Thanks CM
Well while I would agree with you in general but strange things have happened also in VMC. Air India Hong Kong incident was in VMC the crew was specifically asked by ATC whether they are aware about GS fluctuation. And yet in 10km visibility the aircraft pitched down 2nm before FAP and descended at 2700ft/mt. then settling down at ROD of 2000ft/mt. The crew didn't notice a thing till at 300ft over the sea when the GPWS sounded they looked outside and went round. It was a narrow escape. So anything is possible.

Hmm, with Flaps 3 that could probably be doable. Leaving decelleration aside that would be a glide ratio of 15. That's about what the Bus would do in clean config at that speed. With Slats and flaps 3 but gear up a decel from 240 to 210 (30% less energy = 30% more drag) with the same flight path doesn't seem unreasonable.

No. This was discussed a few 100 posts ago (#511). ATC proposed a left turn to 180 on the initial approach, but it was wrongly transcribed as 280 on the video.

From Dunya News in Pakistan:



https://dunyanews.tv/en/Pakistan/546...nding-gear-ATC

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=OZ0LY7ma1cA

(pax). A bit disconcerted by the talk about using the gear to slow the thing down. Is that really an option in day to day ops and if you do it aren't there subsequent consequences since you shouldn't have been in that state anyway ( well so I assume). Thanks for your patience, I only sit in the back.

BEA latest update:

"Communication done on behalf of the AAIB team of Pakistan.

1) BEA, AIB and Safran investigators have not left Pakistan and their mission is ongoing.
2) The CVR has not been recovered at this point in time.
3) The FDR has not left Pakistan."

Not sure I trust Pakistan to turn over data to the French. It’s pretty clear the chance for their flagship airline (w military pilot) to look pretty bad is high.

It really is an option, and whilst I’ve only had to resort to it a couple of times in Europe it was something that I have had to do quite often at some airfields in Asia, normally due to political or terrain issues coupled with ATC requirements. However, all of these were pre-briefed and we were expecting to do it to capture the glide slope from above. Not, however, at Karachi, where in my experience the ATC service was one of the best on the sub continent. As a caveat, I fly Boeing, not Airbus, and haven’t been to Karachi for about two years, but the principles of descent planning (3 x height plus 10 for top of descent and 3 x ht and 5 x ground speed for an ILS approach) work for every type I’ve flown, and the fact that it so basic a principal for gross error checking for every captain or f/o that I’ve ever flown with or trained makes this accident so difficult to understand. But as has been said we won’t really know until the CVR and FDR is read.

Thanks F-MANU

That smells fishy to me. In above pictures the BEA folks point with their fingers to the recorder positions. They should have both be retrieved by now and the location looks, that they should be in good shape.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EDLB (Post 10794219)

Thanks F-MANU

That smells fishy to me. In above pictures the BEA folks point with their fingers to the recorder positions. They should have both be retrieved by now and the location looks, that they should be in good shape.

---

Looks like something changed about the plan to fly back to France with the CVR and FDR. :confused:

From The Express Tribune in Pakistan:



https://tribune.com.pk/story/2228725...aches-karachi/

On the other hand, he might simply have been asking his colleague to take a photograph of the screw jack or another significant piece of wreckage.

Well, the gear lever on the A320, as on the vast majority or aircraft, moves DOWN vvvvvv to lower the gear, and UP ^^^^^^^ to raise the gear. That is a fairly unignorable industry-wide visual and haptic signal of the intended gear position.

However, since I firmly believe that pilots have and will do the most unbelievable things, I can't rule that out. It is obvious that one way or another, this crew was doing things "no pilot would ever do." Nor are they alone in that, as many accident reports will bear out.
________________

BTW - the Aviation Herald is now reporting the CVR "cover" has been found, but the data module is missing. The search of the wreckage continues, and locals have been asked to turn over any aircraft parts they may have found.

http://avherald.com/h?article=4d7a6e9a&opt=0

Anything is possible but this doesn't pass the smell test...

Too many vested interests in those boxes. Not all are for the safety of aviation.

While I agree with you, in my 25+ years I have never heard ATC merely give a heading when they think you are too high on glide path for a safe approach after they have already been given approach clearance. Have you or anyone else? Why not just cancel approach clearance and give a vector and altitude assignment? Or what's very common (at least in U.S.) , simply ask "do you need a 360?" when they see how high you are on a visual approach. But to not cancel approach clearance yet give a heading? ATC knew it was not good. They could have done a bette job on intervention.

But where do you draw the line for ATC intervention? Controllers get very little exposure to line flying these days, there are an endless number of performance figures that controllers know nothing about. The first time a controller broke someone off the approach because in his/her opinion the aircraft was high and or fast but was in fact was set up and able to conduct a stable (by 1000') approach all h**l would break loose form the pilot community. The controller questioned the situation ,offered an alternative but the pilot insisted he was "comfortable" with the situation, the captain has the final authority / responsibility.

If I didn't know that I wasn't supposed to come over the numbers at 210 knots gear up with the alarms flashing and wailing, I don't think an extra call from ATC would save me. :ugh:

But for the grace of God, could happen to anybody, they didn't know, tunnel vision, poor CRM, their shared mental model was flawed, we must not be judgmental etc...

All that fair enough. But my question remains...have you ever heard of a "turn to this heading" while an aircraft is cleared and established on an approach without actually cancelling the approach clearance? Never for me. And it wasn't a suggestive "would you like to turn left to lose altitude captain?" It was just a turn to the heading, captain said we are good.

An ATC directed heading after approach clearance is given should also involve cancellation of approach clearance. Can we agree on that?

Looks very plausible
 

[QUOTE=RudderTrimZero;10793953]A very amateurish attempt at recreating the approach but should give non-pilots an idea of the speeds and angles involved here. Also with the Master Warning and CRC going off for over-speed, gives an idea of how easy it might have been to be completely oblivious to the LDG GEAR warning. I'm not completely sure that the logic for overspeed has priority over the LDG GEAR warning. May be someone can chime in for that
After reading so many posts and waiting for CVR and FDR readings, what i see on this video, up to the moment when the engines impact on the runway , looks very plausible. ( it´s impossible to replicate the flight after the go around, as the engines, hydraulics, electrical generation, fuel pumps or anything related to the gearbox/engine damage after the scratching will be known only after CVR/FDR readings are done). Kudos to the guy who made the video.