PIA A320 Crash Karachi
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is more likely that the controller is asking the PM to confirm that what just happened was a belly landing, and not to confirm the intention to perform a belly landing on the second attempt.
The last Aviation Herald update adds some more indications that the first landing attempt was made with landing gear up:
Crash: PIA A320 at Karachi on May 22nd 2020, impacted residential area during final approach, both engines failed as result of a gear up touchdown
On May 24th 2020 Pakistan's media quote a CAA official speaking on condition of anonymity that the aircraft made two attempts to land. During the first approach it appears the landing gear was still retracted when the aircraft neared the runway, the pilot had not indicated any anomaly or emergency, emergency services thus did not respond and did not foam the runway as would be done in case of a gear malfunction. The marks on the runway between 4500 feet and 7000 feet down the runway suggest the engines made contact with the runway surface, it is possible that the engines were damaged during that contact with the runway surface leading even to possibly fire.
On May 24th 2020 a spokesman of the airline said, the landing gear had not been (partially or fully) lowered prior to the first touch down. The crew did not call out the standard operating procedures for an anomaly and no emergency was declared. Most likely the crew was not mentally prepared for a belly landing and went around when they realized the engines were scraping the runway.
On May 24th 2020 a spokesman of the airline said, the landing gear had not been (partially or fully) lowered prior to the first touch down. The crew did not call out the standard operating procedures for an anomaly and no emergency was declared. Most likely the crew was not mentally prepared for a belly landing and went around when they realized the engines were scraping the runway.
Mmmmm PPruuune!
Join Date: Jul 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They probably do but being official would be for the investigation and not released into the public domain. (unless someone leaks them). Or the system was broken.
That would make sense but I have to say I have yet to see any evidence of such either in the narrative of any official accident report or any screenshots etc. I would have thought such evidence would be invaluable to investigators.
Why would a dual engine failure make the ATC think that the undercarriage is not working? They are completely separate systems.
Is it possible that the gear could have been lowered early, out of normal sequence, to increase drag, then retracted instead of lowered at the point where it would normally have been lowered?
FBW
FBW
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Helsinki
Age: 47
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Smartlynx A320 incident at Tallinn 28th Feb 2018 has been mentioned previously on this thread.
Whilst an underlying technical issue led to the main event (aircraft contacted the runway once the gear had been selected up), both engines subsequently failed shortly thereafter.
Whilst an underlying technical issue led to the main event (aircraft contacted the runway once the gear had been selected up), both engines subsequently failed shortly thereafter.
None of that probably has anything to do with the thread accident, but it's important to note that a “technical issue” was not even close to the only cause of the Tallinn accident you linked.
Why has there been so little comment on the fact that they were offered a 360 degree orbit to lose height on the original approach. "Turn left onto 330 ..." (i.e attacking heading to regain the localiser )?
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Banksville
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There’s mention that they might have lowered gear levers at too high a speed, such that protections did not allow gear to go down. Lever would have to be recycled and speed reduced first.
So they thought they had gear down, but didn’t. Possible?
So they thought they had gear down, but didn’t. Possible?
Two wrong statements in less than twenty words - pretty impressive even for a thread which is wanna-bee infested to a degree not often seen.
Neither of these things are "positive rate". A V/S trend is a measure of vertical acceleration. It will happily read a positive vertical rate with both main gear planted on the runway with say, a gross error in take-off performance calculations or wind shear. RA is valueless for rate as the reading which the pilots see is a product of an algorithm of pitch attitude and gear tilt and is by no means a direct reading of actual height.
The ONLY measure for positive rate is a sustained and progressive increase in the altitude displayed on the altimeter.
Should you doubt any of this, consult any FCTM from a company called Boeing. They've been doing this stuff for quite some time.
Neither of these things are "positive rate". A V/S trend is a measure of vertical acceleration. It will happily read a positive vertical rate with both main gear planted on the runway with say, a gross error in take-off performance calculations or wind shear. RA is valueless for rate as the reading which the pilots see is a product of an algorithm of pitch attitude and gear tilt and is by no means a direct reading of actual height.
The ONLY measure for positive rate is a sustained and progressive increase in the altitude displayed on the altimeter.
Should you doubt any of this, consult any FCTM from a company called Boeing. They've been doing this stuff for quite some time.
Boeing do not refer to rate; they refer to climb - on the altimeter.
Yes, yes, feel free to check any Boeing manual however if you want relevant information on this event may I suggest you try something written by Airbus.
Wow!.
From 35k to 10k ft in <13minutes. And then from 10k to 2k in less than two minutes. Somehow this f*ck up bgean to start already back at 35k. And from 10k on it became worse. How on Earth did they think they would dissipate all that energy?! OK by putting out the flaps above VFE. But surely can't have been the plan!?
From 35k to 10k ft in <13minutes. And then from 10k to 2k in less than two minutes. Somehow this f*ck up bgean to start already back at 35k. And from 10k on it became worse. How on Earth did they think they would dissipate all that energy?! OK by putting out the flaps above VFE. But surely can't have been the plan!?
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Middle East
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because the PF ignored the offer and conitinued to chase the profile. It was commented on previously.
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Schiphol
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some notes taken from various Pakistani press sources:
Both recorders were found on Friday. The FDR will be read in France by the BEA.
There will be at least three independent investigations. The first by the Pakistani AAIB. The second by the Pakistani military. The third by Airbus (Note A0283: that would be unusual, they probably mean that Airbus will be a party to the safety investigation - but they focus on the independence).
There are 2 certain survivors from the plane, both named males. There is one note of a named female survivor (Note A0283: which was on the published passenger list, and not being the named female model which was mentioned in earlier reports).
One official source shows 1 dead and 4 injured on the ground.
About the aircraft: Aviation authorities on Saturday released an executive summary of the aircraft, revealing certain facts about its maintenance and operations history. According to the summary, the Airbus A320-214 aircraft was 16 years old and up till now, had flown for 47,124 hours. The aircraft’s last flight before Friday’s ill-fated one between Lahore and Karachi, took place just a day ago when it ferried Pakistani citizens stranded in Muscat to Lahore. The aircraft last underwent a routine check on March 21 of 2020 and major check on October 19 of 2019. Although it was grounded between March 22 and May 7, this was on account of Covid-19 and not for any airworthiness issues. The summary stated the aircraft suffered from no engine, landing gear or major aircraft systems defects and had operated 6 flights since being pressed back into service on May 7. Both of the aircraft’s engines were installed last year in February and May. Its landing gear was installed in October 2014 and was due for removal and overhaul in October 2024.
Both recorders were found on Friday. The FDR will be read in France by the BEA.
There will be at least three independent investigations. The first by the Pakistani AAIB. The second by the Pakistani military. The third by Airbus (Note A0283: that would be unusual, they probably mean that Airbus will be a party to the safety investigation - but they focus on the independence).
There are 2 certain survivors from the plane, both named males. There is one note of a named female survivor (Note A0283: which was on the published passenger list, and not being the named female model which was mentioned in earlier reports).
One official source shows 1 dead and 4 injured on the ground.
About the aircraft: Aviation authorities on Saturday released an executive summary of the aircraft, revealing certain facts about its maintenance and operations history. According to the summary, the Airbus A320-214 aircraft was 16 years old and up till now, had flown for 47,124 hours. The aircraft’s last flight before Friday’s ill-fated one between Lahore and Karachi, took place just a day ago when it ferried Pakistani citizens stranded in Muscat to Lahore. The aircraft last underwent a routine check on March 21 of 2020 and major check on October 19 of 2019. Although it was grounded between March 22 and May 7, this was on account of Covid-19 and not for any airworthiness issues. The summary stated the aircraft suffered from no engine, landing gear or major aircraft systems defects and had operated 6 flights since being pressed back into service on May 7. Both of the aircraft’s engines were installed last year in February and May. Its landing gear was installed in October 2014 and was due for removal and overhaul in October 2024.
Last edited by A0283; 24th May 2020 at 13:41.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From elsewhere...
"If you lower the L/G above 260kts, the L/G Safety valve will prevent the Green HYD from lowering the gear, but the L/G Lever will go down. Now once below 260kts, will the L/G come down on its own? Or does the Lever need to be recycled?"
That's a very good question. If we believe an old FCOM, the lever has to be recycled to get the gear down below 260kts. The valve won't open if the lever just stays down when the speed goes below 260kts.
That would be a very good explanation for the gear up landing (lever down at high speed to increase drag, but gears stay up). Then the alarm priority kept the "too low gear" off until flare, to late to avoid contact...
"If you lower the L/G above 260kts, the L/G Safety valve will prevent the Green HYD from lowering the gear, but the L/G Lever will go down. Now once below 260kts, will the L/G come down on its own? Or does the Lever need to be recycled?"
That's a very good question. If we believe an old FCOM, the lever has to be recycled to get the gear down below 260kts. The valve won't open if the lever just stays down when the speed goes below 260kts.
That would be a very good explanation for the gear up landing (lever down at high speed to increase drag, but gears stay up). Then the alarm priority kept the "too low gear" off until flare, to late to avoid contact...
Even one warning during an approach is bad enough and suggests that a go-around would be a good idea.
Multiple warnings would surely remove any doubt about continuing to land and are best prioritised and delalt with once a safe flight path has been established and the missed approach procedure complied with.
Fear of loss of face from going around may well have played a part, culturally it may only be acceptable for the senior pilot to decide whether to continue, and unsolicited advice from a junior would be regarded unfavourably. When CRM is really bad it might even cause the senior pilot to feel he has to prove a point and establish his authority.
With engine bypass ratios becoming higher and ground clearance being reduced, has adequate consideration gone into the location of vital components such as pumps, gearbox’s and supply lines ? Whilst space is obviously constrained, having vital systems in a vulnerable position should be avoided.
Fear of loss of face from going around may well have played a part, culturally it may only be acceptable for the senior pilot to decide whether to continue, and unsolicited advice from a junior would be regarded unfavourably. When CRM is really bad it might even cause the senior pilot to feel he has to prove a point and establish his authority.
With engine bypass ratios becoming higher and ground clearance being reduced, has adequate consideration gone into the location of vital components such as pumps, gearbox’s and supply lines ? Whilst space is obviously constrained, having vital systems in a vulnerable position should be avoided.
presumptive design is typically based on historical experience. Things to do with oil loss or maintenance errors are mitigated by placing the gearbox and other accessories under the engine.
Severe pod scrapes followed by continued flight are relatively rare in comparison
Interesting scenario. But they surely would not get three greens?
That being sais in the confusion they might also have missed that cue
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, even with the Gear Up they would get the ECAM WHEEL PAGE at 800ft on the Lower Ecam along with six Red Triangles to show wheels up.
It would mean no Landing Checks carried out either.
In the Circumstances, although all this seems remote it could just happen.
While the reasons for the ground contact in the case of the Smartlynx accident were indeed very different, I think you will find that the causes for the dual engine failure after the ground scrape will be very similar, most likely mechanical damage to the AGB and the consequent loss of engine oil. I would consider it very relevant to the accident under discussion.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's accurate if the main event is considered to have been the EFCS pitch control failure. If with main event you mean the wheels in transit ground contact, then the report makes it quite clear that the EFCS failure led to the crew failing to control pitch proparly for 36 seconds as they didn't understand at all that pitch was in manual reversion through the THS control with the trim wheel. The report also speculates (altough doesn not test that hypothesis) that ground contact would still have been avoided without the unexplained selection of idle thrust for 4 seconds before the ground contact.
None of that probably has anything to do with the thread accident, but it's important to note that a “technical issue” was not even close to the only cause of the Tallinn accident you linked.
None of that probably has anything to do with the thread accident, but it's important to note that a “technical issue” was not even close to the only cause of the Tallinn accident you linked.
TR