PIA A320 Crash Karachi
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 61
Posts: 5,587
This part (among others) has me scratching my head.
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?
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.
(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.
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?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,047
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
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
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 148
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Korea
Posts: 99
Originally Posted by pattern_is_full
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)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 61
Posts: 5,587
Originally Posted by pattern_is_full
Lonewolf - you're trying to assume a rational reason for raising the gear again.
I do not disagree with you at all that they did not seem to have their heads in the game, and that the crew coordination was probably either poor or missing.
It is like seeking a rational reason why a trained pilot would hold an aircraft in a stall for 38, 000 feet (AF447).
He had a poor scan (perhaps due to being a child of the magenta line, or perhaps just due to no recency/currency of him flying instruments rather than letting HAL fly for him) and it broke down quickly to where he had no scan. Seen it happen plenty, in aircraft and in sims, and it happened to me a few times.
But between him and the left hand pilot, yeah, you are right. It hardly seems rational.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 2,606
Last 30mts they got into the discussion about the pandemic. So missing TOD during that not surprising. The discussion continued. So when the enormity of the situation dawned on them they gotinto panic. Considering the fatigue and low blood sugar it could have led to hyperventilation. Then any irrational acts are possible.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Dark side of the Moon
Posts: 314
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50
Actually, I am looking at a possible 'common mistake seen in the sims / knobology' explanation for bringing the gear up - because they had previously lowered it and they were heading in to land (even though they are going too fast), which is rational - so that is why I asked that bit at the end.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 515
Originally Posted by Mick Stability
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?
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?
We must wait for the final report to find out what put the crew in a position that led to an expedited descent well after TOD, what were the pressures inside that cockpit that led an historically competent crew to mess up so badly.
The Air France crew were not fasting, as far as we know did not "fake" their qualifications, and were not subject to what has been referred to on this thread as "cultural differences". Yet they too crashed a perfectly airworthy aircraft in a manner that would have the FlightSim brigade on here shaking their heads in disbelief.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Москва/Ташкент
Age: 50
Posts: 826
Originally Posted by asdf1234
If Air France crew can do it, PIA crew can do it.
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Korea
Posts: 99
Originally Posted by Twitter
what did Swiss do?
The accident investigation determined the causes of the accident were that the crew touched down too far down the runway, at too high a speed, following a non-stabilised approach, and that they failed to properly utilise the aircraft's brake and reverse thrust systems, which resulted in their being unable to stop the aircraft within the available runway and overrun distance.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 515
Originally Posted by Euclideanplane
Swissair 316 in Athens 1979, I suppose:
The accident investigation determined the causes of the accident were that the crew touched down too far down the runway, at too high a speed, following a non-stabilised approach, and that they failed to properly utilise the aircraft's brake and reverse thrust systems, which resulted in their being unable to stop the aircraft within the available runway and overrun distance.
The accident investigation determined the causes of the accident were that the crew touched down too far down the runway, at too high a speed, following a non-stabilised approach, and that they failed to properly utilise the aircraft's brake and reverse thrust systems, which resulted in their being unable to stop the aircraft within the available runway and overrun distance.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 515
Originally Posted by flash8
The former had many complex issues, CRM, automation, crew training (i.e. high altitude upset recovery for one) all coming together, the PIA crash seems on the face of it downright absolute negligence. There is a a huge difference.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Itinerant
Posts: 697
Originally Posted by asdf1234
and the Swiss MD-11 loss where the crew were 66 miles from a usable airfield but elected to turn back to an airfield 300nm distant.
I suggest you do some research before posting something that casts aspersions on the crew that died in that accident. We all make mistakes and we should all learn from the mistakes of others but in this case your comment is incredibly disrespectful -- because it's false.
Last edited by grizzled; 26th Jun 2020 at 02:24.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 51
Posts: 2,690
Originally Posted by asdf1234
what were the pressures inside that cockpit that led an historically competent crew to mess up so badly.
Really no point in defending the outright indefensible here
