No fatalities

Nepal Airlines Twin Otter Accident at Jomsom Airport (9N-ABO)

Jomsom, NepalLanding (descent or approach)

On May 16, 2013, a De Havilland DHC-6 Twin Otter (registration 9N-ABO) operated by Nepal Airlines was involved in an aviation accident near Jomsom, Nepal during landing or approach. No fatalities were reported. Investigators recorded the probable cause as: The most probable cause was the PIC’s inappropriate conduct of STOL procedure and landing technique during the landing phase, and an attempt to take off again without sufficient airspeed, required lifting force, or available runway length. This summary draws on records from the Bureau of Aircraft Accidents Archives (B3A); 1 related events involving the same aircraft type or operator are linked below.

Sourcesthe Bureau of Aircraft Accidents Archives (B3A)Primary reportUpdated 2026-06-11Data APIEditorial standards
Aircraft registered 9N-ABO
Aircraft registered 9N-ABO. Photo: Solundir / CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

A Nepal Airlines DHC6/300 (9N-ABO) overran runway 06 at Jomsom on 16 May 2013 after a STOL landing and attempted relift, striking a fence and falling into a river.

Flight Operations and Crew Actions on 16 May 2013 On 15 May 2013, a Twin Otter (DHC6/300) registered 9N-ABO, owned and operated by Nepal Airlines Corporation (NAC), departed Kathmandu for a night stop at Pokhara to support planned Pokhara–Jomsom–Pokhara charter flights on 16 May 2013. After a 1.5-hour ground delay due to weather, the aircraft completed its first Pokhara–Jomsom sector that morning. For the second flight, it departed Pokhara for Jomsom at 0225 UTC (08:10 local time) under Visual Flight Rules, with Captain Dipendra Pradhan as pilot-in-command and Suresh K.C. as co-pilot. The aircraft carried 19 passengers, including one infant, and 3 crew members. ## Approach and Landing at Jomsom The co-pilot first contacted Jomsom Tower at PLATO, a compulsory reporting point 9 miles from the airport at 12,500 ft AMSL. Tower advised runway 24, with southwesterly winds of 08–12 kt, QNH 1020, and a temperature of 13°C, and instructed the crew to report downwind. The co-pilot accepted. No briefing or discussion about tailwind conditions is recorded. The PIC then took over communications and requested runway 06 despite Tower’s advice to use runway 24 to avoid tailwind effects. Tower repeated the wind speed for runway 06, and the PIC read back the wind and stated there was “no problem.” Tower designated runway 06 and advised the crew to report on final. ## Runway Excursion and Impact The aircraft touched down on runway 06 at 0245 UTC (08:30 local time) approximately 776 ft from the threshold. After rolling 194 ft, it left the paved surface to the right and entered grass, rolling about 705 ft before re-entering the runway; the maximum deviation from the runway edge was 19 ft. The Commission noted the aircraft was not aligned parallel to the runway centreline at touchdown. During deceleration, the co-pilot raised the flaps as part of post-landing checks. A passenger seated behind the cockpit reported no communication between the pilots after touchdown and observed the PIC struggling to control the aircraft. The PIC added power to attempt a relift, but the aircraft had already lost speed due to flap extension and simultaneous brake use. With insufficient airspeed and lift, the aircraft ran off the end of runway 24, continued toward the river, struck a barbed fence and gabion wall, and fell to the river’s edge. The left wing came to rest in the middle of the river, preventing the aircraft from submerging.

Probable cause

The most probable cause was the PIC’s inappropriate conduct of STOL procedure and landing technique during the landing phase, and an attempt to take off again without sufficient airspeed, required lifting force, or available runway length. Contributory factors included the absence of proper crew resource management in communication, coordination, and briefing between crew members regarding the PIC’s intentions and actions during the pre- and post-landing phases.