World most dangerous airport landing COCKPIT VIEW 

Just my thought.

It does...

Under the snow there are rocks

There's a wall, you just can't see it because of the snow. The paved surface is 1762 ft, and the wall is about 40 ft from that. I guess it's not a wall, it's about a 45 degree angle. Fortunately you land going uphill 212 ft from one end to the other.

Thank you for sharing this experience 😎

Re the 172: That makes sense. And I believe it. The Pilatus PC-12 on the other hand is a powerful SEL plane designed with such operations in mind. A Cessna 172... not so much... to say the least... in fact its performance envelope is on the edge of insufficient for this altitude, would be if it wasn't for the cold dense air. Being this video is being billed as "...most dangerous airport landing....", seems the better video in that regard would be the one of the 172. Fact is, the most dangerous airport landing is the one where the pilot is not competent to perform it! Regardless of the particular airport involved. I'm getting very sick of over hyped bullshit

It was mentioned the landing strip is at an angle of 18,6% Many planes can't climb faster than that, so with an attempted go-around, they would smash into the mountains ahead.

I don't think Lukla is as steep tho. I may be wrong

@@karlsjunior466 Lukla is 3,000 ft higher so it makes a big difference in terms of available power, especially with normally aspirated engine. You need turbo-compressed or turbine engines to have more resources in case of missed approach. I have many landings in Courchevel and it's not difficult as long as you follow certain procedures. There are many altiports or altisurfaces with steeper runways without the hard surface you find in Courchevel, Mégève or Alpe d'Huez and many have no missed approach procedures when on final. Glacier landings are much more technical due to absence of familiar man-made objects (trees, houses or poles) but you learn how to read the snow condition and feel the ground effect when you flare before touchdown. Also peripheral vision helps you assess your height over the landing area.

And the running water sound is damm annoying....

@@tangcanada9381 Sounds like some guy pissing in a toilet...

Lukla in Nepal is almost the same length

Chad Snow I agree I flew in to Kathmandu Airport in a twin engine propellor airplane in the early seventies, squeaky bottom time!

I think you mean Lukla mate.Kathmandu is on a plateau East of the city

richard brooks oh yes I remember bus ride into Kathmandu the Royal Air Nepal used HS748s in the 70s that’s what I flew in from Patna. Thanks for the airport name. I was a bit of a hippy in those days so memory a bit hazy!

I think more people have been killed at Lukla than here.

Have you seen the documentary of the dangerous airports in Indonesia?

Thanks😎

"Itself"!? No, he is a natural-born man, with a big, brassy pair; make no mistake!

If the pilot felt the need to applaud himself then he had no fucking business landing there in the first place.

@Leigh Hobson That's cool... there was a time I'd of had no problem with that:) Edit: Don't understand confidence much do you... no, not ego, just assuredness born of demonstrated ability... if one doesn't have that, wtf are they risking passenger's lives for.... Try to keep it real

While I agree in many respects with the dangers of Lukla, I still consider the approach and landing at Chagual in Peru as being the most dangerous. With that one you can't even see the airport, as you're descending yet still flying between the mountains, until the last mile. You HAVE to know what you're doing! You finally see the airport as you are making a 45 degree turn to final and 20 seconds from touchdownl!! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-EersrIjC8cQ.html

You are not wrong about chagual! Good lord!

@Michal Lašan Hi Michal! Thanks for the reply. I guess it all boils down to what matters most to you. You are quite correct that the runway at Chagual is much longer than Lukla, is flat and does have a "go-around" possibility. However at least at Lukla you can see the airport from miles away and because of this, at least up to a point about 3 miles away (?, my guesstimate), the aircraft CAN safely abort the landing. But when you have the terrain avoidance system screaming that you're out of your mind for most of the approach, my vote is for Chagual as being the trickiest and therefore the most dangerous. Frankly, I wouldn't want to fly EITHER of them! Cheers!

@@MikeWiggins1235711 But...Chagual has a 1205 meters flat runway and the altitude is 1,200 meters. It makes a big difference for the available power.

Thanks😎

Thanks 😎

Thanks😎

@@thefreedriver89 🙏🙏

I agree! Thank you for your comment

Looks like no building there, not even an outdoor toilet. Land there and you are on your own. Good luck.

@@WornoutRNPARAMEDIC nah it‘s in the middle of a ski resort

It’s a private plane

a passenger was celebrating , not the pilot

I mean they basically don't have a runway half the time

@@BlueOvals24 Plus they deal with high and hot density altitudes (5,700' is a LOW comfortable pattern altitude around here). And they consider an upward slope a benefit for shorter landings and quicker takeoffs.

they have less room on touch, but more room after

Thank you very much for your comment 😎

valerio.l105 is

Of course there are less conventional airports which are more dangerous 😉

Exactly, thank you for your comment 😎

As a pilot, I’ll rely on my training, experience and currency on type, rather than an imaginary sky pixie friend!

Grazie 😎

Its for the rich and famous to get to their SKI resort without having the to suffer the long drive. As an aside its the airport used in the James Bond film where he steals the jet fighter.

Thanks

F

France is really develop country. This airport is for rich people.

So was my laptop for some odd reason, but only and the beginning and the end. Go figure.

What would you say about landing at Daocheng Yading Airport in China (14,418 ft high with a 14,000 ft runway) or Qamdo Banda Airport also in China (14,219 ft high with a 18,045 ft runway) 1,000 ft higher than La Paz in Bolivia. You increase your take-off and landing rolls by 100% in standard pressure and temperature.

Esattamente 😎 grazie per il tuo commento

Ji

France

Ahah nice one😎

Grazie a te per il tuo commento 😎

You probably dont care at all but does someone know of a way to get back into an Instagram account?? I somehow lost my account password. I would love any help you can offer me.

@Abel Gunnar instablaster ;)

@Will Otto I really appreciate your reply. I found the site on google and im in the hacking process now. Takes quite some time so I will reply here later with my results.

@Will Otto It did the trick and I finally got access to my account again. I'm so happy! Thanks so much you saved my ass !

Thanks😎

I would love to fly there, go sking. Big bucks

😉

Thank you for your comment 😎

That was originally a 360-degree video... what is shown is the front camera view

Grazie 😎

Thanks 😎

Pretty much the same situation 👍

Courchevel, France

Exactly 😎