quote:

Well...I wish I could find a good 8-10 second clip of Gunny Tom Highway telling the General, "It's a Cluster F*ck, sir"

And there you go....

Just adds validity to my previous post...

https://gulfnews.com/world/asi...omv9kyK-gimij1k3Oyn8

Plane crash: Around 40% pilots in Pakistan have ‘fake’ flying licences, says aviation minister

Dubai: Around 40 per cent of the pilots in Pakistan have fake flying licences, said the Aviation Minister Ghulam Sarwar.

Sarwar revealed the startling news about the ‘fake’ pilots while presenting a provisional inquiry report in the National Assembly of Pakistan about the recent PIA plane crash in Karachi.

“Pakistan has 860 active pilots, which includes PIA, Serene Air and Air Blue pilots as well. The inquiry which was initiated in February 2019 showed that 262 pilots did not give the exam themselves and asked someone else to sit for exam on their behalf,” the minister said. He said they have found out during the investigations that pilots with ‘fake’ licences did not even have proper flying experience. The 40 per cent 'fake' licence holders also include hundreds of pilots who are not 'active flyers.'
.
.
.
[snip]

Jeezus Christmas!!! I knew it was jacked up, but not to THAT extent! Ground them all NOW!!!

And that’s a good explanation why Airbus tries to make their airplanes “pilot proof”, becuase some operators have absolute dumbfucks behind the controls. Absolute utter frauds to fuck up an approach that easy. A day, VFR, no emergency straight in. With people on the ground trying to help you not fuck it up. But they still fucked it up so horribly.

Why would the "pilots" raise the landing gear a few miles before landing? And retract the air brakes as well? I get that they were clowns, but even clowns have reasons. Wrong levers have been pulled before (eg BEA Flt 548), is that what happened here?

Why a pilot might raise gear after lowering it could stem from multiple reasons. Spoilers are routinely extended and then retracted; they're to be used as needed, and need to be retracted prior to extending flaps in most cases.

The Pakistani mishap not withstanding, speaking in general terms, spoilers are there to control speed. They're also often used for roll control, too. They're also used on landing to kill lift and put weight on the wheels to increase brake effectiveness.

Gear may be lowered in flight to increase drag; on most transport category aircraft, drag increases during gear operation to a value higher than when the gear is fully extended.

The Pakistan flight was fast and high. It's hard to go down, and slow down. Consequently the use of landing gear and spoilers may be required, especially if above flap speeds. Spoilers are extended after thrust is reduced to idle and the primary means of drag increase, to increase rate of descent or decrease airspeed, or both.

The Pakistan flight was advised high, and given a vector: this was a delaying move by ATC to make a turn, and allow time to slow, configure, and get to the correct altitude. The crew rejected this, but may have attempted to throw out the gear to slow and aid in the descent.

What's more evident is no reference to cockpit conversation directing extending or retracting gear. The prelimiary report is rushed, and poorly constructed, and reflects just what one might expect out of Pakistan, especially from self-titled investigators who call themselves "Air Commander" and "Wing Commander, and "Group Captain" as most aviators in Pakistan and India do.

The report is badly written, hastily constructed, glosses over a lot, makes assumptions not in evidence, is lacking in technical information, illustrates improper handling and investigation, token reference legitimate expertise and heavy reference to self-titled, self-styled egos, and generic language.

The Preliminary report does note, as expected, that standard call-outs and Cockpit Resource Management was not used, throughout most of the flight. This is not surprising. Almost certainly actions such as gear extension and retraction were undertaken independently by the crew, not working as a crew, and the timing would strongly suggest one crew member attempting to move a control and the other reversing that act.

At 500', the crew was in violation of every tenet of a stable approach, and a around was mandatory. Instead, they continued with alarms and warnings advising them to go around. According to the report, when the touched down to the roughness of a no-gear landing, they actually attempted reverse thrust. In most cases, rejecting the takeoff is no longer possible with either reverse trust, or ground spoilers.

At Why the crew attempted to go-around once aware that the ariplane was skidding on its belly, is a mystery.

quote:

Originally posted by kkina:
I get that they were clowns, but even clowns have reasons.

I would suggest that while they CAN have reasons, they don't always have a reason. People do things that they shouldn't in high stress environments when they are exceeding their skill level. People move switches / levers the wrong way. Sometimes they don't even know they are doing it, or meant to move another control.

Hence all the Crew Resource Management and procedures sns3guppy talks about exist. It's basically a roadmap of "DO THIS", which allows pilots to save brainpower for when things outside of their direct control go wrong - like bad weather, mechanical failures, sick passengers, re-routing of the flight, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
The prelimiary report is rushed, and poorly constructed, and reflects just what one might expect out of Pakistan, especially from self-titled investigators who call themselves "Air Commander" and "Wing Commander, and "Group Captain" as most aviators in Pakistan and India do.

And with all their self-important "titles" and chest thumping, I'll bet you dime to donuts not a single one of these idiotic numb-nuts knows dick about flying an Airbus 319/320.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
Is it possible to land at 260 knots? In theory, yes, but pretty damn difficult.

I’ve got to imagine it would be incredibly difficult to actually touch down at 260 knots, especially if correctly configured, and have the airplane not just fly right back off. Okay, maybe one could wheelbarrow on, but...
Assuming one could somehow manage that, I shudder to think how many miles of runway it would take to get stopped. Of course the tires might not survive landing at that speed...

Re airbus and their laws trying to pilot proof the airplanes, it is interesting how all the amazing technology now available in general aviation aircraft hasn’t resulted in the expected safety benefits. It turns out that when things are a lot more complicated there is a lot more to learn to take advantage. There will always be some who think that all the automation will do it for them, so they’ll attempt more challenging stuff that they wouldn’t attempt in a less sophisticated aircraft. The challenge is to add support and capability, but to insure that the folks holding the yokes know what they are doing. Hiring good quality folks and keeping them trained to a high level is not inexpensive. Airlines, just like police departments, have budgets and make choices. Some other countries’ airlines make different choices than our airlines are even allowed to.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

Why the crew attempted to go-around once aware that the ariplane was skidding on its belly, is a mystery.

I have many hours of instruction given in Bonanzas (my specialty, along with instrument instruction).

I personally know one ego-driven, incompetent, so-called "pilot" who has done this twice in Bonanzas. The second time was in a Bonanza that his insurance company had paid for, after he destroyed the first one, doing this. When he landed after the go-around, the prop tips were all bent back.

---

On another note, here is a Mooney at Our Little Airport. The airplane had been in major maintenance for many months, this was the first landing after it was put back in service. Pilot error, not mechanical malfunction:

Don't the wheel thingy's come down with the flaps?

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
Is it possible to land at 260 knots? In theory, yes, but pretty damn difficult.

I’ve got to imagine it would be incredibly difficult to actually touch down at 260 knots, especially if correctly configured, and have the airplane not just fly right back off. Okay, maybe one could wheelbarrow on, but...
Assuming one could somehow manage that, I shudder to think how many miles of runway it would take to get stopped. Of course the tires might not survive landing at that speed...

If I'm reading the report correctly, they landed at 220 knots- still a bit ripping. That happens to be the maximum speed for gear retraction. Actually, they pulled up the lever when they were still at 243 kts; I wonder why they weren't locked out? Or maybe they were until they slowed down to 220.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:
I have many hours of instruction given in Bonanzas (my specialty, along with instrument instruction).

I personally know one ego-driven, incompetent, so-called "pilot" who has done this twice in Bonanzas. The second time was in a Bonanza that his insurance company had paid for, after he destroyed the first one, doing this. When he landed after the go-around, the prop tips were all bent back.

---

On another note, here is a Mooney at Our Little Airport. The airplane had been in major maintenance for many months, this was the first landing after it was put back in service. Pilot error, not mechanical malfunction:

Very different, however, from touching down on the engine nacelles, attempting reverse thrust (which opens the entire nacelle and slides it aft), then attempting to cancel reverse thrust and initiate a go-around. In a piston engine airplane, it's simply a matter of pushing the power up. In the airbus, or any transport category aircraft, once on the ground, multiple changes take place, and the aircraft transfers to ground mode and ground logic. Especially with power at idle or movement into reverse.

Once on the ground, particularly if ground spoilers have deployed, initiating a go-around is considered no longer possible, and with introduciton of reverse thrust, attempting a go-around would fall on a spectrum from extremely dangerous to impossible. There have certainly been cases in which pilots have touchded down and attempted to go again, resulting in prop strikes, pod strikes, fuselage contact, etc, and in some aircraft, one could possiblly get away with it (eg, MU-2). In an aircraft like the airbus or any transport category aircraft, it would be unthinkable.

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:
Don't the wheel thingy's come down with the flaps?

No, and while that feature has been built into some aircraft, it's proven quite dangerous. A light airplane, the Piper Arrow, features an airspeed sensor that drops the gear if the aircraft gets too slow, but it's often disabled by instructors and has caused a problem during emergency glides. Override features, and separate controls, exist for a reason.

Warnings occur at reduced power setting, advanced flap settings, and ground proximity situations, when the gear isn't extended. The Pakistan crew had those warnings howling and barking away upon landing.

quote:

Originally posted by kkina:

If I'm reading the report correctly, they landed at 220 knots- still a bit ripping. That happens to be the maximum speed for gear retraction. Actually, they pulled up the lever when they were still at 243 kts; I wonder why they weren't locked out? Or maybe they were until they slowed down to 220.

The speed for gear retraction is a limitation, but not because the gear is "locked out." It isn't. The nosegear retracts forward, against considerable drag, and the gear doors open during retraction, also causing a drag rise and encountering resistance in operation. The manufacturer limitation of 220 for retraction reflects the load placed on the retract mechanism. Once extended, the aircraft can be flown to a higher speed: all the way to 280 in the extreme, but retraction should not take place above 220 to avoid the airload on the retraction actuator.

The only "lockout" is a max extension speed restriction in which the hydraulics are "locked out" by a shutoff valve, to prevent gear damage during extension. In particular, this protects the extension actuator and the nosegear, as the nosegear swings aft during extension.

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:
Of course the tires might not survive landing at that speed...

Maximum tire groundspeed for B737 700/800/900 and B737 MAX is 195 and 204 IAS respectively. Can't imagine Fifi speeds being much higher...

Juan Brown checks in with his play-by-play on the prelim report. His impression is massive arguing and confusion in the cockpit, with one pilot trying to configure for ATC-ordered holding pattern and the other trying to set the bird down any way he can. This would explain the widely divergent configuration settings. Unknown which was which or who was even flying the plane until the full CVR recording is released.

^^^ Frick and frack flying a plane full of passengers. Unbelievable.

From paragraph K of the prelim report,
"FDR data recording stopped during this timeframe (as per the designed limitation)."

The flight data recorder stopped recording after the go around attempt???
Why would it have such a design limitation?
I thought that FDRs kept recording until there was nothing left to record.

^^Juan discussed that in the video I posted above. Apparently, on the previous Airbus iteration, the recorders have no power backup. When main power is lost, as would happen when both engines go down, the black boxes go dead. Doesn't make sense to me, either.

Thanks, I didn't watch the video (bandwidth issues). It kind of makes sense that the FDRs fail with no power, nothing to record. I guess the RATs power is used to try to keep the airplane flying. I still would have thought that a FDR would be self powered.
The more you know.........
The more you question....why.

quote:

Originally posted by phydough:

The flight data recorder stopped recording after the go around attempt???
Why would it have such a design limitation?
I thought that FDRs kept recording until there was nothing left to record.

I also am surprised. I would have thought there would be battery backup for some limited amount of time, maybe 15-30 min. Similar to battery backup on a smoke alarm.

Does anyone know how accessible these are for maintenance purposes? Is it as simple as opening a interior/exterior door and they are right there or are they buried behind a bunch of other stuff.