PIA A320 Crash Karachi
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: back of beyond
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Probably; they show the plane in a landed attitude with the fan cowl apparently scraping the runway, whereas pics of the accident flight after the botched landing clearly show the fan cowls intact and the damage at the back of the engine covers, indicating a nose-up attitude when they scraped the runway.
The post originates from one of the admins of the site in question, so I'd be inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is now 21.53 in Karachi, 22nd June 2020.
Was the initial report made public today or not ?
Was the initial report made public today or not ?
Last edited by Teddy Robinson; 22nd Jun 2020 at 17:03. Reason: local time ...
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,803
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
There's clearly a bit of misunderstanding about the authority and responsibility of ATCOs. Their role is "to provide a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic".
They are neither trained, nor authorised, to tell an aircraft captain what to do with his aircraft ... beyond the aforementioned parameters.
"Go Around", if timely, is relevant. Telling the PIA pilot NOT to Go Around after the runway scrape is completely inappropriate.
They are neither trained, nor authorised, to tell an aircraft captain what to do with his aircraft ... beyond the aforementioned parameters.
"Go Around", if timely, is relevant. Telling the PIA pilot NOT to Go Around after the runway scrape is completely inappropriate.
Last edited by MPN11; 24th Jun 2020 at 07:29.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
From ARY News:
ISLAMABAD: Aviation Division of the country has refuted various news stories airing on media channels and social media as possible investigative report of PIA’s flight PK-8303 crash, ARY News reported on Monday.
Spokesperson of the aviation division categorically stated that the institute has released no such investigative work on the national tragedy and termed the news stories being aired in their name by various news outlets as incorrect.
Multiple news media outlets of the country had run stories on the matter claiming that the investigative report compiled by the aviation division held the pilot and air traffic controller of the ill-fated PK-8303 crash responsible for the harrowing incident that engulfed 97 lives.
It must be noted that Prime Minister Imran Khan had asked the federal minister for aviation, Ghulam Sarwar Khan to produce the investigative report by Monday (today).
Ghulam Sarwar Khan had assured the prime minister of bringing forth the preliminary report and presenting it to the premier, sources privy to the development claimed in the past.
On May 22, flight PK-8303 crashed in Model Colony near the Jinnah International Airport in Karachi, two passengers miraculously survived out of the 99 onboard.
Aviation Division refutes PK-8303 reports aired on media, nothing released yet
On Jun 22, 2020 Last updated Jun 22, 2020ISLAMABAD: Aviation Division of the country has refuted various news stories airing on media channels and social media as possible investigative report of PIA’s flight PK-8303 crash, ARY News reported on Monday.
Spokesperson of the aviation division categorically stated that the institute has released no such investigative work on the national tragedy and termed the news stories being aired in their name by various news outlets as incorrect.
Multiple news media outlets of the country had run stories on the matter claiming that the investigative report compiled by the aviation division held the pilot and air traffic controller of the ill-fated PK-8303 crash responsible for the harrowing incident that engulfed 97 lives.
It must be noted that Prime Minister Imran Khan had asked the federal minister for aviation, Ghulam Sarwar Khan to produce the investigative report by Monday (today).
Ghulam Sarwar Khan had assured the prime minister of bringing forth the preliminary report and presenting it to the premier, sources privy to the development claimed in the past.
On May 22, flight PK-8303 crashed in Model Colony near the Jinnah International Airport in Karachi, two passengers miraculously survived out of the 99 onboard.
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Bucharest
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, apparently ARY News was showing earlier on TV some pages from the report, so it seems they had at least some version of the report, maybe a draft, if not the final version. The video is linked to this article:
https://arynews.tv/en/pilot-air-traf...pk-8303-crash/
And another TV station, Dunya News was apparently showing CCTV screenshots from the report, including those with the sparks as the aircraft touched the runway, that have been posted earlier in this thread:
Preliminary PIA plane crash report presented to PM Imran - Pakistan - Dunya News
https://arynews.tv/en/pilot-air-traf...pk-8303-crash/
And another TV station, Dunya News was apparently showing CCTV screenshots from the report, including those with the sparks as the aircraft touched the runway, that have been posted earlier in this thread:
Preliminary PIA plane crash report presented to PM Imran - Pakistan - Dunya News
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: In the land of smog
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To a degree, but well before the flare on an A320, you would have had GPWS mode 4A shouting "TOO LOW GEAR. TOO LOW GEAR" audio, with a RED master warning, AND a bloody great big RED down arrow lighting up next to the gear lever. Or would all of that be inhibited if the gear lever had been put down above 260kts?
I will be fascinated to read the CVR to find out how they got themselves into this situation.
I will be fascinated to read the CVR to find out how they got themselves into this situation.
Given its speed, presumably the aircraft would have climbed away pretty quickly if it were held in a nose-up attitude. To touch the runway three times, it must have been at a lower pitch attitude at some point in the sequence. It doesn't seem farfetched that it might have touched in the attitude shown in the photos at least once.
I will be very disappointed if all I see in the headlines is the criticism of crew an/or ATC
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Join Date: May 2020
Location: PA
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IIRC, we can see in some crash photos that there is very little or no fan tip damage. The damage which stopped the engines was perhaps gear box or fuel or oil line damage.
Or perhaps we can add another mistake/problem such as not enough fuel?
Is it possible that they knew they were too low on fuel to have more than one landing attempt and this explains the big hurry to get down in one shot, and the failure to do the go around at the proper time?
Or perhaps we can add another mistake/problem such as not enough fuel?
Is it possible that they knew they were too low on fuel to have more than one landing attempt and this explains the big hurry to get down in one shot, and the failure to do the go around at the proper time?
The point isn’t about the images. It’s about the runway being used before a FOD check had been carried out after the runway scrape. As there’s no clarity currently regarding what the tower controller observed, it seems odd that if the tower controller didn’t see the event. Again odd that no one else reported it to them, for them to action a runway FOD check prior to the runway being used again.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all clear now that there was enough fuel aircraft was serviceable, weather was fine and there was no traffic. The pilot missed TOD because either he was sleeping or doping. From the local audios and videos the following things are reasonably clear:
1. The pilot was on continuously rostered for 6th or 7th day without weekly off. When most of the pilots and Aircraft are on ground why should this be the case not known.
2. It was not possible that he wasn't fasting,
3. He missed the descent and asked for it much later.
4. He never cross checked his vertical and speed profile.
5. When ATC told him he was high he just dived the aircraft didn't use the gear to increase his rate of descent.
6. When given a vector refused by saying we are comfortable. Possibly a case of false glideslope.
7. He lowered flaps but was unable to slow down the overspeed warning came on and remained on.
8. Flap overspeed warning suppressed gear not down warning.and the excess speed prevented GPWS from triggering the "Too low gear warning""
9. Only GPWS too low terrain remained on which was ignored as false since RW was visible straight ahead.
10. On touchdown they realized gear was not down.
11. Being unsure of stopping within the remaining distance they executed a go around.
12. Possibility of Engine damage due to contact never occurred to them because they asked for another radar vectored ILS and accepted a divergent heading away from runway.
13 it's only after Engines failed they turned towards runway with gear down.
14. Due to insufficient height trying to clear the buildings Aircraft stalled and crashed.
15. Had the engine damage possibility occurred to them they could have asked for a circling approach and would have made the runway even without the engines.
1. The pilot was on continuously rostered for 6th or 7th day without weekly off. When most of the pilots and Aircraft are on ground why should this be the case not known.
2. It was not possible that he wasn't fasting,
3. He missed the descent and asked for it much later.
4. He never cross checked his vertical and speed profile.
5. When ATC told him he was high he just dived the aircraft didn't use the gear to increase his rate of descent.
6. When given a vector refused by saying we are comfortable. Possibly a case of false glideslope.
7. He lowered flaps but was unable to slow down the overspeed warning came on and remained on.
8. Flap overspeed warning suppressed gear not down warning.and the excess speed prevented GPWS from triggering the "Too low gear warning""
9. Only GPWS too low terrain remained on which was ignored as false since RW was visible straight ahead.
10. On touchdown they realized gear was not down.
11. Being unsure of stopping within the remaining distance they executed a go around.
12. Possibility of Engine damage due to contact never occurred to them because they asked for another radar vectored ILS and accepted a divergent heading away from runway.
13 it's only after Engines failed they turned towards runway with gear down.
14. Due to insufficient height trying to clear the buildings Aircraft stalled and crashed.
15. Had the engine damage possibility occurred to them they could have asked for a circling approach and would have made the runway even without the engines.
Only half a speed-brake
