Fly4free.pl

Poza tym, przez 700 metrów nie wiedzieli, że nie mają podwozia? Przecież na pewno w kokpicie coś ich o tym poinformowało.

ATC says:
May 24, 2020 at 12:55 pm

While of course nothing will be official until the report is released, it is human nature to speculate and there is nothing wrong with some informed speculation and opinion based on what is known.
We know that the aircraft made a highly unstabilised approach. It went around and both engines contacted the runway. During the go-around both engines failed and the aircraft did not have sufficient height to make it back to the airport.

Firstly, this is an attempted landing that should never have been made.
Unstabilised approaches are an absolute no-no at every major airline and the single most significant cause of landing accidents.
This approach was a level beyond unstabilised and I am honestly having a hard time believing this crew ever thought about salvaging it.
OPKC is 100ft above sea level, so on a standard 3 degree glidepath should be 3,000ft 10 miles from the threshold.
Looking at the ILS chart at 4DME they should have been at 1362ft.
That they were 5 miles out at 3000ft almost double the altitude they should have been at should in every circumstance result in abandoning the approach and trying again.
The rate of descent and speed required to make this approach work would have been astronomical.

Secondly we know both engines contacted the ground, the only explanation for that happening is that the landing gear was not down at all. Both engines cannot contact the ground with the gear down, and if it was a case the gear was down but retracted early on a go-around then the main gear doors would have been left behind on the runway during gear retraction as they come down below the height of the engine nacelles.

So some reasonable deductions………….
1) If there had been a known gear problem before landing it is absolutely inconceivable that the crew would have said nothing. This is an emergency situation in every circumstance.
Gear is normally lowered on glideslope intercept around 8-10 miles out, on a stable approach that is plenty of time to re-cycle and if unsure request an inspection from the ground and a go-around to troubleshoot and if necessary prepare for a belly landing, which over the years we have seen can be safely achieved almost every time.

2) We know the approach was highly unstable. The rate of descent required from that position to make the runway would have been at least 2-3 times the normal descent rate. Such a high energy maneuver so close to the ground is incredibly dangerous. It would also make it impossible to slow the aircraft down. Its basic physics that an airplane can’t go down and slow down.

3) Doing what they were attempting to do would have set all kinds of alarms off in the flightdeck. The GPWS would have been going crazy with “whoop, whoop pull up” and “sink rate” warnings

4) Its highly possible that there were so many warnings that some less severe warnings would have been supressed. For example the “Too low gear” warning would not override a GPWS Pull Up.

5) As Stuart described the A320 gear will not lower above 260kts. However the gear lever will move to the down position. Its possible that the crew lowered the gear lever but being above 260kts the gear did not extend. Given the many rushed elements we know of this approach its very plausible that the landing checklist was either not completed or very hurried. Rather then verify “3 green” they may have seen the lever down and believed the gear was extended.

6) Once the engines contacted the runway they would have been severely damaged. Its highly probable that oil began leaking out of both engines until they ran dry and failed. That would have happened quite quickly. From the video we can hear on the readback of the climb instruction the thrust increasing, so we know the engines were producing thrust initially after the go-around. Fuel exhaustion can likely be ruled out.

So while we will have to wait officially to see what happened one thing is certain, the first chain in the incident was the decision to continue with a badly unstable approach.
This is not an issue confined to one particular part of the world, it is a curse industry wide.
Many of the leading airlines now download random samples from flight recorders looking for breaches of SOP’s. Responsible operators have a zero tolerance policy for unstable approaches and any crew caught landing from one, even a successful and uneventful landing can be subject at a minimum to disciplinary action.
Unstable approaches have killed far too many people over the years, its really time to drop the hammer on airlines and pilots that still think its OK to salvage a landing from an approach that has become a little unstable never mind one like this that should never have even been attempted.

Żadna.

Błąd pilotów oraz ich rozkojarzenie były przyczyną katastrofy lotniczej w Karaczi 22 maja, w której zginęło 98 osób - wynika z przedstawionego w środę wstępnego raportu pakistańskiej komisji. Piloci mieli ignorować ostrzeżenia i być rozproszeni dyskusjami o koronawirusie.

Wyniki dochodzenia przedstawił w parlamencie minister lotnictwa Ghulam Sarwar Khan.

98 ofiar

Do katastrofy doszło w wigilię kończącego ramadan święta Eid al-Fitr, kiedy Airbus A320 pakistańskich linii Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) rozbił się na kilometr przed płytą lotniska. W katastrofie zginęło 97 pasażerów oraz przebywająca na miejscu katastrofy dziewczynka.

Jak stwierdził w parlamencie Khan, samolot był w 100 procentach sprawny i przygotowany do lotów, a całą winę ponoszą piloci, których pewne zachowania były "niezrozumiałe". Chodzi np. o wysunięcie, a później ponowne schowanie podwozia samolotu w odległości 5 mil morskich od lądowania. Zdaniem Khana powodem błędów mogło być ich skupienie na rozmowie o pandemii koronawirusa, która dotknęła ich rodziny.

- Koronawirus zdominował ich umysły (...) Kiedy byli w pozycji do lądowania, zostali ostrzeżeni przez kontrolerów, ale potem jeden z nich powiedział "dam radę", po czym znów zaczęli dyskutować o pandemii - opowiadał Khan.

Prawie 40 proc. pilotów z fałszywymi licencjami

Jak zauważa agencja Reuters, tekst raportu nie wspomina o rozmowach pilotów, ale mówi o tym, że nie działali zgodnie z protokołem, zignorowali kilka ostrzeżeń kontrolerów dotyczących m.in. zbyt dużej prędkości i lądowali ze schowanym podwoziem, wobec czego silniki samolotu zetknęły się z płytą lotniska podczas pierwszej próby lądowania, co spowodowało ich zapłon.

Khan wyjawił również, że wszczęta w ubiegłym roku kontrola w pakistańskich liniach lotniczych ujawniła, że prawie 40 proc. pilotów w Pakistanie posiada fałszywe licencje, uzyskane za pomocą oszustw na egzaminach, fałszerstw lub załatwiania pracy po znajomości.
https://www.polsatnews.pl/wiadomosc/2020-06-24/katastrofa-samolotu-w-karaczi-podano-przyczyne/

Wykryto 262 pilotów z podrobionymi licencjami w Pakistanie, z czego 141 pracowało w pakistańskim narodowym przewoźniku Pakistan International Airlines (PIA). Żeby naświetlić skalę problemu PIA zatrudnia łącznie 450 pilotów.
Trochę się już nalatali, bo wszyscy piloci bez uprawnień zostali zatrudnieni przed 2018 rokiem.

https://gandhara.rferl.org/a/pakistan-g ... 93742.html