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 6th Jun 2020, 23:25
  #1081 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: in the sky
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
well just because there wasnt any technical issue to report to operators of airbus doesnt mean there wasnt anything wrong with the aircraft specific just to keep in mind.When will the cvr recordings be public?
mothergoose1 is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2020, 01:48
  #1082 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
According to this ARY News report the CVR and FDR will be sent back to Pakistan in a few hours with the head of the investigating team.

Blackbox decoded, all data of flight PK-8303 submitted to Pakistan by French experts


Salah Uddin On Jun 6, 2020 Last updated Jun 6, 2020

KARACHI: Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) plane crash investigations have hit another milestone after french experts submitted decoded blackbox data of the ill-fated flight PK-8303 to Pakistan, ARY News reported on Saturday.

Along with the black box, flight data recorder and cock-pit voice recorder were also handed over to the head of Pakistan’s investigative party on the national tragedy.

Head of the investigation board, Air Commodore Usman Ghani is set to arrive with the data from Frankfurt, Germany.

Ghani is set to arrive back to the country tomorrow, June 7 via flight PK-8734 from Frankfurt to Islamabad, he is set to arrive the same day, tentatively by 10pm, revealed sources.

On the other hand, the Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) and Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) technical teams have failed to pull out the engine and the landing gear of the crashed PK-8303 aircraft for further investigations.

The teams consisting of technical experts remained unsuccessful in pulling out the engine present inside a dilapidated residential building after 14 days since the crash.


https://arynews.tv/en/all-data-of-fl...d-to-pakistan/
Airbubba is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2020, 03:36
  #1083 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Paisley, Florida USA
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by mothergoose1
well just because there wasnt any technical issue to report to operators of airbus doesnt mean there wasnt anything wrong with the aircraft specific just to keep in mind.When will the cvr recordings be public?
The CVR recordings will probably never be made public, but we can hope that a true transcript of the CVR will be made available to the public. We can hope, but that may not happen. As far as I know, the true transcript of the CVR of the Ethiopian B-737 crash of last year has not yet been made public. What I have seen thus far (I may have missed the release of the true transcript) is merely a summary narration of the CVR of the Ethiopian crash. Of course we can hope for better from PIA and Pakistan.
capngrog is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2020, 04:20
  #1084 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Sky
Age: 32
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by neilki
no. It’s a basic committed to memory limitation. Every rated airbus pilot should know the dozens of limitations cold.. Pro pilot 101
tbh its not a memory item, its a QRH item. It'll direct you to that limitation as you'll never reach that speed in normal ops... and it isnt death or life.
Selfmade92 is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2020, 05:21
  #1085 (permalink)  

de minimus non curat lex
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: sunny troon
Posts: 1,489
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Mac the Knife
A normal fit person who has had a (usually copious) meal at, let's say 22;00 and six hours of good sleep will NOT be hypoglycemic when they wake up. Their blood glucose should be towards the low end of normal and will actually rise somewhat as they get busy. The body has plenty of glycogen reserves in the liver and muscles. If they continue to fast they may get thirsty after a few hours, but that'll do them no harm. I reckon that it would be at least 36 hrs before their blood glucose started to fall to such degree that they cannot fly a modern aircraft safely. They'd certainly be hungry.

I certainly done gigs like that and never felt faint, though you can't keep sharp indefinitely!

In an open boat, three days without any water, three weeks without any food is about the human limit

So I don't take that Ramadan stuff seriously, unless they were complete wimps.

Crusty Mac
What are your thoughts that dehydration might “cloud one’s judgement” and be a factor in this tragic crash?
parkfell is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2020, 10:07
  #1086 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: on a blue balloon
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The Airbus AIT didn't use the word "technical".
oldchina is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2020, 11:08
  #1087 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Feet on the rudder pedals
Age: 60
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by parkfell
Probably designed to cope with a FLAP UP/ ZERO landing at max landing mass....?
That could be an explaination. On the A330 tire speed limitation and the speed you have to fly to when doing a flap-in landing (VRF + 50) exactly match when coming back after a MTOW take-off : 204 kts.
homebuilt is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2020, 11:34
  #1088 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Feet on the rudder pedals
Age: 60
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mac the Knife
A normal fit person who has had a (usually copious) meal at, let's say 22;00 and six hours of good sleep will NOT be hypoglycemic when they wake up. Their blood glucose should be towards the low end of normal and will actually rise somewhat as they get busy. The body has plenty of glycogen reserves in the liver and muscles. If they continue to fast they may get thirsty after a few hours, but that'll do them no harm. I reckon that it would be at least 36 hrs before their blood glucose started to fall to such degree that they cannot fly a modern aircraft safely. They'd certainly be hungry.

I certainly done gigs like that and never felt faint, though you can't keep sharp indefinitely!

In an open boat, three days without any water, three weeks without any food is about the human limit

So I don't take that Ramadan stuff seriously, unless they were complete wimps.

Crusty Mac
I don't challenge what the surgeon you are say about body and brain function in case of fast, but please keep in mind the crash occured circa 2h30' PM, on a warm day (40°C). When flying with "my" african trainees as I spoke about earlier, I really saw the difference after the muslim guy gave up fasting. A friend of mine flew for a while with Etihad some years ago and he told me the figures were very straightforward : during Ramadan, only expats were flying.
homebuilt is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2020, 13:55
  #1089 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: France
Age: 70
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by oldchina
The Airbus AIT didn't use the word "technical".
Indeed. Pretty obviously the immediate cause of the crash was "technical": extensive damage to both engines during the earlier go-around........ a technical issue if ever there was one (and which will at least have techie folks looking at anything that could be done differently in engine design, even in these bizarre circumstances).

Airbus merely indicated that they had no immediate safely recommendations to make: ie, there's no bit of kit airlines, engineers and crew need to be looking at right now on any Airbus a/c.
Gary Brown is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2020, 14:35
  #1090 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: In front of a computer
Posts: 2,399
Received 148 Likes on 67 Posts
I sincerely hope the authorities release at least a CVR transcript as I'm aghast at how this accident appears to have occurred. Having had the benefit of over 30 years multi-crew training over the period of CRM/NASA team skills I felt I was equipped to avoid this scenario.
Just what was being discussed during this approach is going to be "interesting" I think.
ETOPS is online now  
Old 7th Jun 2020, 15:03
  #1091 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Here 'n' there!
Posts: 613
Received 25 Likes on 16 Posts
Originally Posted by AGBagb
Indeed. Pretty obviously the immediate cause of the 2nd crash was "technical": extensive damage to both engines during the earlier go-around........ a technical issue if ever there was one (and which will at least have techie folks looking at anything that could be done differently in engine design, even in these bizarre circumstances).....................
There! Fixed if for ya AGBagb!

Seriously, with hindsight, a real shame they managed to fly it out of the first "crash" which may have happened just before/just after the go-around was initiated - we'll find out IDC I guess. So the first "crash" seems likely, from what's been said so far, to be non-technically-induced and may have had a far higher survival rate had it played out to a stop on the ground. We await the Report of course for that.

As for the second "crash", and what could be done about it, I should think that risk will already have featured in Hazard Analysis work over many generations of engine designs and will probably be largely unaffected by this. If something is predicted to be once in gazillion flight hours, and it finally happens, means it's still a "once in gazilion flight hours" event. In theory, we'd not see this again for a gazillion hours. If folks were skating along runways on engine pods and getting airborne again on a weekly (or even a 10-yearly basis), then of course that means the initial likelyhood was underestimated so the probability would have to be increased. But that does not seem to be the case here.

Of course, it will be noted but I doubt it will change the design given the probability attributed to it will not change radically, if at all, and it's criticality will have been well known anyway. I'm sure the effects of that particular Hazard (sliding along on the pods) are well documented - but probably looking at the far, far more likely scenario of what would happen to the ancillaries and what risks they present (such as being a fire initiation source) during the slide-out to a stop aka Emirates at Dubai in 2016.

What a dreadful mess. H 'n' H
Hot 'n' High is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2020, 15:33
  #1092 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Korea
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ETOPS
I sincerely hope the authorities release at least a CVR transcript
There should not be any universe, however hypothetical, in which they could refuse to do so.
Euclideanplane is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2020, 15:42
  #1093 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 448
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Euclideanplane
There should not be any universe, however hypothetical, in which they could refuse to do so.

There has been few instances where only a transcript [usually edited for brevity] was released.Not the audio recording.
CodyBlade is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2020, 16:08
  #1094 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Korea
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by CodyBlade
There has been few instances where only a transcript [usually edited for brevity] was released.Not the audio recording.
If the actual audio on the CVR gets leaked, or an excerpt of it, that would seem unusual. But the information available on the recorder up until the initial landing attempt seems extremely valuable to gain insight into why missing TOD, not following the instructions from ATC, not lowering L/G(?), ignoring Master Caution, going in way over fast. As well as speaking to the mindsets of the pilots once they realize that something is wrong and they decide on G/A, and finally(?) on getting the L/G down after all. It is this whole story that we are currently missing.
Euclideanplane is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2020, 17:58
  #1095 (permalink)  
PJ2
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: BC
Age: 76
Posts: 2,486
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Euclideanplane
If the actual audio on the CVR gets leaked, or an excerpt of it, that would seem unusual. But the information available on the recorder up until the initial landing attempt seems extremely valuable to gain insight into why missing TOD, not following the instructions from ATC, not lowering L/G(?), ignoring Master Caution, going in way over fast. As well as speaking to the mindsets of the pilots once they realize that something is wrong and they decide on G/A, and finally(?) on getting the L/G down after all. It is this whole story that we are currently missing.
FOQA/FDM data typically shows a very low non-stable approach to go-around ratio. Despite the data being presented to pilots and management/training alike, breaking through this phenomena has proven difficult. Having flown for a major airline for 35 years I understand what might be viewed as the "reluctance" to go-around, particularly if the approach is trending towards stable and one has a clear outcome in mind. But separating those kinds of approaches in the data from ones that truly were a mess (and a crew contact) and in which a go-around was mandatory but which was not executed, is a stubborn, continuing issue within the industry.

This link has been posted before, but here it is again: https://flightsafety.org/wp-content/...tudy_final.pdf
PJ2 is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2020, 17:59
  #1096 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,411
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 1 Post
They not only missed the TOD considering that the overspeed warning was on through out I am not sure if they even activated approach. Not that it would have made much difference but at least the thrust if in Auto would have remained at idle through out with appropriate speed target.
vilas is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2020, 18:19
  #1097 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting not home
Age: 46
Posts: 4,324
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by PJ2
FOQA/FDM data typically shows a very low non-stable approach to go-around ratio.
PJ2: saying there'd be very few non-stable approaches but a great number of go-arounds recorded, or the opposite?
FlightDetent is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2020, 19:54
  #1098 (permalink)  
PJ2
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: BC
Age: 76
Posts: 2,486
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by FlightDetent
PJ2: saying there'd be very few non-stable approaches but a great number of go-arounds recorded, or the opposite?
Yeah, confusing once I re-read it - "very low go-around rate for the number of non-stabilized approaches indicated in the data", is what I meant to convey.
PJ2 is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2020, 20:04
  #1099 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: France
Age: 70
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Hot 'n' High
There! Fixed if for ya AGBagb!

Seriously, with hindsight, a real shame they managed to fly it out of the first "crash" which may have happened just before/just after the go-around was initiated - we'll find out IDC I guess. So the first "crash" seems likely, from what's been said so far, to be non-technically-induced and may have had a far higher survival rate had it played out to a stop on the ground. We await the Report of course for that.

As for the second "crash", and what could be done about it, I should think that risk will already have featured in Hazard Analysis work over many generations of engine designs and will probably be largely unaffected by this. If something is predicted to be once in gazillion flight hours, and it finally happens, means it's still a "once in gazilion flight hours" event. In theory, we'd not see this again for a gazillion hours. If folks were skating along runways on engine pods and getting airborne again on a weekly (or even a 10-yearly basis), then of course that means the initial likelyhood was underestimated so the probability would have to be increased. But that does not seem to be the case here.

Of course, it will be noted but I doubt it will change the design given the probability attributed to it will not change radically, if at all, and it's criticality will have been well known anyway. I'm sure the effects of that particular Hazard (sliding along on the pods) are well documented - but probably looking at the far, far more likely scenario of what would happen to the ancillaries and what risks they present (such as being a fire initiation source) during the slide-out to a stop aka Emirates at Dubai in 2016.

What a dreadful mess. H 'n' H
Interesting. I hadn't really thought of the "what if they had just plunked it hard down first time round" question. One to think about; though far beyond my paygrade, such as it is. And, as far beyond my paygrade but in a different direction, a couple of long-time forum members, engineering types, early in the thread drew attention to the lower tubing layout in these particular engines rendering them especially "sensitive" to this horribly hard scrape. If that's the case - not my paygrade, excuse my ignorance.... - good folks will be looking at the issue.

It's one of the things I love about the aviation community - there's always someone who will be saying, Hmmm - is there anything I could do to stop those cheese-holes lining up quite like this next time?
Gary Brown is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2020, 20:18
  #1100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by AGBagb
Interesting. I hadn't really thought of the "what if they had just plunked it hard down first time round" question. One to think about; though far beyond my paygrade, such as it is.
A former colleague who was along for the ride when Pan Am did a 737 gear up touch and go in Berlin is convinced in that case that they would have ended up in a fireball at the train station off the end of the runway. Pan Am limped it around the pattern and got it stopped. It was towed into the hangar and fixed without much official documentation according to crew bus oral tradition.

See: https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/...l#post10788234
Airbubba 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.