PIA A320 Crash Karachi
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the PAF runway the other side of the main drag going into town. This might have been their best option but of course if their engines were still burning when they turned downwind they would have no need for this option.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep. It's Pakistan. What is 'an official notice to the families?' Pakistan authorities ask.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Somewhere out there...
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can hear the Master Warning CRC on the atc recording of the initial approach. My reading is the GEAR NOT DOWN warning was activated (LG lever in UP with aircraft below x (2500?) feet).
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Age: 35
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Potentially gear issues on first landing, RAT may give that away at the moment. I think the possibility that there was some terrain contact with the engines slightly followed by a go around. But unsure on the final approach that resulted in the crash. By looking at the CCTV clips both engines are out as the crew are attempting to max out the lift with the high AoA.
Could have had a genuine fault with the gear followed by a depletion of fuel on the go around...
Could have had a genuine fault with the gear followed by a depletion of fuel on the go around...
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why did no-one notice?
From what I can see from the videos and stills, the U/C, flaps & slats are retracted in the still shot of the scraped nacelles, but the U/C is down in every video clear enough to see. The videos are not clear enough to ascertain the flap & slat position. In every image the engines are trailing white vapour. So, I'm not surprised they stopped, possibly from oil starvation. In the video of the aircraft descending into the buildings, it's quite clear that the first plume of smoke is wrapped around a fireball, so I think it unlikely that overall fuel starvation is the cause.
The interesting bit in all this is how the engines came to be damaged, and how it seems no-one noticed at the time, because it looks as if they must have been damaged a good 5 minutes before the aircraft crashed. How is it, then, that this aircraft came to bang its engines on the ground without anyone noticing, and with no remarks about it on the radio?
The interesting bit in all this is how the engines came to be damaged, and how it seems no-one noticed at the time, because it looks as if they must have been damaged a good 5 minutes before the aircraft crashed. How is it, then, that this aircraft came to bang its engines on the ground without anyone noticing, and with no remarks about it on the radio?
Last edited by Iron Duck; 22nd May 2020 at 20:38.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: still in bed
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Potentially gear issues on first landing, RAT may give that away at the moment. I think the possibility that there was some terrain contact with the engines slightly followed by a go around. But unsure on the final approach that resulted in the crash. By looking at the CCTV clips both engines are out as the crew are attempting to max out the lift with the high AoA.
Could have had a genuine fault with the gear followed by a depletion of fuel on the go around...
Could have had a genuine fault with the gear followed by a depletion of fuel on the go around...
On the one hand, I am firm believer in "never say never." There have been too many aviation accidents where observers say "No pilot (or crew, or aircraft) would ever do that!" - only to be proven wrong when the final report comes out. Pilots and planes sometimes do the craziest things.
I do have doubts that a crew would attempt to complete a 550nm flight if they had bounced the engines on the tarmac on take-off, but you just never know.
I do have doubts the impact mushroom cloud would have been that large (see end of final glide video) if the fuel tanks were empty, but you just never know.
For the moment I lean to the theory of - ground contact during gear-up touchdown (intentional or not) - followed by mechanical engine failure due to ground contact (G forces, inner inlet shrouds dislodged, fan strikes, oil loss, etc.) - followed by attempt to stretch glide at alpha-floor (which rarely works, but if the alternative is hitting a 5-story concrete building head-on....?).
Will stay tuned for further information.
I do have doubts that a crew would attempt to complete a 550nm flight if they had bounced the engines on the tarmac on take-off, but you just never know.
I do have doubts the impact mushroom cloud would have been that large (see end of final glide video) if the fuel tanks were empty, but you just never know.
For the moment I lean to the theory of - ground contact during gear-up touchdown (intentional or not) - followed by mechanical engine failure due to ground contact (G forces, inner inlet shrouds dislodged, fan strikes, oil loss, etc.) - followed by attempt to stretch glide at alpha-floor (which rarely works, but if the alternative is hitting a 5-story concrete building head-on....?).
Will stay tuned for further information.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
And, probably not a player in this case unless some checklist calls for it but the RAT can be deployed manually using a guarded switch on many aircraft including apparently the A320. I know it works even with the battery switch off on some Boeings after a colleague with SR-71 stickers all over his flight kit demoed it one day on the ramp while trying turn on the battery to start the APU.
Join Date: May 2020
Location: usa
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assuming the engine is a CFM 56 (a guess but maybe representative) there are U Tube videos showing how to rebuild the oil pump. Pump, manifolds and lines are mounted on the bottom of the fan ring...pretty much exactly where you see the black soot (maybe dirty oil?) trail start from in the pictures. If it touched the ground at all I would expect some of those lines got crunched.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: left coast
Age: 72
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Questions about this video
Join Date: May 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is clear that the controller did not think that they would make the first approach just based on their energy 3500ft at 5NM. It will be interesting to find out what the rate of descent was in the last minute of the first approach. If there were over speed (flaps) warnings masking a Landing gear not down ECAM and a high rate of descent with a low thrust setting by the the time the GPWS gives you the TOO LOW GEAR there may only be a few seconds to react. Imagine high workload from a high energy approach, the low thrust setting, late go around decision and into the flare mode and not enough back stick pressure (big pull required low down) and ground contact quite possible. The rest would be consistent with a double engine failure from the damage.
And, probably not a player in this case unless some checklist calls for it but the RAT can be deployed manually using a guarded switch on many aircraft including apparently the A320. I know it works even with the battery switch off on some Boeings after a colleague with SR-71 stickers all over his flight kit demoed it one day on the ramp while trying turn on the battery to start the APU.
Join Date: May 2020
Location: On Standby
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a possible scenario:
LGCIU 1 fault, GPWS off as per ECAM to prevent spurious 'TOO LOW GEAR' flight continues, LGCIU 2 Fails on final, high workload, gear missed, no GPWS call outs due to being selected off earlier. Aircraft flares, crew notice abnormal attitude etc. Baulk landing, nacelles contact runway. Damage is done to IDG's, both fail on go around, aircraft loses AC1+2 RAT extends, further (currently unknown) damage done to engines on contact with runway results in dual engine failure.
It's an idea based upon the current information
LGCIU 1 fault, GPWS off as per ECAM to prevent spurious 'TOO LOW GEAR' flight continues, LGCIU 2 Fails on final, high workload, gear missed, no GPWS call outs due to being selected off earlier. Aircraft flares, crew notice abnormal attitude etc. Baulk landing, nacelles contact runway. Damage is done to IDG's, both fail on go around, aircraft loses AC1+2 RAT extends, further (currently unknown) damage done to engines on contact with runway results in dual engine failure.
It's an idea based upon the current information
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Seems hard to imagine a gear up pass going all the way down to touchdown in a 'modern' airliner.
Still, some odd things happen in South Asia.
Remember the Air India crew that was low on fuel after forgetting to raise the gear on takeoff?
Boy, it's noisy in here!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post