PIA A320 Crash Karachi

[billa]

News coming in that a Pakistan International Airlines ( PIA) A320 from Lahore to Karachi just crashed few minutes from landing

[cldrvr]

Flight 8303

[billa]

98 passengers + crew


https://www.geo.tv/latest/289217-pia-aircraft-crashes-near-karachi-airport

[diffident]

Sky News are reporting 107 passengers on board - just broke the story on air now.

PIA Flight PK8303 - Aircraft reg: AP-BLD

[JonnyH]

Crash site looks to be a densely populated area.

[nomorehelosforme]

More news here

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-52766904A Pakistan International Airlines plane has crashed in Karachi on a flight from Lahore, aviation officials say.

The plane, which was reported to be carrying 90 passengers, was flying from Lahore to Jinnah International Airport, one of Pakistan's busiest airports.

Pictures shared on social media show smoke rising from the crash site, a residential area.

Emergency services have arrived at the scene.

https://www.timesnownews.com/international/article/pakistan-international-airlines-flight-from-lahore-to-karachi-crashes-near-karachi-airport/595631



Karachi: Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) flight from Lahore to Karachi crashed near Karachi's Jinnah International Airport, Pakistan media reported on Friday. Confirming the crash, PIA spokesperson Abdul Sattar said that Flight 8303 was carrying 90 passengers and eight crew members from Lahore to Karachi.

The flight crashed into a residential area and was carrying 90 passengers. Footage showed smoke rising from the site of the crash, Dawn reported.


https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1060070270642327552/H6BrVA4w_normal.jpg (https://twitter.com/falamb3)
Fakhr-e-Alam (https://twitter.com/falamb3)✔@falamb3 (https://twitter.com/falamb3)Fire trucks are at the sight....rescue operations are under way for PIA Airbus A320 crash site in Karachi. It is a congested urban area. This has been a terrible year all around. The wreckage and homes remain on fire with jet fuel.
https://pbs.twimg.com/ext_tw_video_thumb/1263777735656255495/pu/img/biN5YKVNWfhusiXm?format=jpg&name=small
159 (https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1263777773174349824)
6:24 AM - May 22, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy (https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175256)
91 people are talking about this


https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1254748399418605568/ntx9AApe_normal.jpg (https://twitter.com/MashwaniAzhar)
Azhar@MashwaniAzhar (https://twitter.com/MashwaniAzhar)Ya Allah Khair.. https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/72x72/2639.png#PIA (https://twitter.com/hashtag/PIA?src=hash) plane Airbus 320 (Lahore to Karachi) crashed near Karachi Airport

95 Passengers and 7 crew members!
https://pbs.twimg.com/ext_tw_video_thumb/1263774846959316994/pu/img/6XsT5i-lMfouB5b0?format=jpg&name=small
76 (https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1263779581330427904)
6:31 AM - May 22, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy (https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175256)
41 people are talking about this

"An aircraft of #PIA en route from Lahore to Karachi has reportedly crashed just before landing at Karachi," Radio Pakistan reported

[eagle21]

ATC recording: Mayday declared as they had lost engines

[harrogate]

Apparently on second attempt after go around. Crash site is apparently Model Garden suburb, very close to the airport but significantly off the runway centerline.

[auldlassie]

The mayday message res engine failure is available transcripted on twitter from a poster mentioned above and a recording of same is also available, if you search under the flight number. Cannot post links, sorry.

[Cloudtopper]

Few years back , during Ramadan an Airblue A320 also crashed during a circle to land.

Is it still Ramadan ?

[ORAC]

https://youtu.be/oSsqIiPk6yE

[CaptainX]

Did PIA really publish the passenger manifest?

[blessing786]

Maybe leaked by some insiders since its Pakistan.

It would add to injury to assault, if PIA did release the manifesto without officially informing passengers and staff affected by the crash.

Sads time indeed....

[Bloated Stomach]

4 years ago, a PIA crashed in Ramadan. Pilot error was the nominating factor whilst dealing with an engine failure.

Today we see another accident in the month of Ramadan. If this accident was caused by yet more pilot error, then there must be an investigation to see if the crew were observing their fasts whilst operating. I think this may be an underlying issue with pilot judgement and decision making.

[auldlassie]

Very sad webcam footage of the last 30secs or so of the flight now on twitter - can't post links but under a search of its flight number.

[nomorehelosforme]

More pictures and videos here including one of the plane coming down....not pretty.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8347577/Airbus-A320-107-people-aboard-crashes-residential-area-Karachi-Pakistan.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8347577/Airbus-A320-107-people-aboard-crashes-residential-area-Karachi-Pakistan.htmlA)

A Pakistan International Airlines Airbus A320 passenger plane carrying more than 100 people today crashed into a residential area of Karachi.

Witnesses said the flight from Lahore had made three failed attempts to land at Jinnah International Airport before ploughing into the Model Colony area of the city on a fourth landing attempt.

The pilot also told air traffic control that he had lost one his engines and he made a final mayday call before the crash. All 99 passengers and eight crew aboard the flight are believed to have died in the crash.

Plumes of billowing smoke smothered the skyline after the Pakistan International Airlines plane smashed into the poor and densely populated area of Model Colony that is two miles from the airport.

[FlyingAce77]

ATC recording: Mayday declared as they had lost engines

Engine (S)? Seems like a Dual Flame out, hope it’s not Dual because I have flown into OPKC and was vectored for Rwl 25L and it’s a highly dense area before the threshold, more like residential blocks.

[oxide]

More pictures and video

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pakistan-plane-crash-reportedly-leaves-scores-dead-near-karachi-today-2020-05-22/

[atakacs]

Shouldn`t have played a role...

Agrred. Weather seemed to be fairly tame.

Except for fuel exhaustion I can't imagine an a320 loosing both engine at landing... Very bad bad bird strike ?

From the footage it would seem they were in controlled flight.

Bit perplexed by the reported multiple go aroudns.

Obviously all very very preliminary

[Dan_Brown]

I refused to strap my backside to any aircraft of a Ramadan observing airline, during the holy month.

Not suggesting that fasting was the cause or a contributing factor, in this tragedy.

If any crew member is not eating during the hours of daylight is bad enough. If they aren't drinking water, thay are in no fit state to be operating any machinery what so ever.

[vmandr]

link to audio (http://archive-server.liveatc.net/opkc/OPKC-May-22-2020-0930Z.mp3)

02:53 - Roger... AND repeated aural warning (chime ?) sounds in background
04:50 - 8303 going around
06:48 - sir we have..just give me 2000 (feet)
07:17 - we are trying to maintain...
09:06 - we are proceeding direct, we have lost engines
09:36 - MAYDAY,MAYDAY,MAYDAY Pakistan 830..3 [ last x-mission ? ]

0940: - ATC : Pakistan 8303 Roger both runways available to land

[oxide]

So the had a go-around because of landing gear extension issue and then dual engine flame-out?! Doesn't make sense.

https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/pakistan-international-airlines/airbus-a320-crashes-near-karachi-pakistan/

Live ATC (https://archive-server.liveatc.net/opkc/OPKC-May-22-2020-0930Z.mp3) (4:47)

[atakacs]

Fuel penalty with the gear extended is 180%
Still you'd need to do quite a few circuits to exhaust all your reserve fuel assuming "normal" operations. Hard to tell but from the posted footage landing gear does not seem extended.
No ADS-B data available apparently :(
My only reasonable explanation would be a very bad case of bird strike but I'm sure they would have reported it..

[Bob Viking]

The video that claims to be from the last moments of the flight has audible engine noise (doesn’t look or sound like it is in surge).

The video may turn out to be something other than claimed of course.

BV

[SeenItAll]

I'm betting on technical problem leading to go-arounds -- and in focus on fixing technical problem, forgetting about fuel state and flame out. It has happened before. United Airlines in 1978. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_173

[KarlADrage]

There's 5.5 mins between the go-around and impact.... Doesn't that make lack of fuel less likely?

[PoppaJo]

I’m not sure if that video showing the port side is the real deal. Seems like a normal approach to me. If it is the video, then glide speed is good and I assume they simply landed short. Gear is down.

[metro301]

There is a post crash fire. Fuel exhaustion highly unlikely.

[aerobus123]

Flight time from Lahore to Karachi appears normal. Impossible that it was a fuel leak that went undetected flying overland, many alternates. Improper fuelling in Lahore? Did they forget to retract gear for some reason, or that the gear didn't retract?

[Flava Saver]

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/640x360/8a2b40e1_242f_4456_998e_0ae921dd1b86_b3249962795815fe0f22879 7473e7a367f65c09c.jpeg
This just up on the net. Both engines are charred underneath significantly. Light smoke behind engines.

[DIBO]

The bottom video of this tweet (marked 'The video of #planecrash (https://twitter.com/hashtag/planecrash?src=hashtag_click)') is a low quality video (probably capturing on-screen playback of a security cam??), apparently shows an a/c crashing
https://twitter.com/khurram143/status/1263796992943276032?s=20

[PoppaJo]

There is no alert on the 320 if you choose to fly gear down the entire trip. It’s been done before. There would be significant noise flying in such configuration also.

However they would be aware of such low fuel state prior to the first approach. Why the heck would anyone even contemplate a missed approach with nothing in the tanks. Which is why I would be opening up the engineering books!

[Maninthebar]

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/640x360/8a2b40e1_242f_4456_998e_0ae921dd1b86_b3249962795815fe0f22879 7473e7a367f65c09c.jpeg
This just up on the net. Both engines are charred underneath significantly. Light smoke behind engines.

eek. ran them along the ground ??

[DaveReidUK]

Quick-and-dirty vertical profile from 5000', per FR24 data:


https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/907x713/pk8303_3f8f3696bf67f38d6c5a8f5fd9955af68cf7cf6d.jpg

[ZH871]

This just up on the net. Both engines are charred underneath significantly. Light smoke behind engines.

Did they forget to lower the gear on the first landing attempt?!

[DIBO]

https://twitter.com/PlaneSpottersPK/status/1263810587152330752?s=20

[logansi]

WOW! Those engines look like they've been run around the ground to me..... Gear up landing, lifted of again, engines failed due to damage, crashed?

[Maninthebar]

I can see what you’re thinking but the FR24 track shows a go around before 0 feet.

BV

KHI elevation is 100ft......

[Feathers McGraw]

Could the dirty lower nacelles be due to oil leaks, maybe over the whole flight? I know it's both engines but maybe there was some sort of systematic maintenance error.

If the oil loss is total then both engines could run down due to lack of lubrication.

[drdino]

...

Bloody hell...
Are we sure this is the aircraft from today? RAT looks deployed, the engine undersides look quite bad... The left one has bits hanging off oft he lip?

[jewitts]

Did they forget to lower the gear on the first landing attempt?!
Looking closely at the lower edge, definitely looks like a little bit of damage? (Both engines) It could be heat haze or graininess of the image though.

[gtaflyer]

Can hear the master warning going off after localizer established on the video, sounds like dual engine failure. Very sad day ....

[VH DSJ]

https://twitter.com/PlaneSpottersPK/status/1263810587152330752?s=20

That twitter post is saying it attempted a belly landing but went around? Were there reports of a landing gear malfunction requiring a belly landing?

[atr-drivr]

The pictures from post 19 shows one of the engines....all the front blades are intact....no power at impact...?

[jthg]

WOW! Those engines look like they've been run around the ground to me..... Gear up landing, lifted of again, engines failed due to damage, crashed?

It does look like that would fit the reports as well as the photographs and perhaps the engines made their imminent departure apparent which explains the truncated GA

[Maninthebar]

Image on AVH shows much reduced black marks on engines and gear down, unclear what sequence the images occur in.

[andrasz]

I think the image on AVH is not from today, it is inconsistent with the images from PlaneSpottersPK.

[CodyBlade]

Danger of fasting for aircrew is dehydration and low sugar.

[PoppaJo]

No RAT in that photo I don’t think it’s related.

AH usually pretty good for detail so no clue why Simon uploaded that.

[DIBO]

I think the image on AVH is not from today, it is inconsistent with the images from PlaneSpottersPK.
Indeed; also doubting someone would take the time to add "Through the lens" titles....

[aerobus123]

The Airblue crash in 2010 happened with a highly religious captain who was fasting, and diabetic. Regulators should definitely mandate regular meals for pilots before and during flights!

[a3twenty]

U get a master warning at 700 ft if the gear is not lowered. It's kind of difficult to FORGET..

[reverserunlocked]

It’s easy to leave the gear down and it’s been done more than once, especially if the PM gets distracted during the ‘gear up’ call. However an A320 would be very unhappy indeed if you tried to land with the gear up. Was the belly landing intentional?

And I’m struggling to understand going around from a belly landing as it seems the inevitable damage to the engines left them with a double flameout.

Unless somehow (and I don’t know how - they forgot AND the gear config failed AND they didn’t do the checklist) they landed without the gear and then were shocked into going around at the resulting cruncher.

[Toryu]

The pictures with the supposedly scraped engines seem to show a whiff of white smoke (oil?) coming from below the nacelles.
Could the black marks also indicate thermal damage as opposed to or on top of scrapes?

#2 certainly looks a bit banged up.

+1 on at least one engine without rotation on impact.

[DIBO]

Image on AVH shows much reduced black marks on engines and gear down, unclear what sequence the images occur in.
That image from "PAF Falcons" Twitter (copied onto the AVHerald page), was preceded a few minutes before by this completely fake CGI image
https://twitter.com/PAF_Falcons/status/1263808563480334339?s=20
So AVHerald, do us a favour and remove the fake news.

[PoppaJo]

It’s easy to leave the gear down and it’s been done more than once, especially if the PM gets distracted during the ‘gear up’ call. However an A320 would be very unhappy indeed if you tried to land with the gear up. Was the belly landing intentional?

And I’m struggling to understand going around from a belly landing as it seems the inevitable damage to the engines left them with a double flameout.

Unless somehow (and I don’t know how - they forgot AND the gear config failed AND they didn’t do the checklist) they landed without the gear and then were shocked into going around at the resulting cruncher.

They probably found out about the gear not down on climb out. Which is why I assume they conducted the missed app, thought it was a just a bad touchdown. Certainly is not an engine I would be wanting on the wing for a gear up arrival. Let alone slamming a CFM on the deck.

[Chris Scott]

Bloody hell...
Are we sure this is the aircraft from today? RAT looks deployed, the engine undersides look quite bad... The left one has bits hanging off oft he lip?
If the two photos by Plane Spotters Pakistan (Post #60) are of the accident a/c on the accident flight - rather than simply on a previous, routine air test - the deployment of the RAT suggests failure of both engine-driven generators. The accessory gearboxes that drive each one are mounted on the bottom of each engine.

Re. Bob Viking's post #59, and the altitude trace on Dave Reid UK's post #55, the FR24 altitude data has to be interpreted with care. I think you may find it is referenced to an altimeter sub-scale setting of standard (1013 hPa). The 0955Z METAR gives a QNH of 1004, and the airfield elevation is 100 ft. Therefore, an altimeter set to 1013 hPa on its sub-scale would have read about 350 ft on the ground.

[reverserunlocked]

They probably found out about the gear not down on climb out. Which is why I assume they conducted the missed app, thought it was a just a bad touchdown. Certainly is not an engine I would be wanting on the wing for a gear up arrival. Let alone slamming a CFM on the deck.

Agreed, but still doesn’t explain how they managed to land it with the gear up.

[Bob Viking]

You’re absolutely correct and I was dumb not to think of it like that.

TBH I am not a regular user of FR24 (I only use it to check on status of flights I’m waiting for!) so assumed it was showing AGL.

I will learn to keep my mouth shut in future!

BV

[ChicoG]

4 years ago, a PIA crashed in Ramadan. Pilot error was the nominating factor whilst dealing with an engine failure.

Today we see another accident in the month of Ramadan. If this accident was caused by yet more pilot error, then there must be an investigation to see if the crew were observing their fasts whilst operating. I think this may be an underlying issue with pilot judgement and decision making.

You are exempt from fasting when you are travelling. Unfortunately some people don't adhere to this because it means making up the lost fast later on = a longer Ramadhan.

[JonnyH]

I’m flabbergasted there are survivors to be honest.

I don’t think that photo earlier in the thread is of the airframe today.

[luchtzak]

So the had a go-around because of landing gear extension issue and then dual engine flame-out?! Doesn't make sense.

https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/pakistan-international-airlines/airbus-a320-crashes-near-karachi-pakistan/

Live ATC (https://archive-server.liveatc.net/opkc/OPKC-May-22-2020-0930Z.mp3) (4:47)

RAT was extended, on pictures on social media you see plumes of white smoke coming from the engines.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EYoKqHRXkAEVCUo?format=jpg&name=large

[FlyingAce77]

You are exempt from fasting when you are travelling. Unfortunately some people don't adhere to this because it means making up the lost fast later on = a longer Ramadhan.
I personally never fast when Operating a Flight, and Yes when Traveling or Sick you are exempted from Fasting”

[andrasz]

Is it possible to avoid Ramadan as a factor in this tragedy until the facts are known?

I'm sorry, but no it isn't. I have worked with several otherwise very competent Middle Eastern colleagues who (in an office environment) were becoming almost completely useless by the end of Ramadan. It is not so much the fasting during the day, but the fact that most of the night is spent eating rather than sleeping, with the cumulative sleep deprivation. Flying is a job that requires maximum alertness at all times, and such practices are not too conductive to having a well rested crew.

[Gypsy]

I personally never fast when Operating a Flight, and Yes when Traveling or Sick you are exempted from Fasting”

But are you not supposed to add on the days missed to the end of Ramadan? When your family and friends are celebrating. Nobody would want to do that would they?

[FlyingAce77]

But are you not supposed to add on the days missed to the end of Ramadan? When your family and friends are celebrating. Nobody would want to do that would they?
Responsibility is what is required, I have seen senior commanders and FOs fasting on ULH, it’s crazy and highly irresponsible behavior- Yes you can fast after Ramadan to make up the missed days.

[alainthailande]

Quoting this tweet: https://twitter.com/SohaibShehzad7/status/1263831695742119936The black soot within the engine is likely caused by the IDGs which generates electricity for the plane.Does this make any sense please?..

[Airbubba]

Edited KHI ATC audio from a LiveATC.net clip posted above. It's a .zip file which will open on most computers but not on most phones or tablets.

Sounds like the first transmission from PK8303 is something like 'We are comfortable and we can make it inshallah'.

[Feathers McGraw]

What warnings do A320 flight crew get for low oil quantity and/or low oil pressure in the engines?

[fatbus]

Fasting and flying do not mix ! Never allowed a fasting pilot to be PF ! Situation worst in a high demand event !

[Nialler]

It is more reminiscent of posters (thankfully a minority on this site) who want to climb all over a disaster in oreder to be able to say when then the report comes in: "Look, I called it within an hour of the event."

Like gamblers, they never report their losses; only their wins. If it turns out that there was some equipment or operational failure they won't e around to defend their initial assessment.

Then you have the point-scorers, who seem to want to make some sort of point about a religion or other ideology.

Potentially more than one hundred people died today. That is a major human tragedy.

There will be an intense and deep investigation. The pilots had families and friends. To speculate at this this stage that the pilots may have been less than professional is an insult.

Rein yourself in. There will be plenty of time for blame when, you know, an investigation occurs?

Edited to remove a post to which I was not actually responding. My apologies to the poster alainthailande (https://www.pprune.org/members/216241-alainthailande) whose post I inadvertently had quoted.

[MikeSnow]

link to audio (http://archive-server.liveatc.net/opkc/OPKC-May-22-2020-0930Z.mp3)

02:53 - Roger... AND repeated aural warning (chime ?) sounds in background
04:50 - 8303 going around
06:48 - sir we have..just give me 2000 (feet)
07:17 - we are trying to maintain...
09:06 - we are proceeding direct, we have lost engines
09:36 - MAYDAY,MAYDAY,MAYDAY Pakistan 830..3 [ last x-mission ? ]

0940: - ATC : Pakistan 8303 Roger both runways available to land

The aural warning at 2:51 in that recording would be at 09:32:51 Zulu, since the recording starts at 0930Z.

According to the timestamps from the FR24 data they reached the minimum altitude on the first landing attempt at around 09:34:25Z

So the aural warning seems to have started at least 1:30 minutes before the first landing attempt, when they above 1400 feet (not sure exactly how high they were, the FR24 data is incomplete, it shows 1400ft at 9:33:30Z, and they don't give any earlier data yet).

https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/1263788310822105088/photo/2

So it seems something went wrong quite early. I understand the landing gear not down warning should start at 750ft AGL, and according to the data they were higher than that, so not sure what that chime was.

[krismiler]

The gear doors appear closed so possibly an attempted gear up landing which was misjudged. The aircraft floats further down the runway then anticipated, crew realise they are running out of room and decide to go around just before the aircraft touches. The lower front sections of the engines appear relatively undamaged suggesting a nose up attitude during the ground contact.

[asdf1234]

Danger of fasting for aircrew is dehydration and low sugar.
I have flown PIA from Islamabad to Karachi during the month of Ramadan. Aircraft lined up for departure just as the sun set and Iftar was declared. Take-off was delayed until all pax, cabin and flight crew had a drink and a sweet. Although I don't know for sure, I'd wager that the flight crew are allowed to hydrate themselves due to the safety critical nature of their jobs. You will find that the fast is something you should aim to accomplish only if you can. It is not as mandatory as some people might have you think.

[Airbubba]

The aural warning at 2:51 in that recording would be at 09:32:51 Zulu, since the recording starts at 0930Z.

I'd be very cautious about trying to get an exact time off a media clip including those of LiveATC.net Usually these serialized audio archives have some intentional overlap between the segments so you can edit across the break without losing anything. In fact, if you merge say the 0900Z segment and the 0930Z segment, you will often get repeated audio unless you trim it out. But, this is not consistent from location to location in my experience.

Also, some streams seem to give different timestamps when played on different devices as I've observed here in the past. Legacy codecs on the machine perhaps?

I scrubbed the 0900Z LiveATC tape but didn't find anything relevant about PK8303. Unfortunately one of the scanner channels had an open squelch with noise for much of the time on the last part of the clip.

[Grav]

What warnings do A320 flight crew get for low oil quantity and/or low oil pressure in the engines?

In the Engine System Display (bottom screen of the two in between the pilots) you have readings of oil quantity and pressure, which depending on the value can blink or change colour to attract the attention of the crew. And of course you have ECAM procedures that may be triggered.

[Abdullah Khan]

Few years back , during Ramadan an Airblue A320 also crashed during a circle to land.

Is it still Ramadan ?
No then it was not Ramadan but Shabb e Bràt,

[Feathers McGraw]

In the Engine System Display (bottom screen of the two in between the pilots) you have readings of oil quantity and pressure, which depending on the value can blink or change colour to attract the attention of the crew. And of course you have ECAM procedures that may be triggered.

Thanks, I was wondering, given that there is a photo showing what could be oil smoke from both nacelles which themselves are very dirty around the bottom of the cowling area, if the loss of thrust during the go-around could be due to engine run down from loss of lubrication. I'm finding it hard to believe that there was a belly landing on the first approach, and I wondered if there was oil loss could it have started at the departure end of the flight and gradually lost oil during the whole trip. How easy is it to leave the oil filler caps off?

[Pilot DAR]

Posters,

Remarks about race and religious rituals have no place here. We're here to discuss aviation, not race and religion....

[skadi]

Another CCTV Video:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1263858937138483200

[voyageur9]

In terms of usual safety procedure; if, in fact, a go-around was initiated after a gear-up touchdown, would that not usually result in the aircraft commander announcing an emergency to ATC. And is it conceivable that the pilots were unaware of scraping engine nacelles on the runway? Thanks in advance.

[auldlassie]

A journalist called Ovais Jafar has just posted on twitter an extract of the audio between ATC and the pilot. It appears they had problems with the landing gear and also lost both engines at the end. This is a longer extract than the earlier transcript and audio posted here. Sorry but I cannot post links here.

[Airbubba]

A journalist called Ovais Jafar has just posted on twitter an extract of the audio between ATC and the pilot.

The audio is very similar to the edited clip I posted above. It comes from the same LiveATC.net archive recording.

[freshgasflow]

Also the intake nacelles of both engines look very much intact. Can engine scraping of this degree cause loss of oil ? Are there critical components towards the belly of the engines that are susceptible to scraping damage? Thank you.

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1124/eyokqhrxkaevcuo_b2a6af97e1a3834d988a3d48ecf1be5df4714d10.jpg

[GeeRam]

Another CCTV Video:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1263858937138483200

skadi

Landing gear clearly down in that clip.

[Airbus Unplugged]

The 'damage' to the underside of the nacelles is consistent with first points of contact gear up at touchdown attitude.

The GPWS 'Too Low Gear' would have been impossible to ignore though.

I would have thought that a subsequent go-around would have resulted in a tail strike.

Post crash fires are not always the result of remaining fuel. In the tragic wreckage site, there's more than likely enough burnable debris to cause significant burning.

Double engine failure due fuel exhaustion is a possibility.

[akaSylvia]

Grateful if someone will please clarify for me , a non aviation person, part of the transcript.
In essence, why does the ATC controller ask about a "belly landing" when the pilot declared engine failure ? Isn't that something strange to ask , considering that landing gear problems are not always linked to engine issues ?


The go-around was stated to be because of an issue extending the nose landing gear. The flight crew did not at any point tell the controller that this issue was resolved. Instead, they declared an emergency and that both engines were out. It's a reasonable question from the controller who knows the context of why they aborted the first approach. It is faster to ask if that's what is happening than to distract the flight crew with specific questions about their configuration.

[akaSylvia]

My question is: Is there any evidence that the aircraft struck the runway on the first attempt other than the unconfirmed photographs showing black marks on the nacelles? I'm not sure which is chicken and which is egg, here.

[derjodel]

And High Angle of Attack!

While i completely understand the human instinct to pull up, I have to wonder if best glide angle would have brought them to the airfield. It seems they were very close.

[andrasz]

My question is: Is there any evidence that the aircraft struck the runway on the first attempt other than the unconfirmed photographs showing black marks on the nacelles?

In short, no. The photographs appear to be genuine, but the origin of the marks are educated speculation at this stage. However a ground strike appears to be the scenario most fitting the known facts at the moment. Suggest you read the Smartlynx 320 accident synopsis: https://avherald.com/h?article=4b57c3dd

[Orange future]

Just my 2 cents,

Damage under the engines looks more considerable than oil leak and starts too far forward.

Difficult to tell but looks like the drain masts are gone.

As for not noticing the GPWS LG warning, its happened before.

[Airbubba]

Here's a detail from one of Hamza Omer's widely published pictures of the aircraft, presumably after the first approach. There does appear to be damage from nacelle scrapes and the RAT is indeed deployed.

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1920x1080/100783266_2538486203030486_7385014493866098688_o_2_large__75 b2367519e8cd019d9fea0f9c4fde989174afa6.jpg

[reverserunlocked]

Various sources on social media suggesting GA due to unsafe landing gear and bird strike on the climb out leaving them without thrust. That chimes with the evidence thus far. Either way, not much that could be done in that case with little altitude, no thrust and no options.

[DaveReidUK]

My question is: Is there any evidence that the aircraft struck the runway on the first attempt other than the unconfirmed photographs showing black marks on the nacelles?

While not conclusive, the Mode S altitude readouts referred to in previous posts would support the proposition that the aircraft descended to 0' AAL during the GA.

[Toryu]

I'd call BS on the bird-strike. The nacelles do look scraped - and #2 looks worse than #1 with damage externding farther forward, including the lower intake-ring.
It would be interesting to know if the rear fuselage got scraped, too. In any way, the scrape-damage overall seems fairly slight: The nacelles are just held in place by the lower latches and they seem to hold together quite well.
Maybe they really did just barely scrape the runway during a late G/A.


I think they couldn't have made the runway - they probably saw the runway rising in their line of sight and did what most people would do - pull the stick.
The area doesn't look too inviting for a dead-stick landing, so one couldn't really blame them for doing it, given the amount of options...

[jugofpropwash]

In short, no. The photographs appear to be genuine, but the origin of the marks are educated speculation at this stage. However a ground strike appears to be the scenario most fitting the known facts at the moment. Suggest you read the Smartlynx 320 accident synopsis: https://avherald.com/h?article=4b57c3dd

Given the apparent engine damage and the talk about gear problems - could it be that on initial landing attempt, gear was down but was not locked, resulting in the scrape? If they had a previous indication that the gear might not be locked, could they have come down gently in an attempt to "test" the gear and gone around when it didn't hold? Perhaps they tried to cycle the gear (resulting in the photo as shown) and then lower it again (as the video taken just before crash appears to show gear down. Additional question - would the scrape have been heard on the ATC tape?

[atakacs]

And High Angle of Attack!

Well if he is indeed out of engines I guess this alpha protection max angle...

[lomapaseo]

For armchair interest, I believe if you sort through the ground impact photos you may identify one engine naelle aft of the fan cowl

[Fursty Ferret]

As for not noticing the GPWS LG warning, its happened before.

You can't miss it on an Airbus, there's an additional ECAM master warning for gear not down.

[derjodel]

Reviewing the pictures of the go-around, does it seem odd to anyone else that the flaps and slats appear to be retracted?
​I'm assuming that:
1. The picture was taken soon after the aborted landing... (Based on the angle the picture is taken from)
2 The pilots wouldn't retract all the flap/slat at low level.

Could this point to the approach being flown in abnormal gear/slat/flap configuration?

No hydraulics could be a reason. This is a somewhat related read: https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1629&context=jaaer

[Airbubba]

While not conclusive, the Mode S altitude readouts referred to in previous posts would support the proposition that the aircraft descended to 0' AAL during the GA.

And they also seem to indicate that there was never weight on wheels sensed on the first approach since the Mode S uncorrected altitude did not go to zero as it did on previous landings with AP-BLD.

[slfie]

Here's a detail from one of Hamza Omer's widely published pictures of the aircraft, presumably after the first approach. There does appear to be damage from nacelle scrapes and the RAT is indeed deployed.


Thanks, that pic explains the earlier comment about damage to the lip of the left nacelle - looks like it's actually just the normal bits underneath the fuselage in the background.

[asdf1234]

There are salt flats just south of downwind runway 25
And the PAF runway the other side of the main drag going into town. This might have been their best option but of course if their engines were still burning when they turned downwind they would have no need for this option.

[Geoff Hunt]

Maybe leaked by some insiders since its Pakistan.

It would add to injury to assault, if PIA did release the manifesto without officially informing passengers and staff affected by the crash.

Sads time indeed....

Yep. It's Pakistan. What is 'an official notice to the families?' Pakistan authorities ask.

[JumpJumpJump]

Surprised that nobody has asked how current they were. Hours in las 90, 30 and 7 days could be surprisingly low in the current climate

[Busbert]

You can't miss it on an Airbus, there's an additional ECAM master warning for gear not down.

You can hear the Master Warning CRC on the atc recording of the initial approach. My reading is the GEAR NOT DOWN warning was activated (LG lever in UP with aircraft below x (2500?) feet).

[squidie]

Potentially gear issues on first landing, RAT may give that away at the moment. I think the possibility that there was some terrain contact with the engines slightly followed by a go around. But unsure on the final approach that resulted in the crash. By looking at the CCTV clips both engines are out as the crew are attempting to max out the lift with the high AoA.

Could have had a genuine fault with the gear followed by a depletion of fuel on the go around...

[blue up]

Are the oil cooler lines right at the very bottom of the cowling on the CFM56-b5 series? Wondered if they were in the firing line during a pod strike.

[Iron Duck]

From what I can see from the videos and stills, the U/C, flaps & slats are retracted in the still shot of the scraped nacelles, but the U/C is down in every video clear enough to see. The videos are not clear enough to ascertain the flap & slat position. In every image the engines are trailing white vapour. So, I'm not surprised they stopped, possibly from oil starvation. In the video of the aircraft descending into the buildings, it's quite clear that the first plume of smoke is wrapped around a fireball, so I think it unlikely that overall fuel starvation is the cause.

The interesting bit in all this is how the engines came to be damaged, and how it seems no-one noticed at the time, because it looks as if they must have been damaged a good 5 minutes before the aircraft crashed. How is it, then, that this aircraft came to bang its engines on the ground without anyone noticing, and with no remarks about it on the radio?

[ZAGORFLY]

I’m not sure if that video showing the port side is the real deal. Seems like a normal approach to me. If it is the video, then glide speed is good and I assume they simply landed short. Gear is down.
only if we have a photo showing the RAT we know that it was a double engine out. from the photos i have seen of the wreck it looks that the fan was not rotating under power.

[giggitygiggity]

Potentially gear issues on first landing, RAT may give that away at the moment. I think the possibility that there was some terrain contact with the engines slightly followed by a go around. But unsure on the final approach that resulted in the crash. By looking at the CCTV clips both engines are out as the crew are attempting to max out the lift with the high AoA.

Could have had a genuine fault with the gear followed by a depletion of fuel on the go around...
The RAT most likely fell out automatically when the gearboxes were destroyed as they're on the bottom of the engines. Both IDGs would have probably failed leading to RAT deployment. The final pitch angle was more likely just a natural reaction to them going down with no hope of climbing away from the city, the plane looks stalled so that doesn't suggest they're flying alpha max and sadly, probably just a sign of them wrenching back on the stick

only if we have a photo showing the RAT we know that it was a double engine out. from the photos i have seen of the wreck it looks that the fan was not rotating under power.
To split hairs, an extended RAT doesn't necessarily mean the engines have necessarily both failed, only that the AC busses aren't powered. This photo to me clearly shows the RAT as extended.

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1920x1080/rat_208564aa45870775141f19e0620c1d1609143754.jpg

[pattern_is_full]

On the one hand, I am firm believer in "never say never." There have been too many aviation accidents where observers say "No pilot (or crew, or aircraft) would ever do that!" - only to be proven wrong when the final report comes out. Pilots and planes sometimes do the craziest things.

I do have doubts that a crew would attempt to complete a 550nm flight if they had bounced the engines on the tarmac on take-off, but you just never know.

I do have doubts the impact mushroom cloud would have been that large (see end of final glide video) if the fuel tanks were empty, but you just never know.

For the moment I lean to the theory of - ground contact during gear-up touchdown (intentional or not) - followed by mechanical engine failure due to ground contact (G forces, inner inlet shrouds dislodged, fan strikes, oil loss, etc.) - followed by attempt to stretch glide at alpha-floor (which rarely works, but if the alternative is hitting a 5-story concrete building head-on....?).

Will stay tuned for further information.

[Airbubba]

To split hairs, an extended RAT doesn't necessarily mean the engines have necessarily both failed, only that the AC busses aren't powered. This photo to me clearly shows the RAT as extended.

And, probably not a player in this case unless some checklist calls for it but the RAT can be deployed manually using a guarded switch on many aircraft including apparently the A320. I know it works even with the battery switch off on some Boeings after a colleague with SR-71 stickers all over his flight kit demoed it one day on the ramp while trying turn on the battery to start the APU.

[zoomee]

Could the dirty lower nacelles be due to oil leaks, maybe over the whole flight? I know it's both engines but maybe there was some sort of systematic maintenance error.

If the oil loss is total then both engines could run down due to lack of lubrication.

Assuming the engine is a CFM 56 (a guess but maybe representative) there are U Tube videos showing how to rebuild the oil pump. Pump, manifolds and lines are mounted on the bottom of the fan ring...pretty much exactly where you see the black soot (maybe dirty oil?) trail start from in the pictures. If it touched the ground at all I would expect some of those lines got crunched.

[BrooksPA-28]

Another CCTV Video:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1263858937138483200

There is some reason to question the validity of this video. The photos of the plane (showing the rat deployed) show the gear up. The video shows the gear down. The ATC transmission mentions a belly landing. This also implies a gear up configuration. Finally it appears to me that the shape of the buildings that the plane passes behind, are distorted by the plane's passage. This could be an artifact of the video compression. It would be interesting if someone could identify the building and surrounding area, then match that to the crash location.

[eagle21]

It is clear that the controller did not think that they would make the first approach just based on their energy 3500ft at 5NM. It will be interesting to find out what the rate of descent was in the last minute of the first approach. If there were over speed (flaps) warnings masking a Landing gear not down ECAM and a high rate of descent with a low thrust setting by the the time the GPWS gives you the TOO LOW GEAR there may only be a few seconds to react. Imagine high workload from a high energy approach, the low thrust setting, late go around decision and into the flare mode and not enough back stick pressure (big pull required low down) and ground contact quite possible. The rest would be consistent with a double engine failure from the damage.

[giggitygiggity]

And, probably not a player in this case unless some checklist calls for it but the RAT can be deployed manually using a guarded switch on many aircraft including apparently the A320. I know it works even with the battery switch off on some Boeings after a colleague with SR-71 stickers all over his flight kit demoed it one day on the ramp while trying turn on the battery to start the APU.
I apprecieate that, from memory, even the dual AC loss asks you to press the button just incase it doesn't automatically pop out. I can't remember but dunno on the A320 if it works with the batts off? Seems sensible as they can't rule out that some idiot could have turned them off for some reason. Never flown a boeing, is it not guarded?

[Stillapilot]

This is a possible scenario:

LGCIU 1 fault, GPWS off as per ECAM to prevent spurious 'TOO LOW GEAR' flight continues, LGCIU 2 Fails on final, high workload, gear missed, no GPWS call outs due to being selected off earlier. Aircraft flares, crew notice abnormal attitude etc. Baulk landing, nacelles contact runway. Damage is done to IDG's, both fail on go around, aircraft loses AC1+2 RAT extends, further (currently unknown) damage done to engines on contact with runway results in dual engine failure.
It's an idea based upon the current information

[Airbubba]

Nacelle scrape could have been from an early retraction on take-off with aircraft settling and causing additional damage or suspected damage to gear, The initial approach could have been inspection flypast before the fatal approach?

I do have doubts that a crew would attempt to complete a 550nm flight if they had bounced the engines on the tarmac on take-off, but you just never know.

I listened to the 0800Z recording of their departure out of Lahore on LiveATC.net No mention is made any damage or anomaly.

Seems hard to imagine a gear up pass going all the way down to touchdown in a 'modern' airliner.

Still, some odd things happen in South Asia.

Remember the Air India crew that was low on fuel after forgetting to raise the gear on takeoff?

https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/597483-boy-s-noisy-here.html

[Airbubba]

Never flown a boeing, is it not guarded?

It is guarded and it's not near the battery switch. But it is also on the overhead and uses a similar square switchlight.

[jugofpropwash]

There is some reason to question the validity of this video. The photos of the plane (showing the rat deployed) show the gear up. The video shows the gear down. The ATC transmission mentions a belly landing. This also implies a gear up configuration. Finally it appears to me that the shape of the buildings that the plane passes behind, are distorted by the plane's passage. This could be an artifact of the video compression. It would be interesting if someone could identify the building and surrounding area, then match that to the crash location.

What sort of warning is there if gear is lowered but fails to correctly lock? What's the procedure if gear fails to lock? Could crew have thought that a warning was a bad sensor, rather than an actual failure? I'm picturing a scenario where perhaps the crew is suspicious of the gear but think that it's down, but then when it doesn't hold they do a go-around, but the engines have already been damaged.

[giggitygiggity]

At 750ft AGL you get a master warning "L/G GEAR NOT DOWN". That means you'll get a loud DING DING DING and red flashy lights. There is a large red downwards arrow next to the landing gear lever that lights up (if you're in the landing configuration minus the landing gear, eg flaps set for landing with the gear up). If you ignore that, eventually you get a "TOO LOW GEAR" GPWS callout (400ft maybe? Can't remember), when that shouts you get a GPWS light in front of you.

Edit: That's weird, I wasn't intending to reply to jugopropwash, thought it was BrooksPA28 asking about warnings for the gear not being down. Perhaps the post was deleted.

[DingerX]

They would not be the first to get so involved with the landing that they screwed the pooch. See Capt. Asoh's noble defense. If they had a double podstrike plus maybe a tailstrike, why didn't they say anything afterwards? Well, maybe it's not so bad and they won't get in trouble. Why cause problems for yourselves?
Thus why a just culture is hard to attain. Even when policies in place, you still get judged on insufficient st
​​​​evidence.

[Iron Duck]

It is clear that the controller did not think that they would make the first approach just based on their energy 3500ft at 5NM. It will be interesting to find out what the rate of descent was in the last minute of the first approach.

That implies that the controller should have taken a particular interest in this approach. Was no-one in the tower watching as they descended with gear retracted, banged the engines on the runway, and then climbed away trailing smoke? Did it not occur to anyone to pipe up: "Er, PIA, we think you might have just smacked your aeroplane on the ground"?

[VickersVicount]

So you can retract the gear with weight on and movement, live on a runway during a TOGA before lift off to allow engine nacelles to scrape the ground? Im not sure I get that.
Or is the suggestion there was positive climb, gear up then a sink back down temporarily to scuff engines before gaining momentum

[giggitygiggity]

Or a large bounce, put the gear up instead of the flap in the bounce, the engines take too long to spool up and you get a second bounce (crash) before climbing away.

[eagle21]

My guess is the gear was not lowered on the 1st landing

[tdracer]

Never underestimate the ability of the human mind to filter out certain sounds - especially during high stress/high workload situations (perhaps worrying about another, unrelated, issue).
Allegedly (according to one of my college profs) many years ago a biz jet did a wheels up landing at Boeing Field. The flight crew swore up and down that the landing config warning never sounded - until the investigators played them the CVR recording where the warning was clearly evident during final...

[PPRuNeUser0171]

The Airblue crash in 2010 happened with a highly religious captain who was fasting, and diabetic. Regulators should definitely mandate regular meals for pilots before and during flights!

This is not true. https://reports.aviation-safety.net/2010/20100728-0_A321_AP-BJB.pdf

Chapter 10, section 10.3 It was conclusively established that neither the Captain, nor the FO, were fasting during or 12 hours before the flight

[PPRuNeUser0171]

My guess is the gear was not lowered on the 1st landing

You'd have audible warnings though? If true it would certainly be on the CVR unless there was some fault with that system but it's such a rookie mistake.

[machtuk]

There was a gear unsafe warning going off during R/T between the plane & ATC. Seems they tried to land gear up, scrapped the pods on the Rwy then went around, the rest is obvious as to what happened next.

[eagle21]

That warning may well not be a gear unsafe warning, most likely an overspeed while trying to loose the height and configure

[Flava Saver]

“Possible” scenario, (as the Swiss cheese has happened before in a 320)

Aircraft is doing the slam dunk, trying to get down, Gear out, Flaps out-maybe not at Conf Full, or 3 because of the rushed approach, have realised well and truly unstable, called Go Around, in the heat of the moment, the PF has pushed the Thrust into MCT instead of TOGA. There is the increase in thrust and sound of the engines, and because of the repetition in Sim sessions, the PNF has called positive climb, even though they weren’t, due to the ‘go around mouth music’.... PF has then called for gear up. Gear is selected up, but the aircraft is still sinking towards the runway, with speed increasing.....and ‘maybe’... both engines have contacted the runway? They’ve realised, gone to TOGA and flown away. Then with some damage ECAM is lighting up with stuff, Rat is extended.

[machtuk]

That warning may well not be a gear unsafe warning, most likely an overspeed while trying to loose the height and configure

Nup, they where with Twr well into the App/Ldg so unlikely to be anything other than gear not down. To land a modern day jet like the Airbus gear still up is almost unimaginable but they tried by the looks of things!

[Grav]

“Possible” scenario, (as the Swiss cheese has happened before in a 320)

Aircraft is doing the slam dunk, trying to get down, Gear out, Flaps out-maybe not at Conf Full, or 3 because of the rushed approach, have realised well and truly unstable, called Go Around, in the heat of the moment, the PF has pushed the Thrust into MCT instead of TOGA. There is the increase in thrust and sound of the engines, and because of the repetition in Sim sessions, the PNF has called positive climb, even though they weren’t, due to the ‘go around mouth music’.... PF has then called for gear up. Gear is selected up, but the aircraft is still sinking towards the runway, with speed increasing.....and ‘maybe’... both engines have contacted the runway? They’ve realised, gone to TOGA and flown away. Then with some damage ECAM is lighting up with stuff, Rat is extended.

It would really surprise me if this really happened, because it is (or should) be well known to Airbus pilots that SRS and Go-Around mode do not activate if the thrust levers are not advanced in the TOGA detent. If for any reason the thrust levers are not properly set, the PF would notice immediately that something is wrong on the FMA, because he would still see the normal modes that guide the aircraft in the landing phase.

[GBO]

According to FlightAware records, the aircraft (AP-BLD) hadn’t flown in the last 60 days.

Was the aircraft parked and stored in accordance with the AMM/MP?

https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/aircraft-parking-and-storage/

[NG1]

According to Flightradar24 the aircraft operated regularly till 22MAR. After that:

07MAY 2 legs
19MAY 2 legs
21MAY 1 leg (MCT-LHE)

[Flava Saver]

It would really surprise me if this really happened, because it is (or should) be well known to Airbus pilots that SRS and Go-Around mode do not activate if the thrust levers are not advanced in the TOGA detent. If for any reason the thrust levers are not properly set, the PF would notice immediately that something is wrong on the FMA, because he would still see the normal modes that guide the aircraft in the landing phase.

I agree with you, however it has happened before, but the crew realised their error just under 100ft RA and avoided contact with the runway without landing gear. Human Factors is an amazing thing.

[compressor stall]

A plausible scenario I can think of is:

PF “Go Around Flap”
PF moves THRLVR up one click.
PM “positive climb” (momentary, not sustained)
PF “gear up”
PM selects gear up.
No FMA Readout.
AC not in TOGA and keeps descending. Realised when still descending - just before pods hit. Selects TOGA.

It caught out an Australian airline some years ago, although without the ground contact.

EDIT - was distracted and took ages composing and have just seen others have same conclusion.

EDIT 2 - Have just heard audio of landing clearance read back with Continuous Repetitive Chime going off. It wasn't going off at the clearance for the approach. Whatever happened occurred between the two. Maybe there was gear problem that forced the go around.

[krismiler]

If for any reason the thrust levers are not properly set, the PF would notice immediately that something is wrong on the FMA, because he would still see the normal modes that guide the aircraft in the landing phase.

Reading the FMA could have been missed. A Jetstar Australia A320 almost contacted the runway during a go-around when the thrust levers weren't fully advanced into the TOGA detent. However this was during thick fog so it's reasonable to assume that the autopilot was engaged.

https://australianaviation.com.au/2010/03/jetstar-makes-changes-after-go-around-mishap/

If they were at 3500' and 5nm, based on normal approach speeds they were around 2 minutes from touchdown and would have needed a descent rate of around 1700 fpm which is double what would normally be expected and well outside stabilised criteria. The gymnastics involved in trying to salvage the situation would suggest that the aircraft would have been hand flown at the time. Clearly, a safe landing wasn't possible but the go-around might have only been initiated after a prolonged float down the runway, it would be interesting to see how far along the pavement ground contact occurred. An early gear retraction before confirming "positive climb" and possible non engagement of TOGA when go-around was initiated look increasing likely.

[Capt Kremin]

This aircraft, like thousands of others, has been sitting in storage for months. I believe this was its 6th flight out of storage.

It will be interesting to see if the initial gear problem is related to issues created by extended storage.

Airline maintenance will have to be super vigilant come the time when worldwide aviation cranks up again.

[777boyo]

With regard to the hypothesis advanced on this thread that the landing gear was not selected down - I operated into KHI regularly for 25 years, and one of the unique features there was the way ATC always used the phraseology “ABC123, check wheels down and locked, clear to land 25R”. It always caused me to glance at the gear position indications. Unless something has changed at KHI ATC since my last approach there, which admittedly was six years ago, I can’t help thinking that that particular hole in the Swiss Cheese should have been blocked by such a call. But there again, for the PIA crews hearing it several times a day for years, maybe it would just become so routine that it lost its effectiveness, especially under stress.

[autoflight]

It is a long time since I operated A320 into Pakistan and later while based there. If the engines scraped the runway during the go-around, and damage the IDGs / alternators, Would the RAT prop deploy far enough to be destroyed by striking the runway? Assuming APU not operating, that might take them straight from full electrical power to battery power only - another unwanted distraction.
Are all the FADEC systems sufficiently clear of the cowling scrape area to avoid damage?
Damage caused by the scrapes might be a slow train wreck rather than fully apparent.
With gear already up, the crew might have intentionally selected less than TOGA for the go-around, which could have been a significant contribution to the end result

[belfrybat]

Shouldn't there be corresponding scrape marks on the runway?

[jolihokistix]

Have there been studies of bird strikes on the RAT?

[compressor stall]

It is a long time since I operated A320 into Pakistan and later while based there. If the engines scraped the runway during the go-around, and damage the IDGs / alternators, Would the RAT prop deploy far enough to be destroyed by striking the runway? Assuming APU not operating, that might take them straight from full electrical power to battery power only - another unwanted distraction.
Are all the FADEC systems sufficiently clear of the cowling scrape area to avoid damage?
Damage caused by the scrapes might be a slow train wreck rather than fully apparent.
With gear already up, the crew might have intentionally selected less than TOGA for the go-around, which could have been a significant contribution to the end result
The rat would likely be auto deployed at the second engine shutdown not before..

[PoppaJo]

Shouldn't there be corresponding scrape marks on the runway?
Won’t be much if it’s a poorly executed go around. If what I think has gone on here, they essentially have crushed the CFMs on the deck briefly (albeit extremely hard) whilst rotating/correcting the float error, with the gear retracting. Nose attitude most certainly up going of the marks.

I would be quite interested in the location of the marks on the runway.

[Toruk Macto]

Is that approach height correct ? 5 miles from threshold or from navaid ? 3500 ft what’s that above the runway ? Was there any background warnings on the initial ( high ) approach ? If they where high and floated they may have been in a low energy state at the far end of runway ? Reports of wheels up approach?
RIP to those involved . Sad day during tough times for aviation .

[Station Zero]

It is a long time since I operated A320 into Pakistan and later while based there. If the engines scraped the runway during the go-around, and damage the IDGs / alternators, Would the RAT prop deploy far enough to be destroyed by striking the runway? Assuming APU not operating, that might take them straight from full electrical power to battery power only - another unwanted distraction.
Are all the FADEC systems sufficiently clear of the cowling scrape area to avoid damage?
Damage caused by the scrapes might be a slow train wreck rather than fully apparent.
With gear already up, the crew might have intentionally selected less than TOGA for the go-around, which could have been a significant contribution to the end result

Regarding the question on FADEC systems being sufficiently clear of the scrape area.

The FADEC's dedicated alternator, High Pressure Fuel Pump are both on the main gear box (MGB) that on the -5B is on the lower side of the engine. If the engines had impacted the ground hard enough it's not hard to conceive the whole MGB was compromised that would not only render the IDGs inoperative but also the other accessories on inlcuding the Engine Fuel Pump, FADEC dedicated alternator as well as the Hydraulic pump with no chance of recovery. In addition to this fuel lines, hydraulic lines for Yellow/Green systems would have probably been compromised on the engines too.

[autoflight]

The rat would likely be auto deployed at the second engine shutdown not before..

If I recall, on early model A320 that I flew, the the RAT deployed when:
-AC BUS 1 is not electrically supplied
-AC BUS 2 is not electrically supplied
-Aircraft speed is greater than 100kt

No engine necessarily needs to have been shut down or failed.

Mainly I would like to know if the deployed RAT prop would contact the runway with engine scrape on go-around with gear up.

[ThreeThreeMike]

Mainly I would like to know if the deployed RAT prop would contact the runway with engine scrape on go-around with gear up.

Assuming the sequence of events was runway contact and engine damage causing dual IDG failures and then RAT engagement, it seems improbable the turbine would deploy quickly enough to contact the runway.

Surely the amount of time the nacelles were on the runway was no more than a second or two, as throttle advancement and arrest of the aircraft sink rate had already occurred before contact. If this was not so, undoubtedly it would not have been able to fly away.

As is true with all conjecture in this thread, the above scenario depends on wildly improbable events. I must agree with others who have commented, the entire episode beggars belief.

[Havingwings4ever]

Facts are; master warning sounds during 1? final approach, RAT deployed(could be several reason why), gear extended on the last approach, high pitch on last approach(glide due to dual engine failure/problems or flap/slat issues), FR24 flight track and vertical profile, ATC comment, scrapes on both engines, black and not straight line but from front middle to slightly to the left(rubber from the touchdown zone and a slightly angled touchdown/xwind? I have seen similar scrape-marks on 1 of our B74 classics which had a number 3 pod-strike.
Poor lads might have landed gear up(both engines appear to be operational due exhaust visible on video), pod-strikes in ground effect on the rubbery part of the touchdown zone,slightly angled like in a xwind, GA, both engines fail/failed due damage from the pod-strikes? Fireball and post flight fire indicates fuel present on impact.
I flew the A320 a long time ago but this seems possible, a hair raising scenario....

[harrogate]

Not sure if this footage has been shared yet:
https://twitter.com/KarachiWok/status/1263864005266980867?s=19

Struggling to believe anyone survived that, but if appears to be the case.

[krismiler]

There may be some points incommon with the Emirates B777 crash in Dubai in 2016, though in that case the engines didn't spool up and the aircraft sank back onto the runway. Botched go around after an unstable approach with a similar outcome. Could the automation have been a factor with this accident as well ?

[PoppaJo]

There is going to be a larger reliance of Automation in the near future as many return to work after many months away from the stick. It would be interesting to see how recent the crew have been active for. We are all going to be incredibly rusty for the first few weeks.

It’s going to be inevitable that there will be an increase in incidents when the world ramps up. 95% of the Pilots at my operator will return to work having not flown for 6 months. We are also starting back in the midst of a challenging weather season. The training department is going to be busy.

[ldo]

Regarding forgetting to lower the gear before landing, given that they started from a very high energy state, wouldn't getting the gear down be something that they would have to do to salvage the approach?

[PhilKSebben]

Having flown the 330/340, and knowing enough about the 320, I just can't see a way that they could make a wheels up landing attempt unless they were actively ignoring the CRC, Master Warning, ECAM and the GPWS.

[fox niner]

So they do a rushed approach. The ATCO even queried whether they were going to make it.
Somehow they “forget” to lower the gear. Unintentionally belly landed and scraped both engines.
Regained altitude, and on downwind both engines quit due to damage. RAT deploys, and they alpha floor it into the suburb.
Pure speculation of course.

[Stillapilot]

I think it is possible that the crew were unaware they had contacted the runway, the GO around was probably initiated during the flare when they noticed the unusual attitude from the lack of gear, by the time the engines had spooled up the nacelles just touched the runway, hard enough to damage them and the IDG's but not hard enough to be catastrophic or even erode the fan cowl latches (Fan cowls stayed on). This could be why they don't mention it or call a mayday until the IDG's and engines start to fail later in the go around due to the damage sustained.

[Twitter]

Bird strike or not, there is a pretty big feathered job in the previous photos.
Salt flats attract birds too.

APU start as in Sully would be a good idea - only possible with fuel though...

[Livesinafield]

The explosion on impact, the fireball is indicating there was plenty of fuel

[lederhosen]

Running out of fuel and forgetting to put the gear down don't seem the most obvious scenarios. An unstable approach resulting in a botched go-around, with the classic failure to push the thrust levers all the way to TOGA, and the gear selected up too early sounds at least possible, a bit like the Emirates crash in Dubai although with obvious differences. Rusty pilots and planes standing around for long periods may have contributed. In my airbus experience the aircraft does not respond well to long periods of low utilisation, and the electronics do odd things that Boeings tend not to. If the aircraft did make contact with the runway there must be witnesses, not least the survivors, so we will find out pretty soon if this scenario applies, and latest when they read out the flight recorders.

[QDM360]

Survivor reports about the first landing being a gear-up landing with severe sparks and jolts, before the aircraft took off again.

https://propakistani.pk/2020/05/22/breaking-pia-aircraft-crashes-in-karachi/

Plane did touch down on the runway for belly landing the first time, but heavy jolts and sparks made the pilots lift again and retry the landing: Survivor

One of the only two lucky survivors of the plane crash, Muhammad Zubair, has revealed that it was during the second attempt at belly landing that the plane lost control and came crashing down.

After the landing gear failed and pilots resorted to belly landing, they were able to touch down the aircraft onto the runway in the first attempt at the risky maneuver.

However, informed Zubair, the jolts and sparks due to the friction were so severe that the pilots lifted the plane again to give the landing a second try.

“All that we were told by the pilots was that we were going to land again,” said Zubair, adding that there was no word from the pilots about the emergency situation or crash landing.

[Toruk Macto]

Does not sound like a planned wheels up landing , would passengers notice an approach with gear down and a messed up missed approach which resulted in a double pod strike? Sounds like PA made to say going back for second attempt but engines fail ? Witness (ground) said plane attempted a belly landing but maybe he / she only saw brief touchdown on pods ? All speculation .

[ONE GREEN AND HOPING]

.......Confess that I haven't read more than a couple of the initial comments, but that photo of the aircraft in flight stuck a note. Noticed a large bird in the background. I know nothing of any modern Airbus types, but until about thirty years ago I did fly various of other types in and out of Karachi, and well recall these giant ****e-Hawks. Can't claim to have witnessed them in flocks, but would not a freak simultaneous ingestion of ****e-Hawk cause violent engine surges and or flame? Once experienced a brief disturbing surge after low level bird strike on single-engine jet, and once heard a Harrier pilot mention another person's Harrier flame out after ingestion of Seagulls....

[Wannabe Flyer]

From the photographs of the crash very little fire damage to the buildings & surroundings & what continues to surprise is reports of Nil casualties not he ground & the 2 survivors having little burn injuries. Would that not indicate not substantial fuel on board?

[double_barrel]

Plane did touch down on the runway for belly landing the first time, but heavy jolts and sparks made the pilots lift again and retry the landing: Survivor

One of the only two lucky survivors of the plane crash, Muhammad Zubair, has revealed that it was during the second attempt at belly landing that the plane lost control and came crashing down.

After the landing gear failed and pilots resorted to belly landing, they were able to touch down the aircraft onto the runway in the first attempt at the risky maneuver.

However, informed Zubair, the jolts and sparks due to the friction were so severe that the pilots lifted the plane again to give the landing a second try.

“All that we were told by the pilots was that we were going to land again,” said Zubair, adding that there was no word from the pilots about the emergency situation or crash landing.

As someone interested in the psychology of eye witness accounts, and how people fail to separate their own interpretation from objective facts, I find those really interesting examples. In this case it is very obvious where the witness has imposed his own vision on what he thinks was in the pilots' heads and so it remains a useful account. Nevertheless an interesting demonstration.

The thing I find surprising about the emerging hypothesis, is that it seems to require equivalent damage with almost identical consequences to two engines/systems following a double pod impact. I wonder if there will be lessons in improved redundancy?

[Bluffontheriver123]

This video nails it pretty well.

3500’ at 5nm (over 2x the normal path), overspeed warning on recording, pod strike in the pictures and ATC mention “a belly up landing”.

Looks like high energy unstable approach, leading to a crash landing bounce, go-around into the circuit. Essentially crashed the jet then tried to fly it.

https://youtu.be/uA5PF3JMHdo

[maddog2872]

Speculation: Normal approach, switched to tower, during config Landing Gear Down no green lights. So, requested to hold at 5 mile final(hold PPOS probably). Did troubleshooting, Landing Gear unsafe indication persisted, decided to continue approach(maybe they heard the Landing gear go down). Upon touchdown gear collapsed, so they went around, but damaged the engines, which caused dual engine flame out. Tower didn't seem That surprised because they were informed about the reason for holding, so they ask "confirm this time for belly landing".

[maddog2872]

They were probably holding at 5 mile final at 3500, and when they decided to continue approach they were probably on the outbound leg. It is hard to believe someone would even attempt to continue an approach at 3500 on a 5 mile final.

[Bluffontheriver123]

I wonder if there will be lessons in improved redundancy?

The A380 lives!

It is going to be an ocean going can of worms. Looking at the video above, it is a classic high energy approach that I bet the PIA OMs say throw away and go around at 1000’. As a psychologist study, tunnel vision and why they felt the need to rush to get it on the ground. On a normal approach 5nm is at 1500’, fully configured close to approach speed. ATC are clearly worried about their profile but they continue.

[harrogate]

Why would the ATC suggest a belly landing when the pilot reported both engines lost? There hadn't been any talk of gear issues. Or am I missing something?

[atakacs]

Firstly I muss say that having two survivors and no ground casualties is utterly unbelievable.

Next, the apparent cause of this crash (initial gear up landing, hard bounce and eventual loss of engine) also verges on the incredible.

This whole thing is beyond bizarre!

[Bluffontheriver123]

Speculation: Normal approach, switched to tower, during config Landing Gear Down no green lights. So, requested to hold at 5 mile final(hold PPOS probably). Did troubleshooting, Landing Gear unsafe indication persisted, decided to continue approach(maybe they heard the Landing gear go down). Upon touchdown gear collapsed, so they went around, but damaged the engines, which caused dual engine flame out. Tower didn't seem That surprised because they were informed about the reason for holding, so they ask "confirm this time for belly landing".

Err, there was no hold they flew straight in....

[maddog2872]

Is that confirmed? I thought FR24 data is missing, and liveatc archive has static before "we are stabilised" call

[Bluffontheriver123]

They said they were established on the approach at 5nm and 3500’. I last went to KHI a couple of years ago And it was close to MSL then. They were nearly 2000’ above the glide flying a 7.5 degree approach with the speed warnings going off. It’s not looking good.

[Ollie Onion]

Highly unstable at 5nm and 3500 ft with over speed alarm going. They decided to Go Around, due to high speed did a TOGA TAP, retracted the gear and like JETSTAR in 2007 https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2007/aair/ao-2007-044.aspx

continued descent with Gear selected up on the Glideslope, Jetstar got to 38ft above runway before aircraft climbed away. In the PIA case they impacted the runway before climbing away causing severe engine damage which subsequently caused failure of both. That’s my guess.

[GeeRam]

Firstly I muss say that having two survivors and no ground casualties is utterly unbelievable.

Next, the apparent cause of this crash (initial gear up landing, hard bounce and eventual loss of engine) also verges on the incredible.

This whole thing is beyond bizarre!

...........and add in the supposed photographs of it with damage under both nacelles, the RAT extended, but the u/c up, so presume after the first landing attempt, but that video of the final crash with the u/c clearly down.....?

It will indeed be astonishing if there does appear to be no ground victims given where it impacted..!!

[Bluffontheriver123]

Highly unstable at 5nm and 3500 ft with over speed alarm going. They decided to Go Around, due to high speed did a TOGA TAP, retracted the gear and like JETSTAR in 2007 https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2007/aair/ao-2007-044.aspx

continued descent with Gear selected up on the Glideslope, Jetstar got to 38ft above runway before aircraft climbed away. In the PIA case they impacted the runway before climbing away causing severe engine damage which subsequently caused failure of both. That’s my guess.

Think about the energy involved. At 3500’, at more than twice the glide slope angle, the aircraft literally cannot slow down whilst pointing at the TDZ.

It was already above VMax for the configuration based on the warnings. If it went round at that speed even with the engines turned off you could zoom to 5-600’. You are making the assumption it was a normal go around, the startle in the PM’s voice indicates nothing was ever normal from the start of the approach.

[CanadianAirbusPilot]

Very sad situation.

I have a fair bit of time in various Airbus including the A320... it would be absolutely impossible to fly an approach and unintentionally land gear up. Only scenario I can come up with for the pod strikes is a bounce landing, get extremely slow call for a regular go around despite being in a low energy state have PM raise the gear. Unlike the Boeing there isn’t really any trap with TOGA on a A320. You push it until the stop. So now buddy raises the gear, but you’re slow and power was at idle, so takes some time to spool up and you run out of energy and bang! Thankfully the EK accident they stayed on the runway... here they took it into the air again... that’s the only plausible explanation for this I have.

Also a very steep and fast approach may have been why we had a bounce on the first attempt. Don’t know much about PIA but I think most CPs would want to have tea no biscuits if you tried to land after an approach like that, if the altitude and distance you guys are mentioning are accurate.

[lederhosen]

I think those of us with experience on type might consider the botched go-around at least possible. As I said earlier we should get a clear direction pretty soon and the eyewitness reports seem to fit that scenario. We will know for sure eventually although the last Airbus crash report from Pakistan did take a while if I remember correctly.

[RiSq]

Speculation: Normal approach, switched to tower, during config Landing Gear Down no green lights. So, requested to hold at 5 mile final(hold PPOS probably). Did troubleshooting, Landing Gear unsafe indication persisted, decided to continue approach(maybe they heard the Landing gear go down). Upon touchdown gear collapsed, so they went around, but damaged the engines, which caused dual engine flame out. Tower didn't seem That surprised because they were informed about the reason for holding, so they ask "confirm this time for belly landing".

Surely if you didn't have the greens then you would report that to ATC to have emergency crews on standby.

The whole thing screams bizarre.

The first mention of belly landing is when lost engines is mentioned. There is no discussion prior to this.

And surely if there were gear concerns or lack of 3 greens a low flypass would be ideal to confirm if gear are down, not just put it on the deck without fire crew ready or ATC even informed.

I’d hazard a guess that the ATCO has seen the first approach and subsequent sparks. When the pilot initially declares the emergency the ATCO asks about the belly landing as he is still target fixated on what he saw. There is no other reason from The transmissions why he would query a belly landing to a dual engine failure.

The concerning thing here is, even if there was more going on, it seems the swiss cheese effect was fully instigated by the crew. I know a lot of you guys have been grounded for a period of time and that may make you a bit “Rusty” - i know from experience that rust can occur.

but IF this was instigated by the crew and they did forget to put the gear down, even with the audible alarms then im afraid thats not rusty, thats something altogether different.

Even if you factor in rust and fasting fatigue, that is extremely concerning.

Has there been confirmation on this crews hours before this flight since the restriction was lifted?

The read back on confirm 2000 is horrible as the tone in voice changes as he states “trying to maintain 2000” as the realisation of what is happening suddenly kicks in.

[San Diego kid]

If the surviving passenger is right about the first landing attempt, this is a pilot error as big as they come. Crashing a 320 basically, and then try to fly it around for a second attempt because of the sparks. I have a hard time believing any pilot would try a go around after a belly landing, but it really looks that way by now.

[Bob Viking]

I don’t know about you guys, but if I have not flown for a while I find I am even more particular and pedantic than normal.

Maybe don’t try to focus too heavily on the enforced lay off due to Covid. Not yet at least.

[double_barrel]

This video nails it pretty well.

3500’ at 5nm (over 2x the normal path), overspeed warning on recording, pod strike in the pictures and ATC mention “a belly up landing”.

Looks like high energy unstable approach, leading to a crash landing bounce, go-around into the circuit. Essentially crashed the jet then tried to fly it.


What do you guys think is the significance of the exchange during the 1st approach.where they say they are established on the localizer for 25L, ATC says 'turn left heading 280', they then repeat that they are established on the localizer with no further comment from ATC ? If they were truly on the localizer and flying 250, then 280 would require a right turn. This seems odd.

[Sriajuda]

Well, maybe they had a scrape. But apparently their engines were able to spool up and provide TOGA thrust. So why schould they both, quite simultaneously, suddenly cut out? Why no APU start? (RAT deployed). To me, (layman!!!) all this points to problems with fuel supply. And the landing gear? No hydraulic pressure? And even when that, is there to a grav-assisted lowering of the gear? Nothing here seems to make sense.

[robdean]

Why would the ATC suggest a belly landing when the pilot reported both engines lost? There hadn't been any talk of gear issues. Or am I missing something?

They had just hit the runway gear up, and were attempting a go around.

Speculation is:
ʜᴏᴛ ᴀᴘᴘʀᴏᴀᴄʜ ⇨ ᴄᴀʟʟ ɢᴏ ᴀʀᴏᴜɴᴅ ⇨ ɢᴇᴀʀ ᴜᴘ ⇨ ᴄʟɪᴍʙ ɴᴏᴛ ᴇsᴛᴀʙʟɪsʜᴇᴅ ʙᴇғᴏʀᴇ ɢᴇᴀʀ ᴜᴘ ᴛᴏᴜᴄʜᴅᴏᴡɴ ⇨ ᴄʟɪᴍʙ ᴏɴ ᴛᴇʀᴍɪɴᴀʟʟʏ ᴅᴀᴍᴀɢᴇᴅ ᴇɴɢɪɴᴇs

[metro301]

What do you guys think is the significance of the exchange during the 1st approach.where they say they are established on the localizer for 25L, ATC says 'turn left heading 280', they then repeat that they are established on the localizer with no further comment from ATC ? If they were truly on the localizer and flying 250, then 280 would require a right turn. This seems odd.

ATC saw exaclty how it was setting up. The left 280 heading was a delay vector to lose altitude. Would have re-established on the loc with a 30 degree intercept. SOP to help them out. PF refused it.

[harrogate]

They had just hit the runway gear up, and were attempting a go around.

Speculation is:
ʜᴏᴛ ᴀᴘᴘʀᴏᴀᴄʜ ⇨ ᴄᴀʟʟ ɢᴏ ᴀʀᴏᴜɴᴅ ⇨ ɢᴇᴀʀ ᴜᴘ ⇨ ᴄʟɪᴍʙ ɴᴏᴛ ᴇsᴛᴀʙʟɪsʜᴇᴅ ʙᴇғᴏʀᴇ ɢᴇᴀʀ ᴜᴘ ᴛᴏᴜᴄʜᴅᴏᴡɴ ⇨ ᴄʟɪᴍʙ ᴏɴ ᴛᴇʀᴍɪɴᴀʟʟʏ ᴅᴀᴍᴀɢᴇᴅ ᴇɴɢɪɴᴇs

Yeah I know, but it isn't verbalised by either party.

[Timmy Tomkins]

Apologies if his has been covered before but I am not an Airbus driver. I understood that the A320 would lower the gear at 1000 rad alt if it had been forgotton; would that protection have not played a part here?

[Toruk Macto]

On a completely unrelated theme , at times like this where airlines are top heavy with crews with the feeling any little mistake could end in dismissal it’s still better to go around .

[LegiossTypeH]

One of possible causes the nacelles hitting ground is retracting landing gears too early during going around in low altitude. Airbus recommand pilots to retract gears moments late in low altitude because the aircraft will sink initially due to high pass ratio engines. So the scratch on the nacelles do not necessarily mean the pilots plan to make a belly landing. If they do, the Mayday call should be made earlier than the first approach. And that makes sense why the cowling not fallen and no scratch mark in the tail (Because the power comes up momently that the hit not too hard)

Another guess is the same as #170 or #181.
I listen LoveATC 0900Z, no communication about PIA 8303, so the reason ATC initially radar vertor PIA 8303 to turn when they report established on 25L may just because they are obviously too high, not any system failure happenned. And there’s no TOO LOW GEAR warning but Master Warning later, over speed is the most possible. High speed means high descend rate, if PM retract gear during bouning what we see happens.

[metro301]

Apologies if his has been covered before but I am not an Airbus driver. I understood that the A320 would lower the gear at 1000 rad alt if it had been forgotton; would that protection have not played a part here?


No. there is no such protection

[CodyBlade]

They were probably holding at 5 mile final at 3500, and when they decided to continue approach they were probably on the outbound leg. It is hard to believe someone would even attempt to continue an approach at 3500 on a 5 mile final.

Rubbish even FlightR24 never track a hold.

[CodyBlade]

Apologies if his has been covered before but I am not an Airbus driver. I understood that the A320 would lower the gear at 1000 rad alt if it had been forgotton; would that protection have not played a part here?

We are getting into Twilight Zone territory here..

[robdean]

Yeah I know, but it isn't verbalised by either party.

Well ATC asked if go around was in anticipation of a gear up landing, clearly being aware of the initial gear up contact. Sadly altitude was decaying so fast it almost immediately became a moot point.

[freshgasflow]

So listening to radio , it seems that ATC asked them to climb to 3500 at go around. However, crew instead decide on altitude of 2000 and later mention trying to maintain 2000. And there is a lot of hesitancy in voice. So basically does this imply that even at time of go around, engines were already struggling ? Also tower talks about belly landing, when no such thing was hinted before. Is it possible that tower has seen something untoward for them to suggest belly landing ?

[andrasz]

Why would the ATC suggest a belly landing when the pilot reported both engines lost?
Maybe because they witnessed the ground strike from the tower ... ?

[metro301]

So listening to radio , it seems that ATC asked them to climb to 3000 at go around. However, crew mentioning "struggling" and instead decide on altitude of 2000. And there is a lot of hesitancy in voice. So basically does this imply that even at time of go around, engines were already struggling ?

No. It means the engines most likely smacked the ground and started to have issues after being bashed into pavement.

I think we will see, there was absolutely nothing mechanically wrong with this aircraft up to the point of first ground contact.

[The Shovel]

Apologies if his has been covered before but I am not an Airbus driver. I understood that the A320 would lower the gear at 1000 rad alt if it had been forgotton; would that protection have not played a part here?

Incorrect. You only get a Master Warning at 750ft. NO automatic gear extension under any circumstances.

”TOGA TAP”, is essentially the correct Go Around procedure for A320 NEO’s. The reading or lack of reading of the FMA is the key element that caused the JQ incident.

I don’t agree with the procedure as it is written. FMA should be read to ensure MAN TOGA is selected before reducing thrust in anyway, even to Soft Go Around mode.

[andrasz]

Well, maybe they had a scrape. But apparently their engines were able to spool up and provide TOGA thrust. So why schould they both, quite simultaneously, suddenly cut out? Why no APU start? (RAT deployed). To me, (layman!!!) all this points to problems with fuel supply. And the landing gear? No hydraulic pressure? And even when that, is there to a grav-assisted lowering of the gear? Nothing here seems to make sense.
Read the Smartlynx accident report. The initial causes for the ground strike may have been different, but the behaviour of the aircraft post go-around is chillingly similar. The guys in Tallinn were saved by quick thinking (they did a teardrop rather than a full circuit) plus luck (no obstacles), but still slammed into the approach lights. Without the built-in area AP-BDO would have made it to about the same point before 25L but already inside airport grounds:
https://avherald.com/h?article=4b57c3dd

[clark y]

I think Robdean and a couple of others are closest to the truth. I think the aircraft was serviceable during first, fast approach. Gear was forgotten or raised early. Why? Who knows. Maybe the CVR with give an answer. Time will probably tell.
As for the belly landing, if the tower saw the first scrape, then I think asking about it was a fair question.

There has been many mishaps from touching the runway with the gear up. Some get away with it others have not.

As for the cultural aspect mentioned above, does PIA penalise pilots for missed approaches, too much fuel etc?

[DIBO]

Only 1400 meters to go to the 25L piano keys.
And just 200 meters to the right, uninhabited, rough but flat terrain in front of 25R. Which could have made it a much more survivable crash.
I know, hindsight is easy.
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/932x682/karachi_crash_site_e7a5ba1d89f981ba5070844029fe760c9abc6f82. png

[scotbill]

What do you guys think is the significance of the exchange during the 1st approach.where they say they are established on the localizer for 25L, ATC says 'turn left heading 280', they then repeat that they are established on the localizer with no further comment from ATC ? If they were truly on the localizer and flying 250, then 280 would require a right turn. This seems odd.

ATC, realising they were too high and fast, offered them a 330 degree left turn to lose height and re-establish on the localiser. Why would you turn that down?

[ATC Watcher]

and the ATC transmissions on the video posted above are (time) edited and partial.
Those recording are mostly made by spotters small scanners that only work line of sight and will often miss transmissions., as was last demonstrated for instance in the recent Kathmandu Dash 8 accident as we had here dozen of pages debating a scenario based of the partial R/T which had little to do with the real situation if you had access to the full recording.....
Drawing conclusions on those partial communications is futile.

. .

[maddog2872]

What aural alarm would sound when deploying speedbrakes with flaps? Maybe that distracted them?

[neilki]

Apologies if his has been covered before but I am not an Airbus driver. I understood that the A320 would lower the gear at 1000 rad alt if it had been forgotton; would that protection have not played a part here?
theres no ‘automatically extend the gear option’
The only ‘protection is the gear can’t be extended over 10k above max extension speed

[ATC Watcher]

ATC, realising they were too high and fast, offered them a 330 degree left turn to lose height and re-establish on the localiser. Why would you turn that down?
Common , do you understand the meaning of "established on ILS "? and who is responsible for what in this situation ?

[cpt]

... and in a normal landing configuration, shouldn't the flaps and slats be extended? on this picture (post118) flaps and slats seem to be still fully retracted. (sorry I fly helicopters and we don't have flaps here)

[metro301]

What aural alarm would sound when deploying speedbrakes with flaps? Maybe that distracted them?

None.

The warning heard on the tape is the flap over speed. Nothing to do with speedbrakes.

[Iron Duck]

I’d hazard a guess that the ATCO has seen the first approach and subsequent sparks. When the pilot initially declares the emergency the ATCO asks about the belly landing as he is still target fixated on what he saw.

If he'd seen the pod strike and sparks, and whether or not he had it would be hard to miss the smoke trails on climb-out, did the ATCO tell the aircraft they'd struck the runway? If not, why not?

[WHBM]

Read the Smartlynx accident report.
Comparable gear-up strike at Shannon in 1999 with a Lockheed Electra. Pulled away from runway but two out of four engines failed, electrical power lost, etc, only just made it back round
https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19990301-0

[neilki]

What aural alarm would sound when deploying speedbrakes with flaps? Maybe that distracted them?

flaps full & speedbrakes is a single
chime master caution and yellow Speedbrakes message on the SD -lower ECAM screen. The speedbrakes will automatically retract if any of the high angle of attack protections are active -a prot or a max..

[lederhosen]

Very interesting picture from DIBO. They were quite literally seconds from reaching the clear ground in front of the runway. Dead sticking a medium jet is something we do not seriously train for, I have done it a handful of times in the last twenty years of sim training more for fun when time was left over than real training. If the picture of the aircraft post first attempt at landing is to be believed then the gear was up. When they selected it down would have been crucial on the second attempt and may well have made the difference to reaching the runway or at least landing short but everyone surviving like the British Airways 777 at Heathrow and the sad result we see here. Rob Dean's post 192 sums up pretty well what may well have led up to this.

[bedsted]

. Airbus recommand pilots to retract gears moments late in low altitude because the aircraft will sink initially due to high pass ratio engines.

I think you will find that all SOP's call for gear up after a positive rate of climb

[Capt Scribble]

Damaged fuel supply lines? Enough gets through at high power and the engines are obviously good enough to get them to 2000ft. But when the power is reduced so is the fuel pressure and the engines struggle.

[neilki]

There’s a lot of plumbing at the bottom of nacelle. Fuel Oil Heat exchange;Generator oil and fuel return lines; hydraulic pumps to name a few. It’s not designed to withstand and impact like that and damage to any one of those systems becomes rapidly fatal. The pictures show dark staining under the engines that support a fluid leak that could easily be catastrophic.

[Interested Passenger]

if they came in really hard and fast, and the mlg fully compressed, could there be enough wing flex for the engines to scrape?

[Connie Wings]

I guess a Gear Up (even partially) touch down is a possibility. So is the engine stains a result of that, possibly.
By the way, did anybody show the METAR there?

[Denti]

I think you will find that all SOP's call for gear up after a positive rate of climb
Positive rate: as in positive vertical rate, rising baro altitude, rising radio altitude.

[Dan_Brown]

Without upsetting anyone, it looks to me like crew incapasitation, as a contributing factor somewhere during the flight.

I don't know about the Airbus, however it seems to me the airbus philosophy is over complication.

When I advance the throttles on an aircraft, i want the power i requested. No if or buts. Period.

Old fashioned Dinosaur? Probably.

[lederhosen]

Apart from Jetstar I can think of an Air France incident some years ago which was very similar (hot and high into CDG and failure to push all the way to TOGA ending up rather lower than intended). Go-arounds as we have discussed many times are one of the most often poorly performed basic manoeuvres.

[Dan_Brown]

Apart from Jetstar I can think of an Air France incident some years ago which was very similar (hot and high into CDG and failure to push all the way to TOGA ending up rather lower than intended). Go-arounds as we have discussed many times are one of the most often poorly performed basic manoeuvres.

I could not agree with you more! Well put.

[FIRESYSOK]

Also tower talks about belly landing, when no such thing was hinted before. Is it possible that tower has seen something untoward for them to suggest belly landing ?

Surely they saw the first attempt with no wheels down. A belly landing is not something a control tower would normally ask about after a mayday call. This report will make interesting reading.

[henra]

Well, maybe they had a scrape. But apparently their engines were able to spool up and provide TOGA thrust. So why schould they both, quite simultaneously, suddenly cut out?

There are Oil lines, pumps, generators, manifolds, etc. on the bottom of the nacelles. A touchdown on the pods bears a big risk of severing oil lines. The resulting oil loss leading to freezing of the engines would fit rather well to the timing of the events.

[N600JJ]

Apart from Jetstar I can think of an Air France incident some years ago which was very similar (hot and high into CDG and failure to push all the way to TOGA ending up rather lower than intended). Go-arounds as we have discussed many times are one of the most often poorly performed basic manoeuvres.
Air France A319 in Sept 2009. Pilot did not apply sufficient thrust while willing to go around due to bad weather conditions leading to the Autopilot remaining in landing mode. A/P was disengaged and aircraft regained speed and altitude at only 76 feet above the ground. Enquiry concluded that main responsibility was on Pilot's inadequate commands being applied but also identified the lack of proper altitude checks and incorrect procedures / training at AF. Systems automation was also pointed as a secondary contributor to the incident by AF Unions.

[Fursty Ferret]

ʜᴏᴛ ᴀᴘᴘʀᴏᴀᴄʜ ⇨ ᴄᴀʟʟ ɢᴏ ᴀʀᴏᴜɴᴅ ⇨ ɢᴇᴀʀ ᴜᴘ ⇨ ᴄʟɪᴍʙ ɴᴏᴛ ᴇsᴛᴀʙʟɪsʜᴇᴅ ʙᴇғᴏʀᴇ ɢᴇᴀʀ ᴜᴘ ᴛᴏᴜᴄʜᴅᴏᴡɴ ⇨ ᴄʟɪᴍʙ ᴏɴ ᴛᴇʀᴍɪɴᴀʟʟʏ ᴅᴀᴍᴀɢᴇᴅ ᴇɴɢɪɴᴇs

That’s where my money would be.

[maddog2872]

Surely they saw the first attempt with no wheels down. A belly landing is not something a control tower would normally ask about after a mayday call. This report will make interesting reading.
Yes, It seems ATCO and crew communicated about gear problems before attempting the approach. That looks more likely than crew retracting gear early, after all they were light, 90plus pax

[babybaby]

Many technical questions being asked about the A320’s protections and warnings.

For those not familiar with the FBW Airbus types a Google search of “A320 CBT YouTube” provide some good presentations that will give you a better understanding of the warnings an A320 will give you, the protections it can provide, and by default the ones it doesn’t, particularly in Alternate Law or Direct Law, which is what it is likely to default in to with multiple failures, why the RAT extends automatically, what a continuous uncancellable warning horn is likely to be for close to the ground etc.

[Toruk Macto]

Surely they saw the first attempt with no wheels down. A belly landing is not something a control tower would normally ask about after a mayday call. This report will make interesting reading.

Is there any chance of getting a A320 near a runway from 3500? 5 miles out with out the gear down ? Warnings where more likely to be flap over speed while pushing nose down ? ATC would be saying something if they saw an aircraft going through 500 ft with gear still up I’d hope?

[LegiossTypeH]

I think you will find that all SOP's call for gear up after a positive rate of climb
Agree ! my mistake, I want to say early flaps retraction, combined with gear retraction before positive climb.

[lederhosen]

The gear was certainly down the second time as the video clearly shows. So I cannot yet see any evidence that it was unserviceable or that it was not down the first time until it was selected up on deciding to go-around. By not properly engaging TOGA the engines would not spool up and the flight director commands would not provide guidance. The aircraft might then sink low enough to strike the runway. We don't yet know that is what happened, but others have got close on previous occasions. Nothing is sure, but it would fit with what we do know so far.

[neilki]

Surely they saw the first attempt with no wheels down. A belly landing is not something a control tower would normally ask about after a mayday call. This report will make interesting reading.



Is there any chance of getting a A320 near a runway from 3500? 5 miles out with out the gear down ? Warnings where more likely to be flap over speed while pushing nose down ? ATC would be saying something if they saw an aircraft going through 500 ft with gear still up I’d hope ?
Fifi can get down quickly; but not if you want to remain gainfully employed in aviation. This crash began several minutes before that.. if youre that close with that much energy your head is not in the game. Bug out; collect your thoughts and reset your head.
my company specifically states that a missed approach is not evidence of poor skill.
-its evidence of good judgement.

ATC aren’t looking at your gear; another pilot might; but it’s not the kind of thing you’re looking out for...
i wonder how much these folks had flown in the last few weeks; I wouldn’t be surprised if that was a factor, as well as the authority and recency gradients in CRM speak.
what a cluster..

[ZAGORFLY]

theres no ‘automatically extend the gear option’
The only ‘protection is the gear can’t be extended over 10k above max extension speed
There are only two aircrafts that had and have that feature: the Bugatti racer and the latest lanceAir Mako. Now it seams a good idea to have this feature one more step towards Drones.

[safetypee]

WhatsaLizad?, #236 :ok:

Anything amongst the previous speculations to negate a simpler view; oil leak from both engines after previous servicing. Hence under cowl staining, engine failure after GA climb out.

Or have I missed a post which actually confirms that the aircraft engines hit the ground.

[Capt Kremin]

Ollie Onion.

Yours is the only explanation that makes sense to me. Very possible.

[DIBO]

Or have I missed a post which actually confirms that the aircraft engines hit the ground.Have you read post #165? 'Confirm' as in 'officially' maybe not yet, but strong indications from onboard eye-witness that some metal structure touched the concrete "...the jolts and sparks due to the friction were so severe that the pilots lifted the plane again". And engine cowlings are a good candidate, within field of view of the pax.

[henra]

WhatsaLizad?, #236 :ok:

Anything amongst the previous speculations to negate a simpler view; oil leak from both engines after previous servicing. Hence under cowl staining, engine failure after GA climb out.

Or have I missed a post which actually confirms that the aircraft engines hit the ground.
You might want to have a closer look at the picture in post #85
https://www.pprune.org/showthread.php?p=10790064
If you look at the nacelles it is clear this wasn't just an oil leak. They are torn on the bottom. Those pods 100% scratched the tarmac. At a nose high attitude.

[peterinmadrid]

I watched the Blancolirio channel, and from the evidence he presents it seems almost certain that they landed without the gear down, scraped the engines and then took off again and crashed when the engines failed. It seems the initial contact damaged both engines, but unfortunately not enough to stop them from getting back into the air. Here is a fairly clear video of the crash itself and the aftermath:

https://youtu.be/mxm6d-RDba4

[b1lanc]

Have you read post #165? 'Confirm' as in 'officially' maybe not yet, but strong indications from onboard eye-witness that some metal structure touched the concrete "...the jolts and sparks due to the friction were so severe that the pilots lifted the plane again". And engine cowlings are a good candidate, within field of view of the pax.
Which would then make sense of ATC asking if they wanted to attempt a belly landing, presumably on next attempt.

[neilki]

You might want to have a closer look at the picture in post #85
https://www.pprune.org/showthread.php?p=10790064
If you look at the nacelles it is clear this wasn't just an oil leak. They are torn on the bottom. Those pods 100% scratched the tarmac. At a nose high attitude.
surprising it didn’t liberate the cowls. The latches are right in the impact zone and the cowls are carbon composite... more likely to be a brief high (ish) descent rate than dragging along for hundreds of feet settling...

[andrasz]

AVH now reporting that sources within Pakistani CAA confirm ground contact was made with retracted gear on first approach, there was no communication of any fault or gear issue prior to the go-around. Sadly this confirms all that was suspected following the release of the PSPK photos.

From the wording it is not yet clear if the gear remained retracted throughout the approach, or if it was retracted before a positive climb was achieved, however the MLG doors would have been damaged if the gears were in transit while making the ground contact (Smartlynx), but no such damage is visible on the photos.

[FlyingAce77]

Looks like unstable high energy approach & basically Messed it up by the time they realized TOGA and damage was done to the Port & Starboard side engine” scrapes , possibility is oil lines leak & flame out/ compressor stall by the time they were downwind”

[Capt Quentin McHale]

My 2 cents worth people,

Looking at those marks on the engines, there is no way those marks are due to contact with the runway/ground. If there was contact, there would be some rather large obvious flat spots under those engines. The angle of those marks at the trailing edge of both engine cold stream ducts would indicate that not only half of the engine exhaust cones should be missing/ground away, BUT half of the rear fuselage as well !!! IMHO.

Lets leave it to the expert investigators.

[krismiler]

Also possible that the gear was retracted before the flaps during the go-around. Standard procedure is “Go Around - FLAPS, retract one stage, positive climb - GEAR UP.

Perhaps it happened out of sequence by mistake, “Go Around” and the wheels went up first instead of the flaps.

[gearlever]

Not possible IMHO due to landing gear interlock.

[Timmy Tomkins]

No. there is no such protection
Many thanks. TT

[safetypee]

henra,
"They (engine cowls) are torn on the bottom."

Looking at a slightly magnified view of that photo, all edge surfaces appear 'torn' (top/bottom fuselage, fin) due to photo resolution / enlargement.

As per Capt McHale, extrapolating the cowl marks rearward, suggest that there should also be rear fuselage / tail damage.

whereas oil stains … follow the airflow …

[lomapaseo]

Too much assigning of fact to all the speculations so far.

I don't accept all the supporting arguments as real fact.

For example surely those on site know where the engine cowls are damaged sufficiently to disable the engine (runway scrapes, cowl fire damage or wear through). Cowl crushing sufficient to damage systems?

And what about past history of similar installations? Don't investigative reports have cowl runway impacts in them of similar severity?

[andrasz]

Looking at those marks on the engines, there is no way those marks are due to contact with the runway/ground.

The ground contact marks are just two small patches on the underside of the fan cowl, the widening black marks further aft are traces of leaking engine oil.