awasi wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 11:45 am
Secondly the ATC cannot be absolve of their negligence. In the US the ATC is very authoritative i.e. you deviate from their instructions they will come down hard on you. The ATC guides and sets not only the altitude in the air but also ground speed when they deem necessary.
We can blame the pilots that are dead all day long, but unfortunately that is not going to solve the long term problem that is everywhere in Pakistan, in the air and on the ground.
What ATC negligence do you see? From the little that has been released so far, ATC was caught surprised that they had gear and engine issues. Once PIA declared the emergency, ATC cleared them to land any runway 25L or R.
I don't find the US ATC to be very authoritative. The New Yorkers have their New York style of talking, but since I also talk fast it's not a problem. Here, the ATC's primary function is to separate and sequence airplanes, and issue ground/terrain alerts if an aircraft is too low. If you are too high, they'll probably make a remark about if you think you can make it down? They'll clear you for the approach if you say yes. It's your job to fly the plane - not ATC. As for coming down hard on you, usually the problems start when they lose separation (two airplanes come too close, based on their required separation parameters). Even if a pilot has screwed up, as long as it was a honest mistake, we have an ASAP system in which you can voluntarily file a report. Even a bad case, you'll usually get a talking - but no certificate action. The system works pretty well.
No one in the US ATC system "check gear down/confirm 3 greens." I don't know if this is required by Pakistani ATC.
+1
Even the popular incidents often associated with ATC (TCAS alarms, potential runway incursions) require pilots to correct any mistakes. It is often a 1-way thing.
ATC did its job when they told pilots of being hot & high. After that there was zero responsibility of ATC. It is good to connect all dots in an air crash investigation, but one can hardly pin even a slightest blame on ATC.
Once you have tasted flight, you will ever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward - Leonardo Da Vinci
A number of analysts (including some airline pilots) on TV channels and a number of contributors in this discussion are using the term 'hot and high' while discussing the first approach of PK8303, which supposedly set the chain of events resulting in ultimate crash. In my opinion the terminology 'hot n high' in aviation is used to describe an atmospheric condition of high density altitude due to hot ambient temp and high airfield elevation. For example Gilgit in summers is a typical 'hot n high' airport condition, where summer temperatures can go upto 35 deg C or even more (at noon) and airfd elevation of 4800 ft.
For an aircraft too high on an approach should be called high approach and if that is fast as well, we can call this 'hot and fast', and that too is not a standard aviation term.
I think investigators will also check previous record of landing approaches to Karachi made by cockpit crew of May 22 flight PK8303 to find any similarities.
According to the Government minister, the captain approached Karachi airport without announcing he could not open his landing gear and hit the Runway three times.
Pakistan's Minister for Civil Aviation Ghulam Sarwar Khan told reporters on Thursday the plane's engines touched the ground three times on the first attempt at landing.
"The pilot never announced his landing gear wasn't opening. He haphazardly touched the engines thrice with the ground," Khan said.
"All marks are present [on the runway]. He was not at the proper height ... Control tower informed him you aren't at the required height, lower your altitude," he said, adding that the pilot replied, "I will manage."
According to communications posted on liveatc.net, an aviation radio monitoring website, the pilot told the controllers "we are comfortable now" during the approach, but the reason for the remark has left most experts puzzled.
Today, French investigators made video of crash site and runway from the Government of Sindh Bell 412HP (registration AP-BEF) helicopter.
The investigation team also visited crash site.
Eighty percent of aircraft wreckage has been shifted from crash site to Karachi Airport. An engine was shifted yesterday. The other engine is resting on the roof of a house from where it will be removed.
Here's the link to the picture I mentioned. There seems to be some dirt/oily residue like in the picture before the crash. Just wanted to put it here and get some enlightenment.
UGA1980 wrote: Fri May 29, 2020 11:13 am
Thanks for the help with the upload,
Here's the link to the picture I mentioned. There seems to be some dirt/oily residue like in the picture before the crash. Just wanted to put it here and get some enlightenment.
I see that it's not BLD, I meant to ask if this is normal/common? It looks like oil or grease. Never seen it on anything else. Thought the more expert people would know.
Here's a rather filthy a320. It seems Pia's a320 fleet accumulates more dirt under the engines than on other parts. Just a thought. Https://flic.kr/p/7M5gVU
Also a snap of BLD before the crash with the ram air turbine shown (this one probably shows the engines singed due to the hit on the runway)
Abbas Ali wrote: Fri May 29, 2020 9:52 am
I think investigators will also check previous record of landing approaches to Karachi made by cockpit crew of May 22 flight PK8303 to find any similarities.
Abbas
The same set operated the same flight LHE-KHI-LHE on 18th May. On top of that the operating Capt. had operated the exact same flight on the previous 5 days i.e 17th, 18th , 19th, 20th and 21st. That means he was flying this sector on the 6th consecutive day. I listened to his approaches on the preceding 5 days and they all seemed to be fine. CVR is really important in determining what went wrong on the fifth day for Captain.
Last edited by A310 on Fri May 29, 2020 6:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Abdulrafeysiddiqui wrote: Fri May 29, 2020 5:15 pm
I had two question in mind.
First, if landing gears failed to extend normally in first attempt, why didn't the crew tried to extend by backup means i.e by gravity?
Second, could they have used backup procedure for the second attempt after a Go-Around?
I doubt if it had anything to do with landing gear, or may be there was some minor issue with the l/g which kept them over occupied to mess up the initial descent and approach.
ab7 wrote: Fri May 29, 2020 5:10 pm
Just a quick comparison between approaches on 22, 18 & 17 May into KHI by the same flight.
PK8303 LHE-KHI AP-BLD(05/22/20)
Could you please clarify what is the unit on horizontal scale. Without that, it is difficult to match this altitude profile with that released by FR24. From approx 4000 to 2000 there is very steep descent, with a corresponding vertical speed in excess of 5000 fpm, which is not shown on this graph.
TAILWIND wrote: Fri May 29, 2020 6:06 pm
Could you please clarify what is the unit on horizontal scale. Without that, it is difficult to match this altitude profile with that released by FR24. From approx 4000 to 2000 there is very steep descent, with a corresponding vertical speed in excess of 5000 fpm, which is not shown on this graph.
Hi mate, it's 'minutes before touchdown' on the horizontal scale. Starting point is T-10 in all illustrations above.
Here, the ATC's primary function is to separate and sequence airplanes, and issue ground/terrain alerts if an aircraft is too low. If you are too high, they'll probably make a remark about if you think you can make it down? They'll clear you for the approach if you say yes. It's your job to fly the plane - not ATC. As for coming down hard on you, usually the problems start when they lose separation (two airplanes come too close, based on their required separation parameters). Even if a pilot has screwed up, as long as it was a honest mistake, we have an ASAP system in which you can voluntarily file a report. Even a bad case, you'll usually get a talking - but no certificate action. The system works pretty well.
