SDFguy wrote:

I agree. At thus point, the people who claim the video is fake with no evidence at all remind me of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

It's not a conspiracy theory if you offer a testable hypothesis, which I have clearly done here. The evidence exists to resolve this definitively, we just haven't seen it yet.

The argument here is really over standards of evidence. As an investigator, you look for the most conclusive evidence, not the least. In this case, the most conclusive evidence is the streaming IP history. I'm confident that will be considered at some point. Right now, none of us have access to that data.

Do we think that the height out the window is consistent with the height from the externally-filmed video? Do we think that the inside video seems to show some light fog/mist below whereas the outside video seems not to show same?

Does anyone have experience with Facebook live streaming and if the stream will catch back up if you go thru a tunnel or something? Or does it just drop those bits?

wjcandee wrote:

Do we think that the height out the window is consistent with the height from the externally-filmed video? Do we think that the inside video seems to show some light fog/mist below whereas the outside video seems not to show same?

Inside is facing into the sun so everything is backlit (and shooting through a window), outside sun is behind the camera. Makes a huge difference in video quality especially on a smartphone camera.

SoCalPilot wrote:

I did, and he was factually wrong right off the bat about not being able to livestream unless you have 10,000 followers. Anyone can post a live video, there are no follower restrictions. That right there is a major flaw in his argument.

EDIT: He also stated the aircraft was on a normal approach for runway 22 at the old airport. If you match up the scenery outside, you can clearly make out Pokhara Football Stadium - at this point the aircraft would be over/past the threshold of runway 22, and obviously still flying.

And also, he appears incredulous that the stream would become blurry so suddenly, when the easy explanation was that the victim dropped his phone when the plane buffeted. (Stall symptom.)

Honestly, I hate this subtopic, but I won’t debate someone who isn’t present. I think at this point, people are simply choosing which evidence they want to believe and are ignoring evidence that doesn’t support their conclusion.

First, all my thoughts go to the victims and their relatives.

Second, I think that the cabin video topic should be moved to a separate thread so that this one would focus on the facts related to the crash itself. While the video might give useful information, the real analysis of the crash will come from the flight data, reconstruction of the trajectory, CVR, FDR, etc. (I know the video may help with the trajectory, but that help will be unnecessary as other crashes without such evidence have been analysed precisely).

Reading Simon's email, there are some rebuttable hypotheses in his statements:

1.) Facebook livestreaming. He is clearly incorrect about Facebook requiring users to have 10,000 followers. Maybe he has old information, as that is absolutely incorrect.

2.) He then says that if there was a livestream, it would have been known within an hour. Not sure why that would be the case. I doubt the viewers of the livestream would have been releasing the footage as a first priority, given that anyone who viewed it was probably a friend or family member.

3.) Video presumably showing approach to the old airport. Will need to wait for professional forensic investigators to match the flight path with the video stream, after which this statement can be confirmed or refuted.

4.) Immediate transition from smooth video to blurred. As this video was presumably a livestream, there could be a lot of reasons for missed or dropped frames, such as the phone being involved in an airplane crash. Again, need professional investigators to tell us.

5.) Pitch angle change not visible in cabin video. Maybe his strongest argument, but..., he does rely on eyewitness testimony about the pitch angle of the aircraft, which can be highly unreliable. We'll need to wait for any FDR data to determine if the aircraft was indeed in a high upward pitch.

6.) His next argument is awkwardly worded and hard to follow. He notes that the ground video shows the aircraft starting a shallow bank, which is not shown in the cabin video. He then goes on and mentions that the passengers would have noticed that the turn was in the wrong place for an approach to the airport, which is decidedly incorrect. Few if any passengers would have been familiar with the approach pattern for a brand new airport that just opened.

7.) He then notes the lack of reaction to the passengers to the violent roll. Not buying that, as there does seem to be noise that could be screaming as the video goes completely blurry.

8.) Time to impact from the start of the roll seems shorter in cabin video that ground video. This is an important piece of evidence, but again one that needs close analysis by investigators looking at the actual videos, not copies of the videos.

9.) He concludes by discussing chain of custody issues of the livestream, which is obviously an open question. Again, need the real experts to chime in here, but he relies too heavily on the argument that livestreaming would not be possible, which again has already been proven false.

So, I think he raises some good points about inconsistencies and unknowns that should be investigated and explained before one could conclude with certainty that the cabin video is genuine. But he weakens his argument substantially by making some obviously incorrect statements about Facebook livestreaming policies and passenger familiarity with proper approach procedures to an airport that just opened. And he never addresses the points raised by the media outlets that have come to the opposite conclusion.

SoCalPilot wrote:

Are you suggesting that someone else had video of someone who died in the crash, flying on the same aircraft and airline into the same airport along the same approach path, and then edited to make it look like it was a video from the crash flight?

Doesn't that seem highly improbable?

Its getting a bit Sandy Hook in here... no point in arguing with people who see more credibility in 1 in several million chance coincidences and complex fakery than confirmation from friends and loved ones of the dead, may they rest in peace.

Mods, we have no idea about the progress of the investigation because of the arguments about this video can you please split the thread or start a new one.

France 24 shows a number of fake videos circulating. France 24 asserts the onboard video is legitimate and verified.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b3p6vNP5g4


Indian Express
1 d
·
Of the five Indians on board the Yeti Airlines Kathmandu-Pokhara flight which crashed on Sunday, four — Abhishek Kushwaha (25), Vishal Sharma (25), Anil Kumar Rajbhar (25) and Sonu Jaiswal (30) — were friends, all residents of Ghazipur district in Uttar Pradesh.

Sonu Jaiswal is the alleged videographer of the onboard video, and he is now deceased.

https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=Sonu%20Jaiswal



https://www.deccanherald.com/national/f ... 81442.html

I am always sceptical of anything on the net ,including anything to do with airline crashes or any other subjects. I will await for it to be confirmed as authentic.


Unnamed Nepalese official asserts the video is fake.

https://www.nepalminute.com/detail/1631 ... t-aircraft



https://www.deccanherald.com/national/f ... 81590.html

Flight radar claims erroneous data was sent by the aircraft.

https://www.nepalminute.com/detail/1622 ... t-by-yt691

ErichHartmann wrote:

Flight radar claims erroneous data was sent by the aircraft.

https://www.nepalminute.com/detail/1622 ... t-by-yt691

Seems like this is worthy of greater discussion, it points to a possible technical issue on the aircraft.

D L X wrote:

And also, he appears incredulous that the stream would become blurry so suddenly, when the easy explanation was that the victim dropped his phone when the plane buffeted. (Stall symptom.)

Stalls in modern transport category aircraft are generally not violent, one of the reasons stick shakers/pushers are mandatory.

BoeingVista wrote:

Seems like this is worthy of greater discussion, it points to a possible technical issue on the aircraft.

The transponder transmits the gps position, speed, and altitude via ads-b, if gps position becomes unreliable, for example the number of visible satellites viewable is less than 5, the position will be in error, and the ads-b raw data has a flag transmitted as part of the data packet that ATC systems will recognise. The free abs-b stations they use tend not to do a full decode of every element of the data packet.

A reasonable explanation for the loss of gps satellite visibility is masking by high terrain as they descend in the valley.

georgewall42 wrote:

Reading Simon's email, there are some rebuttable hypotheses in his statements:

1.) Facebook livestreaming. He is clearly incorrect about Facebook requiring users to have 10,000 followers. Maybe he has old information, as that is absolutely incorrect.

Essentially anyone can stream on FB if they have an account.

BoeingVista wrote:

ErichHartmann wrote:

Flight radar claims erroneous data was sent by the aircraft.

https://www.nepalminute.com/detail/1622 ... t-by-yt691

Seems like this is worthy of greater discussion, it points to a possible technical issue on the aircraft.

If you on Planespotters and look up the registrations of their ATR-72s on FR24, most of the fleet seem to have glitchy ADS-B for some reason.

Delaxio wrote:

georgewall42 wrote:

Reading Simon's email, there are some rebuttable hypotheses in his statements:

1.) Facebook livestreaming. He is clearly incorrect about Facebook requiring users to have 10,000 followers. Maybe he has old information, as that is absolutely incorrect.

Essentially anyone can stream on FB if they have an account.

BoeingVista wrote:

ErichHartmann wrote:

Flight radar claims erroneous data was sent by the aircraft.

https://www.nepalminute.com/detail/1622 ... t-by-yt691

Seems like this is worthy of greater discussion, it points to a possible technical issue on the aircraft.

If you on Planespotters and look up the registrations of their ATR-72s on FR24, most of the fleet seem to have glitchy ADS-B for some reason.

I looked at a couple of previous flights on that route with different aircraft, incident aircraft 9N-ANC seems to be the worst.

BoeingGuy wrote:

D L X wrote:

CLESpotter95 wrote:

Man, this really looks unprofessional for AvHerald. He still has the message up about how it's a "clearly falsified video".

Fortunately, there is a good community here at a.net to discuss. Maybe those folks will come over here.

I’m not convinced the video is real either. I agree with Zeke. The fire looked faint and kind of hokey.

I wouldn’t brag about the community of A.net. We just had a huge thread saying it is confirmed by a reliable source that DL was announcing SLC-ICN on Saturday. Never happened. I see more fake news and rumors on this site than anywhere else.

I am going with the video is altered. Seen side by side, the inside and outside roll rates plus time to impact are not in sync. The inside video has the impact before the outside video has the ATR rolled a full 90 degrees. By most accounts it rolled past 90 degrees to port prior to impact. That is not supported by the view out the window before the sounds of impact. Lastly, the gentelman was in the last row, the pictures of the fuselage of where he was sitting would not have allowed for the phone to survive intact. If the structure is significantly deformed as such...no cell phone would withstand that impact. So the only thing that could be used to pull info would be a storage card in the cell phone. But, the story has been laay out as it was recieved as a live stream. To many incongruancies for me. The biggest though is neither video syncs.

Just as a minor point of clarification, the 10,000 followers rule appears to be the point at which you can start monetising your live streams, not the point at which you can live stream.

Is there any update about the recorders please? Can the data be retrieved? This will be what matters to find out what happened and why.
BTW: I don't care if somebody thinks a video is fake.

Who opens up the flight recorders for interpretation in this case ? Nepalese authorities, French/ATR ?

JannEejit wrote:

Who opens up the flight recorders for interpretation in this case ? Nepalese authorities, French/ATR ?

I believe I read that Nepal doesn't have the required equipment to read the flight recorders. Since BEA is part of the investigation team (state of aircraft manufacturer) then presumably it will be read in France.

Does the ATR 72-500 typically have an older tape based flight recorder/FDR, or a more modern solid state memory unit? This aircraft was 15 years old so was constructed round about the time the transition from one to the other was happening.

garpd wrote:

Does the ATR 72-500 typically have an older tape based flight recorder/FDR, or a more modern solid state memory unit? This aircraft was 15 years old so was constructed round about the time the transition from one to the other was happening.

ATR-72-500 is digital for voice and data.

georgewall42 wrote:

Reading Simon's email, there are some rebuttable hypotheses in his statements:

.. good stuff snipped ...

3.) Video presumably showing approach to the old airport. Will need to wait for professional forensic investigators to match the flight path with the video stream, after which this statement can be confirmed or refuted.

I don't think we need to wait, there's enough clearly visible landmarks on the path that the cabin video shows. I'm using the version of the video here: https://twitter.com/ncsukumar1/status/1 ... qngU6nDVxw for timings

1. At 20s they're heading west and the distinctive hill of the Bhadrakali Temple is to their south.
2. They are banking and turning to the left
3. At 39s you can see the football stadium. The clay tennis courts are in the foreground with the cricket field next door. They are clearly heading south, and probably over the old airport.
4. A second or two later they pass the road crossing the Seti just to the south of the stadium
5. The crash site is in the creek of the Seti river close to the Pokhara Christian Graveyard (if your using Google Earth/Maps).

Edit: Created a rough map with the landmarks here https://photos.app.goo.gl/ZsmvJjf2W1bPejuq6

So Simon is wrong. The path shown in the Cabin Video is not consistent with an approach to the old Airport (way too high) but is consistent with a circling approach to Runway 12 (which is what they were planning) on the new airport when arriving from the East (which is where Kathmandu is).

According to Simon, the same witnesses that had the aircraft of final approach to Runway 22 of the old airport say "that the aircraft was already on a final approach in straight flight (not turning anymore) west of the old airport, crossed the old airport in a nearly perpendicular and straight wings level trajectory across the old runway"
I'm unable to find such eyewitness accounts. However, the guy who filmed the (undisputed) footage of the crash from the ground made this follow up video.

https://youtu.be/WlUesjkNCnM

I don't speak Nepali, but per a post on another site, he points out that the Aircraft began it's turn to the east later than others that pass over his house. If that's true, it's another point this Simon is wrong on. In any case, whether or not the ending of the video is legit, or just spliced in for dramatic effect, the main body seems to be the crash flight, barring an incredible hoax.

I'd be interested to know from the pilots on here, given how long they headed South, and where the crash site is, could the have left the turn too late to line up on Runway 12? I did a line on the alignment of the runway it it more or less goes over the crash site. That was after an extremely sharp turn to the left. They were running late - perhaps keen to avoid another circuit?

I'm an experienced data scientist and I specialize primarily in image/video classification and manipulation. If this is a deep fake then it's basically the best one i've ever seen with loads of time going into generating the model to do this, hence the video was done before the crash even happened. There are also subtle clues in the way that faces are generated in the video, which I do not seen here.
So either someone went through a lot of trouble to make this (would've taken SIGNIFICANTLY longer than how quickly the video appeared) or it's real.

and like Sherlock Holmes said: Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable must be the truth. So from the stand-point of deep fake/ai generation and all that the video is very much real.

-Mikhail

BaconButty wrote:

georgewall42 wrote:

Reading Simon's email, there are some rebuttable hypotheses in his statements:

.. good stuff snipped ...

3.) Video presumably showing approach to the old airport. Will need to wait for professional forensic investigators to match the flight path with the video stream, after which this statement can be confirmed or refuted.

I don't think we need to wait, there's enough clearly visible landmarks on the path that the cabin video shows. I'm using the version of the video here: https://twitter.com/ncsukumar1/status/1 ... qngU6nDVxw for timings

1. At 20s they're heading west and the distinctive hill of the Bhadrakali Temple is to their south.
2. They are banking and turning to the left
3. At 39s you can see the football stadium. The clay tennis courts are in the foreground with the cricket field next door. They are clearly heading south, and probably over the old airport.
4. A second or two later they pass the road crossing the Seti just to the south of the stadium
5. The crash site is in the creek of the Seti river close to the Pokhara Christian Graveyard (if your using Google Earth/Maps).

Edit: Created a rough map with the landmarks here https://photos.app.goo.gl/ZsmvJjf2W1bPejuq6

So Simon is wrong. The path shown in the Cabin Video is not consistent with an approach to the old Airport (way too high) but is consistent with a circling approach to Runway 12 (which is what they were planning) on the new airport when arriving from the East (which is where Kathmandu is).

According to Simon, the same witnesses that had the aircraft of final approach to Runway 22 of the old airport say "that the aircraft was already on a final approach in straight flight (not turning anymore) west of the old airport, crossed the old airport in a nearly perpendicular and straight wings level trajectory across the old runway"
I'm unable to find such eyewitness accounts. However, the guy who filmed the (undisputed) footage of the crash from the ground made this follow up video.



I don't speak Nepali, but per a post on another site, he points out that the Aircraft began it's turn to the east later than others that pass over his house. If that's true, it's another point this Simon is wrong on. In any case, whether or not the ending of the video is legit, or just spliced in for dramatic effect, the main body seems to be the crash flight, barring an incredible hoax.

I'd be interested to know from the pilots on here, given how long they headed South, and where the crash site is, could the have left the turn too late to line up on Runway 12? I did a line on the alignment of the runway it it more or less goes over the crash site. That was after an extremely sharp turn to the left. They were running late - perhaps keen to avoid another circuit?

Spot on.
Just to add:

Simon's claim that the ATR crossed the old runway west to east is already clearly disproven by the original "balcony" video. There's a follow-up video on YouTube with some nepalese TV reporter interviewing the man who shot the balcony video. The interview is shot on the same balcony, but also shows the other end of the balcony, from which the crash site and emergency work is clearly visible, as well as a characteristic round turn in the road. This makes it possible to precisely identify the "balcony house". The balcony is orientated from south to north, and the original video is recorded from the north edge of the balcony, looking approx. north-west to north.

Here' a pic:

https://imgur.com/a/aihx3Dy

IMHO, this clearly rules out the version that the ATR crossed the old runway perpendicularly. However, it roughly matches the inside video.

Update received in my email from Simon this morning:

In the meantime I have new information received today, so am working on that.
This new information seems to change things. It remains clear however, that there is a fake cabin video still around, however, a credible cabin video also exists. I am not yet clear on this, but I guess, we will maintain the warning of the fake video but make also clear that there is a cabin video that seems credible but can not be independently verified (so go along with the BBC). I do not yet know when I shall have that check finished.

YVAMWB1900 wrote:

Update received in my email from Simon this morning:

In the meantime I have new information received today, so am working on that.
This new information seems to change things. It remains clear however, that there is a fake cabin video still around, however, a credible cabin video also exists. I am not yet clear on this, but I guess, we will maintain the warning of the fake video but make also clear that there is a cabin video that seems credible but can not be independently verified (so go along with the BBC). I do not yet know when I shall have that check finished.

AKA "I'm wrong and I've made myself look a bit silly in the process and I'm desperately trying to find out a way to limit the damage done to my reputation".

ktof wrote:

YVAMWB1900 wrote:

Update received in my email from Simon this morning:

In the meantime I have new information received today, so am working on that.
This new information seems to change things. It remains clear however, that there is a fake cabin video still around, however, a credible cabin video also exists. I am not yet clear on this, but I guess, we will maintain the warning of the fake video but make also clear that there is a cabin video that seems credible but can not be independently verified (so go along with the BBC). I do not yet know when I shall have that check finished.

AKA "I'm wrong and I've made myself look a bit silly in the process and I'm desperately trying to find out a way to limit the damage done to my reputation".

Yes, he's in full on spin mode.

YVAMWB1900 wrote:

Update received in my email from Simon this morning:

In the meantime I have new information received today, so am working on that.
This new information seems to change things. It remains clear however, that there is a fake cabin video still around, however, a credible cabin video also exists. I am not yet clear on this, but I guess, we will maintain the warning of the fake video but make also clear that there is a cabin video that seems credible but can not be independently verified (so go along with the BBC). I do not yet know when I shall have that check finished.

I think that's a fair response. Like others before have said, AvHerald takes a skeptic "just the facts" approach, and it's up to Simon as to which sources he deems credible. It was of course a little silly to so quickly denounce *all* cabin videos as 100% fake and closing the comments, but it's good he'll be turning that statement around sometime soon. Can't blame him too much though, AvHerald commenters can be totally unhinged.

Glad to be moving past the discussion, the "main body" of the video is 99.99% real. The blurring and fire at the end isn't of any investigative value IMO, so if that did somehow get spliced in it still won't change the actual important part.

Aesma wrote:

We're not investigators, though.

We fully expect the actual investigators to do all the checks necessary, and the authenticity (or not) of the video will probably be confirmed by them in the 1 month preliminary report, if that happens. Maybe sooner if there is a lot of pressure to say something about it.

What we can do is "Occam's razor" it, like we always do in such threads. Use all the available data and make inferences. We can even make inferences from non data, for example nobody in the family/friends of the protagonist in the video seem to be complaining about it being fake. Facebook/Meta hasn't commented either.

Yes, everyone here is entitled to do all those things, just as others are entitled to be skeptical and wait for definitive proof. You don't have to be a professional investigator to apply the same standards of evidence.

Facebook is not going to comment on the video, but they and the telecom provider have the logs that contain conclusive evidence. CAAN is empowered to access those logs and as I've said, likely will during their investigation.

I also said that both CAAN and Simon will publish the truth, whatever it turns out to be. I remain confident in that, and I will trust those assessments.

YVAMWB1900 wrote:

Update received in my email from Simon this morning:

In the meantime I have new information received today, so am working on that.
This new information seems to change things. It remains clear however, that there is a fake cabin video still around, however, a credible cabin video also exists. I am not yet clear on this, but I guess, we will maintain the warning of the fake video but make also clear that there is a cabin video that seems credible but can not be independently verified (so go along with the BBC). I do not yet know when I shall have that check finished.

While it's great that you're talking to him (and great that he's talking back), there is an uneasiness I feel about critiquing his words when he's not present to defend. Perhaps invite him to the thread?

If I were Simon I'd just say, "I saw and talked about ANOTHER cabin video, this one is real of course"

Turboj41 wrote:

Seen side by side, the inside and outside roll rates plus time to impact are not in sync. The inside video has the impact before the outside video has the ATR rolled a full 90 degrees. By most accounts it rolled past 90 degrees to port prior to impact. That is not supported by the view out the window before the sounds of impact.

I think they are in sync. I timed both external & internal last moments before impact.
1. The external view: From when the wing drops past about 70 degree bank angle to the audible sound of the impact takes about three seconds.
2. The inside cabin view: From when you hear the sudden alarmed shouts & obvious panic in the cabin to the time when picture goes totally blurred orange takes about three seconds.

To me the timing of both videos match exactly.

As a side note, I'm amazed how quickly it all unfolded.

D L X wrote:

YVAMWB1900 wrote:

Update received in my email from Simon this morning:

In the meantime I have new information received today, so am working on that.
This new information seems to change things. It remains clear however, that there is a fake cabin video still around, however, a credible cabin video also exists. I am not yet clear on this, but I guess, we will maintain the warning of the fake video but make also clear that there is a cabin video that seems credible but can not be independently verified (so go along with the BBC). I do not yet know when I shall have that check finished.

While it's great that you're talking to him (and great that he's talking back), there is an uneasiness I feel about critiquing his words when he's not present to defend. Perhaps invite him to the thread?

I'd be surprised if Simon didn't read A.net given how involved he is in the community, and that this is pretty much the biggest commercial aviation board out there. No doubt he has likely seen this discussion and factored that into his responses to the emails.

While I thought the discussion about the video was unnecessary, it was useful in helping me realize that some people sometimes pull rank to reject evidence, and how that can really be a distraction. I like anet because standards of objectivity are higher than most of the internet, but I guess no place is perfect

Murdoughnut wrote:

It's been confirmed by multiple sources. Discussion of the video's authenticity should just stop.

Questioning the authenticity is natural in this case; reason I say this is (and I apologize if this question has been asked already, because from the little I have read on this forum and on the media this hasn't been asked); did Yeti Airlines have wifi in their aircraft (I will be surprised if they did)? And if they didn't, how was the video being "live streamed"? If it wasn't "live streamed" then how did the video become available on FB?

Natural questions that shouldn't stop in my mind unless the authorities make reasonable clarification rather than leaving it to rife speculation on the media. Alas, sadly, I don't thing the authorities are having a hard time getting their wits & act together unlike some of the more competent authorities in Japan, China, Singapore, India etc that happen to be other countries in the South/East Asian region.

747megatop wrote:

Murdoughnut wrote:

It's been confirmed by multiple sources. Discussion of the video's authenticity should just stop.

Questioning the authenticity is natural in this case; reason I say this is (and I apologize if this question has been asked already, because from the little I have read on this forum and on the media this hasn't been asked); did Yeti Airlines have wifi in their aircraft (I will be surprised if they did)? And if they didn't, how was the video being "live streamed"? If it wasn't "live streamed" then how did the video become available on FB?

Natural questions that shouldn't stop in my mind unless the authorities make reasonable clarification rather than leaving it to rife speculation on the media. Alas, sadly, I don't thing the authorities are having a hard time getting their wits & act together unlike some of the more competent authorities in Japan, China, Singapore, India etc that happen to be other countries in the South/East Asian region.

Low enough for LTE

mzlin wrote:

Low enough for LTE

There you go, you just provided SOLID reasoning to question the authenticity of the video

1) If you have been to Montana OR areas like Mt Baldy or Big bear near Los Angeles (both just among many examples) in a 1st world country you would know how spotty and atrocious the cell phone coverage is. Same with other countries I have travelled in be it Europe, India etc. ...there are areas of spotty coverage..especially in mountainous country side.

2) Given that, the internet coverage in a moving car is sometimes non existent (depending on the carrier, the phone etc.). Even the GPS gives out. Guess what even in populated areas cell phone coverage is spotty and drops out on even popular provider networks.

3) Given what I just said, are you telling me Nepal is far ahead in cell coverage AND internet coverage a few thousand feet in an aircraft flying amidst the Himalayas?

All the more reason the question how the live streaming was put together. If it was true indeed then Nepal is onto some fantastic next gen technology that other countries don't posses.

747megatop wrote:

mzlin wrote:

Low enough for LTE

There you go, you just provided SOLID reasoning to question the authenticity of the video

1) If you have been to Montana OR areas like Mt Baldy or Big bear near Los Angeles in a 1st world country you would know how spotty and atrocious the cell phone coverage is. Same with other countries I have travelled in be it Europe, India etc. ...there are areas of spotty coverage..especially in mountainous country side.

2) Given that, the internet coverage in a moving car is sometimes non existent (depending on the carrier, the phone etc.). Even the GPS gives out. Guess what even in populated areas cell phone coverage is spotty and drops out on even popular provider networks.

3) Given what I just said, are you telling me Nepal is far ahead in cell coverage AND internet coverage a few thousand feet in an aircraft flying amidst the Himalayas?

All the more reason the question how the live streaming was put together. If it was true indeed then Nepal is onto some fantastic next gen technology that other countries don't posses.

On approach to newest airport in Nepal, at the second largest municipality. And if you've ever been to Asia, you'd know their LTE coverage is much better than in the US.

But this is a tiresome topic, really, and a major distraction

mzlin wrote:

And if you've ever been to Asia, you'd know their LTE coverage is much better than in the US.

But this is a tiresome topic, really, and a major distraction

Born and raised in an Asian country, lived in and visited other parts of the world. Nice try. Have some solid scientific fact based reasoning other than trying to judge where I have been or not been? (and ah, btw, I will extend the courtesy of not judging where you have been or where you haven't....appreciate if you could extend others the same courtesy).

BTW here is an article to back up my claim and disagree with your reasoning about low enough for LTE - https://kathmandupost.com/money/2019/12 ... l-way-down

747megatop wrote:

mzlin wrote:

And if you've ever been to Asia, you'd know their LTE coverage is much better than in the US.

But this is a tiresome topic, really, and a major distraction

Born and raised in an Asian country, lived in and visited other parts of the world. Nice try. Have some solid scientific fact based reasoning other than trying to judge where I have been or not been? (and ah, btw, I will extend the courtesy of not judging where you have been or where you haven't....appreciate if you could extend others the same courtesy).

BTW here is an article to back up my claim and disagree with your reasoning about low enough for LTE - https://kathmandupost.com/money/2019/12 ... l-way-down

Let it go. The video has been verified as authentic by multiple reputable sources. Unless you personally have detailed knowledge of Nepal's cell phone network and coverage in this specific area your argument is a non starter. Every other factor points to it being legitimate.

I have forgotten to put my phone into airplane mode before and had cell service on approach. Given the plane was very low and traveling at low speed it's not unimaginable he could have had a connection. Unless you have actual evidence there wouldn't be service there and not just conjecture based on your anecdotal experiences, I don't see a reason to believe otherwise.

[quote="incognitus"]
Here' a pic:

https://imgur.com/a/aihx3Dy

[quote]
What runway is in the upper left corner of the picture?

SELMER40 wrote:

incognitus wrote:

Here' a pic:

https://imgur.com/a/aihx3Dy

What runway is in the upper left corner of the picture?

Old Pokhara airport (ICAO VNPK)

The accident flight (691) was overflying VNPK on the way to land at the new Pokhara International Airport (ICAO VNPR) which just opened on January 1 2023: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pokhara_I ... al_Airport

Murdoughnut wrote:

djm18 wrote:

We should set up a separate thread to discuss the video. Too much time is being spent on this discussion and I assume that most people here are interested in the actual accident investigation. In AV herald they shut down the comments section because of all the chatter around the video.

It's been confirmed by multiple sources. Discussion of the video's authenticity should just stop.

Sound logic yet people still think/insist the earth is flat and endlessly discuss it. Human nature to insist they state their own opinion for the record.

aeromoe wrote:

Sound logic yet people still think/insist the earth is flat and endlessly discuss it. Human nature to insist they state their own opinion for the record.

Insistence by either side, this early in the investigation, is the root of the controversy. There is still a great deal we don't know, so it's wise to allow for the possibility of more information coming to light, as it surely will.

Eventually we will have an explanation that accounts for all the evidence, both confirming and non-confirming. That is how certainty is established. It's not established by insistence.

AVHerald , Simon has updated his views on the cabin video.

At first I was not aware of any other version of that passenger video thinking there was only one (my) version around that was clearly fake, therefore profoundly apologize for inadvertently including that credible video in my fake rating.

I don't understand all this discussion/fight about the video, fake or not ...
It is a very futile discussion given how many people perished in this incident. The fact that the video is so popular and has been redistributed all over the place, even by mainstream media is much more concerning (about human nature).

At some point, if the video is of any use for the investigation, which I doubt, the investigators have means of checking if the video is authentic or not. There are so many things they can verify that us A.net armchair specialists don't have access to. Anyway, the information that can be extracted from this snuff movie is likely of little use compared to data contained of the black boxes and the external view of this accident...

Avatar2go wrote:

Aesma wrote:

We're not investigators, though.

We fully expect the actual investigators to do all the checks necessary, and the authenticity (or not) of the video will probably be confirmed by them in the 1 month preliminary report, if that happens. Maybe sooner if there is a lot of pressure to say something about it.

What we can do is "Occam's razor" it, like we always do in such threads. Use all the available data and make inferences. We can even make inferences from non data, for example nobody in the family/friends of the protagonist in the video seem to be complaining about it being fake. Facebook/Meta hasn't commented either.

Yes, everyone here is entitled to do all those things, just as others are entitled to be skeptical and wait for definitive proof. You don't have to be a professional investigator to apply the same standards of evidence.

Facebook is not going to comment on the video, but they and the telecom provider have the logs that contain conclusive evidence. CAAN is empowered to access those logs and as I've said, likely will during their investigation.

I also said that both CAAN and Simon will publish the truth, whatever it turns out to be. I remain confident in that, and I will trust those assessments.

Well said.

I find the criticism of Simon's work expressed by some here highly unnecessary.

Simon is one of, if not the most credible source when it comes to aviation incidents. Anyone who's followed his reporting for a longer period of time knows that he proceeds in a considered and methodical manner. Of course he can make mistakes - and it might be the case that he made one here. But I find it highly unnecessary to accuse him of that in the way some people here do.

BaconButty wrote:

So Simon is wrong. The path shown in the Cabin Video is not consistent with an approach to the old Airport (way too high) but is consistent with a circling approach to Runway 12 (which is what they were planning) on the new airport when arriving from the East (which is where Kathmandu is).

According to Simon, the same witnesses that had the aircraft of final approach to Runway 22 of the old airport say "that the aircraft was already on a final approach in straight flight (not turning anymore) west of the old airport, crossed the old airport in a nearly perpendicular and straight wings level trajectory across the old runway"
I'm unable to find such eyewitness accounts. However, the guy who filmed the (undisputed) footage of the crash from the ground made this follow up video.

I'd be interested to know from the pilots on here, given how long they headed South, and where the crash site is, could the have left the turn too late to line up on Runway 12? I did a line on the alignment of the runway it it more or less goes over the crash site. That was after an extremely sharp turn to the left. They were running late - perhaps keen to avoid another circuit?

The old airport VNPK as far as I am aware had no instrument approach procedures, the only navigational aid it had was a DME. Aircraft would fly up the valley and join an oblique base for runway 22, much like this flight did.



The flight path is in my view is consistent with a turn to RW 22 to the old airport, which is like a base turn to the new airport. The accident essentially occurred on a turn from base (RW22 old airport path) to final (RW 12 new airport path}

.

seb76 wrote:

I don't understand all this discussion/fight about the video, fake or not ...
...the information that can be extracted from this snuff movie is likely of little use ...

The movie shows that up until about five seconds before the crash:
1. There was no structural failure nor engine outage with the aircraft;
2. There was no terrorist action in the cabin;
3. There were flaps extended (from the footage an expert can determine whether that was full flaps or partial);
4. The aircraft was turning very late to make that 90 degree turn onto the new airport runway. Had they initiated the turn earlier they would likely have made it with no issue;
5. But we don't know what why the pilots didn't turn earlier and why they were going so slow. We don't know what they were saying or doing at the time.