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 23rd May 2020, 01:14
  #141 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: S E Asia
Posts: 186
Gear Up Landing Attempt

With regard to the hypothesis advanced on this thread that the landing gear was not selected down - I operated into KHI regularly for 25 years, and one of the unique features there was the way ATC always used the phraseology “ABC123, check wheels down and locked, clear to land 25R”. It always caused me to glance at the gear position indications. Unless something has changed at KHI ATC since my last approach there, which admittedly was six years ago, I can’t help thinking that that particular hole in the Swiss Cheese should have been blocked by such a call. But there again, for the PIA crews hearing it several times a day for years, maybe it would just become so routine that it lost its effectiveness, especially under stress.

Last edited by 777boyo; 23rd May 2020 at 01:16. Reason: Correct an omission
777boyo is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 02:06
  #142 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Queensland
Posts: 401
It is a long time since I operated A320 into Pakistan and later while based there. If the engines scraped the runway during the go-around, and damage the IDGs / alternators, Would the RAT prop deploy far enough to be destroyed by striking the runway? Assuming APU not operating, that might take them straight from full electrical power to battery power only - another unwanted distraction.
Are all the FADEC systems sufficiently clear of the cowling scrape area to avoid damage?
Damage caused by the scrapes might be a slow train wreck rather than fully apparent.
With gear already up, the crew might have intentionally selected less than TOGA for the go-around, which could have been a significant contribution to the end result

Last edited by autoflight; 23rd May 2020 at 02:24.
autoflight is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 02:08
  #143 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Brazil
Posts: 69
Shouldn't there be corresponding scrape marks on the runway?
belfrybat is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 02:12
  #144 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Japan
Posts: 814
Have there been studies of bird strikes on the RAT?
jolihokistix is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 02:46
  #145 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: 500 miles from Chaikhosi, Yogistan
Posts: 3,911
Originally Posted by autoflight View Post
It is a long time since I operated A320 into Pakistan and later while based there. If the engines scraped the runway during the go-around, and damage the IDGs / alternators, Would the RAT prop deploy far enough to be destroyed by striking the runway? Assuming APU not operating, that might take them straight from full electrical power to battery power only - another unwanted distraction.
Are all the FADEC systems sufficiently clear of the cowling scrape area to avoid damage?
Damage caused by the scrapes might be a slow train wreck rather than fully apparent.
With gear already up, the crew might have intentionally selected less than TOGA for the go-around, which could have been a significant contribution to the end result
The rat would likely be auto deployed at the second engine shutdown not before..
compressor stall is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 03:26
  #146 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Oz
Posts: 955
Originally Posted by belfrybat View Post
Shouldn't there be corresponding scrape marks on the runway?
Wonít be much if itís a poorly executed go around. If what I think has gone on here, they essentially have crushed the CFMs on the deck briefly (albeit extremely hard) whilst rotating/correcting the float error, with the gear retracting. Nose attitude most certainly up going of the marks.

I would be quite interested in the location of the marks on the runway.
PoppaJo is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 04:02
  #147 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eagles Nest
Posts: 486
Is that approach height correct ? 5 miles from threshold or from navaid ? 3500 ft whatís that above the runway ? Was there any background warnings on the initial ( high ) approach ? If they where high and floated they may have been in a low energy state at the far end of runway ? Reports of wheels up approach?
RIP to those involved . Sad day during tough times for aviation .
Toruk Macto is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 04:07
  #148 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Singapore
Posts: 44
Originally Posted by autoflight View Post
It is a long time since I operated A320 into Pakistan and later while based there. If the engines scraped the runway during the go-around, and damage the IDGs / alternators, Would the RAT prop deploy far enough to be destroyed by striking the runway? Assuming APU not operating, that might take them straight from full electrical power to battery power only - another unwanted distraction.
Are all the FADEC systems sufficiently clear of the cowling scrape area to avoid damage?
Damage caused by the scrapes might be a slow train wreck rather than fully apparent.
With gear already up, the crew might have intentionally selected less than TOGA for the go-around, which could have been a significant contribution to the end result
Regarding the question on FADEC systems being sufficiently clear of the scrape area.

The FADEC's dedicated alternator, High Pressure Fuel Pump are both on the main gear box (MGB) that on the -5B is on the lower side of the engine. If the engines had impacted the ground hard enough it's not hard to conceive the whole MGB was compromised that would not only render the IDGs inoperative but also the other accessories on inlcuding the Engine Fuel Pump, FADEC dedicated alternator as well as the Hydraulic pump with no chance of recovery. In addition to this fuel lines, hydraulic lines for Yellow/Green systems would have probably been compromised on the engines too.
Station Zero is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 04:22
  #149 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Queensland
Posts: 401
Originally Posted by compressor stall View Post
The rat would likely be auto deployed at the second engine shutdown not before..
If I recall, on early model A320 that I flew, the the RAT deployed when:
-AC BUS 1 is not electrically supplied
-AC BUS 2 is not electrically supplied
-Aircraft speed is greater than 100kt

No engine necessarily needs to have been shut down or
failed.

Mainly I would like to know if the deployed RAT prop would contact the runway with engine scrape on go-around with gear up.

Last edited by autoflight; 23rd May 2020 at 04:37.
autoflight is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 05:14
  #150 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Dallas
Posts: 106
Originally Posted by autoflight View Post
Mainly I would like to know if the deployed RAT prop would contact the runway with engine scrape on go-around with gear up.
Assuming the sequence of events was runway contact and engine damage causing dual IDG failures and then RAT engagement, it seems improbable the turbine would deploy quickly enough to contact the runway.

Surely the amount of time the nacelles were on the runway was no more than a second or two, as throttle advancement and arrest of the aircraft sink rate had already occurred before contact. If this was not so, undoubtedly it would not have been able to fly away.

As is true with all conjecture in this thread, the above scenario depends on wildly improbable events. I must agree with others who have commented, the entire episode beggars belief.
ThreeThreeMike is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 05:37
  #151 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Orbit
Posts: 45
Facts are; master warning sounds during 1? final approach, RAT deployed(could be several reason why), gear extended on the last approach, high pitch on last approach(glide due to dual engine failure/problems or flap/slat issues), FR24 flight track and vertical profile, ATC comment, scrapes on both engines, black and not straight line but from front middle to slightly to the left(rubber from the touchdown zone and a slightly angled touchdown/xwind? I have seen similar scrape-marks on 1 of our B74 classics which had a number 3 pod-strike.
Poor lads might have landed gear up(both engines appear to be operational due exhaust visible on video), pod-strikes in ground effect on the rubbery part of the touchdown zone,slightly angled like in a xwind, GA, both engines fail/failed due damage from the pod-strikes? Fireball and post flight fire indicates fuel present on impact.
I flew the A320 a long time ago but this seems possible, a hair raising scenario....
Havingwings4ever is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 05:47
  #152 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Leeds
Posts: 695
Not sure if this footage has been shared yet:

Struggling to believe anyone survived that, but if appears to be the case.
harrogate is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 06:02
  #153 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 1,260
There may be some points incommon with the Emirates B777 crash in Dubai in 2016, though in that case the engines didn't spool up and the aircraft sank back onto the runway. Botched go around after an unstable approach with a similar outcome. Could the automation have been a factor with this accident as well ?
krismiler is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 06:33
  #154 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Oz
Posts: 955
There is going to be a larger reliance of Automation in the near future as many return to work after many months away from the stick. It would be interesting to see how recent the crew have been active for. We are all going to be incredibly rusty for the first few weeks.

Itís going to be inevitable that there will be an increase in incidents when the world ramps up. 95% of the Pilots at my operator will return to work having not flown for 6 months. We are also starting back in the midst of a challenging weather season. The training department is going to be busy.
PoppaJo is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 06:35
  #155 (permalink)  
ldo
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: CA, USA
Age: 62
Posts: 9
Regarding forgetting to lower the gear before landing, given that they started from a very high energy state, wouldn't getting the gear down be something that they would have to do to salvage the approach?
ldo is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 06:42
  #156 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Australia
Posts: 3
Having flown the 330/340, and knowing enough about the 320, I just can't see a way that they could make a wheels up landing attempt unless they were actively ignoring the CRC, Master Warning, ECAM and the GPWS.

PhilKSebben is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 06:55
  #157 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 694
So they do a rushed approach. The ATCO even queried whether they were going to make it.
Somehow they ďforgetĒ to lower the gear. Unintentionally belly landed and scraped both engines.
Regained altitude, and on downwind both engines quit due to damage. RAT deploys, and they alpha floor it into the suburb.
Pure speculation of course.
fox niner is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 06:55
  #158 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2020
Location: On Standby
Posts: 3
I think it is possible that the crew were unaware they had contacted the runway, the GO around was probably initiated during the flare when they noticed the unusual attitude from the lack of gear, by the time the engines had spooled up the nacelles just touched the runway, hard enough to damage them and the IDG's but not hard enough to be catastrophic or even erode the fan cowl latches (Fan cowls stayed on). This could be why they don't mention it or call a mayday until the IDG's and engines start to fail later in the go around due to the damage sustained.
Stillapilot is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 07:02
  #159 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: 900m
Posts: 0
Bird strike or not, there is a pretty big feathered job in the previous photos.
Salt flats attract birds too.

APU start as in Sully would be a good idea - only possible with fuel though...
Twitter is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 07:24
  #160 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Leeds
Posts: 0
The explosion on impact, the fireball is indicating there was plenty of fuel
Livesinafield 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 © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.