PIA A320 Crash Karachi
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 303
Originally Posted by DIBO
Join Date: May 2019
Location: UK
Posts: 12
Originally Posted by 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?
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: same planet as yours
Posts: 274
Originally Posted by andrasz
I think the image on AVH is not from today, it is inconsistent with the images from PlaneSpottersPK.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Middle East
Posts: 398
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: under a stone
Posts: 20
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: same planet as yours
Posts: 274
Originally Posted by Maninthebar
Image on AVH shows much reduced black marks on engines and gear down, unclear what sequence the images occur in.
So AVHerald, do us a favour and remove the fake news.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Oz
Posts: 752
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Blighty (Nth. Downs)
Age: 74
Posts: 2,094
Originally Posted by 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?
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?
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.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Middle East
Posts: 398
Originally Posted by PoppaJo
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.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Near the coast
Posts: 1,830
Chris Scott
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
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
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Thailand
Posts: 455
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
