This aircraft, like thousands of others, has been sitting in storage for months. I believe this was its 6th flight out of storage.

It will be interesting to see if the initial gear problem is related to issues created by extended storage.

Airline maintenance will have to be super vigilant come the time when worldwide aviation cranks up again.

Gear Up Landing Attempt
 

With regard to the hypothesis advanced on this thread that the landing gear was not selected down - I operated into KHI regularly for 25 years, and one of the unique features there was the way ATC always used the phraseology “ABC123, check wheels down and locked, clear to land 25R”. It always caused me to glance at the gear position indications. Unless something has changed at KHI ATC since my last approach there, which admittedly was six years ago, I can’t help thinking that that particular hole in the Swiss Cheese should have been blocked by such a call. But there again, for the PIA crews hearing it several times a day for years, maybe it would just become so routine that it lost its effectiveness, especially under stress.

It is a long time since I operated A320 into Pakistan and later while based there. If the engines scraped the runway during the go-around, and damage the IDGs / alternators, Would the RAT prop deploy far enough to be destroyed by striking the runway? Assuming APU not operating, that might take them straight from full electrical power to battery power only - another unwanted distraction.
Are all the FADEC systems sufficiently clear of the cowling scrape area to avoid damage?
Damage caused by the scrapes might be a slow train wreck rather than fully apparent.
With gear already up, the crew might have intentionally selected less than TOGA for the go-around, which could have been a significant contribution to the end result

Shouldn't there be corresponding scrape marks on the runway?

Have there been studies of bird strikes on the RAT?

The rat would likely be auto deployed at the second engine shutdown not before..

Won’t be much if it’s a poorly executed go around. If what I think has gone on here, they essentially have crushed the CFMs on the deck briefly (albeit extremely hard) whilst rotating/correcting the float error, with the gear retracting. Nose attitude most certainly up going of the marks.

I would be quite interested in the location of the marks on the runway.

Is that approach height correct ? 5 miles from threshold or from navaid ? 3500 ft what’s that above the runway ? Was there any background warnings on the initial ( high ) approach ? If they where high and floated they may have been in a low energy state at the far end of runway ? Reports of wheels up approach?
RIP to those involved . Sad day during tough times for aviation .

Regarding the question on FADEC systems being sufficiently clear of the scrape area.

The FADEC's dedicated alternator, High Pressure Fuel Pump are both on the main gear box (MGB) that on the -5B is on the lower side of the engine. If the engines had impacted the ground hard enough it's not hard to conceive the whole MGB was compromised that would not only render the IDGs inoperative but also the other accessories on inlcuding the Engine Fuel Pump, FADEC dedicated alternator as well as the Hydraulic pump with no chance of recovery. In addition to this fuel lines, hydraulic lines for Yellow/Green systems would have probably been compromised on the engines too.

If I recall, on early model A320 that I flew, the the RAT deployed when:
-AC BUS 1 is not electrically supplied
-AC BUS 2 is not electrically supplied
-Aircraft speed is greater than 100kt

No engine necessarily needs to have been shut down or failed.

Mainly I would like to know if the deployed RAT prop would contact the runway with engine scrape on go-around with gear up.

Assuming the sequence of events was runway contact and engine damage causing dual IDG failures and then RAT engagement, it seems improbable the turbine would deploy quickly enough to contact the runway.

Surely the amount of time the nacelles were on the runway was no more than a second or two, as throttle advancement and arrest of the aircraft sink rate had already occurred before contact. If this was not so, undoubtedly it would not have been able to fly away.

As is true with all conjecture in this thread, the above scenario depends on wildly improbable events. I must agree with others who have commented, the entire episode beggars belief.

Facts are; master warning sounds during 1? final approach, RAT deployed(could be several reason why), gear extended on the last approach, high pitch on last approach(glide due to dual engine failure/problems or flap/slat issues), FR24 flight track and vertical profile, ATC comment, scrapes on both engines, black and not straight line but from front middle to slightly to the left(rubber from the touchdown zone and a slightly angled touchdown/xwind? I have seen similar scrape-marks on 1 of our B74 classics which had a number 3 pod-strike.
Poor lads might have landed gear up(both engines appear to be operational due exhaust visible on video), pod-strikes in ground effect on the rubbery part of the touchdown zone,slightly angled like in a xwind, GA, both engines fail/failed due damage from the pod-strikes? Fireball and post flight fire indicates fuel present on impact.
I flew the A320 a long time ago but this seems possible, a hair raising scenario....

Not sure if this footage has been shared yet:

Struggling to believe anyone survived that, but if appears to be the case.

There may be some points incommon with the Emirates B777 crash in Dubai in 2016, though in that case the engines didn't spool up and the aircraft sank back onto the runway. Botched go around after an unstable approach with a similar outcome. Could the automation have been a factor with this accident as well ?

There is going to be a larger reliance of Automation in the near future as many return to work after many months away from the stick. It would be interesting to see how recent the crew have been active for. We are all going to be incredibly rusty for the first few weeks.

It’s going to be inevitable that there will be an increase in incidents when the world ramps up. 95% of the Pilots at my operator will return to work having not flown for 6 months. We are also starting back in the midst of a challenging weather season. The training department is going to be busy.

Regarding forgetting to lower the gear before landing, given that they started from a very high energy state, wouldn't getting the gear down be something that they would have to do to salvage the approach?

Having flown the 330/340, and knowing enough about the 320, I just can't see a way that they could make a wheels up landing attempt unless they were actively ignoring the CRC, Master Warning, ECAM and the GPWS.

So they do a rushed approach. The ATCO even queried whether they were going to make it.
Somehow they “forget” to lower the gear. Unintentionally belly landed and scraped both engines.
Regained altitude, and on downwind both engines quit due to damage. RAT deploys, and they alpha floor it into the suburb.
Pure speculation of course.

I think it is possible that the crew were unaware they had contacted the runway, the GO around was probably initiated during the flare when they noticed the unusual attitude from the lack of gear, by the time the engines had spooled up the nacelles just touched the runway, hard enough to damage them and the IDG's but not hard enough to be catastrophic or even erode the fan cowl latches (Fan cowls stayed on). This could be why they don't mention it or call a mayday until the IDG's and engines start to fail later in the go around due to the damage sustained.

Bird strike or not, there is a pretty big feathered job in the previous photos.
Salt flats attract birds too.

APU start as in Sully would be a good idea - only possible with fuel though...