiway?
Why not bringing stairs then? If no real emergency it would be better to calmly leave using 1L instead of risking injuries.

because they had to. i agree it looks and actually has been badly handled but they followed standard procedure. once crashed the crew couldn't know there was for example a fuel leak and or fire.
as sean points out cabin crew are to leave the a/c once all pax are out, not before.

Not sure I follow you here.
Do you mean that Capt de Crespigny should have been prosecuted for having kept his passengers on board his A380 in SIN?
There was a fuel leak, hot brakes and an engine running that they couldn't stop, yet he decided NOT to evacuate, considering there was no immediate danger at staying inside while emergency evac via slide was bound to generate a number of injuries.

TK at KTM : what was the reason for an evac via slides so long after coming to a standstill, when RFFS was present and a bus at already arrived?

Thanks,

H.A.

[tolipanebas]

Not sure I follow you here.
Do you mean that Capt de Crespigny should have been prosecuted for having kept his passengers on board his A380 in SIN?

Yet that plane was ON it's wheels and ON the RWY still, regardless its bad condition.
A plane that slid on its belley and ended OFF a RWY, is a whole different story.
THAT's the whole difference, in fact.

And yes, some do not evacuate in that case either, I know.
Company policy allowing you judge the situation as a cpt, but as said: many companies leave no choice.
Besides, I do not think that the inquiry will focus on the soundness of the decision to evacuate....

[Passenger]

Update on AvHerald.com: "...While the aircraft was on final approach the airport was suddenly covered with dense fog..."

"... Kathmandu Air Traffic Control reported that the aircraft aborted the first approach about 1nm before touchdown when the crew could not see the runway. The aircraft was on a RNP approach at that time requiring a visibility of 900 meters, visibility at that time was 1000 meters. The aircraft subsequently initiated a second approach, while descending through about 1200 feet AGL ATC queried the crew whether they could see the runway but did not receive a reply, about 2-3 minutes later the crew radioed tower that they had veered off the runway and were on the shoulder of the runway. While the aircraft was on final approach the airport was suddenly covered with dense fog..."

"... Nepal's Civil Aviation Authority added that the aircraft came to a stop about 1000 meters down the runway with the nose gear collapsed and damage to the fuselage, both engines and wings..."

http://avherald.com/h?article=482a5e9e&opt=0

[Homo Aeroportus]

Yet that plane was ON it's wheels and ON the RWY still, regardless its bad condition.
A plane that slid on its belley and ended OFF a RWY, is a whole different story.
THAT's the whole difference, in fact.

And yes, some do not evacuate in that case either, I know.
Company policy allowing you judge the situation as a cpt, but as said: many companies leave no choice.
Besides, I do not think that the inquiry will focus on the soundness of the decision to evacuate....

Agreed that ending up nose down in the grass is ... a different story, but what I meant is that in both cases the Capt had information (assumption here for KTM) from the RFSS to enable him taking the right decision.
I really think it was at SIN.
What I don't understand in KTM is why evac was decided after such time. As you say going down the slides will statistically generate some (minor) injuries to a number of Pax, hence my question.

But I fully agree with you : "Besides, I do not think that the inquiry will focus on the soundness of the decision to evacuate...."


H.A.