PIA A320 Crash Karachi
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 448
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
A tear drop maneuversaved a previous A320 incident.
I didn't mean to imp[y otherwise
It's way too early to wrap this up by blaming persons. All I would like to see is the entire string of facts. After this we can all draw ideas about prevention.
I just don't like the idea of the future air travelers believing that if somebody has a bad day then they themselves wont make it out alive either
It's way too early to wrap this up by blaming persons. All I would like to see is the entire string of facts. After this we can all draw ideas about prevention.
I just don't like the idea of the future air travelers believing that if somebody has a bad day then they themselves wont make it out alive either
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: 900m
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, future air travelers, that is how it is. Everything possible should be done to avoid “having a bad day” in the cockpit, including not going to work. And if even then “somebody has a bad day” then the other somebody in the cockpit has the vital and difficult job of saving it.
BTW - in this context - amoung some of the baloney "leaks" of the awaited Interim Report in today's Pakistani and Indian press is some nonsense about their being 17 minutes between the first landing attempt and the final crash: so far as I can tell (from FlightRadar24 stuff), there was about 4 minutes. The same "leaks" have the runway as being 9km long........
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 839
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(Not my first language)
Actually, Twitter, that's not how it is. As a participant in this forum you surely both recognize and agree that professional pilots speak - for lack of a better term - "pilot-ese".
Oh I nearly forgot: SLF here, on the thread to improve own understanding of aviation law factors implicated in, or more directly presented by, the subject accident of PIA 8303.
That said, "having a bad day" is not part of the professional pilot's creed and it is not part of the lexicon either - with very minor exception. There is so much work and dedication and sincere-plus-devoted career service of so many persons that has gone into constructing the international aviation safety system (or if you like, call it the safety community or infrastructure or ecosystem) that what "future travelers" - SLFs for the vast and heavily predominant majority - understand as "having a bad day" has been constructed out of that system. Yes human beings are endlessly creative critters and find, sometimes, new and improved ways of screwing things up. But I strongly disagree with an assertion that the international aviation safety system so long in the making and which required so much work and effort is so tenuous that a couple of bad-day havers, as these ordinary words are understood by Joan and John Q Travelling Public, can crater any given flight.
Here's a proof: What is ICAO built around, what is its most prominent construct within the aviation safety system which I post here to defend? Answer: SARPs - which of course everyone knows, Standards and Recommended Practices. Second, what did the crew of 8303 not follow? Standard Operating Procedures. Not following those is not merely having a bad day.
Oh I nearly forgot: SLF here, on the thread to improve own understanding of aviation law factors implicated in, or more directly presented by, the subject accident of PIA 8303.
That said, "having a bad day" is not part of the professional pilot's creed and it is not part of the lexicon either - with very minor exception. There is so much work and dedication and sincere-plus-devoted career service of so many persons that has gone into constructing the international aviation safety system (or if you like, call it the safety community or infrastructure or ecosystem) that what "future travelers" - SLFs for the vast and heavily predominant majority - understand as "having a bad day" has been constructed out of that system. Yes human beings are endlessly creative critters and find, sometimes, new and improved ways of screwing things up. But I strongly disagree with an assertion that the international aviation safety system so long in the making and which required so much work and effort is so tenuous that a couple of bad-day havers, as these ordinary words are understood by Joan and John Q Travelling Public, can crater any given flight.
Here's a proof: What is ICAO built around, what is its most prominent construct within the aviation safety system which I post here to defend? Answer: SARPs - which of course everyone knows, Standards and Recommended Practices. Second, what did the crew of 8303 not follow? Standard Operating Procedures. Not following those is not merely having a bad day.
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Centre of Universe
Posts: 140
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.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what was released to media that's what they said. It's surprising. Although even in India a guy during lockdown flew 120 hours in 70 days and on LinkedIn every one started praising. I asked the same question when the fleet is on ground why one guy doing so much.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some airlines have kept 1 crew set (Captain and FO) to fly the grounded jets on a rotational basis to avoid storage maintenance. Other airlines will rotate the crews through the available grounded jets to both avoid storage maintenance and provide some type currency to the crews.
There is a picture posted (many pages back) of the CFM56-5 gearbox installation - at the six o'clock position on the fan case. Given the force of the cowling impacts on the runway, it's highly likely the gearbox casing fractured (it's a large casting, so relatively brittle in impact). This would have resulting in a very rapid loss of nearly all the engine oil. The gearbox apparently didn't fail catastrophically - that would have failed the engine driven fuel pump which would have caused the engine to quit almost immediately.
Repeating myself here, but not wanting to force people to read (or re-read) all 60+ pages:
There is a picture posted (many pages back) of the CFM56-5 gearbox installation - at the six o'clock position on the fan case. Given the force of the cowling impacts on the runway, it's highly likely the gearbox casing fractured (it's a large casting, so relatively brittle in impact). This would have resulting in a very rapid loss of nearly all the engine oil. The gearbox apparently didn't fail catastrophically - that would have failed the engine driven fuel pump which would have caused the engine to quit almost immediately.
There is a picture posted (many pages back) of the CFM56-5 gearbox installation - at the six o'clock position on the fan case. Given the force of the cowling impacts on the runway, it's highly likely the gearbox casing fractured (it's a large casting, so relatively brittle in impact). This would have resulting in a very rapid loss of nearly all the engine oil. The gearbox apparently didn't fail catastrophically - that would have failed the engine driven fuel pump which would have caused the engine to quit almost immediately.
Easy tto see by looking at the blade tips for burning and blueing (highspeed extreme rubbing and its secondary effects, melted turbine blades).
So far no facts to support other than 1x eyeball of grainy pix
https://www.dawn.com/news/1564911/in...ation-minister
Interesting in the latter part of the report linked above that the interim report says that cabin crew and control tower were also at fault.
Nothing like spreading the blame around.......
Interesting in the latter part of the report linked above that the interim report says that cabin crew and control tower were also at fault.
Nothing like spreading the blame around.......
de minimus non curat lex
This was the commencement of the first hole in the Swiss Cheese....
”If this brings home one thing to me is that why on earth didn’t
the PM ( FO?) give a gentle nudge to the PF approaching the TOD point?
FOs worldwide simply must come to terms with the fact the individual in the LHS is not a “SKYGOD”, whatever they have been told, but simply
“ skin and bone” like every other human being; and in common with all human beings they have their failings as well. Humility is one characteristic sadly lacking at times.
And by FOs inactions they probably contribute to over 50% of accidents worldwide.” Discuss
Only half a speed-brake
If I understood correctly, over here https://aviation-safety.net/database...?id=20150425-0 the engine did not make ground contact before the G/A. True?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I understood correctly, over here
A start of proper reports on the contents of the Preliminary Report presented to the Pakistan Parliament:
Aviation Minister Ghulam Sarwar Khan presented the preliminary report on the PIA plane crash before the National Assembly on Wednesday, where he accused the pilots of being ‘over confident’. Based on the initial report, Khan held the pilot, the cabin crew, and the Air Traffic Control (ATC) responsible for the plane crash, which resulted in the deaths of 97 out of 99 persons on board the flight.
“The pilot and the ATC did not follow the procedure. The plane was 100 per cent okay,” said the minister, eliminating the possibility of technical faults with the aircraft.
Khan added that the pilots were not “focused” because of the coronavirus pandemic.
“In the last half hour, the pilots’ discussion was about coronavirus, they were not focused as their families were affected,” said the minister, adding that the pilot and co-pilot were both fit and experienced.
The final report of the incident will be presented in one year, added the aviation minister.
No idea why the cabin crew are mentioned..... (and - as it turns out - they are not mentioned at all in the report linked in my next post).
Aviation Minister Ghulam Sarwar Khan presented the preliminary report on the PIA plane crash before the National Assembly on Wednesday, where he accused the pilots of being ‘over confident’. Based on the initial report, Khan held the pilot, the cabin crew, and the Air Traffic Control (ATC) responsible for the plane crash, which resulted in the deaths of 97 out of 99 persons on board the flight.
“The pilot and the ATC did not follow the procedure. The plane was 100 per cent okay,” said the minister, eliminating the possibility of technical faults with the aircraft.
Khan added that the pilots were not “focused” because of the coronavirus pandemic.
“In the last half hour, the pilots’ discussion was about coronavirus, they were not focused as their families were affected,” said the minister, adding that the pilot and co-pilot were both fit and experienced.
The final report of the incident will be presented in one year, added the aviation minister.
No idea why the cabin crew are mentioned..... (and - as it turns out - they are not mentioned at all in the report linked in my next post).
Last edited by Gary Brown; 24th Jun 2020 at 09:50. Reason: Formatting; clarification re Cabin Crew remark)
And the Interim Report just published by Pakistan AAIB.
It may be worth looking at flap limiting speeds to see how poorly this aircraft was being flown whilst reading that report.
A320ceo-
Flap 1-230kt
Flap 2-200kt
Flap 3-185kt
From the report section 20 (i)at 500ft they were at 220kt , Flap 3 with a descent rate of 2000ft/min.
A320ceo-
Flap 1-230kt
Flap 2-200kt
Flap 3-185kt
From the report section 20 (i)at 500ft they were at 220kt , Flap 3 with a descent rate of 2000ft/min.
Last edited by tubby linton; 24th Jun 2020 at 10:57.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the Interim Report just published by Pakistan AAIB.