PIA A320 in Karachi: loss of power after GA, crashed in residential area during final approach

An open discussion of aviation safety related issues.

Moderators: FrankM, el, Dmmoore

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 3659
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: PIA A320 in Karachi: loss of power after GA, crashed in residential area during final approach

Postby Gabriel » Wed May 27, 2020 4:11 am


User avatar
monchavo
Site Admin
Posts: 1240
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 9:21 am

Re: PIA A320 in Karachi: loss of power after GA, crashed in residential area during final approach

Postby monchavo » Fri May 29, 2020 12:34 pm

monchavo speculation

I am concerned that the CVR has not been recovered and I believe that the longer it remains "missing" the less likely "we" are to find it, due to the impact of what it will contain and the potential reputation damage to PIA. Nation state actors, culture and poverty will play a part here with the unfortunate spectre of bribery and corruption looming large. I very much hope that the box is recovered.

Post Edit: I note that the CVR has now reportedly been recovered. I leave my commentary above for posterity.

I think the situation inside the cockpit will be the deciding factor in the cause of the incident, and I absolutely believe that basic human factors like bewilderment, fear and panic will have played a part in what we saw unfold. Although the CVR seems to reflect calm voices I am absolutely unconvinced that they were in control of the situation and that a number of small ingredients together combined resulted in this event - "an awful co-incidence". These i cite as:

- Poor interpretation of data and hubris around being able to correct the approach
- Distraction. An overload of information as the landing approach reached the critical phase - and a "somebody everybody nobody" situation where one pilot looks at the other and goes "I thought you were lowering the gear?" "No, I thought you were".
- Panic. The bewilderment of expecting one outcome when actions are taken and the airframe not responding - the engines dragging - then a sort of "shit what do I do now" moment - and the initiation of the go-around without understanding the implications and the damage their craft had sustained

The rest is history, It feels awful to say this but it is a shame that one of the engines didn't separate from the pylon during the dragging, such an extreme event might have forced their hand and necessitated an emergency stoppage.
____
Join the airdisaster Discord - https://discord.gg/A59Vdw73ET

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 3659
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: PIA A320 in Karachi: loss of power after GA, crashed in residential area during final approach

Postby Gabriel » Fri May 29, 2020 1:07 pm

My leading speculation at this moment is (I have other candidates):

They came in too high and fast, forgot the gear up due to the overload during the "iffy" approach, no checklist or rushed checklist, and possible overlapping, disabling and/or misinterpretation of warnings, touched down too fast and too far down the runway with the gear up, with still a lot of speed/lift and no spoilers / reverses / brakes and the plane intermittently "skipping" on the engines the plane was barely slowing down at all, too fast, too far down the runway and not slowing down is a problem, so THEN they decide to go around because they judge that the plane would not stop in time.

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 8136
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: PIA A320 in Karachi: loss of power after GA, crashed in residential area during final approach

Postby 3WE » Fri May 29, 2020 1:52 pm

My leading speculation at this moment is (I have other candidates)
I am STILL talking myself in circles.

The cowboy idiocy thing is seeming more likely....BUT...

...when you get behind, you USUALLY forget something SMALL.

In this case
, they (sort of) forgot EVERYTHING...No gear, no flaps, no attention to target speeds, no s-turn or 360...

And they had SOME time to work on at least a FEW of these items...1500 feet and 15 miles (pulled the 15 miles out of my rear).

(There's another side of me wondering about the procedure vs fundamentals tension...like "we have to give the landing briefing, we have to check in with ops, this acronym, that acroym, and they forget gear, flaps and reasonable speeds???)


The lack of landing preparations is hard to explain...just like not telling ATC "we have a problem".

We'll have to wait for the CVR...
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
monchavo
Site Admin
Posts: 1240
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 9:21 am

Re: PIA A320 in Karachi: loss of power after GA, crashed in residential area during final approach

Postby monchavo » Fri May 29, 2020 2:09 pm

It's ok to post thoughts or speculation in regular size text. Making it very small impedes the discussion somewhat.

Let us try to think of the matters which may have caused the initial issue - trying to keep these as realistic as possible

- A disagreement between the pilots - either one that is evident or one that is historic - thus destroying the "sanitised" or "clean" cockpit environment
- Fatigue of both of the pilots; whilst presenting with an apparently "awake" mentality both are in fact very or dangerously tired
- The presence of something which impaired their judgement. Alcohol, drugs, reduced oxygen, poison, fumes
- Pressure, perceived or real around status, the loss of status and losing face
- Cultural issues around respect, or lack of respect causing a distraction
- A third party with an agenda or simply acting as a distraction (for example a senior manager in the jump seat
- The failure of an instrument to provide a correct reading thereby giving false information and a lack of experience as to how to deal with this situation once discovered
____
Join the airdisaster Discord - https://discord.gg/A59Vdw73ET

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 8136
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: PIA A320 in Karachi: loss of power after GA, crashed in residential area during final approach

Postby 3WE » Fri May 29, 2020 2:56 pm

Quote = Monchie: Red = 3BS

It's ok to post thoughts or speculation in regular size text. Making it very small impedes the discussion somewhat. Apologies, my tiny font was comments that I considered 50% off-topic/not DIRECTLY relevant

Let us try to think of the matters which may have caused the initial issue - trying to keep these as realistic as possible

- A disagreement between the pilots - either one that is evident or one that is historic - thus destroying the "sanitised" or "clean" cockpit environment
Disconcur- I am going to begin ranting that you don't blow "everything" from 15K to landing- you do SOMETHING to add some drag...Can't reconcile them doing soooo little to address the height just because their CRM is off.

- Fatigue of both of the pilots; whilst presenting with an apparently "awake" mentality both are in fact very or dangerously tired Dead-tired tunnel-vision...interesting

- The presence of something which impaired their judgement. Alcohol, drugs, reduced oxygen, poison, fumes Interesting

- Pressure, perceived or real around status, the loss of status and losing face Disconcur- again, they seem to have skipped soooo many things you'd do even if you are "incorrectly diving from being too high"

- Cultural issues around respect, or lack of respect causing a distraction Broken record..you'll still DO something...some flaps, gear is draggy...SOMETHING

- A third party with an agenda or simply acting as a distraction (for example a senior manager in the jump seat OR...someone there doing something nefarious.

- The failure of an instrument to provide a correct reading thereby giving false information and a lack of experience as to how to deal with this situation once discovered Again, a square peg for a round hole...why not some flaps or wheels out to assist with the steep descent.

PS...Am I THAT OUT OF LINE to think that you would "pull up, slow to flap/gear speeds" and do some drag surfaces???
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
monchavo
Site Admin
Posts: 1240
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 9:21 am

Re: PIA A320 in Karachi: loss of power after GA, crashed in residential area during final approach

Postby monchavo » Fri May 29, 2020 5:49 pm

PS...Am I THAT OUT OF LINE to think that you would "pull up, slow to flap/gear speeds" and do some drag surfaces???[/color]
No. You make a good point. Something does appear to be catastrophically wrong. But consider multiples of the issues I shared above?
____
Join the airdisaster Discord - https://discord.gg/A59Vdw73ET

User avatar
Verbal
Posts: 3576
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:04 pm
Location: Planet Bacterion

Re: PIA A320 in Karachi: loss of power after GA, crashed in residential area during final approach

Postby Verbal » Fri May 29, 2020 6:12 pm

Or maybe they were all but out of fuel...(Citation: Verbal).
Concur.
"I'm putting an end to this f*ckery." - Rayna Boyanov

User avatar
Verbal
Posts: 3576
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:04 pm
Location: Planet Bacterion

Re: PIA A320 in Karachi: loss of power after GA, crashed in residential area during final approach

Postby Verbal » Fri May 29, 2020 6:17 pm

If they attempted a gear up landing, whither the ground proximity warning?
"I'm putting an end to this f*ckery." - Rayna Boyanov

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 8136
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: PIA A320 in Karachi: loss of power after GA, crashed in residential area during final approach

Postby 3WE » Fri May 29, 2020 7:48 pm

Or maybe they were all but out of fuel...(Citation: Verbal).
Concur.
A good reason to be wheeless and flapless almost all the way down from 15K and (with minor misjudgement) to arrive 50 knots fast...

NOT a good reason to be wheeless as you cross the fence and from the arm chair, would also hope for a better speed then, too...
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 3659
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: PIA A320 in Karachi: loss of power after GA, crashed in residential area during final approach

Postby Gabriel » Sat May 30, 2020 12:22 am

(I posted this there too, sorry, but I thought it was relevant)

This is an example of how an accident like this could happen

http://avherald.com/h?article=4d7fb6f3&opt=0
An Bulgarian Air Charter McDonnell Douglas MD-82, registration LZ-LDM performing flight 1T-8115 from Catania (Italy) to Lourdes (France) with 136 passengers and 6 crew, was on an ILS approach to Tarbes-Lourdes-Pyrennees Airport's runway 20, the first officer (39, CPL, 2000 hours total, 1200 hours on type) was pilot flying, the captain (61, ATPL, 24,200 hours total, 6,100 hours on type) was pilot monitoring. The approach was fully stabilized, at 470 feet AGL the first officer disengaged the autopilot but kept autothrust active in SPEED mode maintaining 140 KIAS. Immediately after the first officer switched to manual control of the aircraft strong gusts and rain occurred, the aircraft began to drift left off both localizer and below the glideslope. The captain took control of the aircraft, corrected with a right bank and increased pitch, however, despite autothrust the aircraft continued to descend below the glide. Descending through 100 feet AGL the aircraft was completely out of all parameters for a stabilized approach, significantly below the glide, however, the captain did not call for a go around. Descending through 85 feet the captain disengaged autothrust. At a height of 58 feet the captain increased the pitch from about 4 to 11 degrees and initiated a go around, however, without adjusting engine thrust or activating TOGA, at that point the aircraft was 480 meters before the runway threshold at a height of 40+/-5 feet. The aircraft flew parallel to the ground for about 10 seconds, crossed the runway threshold at 37 feet AGL and 129 KIAS. The first officer, growing increasingly concerned, offered a call "GO AROUND". About 5 seconds later, about 350 meters past the runway threshold, the captain ordered "Go Around" and pressed the TOGA button, but did not notice that autothrust was still off and did not push the thrust levers into the position for Go Around. The aircraft travelled a further 830 meters parallel to the runway with minimal engine thrust nearing angles of attack close to stall. The first officer also did not notice the thruttle levers did not move and thus did not assist to take the engines into TOGA power. The aircraft began to slightly climb, the flaps were reduced from 40 to 11 degrees in one selection, the landing gear was retracted, at 88 feet AGL and 118 KIAS the target altitude for the go around was armed, the target speed selected to 180 KIAS and the spoilers disarmed. The speed reached a minimum of 116 KIAS at a pitch of 15 degrees nose up, the aircraft began to descend again. While disarming the spoilers the first officer noticed the thrust levers were not in the TOGA position, informed the captain and was instructed to set TOGA. At 71 feet AGL and 119 KIAS the thrust levers were aggresively pushed forward, the engines accelerated from about EPR 1.3 to EPR 2.04 (left) and 2.14 (right). At 50 feet AGL, 124 KIAS and 20 degrees nose up the aircraft began to climb again, speed increased and pitch/angle of attack reduced. The aircraft had travelled a total of 1680 meters without sufficient thrust at critical angles of attack.

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 8136
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: PIA A320 in Karachi: loss of power after GA, crashed in residential area during final approach

Postby 3WE » Sat May 30, 2020 6:41 pm

(I posted this there too, sorry, but I thought it was relevant)

This is an example of how an accident like this could happen
No. Not_relevant.

They arrive at 400 ft, stabilized and hit a storm.

This does not address flyboy’s genius question of the millennium- What happened way earlier to get them high and flap and wheel limited?
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 3659
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: PIA A320 in Karachi: loss of power after GA, crashed in residential area during final approach

Postby Gabriel » Sat May 30, 2020 11:35 pm

No. Not_relevant.

They arrive at 400 ft, stabilized and hit a storm.

This does not address flyboy’s genius question of the millennium- What happened way earlier to get them high and flap and wheel limited?
I agree it is not relevant too all that happened before the runway threshold, but it shows a real-life scenario of a go-around combined with dragging the plane on the runway (which this MD80 almost did).

User avatar
monchavo
Site Admin
Posts: 1240
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 9:21 am

Re: PIA A320 in Karachi: loss of power after GA, crashed in residential area during final approach

Postby monchavo » Mon Jun 01, 2020 7:34 pm

If they attempted a gear up landing, whither the ground proximity warning?
would you have expected to hear it in the audio we've heard so far?
____
Join the airdisaster Discord - https://discord.gg/A59Vdw73ET

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 8136
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: PIA A320 in Karachi: loss of power after GA, crashed in residential area during final approach

Postby 3WE » Mon Jun 01, 2020 7:46 pm

If they attempted a gear up landing, whither the ground proximity warning?
would you have expected to hear it in the audio we've heard so far?
I read, in a not-very-reliable source, that the GPWS will "trump" the gear indication... (for example they were descending fast enough that they should get "terrain, pull up" warnings....)

I have ZERO clue, nada, nothing to suggest that 1) it is true, 2) that said "pull up warnings WERE happening" 3) that there would be any reasonable likliehood of it happening in this case...
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 3659
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: PIA A320 in Karachi: loss of power after GA, crashed in residential area during final approach

Postby Gabriel » Mon Jun 01, 2020 9:36 pm

If you descend from 5000ft to zero in about 2 minutes, you are going to get GPWS warnings as long as the system is working. There is no way that this descent will not be within the GPWS warning profile (first "sink rate" and then "woop woop pull up").

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 8136
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: PIA A320 in Karachi: loss of power after GA, crashed in residential area during final approach

Postby 3WE » Mon Jun 01, 2020 10:49 pm

If you descend from 5000ft to zero in about 2 minutes, you are going to get GPWS warnings as long as the system is working. There is no way that this descent will not be within the GPWS warning profile (first "sink rate" and then "woop woop pull up").
Did you really have to post when you did not_ (and I ass-ume could not_)answer the most important question?
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 3659
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: PIA A320 in Karachi: loss of power after GA, crashed in residential area during final approach

Postby Gabriel » Tue Jun 02, 2020 12:43 am

Did you really have to post when you did not_ (and I ass-ume could not_)answer the most important question?
I've already said that I like pinapple on my pizza!!!

Oh, the other question....

Well, not an answer really because, as you say, I don't have one, but...

I also hear the rumor that the "sink rate" and "whoop whoop pull up" warnings take precedence over the "too low - gear" one. Just as you, I don't know if that is true.

But the GPWS can be inhibited. Not only that, but you can inhibit individual portions of it.

For example, if you know you have a gear issue and are going to make an emergency landing without all the legs down and locked, you will probably want to inhibit the "too low- gear" warning. If you are knowingly doing a steep approach, you can inhibit the "sink rate" one. Or if you are approaching over raising terrain because your runway is on the top of a mountain, you can inhibit the "terrain" one (that is based on RadAlt sink rate). Of course you can also flip the 3 switches at once so you don't need to see which switch is the one you are looking for. Since the pilots knew that they were doing a steep approach, it would not be surprising if they decided to inhibit the GPWS and instead of inhibiting just the "sink rate" one they inhibited all.

Finally, when they acknowledge the first "cleared to land" you can hear what Flyboy explained was the Continuous Repeated Chime (CRC), which is the master warning and I think that that one cannot be reset or inhibited. The reason why it was sounding may have been related with the gear not being down. However, this is a "one-size-fits-all" kind of alarm and you need to look down to the ECAM to read why is it chiming now.

Better?

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 8136
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: PIA A320 in Karachi: loss of power after GA, crashed in residential area during final approach

Postby 3WE » Tue Jun 02, 2020 1:37 pm

Better?
Not really...

The question is how in the hell do you forget the gear on Evan's PROPERLY designed aeroplanie with lots of computer automation that we [big time italics] ass-ume SHOULD remind the pilots to put the gear down...that question remains unanswered.

That someone is doing an old-fashioned, no-hubris-required, steep approach seems to be a BAD reason to make the gear warning not_function.

A little bit too much fancy automation for cowboy idiot pilots (the computer decides not_to remind them of the gear) instead of maybe having some primary warnings (gear, GPWS, stall, overspeed that go straight to the panel instead of all of that passing through HAL and getting analyzed, prioritized and modified).

But, thanks for the acknowledgement, and it's VERY rare I eat pineapple on pizza...it's SOUNDS just as illogical as suppressing gear warnings, but amazingly the pizza is good...not_happy with this ALLEDGED, BUT NOT CONFIRMED, gear theory, however.
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 3659
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: PIA A320 in Karachi: loss of power after GA, crashed in residential area during final approach

Postby Gabriel » Wed Jun 03, 2020 10:39 pm

Flyboy, a couple questions if I may.

Scenario:

The pilot lowers the landing gear lever but the gear doesn't come down because the plane being faster than the gear extension speed limit.

Questions:

Is that scenario realistic? (i.e. will the plane "refuse" to lower the gear if you are going too fast? (And what would be that limit speed? I found 250 but I don't know how reliable is that)
What indication would the pilot receive of this condition? (people is saying the CRC master warning and a red ECAM message saying "Gear not downlocked" or something like that).
What will happen if you leave the lever down and you eventually slow down to below to that limit speed? Will now the gear come down or do you need to recycle the lever?

Trying to see how the speculation in this video / sim re-enactment fits with facts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zO5rXxJRmf4&t=617s

User avatar
flyboy2548m
Posts: 4383
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
Location: Ormond Beach, FL

Re: PIA A320 in Karachi: loss of power after GA, crashed in residential area during final approach

Postby flyboy2548m » Thu Jun 04, 2020 3:16 am

Flyboy, a couple questions if I may.

Scenario:

The pilot lowers the landing gear lever but the gear doesn't come down because the plane being faster than the gear extension speed limit.

Questions:

Is that scenario realistic? (i.e. will the plane "refuse" to lower the gear if you are going too fast? (And what would be that limit speed? I found 250 but I don't know how reliable is that)
What indication would the pilot receive of this condition? (people is saying the CRC master warning and a red ECAM message saying "Gear not downlocked" or something like that).
What will happen if you leave the lever down and you eventually slow down to below to that limit speed? Will now the gear come down or do you need to recycle the lever?

Trying to see how the speculation in this video / sim re-enactment fits with facts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zO5rXxJRmf4&t=617s
I'm touched. Truly.

The Vle for extension is, in fact, 250kts/M.60. You're correct on the ECAM. I don't see anywhere in our books where it says the gear would "auto-extend" below that speed, but I will ask.

The scenario in the video, however, has another problem. It has the gear "auto-extend" only once they're on RAT power. That's for sure crap, because they'd be only on the blue system, which, as I'm sure you know only too well, has nothing to do with the landing gear. So, they would have had to gravity extend the gear at that point.
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"

-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 3659
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: PIA A320 in Karachi: loss of power after GA, crashed in residential area during final approach

Postby Gabriel » Thu Jun 04, 2020 5:06 am

Thank you. And,I didn't know either that the RAT powered the blue system or that it was unrelated to the gear extension.

Perhaps they lowered it before losing all the engine-driven hydraulics, or perhaps they used the gravity back up. But they the gear was extended for sure shortly before the crash (at least the left main was)

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 8136
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

THERE HAS BEEN A NEAR-TOTAL HARD-BOILED EGG DISASTER!!!!!

Postby 3WE » Thu Jun 04, 2020 5:15 pm

Gabieee: Question
flyboyeee: Gracious answer
flyboy,

Please answer the question Gabriel should of asked: Are there obvious and insidious scenarios where one could land an Airbus gear up, without the plane's safety systems pitching a "gear-up" bitch-fit of some sort?

PS, This morning I forgot I was making hard boiled eggs, ran the pot dry and had explody eggs all over the modern, cook-by-wire stove.
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
flyboy2548m
Posts: 4383
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
Location: Ormond Beach, FL

Re: THERE HAS BEEN A NEAR-TOTAL HARD-BOILED EGG DISASTER!!!!!

Postby flyboy2548m » Fri Jun 05, 2020 4:01 pm

flyboy,

Please answer the question Gabriel should of asked: Are there obvious and insidious scenarios where one could land an Airbus gear up, without the plane's safety systems pitching a "gear-up" bitch-fit of some sort?

PS, This morning I forgot I was making hard boiled eggs, ran the pot dry and had explody eggs all over the modern, cook-by-wire stove.
I suppose anything is possible, but what you're describing would take quite a few unrelated failures. It would take at the very least for two ECAMs to not show up, for a red arrow in the gear handle panel not show up, and for the GPWS TOO LOW, GEAR to not get triggered. I don't see that happening...

I'm still not understanding how just being hot and high on the approach ended like this. I mean, hell, if one is, for some reason, hell-bent on NOT going around, 3500' is plenty high enough to do a 360 with a nice smooth descent while performing said 360. I've had my share of getthereitis, but this seems a little excessive.
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"

-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 3659
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: THERE HAS BEEN A NEAR-TOTAL HARD-BOILED EGG DISASTER!!!!!

Postby Gabriel » Fri Jun 05, 2020 5:43 pm

I suppose anything is possible, but what you're describing would take quite a few unrelated failures. It would take at the very least for two ECAMs to not show up, for a red arrow in the gear handle panel not show up, and for the GPWS TOO LOW, GEAR to not get triggered. I don't see that happening...

I'm still not understanding how just being hot and high on the approach ended like this. I mean, hell, if one is, for some reason, hell-bent on NOT going around, 3500' is plenty high enough to do a 360 with a nice smooth descent while performing said 360. I've had my share of getthereitis, but this seems a little excessive.
Yes, and as you imply, even then... trying to salvage a very high-and-hot approach without even doing a 360 or S-turns is one thing, but from there to landing with the gear up is still a long stretch.

Continuing to my questionnaire....

Is it true that if the "sink rate" or the "woop woop pull up" warning is continuously sounding the "too low gear" will not sound?

Do you think it is plausible (because you already said that anything is possible) that inhibited the GPWS warnings. Perhaps the sink rate and flaps one was intentional (at the speed they seem to have been coming according the FR24 data, they could not have had more than 1+F) and they just went a head and flipped all the switches instead of taking care to select the ones they really wanted? No definitive answers, but just your pilot perspective trying to put yourself in their gettheritis mindset.


Return to “Aviation Safety Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest