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 10th Jun 2020, 08:01
  #1121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the comfy chair.
Posts: 170
I imagine the scenario is more a hard landing and bounce at such a high rate of descent, followed by go around and gear up command, then aircraft hits the runway again which explains the scrapes at 4500 and 5500 down the runway.

Can't imagine it happening any other way.
Flying Bagel is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2020, 08:34
  #1122 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 70
Posts: 2,892
I also was thinking exactly that , having seen a couple of times aircraft announcing go around on the R/T before the flare but still touching briefly the runway afterwards. (i.e witnessing tires smoke plumes..)
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2020, 08:44
  #1123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: St. John's Wood
Posts: 295
There is no regulation that says a touchdown after the commencement of a go-around cannot occur.

Any go-around that occurs in the very late stages of an approach to land should be accompanied by an expectation that the aircraft could touchdown.
Abbey Road is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2020, 09:03
  #1124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,302
Originally Posted by Flying Bagel View Post
I imagine the scenario is more a hard landing and bounce at such a high rate of descent, followed by go around and gear up command, then aircraft hits the runway again which explains the scrapes at 4500 and 5500 down the runway.

Can't imagine it happening any other way.
That scenario was discussed, and dismissed, very early in the thread.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2020, 10:03
  #1125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Japan
Posts: 752
Airbubba's post #1001 shows a copy of the ATC report stating that they observed this and that, 'approach, pass, lift'. The very vagueness of the wording suggests that they actually observed very little, if anything at all.
jolihokistix is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2020, 10:15
  #1126 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 70
Posts: 2,892
The letter is based only on the Approach Controller written report and from his location he could not see outside. The Report of the Tower controller is the one I would be interested to see..
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2020, 10:18
  #1127 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 70
Posts: 2,892
Originally Posted by Abbey Road View Post
There is no regulation that says a touchdown after the commencement of a go-around cannot occur.

Any go-around that occurs in the very late stages of an approach to land should be accompanied by an expectation that the aircraft could touchdown.
100% agree . My point was that it is not that unusual and does happen in real life .
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2020, 11:23
  #1128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 2,716
There is no regulation that says a touchdown after the commencement of a go-around cannot occur.
When a go around is initiated at 40 to 50kts higher than Vapp second touchdown should not happen. Back stick and Aircraft will be more than a few hundred feet even without thrust.
vilas is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2020, 11:40
  #1129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 68
Posts: 338
[SLF ... although having some knowledge of aviation law (and....lots of hours, of reading PPRuNe)]
The video from Blancolirio (Euclideanplane #1118) has the gent noting, with not very subtle emphasis, how the R/T included one of the crew saying they were "comfortable" with, or on, the approach profile on which they were proceeding.
Fairly sure that's a non-standard term, "comfortable".
If that's correct, is it a term that nonetheless has cropped up in R/T in previous accidents?
(I'm not speculating at all as to what could have led to usage of that term; it is greatly to be hoped the AAIB will report with compelling thoroughness and conformity to contemporary Annex 13 standards and, expected practices rather than those merely "recommended".)
WillowRun 6-3 is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2020, 12:35
  #1130 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 43
Posts: 218
Originally Posted by Dana Candella View Post
They were lined up for 25L.
Maybe aiming for is a more accurate description...
procede is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2020, 14:36
  #1131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Here 'n' there!
Posts: 453
Originally Posted by WillowRun 6-3 View Post
[SLF ... although having some knowledge of aviation law (and....lots of hours, of reading PPRuNe)] Fairly sure that's a non-standard term, .............................. If that's correct, is it a term that nonetheless has cropped up in R/T in previous accidents?

(I'm not speculating at all as to what could have led to usage of that term........".)
I'd not read much/anything into the use of "comfortable" per se WillowRun. "Standard phraseology" is used to provide unambiguous standard calls during routine events to ensure things aren't missed or misunderstood particularly for key activities (such as clearances and readbacks thereof). When something needs confirmation or things are out of the ordinary, it's quite standard to use normal language to describe/emphasise things. All the Captain appears to be doing is pointing out to ATC that, despite the issue raised by ATC (significantly excess height over range), he is happy/comfortable to continue despite their rather odd position. Either word seems to sum up the Captains feelings.

Interestingly, that second bit of your quote which you put in brackets is actually at the very heart of this matter and is far more important than the actual word used - what on earth possessed an experienced Captain to think/state that they were "comfortable" (or any similar word) in a situation which many on PPRuNe, particularly those who fly pax jets day in and day out, realise was pretty much an impossibility to pull off - as was sadly proved during the first part of this accident when they initially arrived over the runway. The undesirability of their start point is exactly why I chose my moniker on PPRuNe!

Hot 'n' High is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2020, 16:33
  #1132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 2,716
what on earth possessed an experienced Captain to think/state that they were "comfortable" (or any similar word) in a situation which many on PPruNe, particularly those who fly pax jets day in and day out, realise was pretty much an impossibility to pull off
They had lost their situational awareness from a long time all that they needed was a capture of the false glideslope to feel secure and comfortable. The same thing happened on the same date in 2010 in Mangalore in India. The question how can I be on glideslope when I was never on the profile didn't occur to them. PIA accident is even worse in terms of Altitude and speed.
vilas is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2020, 16:36
  #1133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: victoria bc
Age: 78
Posts: 35
There were two pilots. Keeping each other honest when the system is working. Whatever happened here started there.
ferry pilot is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2020, 17:13
  #1134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: Spain and United Kingdom
Posts: 1,787
Originally Posted by vilas View Post
They had lost their situational awareness from a long time all that they needed was a capture of the false glideslope to feel secure and comfortable. The same thing happened on the same date in 2010 in Mangalore in India. The question how can I be on glideslope when I was never on the profile didn't occur to them. PIA accident is even worse in terms of Altitude and speed.
As mentioned in my post 851. QED.
Nightstop is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2020, 19:59
  #1135 (permalink)  
PJ2
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: BC
Age: 73
Posts: 2,452
Originally Posted by WillowRun 6-3 View Post
[SLF ... although having some knowledge of aviation law (and....lots of hours, of reading PPRuNe)]
The video from Blancolirio (Euclideanplane #1118) has the gent noting, with not very subtle emphasis, how the R/T included one of the crew saying they were "comfortable" with, or on, the approach profile on which they were proceeding.
Fairly sure that's a non-standard term, "comfortable".
If that's correct, is it a term that nonetheless has cropped up in R/T in previous accidents?
(I'm not speculating at all as to what could have led to usage of that term; it is greatly to be hoped the AAIB will report with compelling thoroughness and conformity to contemporary Annex 13 standards and, expected practices rather than those merely "recommended".)
Since the AF447 threads, it's always a pleasure to read your contributions, WillowRun.

Re, "comfortable", etc., good question. It's like the phrase I've heard on occasion, "yeah, we'll do all that...", which is peculiar to the U.S. Generally it's not a problem, just like, "we're comfortable" generally isn't. Such responses may creep in in less formal RT environments but they're not recognized as standard. Most of the time it works but it always leaves both sides of the communication potentially mis-understanding one another.

The one accident I can recall as having communications confusion as a primary cause is the Tenerife accident, and maybe the TCAS - mid-air in Germany, (the accident reports can be consulted).

I look forward to the timeline of communications and hope it is sync'd with a CVR transcription.

I do recall that the sudden loss of AF447 and long thread interpreting the cryptic ACARS messages to determine what happened that could result in them being transmitted in the sequence in which they had been sent, (and even that was in question). And then the data indicated a 15deg pitch up at cruise altitude with sidestick input that was held until the stall and almost all the way down.

I know that that's what happened but I still find it difficult to accept that an airline crew could perform this way. But that's what this one is going to be, I think.

PJ2 is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2020, 20:15
  #1136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 944
Originally Posted by PJ2 View Post
Re, "comfortable", etc., good question. It's like the phrase I've heard on occasion, "yeah, we'll do all that...",
Well there is a formal and compliant way to say exactly that and this is "Roger". So what would have been different had they replied in the formal way? It's not what you say, it's what you do that makes the difference.
what next is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2020, 20:53
  #1137 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 70
Posts: 2,892
Re the term "comfortable with." Good discussion. It is not standard phraseology and the problem with all those non-standard expressions is that they are subject to interpretation from both sides.
I cannot remember having heard it directly as a controller in my career but I would interpret it, as: "I know what I am doing" , but perhaps it was meant as, "I think we will be ok "
As a general aviation pilot I have many times heard people using sentences like: "it will be OK" or, "it will pass" more to reassure themselves or convince themselves that they were taking the right decision.

One accident I remember investigating long ago (1993) was the Contactair Dash-8 that crashed short of 28 in CDG. They were on ILS runway 27, which became blocked. The APP controller asked the pilot: "Can you make a side step to the left to the ILS runway 28?" The Captain replied: "Yes of course!"
That reply led the controller to believe the pilot was happy with the suggestion (i.e. avoiding a go-around) and did not gave further instructions/assistance.
In reality it was a complex maneuver, as the threshold of 28 is 2500m ahead of 27. They tried to capture the glide from below but ended crashing 1/2 NM before the threshold.
Lots of discussion at the time about the initial request and the interpretation by the controller of the "Yes of course" . It ended badly for him in court later.
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2020, 21:04
  #1138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 944
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher View Post
... the Captain replied : "Yes of course! " ...but ended crashing 1/2 NM before the threshold.
But again: Had he replied in the correct way saying "Affirm" then the outcome would have been exactly the same. It was not the phraseology that caused this crash but the crew (I happen to have some inside information on this specific accident).
what next is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2020, 21:13
  #1139 (permalink)  
PJ2
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: BC
Age: 73
Posts: 2,452
Here, no difference.
But the point is, in all communications there are always two and "what you do" is based upon a clear understanding of what the other said, even if one does nothing. The controller was both saying something and offering something: "Are you guys ok?, if not, here's a way out". The rest is the captain's decision unless/until the aircraft presents danger to other aircraft.
PJ2 is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2020, 21:36
  #1140 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2020
Location: PA
Posts: 7
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher View Post
The letter is based only on the Approach Controller written report and from his location he could not see outside. The Report of the Tower controller is the one I would be interested to see..
"I saw a very large 200mph blur bouncing down the runway."
LTC8K6 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.