PIA Manchester Scare.

[Ransman]

Anyone see the PIA B747 today at MAN. Seems it was well off track on approach, ATC told them to go around, but pilot replied I've got the runway in sight, and landed. Scared the ATP crew at the hold!

[BAe 146-100]

Hi,

I wish I was there! It must have been quite a sight :p! Did you see it Ransman.

http://home.enter.vg/chriskam/pia747-200.jpg

BAe 146-100

[BOEINGBOY1]

The aircraft should be impounded and crew licences suspended.
An instruction from ATC is just that, an instruction. For all the PIA crew knew, ATC could be instructing the a/c to go around for any number of reasons. Feel free to conduct antics like that on your home turf, but not here in the UK where flight safety is amongst the best in the world.

[411A]

Guess when G-registered, Brit airline aircraft have a problem, these aircraft should be impounded and crew licenses suspended when at 'foreign' airports.

Caledonian L10 at KOS, for example.

[cribble]

:rolleyes: I suppose a damned good thrashing for them is out of the question BB1?

[BOEINGBOY1]

411a,
They had a problem then?

They would have had a far bigger problem had they slammed into another aircraft unseen to them. The point being that ATC could have instructed the a/c to go around for any number of reasons, all of which (according to the inital report) were disregarded.

Unfamiliar with the L10 incidient at Kos, but yes (if the situation did occur as in the initial report) I would expect local authorities to take action.

[Thrush]

BB1, have you ever flown a heavy? I suspect not........ It flies just like any other aeroplane, but with more inertia.

If they had the runway and considered landing safer than going round, we must respect their judgement. After all, the crew were there, we were not.

As for ignoring an ATC instruction, they must have had good reason. Better to argue it on terra firma when eveyone is safe, I think.

[GOLF-INDIA BRAVO]

Funny I was talking about it last night in the pub and wondered what happened because visibility was very poor and aircraft not breaking cloud until about 200 feet height (couldn`t have had very long from breaking cloud to getting runway in sight)

Ian

[BOEINGBOY1]

My point is being missed again.
"they had the runway and considered landing safe"

This may well be the scenerio at un controlled airfields, but not at major like MAN. Regardless of this situation , the point that Im trying to make is that ATC could have ordered them to go around for any number of reasons, most notibly that the runway could well have been occupied and not because the tower controller thought that they were unstable on the approach.

[canadair]

well the point here as I see it,

"but pilot replied I've got the runway in sight, and landed"

well thats nice, but was he CLEARED to land? if he was, that would certainly change things would`nt it, as this assures, at least from an ATC point of view that the runway is clear, so this is not a factor, however if he was not cleared, then different story, a GA would have been mandatory,
I suspect it was more a question of ,
" you do not look established, can you make it work"
I can say, having taken 74`s into MAN many times, that the controllers do tend to create a short gate at times, and perhaps do not allow for the need to establish a little further out, as well if the final intercept is not a shallow enough cut, and the speed perhaps a little high, the classic is not the best at capturing, this can certainly be seen as an unstable app, but if you feel it is coming back then no problems.

"An instruction from ATC is just that, an instruction"

tell you what BB, before you make a blanket statement like that, you may want to spend some time in some of the more ATC challenged parts of the world mate, you will develop a pretty healthy lack of trust in "instructions" not that this is the norm in MAN and the UK in gen, but do not assume that if it comes from ATC it must be right...

[unwiseowl]

Yes, to ignore an ATC instrustion like "go around", which obviously cancels a previous landing clearance is probably unwise. What is even less wise IMHO, is for an ATCO to order a G/A because he considers an app unstable. This is the pilot's responsibility as they are in a far better position to know whether an approach is viable or not. Further, the ATCO cannot know the fuel or serviceabilty state of the a/c. He'd look pretty daft if it had just lost two engines / engine fire / cabin fire / hijack attempt, wouldn't he?

[bagpuss lives]

Perhaps someone a little more "in the know" with regard to this specific event could let us know exactly what happened before we start at each other's throats? :)

[Hudson]

And so if ATC see an aircraft on short final who has obviously forgotten to lower his landing gear - then it's not their problem, so they don't advise (instruct) the pilot to go-around?

In my experience in UK if ATC say "go-around" then that is good enough for most intelligent crews.

[Hooligan Bill]

unwiseowl,

What is even less wise IMHO, is for an ATCO to order a G/A because he considers an app unstable.

ATCO has no choice, MATS PT1 states:-

A landing aircraft, which is considered by a controller to be dangerously positioned on final approach, shall be instructed to carry out a missed approach. An aircraft can be considered as 'dangerously positioned' when it is poorly placed either laterally or vertically for the landing runway.

[unwiseowl]

Hooligan Bill - thanks for an informed comment!

[Jack Point]

This might help qualify the pilots attitude. a couple of years ago same airport same ailine but on 06lLand a bit farther out, they broke out and were obviously not lined up with the runway,heated discussion followed with atc the upshot was that the pia capt, got his way and continued to land, basically he ignored instuctions. Cultural differences is the polite term.
Wierdly i was two aircraft behind this guy on sat morning. cloudbase was actual 400', i know because i beat the auto land trim wind up with an a/p disconnect with seconds to spare.

Having spent most of my career not in this fir i would put money on it being crew/cultural arrogance and not an overly bossy controler.should be grounded and charged with the flying equivalent of dangerous driving. but that wouldnt please the P.C. police would it.

jack

[Point Seven]

For all those out there who are saying that ATC do not know if an approach is unstable, I must intervene. We may not know if the crew believe it to be unstable but our job as controllers is to enforce safety at the aerodrome (at least in the UK). To do this we have a number of aids at our disposal, not lest our experience - if you spend years looking out of the window, you learn to spot an approach that is off track either laterally or vertically.

More importantly, we also have an electronic aid called an AMA - Approach Monitoring Aid. This provides information on the stability of the lateral track of an aircraft on the approach. The closer tha aircraft gets to the airfield, the less the tolerance of lateral deviation allowed on the approach by the system. If the aircaraft deviated too much, an audible buzzer sounds. We have to check if the aircraft is happy with the approach. If the aircraft is within a mile and outside the tolerance, we HAVE to instruct the aircraft to go around, no choice, these are the rules. The device was designed after someone tried to land on the A4 instead of 27R at Heathrow.

My point is this - whilst ATC abroad may not be what it is here, when you are here you should do as you are told. When in Rome I suppose. The controller may have given the go around for any number of reasons. The previous lander may have left debris on the runway for instance. How then could it be safer for the PIA to land? Forget the old "what if they had an engine fire?" twaddle, if they had, everyone would have known about it. They landed cos they thought that they knew better. Final command may well rest with the captain, but what would be the outcome of landing on a contaminated runway after being instructed to go around? Potentially very bad, I proffer.

Also, to call into question ATCs knowledge on unstable approaches is churlish at the outside. We may not know how to fly as well as you and we are certainly NOT telling you how to fly, but we DO see more approaches and landings at our aerodrome than any pilot (try doing arrivals 27R at Heathrow for an hour, boring as hell) so we do know when one is not in the correct place.

We are here to provide safety as I said earlier on. If I say go around, it ain't a joke, I MEAN GO AROUND. If you choose not to and something bad happens, don't blame me. I don't give 'em lightly because it means more work for me. Most pilots I've ever met would prefer to land as well, so if we give a go around there is usually a good reason. Imagine if the Manchester controller had NOT given the go around and the crew had stuffed it. Who's head would you want on the platter then?

ATC over here is about as safe as you can get, so let's all try and keep it that way.

P7:ok:

[canadair]

Seven,
you make some excellent points, and please do not misconstrue what I said previously as a knock on UK ATC, you boys and girls are at least tied with the best in the world, from my point of view, you know how to move airplanes, ( but you do use an amazing number of frequencies in the process!:D )
I take your points regards what is and is not stabilised, you have probably seen every extreme.
I am curious to learn more about this AMA, do you know the tolerances inside a mile? it must be far more than full scale deflection on the HSI I would imagine, cause while I have seen "glideslope glideslope" inside a mile, it has not prompted a GA call from ATC.
So I would imagine the tolerance required to ring your bells would be pretty obvious to anyone observing, both in and out of the cockpit anyway.
Now with most SOPs I have seen requiring a stabilised app. inside of 1000 feet in a widebody for example, this pretty much covers it anyways, without intervention from ATC.
Up to this point, the reasons for it happening are many and varied, WX, autoflight anomilies, hand flying poorly, ATC, lots more too, but thats why SOPs are there, and if followed the GA is required anyway.
As mentioned before, gear, this is really no factor, as it is clearly annunciated in anything coming into MAN, etc anyway, as well a checklist item, that a GA by ATC due lack of gear is not going to be a factor,
( Ironically the airline that started this thread has managed to get through all of these warnings, and still land a 74 gear up in Islamabad!)
I would say though, before condemning this crew in the court of pprune, that the actual facts are known, the initial post leaves a great deal of room regards just what happened.

[jtr]

cause while I have seen "glideslope glideslope" inside a mile, it has not prompted a GA call from ATC.


careful inspection of .7's post will reveal...

provides information on the stability of the lateral track of an aircraft

[canadair]

aaahh

RTFQ!

thanks:ok:

[MAN777]

I take it that due to the lack of response on the thread from the people who know the facts (MAN ATC) this incident is being investigated, or not. Doesnt appear to have hit the MEN (MANCHESTER EVENING NEWS) yet which is very unusual, they normally have a story if they see a rabbit crap on the runway !

[lumbalund]

The PIA 747 landed after obtaining landing clearance.End of story.

[robmac]

Lumbalund

You didn't happen to be flying it did you.

Come on now don't be shy.

[BigHitDH]

I sometimes head down to MAN to watch aircraft coming in and out, and I must admit, those PIA guys are fun to watch.

I remember once standing on the end of 06L and watching a PIA 747 take off. I won't repeat what I said when I saw one ship take a very long run down the runway, wheels leaving the ground after it had gone well past the threshold markings. I even saw the arrestor bed reflected in his belly. It's the closest I've ever come to dropping the camera and running...

[lumbalund]

No robmac ,I was not on that flight.

[Pontious]

I have a serious issue with PIA's safety levels.

I have personally seen...
1) A PIA 747 overrun the runway at Islamabad when they aborted a take off- The damage to the gear and melted and fused brakes was substantial enough for the aircraft to be considered a write off. The engineers had to change all the hydraulic lines to the brakes, the brake units as well as the wheels so that the aircraft could be moved.

2) The remains of a PIA A300 that landed in the undershoot at DXB taking out most of the APP lighting.

3) 2 PIA 747's landing considerably off centreline at MAN.

4) A PIA 747 turned back to take up the hold over the BEL VOR by Scottish ATCC because they tried to enter the NATS without an Oceanic clearance. They even tried to bluff and browbeat the Controller concerned. He did a sterling job and I wonder how close the guy was to scrambling a couple of Interceptors.

5) I also heard a PIA flight descending into Germany that busted flight levels TWICE and turned onto wrong headings TWICE.

The worrying aspect is that ALL these incidents have taken place in the last 18 months, I have witnessed,or actually heard the R/T conversations whilst airborne myself and I don't fly that often.

[Civil Servant]

lumbalund,

If the aircraft WAS cleared to land, and the controller says" go around" then the previously granted landing clearance is cancelled.

THAT'S "end of story"

[JW411]

I think this thread has got completely out of hand. This is supposed to be a professional pilots rumour network and here we have a bunch of plane spotters, a student, a 14-year old kid who has made 350 postings in just as many minutes and someone who claims to be the worst air traffic controller in history absolutely tearing apart an international airline.

Not one of them has the faintest idea of what is required to operate a 747 classic to its optimum. For example, do any of them realise that under Performance A rules aircraft are only required to miss obstacles by 35 feet in the event of the loss of the critical engine at V1 (see my recent answer to Paper Tiger in Questions)?

Put simply, if you are stood at the end of the runway, do not expect to be missed by much more than 35 ft if a 747 or anything else for that matter, loses an engine at V1. That is why there are signs up telling you not to stand there!

I suspect that part of the trouble is that these aviation observers at Manchester have become so used to short-range aeroplanes that use very little runway that they get excited when a real bit of longhaul appears on their severely limited horizon.

A little knowledge is dangerous and could become slanderous.

[Johnny F@rt Pants]

Hey JW411,

You obviously haven't been to MAN for a long time, it's not uncommon to have plenty of wide bodied aircraft in and out. When I landed this morning there were 6 747's and at least as many A330 and 767's.

WRT 35 ft obstacle clearance, that would be with 2 engines operating on a 747, this guy appears to have felt that the one that passed over him was very low, but would have had all 4 engines otherwise we'd have heard about it on here. With all 4 engines operating I would suggest that it should have been somewhat higher, and wouldn't like to think of where it would have been with a double engine failure after V1.

Can't comment on the actual incident however, I wasn't there. I would suggest that it is very poor airmanship with a serviceable aeroplane to ignore a GA instruction.

[j17]

jw411

your qoute A little knowledge is a dangerous thing

I suggest you look at Manchesters movements to see how many wide bodied movements we have every day before you start making stupid statements as you did in your posting,

The above qoute says it all

[Point Seven]

Jw411


Nobody is talking about take off in a 747 Jurassic nor EFATO. For the most part, we're talking about final approach and go around. Or had that been lost on you? If you can't keep up, keep out.

You really are an aviation expert of the highest calibre. Not.

P7

[GOLF-INDIA BRAVO]

It`s funny that all events involving take off and landing seem to involve one airline even though there are numerous operators flying long sectors ie Malasia, Seattle which never attract any attention and yet certain operators to New York and destinations east of Manchester have a great problem and I will leave you to fill the gaps in.
No I`m not a pilot but I have learned enough of friends who are pilots over a number of years to know that some operators look a bit "dodgy or suspect" to call it what you like.
I remember BA when they used to operate to Islamabad direct from Manchester they where low on climb out but never to put the public at risk and heard many a time asking for a runway change even if it if it caused a delay to get the optimum take off path/climb out due to winds being not ideal at lower levels

Golf-India Bravo

[mutt]

Johnny F@rt Pants

WRT 35 ft obstacle clearance, that would be with 2 engines operating on a 747
Not sure where you got that idea from, buts it wrong. ALL AFM takeoff data is based on a single engine failure. We only plan for double engine failures when conducting 3 engine ferries under the applicable appendix.

Mutt.

[lumbalund]

Jw411 I agree with you,it has gotten out of hand but you have to realise that its not about finding out what happened,Its about PIA bashing.I guess people get uneasy when they are in their ATP,s or EMB145,s and see a 747 which is flown by pilots from the "third world" who have not passed the umpteen exams to get a JAA licence as they have.
It does not matter to them that the three guys in the cockpit have on average between 35000 to40000 hrs between them,Flown in and out of every airfield that any one in Manchester can name and then some. Manchester ATC have not upto now filed a violation so they landed after obtaining landing clearance.

[BOEINGBOY1]

No, but it does matter when they deliberately ignore an ATC instruction!
(if indeed this happened as first reported)

[Jack Point]

Lumba,
cc jw

Fyi i have WITNESSED two incidents with pia, i fly jets, i have 12000hrs, and by coincidence do know all about the third world and its licencing and checking techniques. i have 8000hrs plus in that world, and a third world licence with an amusing little provenance but i wont slander an authority specifically on a public forum.I have also passed all the uk exams as well so i dont have that particlular chip as you seem to do, but yes it is an exclusive licence and it appears you havent got one.In general
lets just say putting the 737 on my third world licence would involve comapatively less time and effort than uk, and can and has been achieved by some i have met who , when you peel back the layers have only ever purchased their qualifications. icao agrrements dictate that we observe various national qualifications world wide but cannot dictate that we hold them in equal proffessional esteem should their provenance be suspect.

I do however avoid certain carriers where i know personnally some of the people and their flying history in these parts of the world, and from what i've SEEN another has has just joined the list.

So i am not a spotter, dont fly an atp, and i do have a database from which to make my judgements, so as they say "GET BACK IN YER BOX SONNY"

The clash between national cultural behaviours and cockpit culture has caused many wide body accidents, look it up. Mix in the average standards of the , shall we say integrety challenged parts of the world and bingo , one widebody sitting in the carpark of ST. Anthonys in woodhouse park.

Sometimes the nievete on this board astounds me. The case of the Guvnors original defending clique being a case in point

[Rananim]

I make no excuses for the PIA crew(if indeed they did act recklessly)but it is always the pilot who decides whether to continue or abort an "unstable" approach.ATC can and should offer advice/concern like "ARE YOU STILL ABLE FOR APPROACH?" OR "YOUR GEAR AINT DOWN" but the pilot makes the decision.
US Controllers are too busy to do the pilots job as well.They only give the go-around command when the problem is ATC based like a blocked runway.Anything else,I guess they figure that the pilot is paid enough to make that sort of decision for himself/herself.

[Pontious]

JW411

So you know all about operating Jurassic 747's to their optimum performance do you? Would you care to enlighten PIA on the basics of All Engine Operating Net Climb Gradients, 1st Segment and 2nd Segment Climb requirements, of Net and Gross Performance and exactly what a bloody Screen Height IS when operating out of,what is obviously in your opinion, a backwater,regional-cum-STOLport, type of airport like MAN, before the "Rank Amateurs" flatten Heald Green or Wilmslow?
If an ATCO tells me to abort a take-off (prior to V1,hopefully) or go around I will instinctively either be chucking out the anchors or climbing like a homesick angel.

PIA's Nav and Performance Department may appreciate a bit of your vastly superior knowledge, however your pomposity is not welcome here. Just remember who reads this board.
Have you ever considered the hours those "Spotters" put in at Manchester? They can easily tell a normal,optimum performanced, De-Rated or Flex-Temped departure that they witness a hundred times a day from a close call or near disaster. Your high level of condescending arrogance is an embarassment.
Chin! Chin!
:ok:

[newswatcher]

Typically mischievous response from 411A! IMHO absolutely nothing to do with crew ignoring ATC commands!

L10 incident ocurred way back in July '98.

Heavy landing resulted in substantial skin damage in the area of the rear pressure bulkhead and abrasion of the retractable tail skid.

A stand-by crew was operating to full extent of their hours. Captain took on aircraft reported as demonstrating “false” stick shaker stall warning when speed well above stall point, during late stages of approach. Not advised that this “fault” would have any adverse effect on handling characteristics.

During approach, crew experienced at least 4 separate and “false” stick shaker warnings whilst below 900 feet in final stages.

During last few seconds of approach, all crew noticed a sudden loss of altitude, and Captain applied increase in pitch.

Bulletin draws attention to the fact that although the runway slopes upward from the touchdown end with an average slope of 0.51%, the airfield charts available to the crew actually showed the average slope for Runway 33 as 0.51% down. Since this was a night landing this could well have affected the crew’s perception of their position relative the runway.

Also, post-incident analysis showed that the FCES computer sensed a “no slat” condition, even when slats correctly deployed. This was cause of the erroneous stick shaker warnings.

Bulletin concludes a combination of factors resulted in a high workload for the crew at a time of day when they were likely to be experiencing a reduced level of alertness arising from their scheduling and work cycle.

However, no mention whatsoever of pilot error in AAIB bulletin.

[411A]

Suspect many of the so-called 'experts' that watch from the far end of 06L in MAN have a few too many adult beverages at the local tavern thereby, thus are really unable to distinguish fact from fiction.

And, from newswatcher's narrative....the pilots were tired, so they pranged the aeroplane.

Not paying attention, tired or not. Must have been asleep in ground school as well, as flying a TriStar is not all that difficult....
if you know how...which clearly these guys didn't.

[bagpuss lives]

Some people can accuse the rest of us of PIA bashing (and yes, I am guilty as charged of trying to inject a little self-effacing humour into my profile here - you got me - well done JW411 - have a lollipop) but the fact remains that the PIA crew ignored ATC instruction for whatever reason.

I also maintain my slightly mischievous comment that the performance of the PIA aircraft at Manch is what I would call "poor" - especially in the climb out. This is not an uninformed comment - it's a factual observation.

That's not a comment pertaining to the crew or the airline as a whole by the way - it's a pleasure to have them at Manchester and long may they continue to pop in and out - just the performance of the actual aircraft used - usually the 74 of course.

And JW411 - you lost all credibility when you had a not-so-sly but needless "pop" at Manchester.

I suppose at the end of the day the safety of the aircraft rests, in the most part, to the commander of the beast and we can only presume he acted in a way he deemed to be the safest at that time. Only time, and any 1261 / MOR reporting action will tell.

I'm only glad I wasn't there to hear and witness it :) Or to hear the ATCO involved turn the air blue - perhaps ;)

I wonder...could anyone party to seeing or hearing this incident tell us if the ATCO stated his reason for issuing the go around over the R/T at the time?

[newswatcher]

What is it about some Americans? Here is 411A trying to be the male equivalent of Bubbette.

read the bulletin

The AAIB felt that their physical condition had no direct bearing on the accident! If it had they would have said so! The aircraft had faults; the approach maps were inaccurate; it was a warm night, with turbulence from a gorge just 500 feet from threshold.

Please pick another sand-pit! :mad:

[JW411]

Dearest Pontious, please note that embarrass has two 'r's and two 's's.

Finally, since you always do exactly what ATC tells you, what would you do if they ordered you to descend and your TCAS told you to climb?

[Pontious]

Well JW411

Embarrass is obviously a word that you have had more exposure to than I so I'll bow to your superior knowledge of embarrassment on this occasion.

TCAS Commands are to be acted upon, ATC requests are to be considered,however...

...Passing the marker inbound and I receive an ATC command saying "Go Around!Go Around!I say again! Go Around! Acknowledge!" then I will do precisely that, advance to TOGA thrust and ask questions later.
If on the other hand I had started the take off roll and ATC instructed "Take off clearance cancelled!" then I would have no choice but to bring the aircraft to a halt, vacate the runway if neccessary, set the park brake and start asking a few questions.
You see, ATC have the big picture. I have seen countless examples of where non-adherence to ATC INSTRUCTIONS would have caused a disaster.
Possibly the ONLY time I would knowingly dis-obey a controllers instructions is if I'm on short finals to an obviously empty runway, recovering with an aircraft full of passengers and an uncontained fire (whether it be engine,APU,cargo or cabin) enjoying the full protection of a MAYDAY callsign because you are COMMITTED to landing.ATC provide the protection.

411a

As for Kos and your typically anal comments. Picture Zihuatanejo (or whatever that shytehole north of Acapulco is called),add a marked slope,halve the runway length (I exagerate a tad),place the end of the runway overhanging a cliff top, take away any semblance of approach lighting,give yourself the runway edge lighting only(usually only half is working as they never replace the bulbs or units) and... you see where I'm coming from. What they should've done is divert to Rhodes Diagoras 20 mins away with a full Instrument runway of about 9000 feet but hindsight is a wonderful thing. Next time I suggest you read up on the topic first, think about how you would have played it in their seats and then consider if what you want to say is worth saying. That way you only look like half an arsehole instead of the full blown one that you're shining like now.Are you two related per chance?

:ok:

[JW411]

Dearest Pontious:

I had better start off by telling you that I have not been embarrassed since I was three years old and that was a very long time ago.

"TCAS Commands are to be acted upon, ATC requests are to be considered, however..."

I notice that TCAS Commands gets a capital "C" in your mindset whilst ATC requests only get a lowly "r". That is an interesting psychological point. You would do well on one of my MCC or CRM courses.

In the case I had in mind the poor captain (and all of his crew and passengers) were being ORDERED by ATC to descend whilst his TCAS was Commanding a climb. ATC in that case were certainly not "requesting" him in the nicest possible way to descend and the result was a major disaster.

"Passing the marker inbound and I receive an ATC command saying "Go Around! Go Around! I say again! Go Around! Acknowledge!"

Are you telling us that this was the actual situation with the PIA "incident" at Manchester? If you are and you are speaking with some authority then this is the first piece of informative news that any of us on this thread have heard. In fact, Manchester ATC have been very silent.

If the order to Go Around was given at the "outer marker" then it would have been a non-event and would have been difficult to justify (unless the runway was blocked). It would have been particularly difficult at Manchester since the last time I did a Cat II there I had it in my mind that the decision point was 4D and not an outer marker?

"then I would do precisely that, advance to TOGA thrust and ask questions later".

Have you ever tried that? When I was young and very stupid I did exactly that in a DC-10-30 which was very light having come from LAX to LGW.

I had an immediate rate of climb of 8500 fpm and almost had a very serious height bust on the G/A procedure.

"If on the other hand I had started the take off roll and ATC instructed "Take off clearance cancelled!" then I would have no choice but to bring the aircraft to a halt, vacate the runway if neccessary (too many 'c's), set the parking brake and start asking a few questions".

So now you have gone to the other extreme of "after I had started the take off roll". I note that you have made absolutely no attempt to define that phrase.

You have obviously never been in command of (for example) a heavy DC-10 approaching V1 on a critical runway when a request (or is it an Order) that "Take off clearance has been cancelled" would be greeted with incredulity and later (hopefully) with mirth. The only way that you would vacate the runway would be right off the end. Setting the parking brake would probably be superfluous!

So it seems to me (as someone who has held a professional license for 40-odd years) that you have a bit of growing up to do.

You seem to have huge faith that nothing can go wrong between the outer marker and ATC telling you (sorry, requesting you) to abandon take-off just before V1 on a critical runway.

Can you spell cynical? If you can't, start learning now.

[bagpuss lives]

There's nothing to read in the fact that my colleagues have been "quiet" on the matter.

There's a time and a place for officially sanctioned, operationally sensitive and factual statements and this, obviously, is not it.

If you want to official word - try the NATS Press Office ;)

Or wait for one of my colleagues who were actually there at the time to comment.

Lord I'm a good boy these days :D

All we can do here,a and all I've done is to speculate using the things we actually know about this incident and then discuss the surrounding issues in a sensible and mature way without resorting to pomposity or petty, internet-troll-like spelling corrections ;)

[j17]

Jw11

Once again your knowledge of ATC procedures amazes me.If as you say you are approaching V1, the last thing ATC would say to you is "your take off clearance is cancalled "if they wanted you to stop, By this time you would be well into your take off roll and you might be told to stop if the need was pressing i.e runway incursion

[Pontious]

Well said Niteflite.

JW411

I'm not going to enter into a personal slanging match with you.
Suffice it to say that in my mind,you judge every situation as it arises and decide accordingly based on the facts at hand and draw upon your experience, judgement and ifluence of sound SOP's. Agreed?
All I was trying to say was if before V1 ATC said "stop" then I would stop. Particularly if LVP's were in force. You seemed to disagree. All I'll say to you is "KLM/PAN AM at TFN".
As for as the "Marker" or "4d" call yes we can continue the approach provided the wx conditions haven't dropped below our published minima for the intended approach then we can continue to said minima. If ATC then tell you to Go Around then I would do as they asked. It happened to me at LGW very early one morning when a foreign 737 was unsure of his position and couldn't confirm whether he was clear of the active runway or not because,yes you've guessed it, it was LVP's.

The instances where I've had one of those quiet reflective moments courtesy of local (foreign) ATC after following their instructions are relatively few and far between.
One being at a notorious airfield in Florida where a light aircraft taxied on to the active runway ahead of us intending to cross and vacate then promptly blew a tyre vacating but infringing the landing area. He was very hard to distinguish against the pale grey runway and was talking to Ground while we were talking to Tower, who to our surprise told us to Overshoot!!! Not want you want to hear, as you'll appreciate, after a 10:45 North Atlantic crossing in winter.
Another being at a European airport where we had been cleared to line up, Senior Cabin Crew calls us to advise of a disturbance in the cabin, we receive and acknowledge take off clearance albeit taking our time. Cabin situation calms, we advance the thrust levers, thrust is set, and at 60 kts we are told Abeurt tha tayk aff, Senor!! Tayk aff cancelled!! I don't know why they sent a 747 of their national carrier around so late, but that image has never left me, our aircraft shook as we saw this monster roaring above us so low we could see the hydraulic lines in the wheel wells.

I think it was a sharp eyed ATCO at LHR a couple of months ago ordered a BA 747 to go around from less than 200ft agl to avoid landing on a Midland Airbus that had missed his intended RET. So no matter how early or late on an approach it is. If I hear the order for me to go around,that's exactly what I do. It's the safest option. Agreed?

Thanks j17.
What amazes me is his condescending,pompous nature yet he claims to teach CRM! His MCC courses must be a hoot!!

Oh JW411. I thought the flight instrumentation in the DC10 was the same make as the B747 Jurassics. Their IVSI's RoC only went up to 6000fpm so how could you read 8500?
And Yes I nearly did get caught out with a G/A on a lightweight aeroplane. Told to G/A from 2800' in an empty 763 and follow the standard missed approach procedure. Only the proc. (33 @BHX) ,calls for a climb to 2500'. I may not have your 40 odd years experience but I'm hardly a novice.

:ok:

[boeingbus2002]

Strange how PIA have add a lot of these incidents in Manchester!
Anyone know of any occurances like these at LHR?
<Ducks for more incoming fire!!>

[Pontious]

I don't know bb,but I've heard they are tripling their number of services to LHR!! Only Joking!

:ok:

[GOLF-INDIA BRAVO]

411A

Take exception to your comment that most of the spotters spend most of the time in the pub.
I used to work in the travel industry and a very high total of the
"spotters work at the airport in many positions from baggage handling through pilots (yes pilots because I know a few who happily come along and have a chat and pass on info on all aspects of aviation ) to airport managers and ATC, so I can say that most people have a very clear head and have quite a good idea as to what is happening and when something doesn`t look right, infact Greater Manchester Police think that the spotters are so useful that they have even liased with the various groups re security issues re terrorism

Golf-India Bravo

[411A]

Pontious,
Have been to KOS many times, and have not found it all that difficult....even line-trained junior First Officers there, yet they had no problems either.
Was in fact boarding pax in KOS and watched the whole episode from the ramp, shower of sparks and all.

Complete pilot induced s@rew up, for sure.
Good thing Caledonian has said bye-bye to the TriStars, as there did not seem to be many there who knew how to fly same.
A shame as well as PC was their last check pilot, and indeed was in the sim with him for his last 1179 check.

GIB,
So, according to you, the spotters at the pub are now to be given credence and are to be considered 'reliable aircraft performance experts', viewed from the bottom of the beer glass, no doubt...:ooh: :sad:

Suspect many here suffer from p@nis envy...here is a third world country airline (PIA) who has been able to field a rather large number of wide-body flights for many years, yet some here would rather they go back to living in tents and mud houses.

Get over it guys, the Brits are not the only folks who know how to fly large aircraft.
Or, how to control air traffic.

[bagpuss lives]

411A - I don't see anyone here at all suggesting for one second that the Brits are the only folks who know how to fly large aircraft and control air traffic?

It's a specific thread about a specific incident involving a specific aircraft type flown by a specific carrier that has specific implications to the ATC / Crew interchange.

Your comments about "spotters" are also just plain (or should that be plane?) ignorant and merit no further mention.

But please, please, PLEASE - quit it with the insinuations of xenophobia and racism.

Now....back to the topic......

[lumbalund]

Jack Point.
"Get back in yer box sonny".
Thank you for proving my point.

[EGCC Rwy 24]

Mrs EGCC can often be heard saying "look, there goes the pterodactyl".

Her pet name for said PIA beast was coined after watching it lumbering along the runway one day. In fairness, and in reality, probably no different from any other 747 take off.

BUT why whenever she comments on the pterodactyl, and I look up, is it always a PIA flight --- all the other 747s pass without comment.

That is not PIA bashing, purely an observation that PIA do sound different from any other 747 departure from EGCC.

Nick

[canadair]

This entire thread certainly does put this site into context,
RUMOUR NETWORK!!
because the only think actually missing from this subject is ...oh yeah, FACTS!
PIA have been tried and convicted, and for good measure soundly slagged off in the process.
Now I certainly do not say this in any kind of defense of them, as I contributed as well :)
but it sure does prove just how much faith one should place in any info derived from this site.
I am curious however, if we took the first post of this thread, and substituted BA for PIA and left the rest of the note the same, just how far would this have gone?
I do think it`s funny though that as it continues, the main focus now seems to be everyone whipping their dicks out, in a bigger than yours game, which oddly enough almost every topic on this site seems to degenerate into, left long enough.

All good fun though:O

[bagpuss lives]

Regarding my comments I would make them about any airline and any aircraft as I don't believe they are offensive / judgemental, unfair to the operator in question and more importantly I believe them to be true and accurate observations.

I'm really glad PIA operate in and out of Manchester in the same way I'm glad everyone else does - they're no different at all. It's just that their aircraft seem to have the noticably poorest climb performance. I'm sure it's nothing at all to do with PIA or it's crew specifically but we seem to be getting to the point whereby we can't talk about an incident or the performance of an aircraft and mention the operating carrier for fear of offending someone.

I can't stress enough, speaking for myself - this is not an attack on PIA in any way, shape or form. It's important that's clear. It's a discussion about an incident and a general observation on the performance of their aircraft. It really could be any airline.

As I said eariler - none of us here know the specific details of this supposed "incident" and so none of us are capable of, and nor should we be making any sort of judegment until the facts are revealed - IF indeed the incident was noteworthy enough to produce some sort of official paperwork or comment from the Press Office.

The fact is though that a go around command was ignored for whatever reason - "apparently" - which does raise interesting points that merit further discussion here.

Or so I thought.

[Pontious]

Well 411a

You just stick to what you know best. Flying Jurassic Trashcans, practicing xenophobia, inciting racial tension, displayed with a high level of "Holier than thou" bullshyte. Oh and get a life!!

What's the problem,Sonny? Life kinda lonely out there in the desert? Nothing to do all day but polish your helmet and DREAM of flying your Rust bucket for "On the CHEAP" fly-by-nites?
I only ask because you seem to have a lot of time on your hands and a lot to say, I mean over 2,300 posts in 3 years is some achievement!! That's 2 posts everyday for 3 years. Like I said a man with a lot to say. Pity it's just irreverent bullcrap and the ramblings of a wannabe or sad, lonely old man who's jealous of a career with the majors!!!

For your info. the AAIB said NO PILOT ERROR, now 411a what part of those 3 little words don't you understand? The crew didn't know about the extent of the FLTCTL problem so stop screaming PILOT SCREW UP and shut up!

Oh and the Brit's aren't the only ones,you're right but we are damned good at it. Our ATC is better if not the best I've seen and is one of the few things that makes me feel proud to be a Brit even if when I speak to them now it's as an operator for a foreign flag carrier. Yes, that's right! I am a true xenophobic racist aren't I? Now flying for the national carrier of Johnny Foreigner that has over 50 differant nationalities of pilot and I'm loving every minute of it.

:ok:

[411A]

Pontious,
As I flew TriStars for over twenty years, do know that it is quite difficult to scrape the tail on landing, so I presume from your alledged thinking, the aeroplane did so all by itself.

Guess anything can be rationalized, if you ignore the facts.
Aircraft dispatched with known problems, and crew exacerbates same at destination, due to poor handling technique.
Typical shoddy operation.

And then we have 'others' who seem to think they are experts in heavy aircraft performance.
Spotters in the car park (or beer garden), no doubt.

Enjoy your assignment overseas, Pontious, you might actually learn something different for a change.

[Floppy Link]

whereas you, 411a, know it all already...

[Kurtz]

Dear 411A, can't help but ask how often you have paxed with the likes of PIA on your hols? Or indeed how many others of us herewith use third world airlines for our leisure.
As someone else commented on Third World Licences, and the problems of slander, I too shall not be specific......however I remember being 'wet leased' to a third world country, and requiring their licence to operate their aircraft. I remember being quite stunned standing in their CAA equivalent office, facing their official. The Company Ops Manager with me was required to produce my UK ATPL, and then commence counting cash money into this official's hand. The process continued over several minutes, amazingly not a sound (other than my elevated breathing and heart rate) until this 'official' considered he had made enough 'dash', and handed over my nice shiny licence - which I still have. No exams, no questions, no Base Check, just the equivalent (then) of approximately £500.00. I queried it on our way out, and was told that it was the only way to obtain one within six months. During my 'tour' there, I saw two major accidents, three moderate, and knew of at least twice as many overall in country, all with the National and two Regional type carriers.

It sometimes does cost quite a lot more to fly with a UK/US/Western European operator (and some of the last mentioned are dubious!!!), but I would cancel the family hols rather than risk any of us on what passes for Airlines in most of the Third World. Anyone in any doubt at all need only consult accident stats world wide. PIA.... :mad:

[Maxrev]

Can't say much more than has already been said on this thread really, other than I've always found MAN ATC pretty much the best in the world.

If one of those guys tell me to go around, I wouldn't second guess them and carry on, especially if the ceiling was 400 feet.

As far as PIA bashing goes, I must admit to have seen some pretty hairy stuff from them over the years, particular favourites include landing well past the TD zone, and off centreline. I once followed one PIA A300 that burnt so much rubber on landing that we landed a bit deeper just so we could see the ground, there was that much tyre smoke hovering!

But that said, I do know some PIA guys and they're good operators. I guess from MAN they're operating at the edge of the performance envelope which is fine, but I agree that under JAA rules if an ATCO tells you to Go Around, then go around you should, no questions. It's a culture thing, as has been pointed out.

[chiglet]

411A,
The PIA a/c in question landed 06L. The "Beer Garden" is at 24R Threshhold :rolleyes: :rolleyes: .
I know the ATCO involved and "some" of the facts, BUT as NF01 says. Let's wait for the report.
As an aside, I've worked in Manch Tower since 1970:{ and have watched many MANY B747s of all marks and only one has the heart fluttering on departure.......and it's not Air Atlanta.
So until you have ALL the facts [including the pup] I would be like Dad, keep Mum.:ok: But.....:}
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy

[Techman]

Well chiglet, I suppose you mean until WE have ALL the facts.

Or are you like the rest, claiming the high ground while hitting below the belt.

[chiglet]

Yes Techman, exactly
Until WE [inc me ] have all the facts.
Quote "I know the ATCO involved and SOME [my bolds] of the facts, but...et al
No I am not taking the "High Ground" or a "Moral" stance, and No not hitting below the belt.
Fact, 411A insinuated that any witness was a, p*ssed, b, incompetent, or c, in any other way just plane [sic] unreliable.
Fact, [just a "rough" calculation] I have watched1,825,000 [give or take +/- 15%] Departues. Very few have been "interesting",
06 single or 06L, a BCAL B707 off 06 in the wet, a VIR B742 [450pax] wet again. Both rotated "aroud" Link B/JA but 30% of PIA "Classic" Deps off this runway are "Quite" 10% "Rather" 2-3% "Very" Interesting.
This is not "Slagging" this is an "OBSERVASION" [speeling]
No, I do NOT consider myself to be an "Expert" on "Flight Dynamics" whether as a PPL, or Captain of a "Heavy"
What I am saying, is that "Not All Spotters Are 'Muppets'".
In fact some of the the "Spotters" are very clued up.
Any "Insider" info that I "may" have intimated was to remind EVERYBODY that only a few people have all the "Facts"
as I said "I don't", so let us ALL wait for the report [if any]

we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy

[Techman]

You are quite right, 'insinuation' seems to be the keyword on this thread.

[250 kts]

My experience of controlling this "third world" operator is that they can be very slow in the climb out of both MAN & LHR. This is obviously due to the very heavy pax loads that they carry.

But as far as the crews are concerned they,unlike most of the US carriers,very rarely miss ATC calls and always give good notice if they are unable to achieve an ATC level clearance.

411A,

You do have a most unfortunate way of putting your point across and I would point to many of the US carriers as a "typically shoddy operation" if at least one of the crew doesn't bother to listen to ATC-often for 3 or 4 calls at a time. We all screw up at times-I guess even you have!!

[411A]

250 knots.

You make a very good point about some US aircarriers...many of these guys just simply do not listen out, nor do some really understand European ops.

Have worked for several foreign (non US) airlines over the past thirty+ years and the 'Deltas' US Airs' Uniteds' etc have a lot to learn about operating out of their own territory.

I am generally their most severe critic.

[bagpuss lives]

Good points, well made as ever 250kts :)

[MAN777]

Sorry but I could not resist this example of another grass scorching departure off 24L

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=86409

[lumbalund]

MAN777,

A very good photograph. No where close to the grass.

[Pontious]

So Lumbalund

You think he would've missed the MANDATORY 35ft screen height do you? What about in the event of a power unit failiure at V1?

:ok:

[Capt Groper]

Not so long ago, an unstable approach of a PIA A310 resulted in a bent A/C. The A/C hull is now part of an artifical reef. :O

[trium16]

Why the PIA knocking?

I recall reading about a poorly handled (744) asymetric failure just after takeoff of by a US carrier, and the resultant yaw was not at all well handled by the PF, in fact the recovery by the PNF just averted the a/c from something far worse.

If this occured within PIA there would be the old chesnut "poor pilot skills in the third world" etc... and it would be dragged out every so often by (some) ppruners, however, it was a US carrier.

I can't find any references to this now, but I did read about it.. honest.

[411A]

trium16,

UAL, at KSFO, B747-400.
Missed the top of the hill by 100 feet or so.

Good thing the Commander knew how to use the rudder properly, as the First Officer (PF) had clearly forgotton.

Many of the parking lot/beer garden 'experts' that chime in from time to time about alledged poor aircraft performance/pilot handling skills, would do well to actually read an authoritive publication about same, thereby increasing their limited knowledge.

[Big Tudor]

Many of the parking lot/beer garden 'experts' that chime in from time to time about alledged poor aircraft performance/pilot handling skills, would do well to actually read an authoritive publication about same, thereby increasing their limited knowledge.

So when are you going to read up about the results of the Cally Tri* dear chap. As has been pointed out to you, the inquiry found no reason to blame pilot error, a fact that you seem unwilling / unable to accept.
You also seem to conveniently ignore the fact that some of the 'experts' you are quick to dismiss actually possess quite a lot of authoritive publications on aircraft performance, and could probably quote them chapter and verse to you.

Anyway, back to the facts of this post, PIA were apparently told to go-round by ATC, an instruction the crew over-ruled. As has been pointed out by numerous people, if this was an issue it will be reported through the normal channels. End of.

[White Knight]

Capt Groper- the 310 in question is not quite part of the reef yet, it's still sitting on the side of the creek next to an Aeroflot IL-86. I'm sure it will be sunk soon though.:ok:

[Pontious]

411A

Practice what you preach,Old Man,practice what you preach.

:ok:

[RatherBeFlying]

From the takeoff photo it looks like the runway has an upslope and that the a/c is over the grass. (Likely the photo was taken with a long lens which yields a short depth of field and the runway markings at the threshold are blurred while the grass seems to be in focus)

Can't say I see much in the way of margin for OEI, but long lenses can distort perspective.

[lumbalund]

Capt Groper.
Try another cheapshot,PIA has 6 airbus A310 and all are present and accounted for .
Pontious.
to answer your questions so that an amature like you can understand, yes they would have achieved the screen height of 35ft at V2 in the event of one engine failure at or after V1.

[Pontious]

Lumbalund

One can easily mistake an A310 for an A300 when all you have to go on are the nose and the tail sections (the entire centre section of the fuselage now at the bottom of Dubai Creek).

So I ask you, are you saying that the A300 that is "immobile" to say the least,on the banks of the Creek isn't one of PIA's? Do you know where every single airframe is?

Oh and drop the amateurish personal attacks, I stand by my earlier comments concerning the photograph. I am NOT convinced that they could have cleared the required screen height if they had an engine failiure at V1.

Let's get one thing straight. I'm not saying that PIA are the worst airline in the world, I'm just concerned about some of the things I've seen and heard. But,no they are not in my list of 100 airlines to fly with.That is my personal preference but they DID ignore an ATC command. Well what would I know, I'm just an 'amateur' aren't I? Do you have spellchecker,Lumbaland?

:ok:

[answer=42]

Having paxed with PIA and worse domestically, as well as with many developing country carriers in many parts of the globe, I have observed that many flight crew have military training. At least from my (admittedly very restricted) perspective, any problems do not appear to be with the flying skills of 'real' pilots from these countries (whether ex-mil or not) but with other issues, such as equipment, maintenance, inappropriate promotion, 'politics', pilots' relations with other 'commands' (eg ATC) etc.

I would have thought that this would have been the last place to blame flying skills of professional pilots without good cause.

answer=42

[MAN777]

The camera can sometimes lie, but in this case it didnt, the 747 had just cleared the tarmac and is over the grass, if you look carefully the port wing is casting a shadow on the grass. As to what height it is at I havent a clue, any body know how long an extended undercarriage leg is ?? Well it appears to be 3 times that figure !

[RatherBeFlying]

Not so sure about the shadow from the port wing -- it could be something else as the forward fuselage shadow should be well ahead of the wing shadow.

The shadow could be cast on the reverse slope.

The sun seems to be almost overhead to the front -- you can see a bit of shadow on the leading edge of the port wing root from the fuselage.

[The Rookie]

What's the link for the picture again as it seems to have disappeared off this thread?

[bagpuss lives]

The Rookie - http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=86409

hth :)

[lumbalund]

Pontious
No PIA airbus A300s missing either,try another aircraft type.
Thank you for correcting my spelling and accepting that you are one.
As for not flying with PIA ,we have enough passengers to carry in and out of the UK and dont need the likes of you on board anyway.

[Tom the Tenor]

Whatever the takeoff performance of the PIA 747-200s is or is not I guess things will improve dramatically once the new 777s arrive? Anyone know what the seat configuration will be on the new aircraft as compared to the 742s? PIA must make a fortune out of Britain having no competition from BA.

[long final]

Am I the only person to think the picture is doctored to hell??

[bagpuss lives]

long final - I doubt it and why would it be?

It shows an aircraft getting airborne safely within the TORA - albeit in true PIA747 style *hides* :p

As I've said elsewhere on this thread - due to loading / aircraft performance, such a late take-flight by said aircraft is not uncommon.

Indeed, if you stray down to these fabled "beer gardens" close to the airport I hear so much about chances are you may see a similarly late but sure flight :D:D Ask those here who've mentioned it for directions.....it sounds GRATE!!! :D

It's funny that those on this thread who seem intent on insisting that such events could not and do not happen at Manchester and that we're all having a needless "pop" at PIA have probably never sat and watched from one of aforementioned "beer gardens" for themselves.

Or indeed from the ACC.

Or the VCR.

And it's hardly a shocker is it?

I can see the headlines now :

"HEAVY JET IN "POOR CLIMB PERFORMANCE" SHOCKER!!!!"

Quite.

Maybe these people don't believe it's worthy because of our short-haul jet prop filled strip of tarmac?

Or maybe they're too "stuck up" and arrogant to accept that enthusiasts may know and see a little tiny bit more than them when it comes to certain issues and aircraft.

Anyway, once again, I seem to have mounted my soap-box and digressed somewhat.

Sorry.....

.......blame him :D

P.S. I love PIA! Really....I do. Long may they continue!!! :)

[long final]

NF1 - I have no (informed) opinion about the PIA issue. Just thought the pic looked tampered with. No idea why anyone would, but then again, its a strange world.

LF

[bagpuss lives]

No, I know :)

My comments weren't aimed at you - sorry if it seemed that way :)

[MAN777]

Long final and any other non believers.

The photo has not been doctored or exagerated in any way, it was a very late rotation and over the the grass, as nite flite has explained this is quite a normal sight at MAN, PIA departures can usually be relied on to provide a spectacle and usually divert my attention for a few minutes each day !

Photo taken on Nikon D100 with 200mm lens

[Anti Skid On]

And from my recollection of EGCC that grass is not far from the perimeter fence (say 100 metres), which itself is slightly raised, then there is the main road and a block of houses slightly to the right. I wonder what the residents think when they look out of their bedroom windows?

[411A]

Ah, well maybe they shouldn't live there then....?:{

Folks who have absolutely NO idea of large heavy jet performance seem to have strange ideas indeed.

Perhaps they are...jealous:E

[newswatcher]

lumbaland, do you know what happened to this one then? "Damage - written off"

http://aviation-safety.net/database/2001/011017-0.htm

[MAN777]

This photo is at the the 06R end of the new runway, the ground does rise slightly inside the perimeter but then gently drops off into fields, so the only obstructions are a fence, runway lighting masts and several thousand cows ! Oh and the village of Mobberley about another mile out.

[Gordinho]

Could just be an optical illusion but where is the runway threshold? The runway in this picture looks as though it curves off toward the left, which it obviously can't do so you wonder if it might have been photoshopped.

Also (and this might be entirely wrong on my part) it looks as though you can see the runway centreline reflected along the right side of the nosewheel (as you look at it) which would also point to the photo being iffy

[NigelOnDraft]

Gordinho

Good observations... I don't think it is "doctored" though - just a lot of people failing to understand about telephoto lenses etc.

We cannot see the last 1000'+ or so of runway (runway dips, or more, the foreground rises) - we can see only some of the touchdown markings (1500'? 1000'? in). And as you say, we can see the runway CL reflected on the aircraft (good spot, and not heat haze distorted). So he is still well short of the threshold...

The curved runway markings are due to the heat haze from the engines...

The dark areas on the grass we can see I do not believe are shadows... The sun is above and behind and left of the phtotographer.

For all the rubbish quoted here about "other widebodies" "other 747s" ex MAN show a great lack of knowledge. Most of the other widebodies quoted are twins, which by their nature will be much less "dramatic" (unless SE)... And how many of the other 747s are performance TOW limited?? Unless they are, the comparison is meaningless.

He is already at 35'+, so has met Screen, and is not yet at the end of the runway. If he lost 1 engine at V1, acceleration would still be 75% of all engines, VR the same, roation rate a little reduced (?) and lift off attitude a little higher. So I think all is a great working example of Perf A in action.

Having regularly taken off in a TOW limited A340, the proximity of the end at rotate (e.g. Kai Tak) never ceased to amaze.

NoD

[Anti Skid On]

I was assuming the pic was 06L, so stand corrected.

Whilst we are off the actual topic and on the topic of B742's and performance - how about this one here (http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=211543) - below the glideslope??

[MAN777]

Awesome !! Photographed at St Martin I believe, which is a mecca for rich aviation photographers. Notice the lack of sunbathers directly under the flightpath, sensible precaution I think ! Has the guy in the picture had his shorts blown off ?

Anyway back to the PIA photo, I stand corrected, not having noticed the centreline reflection on the belly. You are all in the wrong jobs you should be detectives.

The photo is one of a sequence I took, the next one in the sequence, taken a split second later, has no centreline reflection, so if not over the grass was still very close. Still a good shot regardless.

Cheers

[RatherBeFlying]

Good spot gordinho.

Looking closer at the forward fuselage you can see a reflection of the runway itself, dark grey about the centreline and a bit of green at the edges.

Now for a bit of optics: The angle of reflection from a "flat" surface is equal on both sides -- say about 1 degree above horizontal to a fuselage inclined at 10 degrees; so about 11 degrees to and from the fuselage. To complete the optic triangle, lets postulate a downslope of 1 degree from the camera to the runway threshold which gives a triangle of 2 degrees at the camera (180 - 2 x 11) = 158 and finally 20 degrees at the runway

The triangle from the runway reflection straight down would yield a right triangle with an angle of about 70 degrees at the a/c. With a height of say 50 feet, the runway markings would be 50 x tan 70 = 50 x 2.74 ~= 135 behind the reflection. The wheels would be approx 100 feet closer to the runway and lower. This yields the wheels approx. 30 feet past the part of the runway shown in the reflection.

Note that the end of the runway does not show in the reflection.

[DW11]

lumbaland,

PIA have written off 2 A300's, one in Dubai and an earlier CFIT in 1992 near Kathmandu. They also came close to loosing another A300 in 2001 with a bulkhead failure at FL280.

[MAN777]

Rather be flying

Very impressive, you obviously took notice of your physics teacher while I was busy making paper planes !

Thats what I love about this forum, you can always guarantee that someone will have an answer.

[tcr2]

I'll probably be called stupid/misinformed (or worse) but if it came to a straight choice between PIA and a carrier such as BA on a particular flight, I know which one I would choose, and which one I woul feel safer (misplaced or not) travelling on.

[lumbalund]

Newswatcher
I can recall that accident but did not know if the A/C was a write off ,I stand corrected.
DW11
I remember Kathmandu well as I lost a good friend in that one.

[JW411]

Anti Skid On:

The AF 747 at St Maarten/St Martin is indeed pretty much on the glideslope. The runway is not overlong and the tarmac begins just the other side of the road.

Because of the bloody great hill in the middle of the island, it was usually more advantageous to take-off away from it with a tailwind and I have crossed the very same beach on take-off at a very similar height.

On one occasion two young ladies chose to ignore the warning signs and were walking right across the centreline as I rotated. I have often wondered if their bikini tops survived!

[frangatang]

If you want to see performance limiting takeoffs in a classic you would enjoy EAL s departures out of bournemouth.Fully loaded bound for Barbados,how DO they get airborne off a runway less than 2000 m long

[LostThePicture]

Fully loaded bound for Barbados,how DO they get airborne off a runway less than 2000 m long
They don't, is the answer to that. Bournemouth has a TORA of at least 2200m in both directions. And I might be wrong, but I don't think those 742s are operated fully loaded either. The operator is well known for being generous to passengers where seat pitch is concerned.

[Pontious]

PIA Photo

The reason that the centreline markings are not reflected on the underside of the fuselage is because the reflection on the fuse' is the grass.The TDZ markings are in the background- the two large white blocks either side of the centreline.

:ok:

[Gordinho]

Pontious, are we looking at the same photo?

[Pontious]

Yes,Gordie,if it is the centreline.

It's just that the reflection of the "centreline" travels the length along the longtitudinal axis of the aircraft as though the aircraft was alligned perfectly with it,whereas the aircrafts true orientation (a la photograph) puts it 15-20 degrees right of actual centreline.
The reflection shows perfect centreline tracking. The photo shows the aircraft 'weathercocking' if you like, characteristic of a crosswind take off, with the fuselage axis diverging from the runway centreline axis. Not an uncommon phenomenon at MAN.
But those touchdown zone markings DO look a long way behind the point where the aircraft "looks to have rotated"

If he rotated AT the TDZ markings at a Vr of about 160kts, he'll be travelling at about 180mph....that's 3 miles per minute...(cogs whirring away merrilly)....a mile every 20 secs....1500 metres per mile....TDZ markings...300m from threshold...by my "TLAR" calcs. He would have about 4-5 secs from hearing the "Rotate" call to getting airborne. That's pretty close,I wonder if the CAA ever check PIA's perf. data.

I would like to see the end of the runway, the markings and know exactly how close the upslope, in the foreground, is to the end of the runway, because it's obscuring the ALS for starters. Does anybody know for sure if it's 24L?
I'm operating into MAN three times this month so I'd like to know where I should be looking.

Cheers! :ok:

[bagpuss lives]

Yes, it's most certainly 24L. The mounds of earth (that are soon to be become the new viewing park supposedly) are clearly visible on the right hand side of the frame as is the R2 fire station.

Of course, there is also no sign of any crossing taxiways, the aircraft at the rear of the shot is holding at T1. Also, the "bump" on 24R/06L is much much more pronounced.

[NigelOnDraft]

Pontious...

<<That's pretty close,I wonder if the CAA ever check PIA's perf. data>>
Do you, or have you, regularly operated 4 Engine Transports right on field length limiting conditions?

Unless you have, the picture may surprise you. If you have, it will not...

As an aside, I have, for a UK operator. The proximity of the "end" at "V1", "Rotate" and actually getting airborne never ceased to amaze me. So I find the picture pretty undramatic, once allowance is made for some missing ground from the picture (TDZ -> Threshold) and the effect of a telephoto lens.

NoD

[dicksynormous]

I'd be more upset if it was departing Manchester empty!:8

[The Rookie]

This one is definitely a close call!

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=35439

[bagpuss lives]

Apparently in that picture the crew were debating whether to abort the take off run or not.

After a few seconds the PF remembered where he was and thought "Phúcket : let's go!!"

[the egg man]

i flew p.i.a once great curry on board.but no drinkies.
and a good landing as well.still here alive and well .



p.i.a. supporters club.:O :O :O :O :O :O

[Jack Point]

Me too the heavier the better ex man.

[BOEINGBOY1]

And back then to the subject in hand then? and the alleged disregard for ATC instructions?

[Rockwell]

The picture is slightly misleading, in that 24L runway does slope up at the 06R end. In the picture the 06R threshold is hidden by the grass embankment we see in the foreground.

Unless you are inside on the perimeter road and have ATC permission to enter the sterile area, you could not get a straight down the centre line photo looking in from over the fence, due to this grass 'ski jump' embankment. Hence presumably why it has been taken slightly off centreline. And I don't think anyone would want to be in that centreline position anyway :)

I would say that the picture is 100% genuine as regards the aircraft's position and point of rotation. It is just misleading owing to the telephoto lens perspective with the grass foreground obstructing the view of the remaining part of the runway.

Niteflite

<quote> The mounds of earth ...... are clearly visible on the right hand side of the frame as is the fire training ground <unquote>

Would that be a slip of the finger? Perhaps you meant the R2 Fire Station? The fire training area is not to the right, that is located at the top left of picture at the 24 Right end of Runway 1. The PIA is departing from Runway 2 (24L/06R) and is over the 06R threshold.

Pontious

the threshold markings are located just at the edge of the grass. The ILS gantry is just off picture at the right. The grass drops away at the bottom of the picture, so if you were standing there on the centreline you could not see the runway, because you are down below it. The ground and approach lights then rise up across the field to the road.

Ce411A

I do respect many of your postings, but you do occasionally come up with daft one-liners! The houses in that location were all purchased by the airport authority WELL BEFORE the construction of Runway 2 - (a) for demolition (b) to remove a source of objection at the Planning Inquiry when permission was being sought. The principal (large) house still standing on the extended centreline is now airport property rented out. I do believe it also houses a noise monitoring system and at one time a member of that team was a resident. Nothing like being keen and on the job :)

Hands up those who remember the noise abatement thread & PIA which ran last year? The outcome as I recall was that PIA 747s climbed straight ahead and b*ll*cks to the SID and noise abatement. Can't remember about the fines, was it a case of the airport giving up in despair, or PIA not bothering to pay?

Anyone who has walked the dog around the perimeter fence and through the approach lights at the 06R end will recognize this view. This picture is not a one-off. After all there are 3 PIA 747s per day into MAN, and each one generates the same level of will-it-won't it entertainment when it comes to departure. Why not pop down and judge for yourself :)

Point Seven -

well said, though I will take issue with one of your observation in this context.

<quote> Forget the old "what if they had an engine fire?" twaddle, if they had, everyone would have known about it. <unquote>

What makes you think everyone would know about it? One PIA 747 flight landed on 3 engines without telling ATC. It was only when a member of the public, way out on the 24R approach phoned the local police to report an airliner with an engine on fire, that the truth came to light. :rolleyes:

Then of course there was the bomb on board warning which PIA received when a 747 was 30 mins into a flight from Pakistan to MAN to JFK. Now you would have thought that the safest thing to do would be to put down at the nearest airport Well this aircraft continued it journey all the way to MAN, where it was eventually moved to the 24 Left midpoint, to await the passing of the announced detonation time, as given in the original message received at PIA HQ. So much for putting passengers and crews lives at risk, not to mention all the residents of the many countries it passed over.

I'm informed by the cargo guys, that one of the reasons PIA 747s are heavy, especially on a monday, is the vast quantities of National Health Service medicines which are being flown out to Pakistani UK residents. I say again, being flown OUT to Pakistani UK residents ;)

Lumbalund,

I have often wondered how female PIA pilots get on in the muslim world. I know PIA have one female 747 captain and an f/o. One of whom originated from the F-27 fleet where she was a captain. Given the muslim tradition of treating females as second class citizens and muslim males refusing to accept them as equals, let alone take orders from them, can you enlighten us unclean, drunken, amateurs how a female PIA captain copes with the job of bossing all those upstanding Pakistani gentlemen around?

[bagpuss lives]

Rockwell - yes very well spotted. I was of course referring to the 24L / 06R fire station and NOT the FTG.

Thanks for pointing that out (git) :D

[lumbalund]

ROCKWELL

Dont mistake Pakistan with some of the middle eastern states .
Women here have equal rights and are present in all professions including one who was Prime Minister .
PIA has three female pilots ,two on 747 and one on 310, all are first officers awaiting their command and one joining as a cadet pilot in one months time.

[TURIN]

Quote
"Given the muslim tradition of treating females as second class citizens and muslim males refusing to accept them as equals, let alone take orders from them.."

Nice to know that bigotry and intolerance of other races and religions is alive and well on pprune.

dixynormous et al, so you are worried that PIA flights may be going out empty, perhaps you would like to buy a one way ticket yourselves?
Then again why should Pakistan have to suffer? :mad:

[av8boy]

Nice to know that bigotry and intolerance of other races and religions is alive and well on pprune.
I think that may be overkill... Seems to me you motored right past possibilities like hyperbole, overstatement, baiting, misunderstanding, less-than-tidy choice of words, etc., to get to bigotry. I'm only suggesting that you might want to tease more information out of this statement to try to establish motive and rationale before you kick the hell out of it. No question that bigotry and intolerance needs to be slapped (as I so often point out to my own children, the one thing I won't tolerate is intolerance...). I just don't know that we've seen evidence of it here.

Dave:hmm:

[FFFlyer]

Actually Turin, what Rockwell said was directed not at races but at religion, so the use of the race card was unjustified.
If you have ever lived in any of these countries you would appreciate well what Rockwell said.

[flyingisgr8]

Maybe it's just me but has anyone else noticed that rather large turning circle at the south-western end of 24R?? Perhaps this revelation could account for the apparent bending of the runway toward the photographer??

[Rockwell]

Turin

Tut! Tut! Keep your shroud on :cool:

I was only asking a straight question. As has already been said by FFFlyer, certain Middle East
countries do treat females in a somewhat different manner to the rest of the muslim world. Perhaps
it was wrong for me to lump that entire world under the one banner.

Lumbalund

Thanks for that. Nice to hear. I was aware of the female President, after all her father did have a
HS Trident to fly around in.

[av8boy]

Maybe it's just me but has anyone else noticed that rather large turning circle at the south-western end of 24R??
I sense an attempt by flyingisgr8 to hijack this comparative cultures and religions thread and turn it into a self-serving diatribe on heavy jet photography.

What next? Threads about navaids or aircraft accidents? Shut 'em down, Danny. :*

Dave

[Lloydm]

This is without doubt the most banal thread I have seen so far on here

I am considering starting another thread entitled

Deathrap Aircraft/Airlines.......

Contributions must be from:

Those who don't/ have never worked in the industry

Those who do and should know better than attempting to reply
to the above and below, and expect an informed and qualified debate to follow

Those with irrational predjudices

That strange collection of individuals who infest airports, (and this site) to no apparent purpose than to watch aircraft and return home to post their cerebrally challenged opinions on this site, providing the rest of us with an apparently endless supply of comedic ravings.(Bless you all)

Those who, having never experienced real incidents think there is some perverse glamour in being associated, however remotely with one.

Those with a sense of humour



While I am here.

For years I commuted to work on a Viscount up to LSI (Joe Shell's Airline).

Can any ex BAF/BW crew tell me what that "alarm clock" was on shutdown? We allways had a connecting flight holding for us and didnt have the time to ask.

Such was the gold rush.













.

[MAN777]

LLOYD M


I think this has been quite an interesting thread apart from the dodgy entries about race issues.

The site might be called Pilots rumour network, but that doesnt exclude anyone else who has an interest in the world of aviation, as the varied titles of the various forums prove.

Your comments are arrogant to say the least and typical of the attitude that many have on this site, this "I am a pilot, so therefore you dont know what your talking about, and everything you say must be wrong"

Quite frankly. I and I suspect many other readers thing you are a "arrogant prat"

[BigHitDH]

Lloyd M,

While I admit that some of the posts here are less than desirable, what would be the point of a debate if all and sundry agreed?

I'm not a pilot nor am I involved with any part of the aviation industry. I guess that makes me an idiot in your book, an idiot who would do best to keep his mouth shut. There do seem to be three distinct types of people on this forum, aviation professionals happy to engage in open debate, and, informed (some more than others) members of the public who also wish to learn. The third type would be aviation professionals who deem that anybody with one less hour/dollar/pound/ounce of sense then themselves is a lower form of human life, and not worthy of the air they breathe, let alone a username on this board.

I just wish someone could vector this thread back on course; we appear to be flying in circles.

[squarkident]

This HAS been one of the most banal threads I have had the honour to read over the past couple of weeks but for me it has

a) taught me alot about PIA 747's

b) given me a intimate knowledge of Manchester's RW 24/06

c) given me loads of good ideas for a news story should it be so quiet in our newsroom that we have to invent something (not that we ever would of course;-)

d) made me giggle alot more than usual.

Thank you. I look forward to the next banal thread:-)

Adam

PPL and (Radio) Journalist

[av8boy]

"Banal"

That's a bad thing, right?

Dave :D

[Colonel Blink]

757 - by checkers do you mean training captains doing check rides and signing folks off, or do you mean they end up at KUL, etc, labelling suitcases? (I assume you mean the former!)

[Rockwell]

Now let me see, the primary issue under discussion is SAFETY.

A photo was posted by way of evidence. At first glance everyone is taken aback, fingers point, voices mutter, the cry goes out 'guilty'.

Knowledgeable contributors then point out that camera angles and lenses don't always tell the truth. So the picture isn't quite what it seems.

Lloydm - Do you have a problem with discussing aviation safety on this Board?

[chiglet]

More in keeping....etc
I remember an Aviogenex Tu134 being given no less than ten [10] go around instructions...then landed, narrowly missing a light a/c clearing the runway at MAN.
I also remember a couple of years ago [summer, R/W06L] the PIA B742 took some roof tiles from a house on Ringway Road.:hmm: Vortex or JetBlast not sure:confused:
As has been said before, "Nose wheel B]lifting[/B] at JA" is ermm, interesting
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy

[aviatorpk]

Soon PIA will be Landing with 777 then watch out
if they have an engine failure ??????:sad:

[[email protected]]

Gents!!
In this business it is foolish to have the monday morning quarter-back.
In other words"could-of, should-of, would-of" is no place for us here!
You were not there, were you?
They may have had a good reason, or not why dont we let MAN atc take care of it.
BB1 what if it was BA, would speculation be in order then?

[Land ASAP]

This thread has two potential outcomes.

One may involve litigation. The other will be as evidence post accident. Dare I ask whether the ATCO's who handle the departures of PIA consider a little footage to pass on to the unsuspecting general public via the media? A picture ('undoctered') says a thousand words. 10 seconds of footage tell a million.

PIA are operating a monopoly route outside Perf A considerations judging by the anecdotal evidence we see here. I would hate to think that lives were lost because the previous 9 pages were not acted upon.

35ft Screen height has no fat left in it, let alone roof tiles.

[Lloydm]

I have been messing about in Quito ...(an interesting climb out)so I apologise for my delay in replying.

Indeed there are two possible outcomes

1. A crash

2. A take off

If 1 has not occured then 2 has.


I am glad to see that this thread is dead ...its life was miserable, spawned by parents who knew not what they did nor had the courage (and most of all brains) to know what they created.

For those who have a genuine interest in procedures a " Go Around" is not as some would have you believe an emergency.

To use an allegory..... its the cue at the multi story but we cant put the handbrake on and listen to our partner moan how we should have left earlier..........we go round just like Charlotte square in EDI used to be.and probably still is.

ATC..........I have the highest respect but.its all about perception .

If you really want to look into all this then check out the Naked Pilot by David Beaty,some CRMs,and some really good stuff by Du Pont and....trust me on this..... a few marketing courses.........it will let you gain a real insight into how what seems real to you ...isnt

The Naked Pilot ISBN 1-85310-482-5

[MAN777]

Lloydm

The thread may be dead, but I am not prepared to sit back and take that insult you have thrown at all the previous posts.


"I am glad to see that this thread is dead ...its life was miserable, spawned by parents who knew not what they did nor had the courage (and most of all brains) to know what they created."

You continue to be arrogant to the extreme and do your profession no favours. You are undoubtably very intelligent and entitled to an opinion, like everyone else, but why insult the masses ?

Just what exactly did the "messing about in Quito" consist of ? Judging by your clouded attempt at prose and analogies, I would say the messing about included smoking large amounts of locally produced vegetable matter !!

[Anti Skid On]

Anyone see the PIA B747 today at MAN. Seems it was well off track on approach, ATC told them to go around, but pilot replied I've got the runway in sight, and landed. Scared the ATP crew at the hold!

This is R & N - it was a rumour, not news; it was worthy of discussion, and was conducted by those who either know EGCC well or the operator and their nuances. I agree with MAN777 - it was worthwhile - also the issue re. the ATC instruction to go around - again very important that this was raised.

[Lloydm]

MAN 777

Messing about means a wonderful Bombardier plane with 4 burning and turning which can land in your back yard and from x miles out see you burning the brai

nuff said:E

[MAN777]

I know exactly what you say, but surely you mean a wonderful "De haviland".

[GOLF-INDIA BRAVO]

PIA701 just gone around at Manchester due conflicting traffic due I think to aircraft not rolling in time, don`t know reason (all sounded very professional to me)

Golf India Bravo

[bagpuss lives]

It almost always is....by all parties.

Which is why the original incident in this thread was worthy of mention and discussion :)

[Lloydm]

Man777.....yep.....it was a Canadian airplane still is, sorta like a Boeing DC3 but whats in a name?

Niteflite..............Ok I give in:{


My new squeeze likes me to be nice so..............;)

[Little One]

Firstly have no input on the incident

But have sent traffic around for being unstable on an approach and it has happened that what the pilot thought was the RWY ended up being a road on one instance and in poor vis had a pilot line up with the apron lights cause they were brighter than the RWY lights. Both instances traffic sent around on ATC instruction. Just think of my paperwork if I let the sod land on the road instead of the RWY. If it is an emerg and they need to land then they can declare an emerg. If he said RWY in sight and landing if it was an emerg he would have said so then.