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 2nd Jun 2020, 11:40
  #1001 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls ´old Europe´
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by PaulH1
High speed and high altitude aircraft possess an abundance of both Kinetic and Potential energy. As profile drag increases as the square of IAS, then increasing drag (Speedbrakes, etc) at high speed will destroy more energy than it will at lower speeds. Slowing the aircraft down and then using speed brakes will not have as much effect as using the speed brakes at high speed before reducing.
Actually that explenation may not be 100% correct....
Yes, drag increases with the square of IAS, but so does lift. And lift always (+/- a few percent) has to equal weigt, hence you can not vary drag by selecting speed that easily.
However, speed brakes produde the same delta in CD at any speed, but the lower the CL the higher the impact on L/D, and with L being constant this is what finally gives you drag. So at high speed with low CL, the effect of a delta CD is higher than at high CL, which in the end means the same: at high speed and low CL speed brakes are most powerful.

You may however not be allowed to fully deploy them at high speed (or hydraulics may not be able to fully deploy them against the high loads)

Can somebody do the quick math how steep an A320 can dive at the maximum speed at which full spoilers are allowed? More or less than the -15° nose down flight path the envelope protection does allow?
(15° nose down however feels like 45° the first time a non-aerobatic pilot tries it...)
Volume is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2020, 12:37
  #1002 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by parkfell
Next time you have a spare 15 minutes in the simulator try this scenario.
Calm, CAVOK, 80nm NE STN FL370. SCCM just announced uncontained cabin fire.
Straight in STN runway 22......GO....
Standard type rating & upgrade scenario. Followed by Evac. Followed by “new plane, new day” 😁
neilki is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2020, 12:45
  #1003 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Check Airman
Agreed on the utility of 250kt to the marker as a teaching tool. We'd do it every now again in a regional jet, as a demonstration of what the plane could do, and to stay proficient through the entire envelope.
Doesn't that risk violating the Class D 200 KIAS limit at some airports?
aterpster is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2020, 13:32
  #1004 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 1,586
Received 91 Likes on 56 Posts
The A320 is capable of a surprisingly rapid rate of descent if called for. One day, when I was a new F/O on type and new to jets, we received an ATC clearance which required a higher than normal rate of descent from a mid flight level. I knew this was achieved by disconnecting the autopilot, so that full speed brakes could be applied, and selecting a speed just below the barbers pole. This caused the VSI to proceed well into the amber and gave a very good view of the whites of the Captain's eyes. We easily met our ATC requirement.
krismiler is online now  
Old 2nd Jun 2020, 13:59
  #1005 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: 500 miles from Chaikhosi, Yogistan
Posts: 4,333
Received 160 Likes on 77 Posts
Even without SB the 319 gets some pretty interesting angles and rates of descent when empty and cleared to descend when ready, best speed, cancel 250 below 10 to final. Surprised more than one ATC.
compressor stall is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2020, 14:54
  #1006 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,411
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 1 Post
Can somebody do the quick math how steep an A320 can dive at the maximum speed at which full spoilers are allowed? More or less than the -15° nose down flight path the envelope protection does allow?
from FL390 to FL100 it can descend a with speed brakes at .82/350 in 4 mts in 40miles. Average ROD 7000ft/mt. If you are landing straight then it can be done at 250kt gear down then 280kts. It may take a minute extra.
vilas is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2020, 15:02
  #1007 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post

Airbubba is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2020, 15:40
  #1008 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Laredo, TX
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Airbubba
That 'Warp 9 to the marker and configure on the way down' stuff went away a couple of decades ago at most places in the U.S. The subsequent drop in landing accident numbers shows the absolute idiocy of the 'watch this' fools who did it and in some cases taught it.
Idle descent and configuring while descending (some aircraft might require a leveloff) in idle to a 500’ stable gate on a VMC visual approach should still be considered good airmanship.

Last edited by jimtx; 2nd Jun 2020 at 21:27.
jimtx is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2020, 16:10
  #1009 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Class D

Originally Posted by aterpster
Doesn't that risk violating the Class D 200 KIAS limit at some airports?
We hit a few Class C fields, but there’s a limit under a B that’s much easier to blow past....
neilki is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2020, 18:08
  #1010 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
FDR & CVR successfully downloaded by BEA/Pakistan AAIB. Data analysis in progress now:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267868945337499648
QDM360 is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2020, 18:14
  #1011 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Itinerant
Posts: 831
Received 116 Likes on 21 Posts
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
I'm sure somebody who has been reading the thread will be along to explain shortly.
I like DRUK's clever way of admonishing posters who think they have a worthwhile contribution, hence they take time to compose and post, yet they don't think it's worthwhile to ascertain if anyone else has brought up their idea already. I'm not as patient as DRUK (and likely much grumpier) so here are my comments to those who waste everyone's time.

First, why is it so important for you to post if you don't have time to at least scan the 50 pages (or 75, or 100, or whatever) for the topic you are so keen to post about?

Second – and PLEASE pay attention to this – as soon as you have that flash of inspiration and want to contribute something that may change everyone's life (sorry, I told you I was grumpy...) do this: scroll to the top of the page and click on the "Search this Thread" button. Type in "false glideslope" or "fasting" or "alien control" or whatever words summarize the key notion in your prospective post. Bingo! pprune will magically read all 50 pages for you and instantly tell you if someone else has opined on that subject. If not, go ahead and post. Or not.

For what it’s worth, if you do take the time to pour yourself a cuppa, or a glass of whatever pleases you, and peruse the whole thread, you’ll be surprised how often you learn something new and worthwhile.

Grumpy Grizz
grizzled is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2020, 18:51
  #1012 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by QDM360
FDR & CVR successfully downloaded by BEA/Pakistan AAIB. Data analysis in progress now:
Great news for the investigation (we hope).









Airbubba is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2020, 18:57
  #1013 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Yes.
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Superpilot
I've seen a Pakistani pilot mention this on one of his otherwise excellent YouTube analysis videos. I'm afraid it's rubbish. This was a clear day, with good visibility and they would've seen the unusual and crazy angle at which they were approaching the runway from more than 10 miles away. No evidence for it.
Hang on a moment please. What makes you think they may have been looking out the windows? I've seen very experienced crews, a lot with pigmentation issues, flying along with the windows covered with newspapers, to keep the sun rays out!

For me the best instrument is the mark 1 eye ball. The first consideration in airmanship is look out. I think most of us would agree.

Anything is possible, where humans involved.

Last edited by Dan_Brown; 2nd Jun 2020 at 19:59.
Dan_Brown is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2020, 20:13
  #1014 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: grenoble
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Non-compliance of ATC Instructions by PIC PIA8303



Fawad is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2020, 21:18
  #1015 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,569
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
OK I have a question (not a postulation of what did happen)

I noted among all the pictures (this event or otherwise) that landing on the engines tends to at least partially deploy the engine reverser sleeves.

Assuming the sliding forces are large enough t oat least result in an "unlocked state) would this send a signal to the engine FADEC to retard the engine presuming that the gear was not down?

This of course may be in-service model specific
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2020, 21:26
  #1016 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Fawad
Non-compliance of ATC Instructions by PIC PIA8303
Here's an article by ARY News. It reads like it was written by the summer intern with Google Translate.

So far, as suspected. Over the threshold at 210 knots, high on the glide, refused a turn or vectors to get on profile. Even if they put the wheels down on the first try the outcome might have been similar.

The warnings cancelled, they missed lunch, they were tired, they hadn't flown lately and forgot to be stable at 1000 feet, KHI is their home base and they were over confident, society failed them etc. I predict that the litany of excuses will become ever more convoluted as the search for answers continues.

PK-8303 crash: Pilot violated instructions of ATC, says CAA report

Salah Uddin On Jun 2, 2020

KARACHI: The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has released a report regarding ‘violations’ made by pilot of ill-fated
PK-8303 aircraft of Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) which was crashed on May 22, ARY News reported on Tuesday.


The Civil Aviation Authority’s Additional Director Operation sent a letter to the safety department of the national flag-carrier, Pakistan International Airlines (PIA). The copy of the letter was obtained by ARY News which stated that the pilot of the Airbus 320 aircraft did not follow the instruction of the air traffic controller (ATC).

It stated that the altitude of the plane was high at the approach point and the air traffic controller had warned the captain of PK-8303 regarding it. The altitude of the plane was 5,200 feet at the seven nautical miles that is considered high from the approach profile.

The ATC had warned the captain twice and instructed to turn the plane to 180 degrees besides maintaining the required altitude, however, the instructions were completely neglected by the pilot, said the report.

It also stated that the plane fell down to 1,300 feet altitude from 3,500 feet at the four nautical miles, whereas, the speed of the aircraft was more than 250 knots before landing which is also considered high from the required acceleration.

The report was followed by the written response of air traffic controller (ATC) and approach tower controllers which had been submitted to the investigation board on May 26 during the probe of Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) plane, PK-8303, crash incident.

It stated that the approach tower controller had handled the flight from Lahore to Karachi and the task was handed over to the ATC to make the plane safely landed at the airport. The landing task had been given by the approach tower to the ATC after 10 nautical miles.

Later, the captain had asked permission to land once again and informed the control tower that both engines of the aircraft were not working. The plane had been granted permission to land at the left side of runway number 25. According to the ATC and approach tower controller, the captain of the aircraft had been informed them regarding any kind of emergency. The captain had told the air traffic controller that he was calm and he will manage to land the aircraft.

However, the aircraft with more than 90 passengers and eight crew members on board had crashed in a residential area, Model Colony, moments before expected landing at the Karachi’s Jinnah International Airport. Only two passengers had survived the deadly accident.

https://arynews.tv/en/pia-plane-cras...ort-pilot-atc/
Airbubba is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2020, 22:00
  #1017 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 69
Posts: 4,554
Received 323 Likes on 157 Posts
Originally Posted by lomapaseo
OK I have a question (not a postulation of what did happen)

I noted among all the pictures (this event or otherwise) that landing on the engines tends to at least partially deploy the engine reverser sleeves.

Assuming the sliding forces are large enough t oat least result in an "unlocked state) would this send a signal to the engine FADEC to retard the engine presuming that the gear was not down?

This of course may be in-service model specific
Loma, first off I'd be surprised if the reverser moved much - there are locking actuators that shouldn't unlock in the absence of hydraulic pressure. The stowed prox sensors may go 'target far', but the actual reverser movement would be small.
Now, on Boeing, it takes more than 'unlocked' for a thrust cutback - the thrust cutback is based on the FADEC sensed actual reverser position (there is some special logic that comes into play if the sensed position is different between the channels). Typically nothing happens until the reverser is more than 10% from the commanded position. For example, if closed is 0%, thrust cutback will start at 10% and limited to idle at 15% - same thing at the other end between 85% and 90% deployed.
Now, as noted, that's how the Boeing installation works, but I'd be a bit surprised if Airbus is much different.
tdracer is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2020, 23:18
  #1018 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 65
Posts: 7,372
Received 565 Likes on 355 Posts
kit: No interim report so far, so one would not expect that detail to be released until then.
Whether or not it has been leaked someone else might know.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2020, 00:20
  #1019 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by kit344
Has the crew experience and recency been published yet ?
​​​​​
Here's a report from ARY News:




The Aircraft Accident and Investigation Team while investigating various aspects of the air crash, has demanded overall flying record of Captain Sajjad Gul from the Chief Pilot Safety of the Pakistan International Airlines (PIA).

The probe team has inquired about the flying routes of the pilot and also asked about the details of the log book and whether the Captain was observing fast during the flight.

The inquiry team has also asked questions about a Lahore to Karachi flight two days ago, inquiring whether the same pilot had operated a flight on the route two days ago on May 20, sources said. The issue of purported flying fatigue of the pilot also being inquired about, according to sources.

Earlier, Captain Sajjad Gul’s father in a media briefing said that his son had logged in 17,000 hours. He was the only pilot to have completed 1,000 hours in a year and a thorough professional, said the aggrieved father.
On another forum it was claimed that Captain Gul was the senior pilot at PIA. However, often with translations, transliterations, typos and second hand information these primacy claims are often misstated in my observation.

The phrase 'Gul was senior pilot at PIA' might be 'corrected' different ways for example.

The first officer was Usman Azam. I remember reading somewhere, maybe here, that he had thousands of hours but not a lot of time on the A320. Whether this was true or speculation anybody know?
Airbubba is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2020, 01:48
  #1020 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,569
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by tdracer
Loma, first off I'd be surprised if the reverser moved much - there are locking actuators that shouldn't unlock in the absence of hydraulic pressure. The stowed prox sensors may go 'target far', but the actual reverser movement would be small.
Now, on Boeing, it takes more than 'unlocked' for a thrust cutback - the thrust cutback is based on the FADEC sensed actual reverser position (there is some special logic that comes into play if the sensed position is different between the channels). Typically nothing happens until the reverser is more than 10% from the commanded position. For example, if closed is 0%, thrust cutback will start at 10% and limited to idle at 15% - same thing at the other end between 85% and 90% deployed.
Now, as noted, that's how the Boeing installation works, but I'd be a bit surprised if Airbus is much different.
Thanks. It would seem that kind of system must be fast enough to protect if it goes too far. I guess so far in the grainy photos of this event there doesn't seem to be a big enough gap viewable to set off a large effect on the FADEC. However as always I'm never sure about the pedigree of in-serevice older planes in their upgrade history. Of course I'm still wondering about the degree and timing of any loss of thrust in this event since they ran out of options on the last approach
lomapaseo is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.