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 25th Jun 2020, 09:26
  #1361 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Neither here or there
Posts: 136
Over familiarization leads to over confidence which leads to these kinds of incidents. In the early 2000s I was on the jump seat of a national carrier into Cyprus from LHR. No radar. The the outbound leg was flown at 340 kts, the turn to final in excess of 250 and we became stable just above 500. Had it not been for the headwind it would've been a go around. Imagine an A330 in the calm of day with no other traffic to be seen going around in a country with a heavy macho culture. That would've been a fun discussion. I'm guessing something similar here too. To go around would've meant an explanation, to land (in the absence of FDM) would guarantee they get away with the mess. Unfortunately, the more than got away!

Last edited by CW247; 25th Jun 2020 at 09:42.
CW247 is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2020, 10:07
  #1362 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Where it is comfortable...
Age: 56
Posts: 737
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50
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...
The crash site is located just 400 metres short of the airport perimeter fence. Even without any performance data I'm reasonably certain that gear up would have given that extra few hundred metres needed to reach flat unobstructed ground even if short of the runway. Not familiar with 320 but on some aircraft models landing gear is almost as effective speed brake as spoilers.
andrasz is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2020, 10:35
  #1363 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Downunder
Posts: 283
The corollary of which, of course, is to ask whether if they had left the u/c down on the first approach, the extra drag would have enabled something akin to a safe landing.
Max Tow is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2020, 12:00
  #1364 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Where it is comfortable...
Age: 56
Posts: 737
Originally Posted by Max Tow View Post
The corollary of which, of course...
Precisely. It is amazing how many opportunities were missed (or worse, willfully disregarded) to save the day.

andrasz is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2020, 12:54
  #1365 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: FL390
Posts: 62
Not familiar with 320 but on some aircraft models landing gear is almost as effective speed brake as spoilers.
Below 200kts the gear is much more efficient than the speedbrakes for slowing the aircraft. I often select gear down before flap 2 because the drag from the doors is remarkably effective (until they close).

Speedbrakes are next to useless at low speeds; the drag is mainly induced due to alpha increase than anything else.
Fursty Ferret is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2020, 13:06
  #1366 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 544
Originally Posted by Capt Kremin View Post
This really has me thinking the answer may be something right out of the box.

Surely no crew could be this incompetent?

Fumes event with both pilots affected?
We are dealing with the first review of the FDR and CVR here, combined into the technical overview known as the initial report.

Fumes are not mentioned anywhere in that report.
Teddy Robinson is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2020, 14:36
  #1367 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Manchester
Posts: 32
The Guardian: Pakistan plane crashed after pilots distracted by coronavirus fears

The pilots of a plane that crashed last month in Pakistan, killing 98 people, were pre-occupied by the coronavirus crisis and tried to land with the aircraft’s wheels still up, according to initial official reports.The preliminary report outlines the flight’s chaotic final minutes and a bizarre series of errors compounded by communication failures with air traffic control.

Investigators found the plane was at more than twice the correct altitude when it first approached the runway, and the tower advised the pilots to circle for a more gradual descent, the report states.

But, instead of going around, the pilots attempted to land anyway - even though they had raised the landing gear.

Air traffic control saw the Airbus A320’s engines scrape the runway with a shower of sparks, but did not tell the cockpit. The badly damaged engines failed as the plane turned to attempt a second landing.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...onavirus-fears
slfool is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2020, 14:44
  #1368 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: India
Age: 82
Posts: 18
Originally Posted by CAEBr View Post
https://www.dawn.com/news/1564911/in...ation-minister

Interesting in the latter part of the report linked above that the interim report says that cabin crew and control tower were also at fault.

Nothing like spreading the blame around.......
The Approach controller who detected and predicted the instability of approach and advised the pilots three times to deviate, needs to be commended. He is the only right thinking player in the whole episode. He needs to be commended on record
mayam13 is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2020, 14:46
  #1369 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: France
Age: 66
Posts: 114
Originally Posted by Teddy Robinson View Post
We are dealing with the first review of the FDR and CVR here, combined into the technical overview known as the initial report.

Fumes are not mentioned anywhere in that report.
I think it's worth emphasising that the Interim Report is very spare on details about the crew and their actions. There is a fair amount tof FDR and ATC derived information, and references to crew communications with ATC. But there is nothing at all derived from the CVR, nor anthing medical about the crew either before or - sadly - after the flight. So apart from ATC transcripts (which may or may not be complete), the only crew-related offcial statement we have is the Aviation Minister saying the crew were in continued and deep conversation about the Coronavirus Pandemic, which distracted them from their proper job (and that is not mentioned at all in the Interim Report). So, on the fumes / stroke / heart attack / blood sugar etc etc speculations we know nothing at all, not directly and not by inference.

As a final contribution to this thread ("We'll have to wait for the Final Report"....or for a CVR leak), can I just draw attention to a slightly - deliberately? - ambiguous remark in the Interim, at 20 (m):

Captain and First Officer were adequately qualified and experienced to undertake the said flight; necessary scrutiny of the aircrew records / documents is under way

That could be read - first phrase - as saying that there's no question of these two crew having fake / dodgy qualifications; or it could be read - second phrase - as saying as yet there's no question.....


Last edited by Gary Brown; 25th Jun 2020 at 20:58. Reason: typos
Gary Brown is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2020, 14:53
  #1370 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 1,839
Originally Posted by mayam13 View Post
The Approach controller who detected and predicted the instability of approach and advised the pilots three times to deviate, needs to be commended. He is the only right thinking player in the whole episode. He needs to be commended on record
Agreed 100%

I donít see how ATC can be blamed at all.
Check Airman is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2020, 15:00
  #1371 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Banksville
Posts: 62
Heaven help me, but as others have suggested, I now wonder if this sort of half-arsed SOP is in fact quite common at PIA, and PIA chaps regularly get away with it, hence no one was too concerned during this obviously ridiculous approach path, and in fact able to discuss Covid, whilst preparing for a landing that would end up killing themselves and most of their passengers.

For me the biggest question is why the gear was retracted.....
Joejosh999 is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2020, 15:18
  #1372 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Laredo, TX
Posts: 121
Originally Posted by CW247 View Post
Over familiarization leads to over confidence which leads to these kinds of incidents. In the early 2000s I was on the jump seat of a national carrier into Cyprus from LHR. No radar. The the outbound leg was flown at 340 kts, the turn to final in excess of 250 and we became stable just above 500. Had it not been for the headwind it would've been a go around. Imagine an A330 in the calm of day with no other traffic to be seen going around in a country with a heavy macho culture. That would've been a fun discussion. I'm guessing something similar here too. To go around would've meant an explanation, to land (in the absence of FDM) would guarantee they get away with the mess. Unfortunately, the more than got away!
That could have been a demonstration of good airmanship since they were stable at 500 which I think is the criteria for most airlines and most of their aircraft in VMC. They would, of course, have had to satisfy other altitude gates set by their airline such as gear down and locked and final flap. If it was good airmanship they would have knowledge of the headwind and planned for it. Or it could have been a poorly planned approach.
jimtx is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2020, 15:41
  #1373 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Neither here or there
Posts: 136
340 Kts at 3000ft is never good airmanship. It's the height of stupidity.
CW247 is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2020, 15:45
  #1374 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Watford
Age: 67
Posts: 96
https://www.businesstoday.in/current...ry/407994.html

Members are kindly invited to bring up and discuss the matter of licenses in the thread covering that, unless either of these two pilots is shown by the investigation to be in that class of pilot. Please keep this thread focused on this accident, this airline, and this crew. Thank you all in advance. (Mod)

Last edited by T28B; 25th Jun 2020 at 15:50. Reason: cross talk with licensing thread
WOTME? is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2020, 15:54
  #1375 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Out of the blue
Posts: 161
There is absolutely nothing in this data to show that an average qualified crew in the circumstances on the day, could not be be expected to recognize the gravity of the situation, respond to it, mitigate the trajectory, and take action to correct the flightpath in an expeditious and controlled manner, in such a way as to achieve a safe outcome on a subsequent planned, controlled, and routinely executed approach and landing, within safe parameters and the within normal limits of the manufacturer's standard operating guidance.

So I think we can agree the aircraft was grossly mishandled to a degree that barely lies within the definition of the phrase.

We must ask therefore, what administrative organization allowed two such individuals to occupy the flight deck of a public transport aeroplane in which any one of our loved ones might have been a passenger?
Mick Stability is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2020, 15:55
  #1376 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 516
Originally Posted by Ray_Y View Post

Still to early to call them cowboys. I wait for more facts.
Agreed. And I stillI think why TOD was missed will be important to the overall picture.
asdf1234 is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2020, 16:07
  #1377 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 61
Posts: 5,594
This part (among others) has me scratching my head.
Originally Posted by interim report
20 (e) “Karachi Approach” inquired “confirm track mile comfortable for descend” and later advised to take an orbit, so that the aircraft can be adjusted on the required descend profile. No orbit was executed and the effort to intercept the glide slope and localizer (of ILS) was continued. The FDR indicated action of lowering of the landing gears at 7221 ft at around 10.5 Nautical Miles from Runway 25L.

(20 f) “Karachi Approach” advised repeatedly (twice to discontinue the approach and once cautioned) about excessive height. Landing approach was not discontinued. However, FDR shows action of raising of the landing gears at 1740 ft followed by retraction of the speed brakes (at a distance slightly less than 05 nautical miles from the runway 25L). At this time, the aircraft had intercepted the localizer as well as the glide slope. Flaps 1 were selected at 243 knots IAS, the landing gears and speed brakes were retracted. Over-speed and EGPWS warnings were then triggered.
They gear was down, and then it was raised as they got closer, per the FDR information.
Switchology thing, or deliberate? I think that I understand the speed brakes retraction, but not the gear coming up.
CVR may shed light on that.

For A320 sim instructors: do you see raising the gear unintentionally very often in the sim?
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2020, 16:37
  #1378 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,052
Lonewolf - you're trying to assume a rational reason for raising the gear again.

I would suggest that this crew was so far off into the woods, throughout the approach, that hoping for a rational reason for anything they did is a lost cause.

It is like seeking a rational reason why a trained pilot would hold an aircraft in a stall for 38000 feet (AF447).

But absent the CVR, I would point out that in climbing away after the runway scrapes, the same crew briefly lowered the gear (before quickly raising it yet again).

They were simply not in touch with observable reality
pattern_is_full is online now  
Old 25th Jun 2020, 16:40
  #1379 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 151
Suddenly

https://www.thestandard.com.hk/break...heats-grounded
wongsuzie is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2020, 16:49
  #1380 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 75
Posts: 5,886
Nearly right!
Air traffic control told the pilot three times that the plane was too low to land but he refused to listen, saying he would manage,
MPN11 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.