A320 down in Pakistan
Discussion
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........!
The hypothesis I've seen seems to indicate a very late go around, perhaps when they realised they were running out of runway, then the gear retracted before a positive rate of climb achieved, resulting in the aircraft contacting the ground with the engines spooling up. The information about the range/height profile would add credence to that. Continuing with a deteriorating plan, rather than accepting it's not working & creating a better one, is sadly a human failing sometimes. I imagine they thought the option they chose was the right one, at the time. If it turns out to be the case, it'll be interesting to find out why the crew persisted rather than going around earlier. Discretion is the better part of valour."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........!
David87 said:
Maybe it’s just me, but would it really be possible that two professional pilots would try and land an aircraft with the wheels up?
I know a Herc pilot in the RAF who landed with the gear still up. It does happen. Also I don’t understand how they have a wheels up landing. Every approach we do in to waddington (home vase), one of the final things approach say is “wind XYZ followed by check gear down acknowledge.” Not a pilot but can hear ATC on intercom. Pretty much all the places we land this happens. Is it not the same in civie airfields. If not it should be.
If you fail to acknowledge they will keep repeating then tell you to go around.
On our engines I’m sure the fuel pumps are on the bottom of the engine (this might be due to us have 8 generators (2 per engine) which isn’t normal.
What engines does this plane have. Are the fuel pumps in the bottom of the engine. I wonder if they have damaged something on the engines (Fuel pumps)when sliding down the runway. This would lead to loss of all power, electricity and hydraulics.
This would be explain the ratt being deployed as mentioned above.
Edited by MB140 on Saturday 23 May 22:49
Edited by MB140 on Saturday 23 May 22:50
MB140 said:
David87 said:
Maybe it’s just me, but would it really be possible that two professional pilots would try and land an aircraft with the wheels up?
I know a Herc pilot in the RAF who landed with the gear still up. It does happen. 
Broncolirio's channel on youtube is usually the place to get a good analysis of events.....
In yesterday's video he points out that an audible alarm, which would sound if the landing gear isn't down, was actually sounding in a ATC audio file he played of the flight during first landing attempt
In yesterday's video he points out that an audible alarm, which would sound if the landing gear isn't down, was actually sounding in a ATC audio file he played of the flight during first landing attempt
Bandit110 said:
Broncolirio's channel on youtube is usually the place to get a good analysis of events.....
In yesterday's video he points out that an audible alarm, which would sound if the landing gear isn't down, was actually sounding in a ATC audio file he played of the flight during first landing attempt
From posts from those that fly the A320 and have heard that recording of the audible warning, it is considered not to be the landing gear warning, but the warning for flap overspeed, due to the Khe Sahn like approach being attempted.In yesterday's video he points out that an audible alarm, which would sound if the landing gear isn't down, was actually sounding in a ATC audio file he played of the flight during first landing attempt
The gear down warning is said to be a voice warning, rather than just an alarm warning, and is repetitively “TOO LOW, GEAR” in a loud, urgent voice over the speakers.
aeropilot said:
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........!
Unfortunately i think they basically flew themselves into a corner from which they couldn't get out :-)What on earth made them think that would end well........!
What ever caused the engine scrape either from landing without gear down at all, to botching a Go-Around or Touch-and-Go by retracting the gear before a positive rate of climb have been established, they ended up, back in the air. At that point, it would be practically unheard of for a pilot to attempt to land anywhere but back on the runway (Cptn Sully excepted!). The planes was initally functioning fine, because it must have had enough thrust for long enough to climb away from the R/W after the scrape, and the RAT deployment worked and provided backup Hydr/Elec system as it should. At that point, as fas as anyone in the cockpit knew, they had "got away with it". They clearly tried a very tight circle back to a normal windward landing, but the engines quit before they could complete that return to short finals. At no point during that short period of time would anyone be thinking "i'd best put this bird down in the rough just in case the engines quit" IMO.
With the benefit of hindsight, keeping the throttles shut, and bouncing the plane down the R/W in the first instance might (and i stress might) have provided a better outcome, but it's human instinct to try to "save" the situation in anyway possible, and so, the return to flight, and then the eventual dual engine failure at low level and resultant crash short of the R/W. :-(
MB140 said:
...Also I don’t understand how they have a wheels up landing. Every approach we do in to Waddington (home base), one of the final things approach say is “wind XYZ followed by check gear down acknowledge.” Not a pilot but can hear ATC on intercom. Pretty much all the places we land this happens. Is it not the same in civie airfields. If not it should be. If you fail to acknowledge they will keep repeating then tell you to go around.
Crew distraction, human error, mechanical failure, amongst others. The responsibility in the civilian world rests with the aircrew to ensure the aircraft is configured correctly, ATC wouldn't habitually offer a check anywhere, as far as I'm aware, except when flying a surveillance radar approach, & those aren't commonplace any more - that may be where you've heard it.I'm not sure it's typical in the military either, for every approach; if it is, it's setting an error trap for any flights into a civilian airport. There's plenty of systems in the cockpit to alert the crew, so I doubt it will ever become the norm in the civilian world: after all, wheels up landings still happen in the military, so it's not a cure all.
MB140 said:
What engines does this plane have. Are the fuel pumps in the bottom of the engine. I wonder if they have damaged something on the engines (Fuel pumps)when sliding down the runway. This would lead to loss of all power, electricity and hydraulics.
This would be explain the ratt being deployed as mentioned above.
It's the CFM-56-5B, so similar-ish design to the older CFM-56-2's fitted to the E-3D's (at least when I worked on them back in 2000-2005) but the Accessories GearBox sits almost underneath at the bottom left of the nacelle so I'd say the nacelle scrape knackered the AGB on both engines, leading to them having to pop the RAT out as you'd lose hyds and fuel pumps as a minimum.This would be explain the ratt being deployed as mentioned above.
Here's a pic from the engine manual -
MarkwG said:
MB140 said:
...Also I don’t understand how they have a wheels up landing. Every approach we do in to Waddington (home base), one of the final things approach say is “wind XYZ followed by check gear down acknowledge.” Not a pilot but can hear ATC on intercom. Pretty much all the places we land this happens. Is it not the same in civie airfields. If not it should be. If you fail to acknowledge they will keep repeating then tell you to go around.
Crew distraction, human error, mechanical failure, amongst others. The responsibility in the civilian world rests with the aircrew to ensure the aircraft is configured correctly, ATC wouldn't habitually offer a check anywhere, as far as I'm aware, except when flying a surveillance radar approach, & those aren't commonplace any more - that may be where you've heard it.I'm not sure it's typical in the military either, for every approach; if it is, it's setting an error trap for any flights into a civilian airport. There's plenty of systems in the cockpit to alert the crew, so I doubt it will ever become the norm in the civilian world: after all, wheels up landings still happen in the military, so it's not a cure all.
IanH755 said:
MB140 said:
What engines does this plane have. Are the fuel pumps in the bottom of the engine. I wonder if they have damaged something on the engines (Fuel pumps)when sliding down the runway. This would lead to loss of all power, electricity and hydraulics.
This would be explain the ratt being deployed as mentioned above.
It's the CFM-56-5B, so similar-ish design to the older CFM-56-2's fitted to the E-3D's (at least when I worked on them back in 2000-2005) but the Accessories GearBox sits almost underneath at the bottom left of the nacelle so I'd say the nacelle scrape knackered the AGB on both engines, leading to them having to pop the RAT out as you'd lose hyds and fuel pumps as a minimum.This would be explain the ratt being deployed as mentioned above.
Here's a pic from the engine manual -
The nearby PAF airbase was only 4/5km just off the left of their straight ahead, which would have been a closer option, rather than even a shortened circuit.......but they were clearly determined to carry on regardless, despite knowingly bashing their aircraft along the runway without wheels.
ATC recordings are indicating the tower were already concerned at their initial approach when at 3000-3500ft at only 5nm out, but crew replied with "We can make it"..... so they were already behind the curve at that point.
aeropilot said:
Yep, and ruptured oil/hyd lines, given the photo's of it in the air with the damage, and whisps of smoke/fluids streaking back from the undersides....
The nearby PAF airbase was only 4/5km just off the left of their straight ahead, which would have been a closer option, rather than even a shortened circuit.......but they were clearly determined to carry on regardless, despite knowingly bashing their aircraft along the runway without wheels.
ATC recordings are indicating the tower were already concerned at their initial approach when at 3000-3500ft at only 5nm out, but crew replied with "We can make it"..... so they were already behind the curve at that point.
I don't know about this 320 but many don't have CFM's but have IAE'sThe nearby PAF airbase was only 4/5km just off the left of their straight ahead, which would have been a closer option, rather than even a shortened circuit.......but they were clearly determined to carry on regardless, despite knowingly bashing their aircraft along the runway without wheels.
ATC recordings are indicating the tower were already concerned at their initial approach when at 3000-3500ft at only 5nm out, but crew replied with "We can make it"..... so they were already behind the curve at that point.
Starfighter said:
A320 (and variants) do not have the capability to dump fuel. The max landing weight is the same as max take off weight so it is not needed.
Almost true, they can be landed overweight but typically we have a few tonnes between max take off weight and max landing. It depends on the variant. The 321's can have a 12 tonne difference btw.Atb
aeropilot said:
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........!
One of the survivors didn't seem to notice, if that was the case (unless he was only talking about the second attempt)What on earth made them think that would end well........!
"Mr Zubair, who suffered only minor injuries, said the plane attempted one landing and then crashed 10-15 minutes later.
"No-one was aware that the plane was about to crash; they were flying the plane in a smooth manner," he said."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-52780289
Hub said:
aeropilot said:
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........!
One of the survivors didn't seem to notice, if that was the case (unless he was only talking about the second attempt)What on earth made them think that would end well........!
"Mr Zubair, who suffered only minor injuries, said the plane attempted one landing and then crashed 10-15 minutes later.
"No-one was aware that the plane was about to crash; they were flying the plane in a smooth manner," he said."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-52780289
Mabbs9 said:
aeropilot said:
Yep, and ruptured oil/hyd lines, given the photo's of it in the air with the damage, and whisps of smoke/fluids streaking back from the undersides....
The nearby PAF airbase was only 4/5km just off the left of their straight ahead, which would have been a closer option, rather than even a shortened circuit.......but they were clearly determined to carry on regardless, despite knowingly bashing their aircraft along the runway without wheels.
ATC recordings are indicating the tower were already concerned at their initial approach when at 3000-3500ft at only 5nm out, but crew replied with "We can make it"..... so they were already behind the curve at that point.
I don't know about this 320 but many don't have CFM's but have IAE'sThe nearby PAF airbase was only 4/5km just off the left of their straight ahead, which would have been a closer option, rather than even a shortened circuit.......but they were clearly determined to carry on regardless, despite knowingly bashing their aircraft along the runway without wheels.
ATC recordings are indicating the tower were already concerned at their initial approach when at 3000-3500ft at only 5nm out, but crew replied with "We can make it"..... so they were already behind the curve at that point.
CFM56-5 engines were fitted the aircraft. Some explanation as to the accessory gearbox location and function here.
https://youtu.be/EFhGnCOtcc8
https://youtu.be/EFhGnCOtcc8
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff