A320 down in Pakistan
Discussion
red_slr said:
It will be type rating and currency etc rather than actual pilots licence, IMHO.
I suspect there's some of that, but sadly also some pure fraud. However, I'm not convinced the paperwork fully explains this accident, more that there's a systemic problem within PIA & their quality assurance. If that lassiez faire attitude exists from the top down, then it may have obliquely contributed, of course.According to the Pakistani aviation minister, 40% of Pakistani pilots have fake flying licences.
https://airwaysmag.com/industry/Pakistan-fake-pilo...
https://airwaysmag.com/industry/Pakistan-fake-pilo...
It did glide, just not for very long.
The aircraft had a lot of speed but not much altitude so ultimately not enough energy to get back to the runway.
I am sure others on here will be able to comment on the relative effects of flap to improve lift versus the drag effects when it comes to maximising flight distance. As I recall BA36 was going to land much shorter until the captain made a flap adjustment to get on to the airfield.
The aircraft had a lot of speed but not much altitude so ultimately not enough energy to get back to the runway.
I am sure others on here will be able to comment on the relative effects of flap to improve lift versus the drag effects when it comes to maximising flight distance. As I recall BA36 was going to land much shorter until the captain made a flap adjustment to get on to the airfield.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Incompetent and criminally irresponsible would be a more appropriate description.anonymous said:
[redacted]
Err.....not really, and not very far, and then only if you have enough height.....as evidenced by Sully's ditching in the Hudson River (and remember Sully was an ex-USAF F4 pilot, and importantly, an experienced and instructor rated Glider Pilot)The PIA flight lost the engines at around 2000ft or less .......you are not going to glide any airliner very far from that height and speed.....well not in a way that will see a happy ending.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
They should be trained & would be expected not to get into that situation in the first place;The airline will have a rostering team in operations who plan who flies what to where & when;
They were not "two inexperienced rookies"! The captain, which presumably means the more experienced person in the front reportedly had 18000hrs total time. It's more likely that over confidence, born perhaps from over familiarity, bred contempt & over reliance on their abilities. They had opportunities & hints to stop & rethink, but chose or neglected to - why they got into that state is the subject of the enquiry, I hope.
MarkwG said:
They were not "two inexperienced rookies"! The captain, which presumably means the more experienced person in the front reportedly had 18000hrs total time. It's more likely that over confidence, born perhaps from over familiarity, bred contempt & over reliance on their abilities. They had opportunities & hints to stop & rethink, but chose or neglected to - why they got into that state is the subject of the enquiry, I hope.
But we also have the cultural issue in that part of the world where a 'junior' pilot likely wouldn't question the experienced Capt's decision to persist with the landing in the situation the Capt was putting the aircraft.From what we know of the CVR from the initial report both crew members seemed to have ignored SOP for most of the flight and been far more interested in talking about coronavirus than flying the aircraft...or listening to ATC.
aeropilot said:
Starfighter said:
Deference to a more senior person has played a factor in a number of crashes. The Korean Air 747 freighter out of Stansted and the 777 crash at Sam Francisco spring to mind.
BEA Trident crash at Staines as well.At the time my father was a Trident captain and I asked him how that could happen.
He went to his briefcase to get his log book and counted 5 false stall warnings he had had in a month.
Steve
Steve_D said:
aeropilot said:
Starfighter said:
Deference to a more senior person has played a factor in a number of crashes. The Korean Air 747 freighter out of Stansted and the 777 crash at Sam Francisco spring to mind.
BEA Trident crash at Staines as well.Why Key ignored all the stick shaker stall warnings we'll never know, and there was an experienced P3 on board as well, but with no CVR in those days its all speculation. It was because of this accident and the reasons why, that CVR's were then made mandatory for all G-reg airliners.
In many ways there were many similarities with the AF447 crash in that regard.
Steve_D said:
I expect you are referring to ignoring stall warnings.
At the time my father was a Trident captain and I asked him how that could happen.
He went to his briefcase to get his log book and counted 5 false stall warnings he had had in a month.
Steve
I think, rather than the stall warning issue, we're thinking of the alleged tensions in the cockpit between the captain & crew: no CVR back then so no way of knowing for sure whether there's any substance to them, though. I believe it centred around an industrial dispute & an argument in the crewroom prior to departure. Happy to be corrected if not.At the time my father was a Trident captain and I asked him how that could happen.
He went to his briefcase to get his log book and counted 5 false stall warnings he had had in a month.
Steve
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff