A Routine Flight Turns Catastrophic
On January 15, 2023, Yeti Airlines Flight 691, an ATR 72-212A (registration 9N-ANC), was operating a scheduled domestic flight from Kathmandu (VNKT) to Pokhara (VNPR), Nepal. It was supposed to be a quick 25-minute hop between the two cities. Instead, tragedy struck just seconds before landing. The aircraft lost control mid-air and crashed into a gorge near the Seti River, killing all 72 people on board.
What happened? How did a modern twin-turboprop aircraft suddenly become uncontrollable? And what lessons can be learned from this devastating crash? Let’s break it down.
The Flight: A Normal Start, A Fatal End
🔹 Flight Number: Yeti Airlines 691
🔹 Aircraft: ATR 72-212A (500)
🔹 Registration: 9N-ANC
🔹 Route: Kathmandu (VNKT) → Pokhara (VNPR)
🔹 Passengers & Crew: 68 passengers, 4 crew (all perished)
The Crew: Two Experienced Captains on a Training Flight
This flight was not a normal operation—it was an airport familiarization flight for Captain Anju Khatiwada, who was sitting in the left seat as the Pilot Flying (PF).
🔹 Captain Anju Khatiwada had 6,400 flight hours and was training to land at Pokhara’s new international airport, which had only opened two weeks earlier.
🔹 Captain Kamal KC, an instructor pilot with 22,000 flight hours, was in the right seat as the Pilot Monitoring (PM). His role was to observe and assist Captain Khatiwada in her training.
This was already their third flight of the day, having flown to Pokhara and back before making the final return trip.
During approach, the pilots requested a landing on Runway 12, instead of the initially assigned Runway 30. ATC approved the request, and the aircraft was cleared for landing.
But just seconds before touchdown, something went terribly wrong.
The Moment of Disaster
As Flight 691 neared Pokhara International Airport, cockpit voice recorder (CVR) and flight data recorder (FDR) data revealed a critical error by the pilots:
🔸 At 10:56:32, the Pilot Flying (PF) called for “Flaps 30”, a standard step before landing.
🔸 But instead of moving the flap lever, the condition levers were mistakenly moved to feather, which caused both propellers to lose thrust.
🔸 The aircraft suddenly had no usable engine power—both propellers were not generating thrust.
🔸 The pilots did not recognize the problem until it was too late.
🔸 At 10:57:24, the stick shaker activated, warning the crew of an imminent stall.
🔸 At 10:57:32, the aircraft banked sharply left, rolling past 90 degrees, before crashing into a gorge near the Seti River.
There were no survivors.
Why Did It Happen?
The final report concluded that the probable cause of the crash was:
👉 “The inadvertent movement of both condition levers to the feathered position in flight, which resulted in feathering of both propellers and subsequent loss of thrust, leading to an aerodynamic stall and collision with terrain.”
In simpler terms: The pilots accidentally cut their own power, didn’t realize it, and then lost control before they could recover.
Contributing Factors
The report highlighted six key contributing factors:
1️⃣ High cockpit workload – The pilots were landing at a new airport with challenging terrain. This may have distracted them from noticing the propeller feathering.
2️⃣ Human error under stress – The pilots confused the flap lever with the condition levers, leading to the catastrophic mistake.
3️⃣ Tight and non-standard approach pattern – The visual approach to Runway 12 required a sharp turn, which increased workload and made the situation even riskier.
4️⃣ Lack of proper evaluation of the approach – The Civil Aviation Authority of Nepal (CAAN) approved the Runway 12 approach without fully assessing the risks, despite safety concerns.
5️⃣ Inadequate crew training – The pilots lacked specific simulator training for the visual approach to Pokhara, which might have helped them handle the situation better.
6️⃣ Breakdown of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) – There was poor communication, ineffective Crew Resource Management (CRM), and a lack of cockpit discipline in the final moments.
Lessons for Aviation Safety
✈️ Situational awareness is critical – Pilots must be fully aware of every control input they make, especially during high-workload phases like approach and landing.
✈️ Training must cover worst-case scenarios – The crew had no simulator training for power loss at low altitude. Realistic emergency drills could have made a difference.
✈️ Effective Crew Resource Management (CRM) saves lives – A stronger challenge-and-response culture might have prevented this mistake. The monitoring pilot should have caught the error.
✈️ A stabilized approach is the safest approach – Deviating from standard landing procedures can create unnecessary risks, especially at challenging airports.
✈️ Human factors matter – Fatigue, stress, and high workload can increase the chances of error, highlighting the need for better cockpit procedures and automation safeguards.
Final Thoughts
The crash of Yeti Airlines Flight 691 was one of Nepal’s deadliest aviation disasters. It could have been prevented with better pilot training, stronger adherence to procedures, and improved regulatory oversight.
Aviation is built on layers of safety—when one layer fails, others must catch the mistake. In this case, all layers failed.
