PDA

View Full Version : Two Pakistan passenger jets nearly collide


Airbubba
22nd Dec 2004, 18:47
Two Pakistan passenger jets nearly collide

KARACHI, Pakistan (AP) Two Pakistani passenger jets on domestic flights nearly collided late Wednesday, and one of the jets abruptly swerved up 700 feet to avoid the other, injuring at least two people on board, an airline official said.

The pilot of an Pakistan International Airlines flight with 179 passengers had to make the emergency maneuver because it was on a collision course with an Air Blue jet, said PIA spokeswoman Samina Pervez.

The near-miss happened over Rahimyarkhan in eastern Punjab province, about 440 miles northeast of the southern Pakistan city of Karachi, the spokeswoman said. The two planes were flying at an altitude of 37,000 feet at the time.

On board the PIA plane, one female crew member sbroke an arm, and a male passenger injured an arm and an ear, Pervez said. The plane, flying from Islamabad, landed safely with emergency teams on standby at Karachi airport around 9 p.m.

It wasn't clear if anyone was hurt on the Air Blue jet, which was on a flight from Karachi to Lahore.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-12-22-pakistan-jets_x.htm

MercenaryAli
22nd Dec 2004, 21:25
Don't fly with a third world airline!

Why? Simple! Go to a third world country, hire a car and try driving on their roads!! If they can't get that right how do you expect them to fly airplanes??

I never did, don't and won't - call me prejudice if you like but just have a look at the safety records and I think most sane people would agree.

Or read the editorial in the S A Flyer magazine, lates issue about the S A CAA it will make your eyes water!!

Oh yes! I am prejudice! Happy Christmas !!:ok:

Faheel - I am not pointing fingers nor placing blame on something I know nothing about. I made a statement; If you want to fly on the safest airlines, with the best trained crews and the best maintenance -DONT FLY THIRD WORLD!

Feather #3
22nd Dec 2004, 21:38
Having said that Ali , RK is one of the busiest intersections in that part of the world. ATC does a good job keeping things apart for the vast majority of the time!!

Don't be too quick to judge whose error this is, please.

G'day ;)

faheel
22nd Dec 2004, 22:27
That really is such a silly statement Ali.

For a start there is nothing in the above post to suggest either airline is to blame. It could easily have been a controller problem.

Err was'nt the last fatal collision over Switzerland?
:confused:

Jagbag
23rd Dec 2004, 03:42
Mercenary Ali - what you said is either a wind up.... or a foolish remark of some one who uses something else to think with!

Fox3snapshot
23rd Dec 2004, 08:10
Hmmmm......third world airlines eh? so no "first world" airliners have incidents and accidents and more to the point I cannot see from the article presented that it was the airliners fault, so there could be many other factors and if ATC is a contributing factor then will you remain clear of "third world" airspace as well, because fiirst world ATC units never have incidents do they????!!!!

Your travels will become quite limited based on your "prejudice".
:ugh:

Besides, how third world are they with a nuclear capability??????
:hmm:

Snoopy2
23rd Dec 2004, 08:31
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1639520,00.html

Warning signals were given to both pilots after they found themselves in the same air corridor over Rahim Yar Khan district in central Punjab province, PIA spokesperson Samina Paracha said late on Wednesday.

"One was asked to dip off, the other was directed to go high but both dipped down," she said.


I don't know how accurate this article is but did "BOTH" dip down when one should have gone up???

Atlanta-Driver
23rd Dec 2004, 09:07
"Dip up, Dip down, Dip off" New TCAS commands perhaps?

Fox3snapshot says: Besides, how third world are they with a nuclear capability??????

Fortunately very few have this capability. And Pakistan is a third world country wether you like it or not.

MercenaryAli. You are spot on. Just looking at statistics will show that as a PAX one is at most risk flying on a third world carrier. This is a statistical fact. Not to say that first world carriers or ATC do not have accidents or incidents.

Regarding ATC. There are places where the procedural ATC procedures work well like over Libya, however in areas like Myanmar with poor VHF as well as HF communications make it a nightmare. Amount of traffic that crosses LSO East and Westbound every day is mind numbing.

AD

Oma
23rd Dec 2004, 09:09
I am pretty sure PIA have TCAS on their machines, dont know about the other guys.

Mishaps do Happen and will Happen.

Bechara Mr Mercenary, sounds like you need to go to school a little longer to understand Avaition !

Be it 1st world, 2nd World or 5th world, you're just Lucky to be where you are !

ATNotts
23rd Dec 2004, 09:12
Ali,

That reminds me of a typical American reaction - what you are really saying is "fly American carriers".

Leaving aside 11th September 2001, there have been in my recollection many frightening, often fatal incidents involving US carriers too.

Perhaps don't fly is a more logical - though totally irrational mantra. Come to think of it, don't drive, dont walk - in fact better still stay in bed - but hey..., what if the roof of the bedroom falls in!

Jerricho
23rd Dec 2004, 14:21
call me prejudice if you like

Ok then.................Prejudice. :rolleyes:

Farrell
23rd Dec 2004, 15:47
why do these things always move off thread? it was a reported incident between two airliners - the end! Just leave it alone for God's sake:{

HEATHROW DIRECTOR
23rd Dec 2004, 16:05
<<"One was asked to dip off, the other was directed to go high but both dipped down,">>

Interesting phraseology!

answer=42
24th Dec 2004, 02:13
I flew Islamabad - Karachi & back a couple of years ago.

On the outward trip, I flew Shaheen Airways. The plane was a Ukrainian registered wetleased Yak-42 (what fun). In good weather, the plane had a steeper angle of ascent than is common with BoeingBus. Once in cruise, the flight appeared to make continual slight alterations of heading.

The return trip was with PIA, which did not fly the direct route but much closer to the border with India, then altering course.

If not relevant, please feel free to ignore/delete this SLF observation.

MercenaryAli
25th Dec 2004, 19:31
I salute you sir! You are,without doubt, a very brave man - or
a very foolish one!

Have a Happy New Year 2005 and take it from the statistics, if not from me, from a passenger safety perspective you are safer not travelling on a third world carrier!

RoyHudd
25th Dec 2004, 19:55
Fox3snapshot..what has nuclear capability got to do with anything on this site? Inflammatory statements like yours on this thread provide us peace-loving Western people with a justifiable fear of Middle-Eastern hot-heads. You should be ashamed of yourself, making aggressive remarks on third-world nuclear capability. Childish and worrying.

Animalclub
26th Dec 2004, 01:03
Ali... I've worked with two or three so called third world airlines and charter companies. One a National Carrier that has never killed anybody since they started flying umpteen years ago. In fact I'm proud to have worked for them.

stagn8
27th Dec 2004, 05:41
I'd like to endorse Anlimalclub, I too have worked with many a carrier in the Middle East and Asia, including PIA and have nothing but respect for their professional approach to aviation under less than perfect circumstances... and where was ValueJet ?

Atlanta-Driver
27th Dec 2004, 08:24
"Just looking at statistics will show that as a PAX one is at most risk flying on a third world carrier. This is a statistical fact. Not to say that first world carriers or ATC do not have accidents or incidents."
And as a little proof of my theory hull losses of some third world carriers:

PIA since 1956, 30 hull losses
Air india since 1947, 18 losses
Indian Airlines since 1953, 57 losses
Philippine Airlines, Since 1946, 51 losses
Nigerian Airways had 12 losses between 1969 to 1995


Better 1st world carriers such as Lufthansa has had 9 hull losses since 1959, Air New Zealand 3 since 1966, Austrian Airlines 4 since 1960 and Cathay Pacific 6 since 1948. Finnair forexample had 3 hull losses since 1945 with last loss in 1963. British Airways has had 3losses between 1975 and 1976 all Tridents.

On another note Air France had 89 hull losses since 1945 (Makes you wonder)

A statistic about the accidents aroud the world. Based on ICAO scheduled airline departures and reported fatal accidents.

First number being the precentage of all departures and second precentage of fatal accidents.



North America: 42% / 20,5%

Europe: 29% / 21,4%

Asia-Australia 17% / 26,8%

South & Central America 9% / 16,8%

Africa 3% / 14,5%


Hope this clarifies my stance a bit.

AD

Air NZ figures corrected

ATC Watcher
27th Dec 2004, 09:37
Atlanta driver, caution with such statistics, the interesting number is the hull losses versus total number of flown revenue hours divided by the number of aircraft the company has.

Going back as far as 1945 is also totally misleading, as in the years 1945-1955 various odd ex military machines in large numbers were used on routes that were not suited, and airlines such as AF ( as you mention it ) operated in very drastic conditions in Asia and Africa ( already !).
Airlines such as Finnair ( since you mention it ) never had such aircraft numbers and such routes...

If you apply the formula above , and restrict your survey to the last 25 years ( so after 1980 ) you will find that most large airlines in the world have now very similar results with some notable exceptions , ( e.g, Africa , Korea ) and if one takes out hull losses due to terrorist actions, one will find that some of the poorest countries can have very safe airlines operations ( e. Bangladesh biman, Sri Lanka, Ethiopian, etc..) So third world = unsafe is a totally wrong concept.

Atlanta-Driver
27th Dec 2004, 14:24
Time frame for accidents and operations was based on info from 1992 to 2002.

I'll give you guys hull loss figures for the same airlines after 1980 for comparison.

3rd world

PIA, 11
Air india, 3
Indian Airlines, 12
Philippine Airlines,7

European

Air France, 8
Lufthansa, 2
Air New Zealand, none
Austrian Airlines, 1
Cathay Pacific, none
Finnair, none
British Airways,none
SAS, 4
Alitalia, 4
Iberia, 3
KLM, 1

Just to give a glimpse to the preformance of the better thirld world carriers since 1980.

Ethiopian, 13
Kenya airways, 3
Biman, 4
Cameroon Airlines, 5
Sri Lankan, 5 all terrorist/war related losses

If one compares hull losses/ fleet size/ hours flown/ cycles it is clear that there are safer and less safe airlines.

AD

25F
28th Dec 2004, 21:06
How many "Western" airlines operate into places like Gilgit? http://www.pakistaniaviation.com/photogilgit.htm Yes, that's a very big hill in the background. And here's Skardu: http://www.pbase.com/arifakhan/image/33771184

Rather than hull losses I think fatalities on revenue-generating flights would be more informative than including non-fatal incidents on training flights. But I would, I'm SLF.

Vortex what...ouch!
29th Dec 2004, 00:04
It hardly matters to the PAX why the aircraft crashes. It still crashes, whether caused by a big hill or a terrorist. So don't fly on airlines that crash a lot. Seems simple to me.

I'm never flying AF again either.:\ Does that make the French "third world"?:}

BigAir
29th Dec 2004, 00:12
Driver,

Are those hull loss figures down to crashes in the unintended landing sense, or just general hull loses?

It is late and have none of my reference material with me, but I seem to recall that hull loses can occur in a number of ways and perhaps the age of the "3rd world" fleets might account for a hull loss whereas a newer a/c from a "first world" carrier suffering the same incident may have been repaired rather than scrapped due to the financial aspect?

Also, figures for % flights / % accidents by region... takes no account in size of a/c - heavily mountainous regions and nasty weather with small aircraft crashing would worry me less than a different region having fewer accidents but with bigger planes and therefore more dead...perhaps here ASK vs fatalities could be a useful measure.

Sorry, but I Am always dubious about those figures and having worked previously as an analyst know how figures can be bent to say what you want. As other people have said, RSK/ASK flown vs (or per) fatalities might be a more useful measure to your argument - would be interested if you can dig these up.

Ali,

If you wish to fly internally within Pakistan, how else would one do it other than fly with a "3rd world carrier".... methinks there might be some cabotage issues if American Airlines or someone like that were to operate there.

BigAir

GF-A330
3rd Jan 2005, 23:31
Here's the news just in....

PIA passenger plane en-route from London to Islamabad made a narrow escape from deadly accident while landing here amid the reports that heavy damage has been caused to the right engine of the aircraft.

PIA London-Islamabad Jumbo 747-300 flight PK 786 as per routine schedule landed at Islamabad on Monday at 9.40 morning. During the course of landing, right side engine of the plane hit the runway after the aircraft lost its balance. About 430 passengers and 16 plane crew were on board. They received severe jerks and damage was caused to engine of craft.

The passengers began reciting prayers loudly with panic gripping them. However captain Anjum controlled the plane and landed it in parking area safely.

PIA has sent a high-level inquiry committee from Karachi to Islamabad to probe into the matter soon after receipt of the reports on incident. Committee will finalise its report and submit it to the higher authorities today.

The sources said that pilot captain Anjum had to face difficulties while landing the flight due to fault in landing system. When the flight entered into airspace of Islamabad, Pilot Anjum took review of landing system and discovered fault therewith. He made aerial round of airport to control the system, which however could not be operated.

Sources told that pilot succeeded in landing the plane, however, the engine rammed into runway due to plane tilt towards right side. The pilot in no time maintained the balance and the plane made hairbreadth escape from fatal accident.

http://paktribune.com/news/index.php?id=89088

Flightrider
3rd Jan 2005, 23:53
Please excuse the witticism which may possibly be inappropriate given the subject matter of aviation safety, but thoughts of Frank Spencer in Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em instantly spring to mind.

However captain Anjum controlled the plane and landed it in parking area safely

Feather #3
3rd Jan 2005, 23:55
What a rich language English is!

G'day ;)

JJflyer
4th Jan 2005, 00:41
Have a look at

here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=156676)

JJ

Jagbag
4th Jan 2005, 01:34
That is the actual news clipping!

RRAAMJET
4th Jan 2005, 02:44
Sounds like rt main gr failed to extend, no word on body gear, but it's hard to translate...
If so, well done Capt Anjum is perhaps in order...?

Fris B. Fairing
4th Jan 2005, 03:42
What story generator did the reporter use? It's much better than this one (http://radans.net/jens/planestory.html)

HEALY
4th Jan 2005, 04:27
Fris that is the funniest thing i have seen in a long time. I honestly thought I was reading the newspapers

hobie
4th Jan 2005, 11:01
Surely some allowance should be made for "Translation" :( when reading such Incident reports

airborne_artist
4th Jan 2005, 11:39
If you are going to be really accurate you've also got to factor out all issues external to the airline, from the obvious ATC/navaids quality/provision to the absurd, such as the water buffalo that wandered onto the Aceh rw and pranged a 73 in the last few hours.

You could go further and factor out all/some weather issues. By way of example the F104 operated by USAF in Germany had an appalling safety record, largely due to the fact that the pilots had trained in weather-free Arizona/Nevada.

Only when you are comparing real like with like can you give a true "airline safety" league.

Taildragger
4th Jan 2005, 14:43
In all the years I flew BA, no body, not ever, offerred me a "Severe Jerk". I met quite a few though.....

surely not
4th Jan 2005, 16:51
On the Freight Dogs forum there are threads which allege serious malpractice by 2 large US carriers with regard to engineering issues, falsifying of Tech Log reports etc.

No idea if they are true, but it does show that even so called 1st world carriers have issues that need to be addressed.

P7G
4th Jan 2005, 21:36
Flightrider, Thanks for the memory...Frank Spencer... nearly filled my Depends!!! As was commented, the English language does not always lend itself to literal translation. But I have visions of Biggles and Ginger battling the controls with archaic headsets wrapped around their necks!!!!!! We need at least one reporter on our side.:O

hobie
4th Jan 2005, 21:48
whats the English for "Severe Thread Drift" ??? :confused:

Mode7
5th Jan 2005, 07:11
RRAAMJET - he's hardly going to taxi (or land) on stand with a gear failure is he?

Off Justplanes.com

A Pakistan International Boeing 747-300 operating flight PK786 which departed London\'s Heathrow Airport on Sunday evening was involved in an incident while landing at the Islamabad International Airport on Monday morning around 0930. The aircraft was landing in fog and as it tilted to one side an engine scraped the runway. No one was hurt however the engine sustained damage.

CRS
5th Jan 2005, 07:31
Anybody got the Islambad weather at the time of the incident


tks

CRS