As has been discussed several times (some hours ago) not pushing the thrust levers all the way forward into the TOGA detent has been done multiple times and could well result in the aircraft wallowing along in ground effect, before the pilot flying realised and corrected his mistake. As a captain on type I cannot imagine them not selecting the gear down on the first approach particularly if they were hot and high, it simply makes no sense, never mind the warnings which are literally impossible to ignore. The most probable scenario so far is a late decision to go-around, selecting the gear up before being established in a climb and alternately bashing the engines into the deck at a relatively low deck angle. It is interesting to speculate that had the tail scraped at a higher pitch angle, they might have crashed on the airfield with much lower loss of life. But that is speculation as I doubt anyone has ever tried it and it would only apply before TOGA power was applied, because after that the aircraft would almost certainly power its way back into the sky.

Can anybody tell me what the rush is all the time to retract the gear ?

120kts, about 140mph, about 210 ft sec.
(ft/sec ~= 44/30 * mph, or about times 1.5)

Consistent with 8 secs at zero ft from ADSB mentioned recently.

Yep and looking at the data for the March 21 landing at KHI you can see the Mode-S altitude go to zero, not airport elevation when there is weight on the wheels:

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....300bbb6173.jpg

On takeoff out of LHE on the day of the accident Mode-S altitude reads zero with weight on the wheels and then went to uncorrected baro altitude after liftoff:

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....cdd0410e0d.jpg

On the first approach and go around at KHI PIA8303 never sent zero Mode-S altitude:

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....0a650880a5.jpg

That and the other evidence discussed above makes me believe that the gear was never down on the first approach. :eek:

Pan Am did a gear up touch and go at TXL in the 1980's on a B-737 checkride with the FAA onboard. They got lucky:

https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/...l#post10788234

Not the same type, but it has happened before to PIA.

https://www.pprune.org/aviation-hist...ng-1986-a.html

​​​​​​​Apologies. It's so obvious when it's pointed out. I've deleted my comments.

The only time to rush might be in a rejected takeoff. Otherwise, there is no need to "rush" any time when flying a transport, especially when performing a go-around, but, like engine fail/fire drills, it should be done smartly, methodically & deliberately...as soon as the flaps are set and the "positive rate" (or some such similar SOP" call is made by the PNF, retract the gear. It's important to stay in sequence - set power, raise flaps then gear while achieving correct pitch. When completely settled, communicate with ATC, then the passengers.

The reasons to get the gear up are numerous - obviously the aircraft performs better without the drag! But go-around certification climb performance and where necessary, obstacle clearance, particularly with engine-out performance, are based upon the manufacturer's numbers which would include flaps set correctly, gear retracted and pitch attitude achieved, (normally at least >= 12.5deg).

Go-arounds are higher-risk maneuvers than many think. It's almost always unexpected and so is a surprise, (although I've never believed it should "startle" a seasoned well-trained crew). There are studies on this aspect of transport operation which examines both crew and aircraft performance; here's one. Most FDM/FOQA Programs have events which help validate & improve the maneuver.

Hope this helps.

In the photo in post #284, it looks a real mess:

Interesting stuff Bubba...could it just be they never hit WoW though?...

Your tables are the best argument yet for never being selected down in the first place.

I think that's the point that's being made - the engines hit the runway, the wheels didn't.

It shows that the main gears never touched down (no wow). It's consistent with the theory that they mishandled the go-around and the gear was raised prior to making contact with the ground.

If this was a planned belly landing or any sort of landing with known landing gear issues, wouldn't the ATC know about it exactly, and wouldn't there be emergency vehicles at the runway? It is certain that there was some sort of landing gear problem but what is unclear is to what extent and what they were trying to do. Here's an extract from a surviving (1 of 2) passenger:

"...Recalling the plane's sudden descent, he said that the pilot announced the landing, after which two sudden jerks were felt by passengers. He said the plane hit the runway momentarily before it was flown upwards. "People began to pray fervently...."

This is a third world county, so many "people with contact" can get inside information quickly and share it for "I have inside connections and I know it" ego, which is common since processes and rules aren't that strict. I am not sure how true it is, but one such person said that there were problems deploying the landing gear (I am assuming here the nose gear since main gears are easier to deploy due to gravity). As per his claim, the pilot attempted the landing hoping for a touch and go so that the "bump" would deploy the gear (I am assuming a missed landing touching the main gears to bump and deploy the nose gear), make a go-around, and come back to land again. Things got bad and they hit the engines which caused double engine failure and they were unable to gain enough altitude to make a complete go-around.

I am not sure if this sounds crazy or plausible but it is what it is.

And wasn't scrapped until 2010.

Good work Airbubba, the question remains why the gear was apparently not down, like many I do not think it possible to ignore the GPWS TOO LOW GEAR and master Warning even in a rushed approach which leaves my earlier idea that they may have had an LGCIU 1 fault and switched the GPWS off to prevent the spurious warnings as prompted by ECAM, the rushed approach then allowed them to miss the gear.

No they're not as mentioned above. Unlikely to miss the gear down in an Airbus due to a the reasons given in a previous post.

I meant does it show wheels were never down? Or merely that they never got weight? I.e. they were down, never landed, and upon TOGA were retracted (early) thus scuffing both engines and gear doors?

Exactly. It doesn't imply they never lowered the gear.

We shall see soon enough once the FDR is read. I have seen guys get so fixated that yes... It could be missed even in a 320. (I am current 320)

That also suggests they were at 200 ft AGL at threshold, and made a TOGO decision with over 7000 ft of runway available.

The CVR will be quite revealing, but I have a hunch they never had gear down at all on first attempt, incredible as that sounds.