quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
[T]hat mindset gets people killed.

But if it’s Allah’s (“the god’s”) will, then getting people killed is still okay.
I’m often reminded that that’s not a bad belief for our enemies to have.

quote:

Originally posted by Broadside:

So, I assume that if you do something like this the aircraft starts screaming at you with all types of alarms. I guess it would be easy to miss the one that is screaming at you to lower the landing gear.

The Electronic Centralized Aircraft Monitoring System (ECAM) provides a warning, and the gear handle has an arrow that turns red if flaps are in the landing position and gear not down, below 700,' on the A320. The system display also provides a gear indication. There are also, of course, indicators by the gear handle, with redundancy.

There were rumors of a gear problem prior to the landing, but the crew made no announcement, and did not declare an emergency.

Given their speed on approach and the descent rate, it's unlikely they configured until quite late in the approach, if at all, or were attempting to configure the airplane during landing.

The cockpit voice recorder, and flight data recorder have both been recovered, and that information will be available.

Any extra airspeed equates to a longer landing distance, and it's quite possible that their unstable approach resulted in the long landing, with a subsequent touchdown on the engines, and an go-around.

The flight reached an altitude of approximatley 3,000' with engines operating before descending; the report of dual engine loss by the crew was two minutes after announcing the go-around, and the flight had made it back to a base-leg position, approaching 25L; they crashed about three quarters of a mile from the approach end of the runway.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
But if it’s Allah’s (“the god’s”) will, then getting people killed is still okay.
I’m often reminded that that’s not a bad belief for our enemies to have.

Islam, by definition, is the belief that all things are subject to the will or God, and belief in Islam is the willing subjection to God. The Islamic phrase, "God Willing" (inshallah), speaks to inevitability; whatever God wants, will happen.

I often asked, when living in the Kingdom, "What if God isn't willing today?" Nobody had an answer, though I'm sure I knew what it would be, if they did.

Landing clearances in the Islamic world usually come with the same admonition: "You are cleared to land, inshallah." You are cleared to land, God willing. I have always found that clearance to sound more like "good luck, hopefully it works out," and hardly encouraging. The only thing missing is "can I have your truck, if you don't make it?"

I can certainly attest that my own survival in the industry has on occasion been the work of insight and a power much greater than my own, and there by the grace go I. Never the less, to make every approach, and every flight under that premise, is not the stuff of which longevity is made.

TheFlightChannel just put out a sim video on what crashed Pakistan 8303, based on the available data so far (subject to further revision):

1. FL8303 approaches Jinnah Int'l Airport at an inexplicable high speed and altitude.

2. The pilots execute the proper actions to configure the landing gear for landing. However, the high speed triggers a safety interlock that prevents the gear from fully extending.

3. The pilots, preoccupied by their own unorthodox approach, fail to notice alert warnings that the landing gear are in an unsafe condition.

4. Moments before touchdown, the pilot realizes the landing gear are still up and initiates a (undeclared) go-around. However, the engines have insufficient time to spool up at this point.

5. The aircraft scrapes the runway 3 times: first the left engine, then the right, then a third and final time.

6. The engines are now outputting enough to lift the plane back into the air.

7. The plane attempts to circle around for a second landing attempt. However, damage to the hydraulic systems cause both engines to eventually fail. The Ram Air Turbine automatically deploys as a response to the loss of electrical power.

8. In an ironic twist of fate, due to the now lowered speed the landing gear complete their extension cycle. Unfortunately, the increased drag now hampers attempts to keep the plane airborne.

9. The pilot declares a mayday.

10. Unable to complete a return to the airport, the Airbus crashes in a residential neighborhood.

What a shit show…

To miss by that little, it sounds like if they had raised the gear when the automatically deployed (at the correct airspeed) then they could've made it and redeployed the gear at final.

quote:

Originally posted by ChuckFinley:
To miss by that little, it sounds like if they had raised the gear when the automatically deployed (at the correct airspeed) then they could've made it and redeployed the gear at final.

That sounds correct, but does the RAT produce enough electrical power to raise the gear?

I’m not an airbus guy but Boeing’s need hydraulic power to raise gear. No hydraulics no raising gear. So no. And yes to shit show. Cue in Lion Air and Ethiopian Air. Don’t fly guys like this overseas if you can help it.

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola: Don’t fly guys like this overseas if you can help it.

Not been a problem for me so far. Don't envision it becoming one.

Gear is raised electrically initiated and hydraulic actuated.

So, raising the gear handle would likely have only unlocked the gear.

The operation of the gear by not lowering if in an over-speed condition, to only have them drop once safe gear speed is a very distant factor of the loss of airspeed when the engines were not longer providing thrust, and sims could reveal if they could have extended to the runway with engines out and gear up.

Gear creates a lot of drag, more pronounced at higher speeds. It would be like trying to coast in a vehicle and engaging the parking brake, or dropping into a lower gear, you are going to bleed speed vary fast.

The issue of raising gear after the dual engine failure is a non-starter and largely irrelevant, hydraulics not withstanding (electrically controlled, hydraulically actuated, with RAT capability to power electric hydraulic pumps).

Gear drag increases during transition, due to door operation.

Hydraulics are necessary to maintain control; hence, the RAT, which isn't just about electricity. The electricity is needed to power the hydraulic pumps to provide flight controls.

Moreover, the RAT driving hydraulic power is needed to drive the emergency generator via the Blue system.

If hydraulics were damaged or compromised, that may have further complicated the matter, limiting or preventing electric operation and flight controls. What was compromised and to what extent, depends on the damage incurred during the runway contact.

Most of that discussion is largely rendered irrelevant by the simple fact that on the downwind leg, the aircraft had no engine power.

Out of altitude, ideas, and airspeed at the same time is never a good thing.

quote:

Originally posted by kkina:
TheFlightChannel just put out a sim video on what crashed Pakistan 8303, based on the available data so far (subject to further revision):

1. FL8303 approaches Jinnah Int'l Airport at an inexplicable high speed and altitude.

2. The pilots execute the proper actions to configure the landing gear for landing. However, the high speed triggers a safety interlock that prevents the gear from fully extending.

3. The pilots, preoccupied by their own unorthodox approach, fail to notice alert warnings that the landing gear are in an unsafe condition.

4. Moments before touchdown, the pilot realizes the landing gear are still up and initiates a (undeclared) go-around. However, the engines have insufficient time to spool up at this point.

Did TheFlightChannel put out a revised video? The first video I watched several days ago said that the pilot was intentionally trying to land with the gear up due to a malfunction. But he did not notify the tower.

That seemed incredibly suspect to me considering how high and how fast they came in on approach. I would have thought you would notify the world of your intentions, make sure you are lined up, and also dump any excess fuel before attempting to land.

quote:

Originally posted by Broadside:
Did they put out a revised video? The first video I watched several days ago said that the pilot was intentionally trying to land with the gear up due to a malfunction. But he did not notify the tower.

That seemed incredibly suspect to me considering how high and how fast they came in on approach. I would have thought you would notify the world of your intentions, make sure you are lined up, and also dump any excess fuel before attempting to land.

Good eye! Yes, indeed, this is his second, revised video on the incident. I decided against posting the first one as there were too many things that didn't sound right to me. I think he also had the aircraft striking the runway 2 times, when video of the runway clearly showed 3 scrapes.

This second vid is much, much better imo. He may very well post yet another iteration as more data becomes available.

quote:

Originally posted by Broadside:
... and also dump any excess fuel before attempting to land.

Huh?

Their initial approach wasn't an emergency landing or approach; it was a point A to point B flight.

Just a really badly conducted one.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
What a shit show…

No kidding. I wonder what kind of Before Landing Checklist (Landing Gear Down and Locked - Confirmed) or After Takeoff/Go Around Checklist (Landing Gear - UP) was run by the PNF.

The CVR transcripts are going to make for some interesting reading for the investigators.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

quote:

Originally posted by Broadside:
... and also dump any excess fuel before attempting to land.

Huh?

Their initial approach wasn't an emergency landing or approach; it was a point A to point B flight.

Just a really badly conducted one.

Yes. I understand. But the initial video created by TheFlightChannel stated that the plane experienced a gear malfunction and the pilot was attempting a gear up landing but did not alert the control tower.

I believe the creators were attempting to avoid any speculation that would put the pilot in a bad light and just stick to the facts as they are known. I respect them for that.

As kkina has indicated, they have updated their video with new information.

quote:

Originally posted by Broadside:


Yes. I understand. But the initial video created by TheFlightChannel stated that the plane experienced a gear malfunction and the pilot was attempting a gear up landing but did not alert the control tower.

I believe the creators were attempting to avoid any speculation that would put the pilot in a bad light and just stick to the facts as they are known. I respect them for that.

As kkina has indicated, they have updated their video with new information.

I haven't watched either video, but it's clear that it's full of speculation and little fact. There were rumors spreading through the internet underworld of gear problems prior to landing, but certainly no evidence of it. No communication to ATC...so if the idea was to avoid speculation and stick to facts, they did quite the opposite. None of those "facts" were known, and were pure guesswork.

The idea that the crew had to dump fuel to land on a routine flight certainly doens't paint them in a good light. I don't believe there's anything to support that, either.

The unstable approach, refusal to take a delaying vector, attempt to force the landing, the gear up landing, go around, and subsequent results all speak quite clearly, however, without any need for speculation.

Been following blancolirio on this. He doesn't have anything good to say about the flight crew on this one.

Couple questions to those who know about the A320 systems. I know the A320 has inhibits that preclude lowering the gear above any airspeed that's unsafe to do so. And for most of the approach this one was well above that limit. But the question I have is, does the flight control system need to see a stable value at or below that limit before it will lower the gear, or will a momentary excursion into a safe airspeed value be enough? Some of the data I've seen seems to indicate they did momentarily drop below that speed. Though I know that's not data from the FDR.

The problem with the speculation theories is that while gear is inhibited from extension above 260 knots (+/- 5kts) (it may be manually extended above that speed), the maximum speed for retraction is 220 knots.

Maximum gear extended speed is 280 knots. While extension is inhibited above 260, once extended, the aircraft may be flown to 280 knots with the gear out. To retract the gear, one should be below 220 knots.

The gear handle sends an electronic signal to sequence hydraulic valves for gear operation: down or up. The hydraulics to move the gear are locked out above 260 knots. If the gear handle is placed down above that speed, the valve locking out the hydraulic supply to the gear will remain locked out; once below that speed, hydraulic pressure is available to extend gear and doors. Having etended gear, if increasing above 260 knots, the gear doesn't retract again. The inhibit isn't a function of extending or retracting: it's a lockout that prevents hydraulic pressure from being available to lower the gear (due to being above Vlo, or maximum gear operating speed.

The limiting factor in the gear operation are the doors, which can be damaged in operation at high speeds. Retraction requires the nosegear to move against airflow; Operation of the gear at too high a speed faces potential for gear door damage, as well as aerodynamic resistance to retraction or excess force on the gear as it opens, potentially damaging the nosegear while in transit. It's for that reason that the gear is locked out at speeds above. Vlo (gear operating speed). It's also for this reason that the maximum gear retraction speed is a lesser value.

Once the gear is out and locked, speed is allowable up to 280 knots, as the main gear doors are closed, and the nosegear is locked in place.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

the captain rules with an iron fist (literally, in some cases, slapping or punching the First Officer who dares talk back or disagree)

There are only three things that a First Officer should say to the Captain:

1. "Nice landing, sir!"
   
   
2. "I'll buy the first round."
   
   
3. "I'll take the ugly one."

Anything else is superfluous and should not be tolerated.

So said, of military officers, too.

There was a time when both were true.

In the cockpit, those attitudes were prevalent in the US until the early 80's, and into the early 2000's with some cargo operators. Most work hard to eradicate cockpit dictators, but they do continue, and have proven dangerous with some frequency over the years. I've flown with quite a few.

Abroad, it's an ongoing problem compounded by company culture, no external experience, minimal training, and some very backward thinking.