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 26th Jun 2020, 09:45
  #1401 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Location: Zurich
Posts: 1
Originally Posted by Euclideanplane View Post
Quite a decent summary with some simulations:

Youtube - Captain Mayday - UPDATE: Investigation Report leaks & Landing Gear details Pakistan International Airlines PK8303

It also seems to affirm that the photos of the scrape itself are indeed authenthic.
Thanks for sharing. Besides everything that has been said, shared and discussed already, I still find it crucial if the pilots potenitally really did not hear the GPWS "too low gear warning".
In any case it was a criminal approach- no doubt - but it is really hard to believe that they ignored the GPWS "too low gear warning". The "gear not down warning" in the ECAM might have been missed because of the anyways ongoing CRC and ECAM warnings for flap overspeed.
But ignoring the aural "too low gear" would be inexplicable for me. Thus, I found the scenario in the video valid and interesting to follow up on.
dacia123 is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2020, 12:24
  #1402 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Korea
Posts: 101
Originally Posted by vilas View Post
The time frame of inquiry report of two years onwards makes it meaningless. Because during such a long period some other incident/accident takes place and the focus shifts. Till the full report considering all dimensions and factors is out on what basis the operator will change operating or maintenance practices? Do other non involved airlines ever get to know what happened some years back in another corner of the earth? In two years time after the dust is settled the world moves on.
Now that Minister Khan has publicly announced his own definitive conclusions, blaming flight crew, cabin crew and ATC, partly with no basis in the preliminary report, let us at least hope to avoid a similar aftermath as in the ‹berlingen collision.
Euclideanplane is online now  
Old 26th Jun 2020, 12:52
  #1403 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Uganda
Posts: 11
Originally Posted by learner001 View Post
That's correct... It's done with the priority take over button on the side stick...

However, I found that the majority of pilots I encounter in the Airbus, have no clue how that 'feature' really works...
i have to admit it is a little bit ambiguous...yet it is very important that one know EXACTLY how it works
filipo is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2020, 14:30
  #1404 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 2,676
. The "gear not down warning" in the ECAM might have been missed because of the anyways ongoing CRC and ECAM warnings for flap overspeed.
But ignoring the aural "too low gear" would be inexplicable for me
There is phenomenon called inattentional blindness also deafness where people can miss things in field of vision or not able to hear warnings.
vilas is online now  
Old 26th Jun 2020, 15:00
  #1405 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 164
Originally Posted by lederhosen View Post
The tragedy is that they were so close to the airport in the final moments. Had they lowered the gear later they might just have made it. But given the rest of their performance it is hardly surprising that they did not.
I suspect that this question will be addressed in the final report but I was wondering if the outcome would have been better for everyone if they hadn't attempted a go-around. Presumably with the engines hitting the runway they slowed down quite a bit and would have stopped short of the end of the runway. Sure there is the risk of fire but they were already on the ground and slowing down so why not accept that outcome?

Looking at the preliminary report I also suspect that the biggest evidence will come from the CVR and from a psychological assessment especially as there is already a documented lack of CRM and adherence to standard call outs. Is this sort of thing normal for PIA?

Finally, the prelim report doesn't talk about the crew lowering the gear at all on approach. I know that previously it was suggested that the gear was lowered but aircraft protection kicked in due to the high speed so I'm hoping that question is resolved in the full report.
williamsg is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2020, 15:01
  #1406 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 164
Originally Posted by vilas View Post
There is phenomenon called inattentional blindness also deafness where people can miss things in field of vision or not able to hear warnings.
There is a great video on this on youtube. If you've not seen it before it's very interesting to watch and it's less than two minutes long.
williamsg is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2020, 15:25
  #1407 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,058
Originally Posted by williamsg View Post
Finally, the prelim report doesn't talk about the crew lowering the gear at all on approach.
It's not discussed in the narrative, but the report makes it clear that's what happened.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 26th Jun 2020, 15:28
  #1408 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Leatherhead
Posts: 11
Gear mentioned

From the interim report

"The FDR indicated action of lowering of the landing gears at 7221 ft at around 10.5 Nautical Miles from Runway 25L.​​​​​​"

​​​​​​"Landing approach was not discontinued. However, FDR shows action of raising of the landing gears at 1740 ft"
GAPU is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2020, 15:30
  #1409 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: On a good day - at sea
Posts: 245


I'm puzzled by the GPWS related posts.

Could somebody independently look at what GPWS warnings they would have encountered. As best I can tell - Given their airspeed and gear selection and flap selection from the report, they would have heard the Mode 4A TOO LOW TERRAIN" warning somewhere around 500 ft. That's it. There would have not been a TOO LOW GEAR warning at all.

Last edited by nnc0; 26th Jun 2020 at 16:11.
nnc0 is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2020, 16:03
  #1410 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,350
Originally Posted by GAPU View Post
[QUOTE Finally, the prelim report doesn't talk about the crew lowering the gear at all on approach. I know that previously it was suggested that the gear was lowered but aircraft protection kicked in due to the high speed so I'm hoping that question is resolved in the full report.
From the interim report
"The FDR indicated action of lowering of the landing gears at 7221 ft at around 10.5 Nautical Miles from Runway 25L.​​​​​​"

​​​​​​"Landing approach was not discontinued. However, FDR shows action of raising of the landing gears at 1740 ft"
any chance it could lower by itself?

I don't recall any historical incident that might apply in the last 30 years
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2020, 16:14
  #1411 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 2,676
Originally Posted by nnc0 View Post


I'm puzzled by the GPWS related posts.

Could somebody independently look at what GPWS warnings they would have encountered. As best I can tell - Given their airspeed and gear selection and flap selection from the report, they would have heard the Mode 4A TOO LOW TERRAIN" warning somewhere around 500 ft. That's it. There would have not been a TOO LOW GEAR warning at all.
This doubt arises because latest flight manual doesn't mention the speed requirement to trigger too low gear. The details of 4a and 4b are eliminated.
vilas is online now  
Old 26th Jun 2020, 16:22
  #1412 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 164
Originally Posted by GAPU View Post
[QUOTE Finally, the prelim report doesn't talk about the crew lowering the gear at all on approach. I know that previously it was suggested that the gear was lowered but aircraft protection kicked in due to the high speed so I'm hoping that question is resolved in the full report.
From the interim report

"The FDR indicated action of lowering of the landing gears at 7221 ft at around 10.5 Nautical Miles from Runway 25L.​​​​​​"

​​​​​​"Landing approach was not discontinued. However, FDR shows action of raising of the landing gears at 1740 ft"[/QUOTE]

Yup, it does say that - sorry, my initial post could have been clearer. The report doesn't say anything about the gear not going down because of the speed protections.
williamsg is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2020, 16:43
  #1413 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: On a good day - at sea
Posts: 245
Originally Posted by vilas View Post
This doubt arises because latest flight manual doesn't mention the speed requirement to trigger too low gear. The details of 4a and 4b are eliminated.
Here they are from the 2018 Getting to Grips with Surveillance document





nnc0 is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2020, 19:24
  #1414 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted by siropalomar View Post
Thanks for the info. But let me insist on one thing: some basic data (after having lost engine thrust) seem to be quite important for the investigation :speed, altitude, vertical speed, flight control inputs, attitude.....are Airbus planes designed to lose FDR operation in this condition????
tdracer went into some detail on this earlier

PIA A320 Crash Karachi
Check Airman is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2020, 19:26
  #1415 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted by asdf1234 View Post
I will defer to a bus driver to address the specifics but I would have thought any standby instrument not powered by either of the main bus will have it's own memory which could be retrieved (subject to the unit surviving the abrupt end of the flight).
Some of the older planes have mechanical stby instruments. If this was one such plane, I doubt there's any means to record data.
Check Airman is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2020, 20:22
  #1416 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted by siropalomar View Post
Ok, Iíve read it, but doesnít help much. The question is: do A320ís lose FDR after a loss of thrust on both engines? Itís clear RAT will deploy, itís clear RAT will power an emergency generator (as it will power a hydraulic system which will power that generator), and I believe FDR readouts are essential for investigators, before and after the thrust loss. Itís clear, though, that FDR is not essential for flying the plane safely after the thrust loss....
What he was saying is that keeping the FDR powered is easy. That's not a problem. However the FDR gets a number of inputs from tons of sources. In order for those sources to provide usable data to the FDR, they must be powered. In an emergency electrical situation, it's impractical/impossible to power all the necessary data sources. Hence, the designers don't waste valuable electrical energy powering a recorder that's just getting garbage data.
Check Airman is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2020, 20:23
  #1417 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted by siropalomar View Post
If A320 FDR operation is the same as A330, then FDR should work after the loss of thrust on both engines
The A320 FCOM says the same thing. I deduced from that, the APU would have to be running in order to get that information. The way it's written in the FCOM lead me to believe it was powered at all times though.
Check Airman is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2020, 22:41
  #1418 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 4DME
Posts: 1,962

CCTV of A320 skidding down the runway on its engines.
N707ZS is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2020, 02:14
  #1419 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Asia
Posts: 72
And the tower said nothing to the flight crew?
Sikpilot is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2020, 03:36
  #1420 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,350
Just what would you expect in the transmission? and at what time-line?
lomapaseo 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.