A320 down in Pakistan
Discussion
I’m a fairly regular passenger and have been for few decades now.
I always tend know / anticipate the various aspects of descent. That ever so gradual slowing coming out of the cruise, the drag on the aircraft when the gear is lowered, when slats / flaps are deployed.
I dread to think what it must have been like to be a passenger on that flight. I’m confident most would have felt that something was very wrong during the crazy rate of descent. And as for the actual touch-down, it would have been felt and heard by all, and a good degree of the passengers would have had a window seat looking out on all the sparks thrown up.
And as for the go-around? And what the passengers must have had going through their minds as they had witnessed the sparks where the pilots wouldn’t.
I notice that Mentour was quite angry on his summing up at the end of his latest video regarding this and rightly so.
As we know, he always comes across as a very measured, conscientious, placid and professional authority on these matters. What you’d expect of someone who occupies a cockpit.
No doubt why this one made him angry.
I always tend know / anticipate the various aspects of descent. That ever so gradual slowing coming out of the cruise, the drag on the aircraft when the gear is lowered, when slats / flaps are deployed.
I dread to think what it must have been like to be a passenger on that flight. I’m confident most would have felt that something was very wrong during the crazy rate of descent. And as for the actual touch-down, it would have been felt and heard by all, and a good degree of the passengers would have had a window seat looking out on all the sparks thrown up.
And as for the go-around? And what the passengers must have had going through their minds as they had witnessed the sparks where the pilots wouldn’t.
I notice that Mentour was quite angry on his summing up at the end of his latest video regarding this and rightly so.
As we know, he always comes across as a very measured, conscientious, placid and professional authority on these matters. What you’d expect of someone who occupies a cockpit.
No doubt why this one made him angry.
Edited by Jim H on Wednesday 17th April 10:43
Jandywa said:
Jim H said:
I was thinking about this today. The engines on that aircraft were never ever designed to be dragged along a runway for any length of time.
I’m sure they are probably like ‘Swiss Clocks’:
intricate pieces of engineering.
It’s amazing it ever got off the deck again.
Just goes to show how ridiculously overspeed they were that they could drag it along the runway for that length of time and still have enough left to get airborne againI’m sure they are probably like ‘Swiss Clocks’:
intricate pieces of engineering.
It’s amazing it ever got off the deck again.
It's also a testament to, for all their precision and 'swiss clock' engineering, aero engines are remarkably durable. They 'want' to run and keep running and it takes a lot of physical damage to stop them dead. The scraping down the runway damaged the ancillary drives and other accessories rather than the core engine, which kept both engines running - one producing rated power and the other at idle because of damage to its control unit. Enough for the aircraft to climb to a safe altitude and level off before the engines began to fail due to loss of oil from the damaged lines.
Had they landed wheels-up at normal speeds they'd probably have damaged the engines/nacelles so severely that they wouldn't have been able to lift off again, or if they had they'd have been in an immediate and obvious power-loss scenario.
b
hstewie said:
That is an excellent and mostly dispassionate analysis for the layman to read. hstewie said:
It’s also one of the most terrifying accident reports I’ve ever read.
In most of them, I can understand how or why the holes in the Swiss cheese have lined up. The actions of those involved are usually rational from their viewpoint.
This one is f
king nuts. The story that eventually emerged from the wreckage defies rational comprehension: after an approach so steep it bordered on madness, the crew set the plane down on the runway apparently without having extended the landing gear, causing the aircraft to slide on its engines for nearly a kilometer. And then, as if that wasn’t enough, after skidding across the ground for 18 seconds, the crew managed to pull the plane back into the air and climb to 3,000 feet — only for both damaged engines to fail
That is insane. The engines must have been spitting out all sorts on that climb off the deck
That is insane. The engines must have been spitting out all sorts on that climb off the deck
Mr E said:
bhstewie said:
That is an excellent and mostly dispassionate analysis for the layman to read. hstewie said:It’s also one of the most terrifying accident reports I’ve ever read.
In most of them, I can understand how or why the holes in the Swiss cheese have lined up. The actions of those involved are usually rational from their viewpoint.
This one is f
king nuts. I'd pick out the ones on Antillean 980 and the Stansted Korean Air Cargo 747 as the best and most illuminating I've read so far. The latter does a really good job of questioning (debunking might be a better word) the 'Korean cultural factors' that have been widely and uncritically circulated as factors in the crash. It made me question and reinterpret my understanding of that accident and several others.
Hugo Stiglitz said:
The story that eventually emerged from the wreckage defies rational comprehension: after an approach so steep it bordered on madness, the crew set the plane down on the runway apparently without having extended the landing gear, causing the aircraft to slide on its engines for nearly a kilometer. And then, as if that wasn’t enough, after skidding across the ground for 18 seconds, the crew managed to pull the plane back into the air and climb to 3,000 feet — only for both damaged engines to fail
That is insane. The engines must have been spitting out all sorts on that climb off the deck
I think the crew commanded gear down, but the plane wouldn't allow the gear to deploy due to the excessive speed on descent. The crew should have clocked that the gear wasn't down, obviously. If you read the report or listen to an account of the events, then it's both sad and unsurprising that this accident happened given the behaviour of the pilots. They had so many opportunities to literally turn it all around that were missed. It wasn't an unexpected combination of unlikely events, it was ignoring standard procedures and advice/orders from Air Traffic Controllers.That is insane. The engines must have been spitting out all sorts on that climb off the deck
The linked analysis suggests;
Gear was down. The first officer raised it (edit: probably the first officer), presumably because they assumed a go around (from the batst insane attempt at landing) but did not tell the captain (flying the aircraft). The captain put the aircraft on the deck halfway down the runway and stood on the brakes (which did nothing - he’d actually commanded reverse thrust before landing which also obviously didn’t work).
It was an absolute st show and a lot of people are dead as a result.
Gear was down. The first officer raised it (edit: probably the first officer), presumably because they assumed a go around (from the bats
t insane attempt at landing) but did not tell the captain (flying the aircraft). The captain put the aircraft on the deck halfway down the runway and stood on the brakes (which did nothing - he’d actually commanded reverse thrust before landing which also obviously didn’t work). It was an absolute s
t show and a lot of people are dead as a result. Edited by Mr E on Thursday 18th April 09:28
Linked analysis says
article said:
At that moment, still at an altitude of 7,400 feet, one of the pilots extended the landing gear without any callout or cross check.
...
[Moments later, at an altitude of 2,230 feet] .. as Azam pulled back on his stick, someone retracted the speed brakes and the landing gear, without any kind of callout or cross check.
This was a pivotal moment in the sequence of events, but precious little is known about it. Since neither pilot made any mention of the landing gear at this stage, it can’t even be said with complete certainty who was responsible, let alone what they were thinking. However, subsequent events suggest that First Officer Azam was most likely behind it
...
[Moments later, at an altitude of 2,230 feet] .. as Azam pulled back on his stick, someone retracted the speed brakes and the landing gear, without any kind of callout or cross check.
This was a pivotal moment in the sequence of events, but precious little is known about it. Since neither pilot made any mention of the landing gear at this stage, it can’t even be said with complete certainty who was responsible, let alone what they were thinking. However, subsequent events suggest that First Officer Azam was most likely behind it
2xChevrons said:
Just to add - I would recommend the work of Admiral Cloudberg (Kyra Dempsey) to anyone in this thread. She's an absolute gold-standard of aviation writing for the general public, especially her accident narratives.
I'd pick out the ones on Antillean 980 and the Stansted Korean Air Cargo 747 as the best and most illuminating I've read so far. The latter does a really good job of questioning (debunking might be a better word) the 'Korean cultural factors' that have been widely and uncritically circulated as factors in the crash. It made me question and reinterpret my understanding of that accident and several others.
Thanks for the tip, just spent most of the day reading these superbly written pieces. Rare to get that level of accuracy and insight from a non professional TAP*I'd pick out the ones on Antillean 980 and the Stansted Korean Air Cargo 747 as the best and most illuminating I've read so far. The latter does a really good job of questioning (debunking might be a better word) the 'Korean cultural factors' that have been widely and uncritically circulated as factors in the crash. It made me question and reinterpret my understanding of that accident and several others.
- showing my age there for readers of the old industry periodical
As a professional pilot, helicopter not airline but with airline mates, this tale of sadness is truely unbelievable. If you wrote it for a Human Factors training evolution, any sane individual would dismiss it as complete fabrication and impossible.
The fact that 2 idiots (not professional and barely pilots) can crash a completely serviceable £100m jet killing 100 people through arrogance, stupidity and inepitude demonstates that whatever checks you put in place, if your people are flawed, they will never be enough. I cannot think of another accident (use this term losely) that gets close in terms of opportunities to prevent. There are occasions when design or engineering deal the flight crew a bad or impossible hand, the Malaysian or Ethopian 737 crashes. Or poor training and supervision allow disaster, Air France mid Atlantic. Etc. But the full house?
They did not follow their own Operations Manual, the approved Approach Procedures, Airbus Flight Manual, the aircraft's warnings and air traffic controls hints then instructions.
There is no area in PIA or Pakistan Aviation Authority that escapes blame for the death of those poor individuals. I exclude the 2 pilots as our world is safer without them operating in it. Failure of PIA Training Dept, Flight Ops Dept, Compliance Dept for the repeated exceedences that signposted this disaster. Then the national aviation authority to ensure their national operator is safe and compliant. And a wider culture of patronage over ability and religious adherence over safety.
It also demonstrates how robust a modern commercial jet can be when so grossly mishandled, it will still try to fly and warn the crew even when those warnings are unheeded.
As a very small aside, the Indian banker who survived attached to his seat ejected from the crash, was the uncle of a child at my childrens' school. A couple of years ago he came to give a motivational talk (!) about living life to the full and taking all the chances life offers to you. These acts of stupidity by those who will never answer for their actions, in whatever profession, can often touch those even thousands of miles away.
The fact that 2 idiots (not professional and barely pilots) can crash a completely serviceable £100m jet killing 100 people through arrogance, stupidity and inepitude demonstates that whatever checks you put in place, if your people are flawed, they will never be enough. I cannot think of another accident (use this term losely) that gets close in terms of opportunities to prevent. There are occasions when design or engineering deal the flight crew a bad or impossible hand, the Malaysian or Ethopian 737 crashes. Or poor training and supervision allow disaster, Air France mid Atlantic. Etc. But the full house?
They did not follow their own Operations Manual, the approved Approach Procedures, Airbus Flight Manual, the aircraft's warnings and air traffic controls hints then instructions.
There is no area in PIA or Pakistan Aviation Authority that escapes blame for the death of those poor individuals. I exclude the 2 pilots as our world is safer without them operating in it. Failure of PIA Training Dept, Flight Ops Dept, Compliance Dept for the repeated exceedences that signposted this disaster. Then the national aviation authority to ensure their national operator is safe and compliant. And a wider culture of patronage over ability and religious adherence over safety.
It also demonstrates how robust a modern commercial jet can be when so grossly mishandled, it will still try to fly and warn the crew even when those warnings are unheeded.
As a very small aside, the Indian banker who survived attached to his seat ejected from the crash, was the uncle of a child at my childrens' school. A couple of years ago he came to give a motivational talk (!) about living life to the full and taking all the chances life offers to you. These acts of stupidity by those who will never answer for their actions, in whatever profession, can often touch those even thousands of miles away.
Hugo Stiglitz said:
The story that eventually emerged from the wreckage defies rational comprehension: after an approach so steep it bordered on madness, the crew set the plane down on the runway apparently without having extended the landing gear, causing the aircraft to slide on its engines for nearly a kilometer. And then, as if that wasn’t enough, after skidding across the ground for 18 seconds, the crew managed to pull the plane back into the air and climb to 3,000 feet — only for both damaged engines to fail
That is insane. The engines must have been spitting out all sorts on that climb off the deck
The engines themselves weren't damaged by sliding on the ground, so they had pretty normal maximum thrust when TOGA power was requested. No fan blades or other components integral to the turbofan engine itself were damaged at this point. But just underneath each engine within the nacelle is a an accessory drive gearbox which, once the thin metal of the nacelle was worn through, was quickly breached by the friction of skidding down the runway with the weight of a laden 737 on them. Once the body of the accessory gearbox was worn through, there was nothing to stop the lubricating oil within from draining out. The same lubricating oil that feeds the core engine parts.That is insane. The engines must have been spitting out all sorts on that climb off the deck
So there was plenty of thrust to get back off the ground, but having the engines running at TOGA while also draining out the lubricating oil is a recipe for the inevitable disaster that took place. The engines effectively seized due to lack of lubrication during the attempt to go around. Had those accessory gearboxes withstood the abrasion and unusual physical loads, the aircraft would have had everything necessary to make a another attempt at a successful landing with the gear down this time - idiotic pilots notwithstanding of course.
LunarOne said:
......... But just underneath each engine within the nacelle is a an accessory drive gearbox which, once the thin metal of the nacelle was worn through, was quickly breached by the friction of skidding down the runway with the weight of a laden 737 on them. .........
I think you'll find it was an Airbus A320, not a B737 
There's even a clue in the thread title
Edited by aeropilot on Thursday 18th April 15:57
aeropilot said:
LunarOne said:
......... But just underneath each engine within the nacelle is a an accessory drive gearbox which, once the thin metal of the nacelle was worn through, was quickly breached by the friction of skidding down the runway with the weight of a laden 737 on them. .........
I think you'll find it was an Airbus A320, not a B737
There's even a clue in the thread title
Sorry, I'm just so used to 737s going down...I think you'll find it was an Airbus A320, not a B737
There's even a clue in the thread title
Edited by LunarOne on Thursday 18th April 18:22
These incompetents were actually ones that held valid licenses. That tells you everything you need to know about PIA and the regulator.
Murderous clowns employed in Kyra' words:
"by a clique of powerful former military officers who hand out positions at the state-run airline to friends and patrons, while smoothing their passage through any checks and balances that may technically exist. It’s not clear what all these extra employees actually do — certainly they aren’t analyzing flight recorder data. But what is clear is that PIA is being used as a ladder for opportunistic individuals to pay their way into Pakistan’s political power structure, and flight safety is secondary. This cynical and transactional culture provides the perfect breeding ground for unscrupulous individuals who cheat on exams and ignore safety regulations with near-impunity."
Murderous clowns employed in Kyra' words:
"by a clique of powerful former military officers who hand out positions at the state-run airline to friends and patrons, while smoothing their passage through any checks and balances that may technically exist. It’s not clear what all these extra employees actually do — certainly they aren’t analyzing flight recorder data. But what is clear is that PIA is being used as a ladder for opportunistic individuals to pay their way into Pakistan’s political power structure, and flight safety is secondary. This cynical and transactional culture provides the perfect breeding ground for unscrupulous individuals who cheat on exams and ignore safety regulations with near-impunity."
I always find it somewhat fascinating on these threads that it tends to draw extremely knowledgeable folk who really know their stuff who can explain things very logically (like the above post).
To the average posters like me, along with others who have a genuine interest in aviation and their own safety when travelling.
I remember starting a thread a couple of years ago relating to Turbulence and El Stovey showed up and gave some fascinating insights from a pilots perspective.
Another couple of things that have made me think a lot about this PIA incident, and others have commentated on it (Juan and Mentour YT). If they’d never had gone for the TOGA, it would have been an absolute unholy mess without doubt, but perhaps not such a drastic loss of life.
Sadly this whole episode turned into a saving face exercise - just unreal.
But, more importantly, I couldn’t understand how a crew like that had managed to operate so many flight hours previously without any other incident or concern from any sort of governing body.
But both of them had that type of scrutiny, especially the captain.
Quantified, acknowledged - brushed aside. Covered up.
To the average posters like me, along with others who have a genuine interest in aviation and their own safety when travelling.
I remember starting a thread a couple of years ago relating to Turbulence and El Stovey showed up and gave some fascinating insights from a pilots perspective.
Another couple of things that have made me think a lot about this PIA incident, and others have commentated on it (Juan and Mentour YT). If they’d never had gone for the TOGA, it would have been an absolute unholy mess without doubt, but perhaps not such a drastic loss of life.
Sadly this whole episode turned into a saving face exercise - just unreal.
But, more importantly, I couldn’t understand how a crew like that had managed to operate so many flight hours previously without any other incident or concern from any sort of governing body.
But both of them had that type of scrutiny, especially the captain.
Quantified, acknowledged - brushed aside. Covered up.
aeropilot said:
LunarOne said:
......... But just underneath each engine within the nacelle is a an accessory drive gearbox which, once the thin metal of the nacelle was worn through, was quickly breached by the friction of skidding down the runway with the weight of a laden 737 on them. .........
I think you'll find it was an Airbus A320, not a B737 There's even a clue in the thread title
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff