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 28th Jun 2020, 15:45
  #1461 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Tring, UK
Posts: 1,475
Originally Posted by giggitygiggity View Post
CanadianAirbusPilot

Is trying that in the sim really good training for crews? It will just make people more likely to press on with a very hot and high approach because 'it might just work out'. I reckon I could get it down, but practising it in the sim with an aim to prove that it is no big deal and possibly a bad idea.
That’s a reasonable point but on the whole I would say it is good training in what the aircraft is capable (or not capable) of. As long as the SAC are attained and maintained, then it’s using the tools in the box.

Yes, more track miles is often the best answer, if you can get them, but it is also important to a) be able to recognise a developing rushed approach, b) actually do something about it rather than hope and c) have the capacity to make a yes/no decision and take action on it before the final stability gate arrives to force the issue. We added some modules in my airline sim training covering this and, if sensibly run, it adds value.

If you’ve had a few oddball approaches thrown at you for practice, then when the real thing happens it is not a voyage of discovery through the ocean of energy management. I think it has to be stressed that it is not a competition to see who can get in from the highest/fastest/closest but about developing handling/decision making skills and CRM. Train hard, fight easy, etc.
FullWings is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2020, 16:10
  #1462 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Feet on the rudder pedals
Age: 56
Posts: 61
Originally Posted by Ind View Post
Bingo! I think we all assume that the approach was something abnormal and causing the crew to stress and overload. However, the way aircraft touched the runway (no excessive vertical speed) suggest that had the pilots not forgot to release the gear down, or check the correct status of the gear lever (in fact that they lowered and raised them up again at 1700ft) that they were expected to have a "normal landing" and were "comfortable" with the manner they approached it, and as I said before this flight never made into the news. It looks like that actual situation did not go to catastrophic until they realised that aircraft is not slowing down, reverse is not activating and plane just glides on the ground effect over the runway and it downed on them that something bad happened and it is time to abort landing. So this wayward approach might not been the first time something like this happened, and hence they were confident it will work again, hence again deliberately ignoring the warnings and refusing the most logical way to do the orbit, etc. This version will fit most of the fact presented so far, without too much of additional ifs.
Difficult for me to agree with that. Even had this aircraft its gear down, they were way too fast at touch down. I don’t remember whether they were at 190 kts, see 210 kts when above runway threshold. So between 50 to 70 kts above normal approach speed.

1) In absence of flap/slat malfunction there’s no objective reason to be that far above normal approach speed. On the A330 I’m rated on, no flap/no slat approach and landing is conducted at VRF + 50 (VRF + 45 above threshold), so we’re in about the same range. With full reverse and max manual braking, you have to add about 1000 meters to normal landing distance. I don’t know Karachi’s Rwy 25L figures, but even with a touch-down on normal touch-down area, 300 meters after threshold, I’m not sure they wouldn't have ended in the grass or in the mud (or in airfield fence) beyond runway end. With maybe the aircraft burning. You will tell me, way better than a dead stick crash into a building, but when I’m purchasing a plane ticket I expect leaving the plane on a stair or on a jetway to the terminal and not on an escape slide in the mud.

2) We may like it or not but we have SOP’s to follow. Configuration setting, check-lists, proper briefings in proper time, stabilization threshold altitude, speed range above runway threshold, etc. All these haven’t been invented by somewhat obscure ‘‘suit’’ spending his day in an office from 9 AM to 6 PM just for bothering pilots, but taking account of decades of aircraft accidents, they have been determined as being gateways to better safety. So one cannot accept these being put aside by a a so feeling overconfident crew. It’s just not acceptable.

What I’m meaning with all the above is that I can’t believe that even in a ‘‘macho-attitude’’ culturally oriented country, a flight crew could escape that far from accepted habits. But maybe I’m naive, after all..

Last edited by homebuilt; 28th Jun 2020 at 16:48.
homebuilt is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2020, 16:21
  #1463 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Location: Europe
Posts: 22
Sorry, I chose to remove my contribution to this site.

Last edited by Ray_Y; 7th Jul 2020 at 17:35.
Ray_Y is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2020, 19:19
  #1464 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,350
Originally Posted by parkfell View Post
Can someone enlighten me as to whether the Insurers are likely to pay out given what has all the hallmarks of grave Gross Misconduct by the crew.
Add to that, the issue of whether any evidence is uncovered as to whether the licences were issued “fair and square”, and their continuing validity iaw licensing regulations.
Simply asking the question. I have no information one way or the other.

Well it's likely it wasn't the passengers fault, so it's only a question of who has the deepest pockets and the strongest storey

Fairness is only a third level of assessment.

The insurers have a way of recouping by upping the Insurance premiums across the board
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2020, 20:45
  #1465 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 164
Originally Posted by Ray_Y View Post
Not knowing A320, but I assume Auto Speed Brakes also depend on WoW sensor logic.
Anyway, at ~1.3NM they just slowed down to ~160KIAS! That's roughly at 8000ft of the available 11,100ft of 25L. From there its speed accelerated again, as Go around was initiated.
I appreciate your reply. I knew they came in fast but I had no idea it was that fast. Damn.
williamsg is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2020, 21:07
  #1466 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted by Ray_Y View Post
I want address questions like this one. According to the FDR Graphs, on first approach the aircraft speed was in the 200-210KIAS region when they overflew 0NM (=start of runway 25L).
We know that they didn't have wheel brakes and thrust reverser available
Not knowing A320, but I assume Auto Speed Brakes also depend on WoW sensor logic.
Anyway, at ~1.3NM they just slowed down to ~160KIAS! That's roughly at 8000ft of the available 11,100ft of 25L. From there its speed accelerated again, as Go around was initiated.

Of course it's a nogo-around after Thrust Reverser, but this case here is so outside the norm that it really doesn't matter.

(Sorry, as newbe writing this might appear much later in the thread)
not really surprised it took them that long to slow. At that speed and configuration, the wing was still supporting most of the weight.
Check Airman is online now  
Old 28th Jun 2020, 23:01
  #1467 (permalink)  
Ind
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 3
Roger that

homebuilt

I agree with all the points. This was in no way a SOP for landing a passenger aircraft, maybe fighter jet or military cargo in manpad danger zone. Good that no one yet came with suggestions of S-like manoeuvre to kill horizontal AS in this case. My point was only that if we look at the available picture from the prelim report and else, it looks like that pilots were not in two minds what to do, otherwise they'd followed the suggestion to take an orbit (they were not ordered specifically to take an orbit, so I do not see that they disobeyed the ATC commands here). And simply were determined to land the AC and somehow where "comfortable" with that. So it was only logical was to assume that they were confident this is going to work, and they going to make it, at least at the initial stage. I don't know why, but perhaps they done this before, but this is crucial point of the story. Yes, again, this is not how things should be and it was a complete madness. But the assumption to land the aircraft being so high and fast above normal and that they were prepared to ignore the warning lights, might explain why they missed another noise of too low gear warning. They did not forget about the gear completely, they used it to kill some speed as it looks, just did not control this properly... though I don't understand why at 1740ft with the gears they deactivated speed brakes.. Too concentrated on the sink rate? Yes, as situation developed they were getting into much deeper waters, hunting for GS and missed the gear check.
But as pointed before, they were way too fast to be anywhere close to a normal landing at the threshold: 190-210 kts IAS and slats/flaps at 3 is way too fast at this point, regardless of the wind and actual LW, so even with the gears down, full thrust reverse and max breaking things would not end nicely for them as it looks, can anyone confirm? But somehow they were determined and wanted to make this work, so I don't think they were choosing in their heads between these two scenarios: overshoot or TGOA.
Ind is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2020, 23:50
  #1468 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 65
Posts: 2,924
Originally Posted by ETOPS View Post
Yes it's the same with Boeing - my baulked landing training emphasised that you could go-around at any stage but not after reverse selection.
Just a clarification here:
The book says don't do a go-around after the reversers are deployed. BUT, the real world can throw a curve that will cause you to ignore the book (e.g. a large obstacle appears on the runway in front of you).
https://aviation-safety.net/database...?id=19780211-0
Short story, 737-200 lands in a snowstorm, deploys the reversers, then a snowplow appears out of the snow. They stow the reversers, firewall the throttles and perform a go-around and miss the snowplow. Unfortunately one of the reversers hadn't completed the stow cycle before liftoff - lack of WoW removed the hydraulic pressure from the T/R circuit, and the aero forces pushed the reverser back to deploy (clam shell style reversers on the 737-100/200 series). Aircraft control could not be maintained at that low altitude/airspeed and they crashed.
So, although the book says don't do it, it has been a design requirement on every subsequent Boeing design that if there was an aborted landing after T/R deployment, the reversers would stow and lock even if air/ground goes 'air' before the stow cycle is completed.

Again, no first hand knowledge, but I suspect Airbus has a similar requirement.
tdracer is online now  
Old 28th Jun 2020, 23:54
  #1469 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 61
Posts: 5,594
Originally Posted by giggitygiggity View Post
Is trying that in the sim really good training for crews? It will just make people more likely to press on with a very hot and high approach because 'it might just work out'. I reckon I could get it down, but practising it in the sim with an aim to prove that it is no big deal and possibly a bad idea.
Are you kidding? Doing stuff in the sim that you don't normally do in the aircraft is part of the reason that so much training has been off loaded into sims.
Originally Posted by FullWings
... on the whole I would say it is good training in what the aircraft is capable (or not capable) of. As long as the SAC are attained and maintained, then it’s using the tools in the box.
Give that man a cigar.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2020, 02:37
  #1470 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: victoria bc
Age: 78
Posts: 35
Every so often someone posts a gentle hint that maybe these two pilots ignored all the warnings and apparently all common sense because they thought they could get away with it. Perhaps because they had done this before, and perhaps more than once. So far, there is no evidence that the bizarre series of events leading up to this crash was caused by anything other than the deliberate actions of the pilots, contrary to normal operating procedure and in spite of functioning controls and alarms. There is no end of evidence that this has happened to some degree before, but nothing quite like this. There must be some other explanation.
ferry pilot is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2020, 07:48
  #1471 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting home
Age: 42
Posts: 3,005
Originally Posted by ferry pilot View Post
There must be some other explanation.
I hope so, yet the Occam's razor principle is on the opposite team.

People do wierd stuff and once they get away with it, reinforce their self confidence. To a point of being subconsciously proud of it. Have a look at the Mogadishu W. I. G. E. 360 thread. A seasoned veteran's illicit fun becomes a highly raised bar of true airmanship for many.

I still cannot imagine anyone pushing through landing inside flap overspeed and not discontinuing the approach. However in absolute majority of human factor accidents the people involved honestly believed to be doing the right thing. No matter how freaking absurd it actually was.

Last edited by FlightDetent; 29th Jun 2020 at 09:29.
FlightDetent is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2020, 09:26
  #1472 (permalink)  

de minimus non curat lex
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: sunny troon
Posts: 1,275
Originally Posted by FlightDetent View Post
.......majority of human factor accidents the people involved honestly believed to be doing the right thing. No matter how freaking absurd it actually was.
If a full undiluted transparent report ever appears, it will be a rich source for human factors/CRM teaching. One of the few occasions when an abnormality of the mind occurred.

The fact that they continued the first approach must indicate that they believed a successful landing (And the Gear was DOWN) possible which to those who contribute to theads was extremely unlikely, if not impossible.

If the airline hopes to regain its reputation, then robust flight data monitoring must take place.
It would be further enhanced if the usual suspects were not involved, and say the department was staffed by French aviators who are regarded as independent.
The chances of this occurring ~ virtually NIL.

Then of course the little matter of licences issued by deception / fraud, not to mention recurrent training and testing in the simulator by responsible competent pilots.

A big ask which will be a step too far given the culture?

parkfell is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2020, 09:35
  #1473 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting home
Age: 42
Posts: 3,005
Originally Posted by parkfell View Post
... the first approach must indicate that they believed a successful landing (And the Gear was DOWN) possible
And very easily so:
- they put it down once when too high to control the energy
- they put it down the second time in the usual spot of 1700 ft, including the full routine of arming the spoilers in sequence (hence stowing the speed brake)
- they did not see or hear any warning for L/G

FlightDetent is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2020, 15:24
  #1474 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Surrey UK
Age: 71
Posts: 66
Are we are quite clear here regarding commercial aircraft not cleared for in flight reverser deployment ( I recall locking systems were reinforced post the Lauda Air B767 accident).
This report states the crew selected R.T. but with landing gear up there would be no W.O.W. the reverser's would not have deployed, in most types the crew would have felt a baulk in the thrust levers movement aft.
I don't know the A320 specific but most engines, without WOW, would have stayed at a flight idle not the lower ground idle and therefore more responsive to a go around command.
aeromech3 is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2020, 15:34
  #1475 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: On a good day - at sea
Posts: 245
The same applies to the A320

per the FCOM - ACTUATION LOGIC

Deployment requires :
‐ One FADEC channel, operating with its associated throttle reverse signal ;
‐ Right and left main gear compressed signal from the corresponding LGCIUs ;
‐ A Thrust Lever Angle (TLA) reverse signals from at least one Spoiler Elevator Computer (SEC).

Before deployment is completed, the FADEC sets reverse idle thrust on the engine that is having its
thrust reversed.is
nnc0 is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2020, 15:58
  #1476 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting home
Age: 42
Posts: 3,005
The TL's mechanism will move to REV position without W.O.W. on the type under discussion. The crew have no way of knowing if the TRs have deployed or not.

As for the question whether a REV FAULT message has precedence over the overspeed clacker and / or the TOO LOW TERR from the GPWS, no pilot really wants to know.
FlightDetent is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2020, 17:37
  #1477 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Surrey UK
Age: 71
Posts: 66
Must be a Rev Unlock warning even on an A320 ! On some there will be a 'Rev Operating' light as well.
aeromech3 is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2020, 18:50
  #1478 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montgomery, NY, USA
Posts: 132
Originally Posted by ferry pilot View Post
Every so often someone posts a gentle hint that maybe these two pilots ignored all the warnings and apparently all common sense because they thought they could get away with it. Perhaps because they had done this before, and perhaps more than once. So far, there is no evidence that the bizarre series of events leading up to this crash was caused by anything other than the deliberate actions of the pilots, contrary to normal operating procedure and in spite of functioning controls and alarms. There is no end of evidence that this has happened to some degree before, but nothing quite like this. There must be some other explanation.
I'll start off with not a pilot, but a career IT person with much background in machine/user interaction. The same thought came to me also after hearing so many truly knowledgeable pilots say the same thing. I haven't read through all of the posts on this thread....too many to do so. But has anyone raised the thought of something akin to hypoxia or carbon monoxide poisoning? These were not two rookies, and yet their behavior is beyond anything any pilot could imagine taking place in a commercial airliner. Could some fault in the pressurization or environmental systems cause them to be disoriented or partially incapacitated? It just does not seem possible that they could have made so many bad decisions along the way without realizing they were getting deeper and deeper into trouble and taking some corrective action. The fact that, as ferry pilot stated, they made so many deliberate actions that were all wrong begs for a better explanation other than they thought they could get away with it.
patrickal is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2020, 19:00
  #1479 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting home
Age: 42
Posts: 3,005
Originally Posted by aeromech3 View Post
Must be a Rev Unlock warning even on an A320 ! On some there will be a 'Rev Operating' light as well.
Basically yes. Neither applied since the TR would had been stowed due to lack of wheels on the ground signal. The next best is REV FAULT (i.e. selected but not deployed), which is displayed on a screen. Order of priority applies for that, see my second sentence in the previous post.
FlightDetent is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2020, 19:48
  #1480 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 93
Originally Posted by patrickal View Post
It just does not seem possible that they could have made so many bad decisions along the way without realizing they were getting deeper and deeper into trouble and taking some corrective action. The fact that, as ferry pilot stated, they made so many deliberate actions that were all wrong begs for a better explanation other than they thought they could get away with it.
The report doesn't use the words, but it has been characterized as saying the captain was over confident, it does not mention anything such as slurred or hesitant speech, incoherence or unresponsiveness. They have much more information than we do, I think they would have at least hinted if incapacitation was a subject of interest.

Over-confidence can arise from a well known phenomenon called "normalization of deviance". There is no need to invoke fumes, medical issues or anything else. The fact is, healthy, alert, fully aware people will occasionally do very stupid things. Bear in mind this type of accident is very rare, we are talking one in billions of flights.

The risks of continuing an unstable approach are also well known, and better emphasis of that will surely be the focus of any recommendations.
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 © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.