Notify PAF Aircraft Crashes

[fatman17]

Has the cause of CFIT been determined?

We'll never know

 

[messiach]

Being involved with DoT inquiries, they are very hard hitting. No less than seven agencies & two external blind-folded auditors are involved as standard. A hard hitting inquiry is moral boosting, otherwise they end up as black-holes.

We'll never know

 

[Thorough Pro]

Rules are rules. Period. If the best of the best and the pro's don't follow them, what example do they set for the rest?

This photo is about two years old and ths guy is one of the best pilots i know,a pro dogfighter...PAF doesnt grounds pilots on whom it has spent so much just bcuz of a picture..PAF pilots fly above villages on low heights u cant even imagine so there's no big deal in that.
P.S a pilot's life is always in danger and so is the a/c.


open the canopy and do ur hajat while flying at angels 20
why would u ask such a lame question?
P.s Did i ever mention i am a fighter pilot? i dont think so

 

[fatman17]

Being involved with DoT inquiries, they are very hard hitting. No less than seven agencies & two external blind-folded auditors are involved as standard. A hard hitting inquiry is moral boosting, otherwise they end up as black-holes.

Our crash inquiries are somehow confidential. We get information through unofficial sources which may or may not be accurate. leads to sensationalism.

 

[SQ8]

Speculation is futile in this matter. What we do know so far is that the pilot slammed into a hill.

A sort of relatable incident is when the PN lost an orion over the sea a few years ago during mock exercises against the then new 90b. All hands were lost and many at the time(even those within the force but not in that branch) were quick to blame the pilot for it as MaD(Magnetic Anomaly Detector) runs are done at around 200-100ft.

From what I recall hearing of it(and I could be mistaken or basing my info on early investigation) was that the aircraft had begun its Anomaly run at the usual altitude or less as the 90b is still a damn quiet sub the pilot dropped to the altitude. Now these were non upgraded orion and they have very rudimentary autopilots if any so the pilot has to constantly keep his hands there or trim the aircraft perfectly. That day, during a run while they were trying to corner the 90b the orion slammed into the water. You could blame the pilot for making an error as an error at 100ft is not forgivable especially by a large turboprop, but as it turned out after recovery of the box; the outer engine on the aircraft had failed just during that run and besides losing altitude sent the aircraft into asymmetric yaw and it cartwheeled into pieces. The time between engine failure to impact took less than 5 seconds.

@Rashid Mahmood might be able to shed some light.

 

[MastanKhan]

Speculation is futile in this matter. What we do know so far is that the pilot slammed into a hill.

A sort of relatable incident is when the PN lost an orion over the sea a few years ago during mock exercises against the then new 90b. All hands were lost and many at the time(even those within the force but not in that branch) were quick to blame the pilot for it as MaD(Magnetic Anomaly Detector) runs are done at around 200-100ft.

From what I recall hearing of it(and I could be mistaken or basing my info on early investigation) was that the aircraft had begun its Anomaly run at the usual altitude or less as the 90b is still a damn quiet sub the pilot dropped to the altitude. Now these were non upgraded orion and they have very rudimentary autopilots if any so the pilot has to constantly keep his hands there or trim the aircraft perfectly. That day, during a run while they were trying to corner the 90b the orion slammed into the water. You could blame the pilot for making an error as an error at 100ft is not forgivable especially by a large turboprop, but as it turned out after recovery of the box; the outer engine on the aircraft had failed just during that run and besides losing altitude sent the aircraft into asymmetric yaw and it cartwheeled into pieces. The time between engine failure to impact took less than 5 seconds.

@Rashid Mahmood might be able to shed some light.

Hi,

What do you think about the failed engine---they don't go out just like that during flight without warning---do they?

 

[Talon]

Rules are rules. Period. If the best of the best and the pro's don't follow them, what example do they set for the rest?

I think u didnt properly read what i said..

 

[messiach]

I know very well, have attended proceedings of at-least one. I was contrasting against international standards.

Our crash inquiries are somehow confidential. We get information through unofficial sources which may or may not be accurate. leads to sensationalism.

 

[blinder]

I think only the conclusion will be published in a short official statement after the inquiries into the crash have finished.
Btw I do not know many air forces that publish the integral crash investigation report?
Also, most air forces shy away from publishing the exact subtype and/or serial number of the crashed aircraft. In my view the serial number is just the tax payer's receipt number on the article they paid for, but I know most officials have a different view on that

 

[SQ8]

Hi,

What do you think about the failed engine---they don't go out just like that during flight without warning---do they?

Actually they do at times(not the reason but without warning), you're in a turboprop around 100ft- anything from sea spray to just poor fuel can cause it.

I was trying to work with the PAF(prior to the bribes and commissions souring my mouth) on an instrument that tests fuel for deposits and impurities- to my knowledge they still don't have this instrument in their 70 years of existence and the one used these days is a 1970s spec out if a Ogdc ancient lab.

 

[messiach]

Turboprop must not fail like this. Such engines should be vulnerable for contained or un-contained failures at liftoff.

Actually they do at times(not the reason but without warning), you're in a turboprop around 100ft- anything from sea spray to just poor fuel can cause it.

 

[SQ8]

Turboprop must not fail like this. Such engines should be vulnerable for contained or un-contained failures at liftoff.

They are not common, can be maintenance errors, crew error or just plain Murphy's law
Status:
Date: Friday 22 September 1978
Time: ca 12:15
Type:

Lockheed P-3B Orion
Operator: United States Navy
Registration: 152757
C/n / msn: 185-5199
First flight: 1966
Crew: Fatalities: 8 / Occupants: 8
Passengers: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 0
Total: Fatalities: 8 / Occupants: 8
Airplane damage: Damaged beyond repair
Location: near Poland, ME (

United States of America)
Phase: En route (ENR)
Nature: Military
Departure airport: Brunswick NAS, ME (NHZ/KNHZ), United States of America
Destination airport: Trenton Airport, ON (YTR/CYTR), Canada
Narrative:
The P-3 Orion departed Brunswick at 12:05 on a flight to Trenton, where it was to take part in an airshow. Some eight to ten minutes later the aircraft crashed in flames.
Reportedly, the no. 1 engine experienced a "whirl mode" failure in turbulence. The no. 1 engine separated from the wing, along with an 11 feet outboard portion of the port wing. The wing part struck the port horizontal stabilizer, shearing it off. Aerodynamic forces then caused the (downward) separation of the remaining three engines. The starboard wing folded up at the wing root and broke away. The remainder of the aircraft rolled inverted and impacted the ground.

Status:
Date: Tuesday 26 June 1979
Type:

Lockheed P-3B Orion
Operator: United States Navy
Registration: 154596
C/n / msn: 185-5277
First flight: 1968
Crew: Fatalities: 5 / Occupants: 15
Passengers: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 0
Total: Fatalities: 5 / Occupants: 15
Airplane damage: Damaged beyond repair
Location: near Luzon Island-Cubi Point NAS (NCP) (

Philippines)
Phase: En route (ENR)
Nature: Military
Departure airport: Luzon Island-Cubi Point NAS (NCP), Philippines
Destination airport: ?
Narrative:
During climb out, approximately 15000 ft from Cubi Point, the P-3 crew lost engines number 1 and number 2.
It is believed that a gear box failure in engine no. 1 caused the propeller to depart striking engine no. 2. The crew attempted to return to Cubi Point NAS but the airplane crashed short of the runway.

Status:
Date: Saturday 25 March 1995
Type:

Lockheed P-3C Orion
Operator: United States Navy
Registration: 158217
C/n / msn: 185-5562
First flight:
Engines: 4 Allison T56-A14
Crew: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 11
Passengers: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 0
Total: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 11
Airplane damage: Damaged beyond repair
Location: 8 km (5 mls) off Masirah Airport (MSH) (

Oman)
Phase: Approach (APR)
Nature: Military
Departure airport: Masirah Airport (MSH/OOMA), Oman
Destination airport: Masirah Airport (MSH/OOMA), Oman
Narrative:
The propeller on the no. 4 engine separated during the descent into Masirah. The engine caught fire and subsequently the no. 3 engine's rpm decreased. The no. 3 engine was shut down. Simultaneously both no. 1 and 2 engines flamed out, resulting in a total electrical power loss. At about 2,500 feet, the pilot was able to control the aircraft again. The crew then ditched the plane.


Status:
Date: Friday 29 October 1999
Time: ca 12:00
Type:

Lockheed P-3C-II.75 Orion
Operator: Pakistan Navy Air Arm
Registration: 83
C/n / msn: 185-5827
First flight: 1988
Crew: Fatalities: / Occupants:
Passengers: Fatalities: / Occupants:
Total: Fatalities: 21 / Occupants: 21
Airplane damage: Damaged beyond repair
Location: S off Pasni (

Pakistan)
Phase: En route (ENR)
Nature: Military
Departure airport: Karachi-Mehran NAS (OPSF), Pakistan
Destination airport: Karachi-Mehran NAS (OPSF), Pakistan
Narrative:
Crashed into the sea during a training mission.

 

[messiach]

No-1 whirl failure is engine-mount issue. Not relevant to engine. Usually at >400 mph.Not relevant to PN issue.
No-2 turboprop have known limitations at rapid ascent to altitude & higher speeds.
No-3 Again the turboprop vulnerability at higher mph.

They are not common, can be maintenance errors, crew error or just plain Murphy's law

 

[SQ8]

No-1 whirl failure is engine-mount issue. Not relevant to engine. Usually at >400 mph.Not relevant to PN issue.
No-2 turboprop have known limitations at rapid ascent to altitude & higher speeds.
No-3 Again the turboprop vulnerability at higher mph.

Not trying to correlate issue but the basic point of Murphy's law. It could be anything from poor maintenance to bas fuel to spray..

The basic issue is that pilot error or lack of reaction can get the best as well
Sully was a good example of how air investigators can reach poor conclusions without factoring in the human

 

[Zarvan]

Not trying to correlate issue but the basic point of Murphy's law. It could be anything from poor maintenance to bas fuel to spray..

The basic issue is that pilot error or lack of reaction can get the best as well
Sully was a good example of how air investigators can reach poor conclusions without factoring in the human

Reports coming of another F-7 doing and pilot injured

پاک فضائیہ کاایف 7طیارہ سرگودھا کے قریب گر گیا،ترجمان پاک فضائیہ