[VIDEOS/PICTURES] What went wrong with PIA flight PK 8303 (Airbus A320)?

[MenInG]

This thread is to discuss the technical/administrative aspects of the tragedy only - The human aspects should be discussed in the main thread on the incident.

Thanks

===

Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) Chief Executive Officer Arshad Malik on Friday said that the pilots and cabin crew aboard PK8303 — that crashed in a residential colony in Karachi earlier in the day — were all qualified.

"Accidents happen, but our pilots are trained for these kind of events. These planes have checks and balances that we are required to fulfill.

"My pilots were qualified, their checks and balances, and medical tests were complete. My cabin crew was also qualified and my plane's inspection was also complete."

According to Radio Pakistan, Malik also said that the plane was "technically fit for flying", adding that an aircraft is given clearance for flying after ensuring all technical requirements are fulfilled.

Malik was holding a press conference hours after a PIA passenger plane, with an estimated 99 people onboard, crashed in Karachi's Model Colony near Jinnah International Airport on Friday.

Addressing a press conference in Karachi, he said that an inquiry will be conducted into the plane crash by the Safety Investigation Board. "This is my responsibility and it is your right that you receive this information."

"What we know right now is that the plane technically, operationally and administratively, according to its schedule, arrives and establishes itself for a final landing approach.

"On that final landing approach, the pilot reports that he is ready [to land the aircraft]. The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) controller gives him the go ahead [but] he does a go around.

"After this, he gives a call saying I will establish myself for a second approach. That is when something happened, and until we find the voice recorder and the data recorder [...] when those come then we will know if there was a technical fault or otherwise."

He added that when the plane began flying low, the air traffic controller asked the pilot is there was a problem. "They respond 'yes there is an issue' and that is where communication ends and the crash happens."

He added that PIA had emptied its airport hotels so that residents whose houses were affected in the crash can be accommodated.

"Fortunately, the plane landed in a street. It affected buildings in the vicinity but nothing collapsed. And, according to reports, miraculously there is no dead body there either."

He added that rescue operations were still under way and two to three days will be required to complete them. "Right now my teams are at Civil Hospital and at Jinnah Post Graduate Medical Centre. We will track all the victims and speak to their families."

Malik reiterated that the Safety Investigation Board, which will conduct an inquiry into the crash, is an independent institution, adding that PIA and the CAA will not interfere in its affairs.

He also refused to give an update about those killed in the crash, stating: "Until we have 100 per cent clarity, I will not give an update. We are currently in the process of collecting data."

Investigation team formed to probe incident
Meanwhile, the government has formed an investigation team to probe the incident. According to the notification, a copy of which is available with Dawn.com, the team will issue a preliminary report within one month's time.

The committee is headed by Air Commodore Usman Ghani, who is president of the Aircraft Accident Investigation Board.

According to the CAA, Aviation Minister Ghulam Sarwar directed that five family members of each passenger be provided with plane tickets for Karachi.

The authority added that Sarwar will visit Karachi tomorrow for a "detailed meeting" with the CAA and the PIA management. "He will meet the families of the passengers and will also visit the crash site and meet the residents of the houses damaged in the crash."

https://www.dawn.com/news/1558954/p...lified-says-pia-ceo-after-karachi-plane-crash

 

[MenInG]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The Federal Government has constituted an Investigation Team with the following composition, to investigate the tragic accident of M/s PIACL flight No. PK-8303 operating from Lahore to Karachi that met with an ill-fated accident on 22nd May, 2020. <a href="https://t.co/iz9Sb3FvW3">pic.twitter.com/iz9Sb3FvW3</a></p>— PCAAOfficial (@official_pcaa) <a href="https://twitter.com/official_pcaa/status/1263888123085426690?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 22, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[MenInG]

KARACHI: The Pakistan Airlines’ Pilots Association (Palpa) has demanded a thorough investigation into the PIA aircraft crash by involving the association and international bodies.

However, Palpa made it clear that pilots would continue to operate rescue flights.

It also suggested that in addition to the technical investigation into the aircraft’s health prior to the flight, investigators must consider the working conditions of the ground staff and flight crew.

It called for involving bodies like the International Civil Aviation Organisation and International Federation of Air Line Pilots’ Associations in the investigation. “We will not accept the way the investigation carried out in the past and will not accept any inquiry into this accident without the inclusion of Palpa,” Captain Imran Narejo, the association’s general secretary, said.

“These are the unfortunate incidents which Palpa strives to avoid by following internationally acknowledged air safety rules to make Pakistani airspace safest for flying. Unfor*tunately, Palpa has always faced criticism for demanding safety procedures and highest technical upkeep of aircraft and following international safety rules and regulations. Very recently Palpa was a target of hate campaigns by vested interests just because it wanted to follow stringent safety rules and regulations,” Mr Narejo added.

“We appeal to the PIA management and the government to immediately order an inquiry into the incident and make its report available as soon as possible,” he said.

Expressing serious reservations over the abilities and past role of the Special Investigation Board (SIB), Palpa said to date no complete report of this board had been received. “We also suggest that after this incident, a competent board other than SIB should be formed,” he added.

Palpa was referring to a “preliminary” report of the SIB probe into the 2016 crash of a PIA domestic flight that killed all the 47 people on board, including singer-turned-evangelist Junaid Jamshed. The report in which it claimed to have found a “lapse” on the part of the PIA and a “lack of oversight” by the Civil Aviation Authority was widely reported by the media in 2019, but it was still not officially released and there’s no word whether it was officially concluded or not.

On Dec 7, 2016, PIA aircraft ATR42-500 (PK-661) en route to Islamabad from Chitral had crashed into the mountains near tehsil Havelian of Abbottabad.

In a late-night press conference in Karachi, PIA chief executive Air Marshal Arshad Malik said the aviation ministry would oversee an inquiry into the incident. “We want the inquiry report to be completed as soon as possible but we cannot say when. We do not wish to interfere with the inquiry in any way,” he added.

He said the SIB was an independent government body that would oversee the investigation.

About relief activities relating to passengers’ families, he said they were welcome to come and stay at airport hotels which had been vacated. “All affected persons are going to be accommodated in airport hotels and other government facilities in Qasr-i-Naz,” he added.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1559078/pilots-body-demands-probe-into-karchi-plane-crash

 

[MenInG]

A Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) commercial airliner Airbus A320, flying from Lahore to Karachi, crashed in a residential area near the Karachi airport on Friday, just a few kilometres away from the landing runway. The fate of all 91 passengers and eight crew members on flight PK-8303 is not known as of now, while rescue operations are underway.

Following is a chronology of major air crashes in Pakistan or involving Pakistani planes:

May 20, 1965

A PIA Boeing 707 crashes on its inaugural flight while attempting to land at Cairo airport, killing 124 people.

August 6, 1970

A PIA Fokker F27 turboprop aircraft crashes while attempting to take off from Islamabad in a thunderstorm, killing all 30 people on board.

December 8, 1972

A PIA Fokker F27 crashes in Rawalpindi. All 26 people on board are killed.

November 26, 1979

A PIA Boeing 707 bringing home Pakistani Haj pilgrims from Saudi Arabia crashes shortly after take-off from Jeddah airport, killing 156 people.

October 23, 1986

A PIA Fokker F27 crashes while coming in to land in Peshawar, killing 13 of the 54 people on board.

August 17, 1988

A US-made Hercules C-130 military aircraft crashes near Bahawalpur, killing military ruler General Mohammad Zia ul Haq and 30 others including Pakistani generals and the US ambassador.

August 25, 1989

A PIA Fokker carrying 54 people disappears after leaving Gilgit. The wreckage is never found.

September 28, 1992

A PIA Airbus A300 crashes into a cloud-covered hillside on approach to the Nepalese capital Kathmandu after the plane descended too early, killing 167 people.

February 19, 2003

An air force Fokker F27 crashes in fog-shrouded mountains near Kohat, killing Air Chief Marshal Mushaf Ali, his wife and 15 others.

February 24, 2003

A chartered Cessna 402-B carrying Afghan Mines and Industries Minister Juma Mohammad Mohammadi, four Afghan officials, a Chinese mining executive and two Pakistani crew crashes into the Arabian Sea near Karachi.

July 10, 2006

A PIA Fokker F27 bound for Lahore crashes into a field and bursts into flames shortly after takeoff from Multan, killing 41 passengers and four crew.

July 28, 2010

An Airblue Airbus 321 operated by the private airline Airblue flying from Karachi crashes into hills outside Islamabad while preparing to land, killing all 152 people on board.

November 5, 2010

A twin-engine plane operated by Pakistani charter JS Air carrying staff from an Italian oil company crashes shortly after take-off in Karachi, killing all 21 people on board.

November 28, 2010

At least 12 people are killed when a Russian-made Ilyushin IL-76 cargo plane operated by Georgian airline Sunway crashes in a fireball seconds after taking off from Karachi.

April 20, 2012

A Bhoja Air Airbus 737 from Karachi comes down in bad weather near Islamabad, killing 121 passengers and 6 crew members.

May 8, 2015

A Pakistani military helicopter crashes, killing eight people including the Norwegian, Philippine and Indonesian envoys and the wives of Malaysian and Indonesian envoys, and setting a school building ablaze in a remote valley near Gilgit.

December 7, 2016

A PIA ATR-42 aircraft crashes enroute from Chitral to Islamabad. The crash claims lives of all 48 passengers and crew, including singer-cum-evangelist Junaid Jamshed.

May 22, 2020

A PIA Airbus A320 crashes near the Karachi Airport while completing a journey from Lahore. A total of 91 passengers, besides 8 crew members, were on board the aircraft.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1558945/a-timeline-of-major-air-crashes-in-pakistan

 

[saeedhk]

This is what happened according to experts:

As the aircraft approached the runway, the landing gear failed to open so the pilot did a go-around. Then, on the second attempt, two engines failed and the landing gear failed to open again. The plane lost all power and glided into the ground. Awful!

 

[MenInG]

The engineering and maintenance department of the Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) on Saturday released a brief on the technical history of the Airbus A-320 that crashed into a residential area near Karachi Airport a day ago.

According to the summary, the last check of the plane was done on March 21 this year and it had flown from Muscat to Lahore a day earlier.

The report added that there was "no defect related to the engine, landing gear or major aircraft system".

The summary further said the health of both engines was "satisfactory" and maintenance checks were being performed at intervals.

Plane fit to fly

The report also revealed that the aeroplane was declared fit for flights till Nov 5, 2020 by the CAA.

Sources said the first certificate of airworthiness was issued to Airbus A320-200 on Nov 6, 2014 to Nov 5, 2015. And after every year the airworthiness certificate was issued following a complete check of the plane.

The federal government on Friday constituted an investigation team to probe the crash that killed 97 people on board. Two passengers survived the crash.

The investigation team would be headed by Air Commodore Muhammad Usman Ghani, President of the Aircraft Accident and Investigation Board.

He will be assisted by Wing Commander Malik Muhammad Imran, Additional Director of Technical Investigation; Group Captain Touqeer, Ops Investigator, Pakistan Air Force Safety Board, Kamra; and Nasir Majeed, Joint Director of ATC Ops, AAIB.

According to a notification issued by the Aviation Division, the investigation team would exercise powers conferred under CAA Rules, 1994, and submit its report to the division within the shortest possible time. However, a preliminary statement would be issued within a month from the date of the notification.

Earlier, the Pakistan Airlines’ Pilots Association (Palpa) had demanded a thorough investigation into the aircraft crash by involving the association and international bodies.

It also suggested that in addition to the technical investigation into the aircraft’s health prior to the flight, investigators must consider the working conditions of the ground staff and flight crew.

It called for involving bodies like the International Civil Aviation Organisation and International Federation of Air Line Pilots’ Associations in the investigation.

“We will not accept the way the investigation carried out in the past and will not accept any inquiry into this accident without the inclusion of Palpa,” Captain Imran Narejo, the association’s general secretary, said.

“We appeal to the PIA management and the government to immediately order an inquiry into the incident and make its report available as soon as possible,” he added.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1559129/c...cked-on-mar-21-returned-from-muscat-a-day-ago

 

[sa88]

Blame lies squarely with PIA. It is flying aged planes, has a shocking safety record and is haemorrhaging billions of rupees that a poor country like Pakistan can ill-afford.

Some stats:

The age of the aircraft in question was 16 years. Average fleet age globally is around 10 years. In China, India and other parts of Asia it is less than 10. So PIA is flying old aircraft more prone to failure.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/751440/aviation-industry-aircraft-fleet-age-by-region/

More damning is the fact that PIA has the worst safety record in Asia and Asia has a worse safety record than Europe and North America. PIA has suffered 11 crashes since 1970 with 7.42 full loss equivalents.

http://www.airsafe.com/events/regions/asia.htm

I imagine if the investigations are done properly it is very likely that we will discover this accident was most likely preventable. But I doubt any action will result as people will ascribe this tragedy to fate ("un ka waqt a gaya tha") and move on.

Personally, I haven't flown PIA for 10 years and have no plans of ever doing so again. Anyone flying with this airline... good luck to you. Looks like you will need it.

 

[MenInG]

A few theories :


Landing Gears failed - as per procedure came for Low Go on 1st approach.
During go around multiple birds hits when reaching end of R/W.
Turned left to climb and come for another approach, by this time both engines suffered partial power loss.
Was unable to maintain altitude due to less power.
Eventually lost both engines, gave MAYDAY call, turned towards R/W , tried to glide towards it.
Couldn't make it due to very low altitude, stalled and fell on residential area.

 

[MenInG]

Pretty detailed:

<iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AwfkN5M-bSY" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[gani999]

Pretty detailed:

<iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AwfkN5M-bSY" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

For those not knowing, the circled part in the photo above is the RAT, or the Ram Air Turbine. It is a small, fan powered generator that uses the forward airflow to generate power that can be used to activate the most essential hydraulic or electrical systems. That this is shown deployed clearly indicates that the aircraft has had a critical power loss either due to engine or generator failure.
If so, a crucial question is how the engines failed. Was the aircraft running low on fuel? But in that case the pilot would have radioed a fuel emergency, to prevent any attempt by the ATC to put him in a holding pattern.
I guess more answers will come once the black boxes are located and analysed.

 

[gani999]

Blame lies squarely with PIA. It is flying aged planes, has a shocking safety record and is haemorrhaging billions of rupees that a poor country like Pakistan can ill-afford.

Some stats:

The age of the aircraft in question was 16 years. Average fleet age globally is around 10 years. In China, India and other parts of Asia it is less than 10. So PIA is flying old aircraft more prone to failure.

.

Old aircraft are not prone to failure. It is the badly maintained ones that are. And the quality of maintenance has nothing to do with the age of the aircraft.
16 years isn't 'old' for an aircraft. A lot of airlines around the world are flying airplanes of similar age very safely.

 

[Saj]

Has the black box been located yet?

 

[ahsan17]

For those not knowing, the circled part in the photo above is the RAT, or the Ram Air Turbine. It is a small, fan powered generator that uses the forward airflow to generate power that can be used to activate the most essential hydraulic or electrical systems. That this is shown deployed clearly indicates that the aircraft has had a critical power loss either due to engine or generator failure.
If so, a crucial question is how the engines failed. Was the aircraft running low on fuel? But in that case the pilot would have radioed a fuel emergency, to prevent any attempt by the ATC to put him in a holding pattern.
I guess more answers will come once the black boxes are located and analysed.

There are suggestions that the engines were damaged in the first landing attempt and from that point on the flight was doomed. It's not clear how they got damaged in the first attempt, but we'll find out.

 

[Bigboii]

For those not knowing, the circled part in the photo above is the RAT, or the Ram Air Turbine. It is a small, fan powered generator that uses the forward airflow to generate power that can be used to activate the most essential hydraulic or electrical systems. That this is shown deployed clearly indicates that the aircraft has had a critical power loss either due to engine or generator failure.
If so, a crucial question is how the engines failed. Was the aircraft running low on fuel? But in that case the pilot would have radioed a fuel emergency, to prevent any attempt by the ATC to put him in a holding pattern.
I guess more answers will come once the black boxes are located and analysed.

Only answers I see in Pakistan about a incident like that is pilot was at fault probably high

So annoying cause I am damn sure they are lying

 

[Giannis]

Were the pilots fasting? Do you think that may have affect cognition?

 

[MenInG]

A few theories :


Landing Gears failed - as per procedure came for Low Go on 1st approach.
During go around multiple birds hits when reaching end of R/W.
Turned left to climb and come for another approach, by this time both engines suffered partial power loss.
Was unable to maintain altitude due to less power.
Eventually lost both engines, gave MAYDAY call, turned towards R/W , tried to glide towards it.
Couldn't make it due to very low altitude, stalled and fell on residential area.

Could explain multiple engine failure

 

[rockyboy2018]

All the observers are saying that pilots should have done belly landing in the first place and instead of going around for second attempt? Do Pakistani pilots lack sufficient training and are not fully equipped with the technical awareness of the situation?

 

[MenInG]

All the observers are saying that pilots should have done belly landing in the first place and instead of going around for second attempt? Do Pakistani pilots lack sufficient training and are not fully equipped with the technical awareness of the situation?

He had no idea that the engines would fail.

Pakistan pilots are amongst the best in the world so please dont cast aspersions on them based upon your limited understanding.

The normal procedure when 3 greens dont come on for undercarriage is to do a low pass and let ground observers check then try again.

 

[MenInG]

Some background on the A320 record:

The Airbus A320, the aircraft type that came down just short of Karachi airport, is arguably the most successful airliner ever. It has a formidable safety record.

But the narrow-bodied twin-jet, which typically holds 180 passengers in an all-economy configuration, had a dreadful start to its flying career. In June 1988, a demonstration flight intended to persuade airlines around the world to buy the jet ended in tragedy when the plane struck trees at an air show.

In the 32 years between that event and the Pakistan International Airlines accident, 10 A320s have been lost in fatal crashes – along with two of its larger sibling, the A321.

But relative to the number of aircraft in service – almost 9,000, at least until the coronavirus pandemic grounded much of world aviation – the A320 has proved extremely safe and reliable.

Airbus narrow-bodied jets are the only short-haul aircraft used by British Airways. The A320 series is the only type flown by easyJet – which, relative to the number of passengers carried without a single fatality in an accident, is the second safest airline in the world.

In top place is Ryanair, which uses only the Boeing 737-800. This type has its origins two decades earlier than the A320, in the 1960s, and still has the same fuselage profile.

Airbus’s A320 has overtaken Boeing’s 737 in sales – largely because of the grounding of the 737 Max following two fatal accidents, involving Lion Air of Indonesia and Ethiopian Airlines.

The Max remains out of service, though Ryanair – which has its own variant of the jet on order – expects to receive its first aircraft later this year.

Because the 737 has been flying for much longer, especially in the far less safe decades of the 1970s and 80s, it has suffered many more fatal accidents.

But many in aviation regard the Airbus twin-jet as a superior aircraft. It also has a slightly wider fuselage, meaning more room for passengers.

Two of the fatal events involving the A320 series were deliberate acts – both in 2015.

In March of that year, the co-pilot of Germanwings flight 9525 from Barcelona to Dusseldorf locked the captain out of the flight deck and crashed the plane into a mountain in France. All 150 people on board died.

At the end of October 2015, Metrojet flight 9268 crashed with the loss of all 224 passengers and crew shortly after take off from Sharm el Sheikh in Egypt, destination St Petersburg. It is believed a bomb was placed on board at the departure airport.

The remarkable resilience of the A320 has been demonstrated in two other events, however. In January 2009, an Airbus flying for US Airways ditched in the Hudson River in New York after both engines failed. All 155 people on board safely evacuated in the so-called “Miracle on the Hudson”.

In February 2016, a suicide bomber attempted to destroy a Daallo Airlines flight from Mogadishu to Djibouti using a device concealed in a laptop. But the attack failed: while the fuselage was ruptured, only the bomber was ejected and the plane landed safely.

https://www.independent.co.uk/trave...=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1590168366

 

[MenInG]

Counter-inquiry to be done by Airbus

Aviation Minister Ghulam Sarwar Khansaid the Airbus company would conduct a counter-inquiry into the cause of the crash.

He assured the people that the government's inquiry would be "fair" and added that full efforts would be made to present the report to the nation and the Parliament "as soon as possible".

"Four experienced members of the Pakistan Air Force are part of the committee. They will make full efforts to present the facts."

The minister said the government would take "100 per cent" responsibility for any negligence that led to the crash. "Whoever is responsible, they will be made to resign."

Responding to a question, he added: "If the report says the PIA CEO showed negligence, he will resign. If it says we have shown negligence, then not only will we resign but also present ourselves for accountability."

https://www.dawn.com/news/1559147/a...-compensation-for-those-killed-in-plane-crash

 

[gani999]

Only answers I see in Pakistan about a incident like that is pilot was at fault probably high

So annoying cause I am damn sure they are lying

It looks more like the pilot tried his best to save the aircraft. The evident loss of power is clearly a systems failure.

 

[MenInG]

Picture of certificate of inspection for the plane

 

[MenInG]

The A-320 that was used for PK8303 was built in 2004 - first flight was in Aug 2004 for China Eastern Airlines - in 2014 PIA acquired it in on a dry lease

 

[MenInG]

Black Box found as per PIA CEO

<iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/aruefEMVxSo" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[MenInG]

Has the black box been located yet?

KARACHI, Pakistan (Reuters) - The flight data recorder from the Pakistani airliner that crashed into a residential neighbourhood of Karachi has been found, an official said on Saturday, as the death toll rose to 97.

There were two survivors from onboard the aircraft, while no fatalities were reported in the densely populated area of the city where the aircraft crash-landed on Friday.

Pakistan International Airlines flight PK 8303, an Airbus A320, was flying from Lahore to Karachi with 99 people on board when it went down in mid-afternoon while trying a second landing attempt. [nL4N2D4374]

“The black box had been found late yesterday, we are handing it over to the inquiry board,” PIA spokesman Abdullah Khan said. He said that included both the flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder.

The airline’s chief executive, Arshad Malik, said on Friday the last message received from the pilot indicated there was a technical problem.

Another senior civil aviation official told Reuters it appeared the plane had been unable to lower its landing gear for the first approach.

Aviation safety experts say air crashes typically have multiple causes.

Seconds before the crash, the pilot told air traffic controllers he had lost power from both engines, according to a recording posted on liveatc.net, a respected aviation monitoring website.

Airbus said the jet first flew in 2004 and was fitted with engines built by CFM International, co-owned by General Electric and France’s Safran.

Pakistan’s prime minister, Imran Khan, announced soon after the crash that there would be an inquiry, and a four-member team was constituted Friday night, according to a notification from the government’s aviation division, seen by Reuters.

The team includes three members of the Aircraft Accident and Investigation Board and one from the Pakistan Air Force’s safety board. The team will issue a preliminary statement within a month, the notification says.

A statement from the provincial health minister’s office on Saturday put the death toll at 97, with no confirmed deaths on the ground.

Army and civil administration personnel were clearing through the debris in the Karachi neighbourhood on Saturday and assisting residents whose homes had been damaged.

“Rescue Op in progress ... 25 affected houses cleared, their residents accommodated at various places with assistance of Civil Administration,” the Army said on Twitter.

Pakistan only last week resumed domestic flights it had suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic, with many people travelling for the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Fitr, expected to fall on Sunday or Monday in the country.

Friday’s crash is the worst air disaster in Pakistan since 2012, when a Bhoja Air passenger aircraft, a Boeing 737, crashed in Islamabad, killing 127 people.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...tent&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

 

[MenInG]

A few theories abound (note the damage to engines)

 

[ElRaja]

i am always super suspect of any theories that place the blame squarely on someone who cannot defend themselves.

 

[MenInG]

i am always super suspect of any theories that place the blame squarely on someone who cannot defend themselves.

Unfortunately in aircraft accident investigations where there are no survivors, this is usually the case.

 

[Varun]

My guess is it started with an oil leak, leading to a dual engine failure. Then some kind of bird ingestion on the second go-around.

Have to wait for the official accident report to be released, and Airbus to run this by their simulator.

 

[thelandofthebravepeople]

Unfortunately in aircraft accident investigations where there are no survivors, this is usually the case.

It should be pretty easy to confirm the above theory. There must be CCTV at the airport that shows the aircraft approaching the first time. It should show if the aircraft hit the ground. The Black Box should show flight pattern and show if both engines got damaged during the first attempt. There are two survivors that can testify if the airplane hit the ground on first attempt.

The chances of both engines failing are slim unless things went down as the above theory says. That both engine hit the ground and got damaged.

 

[MenInG]

It should be pretty easy to confirm the above theory. There must be CCTV at the airport that shows the aircraft approaching the first time. It should show if the aircraft hit the ground. The Black Box should show flight pattern and show if both engines got damaged during the first attempt. There are two survivors that can testify if the airplane hit the ground on first attempt.

The chances of both engines failing are slim unless things went down as the above theory says. That both engine hit the ground and got damaged.

Yes BlackBox is key.

 

[Napa]

July 28, 2010

An Airblue Airbus 321 operated by the private airline Airblue flying from Karachi crashes into hills outside Islamabad while preparing to land, killing all 152 people on board.

November 5, 2010

A twin-engine plane operated by Pakistani charter JS Air carrying staff from an Italian oil company crashes shortly after take-off in Karachi, killing all 21 people on board.

April 20, 2012

A Bhoja Air Airbus 737 from Karachi comes down in bad weather near Islamabad, killing 121 passengers and 6 crew members.

December 7, 2016

A PIA ATR-42 aircraft crashes enroute from Chitral to Islamabad. The crash claims lives of all 48 passengers and crew, including singer-cum-evangelist Junaid Jamshed.

May 22, 2020

A PIA Airbus A320 crashes near the Karachi Airport while completing a journey from Lahore. A total of 91 passengers, besides 8 crew members, were on board the aircraft.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1558945/a-timeline-of-major-air-crashes-in-pakistan

5 civilian airplane crashes in 10 years is simply too many. The industry needs to make some changes to the system.

 

[Asifnow]

Is anyone here an air crash investigator?

With regards to the post above, what were the outcomes of the above crash investigations? Is Airbus to blame for faulty craft OR is the problem with staff, training and the airports themselves? Apparently the current crash occurred with the plane hitting a mobile phone tower, why are they built so close to an airport? Is that typical regulation?

 

[Asifnow]

A few theories abound (note the damage to engines)

View attachment 101166

View attachment 101167

where is this from?

 

[Pakpak]

From the picture posted widely now its obvious both engines were busted, scarred and battered from beneath after they had aborted the first approach. We can see from the picture they had also deployed the electric instrument which happens during power failure.

Quite sad. The black boxes should tell more

 

[Pakpak]

Is anyone here an air crash investigator?

With regards to the post above, what were the outcomes of the above crash investigations? Is Airbus to blame for faulty craft OR is the problem with staff, training and the airports themselves? Apparently the current crash occurred with the plane hitting a mobile phone tower, why are they built so close to an airport? Is that typical regulation?

???????????

 

[Asifnow]

???????????

Just something an eyewitness said he saw, that as the plane was coming down it hit a mobile phone tower, causing it to burst into flames.

 

[MenInG]

where is this from?

This is available on social media and also mentioned in some TV reports.

Picture of plane are also available on social media.

 

[Pakpak]

Just something an eyewitness said he saw, that as the plane was coming down it hit a mobile phone tower, causing it to burst into flames.

This is the first time I am reading off it anywhere.

 

[161]

Combination of mechanical failure (gear not coming down) and pilot error (engines striking ground in aborted landing).

PIA is a shambles and should be finished. Allow full private airlines to take over.

 

[MenInG]

The runway inspection report seems to confirm a few things that are mentioned above

<iframe width="750" height="422" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/sCZaNvIkxlw" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[MenInG]

Senator Rehman Malik asks for some answers:

 

[MenInG]

MUMBAI: The pilots of the Pakistan International Airlines aircraft that crashed in Karachi on Friday were engaged in a second attempt at landing when they lost probably both the engines, according to the information gleaned from the live air traffic control recordings uploaded online.

The ATC recordings show that the Lahore-Karachi flight PK-8303, carrying 91 passengers and 8 crew, was initially cleared to land on Karachi runway 25. "During the first approach, a continuous aural warning (ting, ting, ting) from the cockpit can be heard in the background. The controller gave a landing clearance. According to flightradar24, the aircraft continued to descend till 275 feet and then they went around," said Capt Amit Singh, an air safety expert. The lowest height that an aircraft can descend to before the pilots decide whether to continue with the approach or go-around is 229 feet for the said Karachi runway.

"The aural warning in the cockpit appears to be of landing gear not down and locked. Preoccupation due to an unstablised approach could lead to pilots missing out some warnings,’’ said a senior B747 examiner.

The ATC recordings indicate that the aircraft was initially too high on approach to land. Capt Amit said, "Flightradar24 granular data shows that the aircraft was about 2500ft higher than the required profile. Prior to that the ATC had instructed the aircraft twice, to discontinue the approach but to no avail. The crew apparently persisted with the approach descending at a very high rate of 2000ft/min or more till reaching 1500ft. The rate of descent was then lowered to 1000 ft/min.”

Even though the pilots were busy with the unstablised approach and probably didn’t lower the landing gear why didn’t other cockpit warnings, like the Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System (EGPWS) blare in the cockpit? Capt Mohan Rangnathan, an air safety expert said: ``Was there an EGPWS ``too low gear’’ warning in the cockpit? The Captain’s voice appeared to be too calm to indicate that he had these warnings blaring in the cockpit.’’

The commanders and experts TOI spoke to also pointed to another possibility.

That the PIA A320 aircraft had touched down on the runway during the first attempt to land. But it did a gear-up landing and the lower side of the engines probably come in contact with the runway, thus causing substantial damage to both the engines, which only worsened during go-around.

``In the course of landing, the pilot might have noticed that during flare, the speed was not washing off. That’s possible if the landing gear wasn’t lowered and so there wasn’t enough drag to lower the speed. He then might have decided to go-around. But the engines probably spooled up slowly and the underside came in contact with the runway," said Capt Ranganathan.

"It’s not confirmed yet whether the engines did make contact with the runway surface during the first attempt at landing. But going by the photographs of the PIA aircraft, taken when it was air borne during the go-around, it does seem to be a possibility. Marks indicating damage to the lower portion of both the engines is distinctly visible in the photographs, a senior A320 commander said.

The pictures also show the Ram Air Turbine (RAT) extended. A RAT is a small two-blade wind turbine that is deployed automatically in an A320 aircraft-it protrudes out from the aircraft underbelly to take advantage of the wind sweeping the lower portion of aircraft-to generate an alternate source of power when the aircraft’s conventional sources of power have failed, which is what would happen in a dual engine failure. "Since RAT was deployed, it’s likely then that both the engines had failed. The engines probably sustained severe damage during the first landing and it was exacerbated during the go-around and the engines failed," said the commander.

A crucial piece of conversation that would have confirmed that both engines failed isn’t entirely decipherable. In the ATC recording, the PIA pilot says: ``We’ve lost the engine (engines?)”. Whether he meant engine or engines isn’t clear. The 16-year old A320 aircraft was powered by two CFM-56 engines and not the Pratt and Whitney NEO engines that have facing problems.

Another evidence that the engines were not running when the aircraft crashed comes from the photographs of the wreckage. The engine’s high bypass fan section shows no damage to the blades, which wouldn’t have been the case had the engine been running. Capt Amit Singh tweeeted: "Prima facie there is no damage to the fan blades due to a bird hit or any FOD. The fan blades are not bent giving an indication that the engine was not developing thrust at impact.”

It’s also known from ATC recordings that the pilots had difficulty maintaining the prescribed height, another indication that the engines weren’t producing enough thrust during the initial stages of go-around. The controller can be heard informing the pilots that the aircraft is dipping. The pilot’s response indicates that they were having trouble maintaining the prescribed height. Also, in the clips taken minutes before the crash, the aircraft can be seen with a high-nose up attitude, as the pilots probably tried to maintain height. But a high nose also reduces airspeed, more so, when the engines aren’t producing the required thrust.

After about 90 seconds, the controller informs the pilots that the aircraft appears to be turning left and the pilots affirm it. ``We are proceeding direct. We have lost the engine (s),’’ said the pilot. A few seconds later, the controller asks whether they will be carrying out a ``belly landing’’, a gear-up landing carried out without the use of undercarriage. Soon after that the pilots relay the Mayday call and seconds later the aircraft crashes.

Pakistan had restarted domestic flights in a phased manner only last Saturday following a Covid lockdown. One of the aspects that the aircraft investigators would look into is whether the aircraft was stored for long due to Covid lockdown and whether the relevant maintenance procedures were carried out. According to flightradar24, the aircraft (AP-BLD) had operated a Muscat-Lahore flight on May 21 and the May 22 Lahore-Karachi ill-fated flight was its second one post lockdown.

When aircraft have to be stored on ground for prolonged periods, there is a detailed procedure to be followed by the maintenance crew to ensure that systems of the aircraft do not get affected during that period. It is important to cover the probes where over a period of time dust can accumulate, the engine inlets and the fuel ventilation inlets must be covered too. Research has shown that when aircraft is parked on the ground for a long time, water can enter in either vapour form or if washed in liquid for. Additionally, dust can enter too if there is adverse weather and blowing dust, capt Amit said

Capt Singh added that the regulator must ensure that fuel contamination check should be done after an aircraft is stored for long because of possible water or sediment contamination. There is a high possibility of fuel contamination during the storage period. The sediment in the tanks can settle down. Water and vapours can enter in the tanks through the vents. It could lead to fuel issues and eventually an engine failure,’’ he said.

At this stage, no one is in a position to conclusively provide answers to what and why this accident happened. The answers will emerge from the accident report and information release by the investigators. I have only one issue to point out which should alert all operators.

With Covid-19 putting all aircraft on ground for extended time, maintenance doesn’t stop. OEM’s do have procedures to be followed for short, medium and long term storage.

Similarly, there are procedures for launching the aircraft post completion of storage time,’’ he added.

https://m.timesofindia.com/world/pa...g-engine-failure/amp_articleshow/75915278.cms

 

[MenInG]

MUMBAI: The pilots of the Pakistan International Airlines aircraft that crashed in Karachi on Friday were engaged in a second attempt at landing when they lost probably both the engines, according to the information gleaned from the live air traffic control recordings uploaded online.

The ATC recordings show that the Lahore-Karachi flight PK-8303, carrying 91 passengers and 8 crew, was initially cleared to land on Karachi runway 25. "During the first approach, a continuous aural warning (ting, ting, ting) from the cockpit can be heard in the background. The controller gave a landing clearance. According to flightradar24, the aircraft continued to descend till 275 feet and then they went around," said Capt Amit Singh, an air safety expert. The lowest height that an aircraft can descend to before the pilots decide whether to continue with the approach or go-around is 229 feet for the said Karachi runway.

"The aural warning in the cockpit appears to be of landing gear not down and locked. Preoccupation due to an unstablised approach could lead to pilots missing out some warnings,’’ said a senior B747 examiner.

The ATC recordings indicate that the aircraft was initially too high on approach to land. Capt Amit said, "Flightradar24 granular data shows that the aircraft was about 2500ft higher than the required profile. Prior to that the ATC had instructed the aircraft twice, to discontinue the approach but to no avail. The crew apparently persisted with the approach descending at a very high rate of 2000ft/min or more till reaching 1500ft. The rate of descent was then lowered to 1000 ft/min.”

Even though the pilots were busy with the unstablised approach and probably didn’t lower the landing gear why didn’t other cockpit warnings, like the Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System (EGPWS) blare in the cockpit? Capt Mohan Rangnathan, an air safety expert said:"Was there an EGPWS too low gear’’ warning in the cockpit? The Captain’s voice appeared to be too calm to indicate that he had these warnings blaring in the cockpit.’’

The commanders and experts TOI spoke to also pointed to another possibility.

That the PIA A320 aircraft had touched down on the runway during the first attempt to land. But it did a gear-up landing and the lower side of the engines probably come in contact with the runway, thus causing substantial damage to both the engines, which only worsened during go-around.

In the course of landing, the pilot might have noticed that during flare, the speed was not washing off. That’s possible if the landing gear wasn’t lowered and so there wasn’t enough drag to lower the speed. He then might have decided to go-around. But the engines probably spooled up slowly and the underside came in contact with the runway," said Capt Ranganathan.

"It’s not confirmed yet whether the engines did make contact with the runway surface during the first attempt at landing. But going by the photographs of the PIA aircraft, taken when it was air borne during the go-around, it does seem to be a possibility. Marks indicating damage to the lower portion of both the engines is distinctly visible in the photographs, a senior A320 commander said.

The pictures also show the Ram Air Turbine (RAT) extended. A RAT is a small two-blade wind turbine that is deployed automatically in an A320 aircraft-it protrudes out from the aircraft underbelly to take advantage of the wind sweeping the lower portion of aircraft-to generate an alternate source of power when the aircraft’s conventional sources of power have failed, which is what would happen in a dual engine failure. "Since RAT was deployed, it’s likely then that both the engines had failed. The engines probably sustained severe damage during the first landing and it was exacerbated during the go-around and the engines failed," said the commander.

A crucial piece of conversation that would have confirmed that both engines failed isn’t entirely decipherable. In the ATC recording, the PIA pilot says: ``We’ve lost the engine (engines?)”. Whether he meant engine or engines isn’t clear. The 16-year old A320 aircraft was powered by two CFM-56 engines and not the Pratt and Whitney NEO engines that have facing problems.

Another evidence that the engines were not running when the aircraft crashed comes from the photographs of the wreckage. The engine’s high bypass fan section shows no damage to the blades, which wouldn’t have been the case had the engine been running. Capt Amit Singh tweeeted: "Prima facie there is no damage to the fan blades due to a bird hit or any FOD. The fan blades are not bent giving an indication that the engine was not developing thrust at impact.”

It’s also known from ATC recordings that the pilots had difficulty maintaining the prescribed height, another indication that the engines weren’t producing enough thrust during the initial stages of go-around. The controller can be heard informing the pilots that the aircraft is dipping. The pilot’s response indicates that they were having trouble maintaining the prescribed height. Also, in the clips taken minutes before the crash, the aircraft can be seen with a high-nose up attitude, as the pilots probably tried to maintain height. But a high nose also reduces airspeed, more so, when the engines aren’t producing the required thrust.

After about 90 seconds, the controller informs the pilots that the aircraft appears to be turning left and the pilots affirm it. ``We are proceeding direct. We have lost the engine (s),’’ said the pilot. A few seconds later, the controller asks whether they will be carrying out a ``belly landing’’, a gear-up landing carried out without the use of undercarriage. Soon after that the pilots relay the Mayday call and seconds later the aircraft crashes.

Pakistan had restarted domestic flights in a phased manner only last Saturday following a Covid lockdown. One of the aspects that the aircraft investigators would look into is whether the aircraft was stored for long due to Covid lockdown and whether the relevant maintenance procedures were carried out. According to flightradar24, the aircraft (AP-BLD) had operated a Muscat-Lahore flight on May 21 and the May 22 Lahore-Karachi ill-fated flight was its second one post lockdown.

When aircraft have to be stored on ground for prolonged periods, there is a detailed procedure to be followed by the maintenance crew to ensure that systems of the aircraft do not get affected during that period. It is important to cover the probes where over a period of time dust can accumulate, the engine inlets and the fuel ventilation inlets must be covered too. Research has shown that when aircraft is parked on the ground for a long time, water can enter in either vapour form or if washed in liquid for. Additionally, dust can enter too if there is adverse weather and blowing dust, capt Amit said

Capt Singh added that the regulator must ensure that fuel contamination check should be done after an aircraft is stored for long because of possible water or sediment contamination. ``There is a high possibility of fuel contamination during the storage period. The sediment in the tanks can settle down. Water and vapours can enter in the tanks through the vents. It could lead to fuel issues and eventually an engine failure,’’ he said.

At this stage, no one is in a position to conclusively provide answers to what and why this accident happened. The answers will emerge from the accident report and information release by the investigators. I have only one issue to point out which should alert all operators. With Covid-19 putting all aircraft on ground for extended time, maintenance doesn’t stop. OEM’s do have procedures to be followed for short, medium and long term storage.

Similarly, there are procedures for launching the aircraft post completion of storage time,’’ he added.

https://m.timesofindia.com/world/pa...g-engine-failure/amp_articleshow/75915278.cms

 

[MenInG]

From above article - I feel PIA should ground all planes and do checks again - planes have been stored for days.

 

[Asifnow]

This is available on social media and also mentioned in some TV reports.

Picture of plane are also available on social media.

ye I mean whats the source of the theory? who posted it?

 

[Bigboii]

From above article - I feel PIA should ground all planes and do checks again - planes have been stored for days.

It's easier during lock down too yeah it could happen and it should happen

 

[PetroDollars]

so it seems from the pics the first landing attemt failed and plane smashed its engines on the ground and took off again, only to find out the engines have gone bust.

the fault seems to have been the landing gear.

 

[Major]

the first landing attempt probably resulted in some pieces of metal hitting the engines. When they came for second landing, the engines were probably already on fire.

 

[Knight_Rider]

This is the first time I am reading off it anywhere.

He meant the mobile phone tower went up in flames.

 

[shaz619]

Losing both engines is very rare and this is sad to see, in my experiences I've only dealt with a similar incident on one occasion but it was during a ground run. Age of the fleet is not relevant, maintenance practices are and also maintenance of the engines is. Am more familiar with the wide body market so am not sure if Pratt and Whittney offer after market services and engine health monitoring but in that part of world main revenue is generated on the initial sale rather then through servicing, even then hard to comprehend a dual engine failure, not read much on the event itself but should be interesting to read more info as it becomes available

 

[PetroDollars]

If the first attempt failed and engines hit the ground, im not sure why the pilot just didnt try an ocean landing, it would have been safer and quicker considering he wouldnt have needed to turn the plane around.

 

[UP]

That's went wrong perhaps?

<iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Dfu4VBhwi8I" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[MenInG]

ISLAMABAD: Representatives of pilots’ association and aviation experts have expressed concern over the handling of the investigation into the jetliner (PK-8303) crash by the air force-dominated probe team appointed by the government.

Pakistan Airlines’ Pilots Association (Palpa) Secretary Capt Imran Narejo, while talking to Dawn over phone on Saturday, said the “investigation team was not balanced”, because it lacked the representation of commercial pilots. Commercial pilots better understood the accidents involving commercial jetliners, he explained.

The federal government appointed a four-member “investigation team” comprising three officials of the Aircraft Accident Investigation Board, two of whom are Air Force officers, and the fourth member has been co-opted from Pakistan Air Force’s safety board. There is no commercial pilot in the team, which has been asked to submit its findings “within the shortest possible time”.

Another Palpa official, who did not want to be named, said it was crucial for any incident investigation to include a “rated pilot” for the type of the aircraft involved in the accident.

Federal government has appointed a four-member investigation team

Another senior pilot, who has in the past held senior management positions in PIA, concurred with this view and said that the absence of a pilot with experience on that particular type of aircraft would always remain a handicap for the investigation.

The reservations over the composition of the probe team pertain to their experience, specific knowledge about the crashed jet, and to an extent conflict of interest as a serving Air Marshal from PAF is heading PIA whose internal workings and condition of fleet would also come under question during the investigations.

PIA Chief Executive Office Air Marshal Arshad Malik addressing a press conference on Friday emphasised that the passenger plane was flight worthy and crew was adequately trained.

The pilots and aviation experts believe that Palpa, representatives of international pilots’ bodies, and an experienced pilot should have been included in the team to dig out facts and arrive at the right conclusion.

“It’s about preventing such accidents from recurring, irrespective of who is ultimately held responsible,” Capt Narejo insisted.

Events leading to crash

PIA’s A-320-214 bearing tail number AP-BLD with 99 on board crashed in Karachi, while repeating an attempt to land. Ninety-seven of the passengers perished in the crash, while two miraculously survived.

The investigators would have to look at the crash from various angles including the physical and mental condition of the pilot, flight worthiness of the aircraft, the malfunctioning suffered during the approach to landing, and any other factor/s that could have contributed to the accident.

The aircraft, while making its first approach to landing was, as per the conversation between the pilot and air control tower, at a higher altitude than the normal. It was at 3,500 feet at five miles. When the pilot was alerted by the control tower about the high altitude, he said he was “comfortable” with it and was approaching runway 25L. The aircraft, pilots say, should have ideally been at 1,600 feet at that point.

The two questions, which arise here, are why the aircraft had a belated descend and whether it was the right decision of the pilot to commit to landing instead of going for an orbit despite the unusual altitude.

His colleagues believe that management’s pressure for “efficiency” could be one of the reasons for this decision of the pilot. He may be thinking of being questioned about doing the orbit by the flight operations directorate, his colleagues suspect.

Moreover, an alarm could be heard in the cockpit during pilot’s conversation with tower when the tower was giving him clearance to land.

The alarm, which was described by a senior pilot as “master warning” is related to configuration issues. Either the aircraft was at higher speed for the flap configuration at that time or his landing gear had malfunctioned. The alarm could also be due to a dual hydraulic failure or engine(s) catching fire.

It would be pertinent to know what caused that alarm and the pilot in the recorded conversations is not heard mentioning the malfunctioning at that point of time to the tower.

However, the pilot then chose to ‘go around’ and said he will come back for 25L. This (go-around) is a technical term for aborted landing and can be requested by either pilot or directed by the air tower because of issues in landing. The reason for going around has to be determined by the investigators and in greatly possibility was linked to the factor behind the alarm in the cockpit.

The tower then asked him to pull up to 3,000 feet and turn left heading 110. However, minutes later the tower told the pilot that he was dropping to 2,000 feet. In response the pilot took a brief sigh and said he was trying to maintain that altitude. Soon afterwards he reported loss of engine and said he was “proceeding direct” meaning that he was going for a crash landing.

The controller cleared the flight to land with both runways (25L and 25R) available. However, pilot could be heard giving distress signal “May Day, May Day, May Day”.

Picture of the aircraft at this position show that RAT air turbine had been deployed, which is an indication that both engines had shut down. The turbine, pilots say, provide for the continued functioning of flight controls in the event of hydraulic malfunctioning. However, the flight controls in such a condition are “partial and sluggish”, according to a pilot.

The investigators would have to see what caused both engines to stop working. It could be a bird hit or the pilot accidentally shutting off the wrong engine. It is rare for both engines to shut down simultaneously.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1559253/question-mark-over-probe-body-composition

 

[MenInG]

KARACHI: Air crash investigators are trying to figure out if the PIA flight PK-8303 crash incident is attributable to a pilot error or technical fault, with new information giving rise to fresh questions regarding the circumstances of the incident, The News reports.

The PIA aircraft, an Airbus A-320, had crashed on Friday evening, killing 97 passengers and crew and leaving only two survivors.

It is believed that a full report can be made public in three months. Meanwhile, a preliminary report has raised questions about the pilot's handling of the incident and what prevented the cockpit from informing air traffic controllers at the Jinnah International Airport about the plane's troubles.

According to the report, prepared by the Civil Aviation Authority, the plane's engines had scraped the runway thrice on the pilot's first attempt to land the plane, causing friction and sparks. Three long marks have been observed and recorded by the CAA's experts on the runway.

According to sources in the CAA, the plane's engines first made contact with the ground at the 4,500 feet marker, followed a second time at the 5,500 feet marker and a third time at the 7,000 feet marker. However, though the engines touched the ground, the aircraft's belly at no point to make contact with the runway.

After the third impact, the pilot took the aircraft off into the air again, which officials found very strange as the cockpit did not inform air traffic control of any problem with the landing gear when it was already clear that it was the reason why it couldn't land properly.

The CAA sources said it was difficult to say what was happening because automated emergency systems within the aircraft go off in case of any emergency, and the loud alarms and automated warnings are impossible to ignore. Yet, there was no indication from the pilot or his first officer to air traffic control that something was wrong with the plane.

Experts are of the view that when the engines scraped the ground on the first failed attempt at landing, the engine's oil tank and fuel pump may have been damaged. The engine's oil may have started to leak, which would have prevented the pilot from achieving the required thrust and speed to raise the aircraft to safety.

According to sources in ATC as well as CAA, the pilot made a decision "on his own" to undertake a "go-around" after he failed to land the first time. It was only during the go around that ATC was informed that landing gear was not deploying.

The pilot was directed by the air traffic controller to take the aircraft to 3,000 feet, but he managed only 1,800.

When the cockpit was reminded to go for the 3,000 feet level, the first officer responded saying"We are trying".

Experts said this failure to achieve the directed height indicates that the engines were not responding.

While approaching the runway from Malir, designated 25 L, for the second attempt, the pilots also took a short distance of 1.5 nautical miles instead of the mandatory 7 nautical miles defined for such a large-sized plane.

The aircraft's failure to approach from the mandatory height and distance agian suggests that the engines did not provide enough thrust and speed to do both functions. The aircraft thereafter tilted and crashed suddenly.

"The plane descended too fast, almost plunged," sources familiar with the report said.

Another evidence of engine failure is proved by the deployment of the aircraft's Ram Air Turbine, which opens only when the main engines cease to function, the expert sources explained.

However, the RAT's functioning depends on the plane's movement and speed to start the turbine, which did not happen in this case despite its initial deployment.

The investigators are struggling to understand why, despite the visible problems the aircraft was facing, the pilots not once informed the air traffic controllers of any emergency, malfunction, engine failure or fire.

They said that all systems have automatic back-ups, and if one system fails, another alternate takes over, which also does not seem to have happened. They have also considered that it is rare to have so many technical problems at the same time, which seems to have happened in the case of the ill-fated plane.

The air traffic controller's conduct is also being looked into.

During the entire time, the plane's control remained with the senior Approach 'Radar' Air Traffic Controller, who could not see the aircraft, and not with the control tower, which had 'visual contact' with the plane.

However, at this point, it is being felt that this was so because of the cockpit's behaviour when they were told to maintain a certain higher altitude, to which they responded they would manage but could not do so. It is probable after this that the senior Approach 'Radar' Air Traffic Controller decided to oversee the aircraft.

Based on some admittedly vague and weak assumptions, the sources said that had the plane been allowed by an air traffic controller in visual contact with the plane not to take off for a go-around and land anyway when the engines had scraped the runway, the plane may have only overshot the runway, into the kutcha track outside the runway and stopped in the loose mud. However, it is always possible that the pilot would have decided against such an approach.

At this point, there are more questions then answers: most serious among which are why and how the alarm systems inside the cockpit failed to warn the pilots of an impending emergency.

https://www.geo.tv/latest/289593-ne...plane-crash-report-on-crash-causes-in-90-days

 

[MenInG]

KARACHI: A preliminary report on the Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) plane crash, in which 97 people were killed, has raised serious questions about the pilot's handling of the aircraft and what prevented the crew in the cockpit from informing the air traffic controllers about the troubles.

Pakistani investigators are trying to find out if the crash of the national flag carrier's flight PK-8303 is attributable to a pilot error or a technical glitch, with new leads raising fresh questions over the circumstances of the incident, Geo News reported.

According to the report, prepared by the country's Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), the Airbus A-320's engines had scraped the runway thrice on the pilot's first attempt to land, causing friction and sparks recorded by the experts.

After the third impact, the pilot took the aircraft off into the air again, which officials found very strange as the crew in the cockpit did not inform the Air Traffic Control (ATC) at the Jinnah International Airport of any problem with the landing gear, The News International quoted CAA sources as saying.

Since automated emergency systems within the aircraft go off in case of any emergency, and the loud alarms and warnings are impossible to ignore, there was no indication from the pilot to the ATC that something was amiss, it said.

When the aircraft scraped the ground on the first failed attempt at landing, the engine's oil tank and fuel pump may have been damaged and started to leak, preventing the pilot from achieving the required thrust and speed to raise the aircraft to safety, the report said.

The pilot made a decision "on his own" to undertake a "go-around" after he failed to land the first time. It was only during the go-around that the ATC was informed that landing gear was not deploying, it said.

“The pilot was directed by the air traffic controller to take the aircraft to 3,000 feet, but he managed only 1,800. When the cockpit was reminded to go for the 3,000 feet level, the first officer said ‘we are trying',” the report said.

Experts said that the failure to achieve the directed height indicates that the engines were not responding. The aircraft, thereafter, tilted and crashed suddenly.

"The plane descended too fast, almost plunged," sources familiar with the report said.

The investigators were trying to establish why the pilots not once informed the ATC of any emergency, malfunction, engine failure or fire despite the visible problems the aircraft was facing, the report said, adding that it is rare to have so many technical problems at the same time.

The ATC's conduct is also being probed.

The report added that at this point, there are more questions than answers with the most serious being why and how the alarm systems inside the cockpit failed to warn the pilots of an impending emergency.

PIA chief executive officer Arshad Malik has said that the black box of the plane has been handed over to the investigation team.
The team, headed by Air Commodore Muhammad Usman Ghani, President of the Aircraft Accident and Investigation Board, is expected to submit a full report in about three months.

According to the PIA's engineering and maintenance department, the last check of the plane was done on March 21 this year and it had flown from Muscat to Lahore a day before the crash.

In the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Pakistan government had allowed the limited domestic flight operations from five major airports — Islamabad, Karachi, Lahore, Peshawar and Quetta — from May 16.

After the plane tragedy, the PIA has called off its domestic operation.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...172.cms?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

[MenInG]

 

[MenInG]

KARACHI (Dunya News) – Sindh governor Imran Ismail on Sunday said that a committee has been formed to investigate Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) plane crash.

In a statement, the governor said that the committee will submit its final report to Prime Minister (PM) Imran Khan while Rs1 million will be given to the families of the victims.

The insurance money will be handed over to the families within a week, he told.

Imran Ismail said that tall buildings were built around the Jinnah International Airport due to which Sindh Building Control Authority has also been included in the inquiry.

http://dunyanews.tv/en/Pakistan/546794-Committee-formed-investigate-PIA-plane-crash-Sindh-governor/

 

[Abdullah719]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">BREAKING New photos confirm engines of PIA A320 <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/PK8303?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#PK8303</a> touched the runway before the go-around <a href="https://t.co/tsxGvRsnFp">https://t.co/tsxGvRsnFp</a></p>— AIRLIVE (@airlivenet) <a href="https://twitter.com/airlivenet/status/1264536702024126464?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 24, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[MenInG]

Video of PIA plane's ill-fated movements in the final few minutes

<div style="width: 100%; height: 0px; position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.000%;"><iframe src="https://streamable.com/e/jci9gd" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="100%" allowfullscreen style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute;"></iframe></div>


Video of runway inspection which seems to show marks of engine hitting the runway

<div style="width: 100%; height: 0px; position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.604%;"><iframe src="https://streamable.com/e/k8qy0g" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="100%" allowfullscreen style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute;"></iframe></div>

 

[Runner Up]

#PIA plane crash: Pilot ignored 3 warnings from Air Traffic Control to lower altitude

KARACHI: The pilot of the ill-fated PIA plane that crashed a couple of days ago had ignored warnings from air traffic control about the plane's height and speed as the aircraft approached for landing.

The PK-8303 tragedy has become the third most-catastrophic aviation disaster in Pakistan's history.

The plane crashed into a narrow residential street in Karachi on Friday, dealing significant damage to houses in a densely-populated area. Of the 99 people aboard, 97 were killed and only two passengers survived.

According to a report from air traffic control seen by Geo News, the flight left the Lahore airport at 01:05pm and was scheduled to land at the Jinnah International Aiport in Karachi at 2:30pm.

The report said the plane had enough fuel in it to fly for two hours and 34 minutes, while its total flying time was recorded at one hour and 33 minutes.

At 2:30pm, the plane was 15 nautical miles from Karachi at Makli, flying at an altitude of 10,000 feet above the ground instead of 7,000 when air traffic control issued its first warning to the pilot to lower the plane's altitude.

Instead of lowering the plane's altitude, the pilot responded by saying that he was satisfied. When only 10 nautical miles were left till the Karachi airport, the plane was at an altitude of 7,000 feet instead of 3,000 feet.

The report states that air traffic control issued a second warning to the pilot to lower the plane's altitude. However, the pilot responded again by stating that he was satisfied and would handle the situation, saying he was ready for landing.

PK-8303's engines scraped runway thrice: CAA report
According to an earlier report, prepared by the Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority (PCAA), the plane's engines had scraped the runway thrice on the pilot's first attempt to land the plane, causing friction and sparks. Three long marks have been observed and recorded by the PCAA's experts on the runway.

Sources in the PCAA had said the plane's engines first made contact with the ground at the 4,500-feet marker, followed a second time at the 5,500-feet marker, and a third time at the 7,000-feet marker.

After the third impact, the pilot took the aircraft off into the air again, which officials found very strange as the cockpit did not inform air traffic control of any problem with the landing gear when it was already clear that it was the reason why it couldn't land properly.

There was no indication from the pilot or his first officer to the air traffic control that something was wrong with the plane. Experts are of the view that when the engines scraped the ground on the first failed attempt at landing, the engine's oil tank and fuel pump may have been damaged.

The engine's oil may have started to leak, which would have prevented the pilot from achieving the required thrust and speed to raise the aircraft to safety.

According to sources in the ATC as well as PCAA, the pilot made a decision "on his own" to undertake a "go-around" after he failed to land the first time. It was only during the go-around that the ATC was informed that landing gear was not deploying.

The pilot was directed by the air traffic controller to take the aircraft to 3,000 feet but he managed only 1,800.

When the cockpit was reminded to go for the 3,000 feet level, the first officer responded saying, "We are trying".

Experts said this failure to achieve the directed height indicates that the engines were not responding.

While approaching the runway from Malir, designated 25L, for the second attempt, the pilots also took a short distance of 1.5 nautical miles instead of the mandatory 7 nautical miles defined for such a large-sized plane.

The aircraft's failure to approach from the mandatory height and distance again suggests that the engines did not provide enough thrust and speed to do both functions. The aircraft thereafter tilted and crashed suddenly.

"The plane descended too fast, almost plunged," sources familiar with the report said.

https://www.geo.tv/latest/289719-pi...gs-from-air-traffic-control-to-lower-altitude

 

[Napa]

If the first attempt failed and engines hit the ground, im not sure why the pilot just didnt try an ocean landing, it would have been safer and quicker considering he wouldnt have needed to turn the plane around.

That would have made total sense given that the ocean was nearby. There is the famous case of another Airbus 320 (US Airways Flight 1549) that lost both engines but landed on the river Hudson with no loss of life.

It is possible that in the first aborted landing both engines were damaged due to contact with the ground leaving the aircraft without enough power to get to the ocean. Why did the pilot come so close to the ground to damage the engines (if that really happened) when the landing gear was not down?

 

[MenInG]

ISLAMABAD: Airbus SE will provide full technical cooperation to the Pakistan International Airlines (PIA), Air France, and engine manufacturer CFM International following flight PK-8303's tragic crash two days ago, the aerospace corporation said in a letter issued Sunday to all airlines operating the A320 narrow-body jets.

The aerospace corporation expressed regret over the horrific crash of PIA flight PK-8303, which had plunged into Karachi's Model Colony Friday afternoon, almost a minute before a second attempt at an emergency landing.

The company also conveyed its condolences to and solidarity with the families of those killed in the accident.

The initial report suggested that 91 passengers and eight crew were aboard the plane, Airbus noted, adding that the management had no definitive information about the crash so far.

It said the aircraft's registration and manufacturer serial numbers were APBLD and 2274, respectively. The plane was handed over to the PIA in 2014 and had completed 47,100 flight hours and 25,860 flight cycles until its crash, it added.

According to Airbus, the doomed aircraft's engine was CFM 5B4P.

The company's management vowed to provide full technical cooperation to the PIA, Air France, and CFM International in the investigation. It would release any further information, it noted.

 

[MenInG]

That would have made total sense given that the ocean was nearby. There is the famous case of another Airbus 320 (US Airways Flight 1549) that lost both engines but landed on the river Hudson with no loss of life.

It is possible that in the first aborted landing both engines were damaged due to contact with the ground leaving the aircraft without enough power to get to the ocean. Why did the pilot come so close to the ground to damage the engines (if that really happened) when the landing gear was not down?

So how can a plane fly so low that engines scrape the ground and not crash at that point?

 

[ElRaja]

this makes very little sense, in my head the only probable explanation is that the landing gear failed to deploy and the pilots didn't even realise, came in too fast for a belly landing, assuming that they would have the brakes available and took off again because they didn't have enough time to request permission after the first scrapes.

also i find it really strange how all these comments about the pilot failing to follow directions earlier in the flight are showing up, they seem to have no baring on the actual event, which if anything would have primarily been a result of landing gear failure.

how comes there is no cctv for the runway tho?

 

[Napa]

So how can a plane fly so low that engines scrape the ground and not crash at that point?

Lots of confusing things. I suppose if the engines scraped the ground "lightly" enough, the friction resistance may not have been enough to make the plane crash.

From the pictures from your posts #26 and #60 it does seem that something scraped the runway.

The confusing thing is that the pilot must have known quite in advance of getting to the runway that the landing gear was not down. In that case he could have tried a "belly landing". That has been done before successfully.

A Polish LOT Airlines 767 belly landed in Warsaw back in 2013 without any injuries.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKo4Eee7V3s

You can see at the 2:21 mark of the above video that the first thing to touch the runway seem to be the engines.

What you can't do is decide to make a belly landing, begin the process, scrape your engines on the runway, then decide to take off again and try a second time.

From post #60 it appears that the skid marks went on till 9,500 feet. If the runway was 11,115 feet long, then at that point the pilot had 1,615 feet of runway let. Maybe he decided he didn't have enough runway left and go back up and come down a second time. The plane must have been travelling at a considerable speed at the 9,500 feet mark to be able to become airborne again.

Given that the first scrape occurred at the 4,500 feet mark, maybe it was a bit late and the pilot thought he could do better at a second attempt.

If the pilot knew that he would have to do a belly landing, then the ocean would have been better given that Sullenberger a few years ago put down a Airbus 320 in water with no casualties.

Then again, the pilot didn't report that the landing gear had failed before his first attempt. If he knew he certainly should have reported it to get ground emergency services ready.

There has been a case with a B-1 bomber where the pilots had switched off the warning signals for landing gear not down, and did a belly landing without realizing that the gear was not down. Maybe something similar happened here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belly_landing#Examples

 

[Forum363]

Blame lies squarely with PIA. It is flying aged planes, has a shocking safety record and is haemorrhaging billions of rupees that a poor country like Pakistan can ill-afford.

Some stats:

The age of the aircraft in question was 16 years. Average fleet age globally is around 10 years. In China, India and other parts of Asia it is less than 10. So PIA is flying old aircraft more prone to failure.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/751440/aviation-industry-aircraft-fleet-age-by-region/

More damning is the fact that PIA has the worst safety record in Asia and Asia has a worse safety record than Europe and North America. PIA has suffered 11 crashes since 1970 with 7.42 full loss equivalents.

http://www.airsafe.com/events/regions/asia.htm

I imagine if the investigations are done properly it is very likely that we will discover this accident was most likely preventable. But I doubt any action will result as people will ascribe this tragedy to fate ("un ka waqt a gaya tha") and move on.

Personally, I haven't flown PIA for 10 years and have no plans of ever doing so again. Anyone flying with this airline... good luck to you. Looks like you will need it.

Very good post.

I had just these questions as I was following the news over the past couple of days.

Quite frankly how PIA continues to get away with its atrocious safety record is beyond belief. Can someone with more knowledge shed some light please?

Are they entrenched politically? Strong allies?

 

[King-Misbah]

Very good post.

I had just these questions as I was following the news over the past couple of days.

Quite frankly how PIA continues to get away with its atrocious safety record is beyond belief. Can someone with more knowledge shed some light please?

Are they entrenched politically? Strong allies?

I disagree with that being a great post. The age of the aircraft should not matter if it has been maintained, serviced and passes all inspections.

 

[MenInG]

Lots of confusing things. I suppose if the engines scraped the ground "lightly" enough, the friction resistance may not have been enough to make the plane crash.

From the pictures from your posts #26 and #60 it does seem that something scraped the runway.

The confusing thing is that the pilot must have known quite in advance of getting to the runway that the landing gear was not down. In that case he could have tried a "belly landing". That has been done before successfully.

A Polish LOT Airlines 767 belly landed in Warsaw back in 2013 without any injuries.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKo4Eee7V3s

You can see at the 2:21 mark of the above video that the first thing to touch the runway seem to be the engines.

What you can't do is decide to make a belly landing, begin the process, scrape your engines on the runway, then decide to take off again and try a second time.

From post #60 it appears that the skid marks went on till 9,500 feet. If the runway was 11,115 feet long, then at that point the pilot had 1,615 feet of runway let. Maybe he decided he didn't have enough runway left and go back up and come down a second time. The plane must have been travelling at a considerable speed at the 9,500 feet mark to be able to become airborne again.

Given that the first scrape occurred at the 4,500 feet mark, maybe it was a bit late and the pilot thought he could do better at a second attempt.

If the pilot knew that he would have to do a belly landing, then the ocean would have been better given that Sullenberger a few years ago put down a Airbus 320 in water with no casualties.

Then again, the pilot didn't report that the landing gear had failed before his first attempt. If he knew he certainly should have reported it to get ground emergency services ready.

There has been a case with a B-1 bomber where the pilots had switched off the warning signals for landing gear not down, and did a belly landing without realizing that the gear was not down. Maybe something similar happened here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belly_landing#Examples

Thanks for this.

However, is it possible for a plane to lift itself up again from a belly landing position? If that did happen, it would be a world first I think.

 

[MenInG]

I disagree with that being a great post. The age of the aircraft should not matter if it has been maintained, serviced and passes all inspections.

As long as the manufacturer says that airframe is fine and inspections are done to spec then age does not matter. It only comes into play for passenger comfort as newer planes may have more onboard amenities etc

 

[MenInG]

From a report from a CAA source

 

[MenInG]

KARACHI: The team of renowned plane manufacturing company, Airbus, will arrive in the southern port city on Monday to investigate the recent crash of one of its own manufactured aircraft.

The Pakistan International Airlines plane crashed into a narrow residential street in Karachi on Friday, dealing significant damage to houses in a densely-populated area. Of the 99 people aboard, 97 were killed and only two passengers survived.

Airbus will run an independent investigation into the plausible reasons for the crash, which reportedly happened due to an engine failure.

Due to the arrival of the Airbus team, the transfer of objects from the site of the incident has been halted.

In an earlier letter, the Airbus team said that they do not have any conclusive details regarding the crash.

Pakistan International Airlines and Air France will also assist the plane manufacturer in the investigation.

The PK-8303 tragedy has become the third most-catastrophic aviation disaster in Pakistan's history.

In a recent letter issued on Sunday to all airlines operating the A320 narrow-body jets, Airbus said will provide full technical cooperation to the PIA, Air France, and engine manufacturer CFM International after the crash.

The company also conveyed its condolences to and solidarity with the families of those killed in the accident.

It said the aircraft's registration and manufacturer serial numbers were APBLD and 2274, respectively. The plane was handed over to the PIA in 2014 and had completed 47,100 flight hours and 25,860 flight cycles until its crash, it added.


https://www.geo.tv/latest/289763-airbus-team-to-reach-karachi-today-to-investigate-plane-crash

 

[MenInG]

ISLAMABAD: Airbus SE will provide full technical cooperation to the Pakistan International Airlines (PIA), Air France, and engine manufacturer CFM International following flight PK-8303's tragic crash two days ago, the aerospace corporation said in a letter issued Sunday to all airlines operating the A320 narrow-body jets.

The aerospace corporation expressed regret over the horrific crash of PIA flight PK-8303, which had plunged into Karachi's Model Colony Friday afternoon, almost a minute before a second attempt at an emergency landing.

The company also conveyed its condolences to and solidarity with the families of those killed in the accident.

The initial report suggested that 91 passengers and eight crew were aboard the plane, Airbus noted, adding that the management had no definitive information about the crash so far.

It said the aircraft's registration and manufacturer serial numbers were APBLD and 2274, respectively. The plane was handed over to the PIA in 2014 and had completed 47,100 flight hours and 25,860 flight cycles until its crash, it added.

According to Airbus, the doomed aircraft's engine was CFM 5B4P.

The company's management vowed to provide full technical cooperation to the PIA, Air France, and CFM International in the investigation. It would release any further information, it noted.

https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/statements/pk8303-crisis.html

Airbus regrets to confirm that an A320 aircraft operated by Pakistan International Airlines was involved in an accident during flight PK8303 from Lahore to Karachi on May, 22 2020. Initial reports indicate there were 91 passengers and 8 crew members on-board. Our thoughts are with all those affected.

At this stage, Airbus has no confirmed information concerning the circumstances of the accident. The aircraft, registration number AP-BLD, Manufacturer Serial Number 2274, first entered service in 2004. It has been in operation with Pakistan International Airlines since 2014. The aircraft had logged around 47 100 flight hours and 25 860 flight cycles as of today. It was powered by CFM56-5B4/P engines.

In line with ICAO annex 13, Airbus is providing full technical assistance to the Bureau d’Enquêtes et d’Analyses of France and to the Pakistani Authorities in charge of the investigation. Technical support is also being provided by Pakistan International Airlines and engine manufacturer CFM.

Further updates will be provided as soon as further consolidated information is available and Airbus is authorized to release it.

 

[TrentDevil]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bM9ZrliDkNA" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Came across this on YT, a very interesting analysis of the unfortunate crash

 

[MenInG]

KARACHI (92 News) – The PIA investigation team collected evidence from the site of the plane crash tragedy on Monday.

The team also inspected the houses damaged by the plane crash.

On the other hand, a team of French experts will leave for Pakistan at 11pm today.

According to a footage obtained by 92 News, the engines of the ill-fated plane had struck against the ground on the runway.

However, PIA Public Relations GM Abdullah Khan told 92 News that the people should wait for the inquiry report instead of issuing statement on the matter.

Sources said that before the landing, the height and speed of the plane was much more. “Despite instructions of the Air Traffic Control, the pilot did not bring the plane at the required height and speed. The tyres did not open when it tried to land. The engines were affected after striking against the runaway. The pilot could not achieve the height and went out of control,” they disclosed.

On the other hand, 34 bodies identified so far have been handed over to their relatives. The people residing in the area hit by the plane did not celebrate Eid.

Meanwhile, one of the injured passengers Zubair was discharged from hospital. Another injured passenger Zafar Masood is being treated in a private hospital.

https://92newshd.tv/pia-investigation-team-collects-evidence-from-site-of-plane-crash/#.Xsu70mhLiHs

 

[MenInG]

[utube]Io8TIkq6hnE[/utube]

 

[MenInG]

Video obtained by Sky News appears to confirm a preliminary report into a Pakistani airline crash, which says the plane scraped the runway several times during the pilot's attempt to land.

The CCTV footage shows three long burn marks at approximately 4,500ft, 5,500ft and 7,000ft along the runway.

According to a preliminary investigation, Pakistan International Airways Flight 8303 scraped the runway three times during its first attempt to land at Karachi International Airport on Friday.

CCTV obtained by Sky News shows the moment of a plane crash in which 97 people died.

The ill-fated Airbus A-320 crash-landed into a densely-populated area close to the city's airport - killing 97 passengers, with two miraculously surviving.

Other CCTV from the ground shows the plane coming down at speed before a fireball erupts, and another clip - filmed from a passing plane - shows smoke billowing from the crash site.

The preliminary report into the accident says the pilot reported that the landing gear had failed to function, and - just before his mayday call - later that the engines had failed.

Audio of his exchanges with the air traffic controller reveal that he had just been given permission to make a "belly" landing and had been told that the runway was clear.

The report has found that the aircraft briefly touched down on the runway before pulling up again, which backs up comments from one of the survivors.

Engineer Mohammad Zubair told Pakistani TV station Geo News that the pilot came down to land and briefly touched down before then pulling up again.

Speaking from hospital, Mr Zubair said that the pilot announced he was going to make to make a second try shortly before the plane crashed.

Describing what it was like as he tried to escape, Mr Zubair said: "I could hear screams from all directions. Kids and adults. All I could see was fire. I couldn't see any people - just hear their screams."

The report says that on its first approach, the jet's engines touched the runway three times as it attempted to land, causing friction and sparks.

Some white material, possibly debris, can also be seen in the footage obtained by Sky News.

Sources say it is part of the plane, but Sky News has not been able to independently verify this.

There are no signs the belly of the plane touched the runway.

According to the report, the plane was observed "crossing threshold" at 2.34pm local time.

One minute later, the pilot said he was "going around" and asked for a new approach.

Controllers asked him to maintain 3,000ft , which he did "initially" before he was "observed descending again".

He then requested to maintain a height of 2,000ft, but was observed "continuously descending".

At that point, the report says: "On query, pilot reported both engines failed (power loss) and made mayday call."

The report says the pilot did not relate any emergency or technical malfunction to controllers on its first approach.

It was only when it approached for a second time that the cockpit reported a problem with the landing gear.

Emergency services and crowds fill the streets in Pakistan as plane crashes

In audio of the communication between the pilot and the ground, controllers can be heard saying: "8303, you are showing 1800 (feet) and descending."

The pilot replies: "Sir, copied sir, we are now trying to maintain, sir."

In the final exchange, the pilot is heard saying: "We are proceeding direct, we have lost both engines."

The controller says: "Confirm you are carrying out belly landing. Runways available to land at 25."

Ten seconds later, the pilot is heard saying: "Mayday, mayday, mayday Pakistan 8303."

In what is the final communication, the controller responds with: "Roger, you have both runways available to land."

The preliminary report suggests that "by abrading the runway, the engine's oil tank and fuel pump may have been damaged - preventing the aircraft from achieving the required thrust and speed".

A Pakistan International Airlines plane with 107 people on board has crashed in a residential area in the country's largest city of Karachi.

Investigators are expected to look into the actions of the pilot and the air traffic controllers in what is one of the worst aviation accidents in Pakistan's history.

The federal government has appointed a four-member team for the probe, including a Pakistan Air Force officer and three from the Aircraft Accident and Investigation Board.

The government has also reportedly allowed an 11-member Airbus team to independently investigate the crash, taking the plane's engine and black box to France.

https://news.sky.com/story/pakistan...craped-runway-during-landing-attempt-11994336

 

[Napa]

Thanks for this.

However, is it possible for a plane to lift itself up again from a belly landing position? If that did happen, it would be a world first I think.

At this point, with multiple pictures of the scrapes at the bottom of the engines and the runway available, it seems to be definitely established that the pilot did try an aborted belly landing in which both engines scraped the runway.

The question remains, did the pilots know that the landing gear was not down? It seems they reported the engines had failed (probably after they scraped the runway), but I haven't seen any report saying they informed the ATC controller that the landing gear was not down. One would expect that if they knew they should have informed the controller so that the ambulances, fire fighting trucks etc. would have been ready and waiting next to the runway.

 

[MenInG]

Multiple standard operating procedures were violated in the fatal crash of PK-8303 both by cockpit crew and air traffic control as apparently the relevant warning signals and alarms in Airbus 320 were ignored which eventually led to the disaster.

The Airbus has 21 types of warning signals and alarms to handle different situations.

Pilot was way beyond safe landing speed and altitude as close as 4 nautical miles and the Aerodrome Controller failed to check and raise alarm over the deployment of landing gear which led to a near disastrous first attempt to land. As a result, the plane engine scraped the runway surface thrice between 4,500 ft to 8,000 ft on the 10,500 ft runway which eventually led to the failure of the engines and the crash.

If there was required coordination between ATC and pilot to avoid the disastrous first attempt to land, there was enough fuel in plane to fly another one hour and ten minutes. During this time, backup checks on landing gear could have been done or in worst case, preparations could have been done for a belly landing. ATC in the last few seconds before pilot declared Mayday, asked cockpit, “confirm will you do belly landing” but it was too late by then.

A detailed inquiry based on decoding of black boxes i.e. Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR) and Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) will determine if the pilot ignored warning from Electronic Ground Proximity Warning system (EGPWS) and Electronic Centralized Aircraft Monitoring system (ECAM) about problems with landing gear if any. Or the pilot simply forgot to deploy the landing gear.

Role of the ATC shall be scrutinised also as the ATC cross checks with Cockpit if landing gears are down and locked and there are three Greens. The three Greens on cockpit console indicate if the Nose Gear and Two Main Gears are deployed and locked.

When the plane enters the 25 nautical miles area, the CAA Approach Radar Control takes over and guides the plane to landing. In parallel, CAA Aerodrome Control keeps monitoring the visual and other profile of the aircraft and keeps informing the Approach Radar Control via intercom.

The pilot lowers landing gear at 5 Nautical Miles limit , then the Aerodrome Controller asks cockpit to confirm if the landing gear is down and locked as the landing gears must be deployed at this stage.

CAA and ASF vigilant cameras would have the recording of the airplane first attempt at landing to determine if the landing gear were deployed or not.

In the 1980s, a PIA 747 did belly landing at Islamabad airport after the pilot forgot to deploy the landing gear. The mystery about deployment of landing gear deepens as in second attempt to land PK 8303, the landing gears can be seen deployed. Earlier, Approach Control Radar had thrice warned the pilot that it was overshooting speed and altitude and to readjust from 15 nautical miles on wards when plane was at 10,000 ft.

Perturbed, the Approach controller, at 05 nautical miles when plane was still too high at 3500 told pilot to discontinue approach and turn left to 180 degrees to readjust speed and altitude.

However, the pilot over ruled all these warnings and locked ILS for runway to land. Questions are cropping up that in this intense adjustment of sharp descent 15000 ft at 15 nautical miles to 1500 ft at 4 Nautical mile, did the pilot forget to deploy landing gear.

Only a detailed probe will reveal about the problem with landing gear as to whether it was a maintenance issue or simply an error to deploy landing gear. Typically, in response to EGPWS and ECAM warning, the pilots go for a Go around and use other options to overcome landing gear problems and in worst circumstances go for belly landing.

Runway Inspection as recorded in video reveals clear marks of engine/s scraping at three points from 4500 ft on wards till 8000 ft mark.

Once the plane lifted off for Go around after first attempt to land, its left engine had started emitting smoke and later the right engine gave way also in the seven-minute period between first attempt to land and the crash. Due to the scrapping of the engines, hydraulic fluid and oil started leaking out from pipes that were scraped at bottom of engine.

This resulted in hydraulic failure after all hydraulic fluid leaked out from ruptured hydraulic pipes on bottom of scraped engine which led to other complications. At this point, Ram Air Turbine or manual gear drop deployed to solve landing gear issue which are visible in pictures of the ill-fated plane which also show scrapped engines.

Apparently as hydraulic oil rapidly leaks out from oil sumps on bottom of scraped engine, both engines had shut down without oil and plane went into glider mode with no thrust. As shown in pictures at crash site, Fan blades in engine are intact which means engines were not running when plane crashed. Since both engines stopped working, plane rapidly lost altitude during approach and crashes just minutes before runway.

The performance of Air Safety Department will come into heavy scrutiny after this crash as PIA pilots and engineers have been repeatedly warned of different shortcomings in the past. The pilot in this case was highly experienced with over 17000 flying hours but his operational and physical state especially if fasting needs to be probed. There are many issues between present PIA management and PALPA over Pilot working issues.

The said plane was leased to PIA by GE Capital in 2014 and was made in 2004 and is a mid-life aircraft. The Flight Data recorder analyses nearly 2500 parameters and a detailed probe plus other evidence available by a strong inspection team will unravel the blunders involved.

It has tragically cut short many innocent lives and badly tarnished country aviation , tourism and business image at the Aviation hub of the country. Prime Minister Imran Khan needs to revisit his pledge to reform State Enterprises like PIA which are a continuous drain on national economy with colossal annual losses of over Rs 200 billion which are met through additional borrowing.

https://www.geo.tv/latest/289812-violation-of-multiple-sops-led-to-fatal-pia-plane-crash

 

[MenInG]

The father of PIA pilot Captain Sajjad Gul has said he does not have "an ounce of faith" in the airline's inquiry into the tragic plane crash which left 97 dead — including his son.

Addressing a media briefing on Monday alongside Governor Punjab Chaudhry Muhammad Sarwar, Gul Muhammad Bhatti said it "pains him to say that the PIA's top hierarchy itself is leaking bits of the inquiry report and blaming people left and right for negligence".

He said that they (PIA) are "not trustworthy people" and are "not fit to conduct an inquiry".

"Those people are not professional and are not good people.

"Just one day prior you called him a national hero.

"He has logged in 17,000 hours. He is the only pilot to have completed 1,000 hours in a year [...] he is a thorough professional," said the aggrieved father.

Bhatti said that he has faith, however, in the assurances given by the governor who has said he "stands with him" and in the prime minister.

He said no remarks must be made until the black box's contents come forward and he will comment "if justice is not done".

Sarwar promises 'neutral' inquiry
"I have known the family for a long time [...] Sajjad Gul was a skilled man who worked with honesty," said Sarwar, in his briefing to the media.

The governor said the deceased pilot would also lend a helping hand to those in need even with limited resources.

Sarwar promised that the inquiry will be "neutral" and no one will be spared the consequences they must pay.

The governor lauded the father for his patience at this difficult time. He said the family is going through a tough time. Three of Gul's brothers are in Glasgow and could not be there for the funeral due to the coronavirus.

He said the father has been assured that the inquiry will be personally overseen by the prime minister.

Sarwar said that the family has demanded that justice be carried out and the truth be given to the people.

He acknowledged that the late captain's death along with the deaths of the others demands that justice be served.

He requested the media to refrain from speculating and not comment on the pilot's actions until the black box's contents are extracted.

Aviation minister promises 'transparent' inquiry
A day prior, aviation minister Ghulam Sarwar Khan had promised a transparent inquiry within three months.

The minister said he and PIA CEO Arshad Malik are ready to present themselves for accountability if the inquiry team found the aviation ministry responsible for the incident.

The inquiry board had started its work, he said, adding: “team of experts from Airbus, Germany and France will also join the probe.” “We will try to complete it [probe] within three months,” said the minister.

The day of the crash, the government had formed a probe team headed by Air Commodore Muhammad Usman Ghani, President of the Aircraft Accident and Investigation Board. He will be assisted by Wing Commander Malik Muhammad Imran, Additional Director of Technical Investigation; Group Captain Touqeer, Ops Investigator, Pakistan Air Force Safety Board, Kamra; and Mr Nasir Majeed, Joint Director of ATC Ops, AAIB.

https://www.geo.tv/latest/289797-de...her-says-he-has-no-faith-in-pia-crash-inquiry