Pakistani PK-661 reported missing near Havelian (07 Dec 2016) [Archive]

Wrist Watch

7th Dec 2016, 11:49

https://i.imgur.com/OelnDhz.jpg

For factual updates, I recommend following AvHerald (https://avherald.com/h?article=4a1c2ee4&opt=0).

AP-BHO, ATR 42-500, MSN 663.
Delivered in 2007, PW127E engines.
No ADS data available for the area.

The aircraft was already involved in two occurrences:
• in 2009, veered off the runway on landing (https://avherald.com/h?article=41a768f7&opt=0)
• in 2014, left engine suffered a compressor failure in flight (https://avherald.com/h?article=47acb83b&opt=0)

https://i.imgur.com/R9Htmqx.jpg

inducedrag

7th Dec 2016, 11:50

“We regret to inform that PIA’s ATR-42 aircraft operating as PK-661, carrying around 40 persons lost its contact with control tower on its way from Chitral to Islamabad a short while ago. All resources are being mobilised to locate the aircraft. Media will be kept informed as situation develops,” PIA spokesperson Danial Gilani said in a statement.

Pilot DAR

7th Dec 2016, 11:51

c52 makes a valid observation. I have edited the title of the thread. Posters are asked to make thread titles more informative, so they can be easily distinguished in later times.

V0cnorth

7th Dec 2016, 12:52

Pilots were brothers Capt Saleh Janjua & Ahmed Janjua.

GarageYears

7th Dec 2016, 13:53

The aircraft was already involved in two occurrences:
• in 2009, veered off the runway on landing (https://avherald.com/h?article=41a768f7&opt=0)
• in 2014, left engine suffered a compressor failure in flight (https://avherald.com/h?article=47acb83b&opt=0)

According to AVHerald, crew reported problem with LEFT engine shortly before crash... coincidence with the previous left engine issue from 2014?

kilfeder

7th Dec 2016, 14:52

"Dozens of bodies pulled from wreckage after Pakistan plane crash" AFP
https://twitter.com/AFP/status/806516637247664129

Tu.114

7th Dec 2016, 16:36

Here´s something for the benefit of the press:

If an aircraft has had a previous incident, this is by no means an indication of a possible cause for a crash many years later. Most aircraft have one or another system failure or whatever in their service life and nearly none of them are newsworthy in any way. After an engine has flamed out and was found to have compressor damage, it will be replaced (look up modular construction if You like - a significant feature of aircraft) and, seeing that that incident was already in 2014, almost certainly was no longer on the wing on this flight. So this is a red herring.

Also there apparently was a runway excursion in 2009 in Lahore. This is already 6 to 7 years ago, and the aircraft has obviously been repaired and flown several times afterwards, as the residual value of the aircraft was such that a repair was worth the while as opposed to disassembling it and selling the parts as spare (both normal procedures). Also this is likely a red herring.

And: Also an ATR belongs to the aircraft category that is required to be flyable with only one engine running. Losing an engine on a turboprop airliner should by no means be a problem if procedures are followed.

There is a reason why aircraft accidents are formally investigated: They are extremely complex and have multiple layers of direct and indirect reasons, contribuents and other issues that might have played a role in them. Quick answers, finger pointing and dishing out blame are all most likely to lead up completely wrong alleys at this stage.

DaveReidUK

7th Dec 2016, 17:21

If an aircraft has had a previous incident, this is by no means an indication of a possible cause for a crash many years later.

However many, if not most, accident investigations will include a search for and analysis of precursor incidents that have similar characteristics but did not, on those occasions, result in an accident.

Bergerie1

7th Dec 2016, 17:33

TU.144 is right. Nevertheless the investigation has to include the past history of the aircraft, witness the tail-scrape on the JAL 123 Boeing 747 in 1985.

inducedrag

7th Dec 2016, 17:52

Pilots were not at all related as mentioned before

Tu.114

7th Dec 2016, 18:07

DaveReid and PH-SBE, you are right. There were accidents that were traced back to faulty repairs of previous substantial damage, and I must admit to simplification in my previous post.

However allow me to maintain that an engine failure and also a runway excursion that may have happened earlier in the accident aircrafts history is not entirely the same as a tailstrike that left the rear pressure dome and other vital parts damaged as happened to the two 747.

The point I was trying to make is that technical incidents are a part of day-to-day aircraft operation and do not necessarily leave an aircraft jinxed...

Bergerie1

7th Dec 2016, 18:44

Tu.114, Agreed!

Victor_IL

8th Dec 2016, 06:49

Hello.
I looked at the isobar and I see a very good sigmet Last 12 hours.
If the aircraft was in icing on this engine for the prohibit all to fly in single-engine due to boost flow in the ice condition level at level 2 ... Boots condiition on PW127E there are two, but they are separated by each engine difference PW127F / M has two boost two independent on my own.

Cant say much about PW127E engine because each company has its own modification, especially purchased. But I know from experience that most of these cases are due to not proper use of the inertial separator or part span stall.

birmingham

8th Dec 2016, 07:07

However many, if not most, accident investigations will include a search for and analysis of precursor incidents that have similar characteristics but mdid not, on those occasions, result in an accident.

Sure they will obviously be looked at along with much else but unlike some accidents such as the Medellin one recently their is no obvious cause which justifies speculation. There are 1001 potential causes of an engine fire from bird strike through compressor failure, fuel leak etc etc. Assuming the engine fire was causal not consequential. Hopefully enough will remain to allow the cause to be accurately determined.

ORAC

8th Dec 2016, 07:16

?Faulty engine? kills 48 in Pakistan plane crash | World | The Times & The Sunday Times (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/world/faulty-engine-kills-48-in-pakistan-plane-crash-892cmhs7z)

An aircraft with a faulty engine crashed into mountains in Pakistan yesterday killing all 48 passengers and crew and prompting claims that engineers had not cleared it for take-off.

Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) flight PK-661 took off at 3.30pm from the northern resort town of Chitral in the foothills of the Hindu Kush. It was making its approach to Islamabad, 250 miles to the south, about an hour later, when it lost contact with ground control and disappeared from radar. It crashed about 25 miles north of the capital, near Havelian. Witnesses reported that the plane was on fire as it came down and exploded on impact...........

Officials said that the pilots of the French-built twin-turboprop ATR 42 reported problems with the left engine and declared an emergency shortly before the flight disappeared. The aircraft had suffered an in-flight failure of the same engine two years ago.

Sources at Pakistan’s Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) said that engineers had not cleared the plane to fly. Muhammad Irfan Elahi, CAA chairman, confirmed that one engine was known to be out of order. “I cannot reveal more information right now,” he said. “First priority is the rescue operation.”

Shahid Lateef, a retired air-marshal, said that allowing the plane to fly without clearance from engineers was criminal. “I am unable to understand how come this plane was allowed to fly in the first place,” he said. “This is a serious violation and both PIA and CAA officials will have to come up with answers.”......

ORAC

8th Dec 2016, 08:16

Council Van, I will be interested to see how long the British media remain interested in this accident as the aircraft was only carrying normal passengers and not professional footballer's.

".....Junaid Jamshed, 52, a former rock star turned Islamic preacher and fashion designer, was said to have been on board the flight, along with his family. His band Vital Signs had a hit in 1987 with Dil Dil Pakistan, which has been called the “unofficial national anthem”.........

DaveReidUK

8th Dec 2016, 08:59

Sources at Pakistan’s Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) said that engineers had not cleared the plane to fly. Muhammad Irfan Elahi, CAA chairman, confirmed that one engine was known to be out of order.

That sounds like b*ll*cks.

The statement issued was regarding an engine failure after takeoff, which is a world apart from saying that it departed with a known snag or without being signed off by maintenance.

Shahid Lateef, a retired air-marshal, said that allowing the plane to fly without clearance from engineers was criminal. “I am unable to understand how come this plane was allowed to fly in the first place,” he said. “This is a serious violation and both PIA and CAA officials will have to come up with answers.”......Sounds like your typically uninformed rent-a-quote from someone who thinks his years of experience obviate the need to check facts before opening mouth.

superliner

8th Dec 2016, 09:31

There's a video of the crash site in this (http://indianexpress.com/article/world/probe-launched-into-pakistan-plane-crash-pia-blames-engine-failure-4416687/) article.

RAT 5

8th Dec 2016, 16:08

Muhammad Irfan Elahi, CAA chairman, confirmed that one engine was known to be out of order.

The word 'confirmed' adds much weight to this statement but.....I can fully understand another meaning to this wording. English is not the first language and there might be some stress situation in a press conference/release. "out of order" means it's not working correctly. It is said that the crew reported an engine malfunction in the air = out of order. It does not necessarily mean it was not serviceable before takeoff.

striker26

8th Dec 2016, 19:46

The eyewitness accounts were also suspect, one stated it was on fire and enduring "turbulence" then crashed, apparently the pilot was trying to avoid the buildings... the other said they saw fire after the crash...either way the black boxes should aid greatly. Curious to know if a drone/missile might be a possibility too...but again engine issues could relate to thousands of scenarios.

PersonFromPorlock

8th Dec 2016, 22:15

Chitral is a 5741 ft runway 4921 ft MSL; can anyone run the numbers and say if an ATR 42 definitely could or couldn't get off the ground from there on one engine with the reported load / WX conditions?

Lonewolf_50

9th Dec 2016, 01:27

Can someone explain to me why someone is asking if this crew took off with one engine inop? I mean, come on. Let's give the professional pilots a benefit of the doubt as there is so little concrete information to hand. Look what has to happen: Tower operator at the departing field watching the take off, in the position of saying: "hey, PIA XXX, one of your props isn't turning!" That kind of speculation is bizarre.

Perhaps some losses in translation are occurring, per RAT 5's point, or some people are speaking with incomplete information. It happens.

lomapaseo

9th Dec 2016, 03:15

Can someone explain to me why someone is asking if this crew took off with one engine inop?

from my read it's just from reading too much into the posts.

I'd let it ride for the time being as it's not germane to further discussion at this time

Hasselhof

9th Dec 2016, 11:15

If that is what you are indeed asking I don't need a performance manual to give you an answer

If that's what they are asking a performance manual couldn't give you the answer even if you wanted it to :}

deefer dog

9th Dec 2016, 14:10

I recall an accident several years ago which involved loss of directional control during the take off run. The crew had attempted to depart after one of the two engines failed to start. The crew had hoped that it would be possible to carry out an air star of the second engine once they got airborne. All survived and the accident report makes hillarious reading.

peekay4

9th Dec 2016, 14:36

PJ2

9th Dec 2016, 14:55

Re, "Chitral is a 5741 ft runway 4921 ft MSL; can anyone run the numbers and say if an ATR 42 definitely could or couldn't get off the ground from there on one engine with the reported load / WX conditions? ".

When English is not the native language of the country issuing statements on an accident, the potential for misunderstanding is high.

The CAA statement can be taken several ways. The most likely interpretation is probably that the left engine was running (prop turning, which is the only evidence anyone except the crew, the mtce staff & the recorders will have), but had a maintenance issue. Whether that was actually the case, and if so, whether it had been signed off or not, will be eventually confirmed by the usual ways.

Super VC-10

9th Dec 2016, 16:12

Apparently the PCAA has released an initial report.

It would seem that an uncontained engine failure caused significant damage to the wing, rendering the aircraft uncontrollable.

Initial report says PK-661?s left engine malfunctioned - Pakistan - DAWN.COM (http://www.dawn.com/news/1301373/initial-report-says-pk-661s-left-engine-malfunctioned)

Nemrytter

9th Dec 2016, 16:17

...entered free fall and lost another 1,800 feet in a millisecond...:sad:Damn strong gravity they have over there.

Super VC-10

9th Dec 2016, 16:23

1,800 feet in a millisecond

What's that in knots?

MATELO

9th Dec 2016, 16:28

66,300kts give or take....:confused:

lomapaseo

9th Dec 2016, 17:30

Super VC-10

Apparently the PCAA has released an initial report.

It would seem that an uncontained engine failure caused significant damage to the wing, rendering the aircraft uncontrollable.

I view the above as highly suspect and/or premature. There is no direct quoting of the authorities as to cause and result. Just the normal leap of reporters.

from the suspect article referenced:

However, an aircraft will fall freely if there is structural damage as hampered aerodynamics does not allow it to glide with gradual descent. There is a possibility then that the failed engine had exploded and damaged the wing attached to it.

DaveReidUK

9th Dec 2016, 18:27

Photo showing a substantially complete rear fuselage:

http://s4.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20161208&t=2&i=1164631664&w=&fh=&fw=&ll=780&pl=468&sq=&r=LYNXMPECB705R

1jz

10th Dec 2016, 03:22

Most of the stories are just fake, how can an aircraft depart without being cleared by the maintenance department? And also every peasant living in near by villages claims he has seen the crash actually happening, one guy went off board by claiming in a newspaper that he could sense something was wrong with the aircraft and he followed it riding his motorbike and saw the crash happen....
Crap... I have been there and it's a hilly terrain, the final 30 mins can be travelled on foot only..

Better we wait for professionals do their work and come up with something legitimate.

Fawad

10th Dec 2016, 10:31

:sad:Damn strong gravity they have over there.

The altitude is given in hrs:mins:secs so perhaps the journalist confused the secs to be millisecs. Local reporting has been quite poor with TV channels wanting to be the first to show "breaking news". At one channel, they had a pseudo-religious scholar-cum-failed politician-cum-tv prize show host-cum-entertainer-cum-newly turned anchor interviewing a (failed) pop singer and tv actor on technical aspects of the flight.

The "known to have engine problems" is being (mis-)reported because the said plane has had an incident in 2014 with left engine shutting down during a flight from Skardu to Islamabad. It is not because of some known issues immediately prior to take-off.

There are several key strategic installments near that area so its highly likely that additional information (radar) is available but not released publically.

Apparently, the pilot did mention he had problems with the left engine and also some (possibly credible) reports of people seeing fire on the plane prior to impact.

Also please update the title. This accident happened near Havelian and not near khyber

Admiral346

10th Dec 2016, 10:57

ATRs are not really famous for their one engine out altitude capabilities...

Anybody knowledgable here, who could provide the single engine ceiling? How high is the terrain?

I know, that Air Dolomiti used to have escape routes crossing the alps. Does PIA have anything like that?

Midnight Blue

11th Dec 2016, 18:18

I was flying ATR 42/72 in the old (-300/200/212) and the new (-500) version from 1997 to 2004.
Crossing the Alps we had to do driftdown-calculation, especially for the ATR 72-200 in the summer for the planned route
The ATR 42-500 was safe at any MSA below 14000ft with MTOW and ISA +15.

Unfortunately I do not know the terrain on their route. Maybe somebody could post an enroute chart.

Admiral346

14th Dec 2016, 22:08

Thanks, Mr. Blue.

I looked up the crash site as marked by Simon Hradecky on AVH on Google Earth, and came to an elevation of about 800-1000m.

So drifting to 14000' and an elevation do not create a problem. Something else made them fall from the sky.

ManaAdaSystem

17th Dec 2016, 00:42

No aircraft will crash if one engine fails and the pilots are qualified/trained and the proper performance calculations have been made.
Apparently one engine failed, so which of the other two options should we put our bets on?
Or maybe both?

lomapaseo

17th Dec 2016, 00:54

I wouldn't be so quick to make that hard a statement. I would also like to look for evidence of unexpected drag affecting the performance of man and machine.

andrasz

17th Dec 2016, 09:35

Backing up lomapaseo here, the initial official report suggested that it was more than a simple engine failure, a catastrophic uncontained engine failure can easily render the aircraft uncontrollable regardless of crew training & experience. The accident site suggests a complete LOC.

DaveReidUK

17th Dec 2016, 09:58

No aircraft will crash if one engine fails and the pilots are qualified/trained and the proper performance calculations have been made.

That statemement presupposes a ton of other "if"s and "and"'s, too (no collateral damage causing structural failure or loss of flying qualities, for a start).

ManaAdaSystem

17th Dec 2016, 10:54

You can introduce a lot of other possible factors, but it would not be the first time a crash was blamed on a "simple" engine failure. Or caused by one.
TransAsia comes to mind.

fox niner

19th Dec 2016, 09:54

inducedrag

17th Jan 2017, 05:04

PIMS to test whether PK-661 flight crew was drugged - The Express Tribune (http://tribune.com.pk/story/1297195/pk-661-crash-pims-test-whether-flight-crew-drugged/)

Cows getting bigger

17th Jan 2017, 05:14

No aircraft will crash if one engine fails and the pilots are qualified/trained and the proper performance calculations have been made.

Oh really? I think you are wrong.

ATC Watcher

17th Jan 2017, 05:48

Absolutely .
Posted here on Dec 9th :
The Pakistan Internatio*nal Airlines ATR-42 that crashed into the mountains near Havelian on Wednesday had been flying smoothly at 13,375 feet when its left engine malfunctioned, exploded and damaged a wing, an initial inquiry report by the Civil Aviation Authority says

Sometimes it helps reading what was posted just one page before .

Chronus

17th Jan 2017, 19:11

PIA restarts ist ATR operations. To prevent more bloodshed and deaths, a goat was sacrificed on the spot:

https://mobile.twitter.com/asimusafzai/status/810516110890172416

I wonder whether the goat was correctly admitted to the secure area.:E
Goats are small change if you are trying to win back customers and assure them all is well and tickee babu now. Back in 2006,Turkish Airlines sacrificed a camel. It had been promised to encourage the engineering work force to get the job done in time. It worked, they finished it ahead of schedule and had a great feast.

almostaveragepilot

26th Jan 2017, 15:24

More than a month and a half has passed since this accident. Should there not be a preliminary report out by now ( 30 days ), or at least a interim report?

inducedrag

12th Jan 2019, 05:12

Accident of PIA Flight PK-661 ATR 42-500 AP-BHO Near Havelian on 7th December, 2016

1. On December 7, 2016, a PIA ATR 42-500 (AP-BHO) flying from Chitral to Islamabad crashed near Havelian killing all 47 souls on-board. Safety Investigation Board (SIB) of Pakistan was mandated by the Federal Government to carry out detailed investigation into this unfortunate air crash.

The investigation is towards a concluding stage, however, some important findings of technical nature require immediate attention/intervention.

These are as follows:

(a) Sequence of events was initiated with dislodging of one blade of power turbine Stage-1 (PT-1), inside engine number one (left-side engine) due to fatigue.

(b) This dislodging of one blade resulted in in-flight engine shut down and it contributed towards erratic/abnormal behavior of engine number one propeller.

(c) According to Service Bulletin these turbine blades were to be changed after completion of 10,000 hours on immediate next maintenance opportunity. The said engine was under maintenance on November 11, 2016, at that time those blades had completed 10004.1 hour (due for change). This activity should have been undertaken at that time but itwas missed out by the concerned.

(d) Aircraft flew approximately ninety-three hours after the said maintenance activity, before it crashed on December 7, 2016.

(e) Missing out of such an activity highlights a lapse on the part of PIA (maintenance and quality assurance) as well as a possible in-adequacy/lack of oversight by Pakistan CAA.

2. In light of the above, following is recommended please:-

(a) PIA is to ensure immediate implementation of said Service Bulletin in letter and spirit on the entire fleet of ATR aircraft, undertake an audit of the related areas of maintenance practices, ascertain root cause(s) for the said lapse, and adopt appropriate corrective measures to avoid recurrence.

(b) Pakistan CAA is to evaluate its oversight mechanism for its adequacy to discover lapses and intervene in a proactive manner, ascertain shortfall(s) and undertake necessary improvements.

inducedrag

12th Jan 2019, 05:16

https://tribune.com.pk/story/1886452/1-maintenance-lapse-caused-havelian-plane-crash-report/

atakacs

12th Jan 2019, 05:18

inducedrag

12th Jan 2019, 05:59

Hmm having bypassed the maintenance interval certainly doesn't reflect well on PIA but I don't think those 4h made a real difference. We still don't really know what happened here (apart an engine failure being most likely the root cause).

(b) This dislodging of one blade resulted in in-flight engine shut down and it contributed towards erratic/abnormal behavior of engine number one propeller.

Intrance

12th Jan 2019, 10:07

The aircraft flew about 100hrs over that 10000hrs replacement limit. That’s a damn narrow margin of 1%... so what if the failure happens at 9900hrs instead? Seems like that limit might have to be looked at and adjusted.

Joe_K

12th Jan 2019, 10:12

Hmm having bypassed the maintenance interval certainly doesn't reflect well on PIA but I don't think those 4h made a real difference.

"(d) Aircraft flew approximately ninety-three hours after" the 10,004 hours, so the blade would have had 10,097 hours at time of failure.

ZFT

12th Jan 2019, 11:15

I understand that an uncommanded unfeathering of the propeller after the engine had been shutdown was the major factor.

punkalouver

13th Jan 2019, 00:33

Hmm having bypassed the maintenance interval certainly doesn't reflect well on PIA but I don't think those 4h made a real difference. We still don't really know what happened here (apart an engine failure being most likely the root cause).
If the blades that flew apart had been changed, they wouldn't have flown apart. How can that not make a real difference.

Station Zero

13th Jan 2019, 03:42

If I remember right the PT blades on a PW127 are on condition and the life limit is a recommendation, not hard time. Still not good to go through the amount of time that the manufacturer recommends though.

If anyone has SIL PW100-151 that I believe describes the requirements for PT blades.

hans brinker

14th Jan 2019, 03:26

If the blades that flew apart had been changed, they wouldn't have flown apart. How can that not make a real difference.

The blades were supposed to be changed at the first opportunity after passing 10.000 hours. The aircraft had an inspection at 10.004 hours and the blades were not changed. Yes that is wrong. The blades failed at 10.097 hours. The first maintenance inspection could have been at 10.099 hours, and the aircraft would have crashed even though all the required maintenance would have been complied with. How hard is it to understand that although in this case they would have saved the day by replacing the blades at 99.9% of the time before failure, that is not acceptable. I would like to think there is at least a 30% to 50% margin, if the blades fail in the test phase at 10.097 hours, they should be removed/inspected before reaching 5.000 - 7.000 hours, not 10.000 + the first scheduled inspection interval.

The aircraft flew about 100hrs over that 10000hrs replacement limit. That’s a damn narrow margin of 1%... so what if the failure happens at 9900hrs instead? Seems like that limit might have to be looked at and adjusted.

Exactly!

punkalouver

14th Jan 2019, 19:10

The blades were supposed to be changed at the first opportunity after passing 10.000 hours. The aircraft had an inspection at 10.004 hours and the blades were not changed. Yes that is wrong. The blades failed at 10.097 hours. The first maintenance inspection could have been at 10.099 hours, and the aircraft would have crashed even though all the required maintenance would have been complied with. How hard is it to understand that although in this case they would have saved the day by replacing the blades at 99.9% of the time before failure, that is not acceptable. I would like to think there is at least a 30% to 50% margin, if the blades fail in the test phase at 10.097 hours, they should be removed/inspected before reaching 5.000 - 7.000 hours, not 10.000 + the first scheduled inspection interval.

How hard is it to understand that PIA lack of following the maintenance was a direct contributing factor. PWC engine reliability may be an issue or may not depending on the reason for the failure which may have been an outside factor such as damage from FOD or engine abuse during operation. If it was a failure after normal operation over all those hours then there is a manufacturer issue.

hans brinker

15th Jan 2019, 03:06

How hard is it to understand that PIA lack of following the maintenance was a direct contributing factor. PWC engine reliability may be an issue or may not depending on the reason for the failure which may have been an outside factor such as damage from FOD or engine abuse during operation. If it was a failure after normal operation over all those hours then there is a manufacturer issue.

You are a special person....

As I said in my post, it was wrong of PIA not to follow the recommended maintenance interval, so I acknowledged already that that was a direct contributing factor. The fact that the recommended maintenance could just as easy have been legally scheduled AFTER the crash is a bigger concern, because there is a lot of these engines flying around, and an engine failing less than 1% after its recommended life time is the real issue, not the fact that they operated the engine 97 hours over the 10.000 hour limit.
I suggest you read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243

The air-frame failed after twice the cycles it was designed for, and it still lead to increased scrutiny to make sure this would not happen again. To even suggest that a 1% exceedance is a major factor is stupid.

aeromech3

15th Jan 2019, 03:22

Don't know about this engine but back in my R.R. Dart days we had to regularly perform auto feather checks on night layovers for the FH227; it was a pain because you had to fit an oil by-pass kit to allow oil to exit the hub on the static engine, now if this blade failure caused a seized engine then scavenge of oil, if similar system, would have been impeded !

Blohm

21st Jan 2019, 10:17