Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Pakistan crash

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    14,194

    Pakistan crash

    I donít there is a thread on this yet, and since I enjoy speculation...

    Does anyone have thoughts on the crash of PIA8303? Itís pretty surreal if the pilot really touched down at a speed where he could not lower the gear and dragged the engines on the runway before taking off again. It just seems almost impossible to do accidentally. But itís too complicated if it was a deliberate way to crash the plane. A crazy scenario is that some amateur stunt person hijacked the plane and tried to land it for fun... Or the pilots were having a fight...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    As above, so below

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    19,264
    Well, the pilot was talking calmly to ATC during the approach, but with an alarm in the background. So it doesn't seem like a hijack or a fight. Very steep descent, reportedly, which would account for the high speed at touchdown, and at one point the pilot used the phrase "We can make it."
    To me, it seems like the pilots were dealing with some other problem (which they hadn't shared with ATC), and made a fixation error. They wouldn't be the first people, in an alarm-rich environment, to deal with one problem while completely screening out another. The Airbus issues various alerts when you're too near the ground with the gear up, but I've seen experienced anaesthetists so focussed on a single difficult task that they quite literally didn't hear a cacophony of alarms that were heard by everyone else in the room, and were unaware of people talking to the them about the alarms.

    Grant Hutchison

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    14,194
    Yes, thatís definitely a possibility, that they were dealing with some other problem that made them feel forced to land the plane. But then the problem remains, why did they take off again?
    As above, so below

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    NEOTP Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    3,156
    From what I read on an airline pilotís forum the speculation was this: the PIA pilot attempted the gear up landing but did it incorrectly so the engines scraped first rather than the fuselage. So they went for another TOGA.

    But the scraping damaged the engines and thus caused the failure. I saw a photo of the port side engine with damage to the bottom and trailing a stream of thin dark smoke, like burning oil. If I can find it Iíll link it here.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    19,264
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    Yes, that’s definitely a possibility, that they were dealing with some other problem that made them feel forced to land the plane. But then the problem remains, why did they take off again?
    Well, an aircraft doesn't immediately stop descending when you apply power. If the gear-up approach was an error caught at the last moment, then reapplying full power for a go-around would have been appropriate. But if they were too low there's the potential to strike the runway just after pouring on power.

    Grant Hutchison

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    NEOTP Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    3,156
    This fellow has done videos before on the Boeing 737 MAX crashes and other airline issues. His take is that it was an unstable approach which resulted in a cascade of problems. The aircraft came in too high, too fast, and could not establish a correct glide slope and correct landing speed. Why the approach was a mess is still TBD but it may point back to the aircrew.

    PIA #8303 Update #4 Unstable Approach Profile

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Great NorthWet
    Posts
    15,525
    I've been meaning to watch that. Juan Browne is very good.
    Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    NEOTP Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    3,156
    Quote Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
    I've been meaning to watch that. Juan Browne is very good.
    His skills and video kit has improved over the last few months, so I'm guessing Juan used his time well during the shutdown.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Great NorthWet
    Posts
    15,525
    Quote Originally Posted by schlaugh View Post
    His skills and video kit has improved over the last few months, so I'm guessing Juan used his time well during the shutdown.
    I think he's actually been off work due to health concerns for a year or more. I recall him mentioning he was looking forward to going back just before all this happened.
    Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    14,194
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Well, an aircraft doesn't immediately stop descending when you apply power. If the gear-up approach was an error caught at the last moment, then reapplying full power for a go-around would have been appropriate. But if they were too low there's the potential to strike the runway just after pouring on power.

    Grant Hutchison
    Yes, that probably makes the most sense, that they decided to go around but too late to avoid hitting the ground.
    As above, so below

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    11,816
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    They wouldn't be the first people, in an alarm-rich environment, to deal with one problem while completely screening out another. Grant Hutchison
    Less a problem with flight engineers who can at least tap you on the shoulder. The AN-225 cockpit looks more like a starship bridge...and rightly so.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    NEOTP Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    3,156
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    Yes, that probably makes the most sense, that they decided to go around but too late to avoid hitting the ground.
    Juan Browne posted a video last week which explained the likely specific damage to the engines. In so doing he also suggests the TOGA was done incorrectly on the first attempt; they may have retracted the gear too soon before the engines had spun back up to take off power and the plane bounced.

    https://youtu.be/EFhGnCOtcc8

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    19,264
    So do we know they actually had the gear down at some point, and then raised it again? My impression had been that the approach had been made with the gear up.

    Grant Hutchison

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    NEOTP Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    3,156
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    So do we know they actually had the gear down at some point, and then raised it again? My impression had been that the approach had been made with the gear up.

    Grant Hutchison
    I don't think it's known yet. Juan was speculating the crew may have mishandled the TOGA on the first attempt - with gear down - but raised it too soon. And then after the engine damage maybe they couldn't lower the landing gear (which is also weird because I thought the gear is designed to fall by gravity alone so long as they can get it unlocked). Maybe they just ran out of time and could not manually lower the gear. As said, lots of alarms going off and task fixation probably played a role, maybe a large one.

    The answer lies in the orange boxes.

    ETA: The sequence seems to be this.

    • Unstable glide slope results in a too steep and too fast landing approach.
    • Pilots call for TOGA but raise the gear at the same time as applying TOGA throttles and too soon for the engines to spool up.
    • Engines scrape the ground damaging critical gear boxes.
    • Aircraft regains altitude but engines fail and the RAT deploys.
    • Crew can't lower the gear and ask for belly landing.
    • Aircraft impacts terrain.
    Last edited by schlaugh; 2020-May-31 at 04:24 PM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    The Space Coast
    Posts
    4,638
    I've been isolating from the news for various (and some obvious) reasons, so I have not heard of this crash until I came upon this thread. I am loathe to delve into a video showing another tragedy, so I'll just ask. In the end, did the plane crash killing everyone, or did they manage some crash landing that spared some?

    CJSF
    "Off went his rocket at the speed of light
    Flying so fast there was no day or night
    Messing around with the fabric of time
    He knows who's guilty 'fore there's even a crime

    Davy, Davy Crockett
    The buckskin astronaut
    Davy, Davy Crockett
    There's more than we were taught"

    -They Might Be Giants, "The Ballad Of Davy Crockett (In Outer Space)"


    lonelybirder.org

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    NEOTP Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    3,156
    Quote Originally Posted by CJSF View Post
    I've been isolating from the news for various (and some obvious) reasons, so I have not heard of this crash until I came upon this thread. I am loathe to delve into a video showing another tragedy, so I'll just ask. In the end, did the plane crash killing everyone, or did they manage some crash landing that spared some?

    CJSF
    An Airbus 320 crashed into a densely-clustered neighborhood killing all but two people out of 99 passengers and crew but no one on the ground, amazingly. One of the two survivors simply unbuckled his seat belt and climbed down to the ground.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bend, Oregon
    Posts
    6,258
    Quote Originally Posted by schlaugh View Post
    ...ETA: The sequence seems to be this.

    • Unstable glide slope results in a too steep and too fast landing approach.
    • Pilots call for TOGA but raise the gear at the same time as applying TOGA throttles and too soon for the engines to spool up.
    • Engines scrape the ground damaging critical gear boxes.
    • Aircraft regains altitude but engines fail and the RAT deploys.
    • Crew can't lower the gear and ask for belly landing.
    • Aircraft impacts terrain.
    After watching Juan Browne's videos, couple of points. One, he notes how the trouble alarm is sounding when the pilots contact the airport controller on the first approach, possibly indicating that the landing gear was not in fact properly deployed. And two, video of the plane as it finally descends into the city after attempting to go around show the gear down.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    NEOTP Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    3,156
    Yeah I later saw the video which seems to show deployed gear. Thatís a puzzle and why would the pilot call for a wheels up landing (assuming he did).

    The alarm could have been an over-speed warning for a too steep and too fast glide path. Or something else. If the investigators also hear ďgear downĒ over and over in the voice recorder then the computer was telling them such.

    Hopefully the investigation team can read the FDR and CVR quickly and report.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    14,194
    Quote Originally Posted by schlaugh View Post
    Yeah I later saw the video which seems to show deployed gear. Thatís a puzzle and why would the pilot call for a wheels up landing (assuming he did).
    It seems possible that on the initial approach they were going too fast and the plane wouldnít let them lower the gear.
    As above, so below

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    NEOTP Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    3,156
    I'm also starting to wonder if the whole "belly landing" issue is a red herring caused by a communication from the ATC after the scrape and go and while the plane was returning to Karachi.

    ATC: Uh, appear to be turning left.
    Pilot: Uh, we are proceeding direct, sir, we have lost engine.
    ATC: Confirm you are carrying out belly landing?
    Pillot: [Inaudible]
    [Brief pause]
    ATC: ... runway available to land at two-five. [Two-five is the runway identifier]
    Pilot: Roger.
    [Brief pause]
    Pilot: Sir, mayday, mayday, mayday, Pakistan 830... 3.
    ATC: Pakistan 8303, roger sir, both runways available to land.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Great NorthWet
    Posts
    15,525
    I just managed to watch the first couple of Juan Browne's videos before being loudly reminded it was time to feed the kitties.
    I'm wondering why YouTube found it necessary to demonetize his videos, considering the vast array of other nonsense they support.
    Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    18,927
    Quote Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
    I'm wondering why YouTube found it necessary to demonetize his videos, considering the vast array of other nonsense they support.
    They still monetize some videos? Wow!

    I’ve seen a number of long time youtubers talk about the “adpocalypse.” It doesn’t seem to take much to be demonetized. It seems like a hint of controversy will do it or just about anything about politics. I’ve seen mainstream historical videos get demonetized. I’m sure Juan said something someone didn’t like somewhere.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." ó Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  23. #23
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    15,647
    C'mon folks, speculation about which decisions Youtube takes on one of their channels may be interesting but is way off-topic for this thread.
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Forum Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    14,194
    Quote Originally Posted by schlaugh View Post
    I don't think it's known yet. Juan was speculating the crew may have mishandled the TOGA on the first attempt - with gear down - but raised it too soon.
    One other thought I had, and it is clearly too early to know, as they are still examining the flight recorders. But I wonder what would have happened if they had initiated TOGA and then tried to land despite it being initiated (for example, one of the pilots initiated go around but the other tried to land). I know that something like that happened in a crash in Nagoya in 1993, I think, where the pilots unintentionally initiated go-around but didn't realize it and tried to land the plane, and the plane refused and tried to raise the nose, resulting in a stall.
    As above, so below

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •