Pakistan International Airlines passenger plane crashes in Karachi

a reply to: Forensick

It's entirely possible they pulled the gear early and settled as they tried to go around. They got a positive rate and immediately pulled the handle, but weren't back flying again.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Forensick

It's entirely possible they pulled the gear early and settled as they tried to go around. They got a positive rate and immediately pulled the handle, but weren't back flying again.

Why do you think they would do that? Coming in too fast. dont know enough about WIG affect but it kind of cushioned their engines touching down and they only failed during the pattern to try again?

May have shut down the fuel on the first attempt and didn't turn it back on when they attempted to go around.

Just a thought.

a reply to: Forensick

It's happened several times, and usually leads to bad results. It's about the only scenario that I can see where the engines would touch the runway, but the aircraft would get airborne again after.

The report into this will be interesting. Wasn't there an issue with PIA pilots a few years back where a number were sacked after being found to not have the qualifications they needed? Seen a couple of quotes bandied around using the term "Not qualified to drive a bus"....

After watching this video, I think they just forgot to put the gear down. They were approaching, and said they were established on the ILS, but it appears they were not, because the tower corrects them. When they confirm you can hear a warning in the background.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
After watching this video, I think they just forgot to put the gear down. They were approaching, and said they were established on the ILS, but it appears they were not, because the tower corrects them. When they confirm you can hear a warning in the background.

Watched this last night and it does sound like PIA forgot to put the landing gear down.
Long video but the gentleman does a good job explaining how rare it is to forget the landing gear and how the engine strikes disrupted the hydraulic power from the engines leading to the RAT deployment.

YT channel blancolirio

PAKISTAN AIRLINES #8303 UPDATE

Edit:At least watch till the 3:52 mark with Polar Airlines 747 engine strike at LAX.
m.youtube.com...

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
May have shut down the fuel on the first attempt and didn't turn it back on when they attempted to go around.

Just a thought.

Y
You dont "shut down" the fuel during a landing. That happens after you taxi up to the gate. You need fuel flow during the landing so you can get reverse thrust. And in response to some earlier posts, I suspect that the go around decision was made before any runway contact. Yo have a 50 ton airplane coming down at 400-600 feet/minute and fanjet response isn't even close to immediate. You shove the thrust levers forward and then you wait, and wait some more, and then finally you get a response. You are slow and he airplane is still descending. Most instrument approaches have a 200 to 400 foot buffer (called the minimums) so that if you don't see the runway environment, you have time to initiate a go around or "missed approach."

originally posted by: Bigburgh

originally posted by: Zaphod58
After watching this video, I think they just forgot to put the gear down. They were approaching, and said they were established on the ILS, but it appears they were not, because the tower corrects them. When they confirm you can hear a warning in the background.

Watched this last night and it does sound like PIA forgot to put the landing gear down.
Long video but the gentleman does a good job explaining how rare it is to forget the landing gear and how the engine strikes disrupted the hydraulic power from the engines leading to the RAT deployment.







[/quote

On the A320 loss of hydraulics does not cause RAT deployment. Loss of all electric power does. Or you can use one of the guarded switches to manually deploy.

a reply to: F4guy

Yes, I realize that, but I was thinking more of a crash scenario, not a normal landing.

Couple of quotes reputedly from a preliminary investigation according to this Sky News report?

The report says that on its first approach, the jet's engines touched the runway three times as it attempted to land, causing friction and sparks.

The preliminary report suggests that "by abrading the runway, the engine's oil tank and fuel pump may have been damaged - preventing the aircraft from achieving the required thrust and speed".

news.sky.com...

a reply to: F4guy

On the A320 loss of hydraulics does not cause RAT deployment. Loss of all electric power does. Or you can use one of the guarded switches to manually deploy.

Thanks for the correction.

a reply to: solidshot

They said "AS it attempted to land". Wonder if they are suggesting gear wasn't down? If it happened from retracting to early maybe they would have worded it differently?

But the 3 times suggests the bounce others have talked about when retracting gear to soon.

Maybe they hit the runway, felt it, o sh*t, full power, pull up, but not enough thrust yet so it bounced until back airborne, must have been very frightening for the passengers. I'm sure they felt that

a reply to: Bigburgh

That was a good video and explains alot, they probably mount the unit low for easier maintenance and checks? If it was up high maybe they would have had a chance.

a reply to: 772STi

If you listen closely on the approach video, they were 5 miles and still at 3500 feet. You can hear a configuration warning for gear not down and locked as they're talking to the tower.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I've watched the video, I did hear a warning for a split second. Wasn't sure what for thought, well now I do.

Can't believe that can happen this day in age.
Would the warning system not be going crazy on the whole descent? Or just every so many seconds and can the pilots manually shut it off?

a reply to: 772STi

IIRC the Master Caution goes off, which can be shut off. If they did forget, it wouldn't be the first time I've heard it happen. A Hickam T-33 crew was talking about their weekend plans and didn't put them down. Most recently a B-1 put down on Diego Garcia without putting them down because the crew was distracted.

a reply to: Zaphod58
Wow bet someone got in trouble over that, probably very expressive. I work on the turbine blades all stages, you probably know how expensive those pieces of titanium are each, much less the rest of the engine.

Back on topic, it's probably just going to end up being pilot complacency, fatigue, inexperience. One of the videos on this page says it's happens quite a bit on smaller planes and local flights

a reply to: 772STi

The Captain was reportedly one of their most experienced. I haven't heard about the First Officer, but that can easily create a situation where the less experienced pilot becomes afraid to speak up if he sees something, for fear of either making a mistake, or embarrassing the more experienced pilot.

The pilots were way off on their approach. At 15 nautical miles they were at 10,000 feet, but were supposed to be at 7,000. At 10 nautical miles, they were warned about being at 7,000 feet instead of the published 3,000 feet. Then a third warning was heard shortly before landing when they were at 3,500 feet. At every step the pilot responded that he was satisfied with the approach and had things under control.

www.airlive.net...