What's new

PIA plane crash near Model Colony Karachi with 93+ on board

People aren’t able to grasp service lifecycles of airplanes because in their mind they compare it to other consumer vehicles.
As per the CEO of PIA, plane was cleared by the engineering department, question arises how come two faults occurred? First there was the landing gear that jammed, had it not jammed the plane would had landed and than not one but both engines failed, why?
So either the engineering department fucked up or the plane wasn't as great as claimed by few.
 
No they have not. Please don't spread misinformation, at this time at least.



What are you talking about? The aircraft that crashed first flew in Aug, 2004. It is one of the best in its class today.

View attachment 634889

https://www.planespotters.net/airfr...ld-pia-pakistan-international-airlines/r7gzjr
also age is not last factor we don't know how many hours that a320 fly . sometime leasing company have no costumer and planes stores months without flying . if age was the factor all of USAF B-52 should be crashed 30 years ago . some 50 years old planes flying in pakistan too today . emirates using 14-13 years old many planes saudi airlines using some even 1993 manufactured B747 daily . turkish airlines have some 20 years old aircrafts .air china have 25 years old cargo 747-400s .Singapore airlines also using some old planes . just recently many airlines retired thier last combies .yes we have problems of safety and maintenance also may be training of crew . but blaming 15 years old aircrafts for aged is not a logic . in USA -NETHERLAND - and few other countries 45 years old DC-10S are still active .

People aren’t able to grasp service lifecycles of airplanes because in their mind they compare it to other consumer vehicles.
in this case pakistanis are masters to using 40 years old buses and cars ,
 
“black boxes which have been recovered, There are two kinds. The flight data recorders keep track of flight parameters such altitude, heading, instrument readings, power settings and flight control inputs. The cockpit voice recorders store all communications with the aircraft, including from air traffic controllers, and record any conversations among cockpit occupants and other audible cockpit sounds for the two hours leading up to the crash. All that information lets analysts reconstruct, and even create video simulations of, the last moments of the plane’s flight..


Technical groups
look at technical aspects that might have contributed in any way to the crash. They look at air traffic control activity and instructions, weather, human performance issues like crew experience and training, maintenance records, emergency response, safety equipment, aircraft performance and subsystems.

They may disassemble the crashed plane’s engines or other components and use flight simulators to attempt to experience what the pilots were dealing with. Analysts even study the metals used to make components to see how they should perform – to later compare that information with what actually happened during the crash.

After they rigorously analyze all the data, devise, test and evaluate different hypotheses for what could have happened, the investigative team must determine causes and contributing factors. The goal is to identify anything – acts someone did (or didn’t) do, properties of a materials, gusts of wind, and so on – that had any role in the crash.


such major crash investigations are an enormous effort often involving many countries’ governments and input from dozens of industry partners. The inquiries can take months of painstaking work. They often yield important insights that improve flight safety for everyone long into the future.

The report should include both immediate causes – such as active failures of pilots or maintenance crew – and underlying reasons, like insufficient training or pressure to rush through a task.



The automation in the aircraft, whether it’s a Boeing or an Airbus, has lulled us into a sense of security and safety,

“pilots become a systems operator rather than a stick-and-rudder pilot.

As a result, “they may not exactly know or recognize quickly enough what is happening to the aircraft, and by the time they figure it out, it may be too late.”


Complicated automation systems can also confuse pilots and potentially cause them to take action they shouldn’t,




They can punch the buttons, but will they be able to fly that airplane when it breaks?

Chesley B. Sullenberger IIIwho , landed a US Airways jet with 155 people aboard in the Hudson River.asked this chilling question..
 
also age is not last factor we don't know how many hours that a320 fly . sometime leasing company have no costumer and planes stores months without flying . if age was the factor all of USAF B-52 should be crashed 30 years ago . some 50 years old planes flying in pakistan too today . emirates using 14-13 years old many planes saudi airlines using some even 1993 manufactured B747 daily . turkish airlines have some 20 years old aircrafts .air china have 25 years old cargo 747-400s .Singapore airlines also using some old planes . just recently many airlines retired thier last combies .yes we have problems of safety and maintenance also may be training of crew . but blaming 15 years old aircrafts for aged is not a logic . in USA -NETHERLAND - and few other countries 45 years old DC-10S are still active .


in this case pakistanis are masters to using 40 years old buses and cars ,


most important and costly piece of airbus- 320 is its engines,
a pair costs around 50 million dollars,

People who were saying that the plane touched the ground and then again took-off, looks like they were right:


@Counter-Errorist @Safriz @PanzerKiel


first landing was un successfull........ plane came as close as 275 meters above runway.
 
People who were saying that the plane touched the ground and then again took-off, looks like they were right:


@Counter-Errorist @Safriz @PanzerKiel
That seems to be a plausible explanation for the damaged engine underbelly

Polish_20200522_144852576.jpg
 
most important and costly piece of airbus- 320 is its engines,
a pair costs around 50 million dollars,




first landing was un successfull........ plane came as close as 275 meters above runway.
That altitude reading is from ACARS which is 3 times erroneous in z axis than X,y.
 
Sir ji manufacturing date goes back to around 1984 and introduce in market in 1987. It was best plane of that time. But this plane been stopped and check its engine 3 times. Stopping 3 time is not usual.
Bhai
Boeing 737 dates back to the 70's so do you think why are these still being manufactured today. If you do book an aircraft like Boeing 737 or airbus today the delivery time that you will be given will be around 2030. It only takes 5 days to assemble one A-320 or B-737. on the 6th day it is tested on ground and on 7th day air test begins so by the 10th day this new aircraft can be delivered to the customer.
 
Inna lillahi wa Inna ilaihe raji'un.
May Allah azzawajal grant them all Jannatul firdous. Ameen
 
Here is my theory:

1. Plane comes in for 1st landing attempt
2. Landing gear extends down but does not fully lock
3. Pilots have no idea that gear is faulty
4. When plane lands, gear is unstable, engines hit ground
5. When engine hits ground, pylon loosens spilling fuel
5. Black skid marks on engines caused by ground contact
6. Pilot immediately goes around
7. Plane goes around for 2nd landing attempt
8. Plane is circles in air for 7 minutes between landings
9. During these 7 minutes, fuel is rapidly leaking out
10. Plane runs out of fuel and stalls, crashes

There are some big mysteries here. Certain things do not add up:

1. How can it be possible for pilots to not know gear was not fully locked? In ATC tapes you can hear alarm was going off in cockpit so pilots probably knew gear was faulty at some point during at least one of the landing attempts. Only explanation for alarm going off in cockpit which is heard on ATC tape and for the pilots to not know about landing gear problem is that the alarm we hear on the tape is actually not the gear alarm but some other alarm, maybe the engines failed first? Could plausibly explain why gear looked down in good position on CCTV, but does not explain why pilots talked to ATC about gear problems or how plane was able to go around or do an aborted landing if engines failed. Can someone check if alarm was heard first or if pilot told ATC about gear problems before alarms were heard on tape?
2. Which came first, landing gear problem or engine problem?
3. I doubt any bird strike happened because pilot would have mentioned it on ATC tape. Usually pilot will tell ATC what the problem is if they know. If they didn't tell ATC what the problem was, they probably didn't know what it was themselves. They said they had gear issues but nothing about birds, so bird strike theory is out. Frankly, I must say if the plane did hit the ground during 1st landing attempt, I am amazed why ATC didn’t tell pilots anything about it? ATC should have at least told pilots, “Hey you guys hit the runway” because pilots have no way of knowing or seeing the damage on the bottom of their own plane while ATC can. On the ATC tape, there is also something that sounds like a fire alarm. If there was an engine fire, did pilot use fire handle and accidentally shut down both engines instead of only 1 engine? If pilot pulls fire handle, engines cannot be restarted so pilot would be gliding from the time alarm was heard all the way to the runway. Pilots would’ve had enough altitude to glide safely to runway from roughly the time when alarm was heard on the ATC tape if they pulled fire handles themselves. A sudden loss of power near runway like CCTV video suggests something dramatic and catastrophic happened out of their control in the last few seconds that would have not given them enough warning, time, or altitude to glide to the runway compared to pulling fire handles while circling at safe altitude with plenty of time.
4. Ram Air Turbine was deployed in picture before landing in addition to Mayday call to ATC so whatever happened was not sudden, pilots knew they had a major and potentially catastrophic problem on their hands well before they were landing. Ram Air Turbine is deployed in a situation where you have lost all hydraulic power caused by dual engine failure, and is clear evidence that landing gear problem was caused by hydraulic issues since hydraulic problems is the only reason pilot would deploy Ram Air Turbine. Huge mystery with this is that if Ram Air Turbine was deployed because of hydraulic loss from a dual engine failure, why was plane was flying steady and normally for several minutes when pic was taken and then suddenly crash on approach. A crash indicates a loss of power very close to the runway. Ram Air Turbine being deployed high in the air during circle pattern when pic was taken indicates pilots were aware way before landing for as long as 5 minutes that they had lost both engines because it would’ve caused them to deploy Ram Air Turbine seen in the pic taken 5 minutes before landing. This would have given them plenty of altitude to glide in a way that they could safely reach the runway compared to a sudden loss of power at low altitude near the runway. If both engines failed 5 minutes before landing, why didn’t they tell ATC? If engines failed seconds before crash, then why did pilots deploy Ram Air Turbine while they were circling? Engines would’ve been fine when plane was circling and no hydraulic problems would’ve happened, so why did they deploy Ram Air Turbine? Maybe Ram Air Turbine was part of emergency checklist for a hydraulic failure caused by engine scraping runway and leaking hydraulic fluid. Ram Air Turbine doesn’t need hydraulic fluid so maybe pilots used it as an alternate way to lower the landing gear after total hydraulic failure after dual engine failure.
5. On ATC, it sounds like pilots requested a belly landing. If this was during 1st landing attempt, then it means they DID know gear might fail before 1st landing. This would explain why only engines have black marks and not the rest of the belly. If they expected a gear failure before landing, they would have been ready to go around as soon as the gear failed to avoid causing major damage. Checking the runway to see if there are any skid marks is a good idea.
6. The theory that gear was stuck and would not come down is totally false because we can see it was down in the video. It is possible that it was down and NOT locked which can cause plane to hit the ground and cause minor skid marks but this is not the same thing as it being stuck completely which results in a belly landing and much more severe damage than we see in the pic taken while plane was circling. There are no major scratches besides engines that would indicate a belly landing.
7. I do not think pilots were surprised that gear failed, there must have been some indication of this in cockpit so they would've expected or it, or at least known something was off.
8. Interesting to note that flaps and slats were not deployed in CCTV video and plane has very high angle of attack. Flaps are used during landing to decrease speed and decrease altitude. The fact that plane did not have flaps and slats deployed in CCTV video meant that the pilot consciously tried to do anything possible to increase altitude after both engines shut down. High angle of attack indicates that the plane was almost certainly gliding, because the angle would have been much shallower if engines had power. Pilot was fighting until last moment to do anything to increase altitude by retracting flaps so he could glide farther past residential area but didn't make it. Alternate possibility is that flaps were retracted because of total hydraulic failure which also explains why landing gear had issues since that is also caused by total hydraulic failure caused by dual engine failure.
9. The theory about fuel running out is possible but one big problem with this theory is that huge fireball went up after it crashed, a plane that has run out of fuel will not make a fireball like that because you need fuel to combust.

So there is basically this triangle of factors that do not add up.

If plane was gliding on CCTV video, it ran out of fuel, but fireball on impact means that it did not run out of fuel. So if it did have fuel, why was it gliding??? If it ran out of fuel, why was there a fireball????

Other problems:

If both engines failed, then plane ran out of fuel, but if plane didn't run out of fuel, then why did both engines fail? In my opinion, it's not possible for plane to have run out fuel because they have extra reserves in case of go around and 1 go around is not enough to use all of it. The only other explanation is that fuel tank was ruptured during botched landing but this is extremely unlikely. And only situation where fuel could have leaked is if the fuel tank was ruptured and both engines use the same leaking fuel tank instead of separate fuel tanks. Both rupture and use of a single tank for both engines is highly unlikely. Only other thing that can cause dual engine failure is dual bird strike but pilots would have told ATC if this was the case.

Big mystery is did landing gear fail first or did engines fail first?

1. If landing gear failed first, pilots would have known before landing and it would explain skid marks on engine and aborted landing. But landing gear failure does not explain why fuel ran out causing the gliding just before crash seen on CCTV since fuel running out is the only reason both engines can shut down, but landing gear would not cause problems with engine. Unless the aborted landing caused engine damage such that fuel leaked directly out of engine instead of the fuel tank? Does anyone know if location of oil sump is on the bottom of the engine which scraped runway where black skid marks are? If these oil sumps were on bottom of the engine and they scraped runway, this could have caused a major leak. The question is, what was leaking? Was it fuel that was leaking or hydraulic fluid that was leaking? I wonder if the white smoke in the picture is hydraulic fluid leaking. I think that white smoke we are seeing in the picture is not a fuel leak but actually a hydraulic leak. The plane was flying way too long after the pic was taken, if it was a fuel leak, it would have run out of fuel and crashed much sooner than it did. A hydraulic leak makes more sense in my opinion because it also explains flaps and landing gear failure. If fuel was leaking, plane should’ve crashed immediately or within seconds of fuel leak. If hydraulic fluid leaked where the black skid marks on bottom of engine are, then it means plane had plenty of fuel and no fuel leak but it did have a hydraulic leak which caused total hydraulic failure causing landing gear and flaps problems. It is possible maybe the flight control loss was so severe because of total hydraulic failure that pilots could not even use flaps to give airplane to pitch up for altitude during landing or even basic flight control. As more hydraulic fluid leaked out, the pilots cockpit stick control got cut off from the wings since hydraulic fluid is what connects it and pilot input had no effect on ailerons. So maybe it was leaking of hydraulic and thus inability of pilots to have any flight or direction control that was responsible for sudden fall on CCTV and not fuel running out. Problem with this theory is that engine blades at crash site don’t show damage which means engines were shut down when plane crashed. So it ran out fuel. But then what caused fuel to run out of skid marks only caused hydraulic failure? Huge mystery. If landing gear failed before dual engine failure, what caused hydraulic failure of landing gear in the first place if it wasn’t dual engine failure?
2. The alternate theory is that both engines failed first. This would explain the landing gear problems, because both engines failing would cause a total loss of hydraulic power which is exactly the kind of problem that would cause landing gear issues like gear not locking. Loss of both engines would cause alarms to go off in cockpit heard on ATC tape but gear problems could also have caused similar alarms. The problem with this theory is that if engines failed, the plane would not have had enough power to go around and would only have 1 landing attempt. So the engines would have failed after the landing gear problems and aborted landing which means that landing gear problems came first. The other problem with this theory is what could cause both engines to fail before landing gear if its not bird strike or fuel running out?

It is completely circular logic, landing gear failure needs engine failure first to cause hydraulic problems, but engine failure needs gear failure to somehow cause fuel to run out.

Mystery grows even bigger because if aborted landing damaged engines when it hit the ground, why did plane fly perfectly for 7 minutes in the air, and then suddenly both engines fail at same moment. If engine got damaged when it hit the ground during aborted landing, engine problems would have happened on runway. So this indicates fuel ran out, but we already know that didn't happen because fireball on impact cannot happen without combustible fuel.

So then what caused it? Did engines fail first or did gear fail first? And did fuel run out?

I think you can see where my frustration is coming from. Things are not adding up.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom