Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

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

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

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

Old 8th Dec 2016, 09:31
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: VIDP
Age: 31
Posts: 88
There's a video of the crash site in this article.
superliner is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2016, 16:08
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,513
Muhammad Irfan Elahi, CAA chairman, confirmed that one engine was known to be out of order.

The word 'confirmed' adds much weight to this statement but.....I can fully understand another meaning to this wording. English is not the first language and there might be some stress situation in a press conference/release. "out of order" means it's not working correctly. It is said that the crew reported an engine malfunction in the air = out of order. It does not necessarily mean it was not serviceable before takeoff.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2016, 19:46
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Global
Posts: 154
The eyewitness accounts were also suspect, one stated it was on fire and enduring "turbulence" then crashed, apparently the pilot was trying to avoid the buildings... the other said they saw fire after the crash...either way the black boxes should aid greatly. Curious to know if a drone/missile might be a possibility too...but again engine issues could relate to thousands of scenarios.
striker26 is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2016, 22:15
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Maine USA
Age: 77
Posts: 199
Chitral is a 5741 ft runway 4921 ft MSL; can anyone run the numbers and say if an ATR 42 definitely could or couldn't get off the ground from there on one engine with the reported load / WX conditions?
PersonFromPorlock is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2016, 01:27
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,308
Can someone explain to me why someone is asking if this crew took off with one engine inop? I mean, come on. Let's give the professional pilots a benefit of the doubt as there is so little concrete information to hand. Look what has to happen: Tower operator at the departing field watching the take off, in the position of saying: "hey, PIA XXX, one of your props isn't turning!" That kind of speculation is bizarre.

Perhaps some losses in translation are occurring, per RAT 5's point, or some people are speaking with incomplete information. It happens.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2016, 03:15
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,012
Can someone explain to me why someone is asking if this crew took off with one engine inop?
from my read it's just from reading too much into the posts.

I'd let it ride for the time being as it's not germane to further discussion at this time
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2016, 11:15
  #27 (permalink)  
Hasselhof
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
If that is what you are indeed asking I don't need a performance manual to give you an answer
If that's what they are asking a performance manual couldn't give you the answer even if you wanted it to
 
Old 9th Dec 2016, 14:10
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: europe
Age: 62
Posts: 641
Nothing would surprise me.

I recall an accident several years ago which involved loss of directional control during the take off run. The crew had attempted to depart after one of the two engines failed to start. The crew had hoped that it would be possible to carry out an air star of the second engine once they got airborne. All survived and the accident report makes hillarious reading.
deefer dog is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2016, 14:36
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
I recall an accident several years ago which involved loss of directional control during the take off run. The crew had attempted to depart after one of the two engines failed to start. The crew had hoped that it would be possible to carry out an air star of the second engine once they got airborne. All survived and the accident report makes hillarious reading.
Probably was this one:

http://www.ntsb.gov/about/employment...98FA047&akey=1
peekay4 is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2016, 14:55
  #30 (permalink)  
PJ2
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: East of the sun, West of the moon
Age: 71
Posts: 2,403
Re, "Chitral is a 5741 ft runway 4921 ft MSL; can anyone run the numbers and say if an ATR 42 definitely could or couldn't get off the ground from there on one engine with the reported load / WX conditions? ".

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

The CAA statement can be taken several ways. The most likely interpretation is probably that the left engine was running (prop turning, which is the only evidence anyone except the crew, the mtce staff & the recorders will have), but had a maintenance issue. Whether that was actually the case, and if so, whether it had been signed off or not, will be eventually confirmed by the usual ways.
PJ2 is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2016, 16:12
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hadlow
Age: 55
Posts: 575
Apparently the PCAA has released an initial report.

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

Initial report says PK-661?s left engine malfunctioned - Pakistan - DAWN.COM
Super VC-10 is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2016, 16:17
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 306
...entered free fall and lost another 1,800 feet in a millisecond...
Damn strong gravity they have over there.
Nemrytter is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2016, 16:23
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hadlow
Age: 55
Posts: 575
1,800 feet in a millisecond
What's that in knots?
Super VC-10 is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2016, 16:28
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Newcastle
Age: 48
Posts: 553
66,300kts give or take....
MATELO is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2016, 17:30
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,012
Super VC-10

Apparently the PCAA has released an initial report.

It would seem that an uncontained engine failure caused significant damage to the wing, rendering the aircraft uncontrollable.
I view the above as highly suspect and/or premature. There is no direct quoting of the authorities as to cause and result. Just the normal leap of reporters.

from the suspect article referenced:

However, an aircraft will fall freely if there is structural damage as hampered aerodynamics does not allow it to glide with gradual descent. There is a possibility then that the failed engine had exploded and damaged the wing attached to it.
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2016, 18:27
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,117
Photo showing a substantially complete rear fuselage:

DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2016, 03:22
  #37 (permalink)  
1jz
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Tarmac
Age: 34
Posts: 121
Most of the stories are just fake, how can an aircraft depart without being cleared by the maintenance department? And also every peasant living in near by villages claims he has seen the crash actually happening, one guy went off board by claiming in a newspaper that he could sense something was wrong with the aircraft and he followed it riding his motorbike and saw the crash happen....
Crap... I have been there and it's a hilly terrain, the final 30 mins can be travelled on foot only..

Better we wait for professionals do their work and come up with something legitimate.
1jz is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2016, 10:31
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: grenoble
Posts: 18
Originally Posted by Nemrytter View Post
Damn strong gravity they have over there.
The altitude is given in hrs:mins:secs so perhaps the journalist confused the secs to be millisecs. Local reporting has been quite poor with TV channels wanting to be the first to show "breaking news". At one channel, they had a pseudo-religious scholar-cum-failed politician-cum-tv prize show host-cum-entertainer-cum-newly turned anchor interviewing a (failed) pop singer and tv actor on technical aspects of the flight.

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

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

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


Also please update the title. This accident happened near Havelian and not near khyber
Fawad is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2016, 10:57
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ***
Posts: 344
ATRs are not really famous for their one engine out altitude capabilities...

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

I know, that Air Dolomiti used to have escape routes crossing the alps. Does PIA have anything like that?
Admiral346 is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2016, 18:18
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Munich, Bavaria
Posts: 39
I was flying ATR 42/72 in the old (-300/200/212) and the new (-500) version from 1997 to 2004.
Crossing the Alps we had to do driftdown-calculation, especially for the ATR 72-200 in the summer for the planned route
The ATR 42-500 was safe at any MSA below 14000ft with MTOW and ISA +15.

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

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.