A320 down in Pakistan
Discussion
Mabbs9 said:
Yep. I'm an Airbus driver btw. You're not wrong that many airliners have a fair bit of thrust on in the landing configuration. The small Airbus often has a little, depending on headwind. In still air or tailwind it's often idle thrust into the flare.
Haven't flown the 320 in over 15 years. Just curious how you land if the thrust levers aren't in idle during the flare. Having flown both the V-2500 and CFM, they both should be in idle during the flare. And during a perfectly executed landing, you will not hear the "FLARE" advisory. Edited by Mabbs9 on Tuesday 26th May 19:56
To the person who said the use of speed brakes on final was normal, I say BS!!!! The thrust levers will be just about straight-up depending on your GW. But it's close enough to have that muscle memory for that position. If you are on a V-2500 it's about 1.04. Having flown 320s with 0 pax and no interior, I have never had to use speedbrakes on final unless I screwed up.
phil squares said:
Haven't flown the 320 in over 15 years. Just curious how you land if the thrust levers aren't in idle during the flare. Having flown both the V-2500 and CFM, they both should be in idle during the flare. And during a perfectly executed landing, you will not hear the "FLARE" advisory.
To the person who said the use of speed brakes on final was normal, I say BS!!!! The thrust levers will be just about straight-up depending on your GW. But it's close enough to have that muscle memory for that position. If you are on a V-2500 it's about 1.04. Having flown 320s with 0 pax and no interior, I have never had to use speedbrakes on final unless I screwed up.
That was me that said it Phil. Speed brakes common but not all the time to hang onto Heathrow speed restrictions in sensible configs to 4nm. I didn't mean to imply down to landing. To the person who said the use of speed brakes on final was normal, I say BS!!!! The thrust levers will be just about straight-up depending on your GW. But it's close enough to have that muscle memory for that position. If you are on a V-2500 it's about 1.04. Having flown 320s with 0 pax and no interior, I have never had to use speedbrakes on final unless I screwed up.
I did mean to suggest that hardly any thrust is on especially flap 3 when you approach the flare. Any hint of TW and it's often idle. Thrust levers won't of course be at idle because it's an Airbus. That'll be selected in the flare.
I've never flown an Airbus with CFM's which could mean I'm a bit out to advise on this scenario so apologies if that's the case. Not operated CFM'S for nearly 20yrs now.
Atb
Mabbs9 said:
red_slr said:
On finals?
Yep. I'm an Airbus driver btw. You're not wrong that many airliners have a fair bit of thrust on in the landing configuration. The small Airbus often has a little, depending on headwind. In still air or tailwind it's often idle thrust into the flare. Edited by Mabbs9 on Tuesday 26th May 19:56
Gear not lowered during first approach, according to Pakistani media
Did they forget?
Didn't lower because of some fault?
Did it not lower because they were above 260kts and then didn't lower below that automatically as they assumed it would?
Surely ECAM would have been complaining let alone TCAS/GPWS
very odd
Did they forget?
Didn't lower because of some fault?
Did it not lower because they were above 260kts and then didn't lower below that automatically as they assumed it would?
Surely ECAM would have been complaining let alone TCAS/GPWS
very odd
Edited by essayer on Tuesday 26th May 21:39
Juan gives his view on the data.
https://youtu.be/UEYiiZdvNh4?t=217
For those without youtube access he is basically saying they were twice as high as they should have been in fact maybe a touch more. They were at 10,000ft when they should have been around 4,000 ft.
Madness.
https://youtu.be/UEYiiZdvNh4?t=217
For those without youtube access he is basically saying they were twice as high as they should have been in fact maybe a touch more. They were at 10,000ft when they should have been around 4,000 ft.
Madness.
MB140 said:
aeropilot said:
Bandit110 said:
DuraAce said:
Down to the crew to not get into such a situation in the first place. Shocking CRM. The approach should've been binned long before they got to that point in the chain of events.
Nobody else to blame but themselves (going on current/available info)
Yep, I'm with you, based on the info so farNobody else to blame but themselves (going on current/available info)
I doubt even the old Tornado GR1 flapless was 200knts landing speed.
red_slr said:
Juan gives his view on the data.
https://youtu.be/UEYiiZdvNh4?t=217
For those without youtube access he is basically saying they were twice as high as they should have been in fact maybe a touch more. They were at 10,000ft when they should have been around 4,000 ft.
Madness.
This one he uses in the video is a perfect illustration of what was so wrong:https://youtu.be/UEYiiZdvNh4?t=217
For those without youtube access he is basically saying they were twice as high as they should have been in fact maybe a touch more. They were at 10,000ft when they should have been around 4,000 ft.
Madness.
What on earth were they thinking? Obviously backed themselves into a corner.
tobinen said:
Despite the dive-bomb in on the first attempt, could they have made the landing with gear down at 220 knots?
I have no idea what the design speed is for the gear but I highly doubt it. The other issue is getting it stopped.I think at the very least they were heading for a runway over run. Probably on flat / no tyres.
Krikkit said:
red_slr said:
Juan gives his view on the data.
https://youtu.be/UEYiiZdvNh4?t=217
For those without youtube access he is basically saying they were twice as high as they should have been in fact maybe a touch more. They were at 10,000ft when they should have been around 4,000 ft.
Madness.
This one he uses in the video is a perfect illustration of what was so wrong:https://youtu.be/UEYiiZdvNh4?t=217
For those without youtube access he is basically saying they were twice as high as they should have been in fact maybe a touch more. They were at 10,000ft when they should have been around 4,000 ft.
Madness.
What on earth were they thinking?
Which is why I'm very suspicious of the news that the casing of the CVR has been found but not the contents....
stevemcs said:
Its about time in this modern world that data was sent direct to the manufactures by the airplane itself.
Some of it is..... as was seen in the missing MH370 777.....However, if there is nothing technically wrong with the aircraft, the CVR is the only means of trying to work out what went wrong.....as in the AF447 flight that involved a huge sea bed search to find the CVR and FDR to piece together the events.
I'm suspect we'll see here that the FDR will likely show no technical fault with the aircraft.....which then just leaves the CVR to piece together what the hell the crew were doing or not doing.......and that seems to have disappeared, very conveniently for PIA
steveo3002 said:
what are pilots trained to do if landing and the gear collapses or otherwise , id have thought staying on the ground would be a good idea rather than taking off for another go?
I don't think (others will supply more detail if it helps) there's any training as such for an undercarriage collapse. The aircraft is basically then a toboggan going where the physics takes it. As noted previously, I suspect the crew were not aware they didn't have the gear down, (if that was the case) so getting airborne was, in a sense, responding to what they thought was a touch & go. The aircraft is not designed to deal with that scenario; all the systems, of which there are many, are predicated on not getting to that point in the first place. I suspect you're correct, staying on the ground would possibly have been the better option, but they reacted to the situation as they believed it to be, rather than what it actually was.steveo3002 said:
what are pilots trained to do if landing and the gear collapses or otherwise , id have thought staying on the ground would be a good idea rather than taking off for another go?
I'd guess they are trained to jank their belts another knotch tighter, hold on and shout "F*************************************K" as they slide along the ground at 150 mph!Realistically a collapse, rather than a deliberate and prepared belly landing, is likely to be asymetric, so the trajectory of the A/C after the collapse is, frankly, anyone guess. At high speed, whilst the aerodynamic control surfaces have some authority i guess there is a bit of flying to do, but once the speed drops below about 100mph, it's hang on an scream time.........
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff