Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 15
 
ZBBYLW
Posts: 1625
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:17 am

Re: PIA A320 (flight PK8303) crashes in Karachi

Sat May 23, 2020 8:15 pm

N766UA wrote:
Maybe someone with actual experience in a 320 can comment, but in the instances I’ve seen where we have mis-managed energy in a descent, throwing the gear *early* is an easy, effective way to increase drag, slow down, and get down. Gear speed in my airplane is a full 50 knots faster than flap speed and there’s no altitude restriction on its use, unlike spoilers which must be stowed by a certain point.

I guess my point is if they were high and fast, to me, forgetting the gear is even more difficult to do.


I fly the 320 family. The first thing I’d do if I am extremely high is drop the gear. It is extremely effective. If you dropped the gear at 240 it’s (max speed is 250 with gear in transit down) and keep the speed up with idle thrust you will plummet. The other thing is if you are diving for profile, you’d notice the gear not down. The bus is a nice glider. Very rare that it comes to it, as you’ve screwed the approach up earlier. The only hard spot after that is to slow for flap 2 (flap 1 doesn’t help as its slats only). Once you have flap 2 and gear down you can slow and go down as effectively as you need to in a transport category aircraft (without a tail wind)... 3500 feet at 5 miles should have resulted in them telling the approach controller it won’t work and they will need to get a better vector, or just a visual approach so they can do it themselves.

With the master warning going off (flap over speed potentially) maybe PM smashing the cancel.. seems these guys are focus on making it work. Also they landed way down the runway. Without any prior problem that alone is quite shocking... seems like an interesting investigation.
Keep the shinny side up!
 
User avatar
AirPacific747
Posts: 9718
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:52 am

Re: PIA A320 (flight PK8303) crashes in Karachi

Sat May 23, 2020 8:23 pm

joeblow10 wrote:
N766UA wrote:
Maybe someone with actual experience in a 320 can comment, but in the instances I’ve seen where we have mis-managed energy in a descent, throwing the gear *early* is an easy, effective way to increase drag, slow down, and get down. Gear speed in my airplane is a full 50 knots faster than flap speed and there’s no altitude restriction on its use, unlike spoilers which must be stowed by a certain point.

I guess my point is if they were high and fast, to me, forgetting the gear is even more difficult to do.


I don’t claim to profess 320 expertise... but somebody said it on one of the most recent comments on AvHerald, lowering the gear is one of the best tools to slow down and get down quickly.


I remember from flying the A320 that extending the gear was indeed a way to slow down if hot and high.

However, in the 787, that is not very effective at all. Instead, the 787 has some extremely effective speedbrakes.

So I guess it’s very specific to the type of aircraft but in the A320, the gear was a good tool to slow down as far as I remember.
 
User avatar
CFM565A1
Posts: 438
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 7:19 pm

Re: PIA A320 (flight PK8303) crashes in Karachi

Sat May 23, 2020 8:42 pm

mxaxai wrote:
bennett123 wrote:
Also the amount of smoke, (and presumably flames) does not seem consistent with zero fuel.

There's a lot of burnable stuff in the houses and streets, and fuel starvation does not require zero fuel (there's always a small unusable fuel volume). All it takes is a car or two set on fire - tyres create lots of smoke. If they cut a powerline, that can serve as ignition source too.


Agreed and if anything does ignite there's other fluids and materials that can increase flammability of the wreckage.
C172-M/N/P/R/S , PA-28-180, P2006T, PA-34-200T, B1900D, DH8A/C ERJ-145, CRJ-100/200, DH8D, CRJ-700/705/900, E-175/190, A319/320/321, 737-200/300/400/600/700/800/900ER/M8, MD-82/83, 757-200/300, 767-300, A330-300, 787-9, 777-300ER, F28-4000.
 
AT
Posts: 905
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2000 12:16 pm

Re: PIA A320 (flight PK8303) crashes in Karachi

Sat May 23, 2020 8:50 pm

dopplerd wrote:
Facts:
- physical damage to both engines after go around (photo)
- at least one engine generating thrust after go around (distance traveled after go around)
- nothing abnormal in ATC communication until just before or just after go around (ATC recording)
- RAT deployed (photo)
- gear functional enough for at least a gravity drop on second approach (gear up in go around photo, down in crash video)
- CRC (continuous repetitive chime) heard on ATC coms around time of go around (ATC recording)
- gear and gear doors appear undamaged and intact after go around (photo)
- flight crew initiated the go around (ATC recording)
- two survivors

Reported: (all from avherald.com)
- scrape marks on runway consistent with both engines contacting runway for several hundred feet
- scrape marks start 4500 and 5500 feet down runway, left-right respectively

My speculation:
A late TOGO was made and the plane made contact with the runway with the gear up.

Either gear was always up (CRC heard was alerting crew to gear up condition) or CRC was something else and triggered go around but gear was raised before positive rate climb was achieved. It does not seem plausible that the TOGO would be able to be started after initial contact with the runway due to the reaction time by crew and aircraft. If engines contacting runway was the initiating event of go around the damage would be much more severe to the aircraft before it could get airborne again. The TOGO before touchdown scenario allows for the engines to make brief contact with runway but still be functional for a time after. The bottom of the engine houses a lot of lubrication components so damaging them would allow for the engine to run for a short time but not long. Also the location of the reported runway scrapes is a long way down and would be consistent with an attempted go around.

The rest of the sequence is pretty straightforward: Engines loose lubrication and fail so now it is a glider, basically a Sully situation. The difference here is that the pilots tried to make the airport. They very well might have made the airport if they had committed to a belly landing instead of putting the gear down in a decaying low energy situation.

This is speculation and based on the currently know facts and reports. It is not an attempt to blame but understand what happened.



Thanks. This seems the most complete recap of the situation as of now, recapping what is known, likely, and unknown. The only part that is not certain is whether the gear was down at the time of initial landing but retracted prematurely (ala Emirates 777) or that they did not lower the gear in the first place, unintentionally.
 
peterinlisbon
Posts: 1804
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:37 am

Re: PIA A320 (flight PK8303) crashes in Karachi

Sat May 23, 2020 8:56 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.


I think it is possible that there were survivors if they were sitting right at the back and the part of the aircraft they were in didn't catch fire or they were able to escape before it did. The fuselage ahead of them would have crumpled and absorbed most of the impact. The speed of impact appears relatively low as the plane was flying with flaps down with a high pitch up attitude.
 
AT
Posts: 905
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2000 12:16 pm

Re: PIA A320 (flight PK8303) crashes in Karachi

Sat May 23, 2020 9:00 pm

peterinlisbon 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.


I think it is possible that there were survivors if they were sitting right at the back and the part of the aircraft they were in didn't catch fire or they were able to escape before it did. The fuselage ahead of them would have crumpled and absorbed most of the impact. The speed of impact appears relatively low as the plane was flying with flaps down with a high pitch up attitude.



Yes there are two confirmed passengers who survived. Possibly more but doubtful. They are in hospitals but in stable condition. have spoken to the media as well.
 
Saintor
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:35 pm

Re: PIA A320 (flight PK8303) crashes in Karachi

Sat May 23, 2020 9:11 pm

Aesma wrote:
clancy688 wrote:
LTC8K6 wrote:

They were optimists.


Maybe that and... If you are about to crash somewhere else than on a runway anyway, every joule of energy which goes into ripping the landing gear apart is one joule less which goes into hurting the passengers...


Except dropping the gear with all the doors hanging is horrible when you're gliding for your life.


Any real reason why gear has to be down (when you want absolute minimum drag) needs to be answered. I get that with RAT you might have one shot and it might have not made a difference.
Last edited by Saintor on Sat May 23, 2020 9:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
cc47
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 3:02 pm

Re: PIA A320 (flight PK8303) crashes in Karachi

Sat May 23, 2020 9:13 pm

AT wrote:
cc47 wrote:
It's a miracle anyone survived this crash.


Yes. I actually know one of the passengers who was on the plane, she was a family friend. She was unfortunately not one of the survivors.


Sorry for your loss.
 
User avatar
tenHangar
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 2:39 pm

Re: PIA A320 (flight PK8303) crashes in Karachi

Sat May 23, 2020 9:20 pm

Seat locations of the 2 survivors - rows 1 and 10 (bulkhead?)

Image

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ng-97.html
 
Newark727
Posts: 2004
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 6:42 pm

Re: PIA A320 (flight PK8303) crashes in Karachi

Sat May 23, 2020 9:29 pm

Do a lot of A320s have that row 21 lavatory indicated in the diagram? I can't remember ever seeing that on one I've been on.
 
NIKV69
Posts: 13470
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:27 am

Re: PIA A320 (flight PK8303) crashes in Karachi

Sat May 23, 2020 9:32 pm

cc47 wrote:
It's a miracle anyone survived this crash.


If the pilots did try their first approach without gear and the engines impacted the runway wouldn't the survivor who told the press the pilot said the landing would be troublesome also said that?
I am the Googlizer!!!
 
letsoc
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2020 2:19 am

Re: PIA A320 (flight PK8303) crashes in Karachi

Sat May 23, 2020 9:33 pm

tenHangar wrote:
Seat locations of the 2 survivors - rows 1 and 10 (bulkhead?)

Image

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ng-97.html



They used a321 instead of a320 seat layout.
PIA doesn't even fly a321, how can they make this kinda mistake? Oh its dailymail lol,
 
BlueHeaven1969
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 9:20 pm

Re: PIA A320 (flight PK8303) crashes in Karachi

Sat May 23, 2020 9:34 pm

Newark727 wrote:
Do a lot of A320s have that row 21 lavatory indicated in the diagram? I can't remember ever seeing that on one I've been on.


That doesn't look like an A320 seat configuration to me. A320 has two over wing exits.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24313
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: PIA A320 (flight PK8303) crashes in Karachi

Sat May 23, 2020 9:34 pm

777GE90 wrote:
Just my two cents, not by any means fact but here is my analysis:

From what I've seen reported so far, it seems they never really had a landing gear problems. What does appear to be interesting is that they seemed to be too high (and consequently too fast) for landing, but were very keen to commit to a landing. At the start of the ATC clip the pilots are saying:

Pilot: "We are comfortable, we can make it"
Pilot: "Sir, we are comfortable now and we are out of 3500ft for 3000ft established ILS 25L"
ATC: "Turn left 180" (i.e. preparing tthem to do a 360 to lose altitude).

The pilots then again repeat they are estbalished on the ILS and ATC responds with "You are 5 miles from touchdown desend to 3500ft". To be on the glidescope at Karachi, they need to be at 3000ft from 10 miles away (from what I heard) - so were they still to high and not estbalished on the ILS?

It seems in the chaos of them trying to rapidly decend they forgot to deploy their landing gear on the first attempt (although I would have thought an A320 would alert the pilots to this - an alarm can be heard in one of the ATC communcations but I don't know enough about A320's to know whether this was that warning or not), which resulted in the aircraft engine pods contacting with the ground, based on runway inspection reports, passenger on board, eye witnesses and ATC even asking if they are going to do a belly landing the second time around. The pilots did a go around but sadly the damage to the engines meant they lost power before making it for a second landing attempt.

What is also interesting is that the engines contacted the ground around 4500 ft from the runway threshold, which is almost half the runway length. If this is true, then it backs up the theory that they were too high and too fast and trying to put the plane down much further down the runway. Which also makes sense, given that once the engines contacted the ground, they probably didn't have a great deal left of runway and probably made that split second decision to go around based on that.

I've read a few different sources (avherald, the dried fruit place, etc) and most sources say the alarm is for flap overspeed rather than gear issues. That's consistent with them trying to salvage a bad approach. It's not just a bad approach, it's one where they have something like twice the amount of energy they should have when trying to capture the ILS.

Without concrete evidence, I'm not buying a crew error on not lowering the gear. Pretty much everyone of us who have operated a retractable gear aircraft makes it a big part of our mental loop that runs during the landing pattern. I'm having a hard time thinking two experienced pilots in a modern FBW cockpit are going to make such a basic error. I know I'd be looking for three greens several times during the final approach, and the alarm would make me look at the panel at least once if it was indeed a gear warning. I'd be very surprised if they didn't have the gear down early in the approach trying to lose altitude and if the gear didn't come down they would notice soon enough and then do a go-around to figure out the gear problem early in the approach. On the flip side, if the warning was for overspeed, they'd simply note it and carry on, since they know they're over speed.

I'm much more inclined to believe we have a crew trying to salvage a too high and too close approach then realizing they're half way down the runway and need to do a go-around then raising the gear before positive climb is established then scraping the nacelles for a few hundred feet then finally climbing away. That has happened a few different times now, and most of the evidence we have is a crew trying to salvage an unstable approach.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
F9Animal
Posts: 4423
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 7:13 am

Re: PIA A320 (flight PK8303) crashes in Karachi

Sat May 23, 2020 9:50 pm

Is it possible the nose Gear failed? Looking at a few photos of nose Gear failure in the A320, shows that the engines would have made contact with the runway.

http://www.chinaaviationdaily.com/news/53/53971.html
I Am A Different Animal!!
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1587
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

Re: PIA A320 (flight PK8303) crashes in Karachi

Sat May 23, 2020 9:57 pm

F9Animal wrote:
Is it possible the nose Gear failed? Looking at a few photos of nose Gear failure in the A320, shows that the engines would have made contact with the runway.

http://www.chinaaviationdaily.com/news/53/53971.html


Well, there is no visible damage to the nose gear area. So you would have to speculate that they kept the nose off the ground with a nose gear failure.

Plus, if the runway marks report is accurate, they were not level at engine impact, and they were halfway down the runway already.

"On May 23rd 2020 Karachi Airport reported based on CAA inspection report that the runway inspection revealed scrape marks of the left engine start 4500 feet down the runway, the right engine scrape marks begin 5500 feet down the runway. About 6000-7000 feet past the runway threshold the scrape marks end."
 
889091
Posts: 208
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2019 7:56 pm

Re: PIA A320 (flight PK8303) crashes in Karachi

Sat May 23, 2020 9:59 pm

Revelation wrote:
777GE90 wrote:
Just my two cents, not by any means fact but here is my analysis:

From what I've seen reported so far, it seems they never really had a landing gear problems. What does appear to be interesting is that they seemed to be too high (and consequently too fast) for landing, but were very keen to commit to a landing. At the start of the ATC clip the pilots are saying:

Pilot: "We are comfortable, we can make it"
Pilot: "Sir, we are comfortable now and we are out of 3500ft for 3000ft established ILS 25L"
ATC: "Turn left 180" (i.e. preparing tthem to do a 360 to lose altitude).

The pilots then again repeat they are estbalished on the ILS and ATC responds with "You are 5 miles from touchdown desend to 3500ft". To be on the glidescope at Karachi, they need to be at 3000ft from 10 miles away (from what I heard) - so were they still to high and not estbalished on the ILS?

It seems in the chaos of them trying to rapidly decend they forgot to deploy their landing gear on the first attempt (although I would have thought an A320 would alert the pilots to this - an alarm can be heard in one of the ATC communcations but I don't know enough about A320's to know whether this was that warning or not), which resulted in the aircraft engine pods contacting with the ground, based on runway inspection reports, passenger on board, eye witnesses and ATC even asking if they are going to do a belly landing the second time around. The pilots did a go around but sadly the damage to the engines meant they lost power before making it for a second landing attempt.

What is also interesting is that the engines contacted the ground around 4500 ft from the runway threshold, which is almost half the runway length. If this is true, then it backs up the theory that they were too high and too fast and trying to put the plane down much further down the runway. Which also makes sense, given that once the engines contacted the ground, they probably didn't have a great deal left of runway and probably made that split second decision to go around based on that.

I've read a few different sources (avherald, the dried fruit place, etc) and most sources say the alarm is for flap overspeed rather than gear issues. That's consistent with them trying to salvage a bad approach. It's not just a bad approach, it's one where they have something like twice the amount of energy they should have when trying to capture the ILS.

Without concrete evidence, I'm not buying a crew error on not lowering the gear. Pretty much everyone of us who have operated a retractable gear aircraft makes it a big part of our mental loop that runs during the landing pattern. I'm having a hard time thinking two experienced pilots in a modern FBW cockpit are going to make such a basic error. I know I'd be looking for three greens several times during the final approach, and the alarm would make me look at the panel at least once if it was indeed a gear warning. I'd be very surprised if they didn't have the gear down early in the approach trying to lose altitude and if the gear didn't come down they would notice soon enough and then do a go-around to figure out the gear problem early in the approach. On the flip side, if the warning was for overspeed, they'd simply note it and carry on, since they know they're over speed.

I'm much more inclined to believe we have a crew trying to salvage a too high and too close approach then realizing they're half way down the runway and need to do a go-around then raising the gear before positive climb is established then scraping the nacelles for a few hundred feet then finally climbing away. That has happened a few different times now, and most of the evidence we have is a crew trying to salvage an unstable approach.


Rev, that's the million dollar question here - did they forget to lower the gears or was it a case of premature raising of the gear....

Assuming the latter, the gear doors would be mashed up, wouldn't they? Here's a link to the Smartlynx Airlines report:
https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/wp-c ... Report.pdf

Goto page 43. That MLG door looks very second hand. From the pics we have seen after the nacelle scrape, the doors look fine and the RAT was deployed.

Here's a video of a A321 which shows how low the MLG door is to the ground.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azx4gwlOmzI
Last edited by 889091 on Sat May 23, 2020 10:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
hivue
Posts: 2076
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

Re: PIA A320 (flight PK8303) crashes in Karachi

Sat May 23, 2020 10:00 pm

cc47 wrote:
It's a miracle anyone survived this crash.


Does anyone know whether the envelope protections would have been active all the way down to impact? The videos don't look to me like the airplane is stalled. It is not simply falling out of the sky in an uncontrolled manner. This accident might have been much more survivable if they had not impacted the residential buildings.
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
User avatar
AIRMET
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2019 5:14 pm

Re: PIA A320 (flight PK8303) crashes in Karachi

Sat May 23, 2020 10:03 pm

F9Animal wrote:
Is it possible the nose Gear failed? Looking at a few photos of nose Gear failure in the A320, shows that the engines would have made contact with the runway.

http://www.chinaaviationdaily.com/news/53/53971.html

That is highly unlikely for three reasons. First, the engines would be supposed to show a different pattern of damage (more towards the inlets, not getting more pronounced towards the back of the nacelles as seen in the photos). Second, one would expect the nose to be damaged after such an event. And third, it seems very unlikely that any pilot would be able to get the aircraft back in the air after it has reached such a negative AoA.
Last edited by AIRMET on Sat May 23, 2020 10:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
hivue
Posts: 2076
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

Re: PIA A320 (flight PK8303) crashes in Karachi

Sat May 23, 2020 10:04 pm

889091 wrote:
From the pics we have seen after the nacelle scrape, the doors look fine and the RAT was deployed.


The RAT would have deployed due to the engine failures which occurred after the cowlings scraped the runway and the airplane was back flying again. They may have been waaaay early retracting the gear and the doors were well out of the way when the cowlings contacted the pavement.
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1587
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

Re: PIA A320 (flight PK8303) crashes in Karachi

Sat May 23, 2020 10:07 pm

If we take the runway marks at face value, then the engines hit the pavement about 1,000 feet apart along the runway.

Wouldn't we expect both engines to hit at about the same spot if the gear was raised too early and the landing was level, but simply too far down the runway?
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1587
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

Re: PIA A320 (flight PK8303) crashes in Karachi

Sat May 23, 2020 10:14 pm

It kinda' looks like the MLG doors hang well below the engine nacelles during cycling?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4DjtMwGV38

https://youtu.be/vfGn_1shZAs
 
889091
Posts: 208
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2019 7:56 pm

Re: PIA A320 (flight PK8303) crashes in Karachi

Sat May 23, 2020 10:29 pm

When is the WoW switch triggered? When the oleo is fully compressed, or when there's any weight on the strut?

Over at the DelMonte site, someone posted that the Mode S altitude never went to 0 on the first attempt/when they scraped the nacelles
 
CPHGuard
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 8:58 pm

Re: PIA A320 (flight PK8303) crashes in Karachi

Sat May 23, 2020 10:37 pm

Is it even possible to forget to lower the gear on the A320-series?
It just seems so unlikely.

I'm not a commercial pilot, but I would expect a cascade of "TOO LOW - GEAR" & "TOO LOW - TERRAIN" warnings when they approached the runway?
No workload would IMHO make a pilot ignore warnings like that, since I expect you don't get them many times in your flying career?

I guess Airbus pilots can comment on this?
 
mxaxai
Posts: 1885
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: PIA A320 (flight PK8303) crashes in Karachi

Sat May 23, 2020 10:42 pm

889091 wrote:
When is the WoW switch triggered? When the oleo is fully compressed, or when there's any weight on the strut?

Over at the DelMonte site, someone posted that the Mode S altitude never went to 0 on the first attempt/when they scraped the nacelles

When there's enough weight on the strut. It doesn't need to be fully compressed, but it's enough force to avoid erroneous WoW readings. A very soft touchdown, without deploying spoilers, would lead to a delayed WoW signal (until the speed drops enough to reduce lift, thereby increasing the weight on the gear); this would also inhibit thrust reversers and the ground mode, so a firm touchdown is preferred. (Just FYI, not saying that this happened here)
 
OldB747Driver
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:40 pm

Re: PIA A320 (flight PK8303) crashes in Karachi

Sat May 23, 2020 11:01 pm

If it is possible in the A320 (I have no experience on Airbus) is it conceivable that the Captain silenced the aural warnings knowing that the high and fast approach would likely set off a number of messages? If so, not responding to both gear warnings as well as EGPWS alarms would be possible.

The latest evidence of the long (left cowl 4500 to 6000 / 7000 ft, right cowl from 5500 to 6000 / 7000 ft) skid damage indicates to me that 1) There was a prolonged flare and, 2) They had enough airspeed to "float" level for at least 2000 ft. That they got airborne again further suggests the high speed and controlled descent / flare.

Finally, the ECU alternator is at the 6 o'clock position on the engine, the portion that would impact first - makes me wonder if the "default" loss-of-ECU alternator power configuration sets the engine range for operation at high thrust settings but due to lack of [electrical] power any significant reduction in power lever position would result in the inability of the engine to configure stator blades and bleeds to allow for less than high power settings, resulting in a flame out?
Last edited by OldB747Driver on Sat May 23, 2020 11:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
889091
Posts: 208
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2019 7:56 pm

Re: PIA A320 (flight PK8303) crashes in Karachi

Sat May 23, 2020 11:14 pm

Would anything have been sent via ACARS? With both engines losing oil pressure and on the brink of seizing, I'd assume there'd be a flurry of messages sent automatically to PIA Maint. HQ.
 
AT
Posts: 905
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2000 12:16 pm

Re: PIA A320 (flight PK8303) crashes in Karachi

Sat May 23, 2020 11:31 pm

Seems the pieces are beginning to fit together- a few missing pieces aside - and the eye witnesses, survivors, ATC discussion, and aircraft pictures all seem to support the central view that there was a landing with the engine cowlings hitting the ground, followed by a go-around and subsequent engine loss.

What I still am baffled by is why the descent prior to the first landing was so abnormally steep. If there were a problem, surely ATC would have been informed and there would have been emergency crews at the ready. Similarly for a landing gear problem.
 
OldB747Driver
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:40 pm

Re: PIA A320 (flight PK8303) crashes in Karachi

Sat May 23, 2020 11:37 pm

AT wrote:
What I still am baffled by is why the descent prior to the first landing was so abnormally steep. If there were a problem, surely ATC would have been informed and there would have been emergency crews at the ready. Similarly for a landing gear problem.
Listening to the ATC tapes, the controller actually queried the crew and gave them a vector off of the approach - the crew declared that they had everything under control and shortly afterward they were cleared to land. If the crew had anything amiss at all, this was the equivalent of a golden invitation...
 
User avatar
777GE90
Posts: 132
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 5:26 pm

Re: PIA A320 (flight PK8303) crashes in Karachi

Sat May 23, 2020 11:49 pm

Revelation wrote:
777GE90 wrote:
Just my two cents, not by any means fact but here is my analysis:

From what I've seen reported so far, it seems they never really had a landing gear problems. What does appear to be interesting is that they seemed to be too high (and consequently too fast) for landing, but were very keen to commit to a landing. At the start of the ATC clip the pilots are saying:

Pilot: "We are comfortable, we can make it"
Pilot: "Sir, we are comfortable now and we are out of 3500ft for 3000ft established ILS 25L"
ATC: "Turn left 180" (i.e. preparing tthem to do a 360 to lose altitude).

The pilots then again repeat they are estbalished on the ILS and ATC responds with "You are 5 miles from touchdown desend to 3500ft". To be on the glidescope at Karachi, they need to be at 3000ft from 10 miles away (from what I heard) - so were they still to high and not estbalished on the ILS?

It seems in the chaos of them trying to rapidly decend they forgot to deploy their landing gear on the first attempt (although I would have thought an A320 would alert the pilots to this - an alarm can be heard in one of the ATC communcations but I don't know enough about A320's to know whether this was that warning or not), which resulted in the aircraft engine pods contacting with the ground, based on runway inspection reports, passenger on board, eye witnesses and ATC even asking if they are going to do a belly landing the second time around. The pilots did a go around but sadly the damage to the engines meant they lost power before making it for a second landing attempt.

What is also interesting is that the engines contacted the ground around 4500 ft from the runway threshold, which is almost half the runway length. If this is true, then it backs up the theory that they were too high and too fast and trying to put the plane down much further down the runway. Which also makes sense, given that once the engines contacted the ground, they probably didn't have a great deal left of runway and probably made that split second decision to go around based on that.

I've read a few different sources (avherald, the dried fruit place, etc) and most sources say the alarm is for flap overspeed rather than gear issues. That's consistent with them trying to salvage a bad approach. It's not just a bad approach, it's one where they have something like twice the amount of energy they should have when trying to capture the ILS.

Without concrete evidence, I'm not buying a crew error on not lowering the gear. Pretty much everyone of us who have operated a retractable gear aircraft makes it a big part of our mental loop that runs during the landing pattern. I'm having a hard time thinking two experienced pilots in a modern FBW cockpit are going to make such a basic error. I know I'd be looking for three greens several times during the final approach, and the alarm would make me look at the panel at least once if it was indeed a gear warning. I'd be very surprised if they didn't have the gear down early in the approach trying to lose altitude and if the gear didn't come down they would notice soon enough and then do a go-around to figure out the gear problem early in the approach. On the flip side, if the warning was for overspeed, they'd simply note it and carry on, since they know they're over speed.

I'm much more inclined to believe we have a crew trying to salvage a too high and too close approach then realizing they're half way down the runway and need to do a go-around then raising the gear before positive climb is established then scraping the nacelles for a few hundred feet then finally climbing away. That has happened a few different times now, and most of the evidence we have is a crew trying to salvage an unstable approach.


That's interesting, I wonder if the A320 won't lower the landing gear if the aircraft speed is too fast (i.e. a safety mechanism or phsycially not possible?). If that was the case, perhaps they did select to lower the landing gear but it didn't deploy due to excessive speed?

I could understand how they would miss the gear down alarm if they are too high and too fast, if the flaps overspeed sound is going off then they would have probably trained their minds in that brief moment to ignore alarms and carry on focusing on landing, which may have helped them forget to double check the landing gear is actually down and ignore other warnings too? I've seen of situations of aircrafts accidently landing with gear up, but not on modern commercial jets.
Image
 
Armodeen
Posts: 1265
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 10:17 am

Re: PIA A320 (flight PK8303) crashes in Karachi

Sat May 23, 2020 11:59 pm

I counted 15 seconds for the gear to come up and the gear doors to close. That's a long time to be floating before contact with the runway on the nacelles.

LTC8K6 wrote:
It kinda' looks like the MLG doors hang well below the engine nacelles during cycling?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4DjtMwGV38

https://youtu.be/vfGn_1shZAs
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6034
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: PIA A320 (flight PK8303) crashes in Karachi

Sun May 24, 2020 12:23 am

AT wrote:
Seems the pieces are beginning to fit together- a few missing pieces aside - and the eye witnesses, survivors, ATC discussion, and aircraft pictures all seem to support the central view that there was a landing with the engine cowlings hitting the ground, followed by a go-around and subsequent engine loss.

What I still am baffled by is why the descent prior to the first landing was so abnormally steep. If there were a problem, surely ATC would have been informed and there would have been emergency crews at the ready. Similarly for a landing gear problem.


Any number of reasons, traffic created a delayed descent clearance, crew missed a radio call and descended late, prior ATC sector had a traffic conflict, terrain. Crews wind up high and/or fast everyday for innocent combinations of factors—it’s what you do to get back “on profile” for a stabilized approach that matters.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20012
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: PIA A320 (flight PK8303) crashes in Karachi

Sun May 24, 2020 12:31 am

889091 wrote:
DocLightning wrote:
889091 wrote:

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


So with oil leak, you'd expect flame-out in 5-10 minutes, right?


No idea Doc. I suppose it would very much depend on the size of the hole that caused the leak in the first place...

I don't think any of the manufacturers test for this scenario on the test rig - shooting chickens to test fan blade ingestion, yes, but draining all the lubrication out of the engine whilst at TOGA thrust and seeing how long it runs, would surely kill the engine.

I would assume that Airbus' QRH will ask the pilots to perform a IFSD with a low oil pressure warning. Starlionblue/Zeke, is that correct?

How many times were they reported to have performed a missed approach after the initial 'engine scrape'? I am surprised the engines lasted that long to be honest.....


OIL LO PR warning actions are indeed thrust lever to idle and master to off. (A330 to be fair but I can't see how the A320 would be different.)

However obviously in a situation where you are just about to land, or if that is your only engine remaining, you'd might make the decision to keep the engine running anyway


YOWVIEWER wrote:
I often watch aircraft taxiing around and notice there is very little clearance between the bottom of the engine and the ground. In this accident, I relate back to the Air Canada DC-8 in Toronto July 05, 1970 when a disagreement between the Captain & First Officer resulted in the manual deployment of the spoilers while still 60 feet in the air. This resulted in a hard landing and go-around was declared. Unfortunately too much damage on the initial hard landing and the DC-8 crashed several minutes later. Is there a chance the spoilers might have deployed a few seconds early, and the hard landing occurred which scraped the bottom of the engines and the decision was made to go around and try again ? Any chance of this happening on an A320 ?


Not really. The spoilers will not deploy if there is no weight on wheels, so I can't really see them deploying early. Obviously you could still pull them manually but that would be rather irrational.

The spoiler logic on landing is that when both gear legs are on the ground, the spoilers deploy fully. If only one gear leg is on the ground, the spoilers deploy halfway. If TOGA is set, the spoilers automatically retract.


LTC8K6 wrote:
hivue wrote:
LTC8K6 wrote:
I'm beginning to think they just forgot to lower the gear on the first landing attempt, so they attempted a belly landing.


If they forgot to lower the gear they would not attempt a belly landing. They would go around -- which is what they did. As other posters have pointed out, if the go around was initiated too late and/or the gear retracted too soon (if it actually was down prior to the go around) then that could account for the cowlings scraping the runway.


I have read that 3500 feet at 5 miles is way out of sorts for the approach, so they needed to get down pretty fast to make the runway.

A few questions present themselves.

When did they realize the gear was not down?

Did they tell ATC they had gear problems? (So far, it seems not)

How long does it take for the gear to cycle to down and locked?

What attempts were made to get the gear to go down, prior to the go around? (Assuming it was a gear problem and not a pilot problem)

Why does ATC say "belly landing"?

Do the comms we have so far indicate that ATC was dubious about this approach?

I think the full comms transcript and the CVR and DFDR readouts are going to confirm the bizarre aspect of this crash.
Assuming we are ever allowed access to them.



At five miles you'd typically be at around 1500 feet. You would not make the runway from 3500 feet. Your descent rate would need to be in excess of 1700 fpm.

The gear takes maybe 10 seconds to cycle down and lock.

Telling ATC what your issue is should not be the priority. Aviation, navigate, communicate.



Saintor wrote:
MigPilot wrote:
Juan Browne's analysis, which comes to the conclusion that the cockpit alarm which can be heard in the ATP recording during first approach is the gear warning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwfkN5M-bSY


Very explicit @ 5:39 and the pilot loses no time to react (unless it is not the first occurrence of the bell). It would be interesting to know how many seconds before touch-down. If it really went on at 750ft I am baffled. Maybe the actual audio 'go around' is quite later than presented in the video as it is cut.


To be clear, the Continuous Repeptitic Chime ("ding, ding, ding") as heard @5:39 is the master warning sound. It could mean any number of things, and is not specifically associated with a landing gear issue.

In case of gear not being down, you'd also get a Mode 4A EGPWS warning, which would yell "TOO LOW, GEAR!"


GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Another try at saving a high energy approach, crew got fixated on managing the “flight trajectory” and missed gear warning among other warnings being sounded. Realized too late and try to save it by going around, but engines didn’t spool up fast enough having been at idle for the last several minutes.


:checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark:
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20012
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: PIA A320 (flight PK8303) crashes in Karachi

Sun May 24, 2020 1:02 am

hivue wrote:
cc47 wrote:
It's a miracle anyone survived this crash.


Does anyone know whether the envelope protections would have been active all the way down to impact? The videos don't look to me like the airplane is stalled. It is not simply falling out of the sky in an uncontrolled manner. This accident might have been much more survivable if they had not impacted the residential buildings.


Nothing would indicate that the flight controls were not working normally. So high AoA protection should have been active along with everything else.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
Canuck600
Posts: 289
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2017 5:24 pm

Re: PIA A320 (flight PK8303) crashes in Karachi

Sun May 24, 2020 1:12 am

LTC8K6 wrote:
I have seen no reliable information that the crew ever reported a gear problem, or ever requested help with a gear problem, or ever tried to work on a gear problem, before attempting to land.


It was in the AvHerald initial report
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20012
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: PIA A320 (flight PK8303) crashes in Karachi

Sun May 24, 2020 1:13 am

CPHGuard wrote:
Is it even possible to forget to lower the gear on the A320-series?
It just seems so unlikely.

I'm not a commercial pilot, but I would expect a cascade of "TOO LOW - GEAR" & "TOO LOW - TERRAIN" warnings when they approached the runway?
No workload would IMHO make a pilot ignore warnings like that, since I expect you don't get them many times in your flying career?

I guess Airbus pilots can comment on this?


While I would agree that ignoring everything that should have been blaring at them, plus actually forgetting in the first place, plus calling "landing no blue" (which includes the gear) during the landing checklist when it wasn't actually the case, seems rather improbable. But you'd be surprised how the brain can filter out important information when you are under pressure. It is quite extraordinary.

Unstable approaches, as this one seems to have been, are particularly insidious in this regard. There is a very strong urge to continue when you should go around. This urge, coupled with the stress of the situation, dramatically lowers situational awareness and strengthens confirmation bias.


Example of the brain playing weird tricks: Remembering a clearance to land. You'd think pilots would not forget receiving such an important thing, but sometimes we do. Flying as PF, I'll have heard the clearance to land, and verbally confirmed it. Then one minute later at 800 feet or something, I'll start doubting myself and ask the PM. And even though he is absolutely certain we got it, he'll confirm with tower. This is why many Airbus pilots start the chrono when they get landing clearance. Just as a little reminder,

No one involved finds this weird because we all know that the brain plays tricks on us. Many actions are so ingrained that we can forget having done them. Which is why we have crosschecks, systems that check us, procedures...

Nitpick: You would not get "TOO LOW! TERRAIN!" in this case.


OldB747Driver wrote:
If it is possible in the A320 (I have no experience on Airbus) is it conceivable that the Captain silenced the aural warnings knowing that the high and fast approach would likely set off a number of messages? If so, not responding to both gear warnings as well as EGPWS alarms would be possible.

The latest evidence of the long (left cowl 4500 to 6000 / 7000 ft, right cowl from 5500 to 6000 / 7000 ft) skid damage indicates to me that 1) There was a prolonged flare and, 2) They had enough airspeed to "float" level for at least 2000 ft. That they got airborne again further suggests the high speed and controlled descent / flare.

Finally, the ECU alternator is at the 6 o'clock position on the engine, the portion that would impact first - makes me wonder if the "default" loss-of-ECU alternator power configuration sets the engine range for operation at high thrust settings but due to lack of [electrical] power any significant reduction in power lever position would result in the inability of the engine to configure stator blades and bleeds to allow for less than high power settings, resulting in a flame out?


You can switch off the GPWS system entirely, which would mean no "TOO LOW! GEAR!", no "SINK RATE; SINK RATE!" and no "TERRAIN!" You might do for an unstable approach to prevent nuisance warnings.

You cannot, however, pre-emptively silence the master warning (continuous "ding, ding, ding..." chime). So when descending below 750 feet without the gear down, you'd still get that. And it is heard on the ATC recording.


777GE90 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
777GE90 wrote:
Just my two cents, not by any means fact but here is my analysis:

From what I've seen reported so far, it seems they never really had a landing gear problems. What does appear to be interesting is that they seemed to be too high (and consequently too fast) for landing, but were very keen to commit to a landing. At the start of the ATC clip the pilots are saying:

Pilot: "We are comfortable, we can make it"
Pilot: "Sir, we are comfortable now and we are out of 3500ft for 3000ft established ILS 25L"
ATC: "Turn left 180" (i.e. preparing tthem to do a 360 to lose altitude).

The pilots then again repeat they are estbalished on the ILS and ATC responds with "You are 5 miles from touchdown desend to 3500ft". To be on the glidescope at Karachi, they need to be at 3000ft from 10 miles away (from what I heard) - so were they still to high and not estbalished on the ILS?

It seems in the chaos of them trying to rapidly decend they forgot to deploy their landing gear on the first attempt (although I would have thought an A320 would alert the pilots to this - an alarm can be heard in one of the ATC communcations but I don't know enough about A320's to know whether this was that warning or not), which resulted in the aircraft engine pods contacting with the ground, based on runway inspection reports, passenger on board, eye witnesses and ATC even asking if they are going to do a belly landing the second time around. The pilots did a go around but sadly the damage to the engines meant they lost power before making it for a second landing attempt.

What is also interesting is that the engines contacted the ground around 4500 ft from the runway threshold, which is almost half the runway length. If this is true, then it backs up the theory that they were too high and too fast and trying to put the plane down much further down the runway. Which also makes sense, given that once the engines contacted the ground, they probably didn't have a great deal left of runway and probably made that split second decision to go around based on that.

I've read a few different sources (avherald, the dried fruit place, etc) and most sources say the alarm is for flap overspeed rather than gear issues. That's consistent with them trying to salvage a bad approach. It's not just a bad approach, it's one where they have something like twice the amount of energy they should have when trying to capture the ILS.

Without concrete evidence, I'm not buying a crew error on not lowering the gear. Pretty much everyone of us who have operated a retractable gear aircraft makes it a big part of our mental loop that runs during the landing pattern. I'm having a hard time thinking two experienced pilots in a modern FBW cockpit are going to make such a basic error. I know I'd be looking for three greens several times during the final approach, and the alarm would make me look at the panel at least once if it was indeed a gear warning. I'd be very surprised if they didn't have the gear down early in the approach trying to lose altitude and if the gear didn't come down they would notice soon enough and then do a go-around to figure out the gear problem early in the approach. On the flip side, if the warning was for overspeed, they'd simply note it and carry on, since they know they're over speed.

I'm much more inclined to believe we have a crew trying to salvage a too high and too close approach then realizing they're half way down the runway and need to do a go-around then raising the gear before positive climb is established then scraping the nacelles for a few hundred feet then finally climbing away. That has happened a few different times now, and most of the evidence we have is a crew trying to salvage an unstable approach.


That's interesting, I wonder if the A320 won't lower the landing gear if the aircraft speed is too fast (i.e. a safety mechanism or phsycially not possible?). If that was the case, perhaps they did select to lower the landing gear but it didn't deploy due to excessive speed?

I could understand how they would miss the gear down alarm if they are too high and too fast, if the flaps overspeed sound is going off then they would have probably trained their minds in that brief moment to ignore alarms and carry on focusing on landing, which may have helped them forget to double check the landing gear is actually down and ignore other warnings too? I've seen of situations of aircrafts accidently landing with gear up, but not on modern commercial jets.


I don't know the A320 gear system but it should be like the A330 or any other modern airliner. There is a system to prevent gear extension at high speed. However, that would not be active until well above max gear extension speed, which is well above approach speed.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1587
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

Re: PIA A320 (flight PK8303) crashes in Karachi

Sun May 24, 2020 1:46 am

Canuck600 wrote:
LTC8K6 wrote:
I have seen no reliable information that the crew ever reported a gear problem, or ever requested help with a gear problem, or ever tried to work on a gear problem, before attempting to land.


It was in the AvHerald initial report


Do you mean this?:

"had aborted the approach to Karachi due to problems with extension of the nose landing gear"

There's no evidence of that being true.
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: PIA A320 (flight PK8303) crashes in Karachi

Sun May 24, 2020 1:51 am

Adipocere wrote:
mxaxai 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.

"multi-storey" means 3-6 storeys here. Maybe 20-30 m high. These are not skyscrapers.

Thank you. I saw some pictures in the media of the neighborhood. It’s a miracle that no one on the ground was killed after a jet demolished their building and set it on fire during the Covid.

When I first saw the Google Earth pictures of the crash location on Avherald, I was amazed that there were multi storey buildings directly under the flight path so close to the airport. At most airports, buildings in such locations are usually no more than single or double storey and not any higher!
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20012
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: PIA A320 (flight PK8303) crashes in Karachi

Sun May 24, 2020 2:00 am

flee wrote:
Adipocere wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
"multi-storey" means 3-6 storeys here. Maybe 20-30 m high. These are not skyscrapers.

Thank you. I saw some pictures in the media of the neighborhood. It’s a miracle that no one on the ground was killed after a jet demolished their building and set it on fire during the Covid.

When I first saw the Google Earth pictures of the crash location on Avherald, I was amazed that there were multi storey buildings directly under the flight path so close to the airport. At most airports, buildings in such locations are usually no more than single or double storey and not any higher!


Looking at the geometry, only the topmost corner of the neighbourhood is directly under the flight path. And the buildings aren't that tall. Nothing wrong with it as long as they don't encroach on the protected "cone".
Last edited by Starlionblue on Sun May 24, 2020 2:07 am, edited 2 times in total.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
maint123
Posts: 396
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 4:18 pm

Re: PIA A320 (flight PK8303) crashes in Karachi

Sun May 24, 2020 2:02 am

Revelation wrote:
777GE90 wrote:
Just my two cents, not by any means fact but here is my analysis:

From what I've seen reported so far, it seems they never really had a landing gear problems. What does appear to be interesting is that they seemed to be too high (and consequently too fast) for landing, but were very keen to commit to a landing. At the start of the ATC clip the pilots are saying:

Pilot: "We are comfortable, we can make it"
Pilot: "Sir, we are comfortable now and we are out of 3500ft for 3000ft established ILS 25L"
ATC: "Turn left 180" (i.e. preparing tthem to do a 360 to lose altitude).

The pilots then again repeat they are estbalished on the ILS and ATC responds with "You are 5 miles from touchdown desend to 3500ft". To be on the glidescope at Karachi, they need to be at 3000ft from 10 miles away (from what I heard) - so were they still to high and not estbalished on the ILS?

It seems in the chaos of them trying to rapidly decend they forgot to deploy their landing gear on the first attempt (although I would have thought an A320 would alert the pilots to this - an alarm can be heard in one of the ATC communcations but I don't know enough about A320's to know whether this was that warning or not), which resulted in the aircraft engine pods contacting with the ground, based on runway inspection reports, passenger on board, eye witnesses and ATC even asking if they are going to do a belly landing the second time around. The pilots did a go around but sadly the damage to the engines meant they lost power before making it for a second landing attempt.

What is also interesting is that the engines contacted the ground around 4500 ft from the runway threshold, which is almost half the runway length. If this is true, then it backs up the theory that they were too high and too fast and trying to put the plane down much further down the runway. Which also makes sense, given that once the engines contacted the ground, they probably didn't have a great deal left of runway and probably made that split second decision to go around based on that.

I've read a few different sources (avherald, the dried fruit place, etc) and most sources say the alarm is for flap overspeed rather than gear issues. That's consistent with them trying to salvage a bad approach. It's not just a bad approach, it's one where they have something like twice the amount of energy they should have when trying to capture the ILS.

Without concrete evidence, I'm not buying a crew error on not lowering the gear. Pretty much everyone of us who have operated a retractable gear aircraft makes it a big part of our mental loop that runs during the landing pattern. I'm having a hard time thinking two experienced pilots in a modern FBW cockpit are going to make such a basic error. I know I'd be looking for three greens several times during the final approach, and the alarm would make me look at the panel at least once if it was indeed a gear warning. I'd be very surprised if they didn't have the gear down early in the approach trying to lose altitude and if the gear didn't come down they would notice soon enough and then do a go-around to figure out the gear problem early in the approach. On the flip side, if the warning was for overspeed, they'd simply note it and carry on, since they know they're over speed.

I'm much more inclined to believe we have a crew trying to salvage a too high and too close approach then realizing they're half way down the runway and need to do a go-around then raising the gear before positive climb is established then scraping the nacelles for a few hundred feet then finally climbing away. That has happened a few different times now, and most of the evidence we have is a crew trying to salvage an unstable approach.

I agree. For whatever reason they came in too fast and screwed up a normal go around . The scraping marks on the runway atleast confirm engine impact.
Only unexplained thing is the recording with the pilot saying we are comfortable now before the first landing attempt. Indicates some issue either with plane or approach.
Also the survivor says no hard landing safety announcements were made even before the 2nd landing attempt. Combining with the total normal tone of the pilot ,before mayday call, I think the pilot didnt realize the gravity of the situation until literally the last second.
Anyone has the pilots flying history ? Always a good telltale sign.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20012
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: PIA A320 (flight PK8303) crashes in Karachi

Sun May 24, 2020 2:12 am

maint123 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
777GE90 wrote:
Just my two cents, not by any means fact but here is my analysis:

From what I've seen reported so far, it seems they never really had a landing gear problems. What does appear to be interesting is that they seemed to be too high (and consequently too fast) for landing, but were very keen to commit to a landing. At the start of the ATC clip the pilots are saying:

Pilot: "We are comfortable, we can make it"
Pilot: "Sir, we are comfortable now and we are out of 3500ft for 3000ft established ILS 25L"
ATC: "Turn left 180" (i.e. preparing tthem to do a 360 to lose altitude).

The pilots then again repeat they are estbalished on the ILS and ATC responds with "You are 5 miles from touchdown desend to 3500ft". To be on the glidescope at Karachi, they need to be at 3000ft from 10 miles away (from what I heard) - so were they still to high and not estbalished on the ILS?

It seems in the chaos of them trying to rapidly decend they forgot to deploy their landing gear on the first attempt (although I would have thought an A320 would alert the pilots to this - an alarm can be heard in one of the ATC communcations but I don't know enough about A320's to know whether this was that warning or not), which resulted in the aircraft engine pods contacting with the ground, based on runway inspection reports, passenger on board, eye witnesses and ATC even asking if they are going to do a belly landing the second time around. The pilots did a go around but sadly the damage to the engines meant they lost power before making it for a second landing attempt.

What is also interesting is that the engines contacted the ground around 4500 ft from the runway threshold, which is almost half the runway length. If this is true, then it backs up the theory that they were too high and too fast and trying to put the plane down much further down the runway. Which also makes sense, given that once the engines contacted the ground, they probably didn't have a great deal left of runway and probably made that split second decision to go around based on that.

I've read a few different sources (avherald, the dried fruit place, etc) and most sources say the alarm is for flap overspeed rather than gear issues. That's consistent with them trying to salvage a bad approach. It's not just a bad approach, it's one where they have something like twice the amount of energy they should have when trying to capture the ILS.

Without concrete evidence, I'm not buying a crew error on not lowering the gear. Pretty much everyone of us who have operated a retractable gear aircraft makes it a big part of our mental loop that runs during the landing pattern. I'm having a hard time thinking two experienced pilots in a modern FBW cockpit are going to make such a basic error. I know I'd be looking for three greens several times during the final approach, and the alarm would make me look at the panel at least once if it was indeed a gear warning. I'd be very surprised if they didn't have the gear down early in the approach trying to lose altitude and if the gear didn't come down they would notice soon enough and then do a go-around to figure out the gear problem early in the approach. On the flip side, if the warning was for overspeed, they'd simply note it and carry on, since they know they're over speed.

I'm much more inclined to believe we have a crew trying to salvage a too high and too close approach then realizing they're half way down the runway and need to do a go-around then raising the gear before positive climb is established then scraping the nacelles for a few hundred feet then finally climbing away. That has happened a few different times now, and most of the evidence we have is a crew trying to salvage an unstable approach.

I agree. For whatever reason they came in too fast and screwed up a normal go around . The scraping marks on the runway atleast confirm engine impact.
Only unexplained thing is the recording with the pilot saying we are comfortable now before the first landing attempt. Indicates some issue either with plane or approach.
Also the survivor says no hard landing safety announcements were made even before the 2nd landing attempt. Combining with the total normal tone of the pilot ,before mayday call, I think the pilot didnt realize the gravity of the situation until literally the last second.
Anyone has the pilots flying history ? Always a good telltale sign.


Saying they were comfortable indicates to me that they were telling ATC they didn't need an orbit despite being very high.

Unstable approaches have been a focus in commercial aviation for a few years now, and if initial indications are correct, this is a textbook example.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24313
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: PIA A320 (flight PK8303) crashes in Karachi

Sun May 24, 2020 2:21 am

889091 wrote:
Rev, that's the million dollar question here - did they forget to lower the gears or was it a case of premature raising of the gear....

Assuming the latter, the gear doors would be mashed up, wouldn't they? Here's a link to the Smartlynx Airlines report:
https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/wp-c ... Report.pdf

Goto page 43. That MLG door looks very second hand. From the pics we have seen after the nacelle scrape, the doors look fine and the RAT was deployed.

Here's a video of a A321 which shows how low the MLG door is to the ground.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azx4gwlOmzI

I've got to say what you have is pretty convincing. It's hard to reconcile that pilots got so task focused on saving the landing that they didn't recognize that the gear was up and thus the landing was not able to be saved, but the clean gear doors makes the gear up scenario fit the evidence better than the premature raising of the gear scenario.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6034
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: PIA A320 (flight PK8303) crashes in Karachi

Sun May 24, 2020 2:51 am

It’s happened before, why not now?
 
tax1k
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2016 5:02 am

Re: PIA A320 (flight PK8303) crashes in Karachi

Sun May 24, 2020 3:01 am

If the engines scraped the runway for 1000+ ft wouldn’t that have thrown off sparks noticeable to ATC and/or other aircraft?
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6034
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: PIA A320 (flight PK8303) crashes in Karachi

Sun May 24, 2020 3:04 am

Carbon fiber doesn’t spark very much.
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1587
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

Re: PIA A320 (flight PK8303) crashes in Karachi

Sun May 24, 2020 3:28 am

tax1k wrote:
If the engines scraped the runway for 1000+ ft wouldn’t that have thrown off sparks noticeable to ATC and/or other aircraft?

Avherald / CAA
"Ground observers reported sparks from the aircraft when it touched the ground."
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1587
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

Re: PIA A320 (flight PK8303) crashes in Karachi

Sun May 24, 2020 3:38 am

Given the A320 MLG cycle vids, it's hard to believe there was a gear cycle anywhere around the time the engines were close to, or touching the ground without badly damaging the MLG doors.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4454
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: PIA A320 (flight PK8303) crashes in Karachi

Sun May 24, 2020 5:13 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Carbon fiber doesn’t spark very much.


There are both metal and flammable things in the nacelle. An observer standing a couple of kilometres away wouldn't be able to distinguish between sparks and flames from oil or hydraulic equipment burning out.
 
N47
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2017 7:38 pm

Re: PIA A320 (flight PK8303) crashes in Karachi

Sun May 24, 2020 5:29 am

Sad day for aviation. My condolences to the families.

Great observations by the many posters here.

What would be interesting to know is when was this crew’s last sector before this flight. Did they have a prolonged break due to the current situation. Would that even have an effect on flying skills?
 
maint123
Posts: 396
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 4:18 pm

Re: PIA A320 (flight PK8303) crashes in Karachi

Sun May 24, 2020 7:20 am

N47 wrote:
Sad day for aviation. My condolences to the families.

Great observations by the many posters here.

What would be interesting to know is when was this crew’s last sector before this flight. Did they have a prolonged break due to the current situation. Would that even have an effect on flying skills?

The pilot had 17000 hrs of flying time under his belt with 4700 hrs in A320 . But as we have seen in the last few years , number of hours flown mean nothing in time of a crisis.
This seems to be a case of rustiness after a prolonged shutdown.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 15

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos