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

PIA A320 Crash Karachi

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

PIA A320 Crash Karachi

Old 23rd May 2020, 09:45
  #181 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Heathrow
Age: 33
Posts: 55
Originally Posted by maddog2872 View Post
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.


RiSq is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 09:48
  #182 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: EHRD for now.
Age: 54
Posts: 11
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.
San Diego kid is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 09:48
  #183 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Near the coast
Posts: 1,761
Prolonged grounding

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.

BV
Bob Viking is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 09:52
  #184 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: 5Y
Posts: 462
Originally Posted by Bluffontheriver123 View Post
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.
double_barrel is online now  
Old 23rd May 2020, 09:55
  #185 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Germany
Age: 54
Posts: 20
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.
Sriajuda is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 09:55
  #186 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 106
Originally Posted by harrogate View Post
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
robdean is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 09:58
  #187 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Middle East
Posts: 331
Originally Posted by double_barrel View Post
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.
metro301 is online now  
Old 23rd May 2020, 09:59
  #188 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Leeds
Posts: 694
Originally Posted by robdean View Post
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.
harrogate is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 10:03
  #189 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: The South
Posts: 83
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?
Timmy Tomkins is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 10:03
  #190 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eagles Nest
Posts: 483
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 .
Toruk Macto is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 10:04
  #191 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Taipei
Posts: 10
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.
LegiossTypeH is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 10:05
  #192 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Middle East
Posts: 331
Originally Posted by Timmy Tomkins View Post
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
metro301 is online now  
Old 23rd May 2020, 10:08
  #193 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 364
Originally Posted by maddog2872 View Post
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 is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 10:11
  #194 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 364
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..

CodyBlade is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 10:12
  #195 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 106
Originally Posted by harrogate View Post
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.

Last edited by robdean; 23rd May 2020 at 11:05.
robdean is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 10:15
  #196 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: london
Posts: 62
Go around altitude

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 ?
freshgasflow is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 10:17
  #197 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Where it is comfortable...
Age: 56
Posts: 730
Originally Posted by harrogate View Post
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 ... ?
andrasz is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 10:19
  #198 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Middle East
Posts: 331
Originally Posted by freshgasflow View Post
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.
metro301 is online now  
Old 23rd May 2020, 10:19
  #199 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: SEQ
Posts: 38
Originally Posted by Timmy Tomkins View Post
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.


Last edited by The Shovel; 23rd May 2020 at 10:29.
The Shovel is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 10:20
  #200 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Where it is comfortable...
Age: 56
Posts: 730
Originally Posted by Sriajuda View Post
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

Last edited by andrasz; 23rd May 2020 at 10:32.
andrasz is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

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