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 31st May 2020, 02:31
  #921 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Here and there
Posts: 360
I think the industry is on its way to addressing the decreasing/degrading skill problem - certainly simulator curricula are increasingly providing this.
I don't share your optimism. While the more enlightened operators may slip in a couple of hand flown ILS just for the record and to keep their regulator happy, the usual suspects will continue with their full automation and the occasional hairy dirty dive at the runway once the autopilot is disengaged.
Judd is offline  
Old 31st May 2020, 05:37
  #922 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 860
#924 by lederhosen is an excellent post and just about sums it up. I think we’ve covered all the possibilities in the past 900+ postings and the investigators report isn’t going to be a total surprise. It will likely be very similar to one or a combination of scenarios that have already been put forward, we just don’t know which at the moment.

I put forward a couple of ideas and others came up with different ones, almost all of which were equally if not more plausible.

The report is unlikely to show that the crew found a brand new way to crash an aircraft which had never been tried before, but will leave us shaking our heads as to how they deviated so far from expected norms. Significant failings in major operational areas are likely to be exposed as well.
krismiler is offline  
Old 31st May 2020, 05:50
  #923 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Lahore
Posts: 2
Hi,
Late to the thread, but just to give some insight, there are multiple CCTV cameras located as Karachi airport that are placed at the stands, it is possible that one of them has the runway in the background and may have captured the first approach. However, the footage is confidential and most probably won't be released.
I myself am a cadet based in Pakistan, and we see frequent violation of SOPs, both at GA level and at airline level. However it still baffles me that they decided to continue without gear down. I've always discussed that there still isn't any actual footage that confirms that they were gear up when approaching. Thus, is it possible they raised the gear prematurely after the go around 10-20 feet AGL, and the aircraft sinked due to TOGA activating a few seconds later? Karachi weather was hot and humid at the time, with very low air pressure. If someone has hypothesized this before, I'm sorry must've missed it.
iTechno8 is offline  
Old 31st May 2020, 06:13
  #924 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Used to be the Beer Store, now the dépanneur
Posts: 112
From the harvested data on this thread so far, I am very curious to know what kind of site-picture was in the minds of both pilots from short final, through the flare, and into touchdown during the first attempt. I want to understand what level of alleged task saturation, target fixation, cultural predisposition, or other cognitive deficit will allow 2 minds to accept the front view, given the energy parameters being suggested so far in this thread.
Smurfjet is offline  
Old 31st May 2020, 06:53
  #925 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: 900m
Posts: 1
Warnings

In another life I did maintenance test flights which demanded, on lift off an engine to idle to check some flight guidance items, gear up and then a descent to check emergency thrust increase etc. Not only did this look awful from the cockpit and the tower (who had been informed in advance) but it set off a barrel load of aural warnings and red indicators.

Even with a meticulous preparation this scenario came as quite a shock - all the warnings from Hell, at the same time. It helps me, in a way to understand the reactions to blatant warnings in this case - and also the 737 Max departures - which were for sure not so planned for.

Warnings have their limitations. Only good procedures and discipline could have kept this crew from deteriorating into the chambers of Hell, where reason and experience no longer work. If there is a lesson here, it is not to get outside the envelope in the first place - and if you do, do everything possible to get back inside it before continuing.
Twitter is offline  
Old 31st May 2020, 08:33
  #926 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,386
Originally Posted by lederhosen View Post
........We have also had some crusty old pros saying that the Airbus flies just like any other aircraft. At one level that is true. But in reality in normal operation it does a lot of the work for you. Which is where we get back to the insidious skill deterioration that automation encourages. Maybe a Corona enforced reduction in flying, plus Airbus skill atrophy.

I agree with the general spirit of your post that I have quoted from. I have also avoided writing any speculation about why this happened.

But come on. The most basic function of every flight is to start descent at a reasonable range from the destination. To slow down and configure in good time. To be fully stable* by 1000' agl, (500' if visual), and to land, or go-around. One cannot blame Airbus or automation dependancy for the pilots' failure to perform this most basic series of operations.


*Which in most definitions means: Fully configured for landing. On speed. On track. On altitude/DME, and Landing checklist completed.
Uplinker is offline  
Old 31st May 2020, 09:33
  #927 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Age: 47
Posts: 1,671
Originally Posted by lederhosen View Post
We have also had some crusty old pros saying that the Airbus flies just like any other aircraft. At one level that is true. But in reality in normal operation it does a lot of the work for you. Which is where we get back to the insidious skill deterioration that automation encourages. Maybe a Corona enforced reduction in flying, plus low blood sugar, plus Airbus skill atrophy lined up the holes in the Swiss cheese. In which case we need to be very careful when we all go flying again.
Crew factors, non compliance with SOPs and energy management are totally irrelevant on aircraft type, considering the specific event. We are not talking about a mismanaged 35 kt crosswind landing which could generate discussions on which is the most badass aircraft for pilots to deal with.
sonicbum is offline  
Old 31st May 2020, 10:36
  #928 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 364
*Which in most definitions means: Fully configured for landing. On speed. On track. On altitude/DME, and Landing checklist completed.
Exactly, from Tiger Moth to C5

And I might add as you look fwd you are satisfied with the site picture in-front for you...
CodyBlade is offline  
Old 31st May 2020, 10:51
  #929 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Leicester
Posts: 36
Originally Posted by MPN11 View Post
AFAIK, conjecture tending towards assumption.
5 words which describe the entire thread!
DaveJ75 is offline  
Old 31st May 2020, 11:04
  #930 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 922
Originally Posted by DaveJ75 View Post
5 words which describe the entire thread!
Sorry, but NO. There is a lot of good and well founded information in this thread. Lots of stuff to think about and more importantly lots of stuff to make one think about one's own mistakes of the past (e.g. regarding descent planning and stabilisation on final) and how we were saved from the same fate.

Last edited by what next; 31st May 2020 at 11:17.
what next is offline  
Old 31st May 2020, 11:23
  #931 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Leicester
Posts: 36
If you were talking about the final report I would agree...
DaveJ75 is offline  
Old 31st May 2020, 11:37
  #932 (permalink)  

de minimus non curat lex
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: sunny troon
Posts: 1,141
Originally Posted by bud leon View Post
I'm sure Peter Burkill would agree with you.

I don't see anyone saying a lesser standard is acceptable due to cultural differences, the problem is thinking that cultural differences by default result in lower safety standards. It's a simplistic way of looking at things.
BA 038 was on a stabilised approach with John Coward flying it. A double engined failure occurred on short final due to an icing issue. One stage of flap was raised and they ‘impacted’ in the vicinity of the threshold.
Both pilots did their initial training at British Aerospace flying college Prestwick.

The Tenerife accident in 1977 at TFN you have referred to was most certainly a CRM / cultural issue.
The Staines accident in 1971 at LHR was again most likely caused by awful CRM issues.
Kegworth was an eye opener where poor SCCM involvement was most definitely a factor. “Swiss Cheese”

The accidents in the 1970’s with ‘western operators’ were a very distinct wake up call where human factors played a significant part. It would be true to say that a great deal of energy has gone into mitigating these threats and minimising the risks.

Look at the BOAC video posted 0242 on 28 May on this thread. Certainty I had a good laugh at this British culture / CRM Style post World War II.
What is important is that flightdeck styles need to enhance flight safety, with evolvement and develop over time as incidents/accidents occur.

If in 50 years time, the new PPRuNers look back to 2020, they will be having a chuckle at our present CRM as well.
Cultures and CRMs issues play their parts invariably in all accidents.

And for the avoidance of doubt, I am been involved in training not only ‘Asian Muslims’ but others of this Faith from the Middle East, and other Faiths as well for the last 30 years.
parkfell is offline  
Old 31st May 2020, 13:09
  #933 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: PLanet Earth
Posts: 819
Originally Posted by DaveJ75 View Post
If you were talking about the final report I would agree...
Are we positive, we are going to see this paper still in this decade?
henra is offline  
Old 31st May 2020, 15:17
  #934 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 328
Originally Posted by Nightstop View Post
Axel-Flo:

Secondly, the most effective method of losing altitude with reduced track miles is to keep the speed high, aircraft clean as long as possible to as low as possible, and then decelerate rapidly in level flight using Speedbrake, Gear and then flaps. So, if terrain, ATC and Company SOP permits the method would be selected MMO/VMO clean to 3000’ (say), activate Approach Phase, Managed speed then Speedbrake, Gear, Flaps. Use selected speed during deceleration according to taste.
That is completely wrong. You need gradient - not rate of descent.
Hold level to kill the speed using airbrake.
Drop droop, flaps and gear and resume the descent at the lowest approach speed.

A slippery aircraft like e.g the 757 will not decelerate nose down. I used to think it worthwhile to devote some time on the sim course to demonstrating that even being 400' too high at the outer marker with only 20 flap you could rescue the situation by holding level to drop everything and then resuming to be in the slot by 500'
Once in a Vanguard diverting from Heathrow over central London at FL100, Approach said the RVR on what was then 28L had gone to the magic (Cat 1) 600m and if we were interested we would be No 1.
By using the above technique we made it straight in as the first to land that morning.

scotbill is offline  
Old 31st May 2020, 15:28
  #935 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: FinalApproach
Age: 39
Posts: 95
Originally Posted by scotbill View Post
That is completely wrong. You need gradient - not rate of descent.
Hold level to kill the speed using airbrake.
Drop droop, flaps and gear and resume the descent at the lowest approach speed.

A slippery aircraft like e.g the 757 will not decelerate nose down. I used to think it worthwhile to devote some time on the sim course to demonstrating that even being 400' too high at the outer marker with only 20 flap you could rescue the situation by holding level to drop everything and then resuming to be in the slot by 500'
Once in a Vanguard diverting from Heathrow over central London at FL100, Approach said the RVR on what was then 28L had gone to the magic (Cat 1) 600m and if we were interested we would be No 1.
By using the above technique we made it straight in as the first to land that morning.
Both you and Nightstop are right. Depends how far are you from the airport. You can't slow down flaps, gear down 100miles from field even if you are 4,000ft or above higher.
Mgggpilot is offline  
Old 31st May 2020, 15:42
  #936 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,187
Originally Posted by Mgggpilot View Post
Both you and Nightstop are right. Depends how far are you from the airport. You can't slow down flaps, gear down 100miles from field even if you are 4,000ft or above higher.
Agreed. In the Caribbean we used to get handed off at FL280....60 miles from the airport, arriving from the NW and landing to the east. Full speed brakes and high speed until several thousand feet (7,000?) on the approach, then slow to configure as necessary. If you acted quickly, and aggressively, you could do it without too much trouble. The meek compounded the problem.
misd-agin is offline  
Old 31st May 2020, 16:20
  #937 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Mid-central South of England
Posts: 189
IMI

so please accept that what I suggested (and Nightstop was so quick to condemn) wasn’t a suggestion of normality at all. However, had one missed TOD, or at 10,000ft and reportedly 250 Krs +/-, Was there a profile that could have been flown to put a crew back in the “SAC” to fly either the ILS or a visual approach to the runway that didn’t result I. Threshold crossing speed of >200Kts, and not full flap and gear down?🤔
Axel-Flo is offline  
Old 31st May 2020, 16:59
  #938 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 328
Mgggpilot

You do not have a problem 100 miles from the airport!

I have been held at FL 280 by Italian ATC till 35 miles from the airport at Bari. But it was a Trident with reverse available in flight and we were able to join comfortably downwind.
scotbill is offline  
Old 31st May 2020, 17:19
  #939 (permalink)  

de minimus non curat lex
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: sunny troon
Posts: 1,141
Originally Posted by scotbill View Post
Mgggpilot

You do not have a problem 100 miles from the airport!

I have been held at FL 280 by Italian ATC till 35 miles from the airport at Bari. But it was a Trident with reverse available in flight and we were able to join comfortably downwind.
ROD ? In reverse centre engine...
parkfell is offline  
Old 31st May 2020, 18:25
  #940 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Fleet.UK
Posts: 10
Trident , a lovely, but uneconomical aircraft .Seem to remember 10000 hp rpm on center for a/conditioning reverse on 1/3 350/365kt descent circa 16000fpm.
Useful if pushed but far from normal Ops.
More useful , the ability to descend and decelerate at the same time.
With respect to the PIA issue under discussion the 1000' gate should have given any 'professional' pilot the information he/she/it needed to make a sensible decision.
Paranoid 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.