Pakistani PK-661 reported missing near Havelian (07 Dec 2016)
 

BBC reporting PIA aircraft missing.

PK-661, 47 pax onboard according to The Dawn (local newspaper). 37 according to FrancePress. Eyewitness reports plane was seen down near Havelian.

Chitral (CJL) - Islamabad (ISB) PK 661, ATR 42

https://i.imgur.com/OelnDhz.jpg

For factual updates, I recommend following AvHerald.

AP-BHO, ATR 42-500, MSN 663.
Delivered in 2007, PW127E engines.
No ADS data available for the area.

The aircraft was already involved in two occurrences:
• in 2009, veered off the runway on landing
• in 2014, left engine suffered a compressor failure in flight

https://i.imgur.com/R9Htmqx.jpg

“We regret to inform that PIA’s ATR-42 aircraft operating as PK-661, carrying around 40 persons lost its contact with control tower on its way from Chitral to Islamabad a short while ago. All resources are being mobilised to locate the aircraft. Media will be kept informed as situation develops,” PIA spokesperson Danial Gilani said in a statement.

c52 makes a valid observation. I have edited the title of the thread. Posters are asked to make thread titles more informative, so they can be easily distinguished in later times.

Pilots were brothers Capt Saleh Janjua & Ahmed Janjua.

According to AVHerald, crew reported problem with LEFT engine shortly before crash... coincidence with the previous left engine issue from 2014?

"Dozens of bodies pulled from wreckage after Pakistan plane crash" AFP
https://twitter.com/AFP/status/806516637247664129

Here´s something for the benefit of the press:

If an aircraft has had a previous incident, this is by no means an indication of a possible cause for a crash many years later. Most aircraft have one or another system failure or whatever in their service life and nearly none of them are newsworthy in any way. After an engine has flamed out and was found to have compressor damage, it will be replaced (look up modular construction if You like - a significant feature of aircraft) and, seeing that that incident was already in 2014, almost certainly was no longer on the wing on this flight. So this is a red herring.

Also there apparently was a runway excursion in 2009 in Lahore. This is already 6 to 7 years ago, and the aircraft has obviously been repaired and flown several times afterwards, as the residual value of the aircraft was such that a repair was worth the while as opposed to disassembling it and selling the parts as spare (both normal procedures). Also this is likely a red herring.

And: Also an ATR belongs to the aircraft category that is required to be flyable with only one engine running. Losing an engine on a turboprop airliner should by no means be a problem if procedures are followed.

There is a reason why aircraft accidents are formally investigated: They are extremely complex and have multiple layers of direct and indirect reasons, contribuents and other issues that might have played a role in them. Quick answers, finger pointing and dishing out blame are all most likely to lead up completely wrong alleys at this stage.

However many, if not most, accident investigations will include a search for and analysis of precursor incidents that have similar characteristics but did not, on those occasions, result in an accident.

TU.144 is right. Nevertheless the investigation has to include the past history of the aircraft, witness the tail-scrape on the JAL 123 Boeing 747 in 1985.

Pilots were not at all related as mentioned before

DaveReid and PH-SBE, you are right. There were accidents that were traced back to faulty repairs of previous substantial damage, and I must admit to simplification in my previous post.

However allow me to maintain that an engine failure and also a runway excursion that may have happened earlier in the accident aircrafts history is not entirely the same as a tailstrike that left the rear pressure dome and other vital parts damaged as happened to the two 747.

The point I was trying to make is that technical incidents are a part of day-to-day aircraft operation and do not necessarily leave an aircraft jinxed...

Tu.114, Agreed!

Hello.
I looked at the isobar and I see a very good sigmet Last 12 hours.
If the aircraft was in icing on this engine for the prohibit all to fly in single-engine due to boost flow in the ice condition level at level 2 ... Boots condiition on PW127E there are two, but they are separated by each engine difference PW127F / M has two boost two independent on my own.

Cant say much about PW127E engine because each company has its own modification, especially purchased. But I know from experience that most of these cases are due to not proper use of the inertial separator or part span stall.

Sure they will obviously be looked at along with much else but unlike some accidents such as the Medellin one recently their is no obvious cause which justifies speculation. There are 1001 potential causes of an engine fire from bird strike through compressor failure, fuel leak etc etc. Assuming the engine fire was causal not consequential. Hopefully enough will remain to allow the cause to be accurately determined.

?Faulty engine? kills 48 in Pakistan plane crash | World | The Times & The Sunday Times

An aircraft with a faulty engine crashed into mountains in Pakistan yesterday killing all 48 passengers and crew and prompting claims that engineers had not cleared it for take-off.

Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) flight PK-661 took off at 3.30pm from the northern resort town of Chitral in the foothills of the Hindu Kush. It was making its approach to Islamabad, 250 miles to the south, about an hour later, when it lost contact with ground control and disappeared from radar. It crashed about 25 miles north of the capital, near Havelian. Witnesses reported that the plane was on fire as it came down and exploded on impact...........

Officials said that the pilots of the French-built twin-turboprop ATR 42 reported problems with the left engine and declared an emergency shortly before the flight disappeared. The aircraft had suffered an in-flight failure of the same engine two years ago.

Sources at Pakistan’s Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) said that engineers had not cleared the plane to fly. Muhammad Irfan Elahi, CAA chairman, confirmed that one engine was known to be out of order. “I cannot reveal more information right now,” he said. “First priority is the rescue operation.”

Shahid Lateef, a retired air-marshal, said that allowing the plane to fly without clearance from engineers was criminal. “I am unable to understand how come this plane was allowed to fly in the first place,” he said. “This is a serious violation and both PIA and CAA officials will have to come up with answers.”......

Council Van, ".....Junaid Jamshed, 52, a former rock star turned Islamic preacher and fashion designer, was said to have been on board the flight, along with his family. His band Vital Signs had a hit in 1987 with Dil Dil Pakistan, which has been called the “unofficial national anthem”.........

That sounds like b*ll*cks.

The statement issued was regarding an engine failure after takeoff, which is a world apart from saying that it departed with a known snag or without being signed off by maintenance.

Sounds like your typically uninformed rent-a-quote from someone who thinks his years of experience obviate the need to check facts before opening mouth.

There's a video of the crash site in this article.

Muhammad Irfan Elahi, CAA chairman, confirmed that one engine was known to be out of order.

The word 'confirmed' adds much weight to this statement but.....I can fully understand another meaning to this wording. English is not the first language and there might be some stress situation in a press conference/release. "out of order" means it's not working correctly. It is said that the crew reported an engine malfunction in the air = out of order. It does not necessarily mean it was not serviceable before takeoff.

The eyewitness accounts were also suspect, one stated it was on fire and enduring "turbulence" then crashed, apparently the pilot was trying to avoid the buildings... the other said they saw fire after the crash...either way the black boxes should aid greatly. Curious to know if a drone/missile might be a possibility too...but again engine issues could relate to thousands of scenarios.

Chitral is a 5741 ft runway 4921 ft MSL; can anyone run the numbers and say if an ATR 42 definitely could or couldn't get off the ground from there on one engine with the reported load / WX conditions?

Can someone explain to me why someone is asking if this crew took off with one engine inop? I mean, come on. Let's give the professional pilots a benefit of the doubt as there is so little concrete information to hand. Look what has to happen: Tower operator at the departing field watching the take off, in the position of saying: "hey, PIA XXX, one of your props isn't turning!" That kind of speculation is bizarre.

Perhaps some losses in translation are occurring, per RAT 5's point, or some people are speaking with incomplete information. It happens.

from my read it's just from reading too much into the posts.

I'd let it ride for the time being as it's not germane to further discussion at this time

If that's what they are asking a performance manual couldn't give you the answer even if you wanted it to :}

Nothing would surprise me.
 

I recall an accident several years ago which involved loss of directional control during the take off run. The crew had attempted to depart after one of the two engines failed to start. The crew had hoped that it would be possible to carry out an air star of the second engine once they got airborne. All survived and the accident report makes hillarious reading.

Probably was this one:

http://www.ntsb.gov/about/employment...98FA047&akey=1

Re, "Chitral is a 5741 ft runway 4921 ft MSL; can anyone run the numbers and say if an ATR 42 definitely could or couldn't get off the ground from there on one engine with the reported load / WX conditions? ".

When English is not the native language of the country issuing statements on an accident, the potential for misunderstanding is high.

The CAA statement can be taken several ways. The most likely interpretation is probably that the left engine was running (prop turning, which is the only evidence anyone except the crew, the mtce staff & the recorders will have), but had a maintenance issue. Whether that was actually the case, and if so, whether it had been signed off or not, will be eventually confirmed by the usual ways.

Apparently the PCAA has released an initial report.

It would seem that an uncontained engine failure caused significant damage to the wing, rendering the aircraft uncontrollable.

Initial report says PK-661?s left engine malfunctioned - Pakistan - DAWN.COM

:sad:Damn strong gravity they have over there.

What's that in knots?

66,300kts give or take....:confused:

Super VC-10

I view the above as highly suspect and/or premature. There is no direct quoting of the authorities as to cause and result. Just the normal leap of reporters.

from the suspect article referenced:

Photo showing a substantially complete rear fuselage:

http://s4.reutersmedia.net/resources...=LYNXMPECB705R

Most of the stories are just fake, how can an aircraft depart without being cleared by the maintenance department? And also every peasant living in near by villages claims he has seen the crash actually happening, one guy went off board by claiming in a newspaper that he could sense something was wrong with the aircraft and he followed it riding his motorbike and saw the crash happen....
Crap... I have been there and it's a hilly terrain, the final 30 mins can be travelled on foot only..

Better we wait for professionals do their work and come up with something legitimate.

The altitude is given in hrs:mins:secs so perhaps the journalist confused the secs to be millisecs. Local reporting has been quite poor with TV channels wanting to be the first to show "breaking news". At one channel, they had a pseudo-religious scholar-cum-failed politician-cum-tv prize show host-cum-entertainer-cum-newly turned anchor interviewing a (failed) pop singer and tv actor on technical aspects of the flight.

The "known to have engine problems" is being (mis-)reported because the said plane has had an incident in 2014 with left engine shutting down during a flight from Skardu to Islamabad. It is not because of some known issues immediately prior to take-off.

There are several key strategic installments near that area so its highly likely that additional information (radar) is available but not released publically.

Apparently, the pilot did mention he had problems with the left engine and also some (possibly credible) reports of people seeing fire on the plane prior to impact.


Also please update the title. This accident happened near Havelian and not near khyber

ATRs are not really famous for their one engine out altitude capabilities...

Anybody knowledgable here, who could provide the single engine ceiling? How high is the terrain?

I know, that Air Dolomiti used to have escape routes crossing the alps. Does PIA have anything like that?

I was flying ATR 42/72 in the old (-300/200/212) and the new (-500) version from 1997 to 2004.
Crossing the Alps we had to do driftdown-calculation, especially for the ATR 72-200 in the summer for the planned route
The ATR 42-500 was safe at any MSA below 14000ft with MTOW and ISA +15.

Unfortunately I do not know the terrain on their route. Maybe somebody could post an enroute chart.