DHC-6-400 in Nepal

Topics related to accidents, incidents & over due aircraft should be placed in this forum.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore

Post Reply
CID
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3544
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 6:43 am
Location: Canada

DHC-6-400 in Nepal

Post by CID »

---------- ADS -----------
 
Mercator
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 11:01 pm

Re: DHC-6-400 in Nepal

Post by Mercator »

Sad news, prayers with the families !
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rowdy
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5166
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:26 pm
Location: On Borrowed Wings

Re: DHC-6-400 in Nepal

Post by Rowdy »

23 people in a twin otter eh?
---------- ADS -----------
 
mbav8r
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2325
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:11 am
Location: Manitoba

Re: DHC-6-400 in Nepal

Post by mbav8r »

Rowdy,
"All are feared dead after a Tara Air plane carrying 23 people -- two of them babies"
Twin otter standard configuration is 19 pax, 2 pilots add 2 babies and you have 23 people on board, a quick search could have saved you an embarrassing comment.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4113
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Re: DHC-6-400 in Nepal

Post by PilotDAR »

There have been a few Twin Otter crashes with abnormally high fatality numbers:

https://aviation-safety.net/database/re ... 19941217-0

28 on board killed

or 25 killed:

https://aviation-safety.net/database/re ... 20000727-0
---------- ADS -----------
 
GyvAir
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1817
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:09 pm

Re: DHC-6-400 in Nepal

Post by GyvAir »

Besides the number of souls on board, the word "mountain" is also common to all three accidents mentioned here.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
CLguy
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1602
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 12:54 pm
Location: Reality!

Re: DHC-6-400 in Nepal

Post by CLguy »

The first accident involving the new 400 Series.
---------- ADS -----------
 
You Can Love An Airplane All You Want, But Remember, It Will Never Love You Back!
User avatar
Nark
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2967
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 6:59 pm
Location: LA

Re: DHC-6-400 in Nepal

Post by Nark »

mbav8r wrote:Rowdy,
"All are feared dead after a Tara Air plane carrying 23 people -- two of them babies"
Twin otter standard configuration is 19 pax, 2 pilots add 2 babies and you have 23 people on board, a quick search could have saved you an embarrassing comment.
Is your dick comment really needed aswell?

We don't count infants as passengers on our flights, but yet they are accounted for in regards to "souls on board."


It gets even worse when the FA's are gingers.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
Semper Fidelis
“De inimico non loquaris male, sed cogites"-
Do not wish death for your enemy, plan it.
Meecka
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 799
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 3:03 pm
Location: The other side of sanity.

Re: DHC-6-400 in Nepal

Post by Meecka »

Nark wrote:
It gets even worse when the FA's are gingers.
That made my day.

Sorry I know this is a serious thread...
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rowdy
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5166
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:26 pm
Location: On Borrowed Wings

Re: DHC-6-400 in Nepal

Post by Rowdy »

mbav8r wrote:Rowdy,
"All are feared dead after a Tara Air plane carrying 23 people -- two of them babies"
Twin otter standard configuration is 19 pax, 2 pilots add 2 babies and you have 23 people on board, a quick search could have saved you an embarrassing comment.

I know, I have just a few hours in them. :wink: I'm also fairly certain Tara operates with a third crew member...

Big hills, big loads, big weather. Very sad.
---------- ADS -----------
 
mbav8r
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2325
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:11 am
Location: Manitoba

Re: DHC-6-400 in Nepal

Post by mbav8r »

All are feared dead after a Tara Air plane carrying 23 people -- two of them babies
I have pasted the important part of the news article for the idiots that have a problem with general comprehension.
Does anyone think that the above article does not include the crew, 3, 6, or otherwise would not have been included in the count, anyone?
Rowdy, if you have time of any amount on a twotter, why the surprise? Seriously, I don't have anytime on them but I still knew this important detail about them, probably because I loaded them almost 30 years ago but not relevant to the tragic story.
Nark, I guess pointing out that some posters on here don't bother to check on facts or sometimes read the fucking story they're commenting on, not saying this is what rowdy did, but really pointing that out is a dick comment, really.
How about this, why do you feel the need to hold Rowdy's dick for him, he appeared to be able to respond all by his lonesome, maybe you're the dick in this particular exchange.
Do you see anything in the article that references souls on board, anything at all?
Dick!
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rowdy
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5166
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:26 pm
Location: On Borrowed Wings

Re: DHC-6-400 in Nepal

Post by Rowdy »

Wow. Who pissed in your cornflakes? Seriously though...

There are only 19 seats in the back. One of them occupied by a cabin attendant. So now you're capped at 18 pax. With two babies. Have you seen what they'll carry for bags? Sure it's a short 20 min hop.. But that still puts them precariously heavy in and around some big pieces of granite. yes I've also flown the thing at ferry weight many times so I have a pretty good idea how it performs hot high and heavy.I made the comment hoping others would start to query the operation and some of the other factors. Have you checked the strips elevation? Sure would be a terrible place to have an engine calve.

Yes I read the article unlike others on this forum in other past threads. No need to jump on someone so quickly. I think NArk, like yourself is tired of thread derailment and bullshit on the forum too.
---------- ADS -----------
 
mbav8r
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2325
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:11 am
Location: Manitoba

Re: DHC-6-400 in Nepal

Post by mbav8r »

Rowdy, I apologize for the terse response before but it's clear that you still don't understand what I've said twice already. 23 "people" on board, people include babies and yes crew are also "people" Ginger or not, there were 23 people on board.
I absolutely agree, what are they doing at 16,000' with a load like that at all.

Nark, I'm not exactly sure of your intent with that Ginger comment, my Daughter is what people would describe as a "Ginger" and I can assure you that if you implied or outright stated in front of me she doesn't count, well......
---------- ADS -----------
 
godsrcrazy
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 861
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 4:12 pm

Re: DHC-6-400 in Nepal

Post by godsrcrazy »

This is not a new route for this carrier. Nor is it the first time they have flown the Twin otter on this route that heavy. What i do find interesting is this was a new DHC6-400. Wonder if they had an issue with the new aircraft.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rowdy
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5166
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:26 pm
Location: On Borrowed Wings

Re: DHC-6-400 in Nepal

Post by Rowdy »

mbav8r wrote:Rowdy, I apologize for the terse response before but it's clear that you still don't understand what I've said twice already. 23 "people" on board, people include babies and yes crew are also "people" Ginger or not, there were 23 people on board.
I absolutely agree, what are they doing at 16,000' with a load like that at all.

Nark, I'm not exactly sure of your intent with that Ginger comment, my Daughter is what people would describe as a "Ginger" and I can assure you that if you implied or outright stated in front of me she doesn't count, well......
Oh I hear you loud and clear.. alls I'm saying is that every single seat in the machine was occupied.. plus the two 'babies'. I think we're getting lost in the semantics of it :wink:

@godsrcrazy - I doubt it was an issue with it being 'new'. It was delivered in september and matches a second 400 and a handful of 300's. I do see some conflicts concerning weather. The company said it was 'favourable' but then the search was hampered by dense fog and heavy rain? hmmm...

Isn't Tara the STOL portion of what was Yeti? Hadn't they had a bunch of dhc6 accidents?

He needs to stop taking jabs at me and my gingerbeard !
---------- ADS -----------
 
mbav8r
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2325
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:11 am
Location: Manitoba

Re: DHC-6-400 in Nepal

Post by mbav8r »

Ok, that's the problem with written conversation, this flight had to be close to gross and I can't imagine does too well on one at 16,000'. Hopefully get some answers quickly.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Nark
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2967
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 6:59 pm
Location: LA

Re: DHC-6-400 in Nepal

Post by Nark »

Mbav8r:

Rowdy doesn't need me to fight his battles, however I consider him a good friend and won't let shots taken at him to slide.

Also the ginger reference is a pop culture/South Park reference.

http://southpark.cc.com/clips/103645/gingervitus
---------- ADS -----------
 
Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
Semper Fidelis
“De inimico non loquaris male, sed cogites"-
Do not wish death for your enemy, plan it.
Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”