PIA Airbus A300 crash Kathmandu 1992
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: England
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PIA Airbus A300 crash Kathmandu 1992
I've tried doing searches but haven't managed to get much information. A friend has asked me if I know any detailed information with regard to the crash and the final report stating the probable cause.
I know it was an VOR/DME approach and have found this info:
I was hoping if there was a more detailed report available.
Many thanks
I know it was an VOR/DME approach and have found this info:
Narrative:
PIA Flight 268 departed Karachi at 11:13 for a flight to Kathmandu. The en route portion of the flight was uneventful and the aircraft was cleared for a Sierra approach to Kathmandu runway 02. The crew were instructed to maintain 11500 feet and report at 16DME (16 miles from the VOR/DME beacon, which is located 0,6nm short of the runway). The Kathmandu approach is very difficult, since the airport is located in an oval-shaped valley surrounded by mountains as high as 9665 feet. Runway elevation is 4313 feet amsl. The next approach fixes for PIA268 were at 13 DME (at 10500 feet), 10 DME (at 9500 feet) and 8 DME (at 8200 feet). A few seconds after reporting 10 DME, the aircraft was descending through 8200 feet (the altitude for 8 DME!). The Airbus crashed into a steep cloud-covered hillside at approx. 7300 feet amsl., at 9,16 DME.
PIA Flight 268 departed Karachi at 11:13 for a flight to Kathmandu. The en route portion of the flight was uneventful and the aircraft was cleared for a Sierra approach to Kathmandu runway 02. The crew were instructed to maintain 11500 feet and report at 16DME (16 miles from the VOR/DME beacon, which is located 0,6nm short of the runway). The Kathmandu approach is very difficult, since the airport is located in an oval-shaped valley surrounded by mountains as high as 9665 feet. Runway elevation is 4313 feet amsl. The next approach fixes for PIA268 were at 13 DME (at 10500 feet), 10 DME (at 9500 feet) and 8 DME (at 8200 feet). A few seconds after reporting 10 DME, the aircraft was descending through 8200 feet (the altitude for 8 DME!). The Airbus crashed into a steep cloud-covered hillside at approx. 7300 feet amsl., at 9,16 DME.
Many thanks
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: England
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Srilion
I've read the Air disaster volumes. I must admit, on a slightly different note, they are all excellent and very well written. Unfortunately it doesn't go into that much detail and talks about the Thai Airways crash at Kathmandu a few months earlier with only a brief mention of the PIA crash. I was looking more for an accident report, the type you can get on the NTSB website.
Out of interest, anyone who has done the approach for real care to highlight the potential pitfalls/challanges?
A very detailed account and analysis will be found in McArthur Job's excellent title "Air disasters-Vol.3".
Out of interest, anyone who has done the approach for real care to highlight the potential pitfalls/challanges?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The approach wasn't easy but the missed approach (never had to do it, thank goodness) appeared most uncomfortable.
The PIA flight descended below the DME steps. ATC challenged the descent but it was too late.
The PIA flight descended below the DME steps. ATC challenged the descent but it was too late.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Away
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was seconded to Qatar Airways in 1997. We were operating a B757 for the Qatari's to many destinations, one of which was Kathmandu.
Though I've not read the report, I have flown into Kathmandu many times, in good weather and bad.
It was not a simple approach.
The 02 VOR/DME required a fully configured descent from commencement altitude of 13,500'. It was not a 3 degree profile. Nor was it a constant angled descent gradient.
If I recall correctly, the initial descent was at a modest V/S, though later on the required vertical speed was around 1800fpm in order to stay on profile, before backing off to a more agreeable 700fpm in the latter stages of the approach.
The let-down is to an airport located in a bowl-shaped valley ringed with mountains you cannot easily out-climb that contribute to micro-meteorological phenomenon that retains, above the airport and on the approach, the smoke produced from a million cooking fires.
Deviation from the VOR's guidance whilst descending is not a good idea, a perspective I emphasized one fine day when the other pilot suggested we do so to avoid a cell on final.
Other than being outside the approach aid's tolerance whilst letting down, the reason not to deviate laterally is perfectly clear.
The approach brings you in through a U-shaped mountain pass where, on the left and the right, behind and ahead, the mountainous terrain is surprisingly proximate and certainly above the altitudes a plane is expected to be at when on profile.
It didn't take a fertile imagination to consider what would happen if the approach was not flown accurately, vertically or laterally.
It could be seen very clearly that the floor of the "U" we were flying into was very hard rock that would hit back as only very hard rock does.
I understand from urban legend that the PIA aircraft was not on profile, and it smacked into the floor of the "U".
Pilot error, sadly.
Though I've not read the report, I have flown into Kathmandu many times, in good weather and bad.
It was not a simple approach.
The 02 VOR/DME required a fully configured descent from commencement altitude of 13,500'. It was not a 3 degree profile. Nor was it a constant angled descent gradient.
If I recall correctly, the initial descent was at a modest V/S, though later on the required vertical speed was around 1800fpm in order to stay on profile, before backing off to a more agreeable 700fpm in the latter stages of the approach.
The let-down is to an airport located in a bowl-shaped valley ringed with mountains you cannot easily out-climb that contribute to micro-meteorological phenomenon that retains, above the airport and on the approach, the smoke produced from a million cooking fires.
Deviation from the VOR's guidance whilst descending is not a good idea, a perspective I emphasized one fine day when the other pilot suggested we do so to avoid a cell on final.
Other than being outside the approach aid's tolerance whilst letting down, the reason not to deviate laterally is perfectly clear.
The approach brings you in through a U-shaped mountain pass where, on the left and the right, behind and ahead, the mountainous terrain is surprisingly proximate and certainly above the altitudes a plane is expected to be at when on profile.
It didn't take a fertile imagination to consider what would happen if the approach was not flown accurately, vertically or laterally.
It could be seen very clearly that the floor of the "U" we were flying into was very hard rock that would hit back as only very hard rock does.
I understand from urban legend that the PIA aircraft was not on profile, and it smacked into the floor of the "U".
Pilot error, sadly.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The airline only had one set of charts on board, so neither pilot had the ability to refer to the approach chart immediately - but passed it back and forth. The accident happened as the crew misread the crossing height - in other words they descended to the step height the wrong side of the DME fix. With only one chart in the cockpit there was no possibilty of an immediate cross check between the crew.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Thai-Inter A310 accident at (near) Kathmandu makes for sober reading, too. Complete fixation by the crew on entering of waypoints during an incorrectly flown missed approach and disregarding of basic navigation information on the ADF and VOR RMI. This resulted in the aircraft flying in a circle below the MSA and the crew became disorientated - complete lack of situational awareness - CFIT 25 miles away from the airport.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: England
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for all the replies.
I wan't aware of this. A bit worrying, especially when flying a complex vor/dme approach with high ground.
Does anyone know if the GPWS sounded and the crew initiate a pull up go-around?
The airline only had one set of charts on board, so neither pilot had the ability to refer to the approach chart immediately - but passed it back and forth. The accident happened as the crew misread the crossing height - in other words they descended to the step height the wrong side of the DME fix. With only one chart in the cockpit there was no possibilty of an immediate cross check between the crew.
Does anyone know if the GPWS sounded and the crew initiate a pull up go-around?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New Delhi
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just flew to Kathmandu yesterday....do so on a regular basis....
Approach is pretty much still the same as 4PWs said....
Got to be fully configured by 16 DME at 11500 ft....from 10 to 4 DME the glide path angle is 4.76 degrees....due to high terrain 7000-7500 ft...requiring v/s of bout 2000 ft....
high peaks towards the north.....southwest and southeast of the airport....averaging between 8000-9700 feet...
runway is 10007 ft....but perpetual tailwinds of 10 kts or greater on approach for 02
you can really appreciate the terrain on a clear day....
like said earlier....deviations laterally are a no no....in monsoons u get cb's sitting right on approach....there have been occasions where we've had to turn back due to weather on final appraoch....as there's no way round it
the missed approach or single engine escape procedure is the more trickier part....have to remain within 4 DME at all times...
Approach is pretty much still the same as 4PWs said....
Got to be fully configured by 16 DME at 11500 ft....from 10 to 4 DME the glide path angle is 4.76 degrees....due to high terrain 7000-7500 ft...requiring v/s of bout 2000 ft....
high peaks towards the north.....southwest and southeast of the airport....averaging between 8000-9700 feet...
runway is 10007 ft....but perpetual tailwinds of 10 kts or greater on approach for 02
you can really appreciate the terrain on a clear day....
like said earlier....deviations laterally are a no no....in monsoons u get cb's sitting right on approach....there have been occasions where we've had to turn back due to weather on final appraoch....as there's no way round it
the missed approach or single engine escape procedure is the more trickier part....have to remain within 4 DME at all times...
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Curious isn't it not as per the Company Ops Specs that both Pilots have their own Approach Plate in front of them?
Just Wondering! I am sure PIA can afford both pilots to have appropriate approach plates.
Just my .02 Cents.....
Just Wondering! I am sure PIA can afford both pilots to have appropriate approach plates.
Just my .02 Cents.....
