A320 down in Pakistan
Discussion
Bradgate said:
Eric Mc said:
I reckon it ran out of fuel.
I was thinking exactly the same, Eric Amazing that 2 people on the flight appeared to have survived.....!
Main theory from A320 pilots is unstable approach, aborted approach just before touch down. Gear up, missed approach and nose up to climb away but either no throttle advance or not to TOGA. Float down onto runway then PF realises and TOGA and fly away but damage already done. Apparently its happened before. Late decision to go around and then not putting the throttles to correct TOGA setting can result in the aircraft landing anyway. Just on this occasion they had already put the gear up..
Apparently on the A320 it would be very, very difficult to get near the runway without significant warnings from ECAM, GPWS and Master caution light if your gear was up on approach. (But not impossible)
Apparently on the A320 it would be very, very difficult to get near the runway without significant warnings from ECAM, GPWS and Master caution light if your gear was up on approach. (But not impossible)
red_slr said:
Main theory from A320 pilots is unstable approach, aborted approach just before touch down. Gear up, missed approach and nose up to climb away but either no throttle advance or not to TOGA. Float down onto runway then PF realises and TOGA and fly away but damage already done. Apparently its happened before. Late decision to go around and then not putting the throttles to correct TOGA setting can result in the aircraft landing anyway. Just on this occasion they had already put the gear up..
Apparently on the A320 it would be very, very difficult to get near the runway without significant warnings from ECAM, GPWS and Master caution light if your gear was up on approach. (But not impossible)
Yep, ATC transmission on first approach are indicating that ATC didn't think that they would make the first approach, and you'd think that if they were ignoring the gear down chimes and bongs ATC would also have verbally warned that don't have the gear down, so the very late botched go-around with a sink n scrape seems the most plausible theory.Apparently on the A320 it would be very, very difficult to get near the runway without significant warnings from ECAM, GPWS and Master caution light if your gear was up on approach. (But not impossible)
Also, it seems that the aircraft had been operated on a regular basis until March 22nd, and then not again until 7th May for a 2 leg, then another break until operating a 2 leg on 19th May, then a 2 leg on 21st May, and then next day for the crash flight.
aeropilot said:
...ATC would also have verbally warned that don't have the gear down...
That's not always an option: it depends on whether the view affords the right angles to see, & also whether the met visibility is appropriate to do so. it's not as simple as Holywood likes to think...MarkwG said:
aeropilot said:
...ATC would also have verbally warned that don't have the gear down...
That's not always an option: it depends on whether the view affords the right angles to see, & also whether the met visibility is appropriate to do so. it's not as simple as Holywood likes to think...aeropilot said:
What's Hollywood got to do with it.....
I'm referring to the tendency in the film world to make something appear simple, which isn't necessarily the case in the real world. Whilst I've not visited Karachi tower, it's possible the appropriate controller doesn't have a clear view in which to tell whether the undercarriage is down or not, so wouldn't be able to supply a warning.Edited by MarkwG on Sunday 24th May 12:52
Bandit110 said:
This comes up in every investigation discussion where a landing incident has happened.... but why would ATC be watching a plane under their control, land?
It's part of the role to ensure the runway is available & clear of obstructions, & monitor the aircraft as it flies the final approach & lands; however, the practicalities of how much can be seen from the tower will be a function of the airfield layout, weather, etc - there are always compromises, unfortunately. The view from the tower could be the last line in the defence, but may be too late to change the outcome.Bandit110 said:
If they're fortunate to see something amiss then great but I don't think "didn't the controllers see that they never had the gear down?", could ever be a valid point...
Indeed - occasionally it's been helpful, in in the old days perhaps, when speeds were slower, airfields smaller, etc: but these days, for airliners at large airports, there are better, & more reliable, protection systems on the aircraft.MarkwG said:
Indeed - occasionally it's been helpful, in in the old days perhaps, when speeds were slower, airfields smaller, etc: but these days, for airliners at large airports, there are better, & more reliable, protection systems on the aircraft.
What "old days" are you talking about? The 1930s?Modern airliners have approach and landing speeds pretty much the same as the earliest jet airliners. That means the mid 1950s.
In 1989 or 1990 an alert controller at Gatwick spotted from the control tower that a BAC 1-11 had lined up with the wrong runway at Gatwick and if he had attempted to land on it he could have hit another airliner that was taxying along it.
Eric Mc said:
MarkwG said:
Indeed - occasionally it's been helpful, in in the old days perhaps, when speeds were slower, airfields smaller, etc: but these days, for airliners at large airports, there are better, & more reliable, protection systems on the aircraft.
What "old days" are you talking about? The 1930s?Modern airliners have approach and landing speeds pretty much the same as the earliest jet airliners. That means the mid 1950s.
In 1989 or 1990 an alert controller at Gatwick spotted from the control tower that a BAC 1-11 had lined up with the wrong runway at Gatwick and if he had attempted to land on it he could have hit another airliner that was taxying along it.
There definitely WAS air traffic control in the 1930s. Granted, it wasn't as sophisticated as today but it did exist. By 1939 many American airports and major European airports had direct voice radio communication with aircraft and, of course, they all had visual control towers.
Vigilant air traffic controllers keeping their eyes on what is happening outside the window can always make a difference.
The one thing working against them, up until Covid 19 of course, would be workload - especially at busy airports.
To see how well visual control can work, just watch and listen to the controllers at Oshkosh work during their massive fly-in.
Vigilant air traffic controllers keeping their eyes on what is happening outside the window can always make a difference.
The one thing working against them, up until Covid 19 of course, would be workload - especially at busy airports.
To see how well visual control can work, just watch and listen to the controllers at Oshkosh work during their massive fly-in.
MarkwG said:
Bandit110 said:
If they're fortunate to see something amiss then great but I don't think "didn't the controllers see that they never had the gear down?", could ever be a valid point...
Indeed - occasionally it's been helpful, in in the old days perhaps, when speeds were slower, airfields smaller, etc: but these days, for airliners at large airports, there are better, & more reliable, protection systems on the aircraft.ATC also immediately asked crew if they were going for a wheels up on the go-around, so were clearly watching it, so the theory of a badly misjudged initial approach and late go-around attempt with a premature gear retraction and subsequent sink back onto the engine nacelles and crew flying it off the engines, does start to seem the most plausible sequence of events.
Its astonishing the thing stayed in the air as long as it did to almost complete a circuit in the circumstances...!!!
Eric Mc said:
There definitely WAS air traffic control in the 1930s. Granted, it wasn't as sophisticated as today but it did exist. By 1939 many American airports and major European airports had direct voice radio communication with aircraft and, of course, they all had visual control towers.
Vigilant air traffic controllers keeping their eyes on what is happening outside the window can always make a difference.
The one thing working against them, up until Covid 19 of course, would be workload - especially at busy airports.
To see how well visual control can work, just watch and listen to the controllers at Oshkosh work during their massive fly-in.
Not ATC in the form we have it now, by any stretch of the imagination, & that's really not the point at issue: vigilance isn't the issue, either, it's the practicalities of what you can see from the tower. Agreed, workload can sometimes be an issue too, & as Aeropilot says, if the reports of their profile are correct, that would certainly have their attention, but whether that means they could see the state of the undercarriage, who knows, & I doubt was of any significance to the outcome.Vigilant air traffic controllers keeping their eyes on what is happening outside the window can always make a difference.
The one thing working against them, up until Covid 19 of course, would be workload - especially at busy airports.
To see how well visual control can work, just watch and listen to the controllers at Oshkosh work during their massive fly-in.
Avherald now reporting:
"On May 23rd 2020 Karachi Airport reported based on CAA inspection report that the runway inspection revealed scrape marks of the left engine start 4500 feet down the runway, the right engine scrape marks begin 5500 feet down the runway. About 6000-7000 feet past the runway threshold the scrape marks end."
So, it does look like they executed a go-around and have taken off wheels-up after 3 or 4 secs of grinding their way along the runway on the engine nacelles......
What on earth made them think that would end well........!
"On May 23rd 2020 Karachi Airport reported based on CAA inspection report that the runway inspection revealed scrape marks of the left engine start 4500 feet down the runway, the right engine scrape marks begin 5500 feet down the runway. About 6000-7000 feet past the runway threshold the scrape marks end."
So, it does look like they executed a go-around and have taken off wheels-up after 3 or 4 secs of grinding their way along the runway on the engine nacelles......
What on earth made them think that would end well........!
aeropilot said:
Avherald now reporting:
"On May 23rd 2020 Karachi Airport reported based on CAA inspection report that the runway inspection revealed scrape marks of the left engine start 4500 feet down the runway, the right engine scrape marks begin 5500 feet down the runway. About 6000-7000 feet past the runway threshold the scrape marks end."
So, it does look like they executed a go-around and have taken off wheels-up after 3 or 4 secs of grinding their way along the runway on the engine nacelles......
What on earth made them think that would end well........!
So they either tried a belly up landing way too fast, or forgot the landing gear?"On May 23rd 2020 Karachi Airport reported based on CAA inspection report that the runway inspection revealed scrape marks of the left engine start 4500 feet down the runway, the right engine scrape marks begin 5500 feet down the runway. About 6000-7000 feet past the runway threshold the scrape marks end."
So, it does look like they executed a go-around and have taken off wheels-up after 3 or 4 secs of grinding their way along the runway on the engine nacelles......
What on earth made them think that would end well........!
Wonder if it will transpire there were other issues like lack of flap control? (would explain an abortive/screwed up attempt at a belly landing?)
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff