So far 2 survivors are getting reported to be taken to hospital and 1 declared badly injured but will survive.

Mortyman wrote:

Sad News


If they had so little fuel, I Wonder why they didn't try to land without the front gir deployed... It has been done before ...

My guess is if the fuel starvation is true that they were so focused on the landing gear they were not paying attention to the fuel, or even considering that they were burning more than usual due to the increased drag.

brodeurprice wrote:

https://twitter.com/DanyalGilani/status/1263786354753798144?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1263786354753798144&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dawnnews.tv%2Fnews%2F1132074

This video off of twitter is unsettling to say the least...

Rip to all those on board and on the ground who lost their lives

Look at the blades on that engine. Next to no damaged. That generally means the engine was not operating (spinning) on impact. Generally.

garpd wrote:

brodeurprice wrote:

https://twitter.com/DanyalGilani/status/1263786354753798144?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1263786354753798144&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dawnnews.tv%2Fnews%2F1132074

This video off of twitter is unsettling to say the least...

Rip to all those on board and on the ground who lost their lives

Look at the blades on that engine. Next to no damaged. That generally means the engine was not operating (spinning) on impact. Generally.

That’s an interesting observation, good eye ! Thanks for point it out.

zeke wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

Zeke

Would undercarriage issue result in running out of fuel.

Surely they don't cut the fuel upload that close.

I am assuming they would have attempted a gravity gear extension to get the nose wheel down, the fuel consumption after the go around would be around 3 times higher with the gear down and gear doors extended. 30 minutes of normal reserve turns into 10 minutes with gear down and doors out. Reserve fuel is normally calculated in a clean configuration at 1500 ft.

A passenger aircraft would only deploy with 30 minutes reserve? That seems like pushing it awfully close to the line.

Isn't the minimum something like 45 min plus Airline reserve?

According to this Document the old standard was consumption increased by about 2.8 times so Zeke's rule of thumb of 3 seems pretty good.

https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/app/them ... factor.pdf

I would have to guess it's not quite as bad though as only 2 gear down and they would not have flying at speeds up to 250knots where that rule of thumb would apply.

Polot wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

Sad News


If they had so little fuel, I Wonder why they didn't try to land without the front gir deployed... It has been done before ...

My guess is if the fuel starvation is true that they were so focused on the landing gear they were not paying attention to the fuel, or even considering that they were burning more than usual due to the increased drag.

According to the document I posted above the ECAM would have been telling them they were experiencing higher fuel burn and it should have been screaming at them about the low fuel state (if there was one).

IWMBH wrote:

787pk wrote:

So far 2 survivors are getting reported to be taken to hospital and 1 declared badly injured but will survive.

I don't think these survivors where passengers, if you look at the pictures I think we can presume no one survived.

A person reports having had a close relative on the flight who seems to have survived. Apparently she was in contact with that passenger after the crash.

https://twitter.com/zainabimam/status/1 ... 87680?s=20

ATC recording has pilot saying he lost an engine:

https://twitter.com/breakingavnews/stat ... 3141218304

asuflyer wrote:

ATC recording has pilot saying he lost an engine:

https://twitter.com/breakingavnews/stat ... 3141218304

Sounds like Engines, but is hard to make out.

IWMBH wrote:

maint123 wrote:

Pakistan has had 5 airforce crashes this year and now this civilian airliner crash. It's a bad year for aviation in Pakistan.
If I remember, another PIA flight crashed 3 or 4 years back in Pakistan ?

There last fatal crash was back in 2006 when PK688 crashed. But, there have been two write-offs since then.

Not really -

"In 2016, a Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) plane carrying 48 people, including famous pop singer-turned-Islamic preacher Junaid Jamshed, his wife and Deputy Commissioner Chitral Osama Warraich, crashed and burst into flames in a hilly area near Abbottabad after facing engine problems.
In 2012, a Bhoja Airline plane, a Boeing 737 carrying 121 passengers and six crew members, crashed near Islamabad just just before touchdown.
The worst aviation tragedy on Pakistani soil came in July 2010 when an Airbus 321 passenger jet operated by the private airline Airblue crashed into hills overlooking Islamabad. The flight was coming from Karachi.
All 152 people on board were killed in the accident, which occurred amid heavy rain and poor visibility."

The 2 in 2012 and 2010 are private Pakistani airlines.
Many airlines in some countries share maintenance facilities. Could be a factor.

Karachi Airport appears to be continuing normal operations. This video captured footage of the crash site while they were landing:

https://twitter.com/wpcion/status/12638 ... 13889?s=21

asuflyer wrote:

ATC recording has pilot saying he lost an engine:

https://twitter.com/breakingavnews/stat ... 3141218304

Dont know how genuine the recording is and I am not really good with accents but I get the impression the pilot says: "We lost engines" not engine (which is pretty important detail in this case).

Alleged crash footage

https://twitter.com/Natsecjeff/status/1 ... 7667320832

Polot wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

Sad News


If they had so little fuel, I Wonder why they didn't try to land without the front gir deployed... It has been done before ...

My guess is if the fuel starvation is true that they were so focused on the landing gear they were not paying attention to the fuel, or even considering that they were burning more than usual due to the increased drag.

Or since they were going in for a belly landing, too much fuel could have been ejected to avoid a serious fire.

edu2703 wrote:

Alleged crash footage

https://twitter.com/Natsecjeff/status/1 ... 7667320832

One of the videos shows the plane crashing, but the footage is horrible quality.

morrisond wrote:

A passenger aircraft would only deploy with 30 minutes reserve? That seems like pushing it awfully close to the line.

Isn't the minimum something like 45 min plus Airline reserve?

Normally alternate fuel plus 30 minutes reserve, if they had HDD as the alternate thats only 81 nm away.

LH658 wrote:

edu2703 wrote:

Alleged crash footage

https://twitter.com/Natsecjeff/status/1 ... 7667320832

One of the videos shows the plane crashing, but the footage is horrible quality.

Towards the end looks like something else in the sky as well above the crash.

maint123 wrote:

Polot wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

Sad News


If they had so little fuel, I Wonder why they didn't try to land without the front gir deployed... It has been done before ...

My guess is if the fuel starvation is true that they were so focused on the landing gear they were not paying attention to the fuel, or even considering that they were burning more than usual due to the increased drag.

Or since they were going in for a belly landing, too much fuel could have been ejected to avoid a serious fire.

This seems a very possible scenario

Ishrion wrote:

Karachi Airport appears to be continuing normal operations. This video captured footage of the crash site while they were landing:

https://twitter.com/wpcion/status/12638 ... 13889?s=21

Looks like they only needed some 100 - 200m extra to miss the houses and crashland on airport ground (which would be relatively free of obstacles). Or deviated a bit to the right, for example by choosing runway 25R.

Superboi wrote:

maint123 wrote:

Or since they were going in for a belly landing, too much fuel could have been ejected to avoid a serious fire.

This seems a very possible scenario

The A320 cannot dump fuel.

IWMBH wrote:

787pk wrote:

So far 2 survivors are getting reported to be taken to hospital and 1 declared badly injured but will survive.

I don't think these survivors where passengers, if you look at the pictures I think we can presume no one survived.

Reports are confusing so far...some sources claim 107 people missing, others claimed no one survived, others claim there are survivors indeed...who knows but Im praying for the best under the circumstances..

mxaxai wrote:

Superboi wrote:

maint123 wrote:

Or since they were going in for a belly landing, too much fuel could have been ejected to avoid a serious fire.

This seems a very possible scenario

The A320 cannot dump fuel.

Ok.
At the start of the audio recording, before the the first approach, the pilot says he is comfortable now ,we can make it . Does not seem to be normal landing talk. I suspect miscalculation in initial fuel load.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1263801039809110016

At 18:16 in the video you can see the densely populated area where the jet would have come down. It is right under the flight path. I always arrive in Karachi during in the early hours of the morning but this was one of the times I got there during daylight.

https://youtu.be/HYYujUxFkp8

AntonioMartin wrote:

IWMBH wrote:

787pk wrote:

So far 2 survivors are getting reported to be taken to hospital and 1 declared badly injured but will survive.

I don't think these survivors where passengers, if you look at the pictures I think we can presume no one survived.

Reports are confusing so far...some sources claim 107 people missing, others claimed no one survived, others claim there are survivors indeed...who knows but Im praying for the best under the circumstances..

It’s going to be confusing since the plane crashed into likely occupied buildings/streets. With that when it comes to “survivors” you have to sort out who was on the plane and who was on the ground.

AntonioMartin wrote:

IWMBH wrote:

787pk wrote:

So far 2 survivors are getting reported to be taken to hospital and 1 declared badly injured but will survive.

I don't think these survivors where passengers, if you look at the pictures I think we can presume no one survived.

Reports are confusing so far...some sources claim 107 people missing, others claimed no one survived, others claim there are survivors indeed...who knows but Im praying for the best under the circumstances..

The mayor of Karachi confirmed that there where no survivors on board

https://news.sky.com/story/pakistan-int ... i-11992696

Sad day. Thinking about the people impacted by this.

But maybe we are jumping to conclusions quite quickly here. As we know, information in the first few moments is quite error-prone. We have reports of go-around, gear problems, and engines going out. All or none of these may turn out to be true.

If the reports about go-around and gear problem are true, it is possible that something else happened that eventually doomed the flight. Zeke suggests running out of fuel. Possible, but historically we've also had many incidents where one problem leads to too much attention paid to it and pilots missing something else, which then leads to an accident.

It is also possible that whatever caused the gear problem worsened and caused the aircraft to drop. Hydraulics? Electrical? Fire?

It is also possible that there's a crew error while preparing for a gear-up landing, e.g., flying too slow and stalling.

If he had lost both engines, (which the ATC tape appears to indicate) would the pilot normally call a mayday?.

The view out the window of the crash scene from a later flight shows fairly light grey smoke
I'm not an expert but surely that would imply they had minimal fuel

edit: actually I've seen other photos with thicker smoke, I take this back

https://twitter.com/omar_quraishi/statu ... 33346?s=20

Alleged footage of a survivor being pulled out. Being reported Zafar Masud.
Leaked passenger lists (while I don't agree with them being released so soon) shows someone with that name sitting in 1C.

Polot wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

Sad News


If they had so little fuel, I Wonder why they didn't try to land without the front gir deployed... It has been done before ...

My guess is if the fuel starvation is true that they were so focused on the landing gear they were not paying attention to the fuel, or even considering that they were burning more than usual due to the increased drag.

Landing gear problems make a lot of sense for an aircraft that would have been parked for quite a while until today or yesterday. Those fluids can create big problems if they are not dealt with after storage.

enilria wrote:

Polot wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

Sad News


If they had so little fuel, I Wonder why they didn't try to land without the front gir deployed... It has been done before ...

My guess is if the fuel starvation is true that they were so focused on the landing gear they were not paying attention to the fuel, or even considering that they were burning more than usual due to the increased drag.

Landing gear problems make a lot of sense for an aircraft that would have been parked for quite a while until today or yesterday. Those fluids can create big problems if they are not dealt with after storage.

Haven't even thought of that, very good point. Curious if we'll be seeing an increase in issues (hopefully not causing crashes) like this in the future.

https://twitter.com/PlaneSpottersPK/sta ... 30752?s=20

Photos circulating of allegedly the aircraft in question after 1st approach, black marks under the engines, RAT deployed.

On AVHerald, they are speculating that on the first approach the gear was not fully locked and the engines made contact with the ground, damaging them. This led them to flameout on the go-around, not fuel starvation. There is even a picture that allegedly shows the plane going around with the RAT deployed and the engines with black skidmarks on the bottom. Would post it here but don't know how. Anyway here is the AVHerald link. http://avherald.com/h?article=4d7a6e9a&opt=0

AirlineCritic wrote:

If the reports about go-around and gear problem are true, it is possible that something else happened that eventually doomed the flight. Zeke suggests running out of fuel. Possible, but historically we've also had many incidents where one problem leads to too much attention paid to it and pilots missing something else, which then leads to an accident.

It is also possible that whatever caused the gear problem worsened and caused the aircraft to drop. Hydraulics? Electrical? Fire?

It is also possible that there's a crew error while preparing for a gear-up landing, e.g., flying too slow and stalling.

Given the out of service in recent times, is there anything where the likely first use of full thrust in the first go-around caused a common fuel/engine problem?

Blankbarcode wrote:

https://twitter.com/PlaneSpottersPK/status/1263810587152330752?s=20

Photos circulating of allegedly the aircraft in question after 1st approach, black marks under the engines, RAT deployed.

Maybe fuel contamination? Just hard to tell with the information we have now.

ATC Pilot conversation of Karachi PIA crash
https://youtu.be/LMYnO4p4Mns

bennett123 wrote:

If he had lost both engines, (which the ATC tape appears to indicate) would the pilot normally call a mayday?.

Mayday call would only add to problems and not be any help.

The aircraft was already in an emergency situation will the full attention of ATC. Mayday is only to notify ATC and other pilots on the frequency of the emergency. That had already been done.

I'm concerned that the crew was working so hard to solve the gear problem that they did not focus on flying the aircraft correctly. Too often both cockpit crew have been focused on resolving an issue, and allowed another item to become so critical that the flight crashed.

zeke wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

Zeke

Would undercarriage issue result in running out of fuel.

Surely they don't cut the fuel upload that close.

I am assuming they would have attempted a gravity gear extension to get the nose wheel down, the fuel consumption after the go around would be around 3 times higher with the gear down and gear doors extended. 30 minutes of normal reserve turns into 10 minutes with gear down and doors out. Reserve fuel is normally calculated in a clean configuration at 1500 ft.

Understood. That's still expected to be sufficient time though right? As in, if they were into their reserves at original approach, wouldn't they have declared a fuel emergency immediately on missed approach?

mxaxai wrote:

AvHerald wrote:

While on second final approach the crew declared Mayday repeatedly reporting they had lost both engines

That seems odd. Even without engines the plane is still controllable, no reason to dive into a residential area.

Controllable perhaps, but avoiding any kind of structure in a densely populated environment while losing speed and height is extremely improbable, especially in approach configuration. Flame out probably unlikely but who are we to say at this early stage.

May all who perished rest in peace.

IWMBH wrote:

Blankbarcode wrote:

https://twitter.com/PlaneSpottersPK/status/1263810587152330752?s=20

Photos circulating of allegedly the aircraft in question after 1st approach, black marks under the engines, RAT deployed.

Maybe fuel contamination? Just hard to tell with the information we have now.

Unlikely to be fuel contamination after having already been airborne for a substantial amount of time.

PanAm788 wrote:

On AVHerald, they are speculating that on the first approach the gear was not fully locked and the engines made contact with the ground, damaging them. This led them to flameout on the go-around, not fuel starvation. There is even a picture that allegedly shows the plane going around with the RAT deployed and the engines with black skidmarks on the bottom. Would post it here but don't know how. Anyway here is the AVHerald link. http://avherald.com/h?article=4d7a6e9a&opt=0

Looks pretty normal to me, the dark spots look like oil streaks, similar to the pic attached.

https://cdn.planespotters.net/16523/vh-vnk-tiger-airways-australia-airbus-a320-232_PlanespottersNet_492189_41500b17c9_o.jpg

Viper911

those engines look scraped

by738 wrote:

those engines look scraped

agreed, there's definitely some texture there in the photos

Viper911 wrote:

PanAm788 wrote:

On AVHerald, they are speculating that on the first approach the gear was not fully locked and the engines made contact with the ground, damaging them. This led them to flameout on the go-around, not fuel starvation. There is even a picture that allegedly shows the plane going around with the RAT deployed and the engines with black skidmarks on the bottom. Would post it here but don't know how. Anyway here is the AVHerald link. http://avherald.com/h?article=4d7a6e9a&opt=0

Looks pretty normal to me, the dark spots look like oil streaks, similar to the pic attached.

https://cdn.planespotters.net/16523/vh-vnk-tiger-airways-australia-airbus-a320-232_PlanespottersNet_492189_41500b17c9_o.jpg

Viper911

I think the Avherald photo is older considering the tweet it came from, these photos are I believe some of the last moments of the aircraft and they look a lot more than just oil streak to me. The engines look like they had contact with the ground. I could very well be wrong but that is what it looks like to me.





Link: https://twitter.com/planespotterspk/sta ... 30752?s=21

Bellylanded and then go around.

ikolkyo wrote:

I think the Avherald photo is older considering the tweet it came from, these photos are I believe some of the last moments of the aircraft and they look a lot more than just oil streak to me. The engines look like they had contact with the ground. I could very well be wrong but that is what it looks like to me.





Link: https://twitter.com/planespotterspk/sta ... 30752?s=21

Pay close attention to behind the engines, the off white fuselage lends a good look at what looks like white smoke trailing the No.1 engine.

In the above photos, the RAT is also clearly visible as deployed. So both engines flamed out? fuel exhaust? double bird strike?

AYVN wrote:

Bellylanded and then go around.

They must have initiated the go around before they touched down but too late to actually make a go around. Somehow a weird decision. If the gear was not in place, they should have made a go around way earlier so the engines do not ever be close to the ground. That late to make a go around with no gear deployed can only damage the aircraft. At that moment just go through with the belly landing and that is it.

ikolkyo wrote:

Viper911 wrote:

PanAm788 wrote:

On AVHerald, they are speculating that on the first approach the gear was not fully locked and the engines made contact with the ground, damaging them. This led them to flameout on the go-around, not fuel starvation. There is even a picture that allegedly shows the plane going around with the RAT deployed and the engines with black skidmarks on the bottom. Would post it here but don't know how. Anyway here is the AVHerald link. http://avherald.com/h?article=4d7a6e9a&opt=0

Looks pretty normal to me, the dark spots look like oil streaks, similar to the pic attached.

https://cdn.planespotters.net/16523/vh-vnk-tiger-airways-australia-airbus-a320-232_PlanespottersNet_492189_41500b17c9_o.jpg

Viper911

I think the Avherald photo is older considering the tweet it came from, these photos are I believe some of the last moments of the aircraft and they look a lot more than just oil streak to me. The engines look like they had contact with the ground. I could very well be wrong but that is what it looks like to me.





Link: https://twitter.com/planespotterspk/sta ... 30752?s=21

Seems so, the photos you linked are indeed looking suspicious! Definitely more than your average oil streaks.

Viper911

Zooming in on those photos, the engines certainly look shredded underneath as if they have had contact with the ground. The RAT is deployed and there is a streak of white smoke coming from the engine, so, I think those photos are genuine.