PIA A320 Crash Karachi
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.
How about not landing on the pods in the first place and if you can't help the urgency to land on the pods then simply leave it on the ground afterwards?
What other 'interesting' ideas do we want to make the planes idiot- proof against?!
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: grenoble
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Local news update
- Pilots were warned 3 times regarding altitude
- ATC was never informed the plane has any kind of troubles (including landing gear) on the first approach.
- Karachi approach was handling the plane and did not transfer to Tower.
- The plane had fuel for 2hrs30mins while the total flying time was 1hr30min.
- At 2:30 (PST), the plane was 15nm at MAKLI, flying at 10,000ft instead of 7,000ft. ATC gave the first warning. The pilot said he is comfortable. At 10nm, the plane was at 7,000ft instead of 3,000ft. Second warning by ATC. The pilot responded that he is satisfied and can handle it.
- During 1st attempt, engine scraped runway at 3 points - 4,500ft, 5,500ft, and 7000ft.
- Only during second attempt, the pilot informed of a landing gear problem.
- Pilots were warned 3 times regarding altitude
- ATC was never informed the plane has any kind of troubles (including landing gear) on the first approach.
- Karachi approach was handling the plane and did not transfer to Tower.
- The plane had fuel for 2hrs30mins while the total flying time was 1hr30min.
- At 2:30 (PST), the plane was 15nm at MAKLI, flying at 10,000ft instead of 7,000ft. ATC gave the first warning. The pilot said he is comfortable. At 10nm, the plane was at 7,000ft instead of 3,000ft. Second warning by ATC. The pilot responded that he is satisfied and can handle it.
- During 1st attempt, engine scraped runway at 3 points - 4,500ft, 5,500ft, and 7000ft.
- Only during second attempt, the pilot informed of a landing gear problem.
Paint and probably the aluminium vaporises on contact between aluminium and concrete at speed. Footage from 20 years ago of a SAFAIR C130 belly landing into YPDN. Lots of smoke and a flash of flame for a few seconds.
found a link here:
found a link here:
Only half a speed-brake
Blimey, demoting someone for going around is hardly a just culture.
[...]
On the other hand, a pilot going around at 500ft because they're unstable here will probably result in the award of a bottle of champagne. This works well in the Europe and we don't crash planes due to unstable approaches. Your milage may vary elsewhere in the world.
[...]
On the other hand, a pilot going around at 500ft because they're unstable here will probably result in the award of a bottle of champagne. This works well in the Europe and we don't crash planes due to unstable approaches. Your milage may vary elsewhere in the world.
It was bait. Full story
1) SOP is to be stable at 1500'. And it is enforced with FDM, i.e. not a SOP to "please plan to be stable by 1500" but rather "we pay you to be stable by 1500, no "pleases", "buts" or "ifs";
2) 1000 is OM-A and NAA hard limit;
3) if you go around 1000-500 you will be processed (in a similar manner you have described above with allowances for the cultural differences, i.e. more public shaming);
4) if you go around but only as late as below 500 - demotion;
5) if you land from unstable at 500 - termination.
My point is whether the "standard" 1000 ft rule is sufficient. Somewhere I've read about a trial with the gate set as low as 300' and it worked better than 1000.
I have searched this thread thoroughly, but I can only find 2 references to "ground effect".
How significant is this to an A320 with the gear retracted ?
Does the flap position affect it ?
It could explain how the aircraft managed to scrape the runway for around 8 seconds without more deceleration.
How significant is this to an A320 with the gear retracted ?
Does the flap position affect it ?
It could explain how the aircraft managed to scrape the runway for around 8 seconds without more deceleration.
If only they were ex military
Typical ex-military
If only they'd been glider pilots
Clearly Morons
Foreign
Obviously intended to crash
Too much automation
Not enough automation
Foreign
Should have been fired prior to crashing
I think I've got almost a full house here?
Correct, horses for courses.
It was bait. Full story
1) SOP is to be stable at 1500'. And it is enforced with FDM, i.e. not a SOP to "please plan to be stable by 1500" but rather "we pay you to be stable by 1500, no "pleases", "buts" or "ifs";
2) 1000 is OM-A and NAA hard limit;
3) if you go around 1000-500 you will be processed (in a similar manner you have described above with allowances for the cultural differences, i.e. more public shaming);
4) if you go around but only as late as below 500 - demotion;
5) if you land from unstable at 500 - termination.
My point is whether the "standard" 1000 ft rule is sufficient. Somewhere I've read about a trial with the gate set as low as 300' and it worked better than 1000.
It was bait. Full story
1) SOP is to be stable at 1500'. And it is enforced with FDM, i.e. not a SOP to "please plan to be stable by 1500" but rather "we pay you to be stable by 1500, no "pleases", "buts" or "ifs";
2) 1000 is OM-A and NAA hard limit;
3) if you go around 1000-500 you will be processed (in a similar manner you have described above with allowances for the cultural differences, i.e. more public shaming);
4) if you go around but only as late as below 500 - demotion;
5) if you land from unstable at 500 - termination.
My point is whether the "standard" 1000 ft rule is sufficient. Somewhere I've read about a trial with the gate set as low as 300' and it worked better than 1000.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did not. Also g.g.'s 2500 fpm from well above the changeover level to 10k on average sounds - like a quiet day in the office.
It's been a few times already when the 1000 ft stable rule failed the crew and perhaps a little questioning is due. Not the crew, questioning of the rule.
FWIW my employer says when you land from unstable at 500, the PIC is fired. When you go-around from unstable at 500, the PIC is demoted for 6 months before being allowed an attempt to regain the second half of the salary.
It's been a few times already when the 1000 ft stable rule failed the crew and perhaps a little questioning is due. Not the crew, questioning of the rule.
FWIW my employer says when you land from unstable at 500, the PIC is fired. When you go-around from unstable at 500, the PIC is demoted for 6 months before being allowed an attempt to regain the second half of the salary.
SOPs do not cover everything. Sometimes you have to think for yourself, it used to be called airmanship and a consideration as to whether you can defend your decision. You could even cover it in the brief if you knew the weather was unstable on approach.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Monaco
Age: 72
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Source: Plane Spotters Pakistan
(translated)
Pti plane accident,
French experts team will investigate 16 hours in Pakistan for investigation,
French experts team will leave France tonight at 11 pm tonight,,
The special plane of Airbus experts will land on 26th may at 6 am at 40 am.
French experts flight " will reach the ABB 1888,
Karachi airport flight time from France is zayed for 7 hours.
French experts team will visit model colony instead of pti plane accident,
French experts team will provide technical support to investigating team,
The team will take the black box engine France with them, which will get more important evidence in the investigation of the accident,
The French experts team will complete all their investigations in karachi in 16 hours and go to 10th may 26 pm -
(translated)
Pti plane accident,
French experts team will investigate 16 hours in Pakistan for investigation,
French experts team will leave France tonight at 11 pm tonight,,
The special plane of Airbus experts will land on 26th may at 6 am at 40 am.
French experts flight " will reach the ABB 1888,
Karachi airport flight time from France is zayed for 7 hours.
French experts team will visit model colony instead of pti plane accident,
French experts team will provide technical support to investigating team,
The team will take the black box engine France with them, which will get more important evidence in the investigation of the accident,
The French experts team will complete all their investigations in karachi in 16 hours and go to 10th may 26 pm -
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eagles Nest
Posts: 485
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sacked below 500 ft ? Can you say who you work for ? How about hitting wake turbulence below 500 ? Late wind shear or junior flaring to high to late or wrong rudder ?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: South East
Age: 54
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are numerous design considerations that going into the design and location of the gearbox and other accessories (cross-engine debris, cooling, fire protection being just a few) - and as DR noted I don't think doing a go-around after a wheels up landing is one of them.
Many larger engines (larger than a CFM - e.g. PW4000, GE90, GEnx) have the gearbox located on the core instead of the fan case - but that's done for aerodynamic drag reasons (smaller diameter nacelle), not any consideration of wheels-up damage. On CFM sized (and smaller) engines there simply isn't enough room to make a core mounted gearbox practical. Similarly the 3 spool RB211 and Trent engines have a relatively fat core that also makes a core mounted gearbox impractical. The 737 engines have 'split' accessories on the fan case - instead of at ~six o'clock, they're moved to ~4 and 8 o'clock - but that's done for ground clearance - not for any consideration of a wheels up landing - furthermore there is a great deal of plumbing and wiring crossing the six o'clock so I doubt it would fare any better in a similar scenario.
Many larger engines (larger than a CFM - e.g. PW4000, GE90, GEnx) have the gearbox located on the core instead of the fan case - but that's done for aerodynamic drag reasons (smaller diameter nacelle), not any consideration of wheels-up damage. On CFM sized (and smaller) engines there simply isn't enough room to make a core mounted gearbox practical. Similarly the 3 spool RB211 and Trent engines have a relatively fat core that also makes a core mounted gearbox impractical. The 737 engines have 'split' accessories on the fan case - instead of at ~six o'clock, they're moved to ~4 and 8 o'clock - but that's done for ground clearance - not for any consideration of a wheels up landing - furthermore there is a great deal of plumbing and wiring crossing the six o'clock so I doubt it would fare any better in a similar scenario.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Somewhere out there...
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The designs of pod mounting engines are fine and with the A320 provide adequate clearance even with a high g landing with relevant strut compression. The issue here is that the aircraft for an unknown reason landed with out it gear extended, either in norm config or alternate. You can build as many safe guards as you like to mitigate landing with gears still retracted but why would anyone want to design a plane purely for crash landings when multiple failures (either of systems or system overides) would look to be the likely cause.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone going on an A320 simulator soon? A friend of mine tried on his flight simulator to lower the gears above 260kt the gears remained up as expected and never came down when he slowed down below 260kt! Would be interesting to try it in a real FFS.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Times also reporting Pakistan plane crash: pilots tried to land with wheels up
Rest of article paywalled, so don't know what "officials" they refer to. Maybe someone has access?
The Pakistani airliner that crashed into houses close to Karachi airport on Friday had aborted an initial attempt to land a few minutes earlier without its wheels extended, officials said yesterday.
An extraordinary sequence of events led to the loss of 97 lives, with only two passengers aboard the Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) flight surviving when the Airbus A320 came down a mile from the runway in the densely populated Model Colony neighbourhood and burst into flames. Nineteen houses were damaged but only four people on the ground were injured.
An extraordinary sequence of events led to the loss of 97 lives, with only two passengers aboard the Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) flight surviving when the Airbus A320 came down a mile from the runway in the densely populated Model Colony neighbourhood and burst into flames. Nineteen houses were damaged but only four people on the ground were injured.