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

[3WE]

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.

And am I all wet thinking it might not be the craziest thing to go ahead and get the gear out to generate some drag...(unless you have a genuine fuel concern)???

It might require that hugely complicated QRH procedure of trimming up and slowing down, but I think I read somewhere that jet aeroplanies are kind of clean and can require a little planning and sometimes drag for descending...

/outsider ass hat pontification.

[Gabriel]

And am I all wet thinking it might not be the craziest thing to go ahead and get the gear out to generate some drag

Speculation by some is that they were too fast to lower the gear.

I in general don't endorse that one... unless this sequence was possible:
- They attempted to lower the gear when they were still very high and fast (FR24 data shows that they had been below 250 knots for a long time / distance before touchdown).
- They lowered the gear lever but the plane refused to lower the gear because of exceeding the gear extension speed limit of 250 knots (flyboy confirmed that the plane would indeed refuse to lower the gear in such condition).
- They thought that they had lowered the gear (they lowered the lever after all) and, with the lever still down and after refusing to go down due to speed, the landing gear would not come down by itself once the plane slows down (i.e. if it requires r cycling the lever). This system behavior is pending confirmation.
- And it requires all the relevant alarms, ECAM messages and lights failing to act or being missed/ignored.

[Gabriel]

What is that unbearably annoying beeping sound?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5McECUtM8fw&t=2s

[3WE]

And am I all wet thinking it might not be the craziest thing to go ahead and get the gear out to generate some drag

Speculation by some is that they were too fast to lower the gear.

@#%@#%!

You did read the very next sentence...correct?

And also the part perhaps airliners are kind of clean and hard to descend?

I'm well aware that they may have been too fast for flaps or gear...but not too different from Flyboys comment- PLENTY OF TIME to address the situation...given the report that up at 15K, they were too close in/too high...soooo many easy fixes AND time...and how that turns into landing gear up...

I know- "pitch controls airspeed" is one of those fundamental rules of thumb, that even has some fallacies.

The correct procedure is to dial in a lower number into the autopilot speed control thing (with lots of aconyms)

And given that this is third worldish, we can't have fundamentals NOR procedures...we gonna screw it all up.

[Gabriel]

And am I all wet thinking it might not be the craziest thing to go ahead and get the gear out to generate some drag

Speculation by some is that they were too fast to lower the gear.

@#%@#%!

You did read the very next sentence...correct?

And also the part perhaps airliners are kind of clean and hard to descend?

I'm well aware that they may have been too fast for flaps or gear...but not too different from Flyboys comment- PLENTY OF TIME to address the situation...given the report that up at 15K, they were too close in/too high...soooo many easy fixes AND time...and how that turns into landing gear up...

I know- "pitch controls airspeed" is one of those fundamental rules of thumb, that even has some fallacies.

The correct procedure is to dial in a lower number into the autopilot speed control thing (with lots of aconyms)

And given that this is third worldish, we can't have fundamentals NOR procedures...we gonna screw it all up.

I will give another chance to read my post before I reply to that nonsense (not nonsense in itself but in the context of reacting to my comment).

[3WE]

I will give another chance to read my post before I reply to that nonsense (not nonsense in itself but in the context of reacting to my comment).

You know how flyboy sometimes just posts "Yes" or "No"?

As I reread your post, I think you were trying to say "Yes" in Gabrielian style.

flyboy continues to scare me with his discernment and educational efforts at these fora...so often the accuracy is frighening.

[Gabriel]

As I reread your post, I think you were trying to say "Yes" in Gabrielian style.

Sort of.

In a nutshell (or 2) what I am trying to say is that perhaps (big perhaps here) they tried to lower the landing gear and thought that they did lower it and failed to check and confirm that it was down.

This theory can quickly go from "big perhaps" to "interesting" or to "almost impossible" depending on what happens when you move the gear lever down, the plane refuses to obey due to overspeed, and then the speed goes down.

[3WE]

As I reread your post, I think you were trying to say "Yes" in Gabrielian style.

Sort of.

In a nutshell (or 2) what I am trying to say is that perhaps (big perhaps here) they tried to lower the landing gear and thought that they did lower it and failed to check and confirm that it was down.

This theory can quickly go from "big perhaps" to "interesting" or to "almost impossible" depending on what happens when you move the gear lever down, the plane refuses to obey due to overspeed, and then the speed goes down.

Noted.

Need the CVR. How can you be going fast, drop the gear handle and NOT note the lack of noise and INCREASED DRAG...(this is a counterpoint, not an intent to dismiss the theory as impossible)

I feel and hear the grumbling wind it in the back when the gear is extended at ‘normal’ speeds.

[flyboy2548m]

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.

As to the first, nothing in my books confirms nor denies that. I imagine that might be the case since "pull up" is more critical than "too low gear", but I'm not seeing anything textual to that effect. That said, our books only apply to our serial number and mod number range, which is different from PIA birds, so theirs may use different software and the like.

As to the second, I suppose that's plausible, but it seems like way more work than just doing one spinaround and getting the silly thing lower.

[Gabriel]

Thank you flyboy.

[3WE]

On May 28th 2020 local sources reported the data module of the CVR was found underneath parts of the wreckage while the wreckage was being removed from the crash site. Pakistan's Aviation Minister announced a preliminary report will be released on Jun 22nd 2020. 51 bodies have been identified so far. The French BEA is going to take FDR and CVR to France for repair, download and analysis.

On May 30th 2020 the BEA announced the work at the crash site is about to be completed, the teams of BEA, Airbus, engine manufacturers Safran and CFM as well as Pakistan's AAIB will subsequently fly to France. Technical work on the black boxes is going to statt on Jun 2nd 2020.

On Jun 1st 2020 the aircraft carrying the investigation teams and the black boxes safely completed the journey from Pakistan to Paris.

On Jun 2nd 2020 the BEA reported both FDR and CVR have been downloaded successfully. Analysis of the data is in progress.

On Jun 5th 2020 the BEA reported download and decoding of both recorders was completed, analysis of the data is ongoing.

!@$%%@!....Can we not issue a preliminary statement..."The FA told the captain that 10 cell phones have spontaneiously caught fire"...OR..."The crew was in a hot debate over the standing of Pakistan vs. Indian cricket teams and forgot to descend"...OR..."The plane was extremely low on fuel so they decided no flaps, no spoilers, no wheels and some excess altitude so they don't come up short".

[flyboy2548m]

Per my Fleet Chief.

In the simulator, the gear handle was selected down at 280kts. The gear did not move, there was no ECAM. The only thing that did happen was red "UNLK" lights illuminated on the gear indication panel. At approximately 260kts, the L/G GEAR NOT DOWNLKD ECAM came up. Once airspeed dropped below 250kts, the gear extended normally WITHOUT recycling the gear handle.

[3WE]

Per my Fleet Chief.

In the simulator...

And, how did the go-around-after-landing-on-the-engines turn out?

Snarky comment aside, thanks for the information.

[Gabriel]

Thank you flyboy.

That makes me think that they never lowered the lever in the first place. According to FR24 data, they were doing very fast for final approach standards but well below 250 kts quite a bit before touchdown, If the gear lever was lowered early while still at a too high speed and left there, the gear would eventually have come down by itself when they slowed down below 250 kts, well before touchdown. The assumptions here are the FR24 data and the sim are reasonably accurate.

[monchavo]

Per my Fleet Chief.

In the simulator, the gear handle was selected down at 280kts. The gear did not move, there was no ECAM. The only thing that did happen was red "UNLK" lights illuminated on the gear indication panel. At approximately 260kts, the L/G GEAR NOT DOWNLKD ECAM came up. Once airspeed dropped below 250kts, the gear extended normally WITHOUT recycling the gear handle.

This is an interesting experience. The pilot commands the plane to do something - the plane thinks it knows better and so does not do the commanded thing. What would be the reason for the plane not to put the gear out when commanded?

[3WE]

If you are going too fast, things (gear doors) tend to tear off...

The plane sort of DOES know better...

Cue ad nauseam debate of whether computers or people have the final say.

[flyboy2548m]

This is an interesting experience. The pilot commands the plane to do something - the plane thinks it knows better and so does not do the commanded thing. What would be the reason for the plane not to put the gear out when commanded?

There are numerous things numerous planes won't necessarily do when commanded. That's a whole separate topic.

[3WE]

This is an interesting experience. The pilot commands the plane to do something - the plane thinks it knows better and so does not do the commanded thing. What would be the reason for the plane not to put the gear out when commanded?

There are numerous things numerous planes won't necessarily do when commanded. That's a whole separate topic.

Poor, well-meaning Pilot: I command you to not_ gently descend into these trees...

Cheap French-designed FBW Composite Crackerbox: No.

Apologies.

[Gabriel]

This is an interesting experience. The pilot commands the plane to do something - the plane thinks it knows better and so does not do the commanded thing. What would be the reason for the plane not to put the gear out when commanded?

There are numerous things numerous planes won't necessarily do when commanded. That's a whole separate topic.

Poor, well-meaning Pilot: I command you to not_ gently descend into these trees...

Cheap French-designed FBW Composite Crackerbox: No.

Apologies.

You beat me to it.

My first thought when I saw Monchie's comment was...
Right, like when the plane would not glide further, climb better, keep the nose up, or keep running with no fuel, despite the plot commanding so.

In the case you mention, it didn't take a FBW plane for the plane to refuse to not_hit the trees. It did require a FBW plane to do so gently.

[Gabriel]

That said, I do remember having read, decades ago, that a valid emergency procedure to recover from a Mach tuck (an overspeed dive caused by shock waves forming on the wing and moving the center of lift further back, which in general cannot be fully arrested by pulling up) was to lower the gear. The idea was that the doors would fly away but the gear would resist, adding a lot of drag and helping slow down. And the same could be done to avoid an imminent overspend (and a Mach tuck) if you found yourself in an unintended dive (due to loss of control or upset), lowering the gear would avoid overspending and would thus help in the recovery. The same piece advised against extending spoilers in those conditions for some reason that I don't remember (perhaps they would lower the nose further, exacerbating the dive).

I don't remember the details. It might have been a type-specific thing (Learjet comes to mind).

[3WE]

I do remember having read, decades ago,

Some guys, did exactly that in a 727 and a somewhat classic story, some decades ago.

It was indeed Cowboy improvisation, but might have saved the day.

Upon further investigation, (CVR) there was also Monkey Idiocy as they were knowingly screwing around with a high-speed descent...maybe not intending to get into the tuck, but wanting to be right there at "the redline" instead of a more procedurally-sound speed...

ReReReReReReReReReReRepeating...the computer monitors things...maybe it does INDEED not_lower the gear...does there need to be a big red override on the touch screen- LOWER THE GD GEAR HAL, I NEED IT OR WE'RE GONNA DID DIED!?!?!

And reading between the lines (and putting words in flyboy's mouth), it sounds like the warnings that HAL is not_lowering the gear might, arguably, be a bit understated and cryptic.

[Gabriel]

Another video from the "unwatchable guy".

Interesting because he brings up factual evidence (ATC report) that completes the picture we already had from the FR24 ADS-B data and little pieces of Live ATC.

Basically, the plane came in way too high and too fast, was advised by ATC of the situation multiple times since quite early (when the were like 10 miles out with 10K feet), suggesting and even instructing them to break off the approach which the crew declined repeating that they were "comfortable" with the approach. They crossed the threshold at 210 knots. Too fast to land, too fast to have any meaningful landing flap setting (only 1+F). But not too fast to have the gear down which, although the ATC report doesn't mention anything about the condition of the gear at any point, evidently was still not down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IteVhWhxsP4&t=19s

[monchavo]

I think we are getting closer to the truth

- The crew approach fast, perhaps they are distracted or misinformed, or one of them thinks the other will "do something about it"
- The flaps are incorrectly set due to rushing, confusion or simple incompetence - or even hubris and that a fast landing is "entirely within the envelope" - this of course is nonsense, but bear with me
- The gear lever is lowered too early and the plane responds by not lowering the gear as it deems speed too high - critically the gear does not then extend once the target speed is reached because "reasons" - the crew "had" to recycle the lever in order for the gear to descend, but neither was sufficiently experienced to realise this - or because such an obscure fact was lost to them
- The plane drags on the runway and - as I mentioned in my previous summary - the crew do not realise until it is far, far too late

the holes in the cheese are slowly appearing

[monchavo]

My first thought when I saw Monchie's comment was...
Right, like when the plane would not glide further, climb better, keep the nose up, or keep running with no fuel, despite the plot commanding so.

If you command the plane to turn left, turn right, climb or descend then it will do so - I had perhaps foolishly put "lower the gear" in this same category. Command in my context is akin to a physical action - the consequences of that action are not relevant.

[3WE]

the holes in the cheese are slowly appearing

Disconcur.

They had a LLLLOOOONNNNGGGG time to address speed and altitude and did little.

There's this thing called "the landing checklist" stuff like, "gear down, three green"..."flaps, set"..."speed checks".

I'm not saying it's not GROSS incompetence- but they screwd up soooo many obvious things.

Gabe's new stall thing had lots of GOOFY ideas, but they served him OK for a lot of hours of flight, these guys blew LOTS of BIG things as opposed to lots of little things.