One of the steps in the procedures for landing at Paro is to turn off the ground proximity warning system in the plane, otherwise the “too low terrain” warning will keep going off
It doesn't help that, at least in MSFS 2020, it's absolutely full of other people crashing 747's into the runway at every hour of the day. Funnily enough, I didn't spot that on the list of hazards.
That’s right. Doing the proper approach which is done by the real pilot on paro is very challenging.. Many simmers just land straight way to the runway and ignoring the terrain.. 😅😅
Kudos to Bhutan for making Paro possible. Lukla airport, another in mountainous Nepal, has runway length of 1700 ft at height of 9000 ft. Mountains are tough place to live on.
Ah yes, Tenzing-Hilary Airport. Called the most dangerous airport in the world, it has changing wind directions by time of day, is at over 2.8 kilometers above sea level, and its single runway pretty much points straight at the side of a mountain, so a touch-and-go is not extremely unlikely. Unlike the airport in this video, it is not an international airport, and has limits on what aircraft are even allowed to attempt a landing, because of the short runway and high altitude. Thanks for reminding me of that place!
Landing at Lukla is pretty freaky, there are other sketchy runways in the villages down the mountains that you will land at because of high winds and spend a night with a family man who likes gambling.
Landing is not the only challenge, take off is a challenge too here because just a mile after the end of the runway there is a hill so to navigate that, pilots need to turn right seconds after rotation. BTW the views out of the airport are stunning and there is also a viewpoint on a hill from where one can get an unrestricted view of the airport. The airport also is right next to a river. Has to be the most beautiful airport in the world.
My grandparents landed at Paro when they visited Bhutan in the late 80's. They had to stay 3 weeks longer than planned because my grandma just couldn't gather the nerve to board one of the weekly flights out after the harrowing landing. My grandpa always insisted that the landing was perfectly executed, but even so, my grandma swore they almost died. I believe it had to have been aboard the original Dornier 228s used by Drukair as she only knew it was a small propeller aircraft. They had travelled the world between the 1940s and 80s and had become used to the jet age, so a prop plane already seemed like a risky step back in time for her. Now I understand why the approach was so terrifying. 😅 At least nowadays it's done in Airbus jets with much better flight models.
I saw a video of a pilot landing here. There were so many instruments and terrain warnings beeping, then when he turned for his final approach he turned them all off, prayed to god, and proceeded to fly the plane completely unassisted weaving through the mountain valleys and pointing out monasteries and landmarks to the camera the whole way down. You get shockingly low before even seeing a hint of a runway.
One of the most least talked about and mysterious countries in the world. It’s also the very last country to adapt the telephone service as well as being one of the last handful of countries in the world with no US embassy. Funny thing is that it does not recognize either China or Taiwan as independent countries.
@@unironicaluser1867 Lol Their king even convinced the UN to make up a "happiness index" to distract from the fact that his people were living in poverty.
i dont know where you heard that Bhutan does not recognize the independence of perfectly valid countries. That is not true at all. Bhutan recognizes other nations perfectly well as any other reasonable country does.
When I travelled here I had no idea about this! So cool to learn about this after the fact. I wish I knew before so I could have recorded our landing! During the flight I was more amused by all the monks we saw using cell phones 🤣
So cool that you have been there! Is it true you can’t stay longer than a few days due to their restrictive visa policies? How hard was it to get a visa?
@@keelahrose You can only get a visa through an approved travel agency, you must have a government guide, and you have to spend a minimum of $250 per day (that includes the guide, hotel, food, and transportation.) They limit the number of visas to protect the country and culture.
@@keelahrose I'm from Bangladesh which is one of the two, could be more now haven't checked, countries where citizens get visa on arrival at Bhutan and we only stayed there for 4 days anyway. But from what I remember their visas aren't necessarily restrictive, you just have to pay a fixed fee which covers some of your travel expenses like a hotel, guide with car, etc. I would just check their country website, my impression is that the country is very welcoming, but have limited infrastructure and lots of historical places to visit, so they don't want tourists getting lost or messing up stuff.
24 for a much bigger reason.... There is only one operator, which is small and therefore there is a limited pool of pilots even requiring to need to fly there. With that said, it's a hella challenging approach to fly. Also, it doesn't require a VOR for the approach, you use RNAV which is basically plane GPS and the mountains aren't just to be avoided by eye as you'd have systems to help you keep away. Must be a blast to fly though
ปีที่แล้ว +1
Also, looking forward to seeing VOR in the corrections video for this year...
@@gormster checked that exact procedure in the Bhutan AIP and it is an RNP procedure which is too tight for VOR/DME. But usually you shouldn't need any special training as like you say you need redundancy so your FMS should take in VOR/DME to use as a backup for loss of GNSS (although some FMS's incorrectly use "no GPS" to mean the same as "no RNAV")
Ooh, finally a video talking about stuff I know in passing. Used to work on ILS's and VOR's. If you wanted, you could talk about how they physically manipulate and shape radio waves to guide aircraft, which still confuses me to this day.
Since you know what you're talking about, could you enlighten me on why they couldn't put an ILS in this airport? Eyeballing it each time seems less than ideal, so there's gotta be a good reason.
@@rodrikforrester6989The short answer is likely that an ILS approach wouldn't help, due to the incredibly tight turns needed to even approach the airport. Basically, ILS systems help planes land in a nice straight line several miles out. The glide slope lines you up on a perfectly straight approach with a 3 degree downward slope. Following that line straight down to the airport puts your plane on the correct portion of the runway. Perfect for making sure your plane is lined up miles out, but completely useless for this runway, due to the tight turn 30 seconds before you touch down. An ILS system would only help for those final 30 seconds, after you've already completed the most difficult part of the landing. And if you were already way off course that late in the landing, it would be too late to correct any mistakes. You'd just have to abort and redo the entire approach. (Aborting and redoing an approach is the normal and safe thing to do if you're on a messed up approach.)
@@rodrikforrester6989I would assume it would be to do with 2 factors: 1. Bhutan is very technologically behind compared to the rest of the world, and from another comment, the last to adopt any form of telecommunication at all, so it wouldn’t be surprising if they just refused to or don’t have the specialists or some other reason to not install them (though then the question of why not outsource it if you spend so much effort and money training pilots) 2. I think those high reaching mountain ranges and many obstacles blocking a long clear view to the runway would make clear radio signals much more difficult to reach an incoming aircraft on their own and installing transmission towers might not be worth the effort, especially if you consider the previous point Of course, I’m just speculating here and there might be a different reason alltogether, but these seemed like the most likely to me.
@@rodrikforrester6989 So installing an ILS is not an easy task and requires a lot of safety margin which would be quite difficult with that many mountains. Keep in mind that it is designed to be flown only using instruments and you have to account for signal reflections, pilot error etc. But it wouldn't help anyways because the ILS just draws a straight and (in most cases) exactly 3.00° steep line down to the runway. But since you have to fly multiple curves, ILS wouldn't be able to guide you until the very last second, when you are aligned straight with the runway. So it would be basically useless.
@@urbanistiq8009 What he showed in the video (the chart with all the waypoints) is actually an RNAV approach. The last bit to the runway is a visual segment. This definetely helps reducing weather minima. But designing an RNAV approach is not as simple as just drawing a line and telling GPS to fly along. Flying those turns with a pre-defined radius in such complicated approach paths requires special Pilot and Aircraft certifications and also extra equipment. And the precision is still limited and safety margins need to be high. RNAV relies on the planes GPS and barometric altitude, which both have limited precision compared to a standard ILS; I can imagine that weather and pressure also play a role here. But aviation is getting more and more advanced and GPS based approaches are being developed further to increase precision using ground based systems. However, this will probably still need many years to reach a level that would allow for ILS-like approaches into airports like Paro.
The difficulty results from the task intensiveness of the airport. It does not demand an exceptional pilot. It just demands a pilot who is willing to do this on a regular basis after going through the specific certification process. I guess the pay is not that much different, that's why very few pilots are willing to go through that much stress. Piloting is not about individual skills, heroism or feats of genius. Its about following procedures and knowing ones limitations.
I mean the other issue is that only two airlines ever fly into Paro, Bhutan Airlines and Drukair, and their fleet size is 2 and 5 respectively. Forget anything else, that's the major roadblock. They just don't even have that many captains on payroll at any given time. I suspect that's also why the numbers keep being different since you are not asking "How many pilots are skilled enough for this?" so much as "How many pilots does Drukair currently employ?"
A close second would be Lukla Airport near Mount Everest. It’s even shorter, higher altitude, and because of the mountain there is no go-around procedure for landing.
It's also a tiny domestic one only for light planes that has very little relevance while Paro is an international airport that accommodates A319s. They aren't really THAT comparable.
There is not only a VOR, you showed the RNAV RNP approach which is a GPS based approach that they have to both ends of the runway. However, after some googling I saw the minimums are over 3000' above ground. So, yeah, it's a visual manoeuvre to land from there. Check out Castlegar Airport (CYCG) in Canada. Pretty similar stuff, other than the very high elevation. We fly the Q400 in there.
I've wanted to have a visit to Bhutan, in large part just because of the landing approach into the airport. Sam Chuy made a video about the flight in from Kathmandu, and pointed out that you could see Mt. Everest on the port side of the plane.
Seeing Mt. Everest from the plane is for sure a sick part of the flight!! The flight attendants made an announcement and everyone was swapping sides of the plane so all of us could see it 😁
The same goes for flights from India. I flew from Kolkata and saw Mt Everest on the left side of my flight. Actually most flight paths go through very close to Mt Everest
watching this video about a remote airport reminded me of a certain podcast about remote places that after a few seasons was turned into an youtube channel and then became a remote abandoned place of its own good times
Having landed at the old airport I can confirm you were looking in building windows that were above you as you approached the airport. It was interesting.
That is not quite right, ATC does not guide you towards a runway. However, pilots would follow visual cues and lights in order to align properly onto the runway with high rise buildings below and around the airplane.
Kai Tak was an odd procedure involving a right turn at Checkerboard Hill on final approach, but still doable for most experienced pilots. A landing at Paro involves multiple turns around terrain without any of the strobe lights and signage.
Yea I lived next to Kai Tak airport when I was young , climb up checkerboard hill all the time too. Come think of it it’s a miracle no major accidents ever happened in the decades the airport is in service. We now have an airport further from the city nowadays
One thing, a waypoint doesn't necessarily represent a visual cue. Its a digital/virtual location with specific coordinates that all commercial airplanes have in their flight computers.
Great video! Not exactly correct though, Paro does have instrument approches. The chart you showed was an RNAV approach which is an approach that uses GPS data instead of ground based equipment. Specifically, there’s three different RNP approaches, which use very intense monitoring equipment to make sure all the GPS receivers are working pretty much perfect so that the plane can follow an extremely exact path with as little error as 0.05 of a nautical mile to follow not only waypoints but also curving paths. The minimums, or height at which you must see ground, are still quite high and far away, but those waypoints are not ground visual cues, they’re what the GPS data follows on your instruments so you can follow the path (or the autopilot can):
@@reshpeckHow can you tell if someone is a good pilot by looking at them? Besides, it’s just generic pilot stock footage of someone wearing the uniform and probably not even an actual pilot so even if you somehow could it’s not relevant
I flew into Paro in late 2022. We approached toward a small river coming down from the higher mountains toward us. The river then made a hard left, turning off to our right. The small, single runway was nestled in the crook of the rivulet. Rather than make a hard right turn to line up with the runway, we continued on past still descending, then made a hard right U-turn, staying within the cirque of the mountains, and then proceeded to make a hard left to line up with the runway at its foot. The center for the radius of this last turn seemed to be the grand buddhist monastery, holding court over all visitors, coming or going, who deigned to present themselves. It was thrilling to get it all on video! The airport terminal was the nicest small terminal I’ve ever been to, in my extensive travels. It embodied the traditional form of Bhutanese Buddhist architecture, and even featured a well-done small model of a Buddhist temple around which the baggage carousel ran.
I was lucky to visit Bhutan back in 2006, and I can confirm that, as a passenger at least, the approach is incredible. The main thing I recall is “terrain“ (read: lots of rock) being above and to the side of us as much as below, lots of twists and turns, and what felt like a 180° turn within a valley followed by a stomach churning plummet towards the runway threshold. It was truly great fun and I only wish that smart phones had been invented a few years earlier so that I actually have some video to show for the experience.
Actually, with a CAT III ILS system and the appropriate aircraft, a fully automated "Autoland" is absolutely possible. For now take off is the ONLY phase of flight that can't be flown fully on autopilot in a commercial aircraft. After take-off all the way to touchdown can be 100% autonomous nowadays.
Part of the issue is in good conditions pilots tend to prefer landing manually, it keeps their flying skills sharp and most tend to enjoy it, after hours of essentially babysitting the autopilot it's nice to grab the yoke or joystick and have full control for a while. There's a lot of satisfaction in a well executed manual landing. Regarding auto take off, I suspect Airbus is working on that.
Automatic landings have to be set up and monitored and it’s actually a higher workload than landing manually. The crew has to be certified to do it, the airplane certified to do it (which can vary per individual airplane believe it or not) and the airport has to have a runway capable of doing it. Aurolands only account for 1% of landings. Also Airbus is working on an autonomous taxi takeoff and landing system (ATTOL) for future aircraft to help decrease pilot workload during takeoff taxi and landing. The newest iteration of the system has been dubbed “Project Dragonfly” you can find more information about it on TH-cam and Airbus’ website.
@@sirBrouwerI heard about that, and it’s a shame. It’s a beautiful country so it’s sad I may never be able to see it I feel like they only allow Indians and Nepalis in easily, anyone else will have problems
You have to take a state sanctioned tour. It's beautiful, memorable, and incredible, but it is highly restricted so you will only see positive things...it's important to keep in mind their human rights violations and ethnic cleansing as they show you stunning sights and hardcore propaganda.
@@heartv212 every country is gonna have its dark side I guess. My country is no better so I don’t know if I can criticise too much 😂but you’re right it’s something to keep in mind
The approach had a DME arc to bring you around the mountains and down to the runway which is very helpful when the distance from the VOR stays the same, but if you look it’s a spiral down with decreasing distance from the VOR. This approach would take crazy mental math more than anything and some cajones (or the ladies’ equivalent.)
Yeah, quite a few errors in that matter. In fact, that chart he showed depicts an RNP approach, for which you need more than just that VOR he mentioned (and is obviously an instrument approach). In fact, those two approaches at 2:58 are not that different.
The reason why is that only Drukair operate out of these airport and they only 5 have planes. Also for comparison, DEN airport is 5000ft high and runways are 12,000ft to 16,000ft long for performance. Also, according to @2:57, the approach used is an RNP AR approach which is not a visual approach. All the star waypoints are programmed in the FMS and can be flown using the automation. The decision altitude (around 10,600ft) is when VMC condition must be met, which is after the FAF waypoint called PR712/11,800ft
Denver is completely flat though, there's not really a comparison between there and Bhutan. There are airports that are actually up in the Rockies (Leadville, Aspen, Telluride) that serve as a better comparison
I like how, for the comparison between a Paro approach and a standard straight-in approach, you didn't even use an easy ILS approach - you used a more-complex RNAV approach.
It’s cool, but that approach plate is an RNav plate. It’s still ‘visually’ flown, but the autopilot will fly the entire thing now. This waypoints are exactly that, waypoint the plane will follow. Still cool, but 1000x easier than it used to be
Some years ago, a top ten most extreme airport list was presented by a cable channel. Lukla Nepal was #1 with it's short, angled runway and #2 was Tegucigalpa, Honduras which requires a series of landmarks to be followed to land correctly.
HAI Amy... Sam is the way he is because he wasn't hugged enough as a child. We appreciate you! He needs to send you on a research mission to Bora Bora for a week to study... Something Half as Interesting or something.
About the sponsor, i bought one 7 months ago and i don't regret it one bit. I used to use cartridge razors and shaving felt like a real chore. It took a lot more time, hairs would constantly get stuck and be pulled on instead of being cut, skin got irritated and cuts, i often had to go over the same spot like 10 times sometimes to get those stragglers, cleaning it was a real hassle, i'd have to scrape it with my nail to try getting the hairs out and use a toothpick to poke at it but there was still always hairs and skin left clogging it, and i'd use them for longer than recommended because purchasing new ones was annoying and felt like a waste of money. After getting the Henson Razor, shaving was suddenly a lot less annoying, sometimes almost fun even. Skin gets irritated a lot less often and to a much lesser degree, and instead of getting cuts cause the razor sucks, you only rarely gets cuts when you accidentally mishandle it rather than it being the razors fault. When i see straggler hairs i don't have to go over it like 10 times pressing harder and harder each time only so i can finally get it. Cleaning it takes literally no time at all. If i shave dry i just tap my finger on it once or twice and all the hair and skin falls out immediately and i can continue shaving and then hold it under the tap for like a couple of seconds after i'm done shaving. Or if shaving wet literally just swiping it through the water gets everything out so you can continue, as opposed to with cartridges where you could spend minutes trying to clean them without any good result. And if a blade starts feeling dull i don't even think twice about changing it, because you have so many blades that cost basically nothing. For the price of a small package of cartridges you get several years supply of razor blades. If you're still using cartridges, just get a safety razor already. It takes a lot less time to shave It's so much easier to clean Razor Blades cost nothing Less skin irritation They cut better making you have to go over the same place a lot less times No throwing away bad mixed plastic/metal waste all the time The only disadvantage is the upfront cost, but you'll recoup that soon enough anyways and then start saving money after that And the only thing that might be seen as an advantage of cartridge razor is that they might sometimes feel like they made your skin smoother afterwards, due to that they pull on the hairs before cutting them making them get cut below skin level, but this could result in ingrown hairs
You said only helpful equipment is the VOR, but you've posted an RNAV(RNP) approach chart (seen at 2:58) to visualize tha tough landing. So maybe there is more help in just not on the ground?
The narrator of HAI which is definitely not Sam from Wendover is smaller than 5000m. Noted, with enough of these tiny bits of personal information we will uncover him once and for all
The way-points are not "Visual cues" those are points defined by latitude and longitude which are in the aircraft's Navigation database and the aircraft navigation system navigates to those points without any reference to seeing anything outside. It would be entirely possible to fly this procedure while being completely within clouds until Waypoint PR712 The whole point of this entire procedure is to provide a means of landing at the airport whether doesn't allow you to find your way there between the mountains visually.
Yep. You could probably fly there with small aircraft too. Altough you might still need a special certification, and you don't have many small aircraft flying around there because oft the terrain and high elevation which massively impacts performance too.
In good weather, it's probably somewhat easier, you can approach more slowly (but not that much more slowly, lower air density increases your stall speed) which gives you more time to react. In bad weather, you'd probably get blown into a mountain by the wind.
Having flown there on a plane, it's an incredible experience to see it glide through the mountains and then suddenly, there is tarmac and you can touchdown
Flew there (as a passenger!) in 2007. I wish I'd known it was this impressive a landing beforehand so I would have appreciated it more! Beautiful airport, though. The main building is built in the traditional Bhutanese style.
It says something about me as a person that when he shouted “Marco” I expected the follow up to be “waiting for him to come get you with his dimensional scissors”
When I was there in 2002, we were told that Druk Air (the then sole airline in Bhutan) is an acronym for “Drink Rum Urgently, Kamikaze Arrival in Ricefields.”
The approach talked about in the video is an RNAV approach which means it’s flown with gps, the waypoints are NOT visual, they are GPS waypoints the whole procedure is meant to be completed in the clouds.
Viewer submitted criticism (all offense intended): 2:27 that's not technically wrong, but it is grammatically confusing. The wording makes it seem like Paro takeoff speed and Miami International take off speed are identical, but planes have less horizontal acceleration (and thus take longer) to get enough speed. To be clear, the higher the elevation, the lower the air density and temperature. The lower the density and temperature, the lower the lift from air pressure. To compensate, increase takeoff speed to have your lift force be greater than your gravitational force.
2:21 Question - why do planes take longer to gain momentum at higher altitudes? Isn't air density and pressure lower at higher altitudes, thus making acceleration easier?
You need to be moving fast enough for the wings to have enough air moving past them to generate the required lift. When the air is thinner that means you need to be moving faster. The engine also produces less power when the air is thinner so you need to reach a higher speed with less power than at sea level. The reduced drag is not enough to offset those factors. The reduced drag actually hinders you on landing because it makes it take longer to slow down.
Nice video, but there are some mistakes. The biggest one is the waypoints (stars) on the chart shown. They are not visual references (or at least most of them) but they are completely opposite - they are just virtual navigational references which aircraft's navigational computer uses to build its approach path. This type of approach is not visual till the final part - this is the so-called RNP approach which utilizes the onboard navigational equipment (GNSS, Inertial references, radio beacons etc.) thus making it possible to fly it on the Instrumental Flight Rules basis till the altitude of ~3500 ft above the airport elevation. Also using sattelite navigation allows pilots to stabilize the plane on its approach path nearly as easy as it is when using ILS. The aircraft is required to have special navigation performance to shoot this type of approaches but it makes it easier to fly through the mountaneous terrain thanks to RNP.
Was lucky enough to get to go to Bhutan in 2004. I wondered why such a small plane seemed to have as many jet engines as it did. Became very clear on takeoff!
I'm reminded of an airport that might be as bad. You need to fly lower than the level of the airport due to the mountains. So on your approach you literally climb up to the altitude of the airport and then land. PNG from memory.
Indeed! It seems they've extended the runway a bit though and that's a bit strange since the terrain right next to each end of it is rather damp and salt and full of cod and crabs and clams.
For such a mountainous country its impressive they were able to find ANYWHERE to even build an airport in the first place
I just checked google maps and yeah how the hell did they even find anywhere 😂 that place is literally just mountains and rivers
@@mnm5165 That's what they pay the surveyors the big bucks for :)
and good trout fishing I understand.@@mnm5165
One could say it's quite Paro-lous
@@Lordfarquad1213I think I need a new Paro Chu for that
One of the steps in the procedures for landing at Paro is to turn off the ground proximity warning system in the plane, otherwise the “too low terrain” warning will keep going off
TERRAIN! TERRAIN! PULL UP! PULL UP!
I tried landing at Paro in a flight simulator, and I can confirm it’s really hard
I landed there not knowing it had such notoriety and found taking off and getting any altitude quite a challenge.
It doesn't help that, at least in MSFS 2020, it's absolutely full of other people crashing 747's into the runway at every hour of the day. Funnily enough, I didn't spot that on the list of hazards.
@@jackroutledge352 You just put the absolute funniest image into my head. Thanks for the good laugh LMAOOOO
That’s right. Doing the proper approach which is done by the real pilot on paro is very challenging.. Many simmers just land straight way to the runway and ignoring the terrain.. 😅😅
It’s one of the landing challenges in MSFS. You don’t see other players if you are doing the challenges. :)
Can't believe Sam won't send Amy to Bhutan flight school
At least let her expense the cost to fix her phone's screen. It's a prop in the video after all.
He's such a bad feminist
Can Amy be on Jet Lag?
Yeah what the hell. More like Half as Progressive
Kudos to Bhutan for making Paro possible. Lukla airport, another in mountainous Nepal, has runway length of 1700 ft at height of 9000 ft. Mountains are tough place to live on.
Ah yes, Tenzing-Hilary Airport. Called the most dangerous airport in the world, it has changing wind directions by time of day, is at over 2.8 kilometers above sea level, and its single runway pretty much points straight at the side of a mountain, so a touch-and-go is not extremely unlikely.
Unlike the airport in this video, it is not an international airport, and has limits on what aircraft are even allowed to attempt a landing, because of the short runway and high altitude.
Thanks for reminding me of that place!
When I saw the title I assumed this was going to be about Lukla, but nope I was surprised to find that it wasn't!
Yes in Paro you can land A319's. In Lukla you won't have bigger than a Twin otter or a Dornier DO228
Landing at Lukla is pretty freaky, there are other sketchy runways in the villages down the mountains that you will land at because of high winds and spend a night with a family man who likes gambling.
Landing is not the only challenge, take off is a challenge too here because just a mile after the end of the runway there is a hill so to navigate that, pilots need to turn right seconds after rotation. BTW the views out of the airport are stunning and there is also a viewpoint on a hill from where one can get an unrestricted view of the airport. The airport also is right next to a river. Has to be the most beautiful airport in the world.
I don’t know about that, have you ever been to Newark Airport?
@@SenorBigDong69 Ugliness has its own beauty, I guess.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣@@SenorBigDong69
I've been to both airports. Paro is more beautiful for its scenery. Bhutan is a stunning country.
Wrong. That's Santos Dummont airport in Rio de Janeiro. Btw, you need to do the same curve not to hit the Sugarloaf Mountain
Lemme tell you it's actually twenty one pilots that are allowed to land there, and when doing so, they are always stressed out.
They are taking their time on their ride though, so that's good.
good comment
Watched this video just to see this kinda comment
I see what you did there.
They think this thing is a highway, but it’s actually an airport
My grandparents landed at Paro when they visited Bhutan in the late 80's. They had to stay 3 weeks longer than planned because my grandma just couldn't gather the nerve to board one of the weekly flights out after the harrowing landing. My grandpa always insisted that the landing was perfectly executed, but even so, my grandma swore they almost died. I believe it had to have been aboard the original Dornier 228s used by Drukair as she only knew it was a small propeller aircraft.
They had travelled the world between the 1940s and 80s and had become used to the jet age, so a prop plane already seemed like a risky step back in time for her. Now I understand why the approach was so terrifying. 😅 At least nowadays it's done in Airbus jets with much better flight models.
Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing ... my pilot pal told me that.
A perfect landing at Paro is one in which you *almost* die.
@@AlRoderickbecause a non perfect landing guarantees death lol
Cudve just taken the road down to the plains 😒
I saw a video of a pilot landing here. There were so many instruments and terrain warnings beeping, then when he turned for his final approach he turned them all off, prayed to god, and proceeded to fly the plane completely unassisted weaving through the mountain valleys and pointing out monasteries and landmarks to the camera the whole way down. You get shockingly low before even seeing a hint of a runway.
If you can find the video, I’d love to watch it
Amy is my favorite character in the HAI lore. I'm pretty sure she could nail it within like a week if you just gave her a chance, Sam.
One of the most least talked about and mysterious countries in the world. It’s also the very last country to adapt the telephone service as well as being one of the last handful of countries in the world with no US embassy. Funny thing is that it does not recognize either China or Taiwan as independent countries.
alternative sentence:
one of the most countries in the would. it's also very technologically behind, being that even african countries out pace it.
@@unironicaluser1867 Lol Their king even convinced the UN to make up a "happiness index" to distract from the fact that his people were living in poverty.
Y'all just mad that Bhutan doesn't recognize your country :(
@@GeoMeridium Yeah but, having seen it, I would much rather Bhutan's poverty than the US's poverty.
i dont know where you heard that Bhutan does not recognize the independence of perfectly valid countries.
That is not true at all.
Bhutan recognizes other nations perfectly well as any other reasonable country does.
When I travelled here I had no idea about this! So cool to learn about this after the fact. I wish I knew before so I could have recorded our landing! During the flight I was more amused by all the monks we saw using cell phones 🤣
they mention it in the in flight magazine thingy.
So cool that you have been there! Is it true you can’t stay longer than a few days due to their restrictive visa policies? How hard was it to get a visa?
@@keelahrose You can only get a visa through an approved travel agency, you must have a government guide, and you have to spend a minimum of $250 per day (that includes the guide, hotel, food, and transportation.) They limit the number of visas to protect the country and culture.
@@keelahrose I'm from Bangladesh which is one of the two, could be more now haven't checked, countries where citizens get visa on arrival at Bhutan and we only stayed there for 4 days anyway. But from what I remember their visas aren't necessarily restrictive, you just have to pay a fixed fee which covers some of your travel expenses like a hotel, guide with car, etc. I would just check their country website, my impression is that the country is very welcoming, but have limited infrastructure and lots of historical places to visit, so they don't want tourists getting lost or messing up stuff.
Thanks so much for the info@@sadmanh0!
24 for a much bigger reason.... There is only one operator, which is small and therefore there is a limited pool of pilots even requiring to need to fly there. With that said, it's a hella challenging approach to fly.
Also, it doesn't require a VOR for the approach, you use RNAV which is basically plane GPS and the mountains aren't just to be avoided by eye as you'd have systems to help you keep away.
Must be a blast to fly though
Also, looking forward to seeing VOR in the corrections video for this year...
Although you can use a VOR/DME (without GPS) for an RNAV approach (if it is RNAV5), but not a VOR on its own.
I’m assuming to be certified you need to do a landing with GPS disabled, though? Relying on a single system is an aviation faux pas.
@@gormster checked that exact procedure in the Bhutan AIP and it is an RNP procedure which is too tight for VOR/DME. But usually you shouldn't need any special training as like you say you need redundancy so your FMS should take in VOR/DME to use as a backup for loss of GNSS (although some FMS's incorrectly use "no GPS" to mean the same as "no RNAV")
Ooh, finally a video talking about stuff I know in passing. Used to work on ILS's and VOR's. If you wanted, you could talk about how they physically manipulate and shape radio waves to guide aircraft, which still confuses me to this day.
Since you know what you're talking about, could you enlighten me on why they couldn't put an ILS in this airport? Eyeballing it each time seems less than ideal, so there's gotta be a good reason.
@@rodrikforrester6989The short answer is likely that an ILS approach wouldn't help, due to the incredibly tight turns needed to even approach the airport.
Basically, ILS systems help planes land in a nice straight line several miles out. The glide slope lines you up on a perfectly straight approach with a 3 degree downward slope. Following that line straight down to the airport puts your plane on the correct portion of the runway. Perfect for making sure your plane is lined up miles out, but completely useless for this runway, due to the tight turn 30 seconds before you touch down. An ILS system would only help for those final 30 seconds, after you've already completed the most difficult part of the landing. And if you were already way off course that late in the landing, it would be too late to correct any mistakes. You'd just have to abort and redo the entire approach. (Aborting and redoing an approach is the normal and safe thing to do if you're on a messed up approach.)
@@rodrikforrester6989I would assume it would be to do with 2 factors:
1. Bhutan is very technologically behind compared to the rest of the world, and from another comment, the last to adopt any form of telecommunication at all, so it wouldn’t be surprising if they just refused to or don’t have the specialists or some other reason to not install them (though then the question of why not outsource it if you spend so much effort and money training pilots)
2. I think those high reaching mountain ranges and many obstacles blocking a long clear view to the runway would make clear radio signals much more difficult to reach an incoming aircraft on their own and installing transmission towers might not be worth the effort, especially if you consider the previous point
Of course, I’m just speculating here and there might be a different reason alltogether, but these seemed like the most likely to me.
@@rodrikforrester6989 So installing an ILS is not an easy task and requires a lot of safety margin which would be quite difficult with that many mountains. Keep in mind that it is designed to be flown only using instruments and you have to account for signal reflections, pilot error etc.
But it wouldn't help anyways because the ILS just draws a straight and (in most cases) exactly 3.00° steep line down to the runway. But since you have to fly multiple curves, ILS wouldn't be able to guide you until the very last second, when you are aligned straight with the runway. So it would be basically useless.
@@urbanistiq8009 What he showed in the video (the chart with all the waypoints) is actually an RNAV approach. The last bit to the runway is a visual segment. This definetely helps reducing weather minima. But designing an RNAV approach is not as simple as just drawing a line and telling GPS to fly along. Flying those turns with a pre-defined radius in such complicated approach paths requires special Pilot and Aircraft certifications and also extra equipment. And the precision is still limited and safety margins need to be high. RNAV relies on the planes GPS and barometric altitude, which both have limited precision compared to a standard ILS; I can imagine that weather and pressure also play a role here.
But aviation is getting more and more advanced and GPS based approaches are being developed further to increase precision using ground based systems. However, this will probably still need many years to reach a level that would allow for ILS-like approaches into airports like Paro.
The difficulty results from the task intensiveness of the airport. It does not demand an exceptional pilot. It just demands a pilot who is willing to do this on a regular basis after going through the specific certification process.
I guess the pay is not that much different, that's why very few pilots are willing to go through that much stress.
Piloting is not about individual skills, heroism or feats of genius. Its about following procedures and knowing ones limitations.
I mean the other issue is that only two airlines ever fly into Paro, Bhutan Airlines and Drukair, and their fleet size is 2 and 5 respectively. Forget anything else, that's the major roadblock. They just don't even have that many captains on payroll at any given time. I suspect that's also why the numbers keep being different since you are not asking "How many pilots are skilled enough for this?" so much as "How many pilots does Drukair currently employ?"
A close second would be Lukla Airport near Mount Everest. It’s even shorter, higher altitude, and because of the mountain there is no go-around procedure for landing.
Is that the one that looks like a ski-jump?
It's also a tiny domestic one only for light planes that has very little relevance while Paro is an international airport that accommodates A319s. They aren't really THAT comparable.
"It has a 'Paro' approaches" was a personal highlight of this exceptional video 😂😂
Might be better to specify that Paro is an international airport in the title.
Heard Kathmandu is also difficult with the mountains.
I feel like Kathmandu’s airport might be easier to land at though, it’s a much larger city than any city in Bhutan and sees way more flights
@@bababababababa6124 Yeah, I don't think it's comparable to Paro, but the function is different from say, Courchevel or Lukla.
At 0:09 they say it.
@@56independent Ah, I meant in the title
i know the Tenzing-Hillary Airport is hard to land on
There is not only a VOR, you showed the RNAV RNP approach which is a GPS based approach that they have to both ends of the runway. However, after some googling I saw the minimums are over 3000' above ground. So, yeah, it's a visual manoeuvre to land from there.
Check out Castlegar Airport (CYCG) in Canada. Pretty similar stuff, other than the very high elevation. We fly the Q400 in there.
For someone who’s really into airplanes, calling an RNAV a visual approach sure is a new one.
Yeah, he seems to not really understand what this is.
Guess it was visual before RNAV was a thing, but yeah.
This video a little PLANE.
I love how satisfied sam sounds with that sponsor transition. Also he should send Amy to Bhutanese flight school for a follow up video
I thought he could barely hold his laughter when he said that line.
Henson is actually really underrated, their razors are fckn good
I've wanted to have a visit to Bhutan, in large part just because of the landing approach into the airport. Sam Chuy made a video about the flight in from Kathmandu, and pointed out that you could see Mt. Everest on the port side of the plane.
Seeing Mt. Everest from the plane is for sure a sick part of the flight!! The flight attendants made an announcement and everyone was swapping sides of the plane so all of us could see it 😁
The same goes for flights from India. I flew from Kolkata and saw Mt Everest on the left side of my flight. Actually most flight paths go through very close to Mt Everest
Me too!
watching this video about a remote airport reminded me of a certain podcast about remote places that after a few seasons was turned into an youtube channel and then became a remote abandoned place of its own
good times
I've been told that at one of the old hong Kong airports, air traffic control had to guide you between buildings to get a proper landing.
That’s the old kaitak approach
Having landed at the old airport I can confirm you were looking in building windows that were above you as you approached the airport. It was interesting.
That is not quite right, ATC does not guide you towards a runway. However, pilots would follow visual cues and lights in order to align properly onto the runway with high rise buildings below and around the airplane.
Kai Tak was an odd procedure involving a right turn at Checkerboard Hill on final approach, but still doable for most experienced pilots. A landing at Paro involves multiple turns around terrain without any of the strobe lights and signage.
Yea I lived next to Kai Tak airport when I was young , climb up checkerboard hill all the time too.
Come think of it it’s a miracle no major accidents ever happened in the decades the airport is in service.
We now have an airport further from the city nowadays
One thing, a waypoint doesn't necessarily represent a visual cue. Its a digital/virtual location with specific coordinates that all commercial airplanes have in their flight computers.
Great video! Not exactly correct though, Paro does have instrument approches. The chart you showed was an RNAV approach which is an approach that uses GPS data instead of ground based equipment. Specifically, there’s three different RNP approaches, which use very intense monitoring equipment to make sure all the GPS receivers are working pretty much perfect so that the plane can follow an extremely exact path with as little error as 0.05 of a nautical mile to follow not only waypoints but also curving paths. The minimums, or height at which you must see ground, are still quite high and far away, but those waypoints are not ground visual cues, they’re what the GPS data follows on your instruments so you can follow the path (or the autopilot can):
Amy the real mvp of this channel 🤣
Thats a lot of stock footage substituting for a few minutes of Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 screen recording you could've done 😅
Especially the "perfect pilot" part. No offense to lady pilots but she doesn't exactly instill me with confidence in getting there in one piece.
@@reshpecksame here
@@reshpeckdo you know her personally? like there’s no saying if she is worse than the average person who hasn’t started flight school
@@reshpeckHow can you tell if someone is a good pilot by looking at them? Besides, it’s just generic pilot stock footage of someone wearing the uniform and probably not even an actual pilot so even if you somehow could it’s not relevant
@@reshpeckcertified sexist moment
I came here for a 21 pilots joke and my disappointment is immeasurable
Explaining VORs with Marco Polo is nothing sort of genius. It's exactly how it works.
I flew into Paro in late 2022. We approached toward a small river coming down from the higher mountains toward us. The river then made a hard left, turning off to our right. The small, single runway was nestled in the crook of the rivulet. Rather than make a hard right turn to line up with the runway, we continued on past still descending, then made a hard right U-turn, staying within the cirque of the mountains, and then proceeded to make a hard left to line up with the runway at its foot. The center for the radius of this last turn seemed to be the grand buddhist monastery, holding court over all visitors, coming or going, who deigned to present themselves. It was thrilling to get it all on video!
The airport terminal was the nicest small terminal I’ve ever been to, in my extensive travels. It embodied the traditional form of Bhutanese Buddhist architecture, and even featured a well-done small model of a Buddhist temple around which the baggage carousel ran.
I was lucky to visit Bhutan back in 2006, and I can confirm that, as a passenger at least, the approach is incredible. The main thing I recall is “terrain“ (read: lots of rock) being above and to the side of us as much as below, lots of twists and turns, and what felt like a 180° turn within a valley followed by a stomach churning plummet towards the runway threshold. It was truly great fun and I only wish that smart phones had been invented a few years earlier so that I actually have some video to show for the experience.
Actually, with a CAT III ILS system and the appropriate aircraft, a fully automated "Autoland" is absolutely possible. For now take off is the ONLY phase of flight that can't be flown fully on autopilot in a commercial aircraft. After take-off all the way to touchdown can be 100% autonomous nowadays.
Part of the issue is in good conditions pilots tend to prefer landing manually, it keeps their flying skills sharp and most tend to enjoy it, after hours of essentially babysitting the autopilot it's nice to grab the yoke or joystick and have full control for a while. There's a lot of satisfaction in a well executed manual landing.
Regarding auto take off, I suspect Airbus is working on that.
Automatic landings have to be set up and monitored and it’s actually a higher workload than landing manually. The crew has to be certified to do it, the airplane certified to do it (which can vary per individual airplane believe it or not) and the airport has to have a runway capable of doing it.
Aurolands only account for 1% of landings.
Also Airbus is working on an autonomous taxi takeoff and landing system (ATTOL) for future aircraft to help decrease pilot workload during takeoff taxi and landing.
The newest iteration of the system has been dubbed “Project Dragonfly” you can find more information about it on TH-cam and Airbus’ website.
*at a handful of major airports
@@adamjagger3263 *in certain airplanes, with certified flight crews, with all the equipment functioning, in specific weather conditions
Bhutan is definitely the coolest country nobody knows anything about
Want to visit someday
well be sure to request a visum far in advance. as Bhutan is known for only allowing a limited amount of tourist in to the country with in a year.
@@sirBrouwerI heard about that, and it’s a shame. It’s a beautiful country so it’s sad I may never be able to see it
I feel like they only allow Indians and Nepalis in easily, anyone else will have problems
@@bababababababa6124 I think they’re strict with literally anyone entering to be fair. Not North Korea levels though
You have to take a state sanctioned tour. It's beautiful, memorable, and incredible, but it is highly restricted so you will only see positive things...it's important to keep in mind their human rights violations and ethnic cleansing as they show you stunning sights and hardcore propaganda.
@@heartv212 every country is gonna have its dark side I guess. My country is no better so I don’t know if I can criticise too much 😂but you’re right it’s something to keep in mind
Fun fact, Bhutan doesn’t recognize either China or Taiwan
So who do they think borders them to the north? 😂
@@tombo416 there is no legitimate government north of them
@@tombo416 the people’s republic of [REDACTED]
Bhutan just says fuckem both then. Not a bad tactic, I don't think.
@@reshpeck As long as they are or have a claim to be in the UN Security Council, Bhutan also says fuckem to them as well.
The approach had a DME arc to bring you around the mountains and down to the runway which is very helpful when the distance from the VOR stays the same, but if you look it’s a spiral down with decreasing distance from the VOR. This approach would take crazy mental math more than anything and some cajones (or the ladies’ equivalent.)
turn 10 twist 10 baby!
For some ladies, it is cojones
it's cojones I don't know why would you have drawers between your legs.
Nope. Not a DME arc, it’s an RNP AR approach, a type of GPS approach. No “crazy mental math” required.
@@Skepilot Good point. The RNAV would guide them directly down. Even then it’s one of their only points of reference short of the gps.
3:06 Wee error! Pilot here, Those waypoints as they are a star, are RNAV (GPS) waypoints :) Triangles are Visual waypoints :)
Yeah, quite a few errors in that matter. In fact, that chart he showed depicts an RNP approach, for which you need more than just that VOR he mentioned (and is obviously an instrument approach). In fact, those two approaches at 2:58 are not that different.
4:30 I was cubing during this video!
The reason why is that only Drukair operate out of these airport and they only 5 have planes. Also for comparison, DEN airport is 5000ft high and runways are 12,000ft to 16,000ft long for performance.
Also, according to @2:57, the approach used is an RNP AR approach which is not a visual approach. All the star waypoints are programmed in the FMS and can be flown using the automation. The decision altitude (around 10,600ft) is when VMC condition must be met, which is after the FAF waypoint called PR712/11,800ft
@Alireza Alivandivafa you're right, and they have 2 planes I believe!
Denver is completely flat though, there's not really a comparison between there and Bhutan. There are airports that are actually up in the Rockies (Leadville, Aspen, Telluride) that serve as a better comparison
I like how, for the comparison between a Paro approach and a standard straight-in approach, you didn't even use an easy ILS approach - you used a more-complex RNAV approach.
HAI somehow makes me feel lazy and productive at the same time
It’s cool, but that approach plate is an RNav plate. It’s still ‘visually’ flown, but the autopilot will fly the entire thing now. This waypoints are exactly that, waypoint the plane will follow.
Still cool, but 1000x easier than it used to be
"5000m, which is taller than mount fuji, the matterhorn, or me" is a great line
1:55 Thought that was just stock footage until I took a closer look.
That’s an amazing detail :D
Some years ago, a top ten most extreme airport list was presented by a cable channel. Lukla Nepal was #1 with it's short, angled runway and #2 was Tegucigalpa, Honduras which requires a series of landmarks to be followed to land correctly.
HAI Amy... Sam is the way he is because he wasn't hugged enough as a child. We appreciate you! He needs to send you on a research mission to Bora Bora for a week to study... Something Half as Interesting or something.
Sending Amy some love, she's not hated! ♥
Was really waiting for the "want to fly to Paro? Today's sponsor can help"
I only looked at the title and the thumbnail and correctly guessed the airport. Perhaps I am becoming someone like Sam.
0:28 The censor makes it sound like hes saying "how do those fucking pilots pull it off"
Looking at that quick approach plate, it's an RNAV RNP approach, so those star waypoints are lat/long, not necessarily visual cues.
About the sponsor, i bought one 7 months ago and i don't regret it one bit. I used to use cartridge razors and shaving felt like a real chore. It took a lot more time, hairs would constantly get stuck and be pulled on instead of being cut, skin got irritated and cuts, i often had to go over the same spot like 10 times sometimes to get those stragglers, cleaning it was a real hassle, i'd have to scrape it with my nail to try getting the hairs out and use a toothpick to poke at it but there was still always hairs and skin left clogging it, and i'd use them for longer than recommended because purchasing new ones was annoying and felt like a waste of money.
After getting the Henson Razor, shaving was suddenly a lot less annoying, sometimes almost fun even. Skin gets irritated a lot less often and to a much lesser degree, and instead of getting cuts cause the razor sucks, you only rarely gets cuts when you accidentally mishandle it rather than it being the razors fault. When i see straggler hairs i don't have to go over it like 10 times pressing harder and harder each time only so i can finally get it. Cleaning it takes literally no time at all. If i shave dry i just tap my finger on it once or twice and all the hair and skin falls out immediately and i can continue shaving and then hold it under the tap for like a couple of seconds after i'm done shaving. Or if shaving wet literally just swiping it through the water gets everything out so you can continue, as opposed to with cartridges where you could spend minutes trying to clean them without any good result. And if a blade starts feeling dull i don't even think twice about changing it, because you have so many blades that cost basically nothing. For the price of a small package of cartridges you get several years supply of razor blades.
If you're still using cartridges, just get a safety razor already.
It takes a lot less time to shave
It's so much easier to clean
Razor Blades cost nothing
Less skin irritation
They cut better making you have to go over the same place a lot less times
No throwing away bad mixed plastic/metal waste all the time
The only disadvantage is the upfront cost, but you'll recoup that soon enough anyways and then start saving money after that
And the only thing that might be seen as an advantage of cartridge razor is that they might sometimes feel like they made your skin smoother afterwards, due to that they pull on the hairs before cutting them making them get cut below skin level, but this could result in ingrown hairs
I've seen a lot of comments under this video of people praising this razor. Personally, I use an electric shaver, but this is still interesting
Is that Amy's resignation letter at 1:55?
1:02 it can (in some airports)
As a pilot the analogy about a VOR being similar to yelling Marco and pollo is very accurate
You said only helpful equipment is the VOR, but you've posted an RNAV(RNP) approach chart (seen at 2:58) to visualize tha tough landing. So maybe there is more help in just not on the ground?
The narrator of HAI which is definitely not Sam from Wendover is smaller than 5000m. Noted, with enough of these tiny bits of personal information we will uncover him once and for all
This is a RNAV (RNP) approach that relies on GPS guidance so it is not strictly flown visual only. This is different than the ILS technology.
BRB, going to start the “Amy Bhutanese Flight School” scholarship
"a Paro approaches" my god
this is the level of pun I aspire to, 10/10 keep up the amazing work 🤩
The way-points are not "Visual cues" those are points defined by latitude and longitude which are in the aircraft's Navigation database and the aircraft navigation system navigates to those points without any reference to seeing anything outside. It would be entirely possible to fly this procedure while being completely within clouds until Waypoint PR712 The whole point of this entire procedure is to provide a means of landing at the airport whether doesn't allow you to find your way there between the mountains visually.
After watching jet lag the game, I gotta say Sam has a face for radio.
Only logical thing now is to do a video on Lukla Airport (Nepal)
I’ve flown into there! We had to make sure people and gear were evenly distributed because of weight.
justice for amy!!
Amy out here getting more miles than this airport probably has flights in a day
I suspect this is for commercial airline pilots, relatively easy in smaller aircraft
Yep. You could probably fly there with small aircraft too. Altough you might still need a special certification, and you don't have many small aircraft flying around there because oft the terrain and high elevation which massively impacts performance too.
In good weather, it's probably somewhat easier, you can approach more slowly (but not that much more slowly, lower air density increases your stall speed) which gives you more time to react. In bad weather, you'd probably get blown into a mountain by the wind.
When flying in and out of Bhutan, we were on a smaller plane every time, like two seats in one row, and one or two in another.
Having flown there on a plane, it's an incredible experience to see it glide through the mountains and then suddenly, there is tarmac and you can touchdown
0:50 ayo thats really cool, those vids do get better and better each time. It’s like evolution haha
TBF that’s a top tier horse
Flew there (as a passenger!) in 2007. I wish I'd known it was this impressive a landing beforehand so I would have appreciated it more! Beautiful airport, though. The main building is built in the traditional Bhutanese style.
Masterful "close shave" transition.
The waypoints on that chart you showed at 3 minutes are not visual queues. They're the exact opposite and based off GPS co-ordinates.
Paro approaches. 😂 You got me.
It says something about me as a person that when he shouted “Marco” I expected the follow up to be “waiting for him to come get you with his dimensional scissors”
I remember back in 2004 seeing this airport and a plane landing too. Was just 9 years old then
When I was there in 2002, we were told that Druk Air (the then sole airline in Bhutan) is an acronym for “Drink Rum Urgently, Kamikaze Arrival in Ricefields.”
The approach talked about in the video is an RNAV approach which means it’s flown with gps, the waypoints are NOT visual, they are GPS waypoints the whole procedure is meant to be completed in the clouds.
Viewer submitted criticism (all offense intended):
2:27 that's not technically wrong, but it is grammatically confusing. The wording makes it seem like Paro takeoff speed and Miami International take off speed are identical, but planes have less horizontal acceleration (and thus take longer) to get enough speed.
To be clear, the higher the elevation, the lower the air density and temperature. The lower the density and temperature, the lower the lift from air pressure. To compensate, increase takeoff speed to have your lift force be greater than your gravitational force.
"Maintain terrain separation" is so funny. Imagine if they used this in other professions. "Maintain bullet separation" - drill instructor
you can tell sam *loved* that ad transition
Another delightfully entertaining yet informative video. Great work!
One of the most interesting videos on this channel this year :)
More aviation videos please
It's super fun to look out the window and up at houses while still flying.
This video badly needed a video of a landing at Bhutan airport.
Amazing how little can land here
Believe it or not this flight was my life's first flight and after this, I'm never afraid of any flights
When I went to Bhutan, I went through the land route from India. And since I am from a SAARC country I didn't have to pay the $250/day fee.
Shoutout to the beep boops that help keep the plane on track
you could have settle on 21 pilots for MORE half as interesting jokes
that turbulence stock footage is hilarious
Love the video but also +1 for the Henson razor. Bought mine a year ago and it's a complete winner
2:21 Question - why do planes take longer to gain momentum at higher altitudes? Isn't air density and pressure lower at higher altitudes, thus making acceleration easier?
You need to be moving fast enough for the wings to have enough air moving past them to generate the required lift. When the air is thinner that means you need to be moving faster. The engine also produces less power when the air is thinner so you need to reach a higher speed with less power than at sea level. The reduced drag is not enough to offset those factors.
The reduced drag actually hinders you on landing because it makes it take longer to slow down.
@@Dale--- Thank you for the explanation :)
@@Dale---… I could not have explained that any better! :) Remember, “It’s always sunny on top!” :)
Nice video, but there are some mistakes. The biggest one is the waypoints (stars) on the chart shown. They are not visual references (or at least most of them) but they are completely opposite - they are just virtual navigational references which aircraft's navigational computer uses to build its approach path. This type of approach is not visual till the final part - this is the so-called RNP approach which utilizes the onboard navigational equipment (GNSS, Inertial references, radio beacons etc.) thus making it possible to fly it on the Instrumental Flight Rules basis till the altitude of ~3500 ft above the airport elevation. Also using sattelite navigation allows pilots to stabilize the plane on its approach path nearly as easy as it is when using ILS. The aircraft is required to have special navigation performance to shoot this type of approaches but it makes it easier to fly through the mountaneous terrain thanks to RNP.
you could have just put "Why Only Less Than 25 Pilots Are Allowed to Land at This Airport" for accuracy, clarity and honesty
I've seen footage of this landing from inside the cockpit and it's telling that prior to making the attempt the captain says a prayer.
Was lucky enough to get to go to Bhutan in 2004. I wondered why such a small plane seemed to have as many jet engines as it did. Became very clear on takeoff!
I'm reminded of an airport that might be as bad.
You need to fly lower than the level of the airport due to the mountains.
So on your approach you literally climb up to the altitude of the airport and then land.
PNG from memory.
HAA? So it's Hasvik Airport in Norway?
Indeed! It seems they've extended the runway a bit though and that's a bit strange since the terrain right next to each end of it is rather damp and salt and full of cod and crabs and clams.