PIA A320 Crash Karachi
Join Date: May 2018
Location: BCN
Posts: 16
Originally Posted by Winemaker
But the reversers won't activate until weight on wheels?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,019
Originally Posted by simple9
Still an ECAM will show up. It sometimes happens after flare if you're too quickly using reverse. It disappears inein lthan half a second (when it senses WOW).I've seen it a few times and never had the chance to fully read the ecam title.
ENG 1(2) REV SWITCH FAULT
ENG 1(2) REVERSER FAULT
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Itinerant
Posts: 725
Originally Posted by Check Airman
I'm guessing it's one of these.
ENG 1(2) REV SWITCH FAULT
ENG 1(2) REVERSER FAULT
ENG 1(2) REV SWITCH FAULT
ENG 1(2) REVERSER FAULT
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: victoria bc
Age: 78
Posts: 36
You have to wonder if this was not the first rodeo for this crew. The only way anyone could be
“ comfortable” in those circumstances would be from experience you don’t get by straightening up and flying right. There may be much more to this story than what is on those recorders.
“ comfortable” in those circumstances would be from experience you don’t get by straightening up and flying right. There may be much more to this story than what is on those recorders.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 61
Posts: 5,627
Question for those who fly the A320.
I note this.
They were likely startled by the loss of the engines, and they did not have much altitude to play with. (Much earlier in the thread we see a video clip as the plane goes down, with the nose up and wheels down as they reached the tragic end).
My question: with the gear up (in other words, had they left the gear up for longer once the engines were done) was there any chance that the aircraft would have reached the field rather than coming down in the residential area "1340 meters short from frunway 25L"?
(Yes, I do realize that landing on the engines with the wheels up poses other risks, and I am not sure how long it takes a startled crew to get the wheels down with most of the systems gone off line).
Ever since Sully's landing in the Hudson River I would hope that, now and again, crews are tested in the sims against a loss of both engines not too far from the ground (a few thousand feet) to see what the plane does and how far it can "stretch" with the engines gone.
Yes, that's the old training officer in me thinking through crew training. I ask because I don't know what gets thrown at A320 crews during sim sessions, and what the general feel is on how far one can 'stretch' a dead engines glide before one must commit to putting it down.
EDIT: I see a comment from 1549 thread that
but I don't think you get all that unless you are going straight in. I think they had to turn back, or turn some amount, to get there once the engines stopped, since they were heading back for another approach ...
I note this.
(l) The aircraft crashed about 1340 meters short from runway 25L. It was a slow speed impact with high angle of attack, with aircraft configuration indicating landing gears extended, slats at step / position 1, and flaps retracted. The said configuration was ascertained and documented from the wreckage at the crash site (as the FDR data recording had stopped earlier).
My question: with the gear up (in other words, had they left the gear up for longer once the engines were done) was there any chance that the aircraft would have reached the field rather than coming down in the residential area "1340 meters short from frunway 25L"?
(Yes, I do realize that landing on the engines with the wheels up poses other risks, and I am not sure how long it takes a startled crew to get the wheels down with most of the systems gone off line).
Ever since Sully's landing in the Hudson River I would hope that, now and again, crews are tested in the sims against a loss of both engines not too far from the ground (a few thousand feet) to see what the plane does and how far it can "stretch" with the engines gone.
Yes, that's the old training officer in me thinking through crew training. I ask because I don't know what gets thrown at A320 crews during sim sessions, and what the general feel is on how far one can 'stretch' a dead engines glide before one must commit to putting it down.
EDIT: I see a comment from 1549 thread that
glide ratio should be about 18:1, or slightly better. For every 1000' of altitude you can go 3 n.m.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 25th Jun 2020 at 03:34.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 65
Posts: 3,131
Originally Posted by Check Airman
On the 320, the RAT can be used to power a backup generator via a hydraulic pump.
I know on the 757/767 they added hydraulic generator - but that wasn't basic, it was part of the (optional) ETOPS package. They battery was supposed to be good for 30 minutes (only powering critical systems) which was basically as long as you could realistically glide after an all engine power loss. The hydraulic generator was for case where you lost main bus electrical power but the engines were still running (I don't think it could operate off the RAT, but I'm not positive). RAT hydraulic power is pretty limited...
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 135
Hi Tdracer,
The rat is basic on A320, not optional. It’s a no go item if the RAT is inop.
It will deploy automatically if AC Buses 1 and 2 are lost. Can also be deployed manually.
For Hydraulic issue, the RAT must be deployed manually. No auto extension.
The rat is basic on A320, not optional. It’s a no go item if the RAT is inop.
It will deploy automatically if AC Buses 1 and 2 are lost. Can also be deployed manually.
For Hydraulic issue, the RAT must be deployed manually. No auto extension.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 2,829
Originally Posted by tdracer
Just curious - but is that basic (and automatic) on the A320?
I know on the 757/767 they added hydraulic generator - but that wasn't basic, it was part of the (optional) ETOPS package. They battery was supposed to be good for 30 minutes (only powering critical systems) which was basically as long as you could realistically glide after an all engine power loss. The hydraulic generator was for case where you lost main bus electrical power but the engines were still running (I don't think it could operate off the RAT, but I'm not positive). RAT hydraulic power is pretty limited...
I know on the 757/767 they added hydraulic generator - but that wasn't basic, it was part of the (optional) ETOPS package. They battery was supposed to be good for 30 minutes (only powering critical systems) which was basically as long as you could realistically glide after an all engine power loss. The hydraulic generator was for case where you lost main bus electrical power but the engines were still running (I don't think it could operate off the RAT, but I'm not positive). RAT hydraulic power is pretty limited...
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 65
Posts: 3,131
Originally Posted by pineteam
Hi Tdracer,
The rat is basic on A320, not optional. It’s a no go item if the RAT is inop.
It will deploy automatically if AC Buses 1 and 2 are lost. Can also be deployed manually.
For Hydraulic issue, the RAT must be deployed manually. No auto extension.
The rat is basic on A320, not optional. It’s a no go item if the RAT is inop.
It will deploy automatically if AC Buses 1 and 2 are lost. Can also be deployed manually.
For Hydraulic issue, the RAT must be deployed manually. No auto extension.
I was specifically asking about the hydraulic generator.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 2,829
Originally Posted by tdracer
Sorry, I wasn't clear - I know the RAT is basic (as it is on everything Boeing currently builds except the 737 - which can be flown without any hydraulics if you need to).
I was specifically asking about the hydraulic generator.
I was specifically asking about the hydraulic generator.
Last edited by vilas; 25th Jun 2020 at 09:07.
de minimus non curat lex
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: sunny troon
Posts: 1,348
Originally Posted by Superpilot
Pakistan media now getting into a frenzy about fake licenses with one minister claiming up to 40% of the pilots have fake qualifications. 
Doing a great job to get the airline banned from landing anywhere in the Western hemisphere.
Doing a great job to get the airline banned from landing anywhere in the Western hemisphere.I assume their civil written exams are equivalent to the FAA/EASA hoop jumping exercises. So the licences are genuine licences issued by their CAA although the qualifying requirements were not met.
Perhaps someone can confirm the actual process?
edit: Now updated news that the exams were written by ‘others’ as well. So licences revoked.
PIA were banned from EU airspace in March 2007 on safety grounds due to an old aircraft fleet, apart from their B.777s. A partial lifting occurred four months later, and the ban was eventually lifted in the November following a final EU safety audit.
Last edited by parkfell; 25th Jun 2020 at 14:34. Reason: Updated news: licences revoked
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 868
This truly is an epic level of incompetence from start to finish. If PIA were not a state airline they would be very worried about their operating licence being taken away. There is however a tried and tested method for responding to these kind of situations as demonstrated with Korean. In their case flight operations expertise was parachuted in from Delta and the operating culture was addressed, with a marked improvement in safety. Imran Khan is a smart (Oxford educated) leader. I am sure someone will point him in the right direction. They have some links to Air Canada for example so maybe that would be somewhere to look for help. The Pakistan cricket team (Imran was one of their greatest players) has had foreign coaches so the concept should be familiar.
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Sudbury, Suffolk
Posts: 188
Originally Posted by ferry pilot
You have to wonder if this was not the first rodeo for this crew. The only way anyone could be
“ comfortable” in those circumstances would be from experience you don’t get by straightening up and flying right. There may be much more to this story than what is on those recorders.
“ comfortable” in those circumstances would be from experience you don’t get by straightening up and flying right. There may be much more to this story than what is on those recorders.
ATC were aware of abnormalities - was their intervention also routine, something that happens every day?
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: France
Age: 67
Posts: 114
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50
Question for those who fly the A320.
I note this.
They were likely startled by the loss of the engines, and they did not have much altitude to play with. (Much earlier in the thread we see a video clip as the plane goes down, with the nose up and wheels down as they reached the tragic end).
My question: with the gear up (in other words, had they left the gear up for longer once the engines were done) was there any chance that the aircraft would have reached the field rather than coming down in the residential area "1340 meters short from frunway 25L"?
(Yes, I do realize that landing on the engines with the wheels up poses other risks, and I am not sure how long it takes a startled crew to get the wheels down with most of the systems gone off line).
Ever since Sully's landing in the Hudson River I would hope that, now and again, crews are tested in the sims against a loss of both engines not too far from the ground (a few thousand feet) to see what the plane does and how far it can "stretch" with the engines gone.
Yes, that's the old training officer in me thinking through crew training. I ask because I don't know what gets thrown at A320 crews during sim sessions, and what the general feel is on how far one can 'stretch' a dead engines glide before one must commit to putting it down.
EDIT: I see a comment from 1549 thread that but I don't think you get all that unless you are going straight in. I think they had to turn back, or turn some amount, to get there once the engines stopped, since they were heading back for another approach ...
I note this.
They were likely startled by the loss of the engines, and they did not have much altitude to play with. (Much earlier in the thread we see a video clip as the plane goes down, with the nose up and wheels down as they reached the tragic end).
My question: with the gear up (in other words, had they left the gear up for longer once the engines were done) was there any chance that the aircraft would have reached the field rather than coming down in the residential area "1340 meters short from frunway 25L"?
(Yes, I do realize that landing on the engines with the wheels up poses other risks, and I am not sure how long it takes a startled crew to get the wheels down with most of the systems gone off line).
Ever since Sully's landing in the Hudson River I would hope that, now and again, crews are tested in the sims against a loss of both engines not too far from the ground (a few thousand feet) to see what the plane does and how far it can "stretch" with the engines gone.
Yes, that's the old training officer in me thinking through crew training. I ask because I don't know what gets thrown at A320 crews during sim sessions, and what the general feel is on how far one can 'stretch' a dead engines glide before one must commit to putting it down.
EDIT: I see a comment from 1549 thread that but I don't think you get all that unless you are going straight in. I think they had to turn back, or turn some amount, to get there once the engines stopped, since they were heading back for another approach ...
THUNDERTAILED
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: L200
Posts: 320
These pilots were either drunk, or;
This flying culture is so ingrained at PIA that both of them were completely comfortable with it (as they actually stated), and had got away with such behaviour on a regular basis in the past. From which you can probably deduce that other pilots at PIA behave in a similar fashion, on a regular basis.
This flying culture is so ingrained at PIA that both of them were completely comfortable with it (as they actually stated), and had got away with such behaviour on a regular basis in the past. From which you can probably deduce that other pilots at PIA behave in a similar fashion, on a regular basis.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: FL390
Posts: 87
Originally Posted by Banana Joe
Is it not possible to take over and lock out the other pilot's sidestick by holding the red AP disconnect button on the sidestick?
Join Date: May 2018
Location: BCN
Posts: 16
Originally Posted by Check Airman
I'm guessing it's one of these.
ENG 1(2) REV SWITCH FAULT
ENG 1(2) REVERSER FAULT
ENG 1(2) REV SWITCH FAULT
ENG 1(2) REVERSER FAULT
