PIA A320 Crash Karachi
As several have suggested, what is taught and what is done need not be the same in some places. Years ago as a new PPL was flying a 172 in the Far East with "safety pilot" back into a small International airport. On left base with B737 quite close by on final. Was about to orbit for separation when Instructor said continue. Almost at the same time ATC "B737, one right hand orbit present position!" and I chugged onto final and landed with said 737 circling just behind me. I looked at the instructor in amazement as we rolled out and he said "Take your time - don't rush! Being the (national airline) 737 Fleet Captain has its perks!".
I learned a bit about Cultures from that one event I tell you! H 'n' H
I learned a bit about Cultures from that one event I tell you! H 'n' H
Many years ago, PIA received its first 747. The flight was scheduled into Lahore (the capital city) turned around, and with the same crew flew the final sector to Karachi of the delivery flight.
The crew landed gear up! The aircraft was laboriously recovered and refurbished in the maintenance base at Karachi.
What was the final outcome? ATC was required to change their proceidures. Approach, at Marvi (or abeam it) transmits "Check gears down." I never heard a crew transmit "gear down/3 green" or any of the other permutations.
(mainly because no crew would have the gear down at that point.)
On transfer to Tower after 1500 ft, the Tower reponds with "...., check gears down", I would respond with "three green fullstop" but I never heard anybody else respond with anything but the routine "Clear to land, XX123"
Can the Tower see you? probably not, even with high power binoculars, until the aircraft is in close. Even then, although the Tower guy can issue a " XX123 go-around", that is probably not what most operators would say.
Sadly at KHI, the last defence outside the cockpit is deficient in KHI for a number of reasons, mostly to do with the guys inside the cockpit.
I had 24 years of flying widebodies to Karachi, that is a lot of experience.
The crew landed gear up! The aircraft was laboriously recovered and refurbished in the maintenance base at Karachi.
What was the final outcome? ATC was required to change their proceidures. Approach, at Marvi (or abeam it) transmits "Check gears down." I never heard a crew transmit "gear down/3 green" or any of the other permutations.
(mainly because no crew would have the gear down at that point.)
On transfer to Tower after 1500 ft, the Tower reponds with "...., check gears down", I would respond with "three green fullstop" but I never heard anybody else respond with anything but the routine "Clear to land, XX123"
Can the Tower see you? probably not, even with high power binoculars, until the aircraft is in close. Even then, although the Tower guy can issue a " XX123 go-around", that is probably not what most operators would say.
Sadly at KHI, the last defence outside the cockpit is deficient in KHI for a number of reasons, mostly to do with the guys inside the cockpit.
I had 24 years of flying widebodies to Karachi, that is a lot of experience.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Mid-central South of England
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Energy Management
Notwithstanding any of the ifs and whys, and while I know most airlines don’t practice this kind of profile or energy management strategy, perhaps for what they believe are good airmanship reasons in modern jets, but.....
.....with the data we are being shown and the number of unused sims/flight sims/computer reconstruction possibilities, has anyone tried to imitate something like a profile of this complexity? As only one example of many perhaps, 300 kts to 10000ft, alt capture, selected speed 250, full spoiler, gear down at 250 kts, thrust idle open descent, maintain selected speed at 250 kts to say🤔 2000ft.......(I haven’t looked at terrain issues but going down while/and slowing down aren’t good bed mates normally) then select 200kts perhaps, decelerate level, speed brakes in, configure, push managed speed and arm the approach? Is it at all in any way possible to achieve with the tracker miles from TOD to say a 6 mile final🤓
.....with the data we are being shown and the number of unused sims/flight sims/computer reconstruction possibilities, has anyone tried to imitate something like a profile of this complexity? As only one example of many perhaps, 300 kts to 10000ft, alt capture, selected speed 250, full spoiler, gear down at 250 kts, thrust idle open descent, maintain selected speed at 250 kts to say🤔 2000ft.......(I haven’t looked at terrain issues but going down while/and slowing down aren’t good bed mates normally) then select 200kts perhaps, decelerate level, speed brakes in, configure, push managed speed and arm the approach? Is it at all in any way possible to achieve with the tracker miles from TOD to say a 6 mile final🤓
Dude, did you actually read the posts in question?
NO ONE ever blamed the non-moving throttles. The entire throttle discussion was a thread drift regarding the Asiana (NOT Korean) accident at SFO, where the issue discussed was the lack of proper differences training when transitioning between Airbus and Boeing.
I'm honestly sorry I ever brought it up.
NO ONE ever blamed the non-moving throttles. The entire throttle discussion was a thread drift regarding the Asiana (NOT Korean) accident at SFO, where the issue discussed was the lack of proper differences training when transitioning between Airbus and Boeing.I'm honestly sorry I ever brought it up.
(I believe I brought up SFO before you offered you insights, and it was a diversion having to do with a grossly off-speed approach). Another interesting variation on "do you know what your power is?" and crew awareness is here; perhaps "gear awareness" and "power awareness" are related at the cognitive level.A few posts up there was a discussion in culture and its effects on the performance of pilots and ATC. Then a shorter one regarding the tension between ATC and certain Captains in a different place. What will the report say about those factors?
It seems unfair to me to point a finger at a tower operator if the crew forgets to lower the gear. Besides that being a crew role fundamentally, and the points about 'can you see that they are up or down clearly?', what else has Tower's attention as a given flight arrives over the threshold? As this post (the reasoning fits what is so far known) suggests, the tower seems to have been become aware of a gear-up pass after the first set of sparks as the cowlings scraped the runway.
A previous post mentions "was this flight on-time or not" and how does that influence the crew and crew day? As a contributor to crew mental fatigue, length of crew day will hopefully be covered in the report.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 30th May 2020 at 14:02.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: More or less all over the place
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it is important to understand the use of the English language by people in India and Pakistan to fully understand the phrase "Confirm you are carrying out belly landing".
Whilst at first sight/hearing this may lead the listener to believe that the controller is asking about future intent, it is more likely that the controller is asking about a historic event.
A native english speaker would say "Confirm you carried out..." whereas in the subcontinent this is often phrased as "confirm you are carrying out" with both phrases referring to the past event.
Whilst at first sight/hearing this may lead the listener to believe that the controller is asking about future intent, it is more likely that the controller is asking about a historic event.
A native english speaker would say "Confirm you carried out..." whereas in the subcontinent this is often phrased as "confirm you are carrying out" with both phrases referring to the past event.
Despite, in this respect, asking the question at that very moment in time, seems very illogical, the probably puzzled controller may well have thought it was his last opportunity, as it had become clear that the crew was going to be extremely busy from now on…
To me it sounds as:
”Confirm WHY you-are carying-out belly-landing?”
Referring to the first landing in the past.
Using here the present tense ’are’,
instead of past tense ’were’,
as is very common in the region.
learner . . .
Axel-Flo:
What a bizarre way of losing height with limited track miles. For a start, the A320 allows only approximately half speedbrake extension with autopilot engaged (even if the lever is selected to full). If you want full speedbrake extension you must first disconnect the autopilot. Secondly, the most effective method of losing altitude with reduced track miles is to keep the speed high, aircraft clean as long as possible to as low as possible, and then decelerate rapidly in level flight using Speedbrake, Gear and then flaps. So, if terrain, ATC and Company SOP permits the method would be selected MMO/VMO clean to 3000’ (say), activate Approach Phase, Managed speed then Speedbrake, Gear, Flaps. Use selected speed during deceleration according to taste.
As only one example of many perhaps, 300 kts to 10000ft, alt capture, selected speed 250, full spoiler, gear down at 250 kts, thrust idle open descent, maintain selected speed at 250 kts to say🤔 2000ft.......(I haven’t looked at terrain issues but going down while/and slowing down aren’t good bed mates normally) then select 200kts perhaps, decelerate level, speed brakes in, configure, push managed speed and arm the approach? Is it at all in any way possible to achieve with the tracker miles from TOD to say a 6 mile final🤓
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Europe
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Axel-Flo:
What a bizarre way of losing height with limited track miles. For a start, the A320 allows only approximately half speedbrake extension with autopilot engaged (even if the lever is selected to full). If you want full speedbrake extension you must first disconnect the autopilot. Secondly, the most effective method of losing altitude with reduced track miles is to keep the speed high, aircraft clean as long as possible to as low as possible, and then decelerate rapidly in level flight using Speedbrake, Gear and then flaps. So, if terrain, ATC and Company SOP permits the method would be selected MMO/VMO clean to 3000’ (say), activate Approach Phase, Managed speed then Speedbrake, Gear, Flaps. Use selected speed during deceleration according to taste.
What a bizarre way of losing height with limited track miles. For a start, the A320 allows only approximately half speedbrake extension with autopilot engaged (even if the lever is selected to full). If you want full speedbrake extension you must first disconnect the autopilot. Secondly, the most effective method of losing altitude with reduced track miles is to keep the speed high, aircraft clean as long as possible to as low as possible, and then decelerate rapidly in level flight using Speedbrake, Gear and then flaps. So, if terrain, ATC and Company SOP permits the method would be selected MMO/VMO clean to 3000’ (say), activate Approach Phase, Managed speed then Speedbrake, Gear, Flaps. Use selected speed during deceleration according to taste.
On almost every aircraft flying max gear extended speed with gear extended yields a way better descend angle then flying V/MMO clean.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Mid-central South of England
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True but may not have resulted I. What this did🤔
The individual type of expeditious profile
flown could be anything at all for the purposes of the example. Throwing in an orbit in descent when ATC suggest they were too high for example. My point was only that by “bimbleing” on down, the speed trace shows no set and held speed nor rate of descent and as we know resulted in crossing the threshold too fast and more than likely without the gear; as to wether the Airbus approach check list or landing check list was completed? Who knows. I was as much as anything asking if a late descent, if TOD had been missed as suggested, could have resulted in being back in the groove at any point to stabilise an approach specifically with the track miles they had. To achieve that, for the purposes of speculation, any tools in the box to create drag, rod or control speed should be fair game.
flown could be anything at all for the purposes of the example. Throwing in an orbit in descent when ATC suggest they were too high for example. My point was only that by “bimbleing” on down, the speed trace shows no set and held speed nor rate of descent and as we know resulted in crossing the threshold too fast and more than likely without the gear; as to wether the Airbus approach check list or landing check list was completed? Who knows. I was as much as anything asking if a late descent, if TOD had been missed as suggested, could have resulted in being back in the groove at any point to stabilise an approach specifically with the track miles they had. To achieve that, for the purposes of speculation, any tools in the box to create drag, rod or control speed should be fair game.
On almost every aircraft flying max gear extended speed with gear extended yields a way better descend angle then flying V/MMO clean.
Last edited by Nightstop; 30th May 2020 at 16:01. Reason: Grammar
It’s not the maximum rate of descent per se, it’s more about the horrendous noise the gear extended makes from 10,000’ and below at 250kts and the likelihood of the aircraft altitude catching up with the cabin pressure altitude at (say) 5,000’, after which the cabin pressure changes at the same rate of descent as the aircraft..possibly 6000’ per minute! The eardrums don’t take kindly to descent pressure increases above about 500’ per minute.
Last edited by Nightstop; 30th May 2020 at 16:33. Reason: Spelling, typical pilot!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Berkshire
Age: 61
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's why I posed my "actual sequence of events" query a few pages back...... So far as I am aware, the only ATC mention of the state of the gear is *after* the first, failed landing, as they are turning back to try again.
Approach - to whom Tower have just transferred the a/c - ask
"Confirm you are ?carrying out? belly landing".
It's not easy to know exactly why Approach asks this question at that moment, and there's no clear answer from the struggling crew. Pure speculation - Approach have had a quick heads-up from Tower that the first landing was some form of no-gear.
I'm sure by now investigators know more, factually - but there don't seem to be any reliable reports (whether official or leaked) of what they actually do now know.
Approach - to whom Tower have just transferred the a/c - ask
"Confirm you are ?carrying out? belly landing".
It's not easy to know exactly why Approach asks this question at that moment, and there's no clear answer from the struggling crew. Pure speculation - Approach have had a quick heads-up from Tower that the first landing was some form of no-gear.
I'm sure by now investigators know more, factually - but there don't seem to be any reliable reports (whether official or leaked) of what they actually do now know.
"Confirm why you are ?carrying out? belly landing"
Which puts a bit of a different slant on it.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 448
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a very strange accident and there has been massive speculation as to how the operating crew could possibly have ended up in this situation. There has also been a lot of conjecture based on limited knowledge. I am currently typed on the aircraft and I admit to be being baffled how an experienced captain could do some of the things that are being alleged to have happened. I accept that we are probably in for some more surprises, but encouraged that the flight and voice recorders have been recovered, which should eventually throw some light on the situation. Although I suspect we will be left shaking our heads very much as we did with the Air France A330.
What I would caution against are absolute statements. For example we simply don't yet know whether the gear was selected down and did not extend because of the protections and was then selected up again before first contact with the runway. This requires a fairly convoluted series of actions not least the failure to properly select TOGA at the first attempt. But it is conceivable.
Just as it is conceivable that the crew ignored all the warnings and failed to lower the gear. We will eventually find out. We have also had some crusty old pros saying that the Airbus flies just like any other aircraft. At one level that is true. But in reality in normal operation it does a lot of the work for you. Which is where we get back to the insidious skill deterioration that automation encourages. Maybe a Corona enforced reduction in flying, plus low blood sugar, plus Airbus skill atrophy lined up the holes in the Swiss cheese. In which case we need to be very careful when we all go flying again.
We have also had some interesting inputs from the ATC perspective. I am surprised that the tower was not closely watching an approach that appeared so unusual, particularly at a time of lower than usual traffic. Perhaps they were caught off guard by the aircraft reaching the runway sooner than expected. If they were maintaining in excess of 200 knots inside the last three miles rather than the more usual 130 then the controller may have been looking the wrong way. But it is still odd and given the strong military influence in Pakistan the absence of a check of the gear position prior to landing is more notable than it might be at a big airport in Europe.
Anyway I think we should keep and open mind and treat each other with courtesy as well as hopefully learning something from these sad events.
What I would caution against are absolute statements. For example we simply don't yet know whether the gear was selected down and did not extend because of the protections and was then selected up again before first contact with the runway. This requires a fairly convoluted series of actions not least the failure to properly select TOGA at the first attempt. But it is conceivable.
Just as it is conceivable that the crew ignored all the warnings and failed to lower the gear. We will eventually find out. We have also had some crusty old pros saying that the Airbus flies just like any other aircraft. At one level that is true. But in reality in normal operation it does a lot of the work for you. Which is where we get back to the insidious skill deterioration that automation encourages. Maybe a Corona enforced reduction in flying, plus low blood sugar, plus Airbus skill atrophy lined up the holes in the Swiss cheese. In which case we need to be very careful when we all go flying again.
We have also had some interesting inputs from the ATC perspective. I am surprised that the tower was not closely watching an approach that appeared so unusual, particularly at a time of lower than usual traffic. Perhaps they were caught off guard by the aircraft reaching the runway sooner than expected. If they were maintaining in excess of 200 knots inside the last three miles rather than the more usual 130 then the controller may have been looking the wrong way. But it is still odd and given the strong military influence in Pakistan the absence of a check of the gear position prior to landing is more notable than it might be at a big airport in Europe.
Anyway I think we should keep and open mind and treat each other with courtesy as well as hopefully learning something from these sad events.
Last edited by lederhosen; 30th May 2020 at 20:52.
Great post, lederhosen.
I think the industry is on its way to addressing the decreasing/degrading skill problem - certainly simulator curricula are increasingly providing this. I agree it isn't the same as having flown steam though, and that my own experience on the Airbus was "informed" by such equipment. So confidence in, say, disconnecting the thrust levers is a skill that can go a very long way to manually flying automated types.
While in this accident there are lots of technical issues present and well-discussed which may/may not be contributing factors, I can't conceive of anything on the part of the aircraft directly contributing to the initial seriously unstable approach.
It would be a rare pilot at these stages of their career that this crew was, to know that 200kts across the fence is simply not going to work no matter what. Yet there is Air India Express @ Mangalore & Garuda @ Yogjakarta, and 15deg NU in an A330 at cruise altitude. All unbelievable, but not to the crew involved. Why?
How to break the "freeze"? Clearly, (but again, not to the crew...), this is a human factors accident in which recognition of & techniques for dealing with "tunnel vision" need independant investigation and then training.
I think the industry is on its way to addressing the decreasing/degrading skill problem - certainly simulator curricula are increasingly providing this. I agree it isn't the same as having flown steam though, and that my own experience on the Airbus was "informed" by such equipment. So confidence in, say, disconnecting the thrust levers is a skill that can go a very long way to manually flying automated types.
While in this accident there are lots of technical issues present and well-discussed which may/may not be contributing factors, I can't conceive of anything on the part of the aircraft directly contributing to the initial seriously unstable approach.
It would be a rare pilot at these stages of their career that this crew was, to know that 200kts across the fence is simply not going to work no matter what. Yet there is Air India Express @ Mangalore & Garuda @ Yogjakarta, and 15deg NU in an A330 at cruise altitude. All unbelievable, but not to the crew involved. Why?
How to break the "freeze"? Clearly, (but again, not to the crew...), this is a human factors accident in which recognition of & techniques for dealing with "tunnel vision" need independant investigation and then training.
I hear 7 words, the middle one is still a bit of a mystery, "attempt" (or is it "intend"), but without the "...ing"
"Confirm are you attempt on belly landing"
But the meaning/intention of the question looks clear to me, certainly in the ongoing context: inquiring whether the next landing will be a belly landing.
For those with more experience on the accent, I've slowed down the audio fragment and repeated it a couple of times.
"Confirm are you attempt on belly landing"
But the meaning/intention of the question looks clear to me, certainly in the ongoing context: inquiring whether the next landing will be a belly landing.
For those with more experience on the accent, I've slowed down the audio fragment and repeated it a couple of times.
I think the industry is on its way to addressing the decreasing/degrading skill problem - certainly simulator curricula are increasingly providing this.
#924 by lederhosen is an excellent post and just about sums it up. I think we’ve covered all the possibilities in the past 900+ postings and the investigators report isn’t going to be a total surprise. It will likely be very similar to one or a combination of scenarios that have already been put forward, we just don’t know which at the moment.
I put forward a couple of ideas and others came up with different ones, almost all of which were equally if not more plausible.
The report is unlikely to show that the crew found a brand new way to crash an aircraft which had never been tried before, but will leave us shaking our heads as to how they deviated so far from expected norms. Significant failings in major operational areas are likely to be exposed as well.
I put forward a couple of ideas and others came up with different ones, almost all of which were equally if not more plausible.
The report is unlikely to show that the crew found a brand new way to crash an aircraft which had never been tried before, but will leave us shaking our heads as to how they deviated so far from expected norms. Significant failings in major operational areas are likely to be exposed as well.
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Lahore
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
Late to the thread, but just to give some insight, there are multiple CCTV cameras located as Karachi airport that are placed at the stands, it is possible that one of them has the runway in the background and may have captured the first approach. However, the footage is confidential and most probably won't be released.
I myself am a cadet based in Pakistan, and we see frequent violation of SOPs, both at GA level and at airline level. However it still baffles me that they decided to continue without gear down. I've always discussed that there still isn't any actual footage that confirms that they were gear up when approaching. Thus, is it possible they raised the gear prematurely after the go around 10-20 feet AGL, and the aircraft sinked due to TOGA activating a few seconds later? Karachi weather was hot and humid at the time, with very low air pressure. If someone has hypothesized this before, I'm sorry must've missed it.
Late to the thread, but just to give some insight, there are multiple CCTV cameras located as Karachi airport that are placed at the stands, it is possible that one of them has the runway in the background and may have captured the first approach. However, the footage is confidential and most probably won't be released.
I myself am a cadet based in Pakistan, and we see frequent violation of SOPs, both at GA level and at airline level. However it still baffles me that they decided to continue without gear down. I've always discussed that there still isn't any actual footage that confirms that they were gear up when approaching. Thus, is it possible they raised the gear prematurely after the go around 10-20 feet AGL, and the aircraft sinked due to TOGA activating a few seconds later? Karachi weather was hot and humid at the time, with very low air pressure. If someone has hypothesized this before, I'm sorry must've missed it.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Used to be the Beer Store, now the dépanneur
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the harvested data on this thread so far, I am very curious to know what kind of site-picture was in the minds of both pilots from short final, through the flare, and into touchdown during the first attempt. I want to understand what level of alleged task saturation, target fixation, cultural predisposition, or other cognitive deficit will allow 2 minds to accept the front view, given the energy parameters being suggested so far in this thread.
