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 11th Jun 2020, 23:59
  #1161 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Queensland
Posts: 401
There is a PIA website where at least one post refers to both pilots fasting. Shouldn't be too hard to find. My detailed information or research indicating the reasons why "cultural" matters could have contributed to this accident were removed by the moderator, apparently under "moderator discretion" rather than specific posting rules.
It would be an improvement if posters would avoid an attempt at political correctness re dehydration.

autoflight is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2020, 00:21
  #1162 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,335
Originally Posted by lomapaseo View Post

I'm not trying to be complete here,I'm just trying to understand what you really want. and why.
It's not what I want. It is what the NTSB detailed docket provides for accidents under their jurisdiction. Very full disclosure and transparency.
aterpster is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2020, 01:19
  #1163 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 564
Originally Posted by autoflight View Post
There is a PIA website where at least one post refers to both pilots fasting. Shouldn't be too hard to find. My detailed information or research indicating the reasons why "cultural" matters could have contributed to this accident were removed by the moderator, apparently under "moderator discretion" rather than specific posting rules.
It would be an improvement if posters would avoid an attempt at political correctness re dehydration.
Regarding Fasting, that has been the case for Muslim air crew for many/many years with no reported problems. Why would this one be different?
Longtimer is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2020, 05:22
  #1164 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: 900m
Posts: 0
Because it crashed.
Twitter is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2020, 06:16
  #1165 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Japan
Posts: 848
Originally Posted by Longtimer View Post
Regarding Fasting, that has been the case for Muslim air crew for many/many years with no reported problems. Why would this one be different?
Discussed at length earlier in the thread.
jolihokistix is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2020, 06:29
  #1166 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: 5Y
Posts: 535
Like everything else. Including the observation that everything was discussed earlier in the thread.
double_barrel is online now  
Old 12th Jun 2020, 07:09
  #1167 (permalink)  

de minimus non curat lex
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: sunny troon
Posts: 1,359
As previously mentioned wait for 22 June ~ Interim Report to be published
parkfell is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2020, 07:49
  #1168 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: France
Age: 67
Posts: 124
Originally Posted by aterpster View Post
It's not what I want. It is what the NTSB detailed docket provides for accidents under their jurisdiction. Very full disclosure and transparency.
Though it's worth mentioning, in this general context, that anyone can read the detailed and complete CVR transcript from AF447 many times over, in French or in good translation, and while you can be sure what happened, why it happened will forever remain baffling.
Gary Brown is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2020, 10:00
  #1169 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Feet on the rudder pedals
Age: 57
Posts: 61
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher View Post
As I explained already at the beginning of this thread , TWR controllers cannot issue a Go around instruction for that reason, Once a PIC reports established on the ILS ,he is on his own , It is up to them to manage his approach .TWR Controllers should not interfere unless the runway is blocked or becomes not avail . In addition in many modern Towers you cannot monitor the approach anyway ( too far away )
I know that !! But if I were an ATC controller watching a supposedly routine flight flaring gear up afew feet above the runway, I couldn't help yelling on the radio in order to warn the crew of the situation. "XXXX Go around !!" could be the first sentence coming into my mind. It would be a reflex and meanwhile I wouldn't think about the rules and the lawyers. Time for that later.
homebuilt is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2020, 10:05
  #1170 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Feet on the rudder pedals
Age: 57
Posts: 61
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
While a new tower at OPKC has been planned for several years, the current one (built in 1932) is atop the original terminal, not particularly high, and about 3/4 of the way down the runway from the 25 end (around 2.6 km from the 25L piano keys).
OK. Makes sense. This fact is in my opinion a satisfying reply to my earlier question.
homebuilt is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2020, 10:21
  #1171 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Sudbury, Suffolk
Posts: 194
Originally Posted by homebuilt View Post
I know that !! But if I were an ATC controller watching a supposedly routine flight flaring gear up afew feet above the runway, I couldn't help yelling on the radio in order to warn the crew of the situation. "XXXX Go around !!" could be the first sentence coming into my mind. It would be a reflex and meanwhile I wouldn't think about the rules and the lawyers. Time for that later.
Do we know that the gear were up during the approach? Or did they transit up owing to a botched GA process?

Report will (should) tell but it seems to me that TWR's inaction is unlikely to play a significant part in probable cause
Maninthebar is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2020, 10:38
  #1172 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Originally Posted by parkfell View Post
There would have to be justification to decline an ATC instruction. In this case the aircraft had established on the ILS (albeit grossly not stable) and the Captain was ‘comfortable’ with the situation, despite the circumstances which tragically unfolded.
I am a bit puzzled how that squares with a non-compliance report made by ATC controller, and formal notice sent to PIA regarding. https://www.aviation-accidents.net/w...ht-pk8303-.pdf
donotdespisethesnake is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2020, 10:52
  #1173 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 301
If I were an ATC controller watching a supposedly routine flight flaring gear up afew feet above the runway, I couldn't help yelling on the radio in order to warn the crew of the situation. "XXXX Go around !!" could be the first sentence coming into my mind. It would be a reflex and meanwhile I wouldn't think about the rules and the lawyers. Time for that later.
This is where it gets difficult.
If you were watching a take off, and you saw flames coming from an engine, you would probably tempted to shout "Stop!".
16024 is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2020, 10:56
  #1174 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 563
No Gear, go round would perhaps be a better call. Less likely focussed pilot would ignore the interfering ATC person!
Doctor Cruces is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2020, 11:04
  #1175 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Feet on the rudder pedals
Age: 57
Posts: 61
Originally Posted by Maninthebar View Post
Do we know that the gear were up during the approach? Or did they transit up owing to a botched GA process?

Report will (should) tell but it seems to me that TWR's inaction is unlikely to play a significant part in probable cause
Must have been up at least during flare, since the aircraft made a "scrape and go" on its engines. But true, one has to impatiently wait for a reliable report..
homebuilt is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2020, 11:14
  #1176 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Feet on the rudder pedals
Age: 57
Posts: 61
Smile

Originally Posted by 16024 View Post
This is where it gets difficult.
If you were watching a take off, and you saw flames coming from an engine, you would probably tempted to shout "Stop!".
I suppose I'd reply "no". Flames coming from an engine is what I'd call "a routine sequence in the sims". Furthermore I know how much a rejected take-off is such a marginal maneuver.. But here, were one guy watching an apparently perfect shaped airliner flaring gear up, it would be a far more marginal matter than "simply" an engine belching flames..

But anyway I'm not an ATC controller, and beeing closer to retirement than to CPL-IR course, I've no plans to start a new career..
homebuilt is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2020, 13:42
  #1177 (permalink)  

de minimus non curat lex
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: sunny troon
Posts: 1,359
Originally Posted by donotdespisethesnake View Post
I am a bit puzzled how that squares with a non-compliance report made by ATC controller, and formal notice sent to PIA regarding. https://www.aviation-accidents.net/w...ht-pk8303-.pdf
One of those grey areas where the ultimate decision rests with the pilot, notwithstanding that the approach radar controller knew through experience that the profile was decidedly “iffy”.
The other question is whether a report (MOR?) would have been raised had the tragic events not have occurred?

With the benefit of hindsight approach radar controller should have notified the aerodrome controller that is was decidedly “iffy”
and instructed a Go-Around.
Was he transferred to tower frequency?

A time that you are required to do as you are told might be, for example : “I am instructed by Her Majesty Government to refuse you entry into United Kingdom Airspace. What are your intentions?
Failure to comply would be followed by a QRA by air defence.........
There may well be others......yet to be pointed out
parkfell is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2020, 17:25
  #1178 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Age: 56
Posts: 185
Missed approach instructions

There are criteria in ICAO 4444 which define when an aircraft should be instructed to go around, vs when it should be advised to go around. If the ATCO considers the aircraft is dangerously positioned, then it's an instruction; if he/she considers it to be in a position where a safe approach cannot be completed, then it's advice. Both of those hinge on understanding what the ATCOs involved were able to see, what they could deduce from that information, & of particular note, how much that differed from how they were used to seeing the aircraft fly it's approach. Without understanding how PIA normally fly, & how different this approach was, it's difficult to draw any conclusion as to whether the ATC reaction was appropriate or not.
alfaman is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2020, 17:42
  #1179 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting home
Age: 43
Posts: 3,371
Sorry I did not listen to any of the tapes, have they been issued a landing clearance?
FlightDetent is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2020, 18:32
  #1180 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Originally Posted by alfaman View Post
There are criteria in ICAO 4444 which define when an aircraft should be instructed to go around, vs when it should be advised to go around. If the ATCO considers the aircraft is dangerously positioned, then it's an instruction; if he/she considers it to be in a position where a safe approach cannot be completed, then it's advice. Both of those hinge on understanding what the ATCOs involved were able to see, what they could deduce from that information, & of particular note, how much that differed from how they were used to seeing the aircraft fly it's approach. Without understanding how PIA normally fly, & how different this approach was, it's difficult to draw any conclusion as to whether the ATC reaction was appropriate or not.
Not sure why people are highlighting a go-around request by ATC: none was given in this case so it is hypothetical.

What was given by ATC in this case, were requests to change heading, which was refused by the PIC. This is the subject of the Pakistan CAA notice to PIA, headed "VIOLATION NON-COMPLIANCE OF ATC INSTRUCTIONS BY PIC PIA8303". Clearly at least one person at the CAA felt instructions were given to the PIC which were not followed, when they should have been, regardless of justification or outcome.

Are the Pakistan CAA wrong? I was hoping someone could comment on that discrepancy rather than the hypothetical case.
donotdespisethesnake 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 © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.