A320 down in Pakistan

[Krikkit]

Shy Torque said:

Airlines have an FDM (Flight Data Monitoring) programme, where records of all flights are regularly downloaded from aircraft and any preset parameters that are exceeded flagged up. Excessive speed during taxi is my favourite.

And yet I bet they'd hassle you about time to/from the gate if you were slow.

[Countdown]

Shy Torque said:

Airlines have an FDM (Flight Data Monitoring) programme, where records of all flights are regularly downloaded from aircraft and any preset parameters that are exceeded flagged up. Excessive speed during taxi is my favourite.

Edited by Shy Torque on Saturday 6th June 18:20

What's considered excessive? Surely it depends on road conditions and pilot capability? I mean if you do regular trackdays, your A320 has Brembo brakes, Michelin PZero tyres, surely the limits don't apply.....?

[red_slr]

ATC pilot deviation report has been published.

Refused 3 separate instructions. First was an orbit to allow them to scrub some speed and height early on in the approach at about 10,000'.

Then later refused 2 instructions to abort their approach and turn into pattern.

The ATC report notes that aircraft was at c.250kt at 4nm from the runway and was at 210kt as it passed over the numbers.

Mental.

[Starfighter]

Were those ATC instructions or just advice to the crew to go around and try better?

[red_slr]

Its controlled airspace so its not a request..

The actual report is here

https://www.fliegerfaust.com/plane-crash-264616277...

[Starfighter]

red_slr said:

Its controlled airspace so its not a request..

The actual report is here

https://www.fliegerfaust.com/plane-crash-264616277...

Thanks, I am aware of the principle of controlled airspace but I also know that controllers and flight crew can discuss options and agree on a plan. From what you and the report said, it appears that the flight crew ignored the ATC advice options and then direct instructions to abort the approach and turn south.

Thanks for confirming.

[Countdown]

Starfighter said:

red_slr said:

Its controlled airspace so its not a request..

The actual report is here

https://www.fliegerfaust.com/plane-crash-264616277...

Thanks, I am aware of the principle of controlled airspace but I also know that controllers and flight crew can discuss options and agree on a plan. From what you and the report said, it appears that the flight crew ignored the ATC advice options and then direct instructions to abort the approach and turn south.

Thanks for confirming.

Further to what starfighter said surely ignoring a request in controlled airspace is the equivalent of "6 points on the licence" issue?

[red_slr]

Starfighter said:

red_slr said:

Its controlled airspace so its not a request..

The actual report is here

https://www.fliegerfaust.com/plane-crash-264616277...

Thanks, I am aware of the principle of controlled airspace but I also know that controllers and flight crew can discuss options and agree on a plan. From what you and the report said, it appears that the flight crew ignored the ATC advice options and then direct instructions to abort the approach and turn south.

Thanks for confirming.

IANAP but ATC would normally say "when able" or "if possible" or "at your discretion" if its optional.

Turn left 180 means you have to turn left, or give a very good reason why you cant as yes the pilot has ultimate say but they cant just make it up as they go along, in which case it would be "unable to turn left 180" rather than.... hey we are happy with our 250kt approach at -7000fpm and be quiet, which is essentially what they said back.

ATC were probably trying to save a bit of face on behalf of PIA / the pilot because if you tried that stunt in the UK you would just get go around, landing clearance cancelled and that would be the end of that.

The ATC were IMHO (very slightly) partly to blame as they were the last line of defence in the case of human error and they should have just cancelled approach clearance and sorted the paperwork out later as they knew it was an unstable approach - to put it politely..

[aeropilot]

But this is the problem in certain areas of the world......saving face, status, and other factors surrounding 'culture and customs' take precedent over rules and regulations and procedures.

Its already been reported that this crew are being seen as martyr's. I can think of another word beginning with 'm' that might be more appropriate to this situation.

[MarkwG]

red_slr said:

The ATC were IMHO (very slightly) partly to blame as they were the last line of defence in the case of human error and they should have just cancelled approach clearance and sorted the paperwork out later as they knew it was an unstable approach - to put it politely..

Without knowing precisely what the rules are in Pakistan, & not knowing which ATCO was in communication with the aircraft, I'd say, under UK/ICAO rules, they wouldn't bear any responsibility. If the aircraft was seen to be "dangerously positioned", then that meets the criteria for the pilot to be instructed to go around. If, however, " it reaches a position from which it appears that a successful approach cannot be completed", then it's advice, not instruction, so the crew can over rule it. Traditionally, although that's not really the case these days, hot & high approaches would be thought of as less likely to end badly than being too low, as the crew have altitude (& commonsense) to play with. That may have been in their minds - they obviously had concerns of sorts, as the headings given demonstrate, but may not have thought it that unusual. We also don't yet really understand whether PIA apply the stable approach criteria that are the norm here - if the ATC team are reasonably used to seeing that kind of approach handled "successfully" (as in, the aircraft can taxi in, after landing) they may not have been that surprised...until it bounced. Also, bear in mind, ATCOs are schooled not to intrude in critical phases of flight, as that can have a massive distraction effect, & cause the very accident you're trying to prevent.

[red_slr]

MarkwG said:

red_slr said:

The ATC were IMHO (very slightly) partly to blame as they were the last line of defence in the case of human error and they should have just cancelled approach clearance and sorted the paperwork out later as they knew it was an unstable approach - to put it politely..

Without knowing precisely what the rules are in Pakistan, & not knowing which ATCO was in communication with the aircraft, I'd say, under UK/ICAO rules, they wouldn't bear any responsibility. If the aircraft was seen to be "dangerously positioned", then that meets the criteria for the pilot to be instructed to go around. If, however, " it reaches a position from which it appears that a successful approach cannot be completed", then it's advice, not instruction, so the crew can over rule it. Traditionally, although that's not really the case these days, hot & high approaches would be thought of as less likely to end badly than being too low, as the crew have altitude (& commonsense) to play with. That may have been in their minds - they obviously had concerns of sorts, as the headings given demonstrate, but may not have thought it that unusual. We also don't yet really understand whether PIA apply the stable approach criteria that are the norm here - if the ATC team are reasonably used to seeing that kind of approach handled "successfully" (as in, the aircraft can taxi in, after landing) they may not have been that surprised...until it bounced. Also, bear in mind, ATCOs are schooled not to intrude in critical phases of flight, as that can have a massive distraction effect, & cause the very accident you're trying to prevent.

All fair comments but he was literally at an insane altitude he was at 10,000' when he should have been closer to 3000.... then at 4000' at 5nm and 250kts... literally suicidal.. even if they had landed it could they have stopped after such a long float and then probably would have lost the tyres and brakes even if they had stopped it.

[aeropilot]

red_slr said:

All fair comments but he was literally at an insane altitude he was at 10,000' when he should have been closer to 3000.... then at 4000' at 5nm and 250kts... literally suicidal.. even if they had landed it could they have stopped after such a long float and then probably would have lost the tyres and brakes even if they had stopped it.

He wouldn't have lost the tyres and brakes, as he hadn't bother to lower the u/c.......

[Countdown]

aeropilot said:

red_slr said:

All fair comments but he was literally at an insane altitude he was at 10,000' when he should have been closer to 3000.... then at 4000' at 5nm and 250kts... literally suicidal.. even if they had landed it could they have stopped after such a long float and then probably would have lost the tyres and brakes even if they had stopped it.

He wouldn't have lost the tyres and brakes, as he hadn't bother to lower the u/c.......

Would’ve stopped quicker in that case.........

[aeropilot]

Countdown said:

aeropilot said:

red_slr said:

All fair comments but he was literally at an insane altitude he was at 10,000' when he should have been closer to 3000.... then at 4000' at 5nm and 250kts... literally suicidal.. even if they had landed it could they have stopped after such a long float and then probably would have lost the tyres and brakes even if they had stopped it.

He wouldn't have lost the tyres and brakes, as he hadn't bother to lower the u/c.......

Would’ve stopped quicker in that case.........

He except he thought it would be a good idea to try and take off again after grinding and bouncing his way along the runway on the engine nacelles......

[MarkwG]

red_slr said:

MarkwG said:

red_slr said:

The ATC were IMHO (very slightly) partly to blame as they were the last line of defence in the case of human error and they should have just cancelled approach clearance and sorted the paperwork out later as they knew it was an unstable approach - to put it politely..

Without knowing precisely what the rules are in Pakistan, & not knowing which ATCO was in communication with the aircraft, I'd say, under UK/ICAO rules, they wouldn't bear any responsibility. If the aircraft was seen to be "dangerously positioned", then that meets the criteria for the pilot to be instructed to go around. If, however, " it reaches a position from which it appears that a successful approach cannot be completed", then it's advice, not instruction, so the crew can over rule it. Traditionally, although that's not really the case these days, hot & high approaches would be thought of as less likely to end badly than being too low, as the crew have altitude (& commonsense) to play with. That may have been in their minds - they obviously had concerns of sorts, as the headings given demonstrate, but may not have thought it that unusual. We also don't yet really understand whether PIA apply the stable approach criteria that are the norm here - if the ATC team are reasonably used to seeing that kind of approach handled "successfully" (as in, the aircraft can taxi in, after landing) they may not have been that surprised...until it bounced. Also, bear in mind, ATCOs are schooled not to intrude in critical phases of flight, as that can have a massive distraction effect, & cause the very accident you're trying to prevent.

All fair comments but he was literally at an insane altitude he was at 10,000' when he should have been closer to 3000.... then at 4000' at 5nm and 250kts... literally suicidal.. even if they had landed it could they have stopped after such a long float and then probably would have lost the tyres and brakes even if they had stopped it.

I agree, but I've seen it done, & with reasonably big jets. For example, the early 1-11/737-200 days of a certain harp wearing airline would make your eyes water with what they'd do to get in on, or ahead, of time; some approaches you'd be hard pushed to make work in a Harrier, & they weren't alone. I would emphasise, that's very early days, not at all how they operate now, much frowned on & very career limiting - but much as we'd like it to be, it's not universal across the planet.
I think the altitude is a little bit of a red herring; after all, they made the runway, albeit not in any way they should have: the "problem" (putting to one side, it all looks like an epic clusterf&ck) was the speed, in that the wheels weren't down because they were far too fast - the old "either go down, or slow down, but not both". In that situation, my expectation would be that the crew would either have the aircraft speed managed so it's configured to land, or go around - a binary choice really, & seen that a few times, too fast/too high, up we go again - & the last thing they'd need would be me twittering in their ears. The thought that they'd still be trying to plant it anyway wouldn't have been foremost in my mind; unless they'd got a serious "must land now" problem they're not admitting to.

[anonymous-user]

MarkwG said:

I agree, but I've seen it done, & with reasonably big jets. For example, the early 1-11/737-200 days of a certain harp wearing airline would make your eyes water with what they'd do to get in on, or ahead, of time; some approaches you'd be hard pushed to make work in a Harrier, & they weren't alone. I would emphasise, that's very early days, not at all how they operate now, much frowned on & very career limiting - but much as we'd like it to be, it's not universal across the planet.
I think the altitude is a little bit of a red herring; after all, they made the runway, albeit not in any way they should have: the "problem" (putting to one side, it all looks like an epic clusterf&ck) was the speed, in that the wheels weren't down because they were far too fast - the old "either go down, or slow down, but not both". In that situation, my expectation would be that the crew would either have the aircraft speed managed so it's configured to land, or go around - a binary choice really, & seen that a few times, too fast/too high, up we go again - & the last thing they'd need would be me twittering in their ears. The thought that they'd still be trying to plant it anyway wouldn't have been foremost in my mind; unless they'd got a serious "must land now" problem they're not admitting to.

perhaps the greatest irony is that if they had actually smacked it down a bit harder, and sheared the engines off the wings (or ripped the fans off the engines) there is a good chance that more people whold have survived that crash than the one they went on to have later.... :-(

[MarkwG]

Max_Torque said:

perhaps the greatest irony is that if they had actually smacked it down a bit harder, and sheared the engines off the wings (or ripped the fans off the engines) there is a good chance that more people would have survived that crash than the one they went on to have later.... :-(

Sadly, I suspect you may be right.

[hutchst]

I wouldn't be quick to rule out the effects of The Holy Month of Ramadan when reviewing the psychological factors.

[aeropilot]

hutchst said:

I wouldn't be quick to rule out the effects of The Holy Month of Ramadan when reviewing the psychological factors.

It was certainly one of the first things mentioned in the pprune thread just after the crash happened.

[focusxr5]

Looking at the ATC non compliance report, it states the aircraft was at 3500ft at 5nm, and 1300ft at 4nm and 250kts. Someone much cleverer than me will be able to do the maths but even with my GA knowledge, that's one hell of a rate of descent for a big aircraft. Would that rate of descent even be within AC airframe operating limits?