they did'nt put the engineer on board that flight due to safety/airworthiness of that particular flight. Engineer in Multan was on leave those days, and any flight to Multan was covered by the base, the engineer on board was responsible for the transit check at MUX. Had it been anything to do with the safety/airworthiness, that engineer would have grounded that aircraft there. Who wants to go.........Nobody.
Your dad was the final authority to accept the aircraft. (safe or unsafe, airworthy or non-airworthy)
TRIM /LOAD SHEETS ARE OFTEN WRONGLY DONE
Yes, but the final signatures on that CRITICAL piece of paper are by the CAPTAIN of the flight.
U refuse a flight ur shown the door!
NOBODY in PIA will show you the door if you refuse the flight due to SAFETY/AIRWORTHINESS.
im not a layman, obviously we know better what goes on.
LISTEN im indifferent to whatever anyone thinks ok, im not looking for attention here, It was your judgemental conclusion about aircrew not handling the crash properly , well if the aircraft was sooo safe why did it not respond according to the set procedures? since you are un affected by the incident in any way you can say so. AP-BAL had a bad record....
no denying the fact. and if the aircraft are that safe PIA shud just restart flying the fokker fleet and oh may i say MR.Kirmani should be on each one of it!
Full Thrust I have gathered youve been busy commenting on a variety of comments while I was away.Here is the data you inquired for:
AP was engaged; #2
Indicated Airspeed on F/O indicator it cannot be ascertained as ADC1 is the source to FDAU for recorded data.Alternate air data source switching was at normal meaning ADC1 data goes to #1 altimeter and ADC 2 data to F/O altimeter.
What was the Indicated Airspeed on Standby arameter is not required in FDR so cannot be ascertained.
At what time crew disengaged AP and AT
PF was #1.
Source of VMO+131Kts was ADC1 .CAS #2 data is not recorded.
I very clearly remember, Pk engineers were doing their job very well, and the management was trying to kill their package raise by every available means.
It is almost 6-7 years back, may be more, one engineer refused to dispatch an A300B4 on the next flight because there was a bird strike on one engine. The then Director Engineering Mr. S.U. Zaman was shown the door, because he pressurized that engineer to dispatch it like that, without having BSI (Borescope Inspection) of that engine. Somehow CAA Airworthiness got involved, the aircraft was impounded and the BSI was done. The same engine was replaced before the next flight.
Listen FULLTHRUST< i know ur on the maintenance dept or have sum connection ....... let me tell u one thing. What ever gibberish or technical crap u utter here>> it was claerly the sick aged aircraft alone! Plus the fact that it was over loaded.
Notwithsatanding the pain and grief of loosing a father, PK 757 must not lose the norms of decent language in this highly professional forum. And if any thing FULLTHRUST has no role to be blamed (even if he is from PIA Technical Deptt)
...dont try to shut me up with your technicalities as we all know that only a handful of ppl are familiar with the terms that u use .
There is nothing wong in that, at least there is someone who is giving us the facts and not mere heresay and armchair opinions (as most do) based on conjectures and spaculations.
.....and plus its very easy to blame the pilots when they are no longer there for explanations! U better watch before u speak .
I think aircraft accident investigation is so advanced that we can exactly find the cause of an accident. And a recent study by boeing says more than 55% aviation accidents are caused by pilots (flight crew) and only 4% due to human factor by other players (air traffic controller error, improper loading of aircraft, improper maintenance, fuel contamination, language miscommunication ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_a ... _incidents
the aircraft is grounded pending AIRBUS check plan which they have confirmed they are sending to PIA>Initially they confirmed it would come in 10 days but PIA is still waiting.
BDZ has been docked in base maintenance for the Airbus Industrie *Check Plan* for its flight beyond the Flight Profiles. It will be in the hangar till Dec. 28th, and probably followed by the Check *C* package and cabin refurbishment plan.
It is uncertain as of today that it will fly again.
AP-BDZ is undergoing intitial set of checks given by AIRBUS to PIA and the task involves removal of both engines and inspections of pylons and struts for fatigue.The pass status of these checks shall be followed by another set of checks which will be given after PIA confirms the status of the current tests.However AIRBUS has acknowledged the loss to PIA for grounding of the aircraft owing thier delay in providing advice and have assured an early resolve to the issue.
Yes, from what I have heard, this a/c was subjected to speeds approaching Mach 2 during the dive and Airbus officials are going through that a/c with a fine tooth comb.
Airbus personnel are mesmerised that their a/c was able to sustain such an extreme situation without coming apart that they have asked PIA to hand over this a/c to them to take back to France for further testing and evaluation and they have offered to compensate PIA with new a/c in return, an offer which PIA is said to have accepted.
This is a big deal for Airbus as its the first time that one of their a/c has had to endure such abuse and not sustain any noticeable damage, hence they are most keen to take back this a/c for use as a test bed.
from what I have learnt from very reliable sources Moin I dont think there is any such proposal for aircraft replacement nor was there extreme of extremes exceedances in speed ,furthermore the airframe is designed to withsatnd much more extremes it is just the safety and preventive measures or condition monitored approach in maintenance philosophy which is causing all the big issue.BDZ is being planned to be operational within 15-20 dys as initial tests are almost underway.AIRBUS has requested PIA engineering to carry out all the checks and provide feedback.
arameter is not required in FDR so cannot be ascertained.
