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 14th Dec 2016, 22:08
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ***
Posts: 344
Thanks, Mr. Blue.

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

So drifting to 14000' and an elevation do not create a problem. Something else made them fall from the sky.
Admiral346 is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2016, 00:42
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,273
No aircraft will crash if one engine fails and the pilots are qualified/trained and the proper performance calculations have been made.
Apparently one engine failed, so which of the other two options should we put our bets on?
Or maybe both?
ManaAdaSystem is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2016, 00:54
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,008
I wouldn't be so quick to make that hard a statement. I would also like to look for evidence of unexpected drag affecting the performance of man and machine.
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2016, 09:35
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Where it is comfortable...
Age: 55
Posts: 674
Backing up lomapaseo here, the initial official report suggested that it was more than a simple engine failure, a catastrophic uncontained engine failure can easily render the aircraft uncontrollable regardless of crew training & experience. The accident site suggests a complete LOC.
andrasz is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2016, 09:58
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,054
Originally Posted by ManaAdaSystem View Post
No aircraft will crash if one engine fails and the pilots are qualified/trained and the proper performance calculations have been made.
That statemement presupposes a ton of other "if"s and "and"'s, too (no collateral damage causing structural failure or loss of flying qualities, for a start).
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2016, 10:54
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,273
You can introduce a lot of other possible factors, but it would not be the first time a crash was blamed on a "simple" engine failure. Or caused by one.
TransAsia comes to mind.
ManaAdaSystem is offline  
Old 19th Dec 2016, 09:54
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 597
PIA restarts ist ATR operations. To prevent more bloodshed and deaths, a goat was sacrificed on the spot:

https://mobile.twitter.com/asimusafz...16110890172416

I wonder whether the goat was correctly admitted to the secure area.
fox niner is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2017, 05:04
  #48 (permalink)  
inducedrag is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2017, 05:14
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,832
No aircraft will crash if one engine fails and the pilots are qualified/trained and the proper performance calculations have been made.
Oh really? I think you are wrong.
Cows getting bigger is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2017, 05:48
  #50 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 69
Posts: 2,561
Absolutely .
Posted here on Dec 9th :
The Pakistan Internatio*nal Airlines ATR-42 that crashed into the mountains near Havelian on Wednesday had been flying smoothly at 13,375 feet when its left engine malfunctioned, exploded and damaged a wing, an initial inquiry report by the Civil Aviation Authority says
Sometimes it helps reading what was posted just one page before .
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2017, 19:11
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 71
Posts: 676
Originally Posted by fox niner View Post
PIA restarts ist ATR operations. To prevent more bloodshed and deaths, a goat was sacrificed on the spot:

https://mobile.twitter.com/asimusafz...16110890172416

I wonder whether the goat was correctly admitted to the secure area.
Goats are small change if you are trying to win back customers and assure them all is well and tickee babu now. Back in 2006,Turkish Airlines sacrificed a camel. It had been promised to encourage the engineering work force to get the job done in time. It worked, they finished it ahead of schedule and had a great feast.
Chronus is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2017, 15:24
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Jakarta
Posts: 2
Due Preliminary/Interim Report

More than a month and a half has passed since this accident. Should there not be a preliminary report out by now ( 30 days ), or at least a interim report?
almostaveragepilot is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2019, 05:12
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: N24 E56
Posts: 106
Accident of PIA Flight PK-661 ATR 42-500 AP-BHO Near Havelian on 7th December, 2016

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

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

These are as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(b) Pakistan CAA is to evaluate its oversight mechanism for its adequacy to discover lapses and intervene in a proactive manner, ascertain shortfall(s) and undertake necessary improvements.
inducedrag is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2019, 05:16
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: N24 E56
Posts: 106
inducedrag is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2019, 05:18
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Age: 49
Posts: 1,255
Hmm having bypassed the maintenance interval certainly doesn't reflect well on PIA but I don't think those 4h made a real difference. We still don't really know what happened here (apart an engine failure being most likely the root cause).
atakacs is online now  
Old 12th Jan 2019, 05:59
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: N24 E56
Posts: 106
Originally Posted by atakacs View Post
Hmm having bypassed the maintenance interval certainly doesn't reflect well on PIA but I don't think those 4h made a real difference. We still don't really know what happened here (apart an engine failure being most likely the root cause).
(b) This dislodging of one blade resulted in in-flight engine shut down and it contributed towards erratic/abnormal behavior of engine number one propeller.
inducedrag is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2019, 10:07
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Europe
Posts: 143
The aircraft flew about 100hrs over that 10000hrs replacement limit. Thatís a damn narrow margin of 1%... so what if the failure happens at 9900hrs instead? Seems like that limit might have to be looked at and adjusted.
Intrance is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2019, 10:12
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 77
Originally Posted by atakacs View Post
Hmm having bypassed the maintenance interval certainly doesn't reflect well on PIA but I don't think those 4h made a real difference.
"(d) Aircraft flew approximately ninety-three hours after" the 10,004 hours, so the blade would have had 10,097 hours at time of failure.
Joe_K is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2019, 11:15
  #59 (permalink)  
ZFT
N4790P
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Asia
Age: 68
Posts: 1,903
I understand that an uncommanded unfeathering of the propeller after the engine had been shutdown was the major factor.
ZFT is online now  
Old 13th Jan 2019, 00:33
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 682
Originally Posted by atakacs View Post
Hmm having bypassed the maintenance interval certainly doesn't reflect well on PIA but I don't think those 4h made a real difference. We still don't really know what happened here (apart an engine failure being most likely the root cause).
If the blades that flew apart had been changed, they wouldn't have flown apart. How can that not make a real difference.
punkalouver 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.