PIA A320 (flight PK8303) crashes in Karachi

nmcalba · Fri May 22, 2020 5:32 pm

Aesma wrote:
Draken21fx wrote:
d. Also I do understand that engines are not designed to take that kind of impact but can an engine expert comment which part of the engine is most likely to be damaged with an impact like that?

I'm not expert so just speculating : fuel lines and control cables should be on the top of the engine. With those two an engine should continue to run (or try to run) unless commanded to stop. We saw in some instances (Qantas A380) that even without control lines engines continue to run.

Now, I imagine some oil lines could be at the bottom of the engine. If they're damaged, the engine could lose all oil. It can't run without oil for long, stuff overheats, metal expands, parts don't fit anymore, and the engine seizes.

nmcalba : good find/memory !

From the report from the Tallinn accident :-

Left engine (engine #1):
Damage observed on the nacelle, fan cowls, AGB, TGB and thrust reversers. Attrition lining was scrapped off at 6 to 7 o clock position. Inlet cowl inner barrel aft panel was missing trailing edge material, eroded by the fan blades. AGB lower surface was heavily abraded perforated and no more oil was present inside, internal parts were found damaged. AGB was seized and the N2 rotor was stuck.
Several pipes at 6 to 7 o clock position crushed. Drain mast at the rear of the thrust reverser cowl was damaged with its lower part missing. Inlet cowl aft bulkhead at 6 o clock was distorted with several stiffeners bent and rivets sheared. Most fan blades had tip curl and edge rubbing (Figure 32). Magnetic contaminator indicator was popped up.
All damage was consistent with an impact with the ground.

Right engine (engine #2):
Pylon fairing was cracked. Inlet cowl lip skin was dented, perforated and torn. Inlet cowl outer barrel casing has impact damage from airport approach lighting. Aft bulkhead was buckled, inner barrel surfaces were perforated and dented in several locations. Inlet cowl attrition lining was worn through to the metal at 6 to 7 o clock position. Fan blades had tip curl and evidence of FOD (Figure 33). Right fan cowl door and thrust reverser presented fire traces, engine core, ECU and harness were damaged by fire. The AGB and TGB had lower surface abrasion. The thrust reversers halves and fan cowls had evidence of fire and impact damage. All compressor blades showed signs of tip rub, with material build- up at blade tips.
All damage was consistent with an impact with the ground.

Edit :- Link to accident investigation report - https://www.ojk.ee/et/system/files/fail ... report.pdf

MachTen · Fri May 22, 2020 5:37 pm

[Suspect they went around for the gear problem and were unable to retract them, increased fuel burn resulting in both engines flaming out on the next approach.[/quote]

Yeah. Just like you suspected an uncontained engine explosion brought down PS752. I think I’ll wait for the official accident report.

bennett123 · Fri May 22, 2020 5:46 pm

McD

They did communicate that they had lost engine or engines, but did not call a mayday.

Also not clear what if any action taken by ATC, (did he miss the statement re lost engine/engines).

awthompson · Fri May 22, 2020 5:49 pm

On 4th Feb 1986 PIA inadvertently landed Boeing 747 AP-AYW with the gear up at Islamabad.

SpaceshipDC10 · Fri May 22, 2020 5:51 pm

Adipocere wrote:
Does someone have a Google Street View of the exact location? I’m baffled by news reports of the plane going down into multi storey residential towers - why would they be so close to the runway.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@24.9032928, ... !1e3?hl=en

awthompson · Fri May 22, 2020 5:54 pm

Contrary to an earlier suggestion, if one zooms in to one of the photos above, as well as lower nacelle damage, one can also see see some intake lip damage. This site is so difficult that we cannot just attach a photograph to illustrate.

AirlineCritic · Fri May 22, 2020 5:58 pm

Nmcalba: great find indeed.

With that kind of damage... it is hard to imagine an engine could run for any longer period. Seems like today's aircraft was doomed as they lifted from the runway on the first landing attempt.

TSA125 · Fri May 22, 2020 6:09 pm

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.

The reports are suggesting that a well-known executive of a bank was on the flight and videos show him alive. It might be safe to assume the point of impact was the tail section, considering the survivors were seated in business class. This also corroborates with the CCTV footage on AVherald showing the gradual glide to impact, as opposed to a dive.

Western727 · Fri May 22, 2020 6:14 pm

SpaceshipDC10 wrote:
Adipocere wrote:
Does someone have a Google Street View of the exact location? I’m baffled by news reports of the plane going down into multi storey residential towers - why would they be so close to the runway.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@24.9032928, ... !1e3?hl=en

Goose bumps. That's so close: just over a km from the threshold of both 25L/R.

AIRMET · Fri May 22, 2020 6:17 pm

awthompson wrote:
Contrary to an earlier suggestion, if one zooms in to one of the photos above, as well as lower nacelle damage, one can also see see some intake lip damage. This site is so difficult that we cannot just attach a photograph to illustrate.

I should still argue that what one can see in one of the photos close to the lip of engine no 1’s nacelle is part of the »P« of »Pakistan« printed on the plane’s belly and an aerial/antenna on the underside of the fuselage. However, it may not be of much importance.

SamH123 · Fri May 22, 2020 7:01 pm

If the plane landed without gear and grinded down the runway before lifting off again is it not strange that this hasn't been reported/witnessed?

There would be sparks/noise e.t.c

cat3appr50 · Fri May 22, 2020 7:03 pm

So, if the assertions are correct that a first approach and landing was performed with gear up, and the asserted staining and marks on the bottom of both engines from that photo are legit, that would imply that both engines skid across the runway during the gear up first approach attempted landing. And then it’s asserted that they did a go around while skidding/grinding gear up and on the engines across the runway, followed by a second approach.

Really? With all of the drag from the engines skidding on the runway, and the associated ground effect, how did they climb out from that runway, and why is there no apparent staining or damage on the tail section underside, as that situation would result in a much greater damage impact than a mere tail strike with the gear down. That would require a high HS (nose up) deflection and resulting significant pitch up angle (if even possible) in trying to rotate and climb away from a runway “high drag in a skidding on the engines gear up” situation. And yet no apparent damage on the tail section underside in that photo, despite how close to the runway the tail would have been while skidding on the engines? Not sure how difficult it is to climb out of that specific situation, never did that one in a simulator.

Nobody in ATC Tower saw the sparks being generated while the aircraft was skidding on its engines across the landing runway, and nothing was said per the ATC communication?

All that being said, IMO this makes no sense.

clancy688 · Fri May 22, 2020 7:04 pm

Since an accidential first landing without landing gear seems to be the main assumption here:

How likely is it for the plane to hit the runway hard enough to inflict crippling damage on both engines and get airborne again, but at the same time not hitting the tarmac with any other part of the plane? Thing is, on the image which shows the plane with the scorched engine nacelles, I can't see any other scorchmarks anywhere else on the plane.

I'm just an aviation amateur, but I'd have at least expected some scorch marks on the tail, if not at the initial impact but then at least when they'd pulled the plane up again.

ER757 · Fri May 22, 2020 7:08 pm

This is a subject none of us ever want to see as a thread title when we open up A.Net - I always get a sick feeling when I see that there's been a crash. The CCTV video that TWA302 posted is painful to watch - it was clear that they were just gliding at that point and sinking fast. If they had made it to the runway, could the aircraft have withstood the impact at that rate of decent?

AR385 · Fri May 22, 2020 7:18 pm

It would not be the first time a PIA crew forgot to lower the gear. It does seem obvious the engines made ground contact an were damaged. Wether they were damaged to the point they failed at some time afterwards I could not say. But I do not think the issue here is fuel exhaustion.

VirginFlyer · Fri May 22, 2020 7:21 pm

cat3appr50 wrote:
So, if the assertions are correct that a first approach and landing was performed with gear up, and the asserted staining and marks on the bottom of both engines from that photo are legit, that would imply that both engines skid across the runway during the gear up first approach attempted landing. And then it’s asserted that they did a go around while skidding/grinding gear up and on the engines across the runway, followed by a second approach.

Really? With all of the drag from the engines skidding on the runway, and the associated ground effect, how did they climb out from that runway, and why is there no apparent staining or damage on the tail section underside, as that situation would result in a much greater damage impact than a mere tail strike with the gear down. That would require a high HS (nose up) deflection and resulting significant pitch up angle (if even possible) in trying to rotate and climb away from a runway “high drag in a skidding on the engines gear up” situation. And yet no apparent damage on the tail section underside in that photo, despite how close to the runway the tail would have been while skidding on the engines? Not sure how difficult it is to climb out of that specific situation, never did that one in a simulator.

Nobody in ATC Tower saw the sparks being generated while the aircraft was skidding on its engines across the landing runway, and nothing was said per the ATC communication?

All that being said, IMO this makes no sense.

A couple of thoughts:

You are assuming the aircraft was in contact with the ground for some length of time, but the contact may have only been very brief; enough to damage the undersides of the nacelles, not enough to meaningfully slow the aircraft down or cause the rear fuselage to settle on the ground.
Ground effect would help the aircraft become airborne again, not hinder it, and if both engines were still producing power there is no reason to assume it couldn’t climb out of ground effect.

V/F

afriwing · Fri May 22, 2020 7:25 pm

clancy688 wrote:
I'm just an aviation amateur, but I'd have at least expected some scorch marks on the tail, if not at the initial impact but then at least when they'd pulled the plane up again.

Not all belly landings are the same. Imagine this hypothetical scenario:

The first landing, they had the gear extended but not locked .. and soon after touchdown the gear gave way and the engines impacted the runway, the wing was still loaded (ie flying, producing some lift) and that's why it wasn't a full impact on the engines and no tail body skid marks (it was still horizontal), then the pilot quickly initiated a go-around.

SpaceshipDC10 · Fri May 22, 2020 7:36 pm

AR385 wrote:
But I do not think the issue here is fuel exhaustion.

Would fuel exhaustion produce the fireball we see when they crashed?

Viper911 · Fri May 22, 2020 7:37 pm

cat3appr50 wrote:
So, if the assertions are correct that a first approach and landing was performed with gear up, and the asserted staining and marks on the bottom of both engines from that photo are legit, that would imply that both engines skid across the runway during the gear up first approach attempted landing. And then it’s asserted that they did a go around while skidding/grinding gear up and on the engines across the runway, followed by a second approach.

Really? With all of the drag from the engines skidding on the runway, and the associated ground effect, how did they climb out from that runway, and why is there no apparent staining or damage on the tail section underside, as that situation would result in a much greater damage impact than a mere tail strike with the gear down. That would require a high HS (nose up) deflection and resulting significant pitch up angle (if even possible) in trying to rotate and climb away from a runway “high drag in a skidding on the engines gear up” situation. And yet no apparent damage on the tail section underside in that photo, despite how close to the runway the tail would have been while skidding on the engines? Not sure how difficult it is to climb out of that specific situation, never did that one in a simulator.

Nobody in ATC Tower saw the sparks being generated while the aircraft was skidding on its engines across the landing runway, and nothing was said per the ATC communication?

All that being said, IMO this makes no sense.

A320 grinding the runway with its engines, with gear up and subsequent dual engine failure happened before, check out the the SmartLynx A320 (ES-SAN) incident in Tallinn in 2019.

Viper911

Aesma · Fri May 22, 2020 7:39 pm

cat3appr50 : one of my theories is that the go around was initiated before contact with the ground. So the engines are spooling up while the aircraft is still descending, it's picking up speed, sink rate diminishes, but too late, and it basically does a "touch and go" but on the engines instead of the landing gear.

I agree that it sounds unlikely and if I'm proven wrong I have no problem with it, but that's my (and some others) take with the information we have.

889091 · Fri May 22, 2020 7:42 pm

afriwing wrote:
clancy688 wrote:
I'm just an aviation amateur, but I'd have at least expected some scorch marks on the tail, if not at the initial impact but then at least when they'd pulled the plane up again.

Not all belly landings are the same. Imagine this hypothetical scenario:

The first landing, they had the gear extended but not locked .. and soon after touchdown the gear gave way and the engines impacted the runway, the wing was still loaded (ie flying, producing some lift) and that's why it wasn't a full impact on the engines and no tail body skid marks (it was still horizontal), then the pilot quickly initiated a go-around.

Gear extended, but not locked. Upon touchdown, gear collapses, but gear doors remain intact and they are able to cycle all gears and close all the gear doors (see pic from a few posts up) and have the aircraft in a clean config? Something doesn't add up here.

fpetrutiu · Fri May 22, 2020 7:52 pm

From the videos (on YouTube and AvHerald), and the final position, the aircraft was lined up with the runway (on left side). The aircraft seems to have been gliding, wheels up, minimal (if any any) flaps. Looks configured for best glide and definitely stable. They just did not have enough altitude to make the runway. Weather did not seem to be an issue.

In conclusion I have two theories, fuel system issue or fuel starvation in my opinion. It is highly unlikely that both engines would malfunction at the same time, issue must have been caused by another system that controls both, unless of course fuel starvation was indeed the problem.

fpetrutiu · Fri May 22, 2020 7:54 pm

SpaceshipDC10 wrote:
AR385 wrote:
But I do not think the issue here is fuel exhaustion.

Would fuel exhaustion produce the fireball we see when they crashed?

Fuel fumes are more explosive than the fuel itself (TWA800). I would say yes.

mtzguerrero · Fri May 22, 2020 7:55 pm

Regarding the theory of the friction/damage to both engines with the runway, it makes me think how difficult is to judge the pilots that in matter of one second find themselves in a really dangerous and unexpected position.

I know that from our confortable chairs in front of a computer or mobile device we can wonder why anyone would make a go-around after sliding or slamming some part of the aircraft with the ground but, again, what would be our reaction or instinct to that kind of noise if we were on final approach and if that one felt like business as usual? A 50-50 at for going up or staying down, at it's best.

It has happened before that really bad luck situation of having something going wrong, and the plane's alerts to that subject not working right at the same time.

I really love that mixture of facts and speculation that we get in ANet Forums that shows the knowledge of our fellow posters and always learn a lot from it, but as it frequently happens, we'll have to wait to have more information about the multiple things that went wrong with this A320 and it's crew.

Maybe the landing gear issue could be something related with storage from COVID-19 pandemic?

And that makes me wonder, we see how operators tape and cover a lot of important parts of a plane that is being stored. In this particular, how the landing wheel wells are protected in order to prevent that some animals make their nest or chew some pipes or cables around this area?

Thank you very much.

A300A310A320 · Fri May 22, 2020 7:56 pm

Based on the high res image of the plane in the air and damaged, it seems like the engines impacted the runway before climbing again. The black streaks on both engines are angled in a way which indicates the aircraft was flared on impact, not the mention it seems the bottom of the engines are ragged.

The CCTV footage also shows all three landing gears down when the aircraft crashed.

This is pretty bizarre. Either the pilots completely forgot to lower the landing gear the first attempt (which seems very unlikely considering the A320 would have been screaming at them) or it's similar to the EK521 crash where the aircraft started the go around, retracted the gear but did not spool up resulting in the aircraft sinking again and impacting the runway. However in this case the pilots managed to recover somewhat in time but not enough to avoid damage to the engines.

889091 · Fri May 22, 2020 8:06 pm

This bird had a hydraulic failure in 2017:

A PIA Pakistan International Airlines Airbus A320-200, registration AP-BLD performing flight PK-296 from Rahim Yar Khan to Lahore (Pakistan), was descending towards Lahore when the crew reported a hydraulic failure. The crew performed an alternate gear extension and landed safely with open gear doors on Lahore's runway 36R. The aircraft stopped on the runway, was also unable to stow the reversers, and was towed to the apron about 30 minutes later.

Source:
http://avherald.com/h?article=4adf1e20&opt=0

AA757223 · Fri May 22, 2020 8:08 pm

I wonder whether the thrust levers were idle or beginning to spool back up at moment of touchdown. I would think an A320 at idle touching the ground would decelerate quickly. To the contrary, the LOT 767 that did a gear up landing seemed to take awhile to decelerate. I’m only judging on the video so I’m purely guessing.

AR385 · Fri May 22, 2020 8:08 pm

fpetrutiu wrote:
SpaceshipDC10 wrote:
AR385 wrote:
But I do not think the issue here is fuel exhaustion.

Would fuel exhaustion produce the fireball we see when they crashed?

Fuel fumes are more explosive than the fuel itself (TWA800). I would say yes.

It would also depend what they hit on the ground.

FluidFlow · Fri May 22, 2020 8:16 pm

AR385 wrote:
fpetrutiu wrote:
SpaceshipDC10 wrote:

Would fuel exhaustion produce the fireball we see when they crashed?

Fuel fumes are more explosive than the fuel itself (TWA800). I would say yes.

It would also depend what they hit on the ground.

To be fair I do not know a lot about housing in Karachi or Pakistan in general but how do most Households cook?

If it is with gas then that could also be the cause of the fire and flames

ltbewr · Fri May 22, 2020 8:36 pm

One has to wonder if in the first attempt to land, was gear up, touched too far down the runway to be able to do a 'belly' landing and have enough space to stop before hitting structures or running out of runway. Still this is terrible and bless all the victims.

mxaxai · Fri May 22, 2020 8:45 pm

Aesma wrote:
cat3appr50 : one of my theories is that the go around was initiated before contact with the ground. So the engines are spooling up while the aircraft is still descending, it's picking up speed, sink rate diminishes, but too late, and it basically does a "touch and go" but on the engines instead of the landing gear.

I agree that it sounds unlikely and if I'm proven wrong I have no problem with it, but that's my (and some others) take with the information we have.

Could also be that they initiated a go-around but retracted the gear too early. This would leave the engines spooling up when the engines touch the ground, leading to only a brief touch of the engine nacelles as the aircraft accelerates again.´.

CPHGuard · Fri May 22, 2020 8:46 pm

fpetrutiu wrote:
From the videos (on YouTube and AvHerald), and the final position, the aircraft was lined up with the runway (on left side). The aircraft seems to have been gliding, wheels up, minimal (if any any) flaps. Looks configured for best glide and definitely stable. They just did not have enough altitude to make the runway. Weather did not seem to be an issue.

In conclusion I have two theories, fuel system issue or fuel starvation in my opinion. It is highly unlikely that both engines would malfunction at the same time, issue must have been caused by another system that controls both, unless of course fuel starvation was indeed the problem.

One of the Twitter videos definitely shows all gear down at the end.
If it was locked or not, we obviously don't know.

Do we have any bus-drivers on here, that knows if it is possible to retract the gear premature doing go-around on an airbus, or will it stay down as long as there is load on it?

uconn99 · Fri May 22, 2020 9:12 pm

bennett123 wrote:
McD

They did communicate that they had lost engine or engines, but did not call a mayday.

Also not clear what if any action taken by ATC, (did he miss the statement re lost engine/engines).

The ATC recording has somebody saying mayday.

worthym · Fri May 22, 2020 9:17 pm

maint123 wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
Superboi wrote:

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

Question regarding this audio - at approx 34 seconds in, just before the go around I can hear what sounds like an Airbus fire alarm?

Could this have any relevance?

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

asdf · Fri May 22, 2020 9:20 pm

Aesma wrote:
go around was initiated before contact with the ground. So the engines are spooling up while the aircraft is still descending, it's picking up speed, sink rate diminishes, but too late, and it basically does a "touch and go" but on the engines instead of the landing gear..

my bet would be on that scenario

Aesma · Fri May 22, 2020 9:24 pm

mxaxai wrote:
Aesma wrote:
cat3appr50 : one of my theories is that the go around was initiated before contact with the ground. So the engines are spooling up while the aircraft is still descending, it's picking up speed, sink rate diminishes, but too late, and it basically does a "touch and go" but on the engines instead of the landing gear.

I agree that it sounds unlikely and if I'm proven wrong I have no problem with it, but that's my (and some others) take with the information we have.

Could also be that they initiated a go-around but retracted the gear too early. This would leave the engines spooling up when the engines touch the ground, leading to only a brief touch of the engine nacelles as the aircraft accelerates again.´.

You may be onto something there. Let's assume there was no problem with the gear, and they didn't (couldn't) make the mistake of landing gear up, as there would be an alarm blaring. Then the initial issue might be a "classic" uncontrolled approach, landing too far on the runway, a go around is correctly called, but badly executed, forgetting the "positive rate" before the "gear up". It would be close to the EK 777 crash then, and they were "unlucky" in that the plane took to the air again.

seat1a · Fri May 22, 2020 9:27 pm

Viper911 wrote:
cat3appr50 wrote:
So, if the assertions are correct that a first approach and landing was performed with gear up, and the asserted staining and marks on the bottom of both engines from that photo are legit, that would imply that both engines skid across the runway during the gear up first approach attempted landing. And then it’s asserted that they did a go around while skidding/grinding gear up and on the engines across the runway, followed by a second approach.

Really? With all of the drag from the engines skidding on the runway, and the associated ground effect, how did they climb out from that runway, and why is there no apparent staining or damage on the tail section underside, as that situation would result in a much greater damage impact than a mere tail strike with the gear down. That would require a high HS (nose up) deflection and resulting significant pitch up angle (if even possible) in trying to rotate and climb away from a runway “high drag in a skidding on the engines gear up” situation. And yet no apparent damage on the tail section underside in that photo, despite how close to the runway the tail would have been while skidding on the engines? Not sure how difficult it is to climb out of that specific situation, never did that one in a simulator.

Nobody in ATC Tower saw the sparks being generated while the aircraft was skidding on its engines across the landing runway, and nothing was said per the ATC communication?

All that being said, IMO this makes no sense.

A320 grinding the runway with its engines, with gear up and subsequent dual engine failure happened before, check out the the SmartLynx A320 (ES-SAN) incident in Tallinn in 2019.

Viper911

Wouldn't a look at the runway show a gouging or skid mark or something?

DDR · Fri May 22, 2020 9:43 pm

[threeid][/threeid]

TWA302 wrote:
Link to twitter with a video clip from a security camera. Plane was losing height quickly. Prayers for the victims and their families. Sad day.

https://twitter.com/GFarooqi/status/1263858937138483200?s=20

God that is so sad to see

DocLightning · Fri May 22, 2020 9:51 pm

AirlineCritic wrote:
Nmcalba: great find indeed.

With that kind of damage... it is hard to imagine an engine could run for any longer period. Seems like today's aircraft was doomed as they lifted from the runway on the first landing attempt.

The Nacelle looks shredded, but not terribly deformed. What systems are located down there on the CFM-56-5? Could this have damaged oil sumps and drained all the oil?

reltney · Fri May 22, 2020 10:11 pm

brodeurprice wrote:
zeke wrote:
LH658 wrote:
A320 aborted the approach to Karachi due to problems with extension of the landing gear and performed a go around. The aircraft lost height and impacted a residential area called Model Colony on second final approach east of the aerodrome (presumably while on final approach to runway 25L and burst into flames.

http://avherald.com/h?article=4d7a6e9a&opt=0

Suspect they went around for the gear problem and were unable to retract them, increased fuel burn resulting in both{ engines flaming out on the next approach.

I have much respect for you and your invaluable contributions to this forum over the years.

You would also expect there to be enough fuel on board for more than two go arounds, no ? The ensuing fire after impact would also suggest the presence of fuel, no ? Or would you expect there to be a greater intensity than what seems to be the case ?

edit: I missed reports of the plane losing engine power, my apologies

Yet there are videos of the plane with the gear up....mmmmmm

giosue61 · Fri May 22, 2020 10:14 pm

According to Sky News, quoting PIA chief maintenance officer, the plane had flown already six times before the accident.
If covid related, the malfunction didn’t happen immediately.

TVNWZ · Fri May 22, 2020 10:14 pm

Draw a straight line along the angle of attack at the area suspected of being the engine striking the runway. The fuselage would have struck the ground just aft of the wing. Not to mention the nacelle would probably been ripped off. Fishy.

889091 · Fri May 22, 2020 10:20 pm

DocLightning wrote:
AirlineCritic wrote:
Nmcalba: great find indeed.

With that kind of damage... it is hard to imagine an engine could run for any longer period. Seems like today's aircraft was doomed as they lifted from the runway on the first landing attempt.

The Nacelle looks shredded, but not terribly deformed. What systems are located down there on the CFM-56-5? Could this have damaged oil sumps and drained all the oil?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxctAnshyzw

Gearbox, lubrication systems, alternator...double flameout due to lack of lubrication?

mxaxai · Fri May 22, 2020 10:20 pm

DDR wrote:
TWA302 wrote:
Link to twitter with a video clip from a security camera. Plane was losing height quickly. Prayers for the victims and their families. Sad day.

https://twitter.com/GFarooqi/status/1263858937138483200?s=20

God that is so sad to see

That looks like some super high AoA right before impact. Is alpha floor protection still active when only the RAT provides power? In the case of US1549 it was, but they had the APU running in addition to the RAT.

889091 · Fri May 22, 2020 10:32 pm

Does KHI have runway cameras similar to NRT and SVO?

CPHGuard · Fri May 22, 2020 10:33 pm

The theory of the plane hitting the runway with the gear up, losing all engine power (RAT deployment), climbing out with no engines, turn around, position for another approach, and then crashing just short of the runway seems impossible.

I don't know exactly how much energy would be needed, but it does not seem plausible, that there should be anywhere near enough energy, with an airplane at landing speed, to perform all those maneuvers.

Flightsimboy · Fri May 22, 2020 10:46 pm

Adipocere wrote:
Does someone have a Google Street View of the exact location? I’m baffled by news reports of the plane going down into multi storey residential towers - why would they be so close to the runway.

Not multi storey maximum three level houses in the area. You can see at 18:16 the houses below. Video taken in Aug 2019 from an Emirates 777 from Dubai to Karachi.

https://youtu.be/HYYujUxFkp8

Polot · Fri May 22, 2020 10:49 pm

CPHGuard wrote:
The theory of the plane hitting the runway with the gear up, losing all engine power (RAT deployment), climbing out with no engines, turn around, position for another approach, and then crashing just short of the runway seems impossible.

I don't know exactly how much energy would be needed, but it does not seem plausible, that there should be anywhere near enough energy, with an airplane at landing speed, to perform all those maneuvers.

Yes, there is no way that the plane lost all engine power during the first landing attempt and climb out. It had to occur as the plane was already at go around altitude and approaching to land again.

Aesma · Fri May 22, 2020 10:52 pm

mxaxai wrote:
DDR wrote:
TWA302 wrote:
Link to twitter with a video clip from a security camera. Plane was losing height quickly. Prayers for the victims and their families. Sad day.

https://twitter.com/GFarooqi/status/1263858937138483200?s=20

God that is so sad to see

That looks like some super high AoA right before impact. Is alpha floor protection still active when only the RAT provides power? In the case of US1549 it was, but they had the APU running in addition to the RAT.

Someone upthread said that if you lose engines you're in alternate law. Which makes sense to me. I think there should be an indication of the best glide AoA on the main screen.

CPHGuard wrote:
The theory of the plane hitting the runway with the gear up, losing all engine power (RAT deployment), climbing out with no engines, turn around, position for another approach, and then crashing just short of the runway seems impossible.

I don't know exactly how much energy would be needed, but it does not seem plausible, that there should be anywhere near enough energy, with an airplane at landing speed, to perform all those maneuvers.

Nobody is saying that. We're saying the engines continued to make power for a time (in fact, we know the pilots said they lost the engines while in the air, not on the runway), allowing for climb-out, etc.

Which would be consistent if the damage was to the oil system for example, you can run like that for some minutes.

TUGMASTER · Fri May 22, 2020 10:57 pm

OK... having read thru this thread , I’ve come to the conclusion , that they just forgot to put the gear down on the first attempt.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net