The explosion on impact, the fireball is indicating there was plenty of fuel

Running out of fuel and forgetting to put the gear down don't seem the most obvious scenarios. An unstable approach resulting in a botched go-around, with the classic failure to push the thrust levers all the way to TOGA, and the gear selected up too early sounds at least possible, a bit like the Emirates crash in Dubai although with obvious differences. Rusty pilots and planes standing around for long periods may have contributed. In my airbus experience the aircraft does not respond well to long periods of low utilisation, and the electronics do odd things that Boeings tend not to. If the aircraft did make contact with the runway there must be witnesses, not least the survivors, so we will find out pretty soon if this scenario applies, and latest when they read out the flight recorders.

Gear-up landing
 

Survivor reports about the first landing being a gear-up landing with severe sparks and jolts, before the aircraft took off again.

https://propakistani.pk/2020/05/22/b...es-in-karachi/

Plane did touch down on the runway for belly landing the first time, but heavy jolts and sparks made the pilots lift again and retry the landing: Survivor

One of the only two lucky survivors of the plane crash, Muhammad Zubair, has revealed that it was during the second attempt at belly landing that the plane lost control and came crashing down.

After the landing gear failed and pilots resorted to belly landing, they were able to touch down the aircraft onto the runway in the first attempt at the risky maneuver.

However, informed Zubair, the jolts and sparks due to the friction were so severe that the pilots lifted the plane again to give the landing a second try.

“All that we were told by the pilots was that we were going to land again,” said Zubair, adding that there was no word from the pilots about the emergency situation or crash landing.

Does not sound like a planned wheels up landing , would passengers notice an approach with gear down and a messed up missed approach which resulted in a double pod strike? Sounds like PA made to say going back for second attempt but engines fail ? Witness (ground) said plane attempted a belly landing but maybe he / she only saw brief touchdown on pods ? All speculation .

.......Confess that I haven't read more than a couple of the initial comments, but that photo of the aircraft in flight stuck a note. Noticed a large bird in the background. I know nothing of any modern Airbus types, but until about thirty years ago I did fly various of other types in and out of Karachi, and well recall these giant ****e-Hawks. Can't claim to have witnessed them in flocks, but would not a freak simultaneous ingestion of ****e-Hawk cause violent engine surges and or flame? Once experienced a brief disturbing surge after low level bird strike on single-engine jet, and once heard a Harrier pilot mention another person's Harrier flame out after ingestion of Seagulls....

From the photographs of the crash very little fire damage to the buildings & surroundings & what continues to surprise is reports of Nil casualties not he ground & the 2 survivors having little burn injuries. Would that not indicate not substantial fuel on board?

As someone interested in the psychology of eye witness accounts, and how people fail to separate their own interpretation from objective facts, I find those really interesting examples. In this case it is very obvious where the witness has imposed his own vision on what he thinks was in the pilots' heads and so it remains a useful account. Nevertheless an interesting demonstration.

The thing I find surprising about the emerging hypothesis, is that it seems to require equivalent damage with almost identical consequences to two engines/systems following a double pod impact. I wonder if there will be lessons in improved redundancy?

This video nails it pretty well.

3500’ at 5nm (over 2x the normal path), overspeed warning on recording, pod strike in the pictures and ATC mention “a belly up landing”.

Looks like high energy unstable approach, leading to a crash landing bounce, go-around into the circuit. Essentially crashed the jet then tried to fly it.

Landing gear unsafe indication
 

Speculation: Normal approach, switched to tower, during config Landing Gear Down no green lights. So, requested to hold at 5 mile final(hold PPOS probably). Did troubleshooting, Landing Gear unsafe indication persisted, decided to continue approach(maybe they heard the Landing gear go down). Upon touchdown gear collapsed, so they went around, but damaged the engines, which caused dual engine flame out. Tower didn't seem That surprised because they were informed about the reason for holding, so they ask "confirm this time for belly landing".

They were probably holding at 5 mile final at 3500, and when they decided to continue approach they were probably on the outbound leg. It is hard to believe someone would even attempt to continue an approach at 3500 on a 5 mile final.

The A380 lives!

It is going to be an ocean going can of worms. Looking at the video above, it is a classic high energy approach that I bet the PIA OMs say throw away and go around at 1000’. As a psychologist study, tunnel vision and why they felt the need to rush to get it on the ground. On a normal approach 5nm is at 1500’, fully configured close to approach speed. ATC are clearly worried about their profile but they continue.

Why would the ATC suggest a belly landing when the pilot reported both engines lost? There hadn't been any talk of gear issues. Or am I missing something?

Firstly I muss say that having two survivors and no ground casualties is utterly unbelievable.

Next, the apparent cause of this crash (initial gear up landing, hard bounce and eventual loss of engine) also verges on the incredible.

This whole thing is beyond bizarre!

Err, there was no hold they flew straight in....

Is that confirmed? I thought FR24 data is missing, and liveatc archive has static before "we are stabilised" call

They said they were established on the approach at 5nm and 3500’. I last went to KHI a couple of years ago And it was close to MSL then. They were nearly 2000’ above the glide flying a 7.5 degree approach with the speed warnings going off. It’s not looking good.

Highly unstable at 5nm and 3500 ft with over speed alarm going. They decided to Go Around, due to high speed did a TOGA TAP, retracted the gear and like JETSTAR in 2007 https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...-2007-044.aspx

continued descent with Gear selected up on the Glideslope, Jetstar got to 38ft above runway before aircraft climbed away. In the PIA case they impacted the runway before climbing away causing severe engine damage which subsequently caused failure of both. That’s my guess.

...........and add in the supposed photographs of it with damage under both nacelles, the RAT extended, but the u/c up, so presume after the first landing attempt, but that video of the final crash with the u/c clearly down.....?

It will indeed be astonishing if there does appear to be no ground victims given where it impacted..!!

Think about the energy involved. At 3500’, at more than twice the glide slope angle, the aircraft literally cannot slow down whilst pointing at the TDZ.

It was already above VMax for the configuration based on the warnings. If it went round at that speed even with the engines turned off you could zoom to 5-600’. You are making the assumption it was a normal go around, the startle in the PM’s voice indicates nothing was ever normal from the start of the approach.

Very sad situation.

I have a fair bit of time in various Airbus including the A320... it would be absolutely impossible to fly an approach and unintentionally land gear up. Only scenario I can come up with for the pod strikes is a bounce landing, get extremely slow call for a regular go around despite being in a low energy state have PM raise the gear. Unlike the Boeing there isn’t really any trap with TOGA on a A320. You push it until the stop. So now buddy raises the gear, but you’re slow and power was at idle, so takes some time to spool up and you run out of energy and bang! Thankfully the EK accident they stayed on the runway... here they took it into the air again... that’s the only plausible explanation for this I have.

Also a very steep and fast approach may have been why we had a bounce on the first attempt. Don’t know much about PIA but I think most CPs would want to have tea no biscuits if you tried to land after an approach like that, if the altitude and distance you guys are mentioning are accurate.

I think those of us with experience on type might consider the botched go-around at least possible. As I said earlier we should get a clear direction pretty soon and the eyewitness reports seem to fit that scenario. We will know for sure eventually although the last Airbus crash report from Pakistan did take a while if I remember correctly.

Surely if you didn't have the greens then you would report that to ATC to have emergency crews on standby.

The whole thing screams bizarre.

The first mention of belly landing is when lost engines is mentioned. There is no discussion prior to this.

And surely if there were gear concerns or lack of 3 greens a low flypass would be ideal to confirm if gear are down, not just put it on the deck without fire crew ready or ATC even informed.

I’d hazard a guess that the ATCO has seen the first approach and subsequent sparks. When the pilot initially declares the emergency the ATCO asks about the belly landing as he is still target fixated on what he saw. There is no other reason from The transmissions why he would query a belly landing to a dual engine failure.

The concerning thing here is, even if there was more going on, it seems the swiss cheese effect was fully instigated by the crew. I know a lot of you guys have been grounded for a period of time and that may make you a bit “Rusty” - i know from experience that rust can occur.

but IF this was instigated by the crew and they did forget to put the gear down, even with the audible alarms then im afraid thats not rusty, thats something altogether different.

Even if you factor in rust and fasting fatigue, that is extremely concerning.

Has there been confirmation on this crews hours before this flight since the restriction was lifted?

The read back on confirm 2000 is horrible as the tone in voice changes as he states “trying to maintain 2000” as the realisation of what is happening suddenly kicks in.

If the surviving passenger is right about the first landing attempt, this is a pilot error as big as they come. Crashing a 320 basically, and then try to fly it around for a second attempt because of the sparks. I have a hard time believing any pilot would try a go around after a belly landing, but it really looks that way by now.

Prolonged grounding
 

I don’t know about you guys, but if I have not flown for a while I find I am even more particular and pedantic than normal.

Maybe don’t try to focus too heavily on the enforced lay off due to Covid. Not yet at least.

What do you guys think is the significance of the exchange during the 1st approach.where they say they are established on the localizer for 25L, ATC says 'turn left heading 280', they then repeat that they are established on the localizer with no further comment from ATC ? If they were truly on the localizer and flying 250, then 280 would require a right turn. This seems odd.

Well, maybe they had a scrape. But apparently their engines were able to spool up and provide TOGA thrust. So why schould they both, quite simultaneously, suddenly cut out? Why no APU start? (RAT deployed). To me, (layman!!!) all this points to problems with fuel supply. And the landing gear? No hydraulic pressure? And even when that, is there to a grav-assisted lowering of the gear? Nothing here seems to make sense.

They had just hit the runway gear up, and were attempting a go around.

Speculation is:
ʜᴏᴛ ᴀᴘᴘʀᴏᴀᴄʜ ⇨ ᴄᴀʟʟ ɢᴏ ᴀʀᴏᴜɴᴅ ⇨ ɢᴇᴀʀ ᴜᴘ ⇨ ᴄʟɪᴍʙ ɴᴏᴛ ᴇsᴛᴀʙʟɪsʜᴇᴅ ʙᴇғᴏʀᴇ ɢᴇᴀʀ ᴜᴘ ᴛᴏᴜᴄʜᴅᴏᴡɴ ⇨ ᴄʟɪᴍʙ ᴏɴ ᴛᴇʀᴍɪɴᴀʟʟʏ ᴅᴀᴍᴀɢᴇᴅ ᴇɴɢɪɴᴇs

ATC saw exaclty how it was setting up. The left 280 heading was a delay vector to lose altitude. Would have re-established on the loc with a 30 degree intercept. SOP to help them out. PF refused it.

Yeah I know, but it isn't verbalised by either party.

Apologies if his has been covered before but I am not an Airbus driver. I understood that the A320 would lower the gear at 1000 rad alt if it had been forgotton; would that protection have not played a part here?

On a completely unrelated theme , at times like this where airlines are top heavy with crews with the feeling any little mistake could end in dismissal it’s still better to go around .

One of possible causes the nacelles hitting ground is retracting landing gears too early during going around in low altitude. Airbus recommand pilots to retract gears moments late in low altitude because the aircraft will sink initially due to high pass ratio engines. So the scratch on the nacelles do not necessarily mean the pilots plan to make a belly landing. If they do, the Mayday call should be made earlier than the first approach. And that makes sense why the cowling not fallen and no scratch mark in the tail (Because the power comes up momently that the hit not too hard)

Another guess is the same as #170 or #181.
I listen LoveATC 0900Z, no communication about PIA 8303, so the reason ATC initially radar vertor PIA 8303 to turn when they report established on 25L may just because they are obviously too high, not any system failure happenned. And there’s no TOO LOW GEAR warning but Master Warning later, over speed is the most possible. High speed means high descend rate, if PM retract gear during bouning what we see happens.

No. there is no such protection

Rubbish even FlightR24 never track a hold.

We are getting into Twilight Zone territory here..

Well ATC asked if go around was in anticipation of a gear up landing, clearly being aware of the initial gear up contact. Sadly altitude was decaying so fast it almost immediately became a moot point.

Go around altitude
 

So listening to radio , it seems that ATC asked them to climb to 3500 at go around. However, crew instead decide on altitude of 2000 and later mention trying to maintain 2000. And there is a lot of hesitancy in voice. So basically does this imply that even at time of go around, engines were already struggling ? Also tower talks about belly landing, when no such thing was hinted before. Is it possible that tower has seen something untoward for them to suggest belly landing ?

Maybe because they witnessed the ground strike from the tower ... ?

No. It means the engines most likely smacked the ground and started to have issues after being bashed into pavement.

I think we will see, there was absolutely nothing mechanically wrong with this aircraft up to the point of first ground contact.

Incorrect. You only get a Master Warning at 750ft. NO automatic gear extension under any circumstances.

”TOGA TAP”, is essentially the correct Go Around procedure for A320 NEO’s. The reading or lack of reading of the FMA is the key element that caused the JQ incident.

I don’t agree with the procedure as it is written. FMA should be read to ensure MAN TOGA is selected before reducing thrust in anyway, even to Soft Go Around mode.