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

[Not_Karl]

AvHerald:
A PIA Pakistan International Airlines A320-200 (...) with 90 passengers and 8 crew, had aborted the approach to Karachi due to problems with extension of the nose landing gear and performed a go around. While on a left downwind for a second approach (...) the crew requested to turn left immediately reporting they had lost both engines and repeatedly declaring Mayday about 5 minutes after the go around, the RAT (RAM Aír Turbine) deployed. (...) The aircraft lost height and impacted a residential area called Model Colony, featuring concrete multistorey buldings on second final approach east of the aerodrome (...), five multistorey houses are being reported to have been de-roofed and set ablaze, debris is distributed over the streets.

ASN

[3WE]

AvHerald has a Jetphoto (not suitable for upload) with the comment that "there are scrape marks on the engines"...

Need to wait for the final report, but that leads to some difficult speculation and judgmental, arm-chair thoughts about what they should / shouldn't have done...

[Not_Karl]

AvHerald has a Jetphoto (not suitable for upload) with the comment that "there are scrape marks on the engines"...

I don't see the RAT (didn't know where was located, Googled and I think I see its door closed) and the marks on the engines look like dirt to me. But I'm of course Not_El Experto. Until someone with more knowledge shares their opinion, I'm skeptical of that picture. Do you notice something unusual init?

[3WE]

AvHerald has a Jetphoto (not suitable for upload) with the comment that "there are scrape marks on the engines"...

...I'm of course Not_El Experto. Until someone with more knowledge shares their opinion, I'm skeptical of that picture...

Concur. and neither am I an El Experto.

I am also skeptical of the picture and agree that the dark crap under the engines looks more like dirt than freshly-"polished" aluminum or composite nacelle material, but had chose to blindly trust AvHearaldie to only post somewhat reliable news.

I guess I will have to go back and see if I see something strange (One strange thing I noticed was the nose gear was present and looked rather normal.)

[Not_Karl]

Concur. and neither am I an El Experto.

Previous, dubious picture removed. New photos, now with the landing gear retracted, the RAT deployed and what now actually looks like scrape marks on both engines and a little smoke...
I imagine we'll all have the same wild asshat parlour-talk outsider speculation...

[3WE]

Previous, dubious picture removed...what now actually looks like scrape marks on both engines...wild asshat parlour-talk outsider speculation...

Indeed.

Seems almost impossible that pilotos del genio moderator would do an old fashioned it was a FORGOTTEN gear landing with an uber computerized airliner and Evanie Checklist CRM procedures...(Followed by an improper startle-factor go-around decision)

I hate to speculate that it was a botched KNOWN gear up landing with a decision to go-around.

[Verbal]

It ran out of fuel. Because Pakistan.

[Not_Karl]

One of the engines, note the apparently undamaged fan:

Source: Infobae.

It ran out of fuel.

no

[Gabriel]

The 2 pictures in AvHerald do show the RAT extended under the wing-to-body fairing aka belly, close to the #1 (left) engine.



Plus, Simon said it's authentic (he removed a previous picture though which belonged to a previous flight and showed the plane with gear and flaps extended). If it got Simon's blessing, that's not 100% bulletproof but it is as good as it gets when it comes to credible aviation journalism.

[Gabriel]

The engines were not running. We know for the picture of the almost intact fan and also because the pilot said in his distress call that they lost both engines.

The airplane most likely had fuel. We know for the fireball and the fact that it took they firemen 5 hours to put out the fire.

[Gabriel]

. Delted double post

[Gabriel]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r6IAZdE_3Y

[Gabriel]

Couple of years ago there was a 777 accident where the pilots started the go-around by clicking the TOGA buttons but they did so a split second AFTER the plane touched down, that caused the auto-throttles not to go to TOGA (as they would have had the TOGA buttons had been pushed a split second before touching down even if the plane ended up touching down nonetheless). The pilots continued with a "normal" go-around: pitch up, flaps 15 (or whatever applies for the 777), positive climb, gear up... at idle power. The plane lost speed and started to sink. The pilots then advanced the throttles to TOGA but not in time to prevent a gear up "landing" (at a quite high sink rate) that ended up with the plane skidding on the runway.

I wonder (and I would not call this even "speculation") if something similar may have happened here, except that the pilots reacted a bit faster advancing the throttles (also the A320 engines spool up faster than the 777 ones) and just "skimmed" the runway gear up while trying and succeeding at completing the go-around. That could create enough damage in whatever accessories are in the lower part of the engines and compromising the engines themselves that ended up failing later.

Perhaps flyboy will be willing to tell us if this is a plausible scenario in the A320 (especially the post-touchdown go-around part and what accessories/systems are under the engine)

The "stories" around this picture are consistent with that. They say that the black marks on the underside of the engine cowling are scrape marks. They also say that there are high-res versions of the pictures where you can clearly see the the scrape marks as well as deformations.

On the other hand, the versions that the pilot went around at hundreds of feet because an issue with the nose landing gear are not consistent with the above scenario.

Probably there are ATC recordings, radar recordings, and the CVR and FDR will be readable, so we (or at least the investigators) will have a clear picture of the scenario sooner rather than later.

[Gabriel]

ATC recording from before the 1st go-around. The go around is just "going around". No reason, distance or altitude is mentioned.

They seem to be having (and hiding) problems after the go-around. They were cleared to 3500 but ATC calls asking why they stay at 2000 and they say they will stay at 200. ATC calls that they are at 1800 and descending and they say "trying to maintain 2000". They were supposed to do another ILS approach but they start turning into a short base without advising ATC (no complain there: aviate, navigate communicate) and only when ATC asks "Are you turning left?" they admit having lost the engines.

Flyboy, what is this repeated chime at 2:40?

Good close-up of the engines and RAT too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpJa9H7 ... 8mKbx2nmQw

[flyboy2548m]

Flyboy, what is this repeated chime at 2:40?

Master Warning CRC.

[Gabriel]

Here you have the URL to see the photos in full resolution:

https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/ ... e=5EEC69AA

https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/ ... e=5EEDAC91

There is definitively something wrong with these cowlings.

[Gabriel]

Flyboy, what is this repeated chime at 2:40?

Master Warning CRC.

So something was wrong even before the go-around.

[flyboy2548m]

Couple of years ago there was a 777 accident where the pilots started the go-around by clicking the TOGA buttons but they did so a split second AFTER the plane touched down, that caused the auto-throttles not to go to TOGA (as they would have had the TOGA buttons had been pushed a split second before touching down even if the plane ended up touching down nonetheless). The pilots continued with a "normal" go-around: pitch up, flaps 15 (or whatever applies for the 777), positive climb, gear up... at idle power. The plane lost speed and started to sink. The pilots then advanced the throttles to TOGA but not in time to prevent a gear up "landing" (at a quite high sink rate) that ended up with the plane skidding on the runway.

I wonder (and I would not call this even "speculation") if something similar may have happened here, except that the pilots reacted a bit faster advancing the throttles (also the A320 engines spool up faster than the 777 ones) and just "skimmed" the runway gear up while trying and succeeding at completing the go-around. That could create enough damage in whatever accessories are in the lower part of the engines and compromising the engines themselves that ended up failing later.

Perhaps flyboy will be willing to tell us if this is a plausible scenario in the A320 (especially the post-touchdown go-around part and what accessories/systems are under the engine)

As I'm sure you know, the 320 doesn't have TOGA buttons, and TOGA mode is activated by firewalling the thrust levers, so the "idle go-around" scenario doesn't strike me as particularly plausible unless they had the thrust levers at idle "post-touchdown" and didn't bother to advance them at all. If the thrust levers were still at CLB detent, then A/THR would have maintained Vapp until the FMGC went into "Done" phase and speed guidance was lost, at which point it would maintain Vls. However, for that to happen they would have had to be on the ground for 40-50 seconds post-touchdown. If they only bumped the thrust one detent to MCT, that should still have given them plenty of power to fly out even if without correct FD guidance.

[flyboy2548m]

So something was wrong even before the go-around.

Presumably the nose gear. Something else drew my attention on that recording: they were passing 3,500' at 5 miles out. KHI is at 98' MSL.

[Gabriel]

So something was wrong even before the go-around.

Presumably the nose gear. Something else drew my attention on that recording: they were passing 3,500' at 5 miles out. KHI is at 98' MSL.

Yes, that called my attention too, and the controller's too. When the pilots said that they were comfortable now to continue the approach the controller still gave them a go-around (or spacing) vector, the guys insisted and the controller said sort of "guys are you sure? You are at 3500".

[Gabriel]

As I'm sure you know, the 320 doesn't have TOGA buttons, and TOGA mode is activated by firewalling the thrust levers, so the "idle go-around" scenario doesn't strike me as particularly plausible unless they had the thrust levers at idle "post-touchdown" and didn't bother to advance them at all. If the thrust levers were still at CLB detent, then A/THR would have maintained Vapp until the FMGC went into "Done" phase and speed guidance was lost, at which point it would maintain Vls. However, for that to happen they would have had to be on the ground for 40-50 seconds post-touchdown. If they only bumped the thrust one detent to MCT, that should still have given them plenty of power to fly out even if without correct FD guidance.

Thank you. I had forgotten the lack of TOGA buttons in the Airbuses,

Very hard to come out with a scenario where they would touch down with the main gear retracted and fly away

One would be that they landed with all the gear up and went around from there simply by adding thrust and pulling up.
Another would be a go-around after "20 retard" (and they retarded) without adding power, and repeating the rest of the 777 scenario.

Both seem crazy, but some sequence of events did happen and whatever it was it must have been very crazy.

[Gabriel]

Another crazy hypothesis...

They had problems with the nose gear and they went around normally (there are reports of a go around due to problems with the nose gear, but perhaps it was first go-around before a second one where they dragged the engines).
They could not fix the issue and they decided to land with the nose gear not down and locked.
In their second approach, they thought that they had the gear down but they in fact left them up after the previous troubleshooting.
They either deactivated or ignored the several different gear-not-down warnings, because they expected them anyway when approaching with the nose gear not secured down. We can hear the master caution continuous repeating chime in the ATC recording when they receive the landing clearance. Having the gear not down and locked below 750 ft RA seems to be a reason for this warning, which is not cancelled.
They were already in the flare when they had a last-second "oh shit" moment realizing that the gear was up (3 red, or 3 not-green/off, not just the nose gear). They initiated a last second go-around but didn't manage to avoid contacting the runway with the engines, but they did manage to complete the go around and climb out.
​​​​​​​The rest is history.

[Not_Karl]

The 2 pictures in AvHerald do show the RAT extended under the wing-to-body fairing aka belly, close to the #1 (left) engine.

Plus, Simon said it's authentic (he removed a previous picture though which belonged to a previous flight and showed the plane with gear and flaps extended). If it got Simon's blessing, that's not 100% bulletproof but it is as good as it gets when it comes to credible aviation journalism.

Yes, our skepticism was directed to the original, later removed image. Once it was changed to the ones you posted, we theorized and speculated on engine-runway contact, but didn't post as to spare Flyboy of the mental anguish and suffering.

Here you have the URL to see the photos in full resolution:

Thanks!

Couple of years ago there was a 777 accident...

This one.


For what is worth, "Pakistan's Planespotters report, the aircraft "attempted a belly landing", went around and subsequently crashed." (extracted from AvHerald).

I like how a couple of hours after the crash there were already several "simulations" on Youtube, and several videos of the last moments of the plane... showing an ATR .

[flyboy2548m]

Yes, that called my attention too, and the controller's too. When the pilots said that they were comfortable now to continue the approach the controller still gave them a go-around (or spacing) vector, the guys insisted and the controller said sort of "guys are you sure? You are at 3500".

I'd like to hear more of their communications prior to that. How they ended up 2,000' high 5 miles out seems to me a big piece of this puzzle.

[monchavo]

Yes, that called my attention too, and the controller's too. When the pilots said that they were comfortable now to continue the approach the controller still gave them a go-around (or spacing) vector, the guys insisted and the controller said sort of "guys are you sure? You are at 3500".

I'd like to hear more of their communications prior to that. How they ended up 2,000' high 5 miles out seems to me a big piece of this puzzle.

For the non-pilots - what height would you expect the plane to be at 5 miles out?