[fhdowntheline]

It is also pertinent that the photo by the aviation spotter showing the engine underside scrape has proven to be pivotal in unravelling how the accident may have happened. Had this photo not been taken, the truth about the first approach attempt may have been buried under paperwork. Even the publicly available altimeter data could have been dismissed as inaccurate.

[balenoed_]

Originally Posted by fhdowntheline

Had this photo not been taken, the truth about the first approach attempt may have been buried under paperwork.

In that case, these photos would confirm the engines touched the runway before the first GA:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEa2tTWYGqU

[courtesy: www.airlive.net]

[rajivr1612]

Originally Posted by AlphaKilo

Sorry, riddled with mistakes like @14:55 when he marks the runway, the runway pointing should be between the 180 and 270 and not between 270 and 360.

The one at 14:55 was an oversight. When you say riddled with mistakes, to a layman like me, what are the other ones?

[AirbusCapt]

A couple of questions:
1) did the aircraft touch down with gear down or gear up? A too low gear was heard in approach?
2) if the gear was down, there is no way the engines will touch, if the engines scrapped, metal parts should be found on runway during inspection.

Most possible cause may be a balked landing due the long float, bounced touchdown and a subsequent go around during which one engine failed. Now aircraft was pitched up at 15 degree (two engine climb) versus required 12.5 degree for single engine climb. Subsequently the speed decayed, in panic landing gear was left down and the aircraft stalled and crashed in a nose up position. This is just my theory and the actual cause will be clear post investigation.

Regarding the picture of black markings under each engine, they could simply be routine oil marks seen underside old airplanes. The other theory of whitish smoke observed trailing engine no1 may well be the aftermath of the engine failure.

[vdi]

Read somewhere that this plane was earlier used by China Eastern Airlines for 10 years and sold to PIA in 2014.

[AlphaKilo]

Originally Posted by rajivr1612

The one at 14:55 was an oversight. When you say riddled with mistakes, to a layman like me, what are the other ones?

1. Oversight? He is a pilot himself. Wrong orientation can get one killed and grave mistake in aviation.

As you see there, if you point to a wrong 250° one will also end up with the wrong 110° as he did. Do this continuously over time, one will end up in Rajasthan rather than in Karachi. Such small mistakes during crisis situations can lead to very bad ending.

2. There is no mention of "Gear malfunction" warning anywhere. There was only a master warning chime which was only during the approach/attempt to land the second time (according to his assumption).

3. His whole theory contains lots of assumptions which especially as a professional pilot shouldn't be done unless he has all the data in his hands. He knows it better than many/most of us. Speculation is not accepted in aviation.

I am not saying his intention is wrong but with today's social media crazy public, any one with an youtube/twitter/tiktok account becomes a professional air crash investigator. I would expect people from the same profession to hold their mouth until the official investigation report is out.

Same holds true for me and hence, I don't want to comment on his video or any further on this topic until I see the accident report.

Originally Posted by AirbusCapt

A couple of questions:
1) did the aircraft touch down with gear down or gear up? A too low gear was heard in approach?
2) if the gear was down, there is no way the engines will touch, if the engines scrapped, metal parts should be found on runway during inspection.
....

In the picture that is being circulate in the internet, no gear doors could be seen in open position. Also, the video from the CCTV shows no gear down. I am also confused with the same point as your 1. Why was there no warning heard in any of the R/T comms? Especially at the beginning where declare that they have established ILS 25L and call out being comfortable descending to 3000 via 3500.

[Jeroen]

A lot of talk about how the plane struck the engines on the runway on the first landing. This could happen if the pilots forgot to lower the gear, or if the gear was not properly locked. In both cases there would be visual and audible alarms. But pilots have been known to completely overlook these.

Here is how such a landing would like like. This is a small twin engine prop. Once the pilot realises he forgot to lower the gear, instead of cutting the power and the fuel, he goes “balls to the wall”. Amazingly, he manages to get back in the air again!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPbxIrprato

[alpha1]

Originally Posted by Leoshashi

A Nice analysis by an Indian Pilot:

Analysis is fine, but I couldn't make out the flight path.
In the begining he was talking about approach, then in the middle he said that the conversation must've been post scraping, and in the end he drew a figure that seems impossible to be if engine had already been scraped.

[VijayAnand1]

Such a sad state of affair. A thorough investigation will let us know what doomed the flight, but the captain's calmness though, even when expanding mayday, mayday. RIP to all the souls.

Cheers!
VJ

[V.Narayan]

While I'll leave those who know better to analyze as details emerge I have two questions/observations :

1. It doesn't seem to me that we have heard the full transcript of the radio communication with the ATC. The snippet we've heard {or at least I have} is possibly only of the second circuit or more likely a part of the first and a part of the second. I'd like to hear the full tape of the first landing attempt too.

2. Often {but not always} it is a practice for the control tower to visually check if the landing gear of an approaching aircraft, on short finals is down. We use good old binoculars and eyeball mark 1. This was a standard practice in earlier years for sure. Many airports still use it. I don't know about Karachi. And in any case if a pilot suspects his landing gear is either not locked in or suffers some other issue he would flypast the control tower and let them get a good visual look. This crew did not do that on the first attempt.

3. If they had a landing gear issue i.e. simply not opening up then a belly landing with no discussion with ATC or the airlines technical dept seems very odd. Also if you are planning a belly landing you'd drop fuel and come in with the minimum practical. Point #2 and #3 could lead to the conclusion that they simply forgot to lower the landing gear. But I'd still wait till more information is out. There is the case of American Eagle 4539 where in an Embraer 135 regional jet the landing gear doors opened, the three green lights came on in the cockpit but the actual gear did not extend. A quick thinking and skilled Captain saved the day then.

[skanchan95]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

While I'll leave those who know better to analyze as details emerge I have two questions/observations :



2. Often {but not always} it is a practice for the control tower to visually check if the landing gear of an approaching aircraft, on short finals is down. We use good old binoculars and eyeball mark 1. This was a standard practice in earlier years for sure. Many airports still use it. I don't know about Karachi. And in any case if a pilot suspects his landing gear is either not locked in or suffers some other issue he would flypast the control tower and let them get a good visual look. This crew did not do that on the first attempt.

I was wondering about the something earlier today. Wasn't it a practice earlier for the ATC to politely instruct the aircraft to check Gear down while giving them final clearance for landing? Or has this practice been discontinued? I remember hearing it on same earlier Air crash investigations episodes as well.

Something like(and I am quoting this from PC flights sims) - "<aircraft allsign> <winds information> check gear down, cleared to land <runway no.>"

It just may have saved the aircraft, assuming they made the first landing attempt forgetting to deploy the landing gear.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by skanchan95

I was wondering about the something earlier today. Wasn't it a practice earlier for the ATC to politely instruct the aircraft to check Gear down while giving them final clearance for landing? Or has this practice been discontinued? I remember hearing it on same earlier Air crash investigations episodes as well.

Something like(and I am quoting this from PC flights sims) - "<aircraft allsign> <winds information> check gear down, cleared to land <runway no.>"

It just may have saved the aircraft, assuming they made the first landing attempt forgetting to deploy the landing gear.

Yes. To best of my knowledge the Tower will say something like, "Ït seems your landing gear is not down/not locked" or something to that affect. Something neutral, informative and bland.

PS: I'm no expert on landing protocol of airliners. Commercial pilots may add a better flavour.

[balenoed_]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

If a pilot suspects his landing gear is either not locked in or suffers some other issue he would flypast the control tower and let them get a good visual look. This crew did not do that on the first attempt.

Originally Posted by skanchan95

Wasn't it a practice earlier for the ATC to politely instruct the aircraft to check Gear down while giving them final clearance for landing

Probably they thought the gear is indeed down, but it couldn't hold up when it touched the tarmac (due to some technical issue) and collapsed. But if that is the case, not sure how the pilots figured out it so quickly and did the GA by just kissing the asphalt and not really crashing right there. Just speculations.

Details of the first attempt is very unclear. Are there no CCTV surveillance in airports?

And exactly 10 years ago was when the Air India Express crashed at Mangalore under similar circumstances - An un-stabilized approach.

[JithinR]

Video includes a short interview with one of the two survivors.

https://youtu.be/sfQanEUUGXI

He does mention people praying once the flight took off from the runway at around 0:45 mark.

[Aviatoraval]

1. First approach landing gear not down either mistake or tech problem.
2. First approach hot and high.
3. Engines touched down on runway because landing gear not down.
4. FOD damage to engines and now on their last breath.
5. Go around performed aircraft climbed to 3000 but could not maintain ht and descended to 2000.
6. This time engine failed unable to maintain height and crew decided to cut corners to make good runway.
7. RAT ops on due engine failure, and now landing gear down too. But more drag without engines so rapid loss of altitude.
8. Last moments very high attitude in desperation to make good runway but such high alpha and reverse power regime resulted in aggravated height loss.
9. Sad outcome.


Some document which clears the picture about series of events and culture of PIA.
320 crash.pdf