You are at netAirspace : Forum : Air and Space Forums : Civil Aviation

PIA Plane Down In Karachi

All about Airlines and Airliners.
 

ShanwickOceanic (netAirspace FAA) 22 May 20, 10:54Post
A Pakistan International Airlines plane has crashed in Karachi on a flight from Lahore, aviation officials say.

The plane, which was reportedly carrying around 99 passengers and eight crew, was flying from Lahore to Jinnah International Airport, one of Pakistan's busiest airports.

Pictures shared on social media show smoke rising from the crash site, a residential area in Karachi.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-52766904
Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast:
For it is the number of a man; and its number is One hundred threescore and twelve.
Zak (netAirspace FAA) 22 May 20, 11:28Post
A320, AP-BLD, enroute Lahore to Karachi.
90 pax + 8 crew, looks like nobody survived.
Crashed into a residential area, potentially more victims on the ground.

Looks like they had trouble extending the landing gear, went around, then lost both engines. Crew declared Mayday.
Yes, the new EU copyright directive is that stupid.
JLAmber (netAirspace ATC & Founding Member) 22 May 20, 11:32Post
Appears to be A320 AP-BLD operating PK8303 LHE - KHI .

The photos of the crash site show it hit a densely-populated area of the city. Some of the buildings have been destroyed down to basement level so the death toll could be a lot higher than just the pax and crew.
A million great ideas...
Zak (netAirspace FAA) 22 May 20, 14:18Post
Latest reports suggest that a number of passengers survived the crash.

AvHerald has photos of the aircraft on go-around, showing the RAM air turbine deployed and heavy black marks on the underside of the engine nacelles.

https://www.avherald.com/h?article=4d7a6e9a&opt=0
Yes, the new EU copyright directive is that stupid.
miamiair (netAirspace FAA) 22 May 20, 15:29Post
Looks like the nacelles scrubbed the runway.
And let's get one thing straight. There's a big difference between a pilot and an aviator. One is a technician; the other is an artist in love with flight. — E. B. Jeppesen
Lucas (netAirspace ATC & Founding Member) 22 May 20, 19:58Post
Not sure how people would survive this, but I saw the same info.


JLAmber (netAirspace ATC & Founding Member) 22 May 20, 20:09Post
Lucas wrote:Not sure how people would survive this, but I saw the same info.


Low speed must have helped. Official confirmation of two walking wounded with another more seriously injured who may or may not have been onboard.
A million great ideas...
Lucas (netAirspace ATC & Founding Member) 22 May 20, 20:38Post
JLAmber wrote:
Lucas wrote:Not sure how people would survive this, but I saw the same info.


Low speed must have helped. Official confirmation of two walking wounded with another more seriously injured who may or may not have been onboard.


Yes, and perhaps some super-frangible buildings? I don't know what they make them out of there.
Fumanchewd 22 May 20, 21:14Post
I'm sorry, its always horrible to do until we know more, but probable cause is always a hobby of mine and others....

Zak wrote:
Looks like they had trouble extending the landing gear, went around, then lost both engines. Crew declared Mayday.


Landing gear issue followed by fuel starvation is my uneducated initial guess.

The black on the bottom of the nacelles doesn't fit in that guess tho.
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
JLAmber (netAirspace ATC & Founding Member) 22 May 20, 21:21Post
Lucas wrote:
JLAmber wrote:
Lucas wrote:Not sure how people would survive this, but I saw the same info.


Low speed must have helped. Official confirmation of two walking wounded with another more seriously injured who may or may not have been onboard.


Yes, and perhaps some super-frangible buildings? I don't know what they make them out of there.


A good point. I've spent some time in India and their buildings would certainly make a softer landing than the Western equivalent. I doubt the standards in Pakistan are much higher.
A million great ideas...
CALTECH 23 May 20, 14:53Post
Saw a report that the aircraft actually touched down with gear up (issue or non-deployment) then it went around for another attempt with the engines damaged which led to a no/low power crash. Can't find the article now, looks like it was pulled......
paul mcallister 23 May 20, 15:16Post
CALTECH wrote:Saw a report that the aircraft actually touched down with gear up (issue or non-deployment) then it went around for another attempt with the engines damaged which led to a no/low power crash. Can't find the article now, looks like it was pulled......


Looks like that is exactly what happened, the aircraft was at 3500ft 5 miles out which seems rather high, you can hear a gear warning bell in the comms with ATC.
It seems the gear was either not lowered, or did not deploy correctly, then the aircraft almost landed, damaging the engines and cowlings, a go around was declared and the aircraft managed to climb out, the RAT deployed but the engines failed as the crew attempted to make another landing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwfkN5M-bSY
mhodgson (ATC & Photo Quality Screener & Founding Member) 24 May 20, 08:12Post
It is, on a typical ILS approach you'd be below 2000' by five miles - at 3500 you've got a lot of descending to do at a time when you need to bleed off speed.
There's the right way, the wrong way and the railway.
JLAmber (netAirspace ATC & Founding Member) 24 May 20, 15:59Post
There are photos of the runway confirming that the engines did make contact with the ground:

https://www.airlive.net/breaking-new-ph ... co6ad-rA28

Image
A million great ideas...
Lucas (netAirspace ATC & Founding Member) 24 May 20, 16:26Post
Botched GA, back on belly, finally in the air, oops we're toast?
Mark 24 May 20, 20:13Post
Who the hell fails to lower the gear?
JLAmber (netAirspace ATC & Founding Member) 24 May 20, 20:38Post
Mark wrote:Who the hell fails to lower the gear?


While missing the alarms telling them that the gear's up, that they're carrying too much speed and that their angle of approach is too steep. Coincidentally, a number of us witnessed a PIA 743 do something very similar at MAN some years ago, only that crew spotted their error and performed a go-around while getting a ticking off from ATC.

What strikes me most is the margins between getting away with a dumb moment and utter disaster are so tiny. A few more inches of altitude or a realisation a second earlier and this would have been a report filed and some time in the simulator.
A million great ideas...
vikkyvik 26 May 20, 14:24Post
My uncle (retired from GE after decades working in Aircraft Engines and Powerplants) said:

"On CFM56-5B most accessories are pretty much under the fan and if you hit that area hard enough, no telling how many critical things can get damaged, including fuel and oil pumps, alternator, oil/fuel piping, etc. (as opposed to the B737's CFM56-7B where all these are on the side)"
miamiair (netAirspace FAA) 26 May 20, 17:29Post
vikkyvik wrote:My uncle (retired from GE after decades working in Aircraft Engines and Powerplants) said:

"On CFM56-5B most accessories are pretty much under the fan and if you hit that area hard enough, no telling how many critical things can get damaged, including fuel and oil pumps, alternator, oil/fuel piping, etc. (as opposed to the B737's CFM56-7B where all these are on the side)"


As Vik pointed out, the Accessory Gearbox is at the 6 o'clock position. See attached diagram. Probably why the RAT was deployed on the downwind.
Attachments
NAS001.jpg
NAS001.jpg (190.92 KiB) Viewed 26 times
And let's get one thing straight. There's a big difference between a pilot and an aviator. One is a technician; the other is an artist in love with flight. — E. B. Jeppesen
 

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

LEFT

RIGHT
CONTENT