|
I hear what you’re saying about a scan, but day VMC...Doesn’t take much to see they’d never make it.
We still don’t know who was flying, btw. |
Last 30mts they got into the discussion about the pandemic. So missing TOD during that not surprising. The discussion continued. So when the enormity of the situation dawned on them they gotinto panic. Considering the fatigue and low blood sugar it could have led to hyperventilation. Then any irrational acts are possible.
|
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50
(Post 10820840)
Actually, I am looking at a possible 'common mistake seen in the sims / knobology' explanation for bringing the gear up - because they had previously lowered it and they were heading in to land (even though they are going too fast), which is rational - so that is why I asked that bit at the end.
|
Originally Posted by Mick Stability
(Post 10820776)
There is absolutely nothing in this data to show that an average qualified crew in the circumstances on the day, could not be be expected to recognize the gravity of the situation, respond to it, mitigate the trajectory, and take action to correct the flightpath in an expeditious and controlled manner, in such a way as to achieve a safe outcome on a subsequent planned, controlled, and routinely executed approach and landing, within safe parameters and the within normal limits of the manufacturer's standard operating guidance.
So I think we can agree the aircraft was grossly mishandled to a degree that barely lies within the definition of the phrase. We must ask therefore, what administrative organization allowed two such individuals to occupy the flight deck of a public transport aeroplane in which any one of our loved ones might have been a passenger? We must wait for the final report to find out what put the crew in a position that led to an expedited descent well after TOD, what were the pressures inside that cockpit that led an historically competent crew to mess up so badly. The Air France crew were not fasting, as far as we know did not "fake" their qualifications, and were not subject to what has been referred to on this thread as "cultural differences". Yet they too crashed a perfectly airworthy aircraft in a manner that would have the FlightSim brigade on here shaking their heads in disbelief. |
what did Swiss do?
|
Originally Posted by asdf1234
(Post 10820904)
If Air France crew can do it, PIA crew can do it.
|
Not forgetting attempts to blame ATC, in the hopes that something sticks and diverts attention from the primary/sole cause of the tragedy.
|
Originally Posted by Twitter
(Post 10820931)
what did Swiss do?
The accident investigation determined the causes of the accident were that the crew touched down too far down the runway, at too high a speed, following a non-stabilised approach, and that they failed to properly utilise the aircraft's brake and reverse thrust systems, which resulted in their being unable to stop the aircraft within the available runway and overrun distance. |
Originally Posted by Euclideanplane
(Post 10820968)
Swissair 316 in Athens 1979, I suppose:
The accident investigation determined the causes of the accident were that the crew touched down too far down the runway, at too high a speed, following a non-stabilised approach, and that they failed to properly utilise the aircraft's brake and reverse thrust systems, which resulted in their being unable to stop the aircraft within the available runway and overrun distance. |
Originally Posted by flash8
(Post 10820941)
The former had many complex issues, CRM, automation, crew training (i.e. high altitude upset recovery for one) all coming together, the PIA crash seems on the face of it downright absolute negligence. There is a a huge difference.
|
Originally Posted by asdf1234
(Post 10821086)
and the Swiss MD-11 loss where the crew were 66 miles from a usable airfield but elected to turn back to an airfield 300nm distant.
I suggest you do some research before posting something that casts aspersions on the crew that died in that accident. We all make mistakes and we should all learn from the mistakes of others but in this case your comment is incredibly disrespectful -- because it's false. |
Originally Posted by Twitter
(Post 10820931)
what did Swiss do?
|
Originally Posted by asdf1234
what were the pressures inside that cockpit that led an historically competent crew to mess up so badly.
Really no point in defending the outright indefensible here:ugh::rolleyes: |
Originally Posted by grizzled
(Post 10821258)
Not true at all. Read the report, especially with regard to the timeline from just before the "Pan Pan Pan" call until the turn to Halifax. Then read the transcript, from 1:14 to 1:16 UTC.
I suggest you do some research before posting something that casts aspersions on the crew that died in that accident. We all make mistakes and we should all learn from the mistakes of others but in this case your comment is incredibly disrespectful -- because it's false. |
Originally Posted by AfricanSkies
(Post 10820297)
These pilots were either drunk, or;
This flying culture is so ingrained at PIA that both of them were completely comfortable with it (as they actually stated), and had got away with such behaviour on a regular basis in the past. From which you can probably deduce that other pilots at PIA behave in a similar fashion, on a regular basis. |
The time frame of inquiry report of two years onwards makes it meaningless. Because during such a long period some other incident/accident takes place and the focus shifts. Till the full report considering all dimensions and factors is out on what basis the operator will change operating or maintenance practices? Do other non involved airlines ever get to know what happened some years back in another corner of the earth? In two years time after the dust is settled the world moves on.
|
You only have to take a look at some of the videos on YouTube filmed from the flight deck to see practices that should scare the living daylights out of you as a passenger.
I feel there must be something more to this than poor decision making and ropey CRM. Awaiting the final report with interest. |
PIA have been banned internationally before and following their own government's highlighting of forged licences and other problems I would be surprised if this is not being currently considered. As far as learning points go, this crew appear to have displayed a level of competence of someone playing flight simulator for the first time. So I am not sure how relevant it is. The tragedy is that they were so close to the airport in the final moments. Had they lowered the gear later they might just have made it. But given the rest of their performance it is hardly surprising that they did not.
|
Originally Posted by Euclideanplane
(Post 10818456)
Quite a decent summary with some simulations:
Youtube - Captain Mayday - UPDATE: Investigation Report leaks & Landing Gear details Pakistan International Airlines PK8303 It also seems to affirm that the photos of the scrape itself are indeed authenthic. In any case it was a criminal approach- no doubt - but it is really hard to believe that they ignored the GPWS "too low gear warning". The "gear not down warning" in the ECAM might have been missed because of the anyways ongoing CRC and ECAM warnings for flap overspeed. But ignoring the aural "too low gear" would be inexplicable for me. Thus, I found the scenario in the video valid and interesting to follow up on. |
Originally Posted by vilas
(Post 10821455)
The time frame of inquiry report of two years onwards makes it meaningless. Because during such a long period some other incident/accident takes place and the focus shifts. Till the full report considering all dimensions and factors is out on what basis the operator will change operating or maintenance practices? Do other non involved airlines ever get to know what happened some years back in another corner of the earth? In two years time after the dust is settled the world moves on.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:06. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.