PIA A320 Crash Karachi
Psychophysiological entity
Something to be said for the tri-jet engine configuration. Or small outer-rim permanently exposed load-bearing high-tolerance metal wheels (think Thrust/Bloodhound SSC) to obviate/ameliorate both engine strike in case of gear failure.
Psychophysiological entity
I assumed you meant load bearing wheels under the pods. I'd given thought to such a thing, or skids, under the MAX 8 pods, but there's really nothing there to take the impact of a heavy landing, let alone a wheels up landing, however momentary. It's very exposed vulnerability, like heart and lungs under a wisp of a ribcage.
It will be interesting to know exactly what stopped the engines. Perhaps nothing more than bent pipes.
It will be interesting to know exactly what stopped the engines. Perhaps nothing more than bent pipes.
Join Date: May 2020
Location: PA
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I assumed you meant load bearing wheels under the pods. I'd given thought to such a thing, or skids, under the MAX 8 pods, but there's really nothing there to take the impact of a heavy landing, let alone a wheels up landing, however momentary. It's very exposed vulnerability, like heart and lungs under a wisp of a ribcage.
It will be interesting to know exactly what stopped the engines. Perhaps nothing more than bent pipes.
It will be interesting to know exactly what stopped the engines. Perhaps nothing more than bent pipes.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Asia
Age: 62
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's precisely my point and one incident that I was referring to. Cultural issues are always raised in a negative context when a non-western incident occurs but rarely if ever when a western incident occurs.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,904
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Asia
Age: 62
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I appreciate/realise that. But I assume that FlightDetent wasn’t working in Pakistan.
Still, we must hold each operator up to/towards our own national standards. Just saying a lesser standard is acceptable because of local religious/political/cultural/(whatever loaded idealism you can think of) is not enough. We should all be aspiring to 100% safety. I realise the reality is different, but if FlightDetent is based in the west (which I assume he is), the the lack of a just culture at his airline is shameful.
Still, we must hold each operator up to/towards our own national standards. Just saying a lesser standard is acceptable because of local religious/political/cultural/(whatever loaded idealism you can think of) is not enough. We should all be aspiring to 100% safety. I realise the reality is different, but if FlightDetent is based in the west (which I assume he is), the the lack of a just culture at his airline is shameful.
I don't see anyone saying a lesser standard is acceptable due to cultural differences, the problem is thinking that cultural differences by default result in lower safety standards. It's a simplistic way of looking at things.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
his would explain why they were above profile continually from the TOD after having being offered a straight in approach for 25
Same old story. Blind adherence to what the flight director is telling you. A common habit among those brought up on automation dependency as well as the cultural trap of 'real men don't go around.'
1. They were high and fast.
2. The approach was unstable.
3. The engines scraped the runway.
4. They became airborne again and tried for another approach.
5. They aircraft crashed.
Once the FDR is read we will know what the position of the landing gear was:
1. Selected up the whole time.
2. Selected down but did not extend.
3. Selected down but retracted too early before the aircraft was positively climbing away resulting in ground contact.
4. Which systems were lost and what was the aircraft state afterwards.
Crew actions seem to be the major factor here, and the CVR should prove vital in determining:
1. Were they aware of the height/distance situation in the first place ?
2. Was there a CRM breakdown ?
3. Were they aware that they had a damaged aircraft or if they had contacted the runway at all ?
I was questioning the location of critical components underneath the engine with the Sioux City DC10 in mind, a turbine failure managed to sever all the hydraulic lines due to them being concentrated in a small area. Standard military doctrine is to spread things out, be it soldiers not bunching up whilst on patrol or aircraft parked close together. Unfortunately it appears that aircraft engines don't offer too much freedom in this area.
The hyd lines were separated apart but so were the high energy bits of the fan. It wasn't so much that the lines were completely severed but more to them bleeding out due to no check valves This stuff is now addressed in the cert rule advisory which also allows design leeway for the stuff Tdracer mentioned above
OK, we may learn something new in this accident, but I prefer to wait for the on-site reports
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Posts: 735
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Inexperienced?
“With a 24-year experience in the airline industry, Gul had flown over 17,000 hours, including 4,700 hours of Airbus A320. He is survived by his wife and four children.” Extract from Khaleej Times. He seemed to be in his early 50’s
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE][Heck, we could go back to fixed gear - that would solve the problem.../QUOTE] Instead of piecemeal solutions the technology is moving towards removal of the elements itself that have too many limitations. They already have technology for one pilot aircraft. Not far from none pilot aircaft.
I heard the instruction as fly heading 180. I figured the controller realized the were high and close and tried to vector them but they said they were established. Also the ATC observation of being 3,500 FT and 5 miles was likely a polite way of saying "do you guys know what you are doing".
In fact, that was a moment at which they could have halted the entire spiral into disaster. Had they simply complied with ATC's request, almost certainly they would have got back on top of the situation and it would have been a non event.
Last edited by double_barrel; 25th May 2020 at 09:00.
[QUOTE=vilas;10792530]
The technology is there now, for no pilots. However it doesn't have much passenger appeal at present. After this, pilotless aircraft may have more appeal.
A pilotless a/c was flown direct, from the USA to Australia. Landed, refuelled and flew back home. No crew rest or preceived cultural imfluence either.
[[color=#333333]Heck, we could go back to fixed gear - that would solve the problem.../QUOTE] Instead of piecemeal solutions the technology is moving towards removal of the elements itself that have too many limitations. They already have technology for one pilot aircraft. Not far from none pilot aircaft.
A pilotless a/c was flown direct, from the USA to Australia. Landed, refuelled and flew back home. No crew rest or preceived cultural imfluence either.
How is that going to help, when on nearly all 'low wing' installations the engines extend well below the bottom of the fuselage? What you're proposing is not meaningfully different than the fixed landing gear arrangement that was abandoned for commercial transports ~80 years ago.
Better to figure out a way to keep the pilots from attempting wheels up landings. Since aural alerts can (and have been) be ignored, I keep thinking about an old James Bond movie: There was some 'game' that shocked the player when they were losing. Maybe we need a system like that - if the pilot is doing something really stupid such as landing wheels up or CFIT - it's starts shocking the PF to get their attention.
There is considerable controversy about this incident: It happened in 1979, TWA Flight 841, Hoot Gibson was the PF (I remember this because I met a different Hoot Gibson - Space Shuttle Astronaut - with the associated name confusion). Anyway, the story was you could get lower cruise drag/better fuel burn on a 727 by extending the trailing edge flaps - except to make it work you needed to disable the leading edge devices first. Allegedly, Hoot and company did this while the flight engineer was in the toilet - when he returned to the flight deck he noticed that the leading edge device CB's were out so he restored them. One side extended, the other side jammed due to the aero loads and the asymmetric lift rolled them into a dive. They were only able to recover when the extended leading edge ripped off. The controversy was (short story) that the flight crew claimed they were scapegoats - that the leading edge device extended uncommanded, while the official report basically says what I described.
It didn't help the flight crew's story when they erased the voice recorder after they landed
Better to figure out a way to keep the pilots from attempting wheels up landings. Since aural alerts can (and have been) be ignored, I keep thinking about an old James Bond movie: There was some 'game' that shocked the player when they were losing. Maybe we need a system like that - if the pilot is doing something really stupid such as landing wheels up or CFIT - it's starts shocking the PF to get their attention.
I have a vague memory of a story about 727 pilots being clever with the flaps in flight from years ago that would illustrate that point, but can't find a reference at the moment
It didn't help the flight crew's story when they erased the voice recorder after they landed
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: .
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You will find it shared on whatsapp
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: Derry
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Retired Guy
