PIA A320 Crash Karachi
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: FL390
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not familiar with 320 but on some aircraft models landing gear is almost as effective speed brake as spoilers.
Speedbrakes are next to useless at low speeds; the drag is mainly induced due to alpha increase than anything else.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fumes are not mentioned anywhere in that report.
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Manchester
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Guardian: Pakistan plane crashed after pilots distracted by coronavirus fears
The pilots of a plane that crashed last month in Pakistan, killing 98 people, were pre-occupied by the coronavirus crisis and tried to land with the aircraft’s wheels still up, according to initial official reports.The preliminary report outlines the flight’s chaotic final minutes and a bizarre series of errors compounded by communication failures with air traffic control.
Investigators found the plane was at more than twice the correct altitude when it first approached the runway, and the tower advised the pilots to circle for a more gradual descent, the report states.
But, instead of going around, the pilots attempted to land anyway - even though they had raised the landing gear.
Air traffic control saw the Airbus A320’s engines scrape the runway with a shower of sparks, but did not tell the cockpit. The badly damaged engines failed as the plane turned to attempt a second landing.
Investigators found the plane was at more than twice the correct altitude when it first approached the runway, and the tower advised the pilots to circle for a more gradual descent, the report states.
But, instead of going around, the pilots attempted to land anyway - even though they had raised the landing gear.
Air traffic control saw the Airbus A320’s engines scrape the runway with a shower of sparks, but did not tell the cockpit. The badly damaged engines failed as the plane turned to attempt a second landing.
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: India
Age: 85
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.......
As a final contribution to this thread ("We'll have to wait for the Final Report"....or for a CVR leak), can I just draw attention to a slightly - deliberately? - ambiguous remark in the Interim, at 20 (m):
Captain and First Officer were adequately qualified and experienced to undertake the said flight; necessary scrutiny of the aircrew records / documents is under way
That could be read - first phrase - as saying that there's no question of these two crew having fake / dodgy qualifications; or it could be read - second phrase - as saying as yet there's no question.....
Last edited by Gary Brown; 25th Jun 2020 at 20:58. Reason: typos
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don’t see how ATC can be blamed at all.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Banksville
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heaven help me, but as others have suggested, I now wonder if this sort of half-arsed SOP is in fact quite common at PIA, and PIA chaps regularly get away with it, hence no one was too concerned during this obviously ridiculous approach path, and in fact able to discuss Covid, whilst preparing for a landing that would end up killing themselves and most of their passengers.
For me the biggest question is why the gear was retracted.....
For me the biggest question is why the gear was retracted.....
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Laredo, TX
Posts: 133
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!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Watford
Age: 70
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.businesstoday.in/current...ry/407994.html
Members are kindly invited to bring up and discuss the matter of licenses in the thread covering that, unless either of these two pilots is shown by the investigation to be in that class of pilot. Please keep this thread focused on this accident, this airline, and this crew. Thank you all in advance. (Mod)
Members are kindly invited to bring up and discuss the matter of licenses in the thread covering that, unless either of these two pilots is shown by the investigation to be in that class of pilot. Please keep this thread focused on this accident, this airline, and this crew. Thank you all in advance. (Mod)
Last edited by T28B; 25th Jun 2020 at 15:50. Reason: cross talk with licensing thread
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Out of the blue
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is absolutely nothing in this data to show that an average qualified crew in the circumstances on the day, could not be be expected to recognize the gravity of the situation, respond to it, mitigate the trajectory, and take action to correct the flightpath in an expeditious and controlled manner, in such a way as to achieve a safe outcome on a subsequent planned, controlled, and routinely executed approach and landing, within safe parameters and the within normal limits of the manufacturer's standard operating guidance.
So I think we can agree the aircraft was grossly mishandled to a degree that barely lies within the definition of the phrase.
We must ask therefore, what administrative organization allowed two such individuals to occupy the flight deck of a public transport aeroplane in which any one of our loved ones might have been a passenger?
So I think we can agree the aircraft was grossly mishandled to a degree that barely lies within the definition of the phrase.
We must ask therefore, what administrative organization allowed two such individuals to occupy the flight deck of a public transport aeroplane in which any one of our loved ones might have been a passenger?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This part (among others) has me scratching my head.
They gear was down, and then it was raised as they got closer, per the FDR information.
Switchology thing, or deliberate? I think that I understand the speed brakes retraction, but not the gear coming up.
CVR may shed light on that.
For A320 sim instructors: do you see raising the gear unintentionally very often in the sim?
Originally Posted by interim report
20 (e) “Karachi Approach” inquired “confirm track mile comfortable for descend” and later advised to take an orbit, so that the aircraft can be adjusted on the required descend profile. No orbit was executed and the effort to intercept the glide slope and localizer (of ILS) was continued. The FDR indicated action of lowering of the landing gears at 7221 ft at around 10.5 Nautical Miles from Runway 25L.
(20 f) “Karachi Approach” advised repeatedly (twice to discontinue the approach and once cautioned) about excessive height. Landing approach was not discontinued. However, FDR shows action of raising of the landing gears at 1740 ft followed by retraction of the speed brakes (at a distance slightly less than 05 nautical miles from the runway 25L). At this time, the aircraft had intercepted the localizer as well as the glide slope. Flaps 1 were selected at 243 knots IAS, the landing gears and speed brakes were retracted. Over-speed and EGPWS warnings were then triggered.
(20 f) “Karachi Approach” advised repeatedly (twice to discontinue the approach and once cautioned) about excessive height. Landing approach was not discontinued. However, FDR shows action of raising of the landing gears at 1740 ft followed by retraction of the speed brakes (at a distance slightly less than 05 nautical miles from the runway 25L). At this time, the aircraft had intercepted the localizer as well as the glide slope. Flaps 1 were selected at 243 knots IAS, the landing gears and speed brakes were retracted. Over-speed and EGPWS warnings were then triggered.
Switchology thing, or deliberate? I think that I understand the speed brakes retraction, but not the gear coming up.
CVR may shed light on that.
For A320 sim instructors: do you see raising the gear unintentionally very often in the sim?
Lonewolf - you're trying to assume a rational reason for raising the gear again.
I would suggest that this crew was so far off into the woods, throughout the approach, that hoping for a rational reason for anything they did is a lost cause.
It is like seeking a rational reason why a trained pilot would hold an aircraft in a stall for 38000 feet (AF447).
But absent the CVR, I would point out that in climbing away after the runway scrapes, the same crew briefly lowered the gear (before quickly raising it yet again).
They were simply not in touch with observable reality
I would suggest that this crew was so far off into the woods, throughout the approach, that hoping for a rational reason for anything they did is a lost cause.
It is like seeking a rational reason why a trained pilot would hold an aircraft in a stall for 38000 feet (AF447).
But absent the CVR, I would point out that in climbing away after the runway scrapes, the same crew briefly lowered the gear (before quickly raising it yet again).
They were simply not in touch with observable reality
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,803
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
Nearly right!
Air traffic control told the pilot three times that the plane was too low to land but he refused to listen, saying he would manage,
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Korea
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do not disagree with you at all that they did not seem to have their heads in the game, and that the crew coordination was probably either poor or missing.
It is like seeking a rational reason why a trained pilot would hold an aircraft in a stall for 38, 000 feet (AF447).
He had a poor scan (perhaps due to being a child of the magenta line, or perhaps just due to no recency/currency of him flying instruments rather than letting HAL fly for him) and it broke down quickly to where he had no scan. Seen it happen plenty, in aircraft and in sims, and it happened to me a few times.
But between him and the left hand pilot, yeah, you are right. It hardly seems rational.
