PIA A320 Crash Karachi
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: victoria bc
Age: 82
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have to wonder if this was not the first rodeo for this crew. The only way anyone could be
“ comfortable” in those circumstances would be from experience you don’t get by straightening up and flying right. There may be much more to this story than what is on those recorders.
“ comfortable” in those circumstances would be from experience you don’t get by straightening up and flying right. There may be much more to this story than what is on those recorders.
Question for those who fly the A320.
I note this.
They were likely startled by the loss of the engines, and they did not have much altitude to play with. (Much earlier in the thread we see a video clip as the plane goes down, with the nose up and wheels down as they reached the tragic end).
My question: with the gear up (in other words, had they left the gear up for longer once the engines were done) was there any chance that the aircraft would have reached the field rather than coming down in the residential area "1340 meters short from frunway 25L"?
(Yes, I do realize that landing on the engines with the wheels up poses other risks, and I am not sure how long it takes a startled crew to get the wheels down with most of the systems gone off line).
Ever since Sully's landing in the Hudson River I would hope that, now and again, crews are tested in the sims against a loss of both engines not too far from the ground (a few thousand feet) to see what the plane does and how far it can "stretch" with the engines gone.
Yes, that's the old training officer in me thinking through crew training. I ask because I don't know what gets thrown at A320 crews during sim sessions, and what the general feel is on how far one can 'stretch' a dead engines glide before one must commit to putting it down.
EDIT: I see a comment from 1549 thread that
but I don't think you get all that unless you are going straight in. I think they had to turn back, or turn some amount, to get there once the engines stopped, since they were heading back for another approach ...
I note this.
(l) The aircraft crashed about 1340 meters short from runway 25L. It was a slow speed impact with high angle of attack, with aircraft configuration indicating landing gears extended, slats at step / position 1, and flaps retracted. The said configuration was ascertained and documented from the wreckage at the crash site (as the FDR data recording had stopped earlier).
My question: with the gear up (in other words, had they left the gear up for longer once the engines were done) was there any chance that the aircraft would have reached the field rather than coming down in the residential area "1340 meters short from frunway 25L"?
(Yes, I do realize that landing on the engines with the wheels up poses other risks, and I am not sure how long it takes a startled crew to get the wheels down with most of the systems gone off line).
Ever since Sully's landing in the Hudson River I would hope that, now and again, crews are tested in the sims against a loss of both engines not too far from the ground (a few thousand feet) to see what the plane does and how far it can "stretch" with the engines gone.
Yes, that's the old training officer in me thinking through crew training. I ask because I don't know what gets thrown at A320 crews during sim sessions, and what the general feel is on how far one can 'stretch' a dead engines glide before one must commit to putting it down.
EDIT: I see a comment from 1549 thread that
glide ratio should be about 18:1, or slightly better. For every 1000' of altitude you can go 3 n.m.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 25th Jun 2020 at 02:34.
I know on the 757/767 they added hydraulic generator - but that wasn't basic, it was part of the (optional) ETOPS package. They battery was supposed to be good for 30 minutes (only powering critical systems) which was basically as long as you could realistically glide after an all engine power loss. The hydraulic generator was for case where you lost main bus electrical power but the engines were still running (I don't think it could operate off the RAT, but I'm not positive). RAT hydraulic power is pretty limited...
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Tdracer,
The rat is basic on A320, not optional. It’s a no go item if the RAT is inop.
It will deploy automatically if AC Buses 1 and 2 are lost. Can also be deployed manually.
For Hydraulic issue, the RAT must be deployed manually. No auto extension.
The rat is basic on A320, not optional. It’s a no go item if the RAT is inop.
It will deploy automatically if AC Buses 1 and 2 are lost. Can also be deployed manually.
For Hydraulic issue, the RAT must be deployed manually. No auto extension.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tdracer
AC1 and AC2 are the 2 main AC busses on the 320. The hydraulic and electrical power coming from the A320 RAT isn't spectacular either, but it'll get you home (in the sim).
AC1 and AC2 are the 2 main AC busses on the 320. The hydraulic and electrical power coming from the A320 RAT isn't spectacular either, but it'll get you home (in the sim).
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just curious - but is that basic (and automatic) on the A320?
I know on the 757/767 they added hydraulic generator - but that wasn't basic, it was part of the (optional) ETOPS package. They battery was supposed to be good for 30 minutes (only powering critical systems) which was basically as long as you could realistically glide after an all engine power loss. The hydraulic generator was for case where you lost main bus electrical power but the engines were still running (I don't think it could operate off the RAT, but I'm not positive). RAT hydraulic power is pretty limited...
I know on the 757/767 they added hydraulic generator - but that wasn't basic, it was part of the (optional) ETOPS package. They battery was supposed to be good for 30 minutes (only powering critical systems) which was basically as long as you could realistically glide after an all engine power loss. The hydraulic generator was for case where you lost main bus electrical power but the engines were still running (I don't think it could operate off the RAT, but I'm not positive). RAT hydraulic power is pretty limited...
I was specifically asking about the hydraulic generator.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last edited by vilas; 25th Jun 2020 at 08:07.
de minimus non curat lex
Doing a great job to get the airline banned from landing anywhere in the Western hemisphere.I assume their civil written exams are equivalent to the FAA/EASA hoop jumping exercises. So the licences are genuine licences issued by their CAA although the qualifying requirements were not met.
Perhaps someone can confirm the actual process?
edit: Now updated news that the exams were written by ‘others’ as well. So licences revoked.
PIA were banned from EU airspace in March 2007 on safety grounds due to an old aircraft fleet, apart from their B.777s. A partial lifting occurred four months later, and the ban was eventually lifted in the November following a final EU safety audit.
Last edited by parkfell; 25th Jun 2020 at 13:34. Reason: Updated news: licences revoked
This truly is an epic level of incompetence from start to finish. If PIA were not a state airline they would be very worried about their operating licence being taken away. There is however a tried and tested method for responding to these kind of situations as demonstrated with Korean. In their case flight operations expertise was parachuted in from Delta and the operating culture was addressed, with a marked improvement in safety. Imran Khan is a smart (Oxford educated) leader. I am sure someone will point him in the right direction. They have some links to Air Canada for example so maybe that would be somewhere to look for help. The Pakistan cricket team (Imran was one of their greatest players) has had foreign coaches so the concept should be familiar.
You have to wonder if this was not the first rodeo for this crew. The only way anyone could be
“ comfortable” in those circumstances would be from experience you don’t get by straightening up and flying right. There may be much more to this story than what is on those recorders.
“ comfortable” in those circumstances would be from experience you don’t get by straightening up and flying right. There may be much more to this story than what is on those recorders.
ATC were aware of abnormalities - was their intervention also routine, something that happens every day?
Question for those who fly the A320.
I note this.
They were likely startled by the loss of the engines, and they did not have much altitude to play with. (Much earlier in the thread we see a video clip as the plane goes down, with the nose up and wheels down as they reached the tragic end).
My question: with the gear up (in other words, had they left the gear up for longer once the engines were done) was there any chance that the aircraft would have reached the field rather than coming down in the residential area "1340 meters short from frunway 25L"?
(Yes, I do realize that landing on the engines with the wheels up poses other risks, and I am not sure how long it takes a startled crew to get the wheels down with most of the systems gone off line).
Ever since Sully's landing in the Hudson River I would hope that, now and again, crews are tested in the sims against a loss of both engines not too far from the ground (a few thousand feet) to see what the plane does and how far it can "stretch" with the engines gone.
Yes, that's the old training officer in me thinking through crew training. I ask because I don't know what gets thrown at A320 crews during sim sessions, and what the general feel is on how far one can 'stretch' a dead engines glide before one must commit to putting it down.
EDIT: I see a comment from 1549 thread that but I don't think you get all that unless you are going straight in. I think they had to turn back, or turn some amount, to get there once the engines stopped, since they were heading back for another approach ...
I note this.
They were likely startled by the loss of the engines, and they did not have much altitude to play with. (Much earlier in the thread we see a video clip as the plane goes down, with the nose up and wheels down as they reached the tragic end).
My question: with the gear up (in other words, had they left the gear up for longer once the engines were done) was there any chance that the aircraft would have reached the field rather than coming down in the residential area "1340 meters short from frunway 25L"?
(Yes, I do realize that landing on the engines with the wheels up poses other risks, and I am not sure how long it takes a startled crew to get the wheels down with most of the systems gone off line).
Ever since Sully's landing in the Hudson River I would hope that, now and again, crews are tested in the sims against a loss of both engines not too far from the ground (a few thousand feet) to see what the plane does and how far it can "stretch" with the engines gone.
Yes, that's the old training officer in me thinking through crew training. I ask because I don't know what gets thrown at A320 crews during sim sessions, and what the general feel is on how far one can 'stretch' a dead engines glide before one must commit to putting it down.
EDIT: I see a comment from 1549 thread that but I don't think you get all that unless you are going straight in. I think they had to turn back, or turn some amount, to get there once the engines stopped, since they were heading back for another approach ...
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
5 Posts
This really has me thinking the answer may be something right out of the box.
Surely no crew could be this incompetent?
Fumes event with both pilots affected?
Surely no crew could be this incompetent?
Fumes event with both pilots affected?
THUNDERTAILED
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: L200
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These pilots were either drunk, or;
This flying culture is so ingrained at PIA that both of them were completely comfortable with it (as they actually stated), and had got away with such behaviour on a regular basis in the past. From which you can probably deduce that other pilots at PIA behave in a similar fashion, on a regular basis.
This flying culture is so ingrained at PIA that both of them were completely comfortable with it (as they actually stated), and had got away with such behaviour on a regular basis in the past. From which you can probably deduce that other pilots at PIA behave in a similar fashion, on a regular basis.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: FL390
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2018
Location: BCN
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Neither here or there
Posts: 315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Over familiarization leads to over confidence which leads to these kinds of incidents. In the early 2000s I was on the jump seat of a national carrier into Cyprus from LHR. No radar. The the outbound leg was flown at 340 kts, the turn to final in excess of 250 and we became stable just above 500. Had it not been for the headwind it would've been a go around. Imagine an A330 in the calm of day with no other traffic to be seen going around in a country with a heavy macho culture. That would've been a fun discussion. I'm guessing something similar here too. To go around would've meant an explanation, to land (in the absence of FDM) would guarantee they get away with the mess. Unfortunately, the more than got away!
Last edited by CW247; 25th Jun 2020 at 09:42.
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50
My question: with the gear up (in other words, had they left the gear up for longer once the engines were done) was there any chance that the aircraft would have reached the field...
The corollary of which, of course, is to ask whether if they had left the u/c down on the first approach, the extra drag would have enabled something akin to a safe landing.
