Without upsetting anyone, it looks to me like crew incapasitation, as a contributing factor somewhere during the flight.

I don't know about the Airbus, however it seems to me the airbus philosophy is over complication.

When I advance the throttles on an aircraft, i want the power i requested. No if or buts. Period.

Old fashioned Dinosaur? Probably.

Apart from Jetstar I can think of an Air France incident some years ago which was very similar (hot and high into CDG and failure to push all the way to TOGA ending up rather lower than intended). Go-arounds as we have discussed many times are one of the most often poorly performed basic manoeuvres.

I could not agree with you more! Well put.

Surely they saw the first attempt with no wheels down. A belly landing is not something a control tower would normally ask about after a mayday call. This report will make interesting reading.

There are Oil lines, pumps, generators, manifolds, etc. on the bottom of the nacelles. A touchdown on the pods bears a big risk of severing oil lines. The resulting oil loss leading to freezing of the engines would fit rather well to the timing of the events.

Air France A319 in Sept 2009. Pilot did not apply sufficient thrust while willing to go around due to bad weather conditions leading to the Autopilot remaining in landing mode. A/P was disengaged and aircraft regained speed and altitude at only 76 feet above the ground. Enquiry concluded that main responsibility was on Pilot's inadequate commands being applied but also identified the lack of proper altitude checks and incorrect procedures / training at AF. Systems automation was also pointed as a secondary contributor to the incident by AF Unions.

That’s where my money would be.

Yes, It seems ATCO and crew communicated about gear problems before attempting the approach. That looks more likely than crew retracting gear early, after all they were light, 90plus pax

Many technical questions being asked about the A320’s protections and warnings.

For those not familiar with the FBW Airbus types a Google search of “A320 CBT YouTube” provide some good presentations that will give you a better understanding of the warnings an A320 will give you, the protections it can provide, and by default the ones it doesn’t, particularly in Alternate Law or Direct Law, which is what it is likely to default in to with multiple failures, why the RAT extends automatically, what a continuous uncancellable warning horn is likely to be for close to the ground etc.

Surely they saw the first attempt with no wheels down. A belly landing is not something a control tower would normally ask about after a mayday call. This report will make interesting reading.

Is there any chance of getting a A320 near a runway from 3500? 5 miles out with out the gear down ? Warnings where more likely to be flap over speed while pushing nose down ? ATC would be saying something if they saw an aircraft going through 500 ft with gear still up I’d hope?

Agree ! my mistake, I want to say early flaps retraction, combined with gear retraction before positive climb.

The gear was certainly down the second time as the video clearly shows. So I cannot yet see any evidence that it was unserviceable or that it was not down the first time until it was selected up on deciding to go-around. By not properly engaging TOGA the engines would not spool up and the flight director commands would not provide guidance. The aircraft might then sink low enough to strike the runway. We don't yet know that is what happened, but others have got close on previous occasions. Nothing is sure, but it would fit with what we do know so far.

Fifi can get down quickly; but not if you want to remain gainfully employed in aviation. This crash began several minutes before that.. if youre that close with that much energy your head is not in the game. Bug out; collect your thoughts and reset your head.
my company specifically states that a missed approach is not evidence of poor skill.
-its evidence of good judgement.

ATC aren’t looking at your gear; another pilot might; but it’s not the kind of thing you’re looking out for...
i wonder how much these folks had flown in the last few weeks; I wouldn’t be surprised if that was a factor, as well as the authority and recency gradients in CRM speak.
what a cluster..

Automatic gear extension.
 

There are only two aircrafts that had and have that feature: the Bugatti racer and the latest lanceAir Mako. Now it seams a good idea to have this feature one more step towards Drones.

WhatsaLizad?, #236 :ok:

Anything amongst the previous speculations to negate a simpler view; oil leak from both engines after previous servicing. Hence under cowl staining, engine failure after GA climb out.

Or have I missed a post which actually confirms that the aircraft engines hit the ground.

Ollie Onion.

Yours is the only explanation that makes sense to me. Very possible.

Have you read post #165? 'Confirm' as in 'officially' maybe not yet, but strong indications from onboard eye-witness that some metal structure touched the concrete "...the jolts and sparks due to the friction were so severe that the pilots lifted the plane again". And engine cowlings are a good candidate, within field of view of the pax.

You might want to have a closer look at the picture in post #85
https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/632693-pia-a320-crash-karachi.html#post10790064
If you look at the nacelles it is clear this wasn't just an oil leak. They are torn on the bottom. Those pods 100% scratched the tarmac. At a nose high attitude.

I watched the Blancolirio channel, and from the evidence he presents it seems almost certain that they landed without the gear down, scraped the engines and then took off again and crashed when the engines failed. It seems the initial contact damaged both engines, but unfortunately not enough to stop them from getting back into the air. Here is a fairly clear video of the crash itself and the aftermath:

Which would then make sense of ATC asking if they wanted to attempt a belly landing, presumably on next attempt.