Yeti Airlines ATR-72 cash

a reply to: Degradation33

I haven’t heard anything, but I’m working this weekend so haven’t really had a lot of time to look.

Investigators issued an update after initial analysis of the FDR and CVR. An unknown engine problem apparently occurred. Both propellors were feathered as the aircraft turned on its base leg.

"Flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder of the Yeti Airlines ATR-72 aircraft indicates a problem in the engine as the reason behind the crash of the aircraft on 15th January in Pokhara.”

simpleflying.com...

Another case of feathering the wrong prop?

a reply to: Blackfinger

I could see that if one was feathered, but both is unusual.

The European Union has banned Nepali airlines from its airspace since 2013, citing safety concerns.

Skies are so overcrowded nowadays, no telling what shape a plane is in flying over you.

I've also noticed new air routes in my area; it's only a matter of time before something similar happens in the US. Though I hope I'm wrong, seeing all the packed planes, flight delays, and people fighting on them is a worrying thought that I can't shake.

a reply to: imitator

The US has stricter training requirements than many other nations. Europe has similar requirements to the US, with 1500 hours required for regional, and 3,000 hours required for large carriers. Many countries can see pilots flying with large carriers with 250 hours. One of the pilots in the Ethiopian crash had something like 250 hours total experience.

The ICAO requirements for commercial pilot training are as follows:

Qualifying for Commercial Certificate – Single Engine
Requirements for obtaining a US Commercial Certificate for single engine airplanes include:
250 hours total time
100 hours of pilot in command flight time, which includes at least:
50 hours in airplanes
50 hours in cross-country flight, at least 10 of which are in an airplane
10 hours of instrument training
10 hours in a complex single engine plane
One 2 hour daytime cross country, where one leg is at least 100 nm straight line from the original point of departure
One 2 hour nighttime cross country, where one leg is at least 100 nm straight line from the original point of departure
3 hours in a single engine airplane with an instructor in the last 2 months
10 hours solo flight time or pilot in command time in a single engine airplane
One cross-country totaling at least 300 nautical miles, with at least three landings, one of which is at least straight line 250 nm from the original airport
5 hours in night VFR conditions, with 10 takeoffs and 10 landings at an airport with an operating control tower

Qualifying for Commercial Certificate – Multi Engine
Requirements for obtaining a US Commercial Certificate for multi engine airplanes include:
250 hours total time
100 hours of pilot in command flight time, which includes at least:
50 hours in airplanes
50 hours in cross-country flight, at least 10 of which are in an airplane
10 hours of instrument training
10 hours in a complex multi engine plane
One 2 hour daytime cross country, where one leg is at least 100 nm straight line from the original point of departure
One 2 hour nighttime cross country, where one leg is at least 100 nm straight line from the original point of departure
3 hours in a multi engine airplane with an instructor in the last 2 months
10 hours solo flight time or pilot in command time in a multi engine airplane
One cross-country totaling at least 300 nautical miles, with at least three landings, one of which is at least straight line 250 nm from the original airport
5 hours in night VFR conditions, with 10 takeoffs and 10 landings at an airport with an operating control tower.

ctipft.com...

The US also has stricter maintenance requirements. The big problem in the US is outsourcing of maintenance. But, with good training, outsourced maintenance may not bite hard.

a reply to: Zaphod58

That's good to know, though no system is perfect. Airlines are expanding their services, despite the lack of personnel. This could be a sign of things to come. Larger aircraft, increased traffic, etc...

Recent events have hinted at what the future may hold.

Close call between 2 planes at Austin airport.
Link: www.khou.com...

A FedEx cargo airplane attempting to land at Austin's airport had to change course after a second plane was cleared to depart from the same runway.

Link: Close call avoided between two planes at a Texas airport

An air traffic controller on Saturday may have double-booked a runway at a Texas airport, sending two jetliners on a course for a potential collision, which was averted, officials said.

a reply to: imitator

What he did is an accepted practice, called anticipating separation. You clear one aircraft to take off, while another is on final, under the assumption that the one taking off will have rolled in time for there to be required separation between the two aircraft. In this instance the FedEx was on a Cat III approach however, which should have kept them from clearing the Southwest for take off. Normally there's an ILS protection zone that aircraft will have to stay in, so they don't get cleared for take off and interfere with the approaching aircraft by interfering with the ILS. But at this particular airport, there's no protection zone on that side of the runway. What he did was technically not wrong, but it's going to need investigating, and potential corrections made. The Southwest pilot was also partly to blame for his actions too.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I bet the ATC and Southwest pilot is having nightmares, pretty sketchy... luckily all is good.

a reply to: imitator

The preliminary report was released. Everything was normal until they began the approach. At 10:56:27, as they were at 721 feet, the autopilot was disengaged. At 10:56:32 the call was made for "Flaps 30" by the pilot flying. The pilot monitoring called flaps 30 and descending, but the FDR didn't show any movement of the flaps. However, the Np of both engines decreased simultaneously to less than 25%, while the Tq started dropping to 0%. At 10:56:36 a single master caution chime was heard, and the crew carried out the before landing checklist, and the power lever angle was reduced from 44% to 41%. The FDR recorded Non-Computed Data for Np, and 0% for Tq. The pilot monitoring noted several times that the engines were not producing power. The pilot flying turned control over to the pilot monitoring at 10:57:18, who again noted there was no power being produced by the engines. At 10:57:20, the stick shaker activated at 311 feet. It activated again at 10:57:26. Sounds of impact were recorded at 10:57:32, with the FDR and CVR recordings ending at 10:56:33 and 10:57:35.

www.tourism.gov.np...

The final report was released, and pretty much is in line with the preliminary. The final report notes that flaps 30 was called out, but not acknowledged, and the flaps never moved, while both propellors were feathered. The before landing checklist was not carried out according to SOP, and the crew decided to land on runway 12, which hadn't been validated.

simpleflying.com...