Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pakistan plane crash: Jet carrying 107 people crashes into houses near airport

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

    That is the question, and I know the answer: By having airlines WANT to weed out these pilots.
    This pilot was regard in PIA as THE BEST, THE HOT SHOT, it was a Training Captain and Chief Instructor in the airline.

    ... So the questions is how do we weed out airlines and management and regulators and policy makers that permit a safety culture that in turn permits or even promotes these pilots to be in the cockpit and being regarded as role models..
    Wise words. Is it correct that immediately after the crash, the Pakistan equivalent of the CAA suddenly discovered 260 of their certified pilots had obtained their certifications by fraudulent means (e.g. having someone else sit the exam for them etc)?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Evan View Post

      TeeVee, first you need to get the facts of the case straight. We ban (or should ban) states when their civil aviation authority is deemed unreliable in policing the airlines in their charge. AF447 revealed serious shortcomings at Air France, the airline, but not the BEA, the civil agency. I think arguing that Pakistan has a reliable CAA (the PCAA) at ths point would be a certain waste of your time.
      Got to say (for what my personal opinion is worth on something like this) that I'm with Evan on this one.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by flashcrash View Post
        Is it correct that immediately after the crash, the Pakistan equivalent of the CAA suddenly discovered 260 of their certified pilots had obtained their certifications by fraudulent means (e.g. having someone else sit the exam for them etc)?
        https://edition.cnn.com/travel/artic...cli/index.html

        --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
        --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Evan View Post

          I think the crash of Eastern Flt 410 had a lot to do with it. In that case, despite being at or below 2000ft, cockpit crew of 3 with FE in the electronics bay at the time and the other two focused on repairing a gear indicator light.
          I think you meant 401

          Comment


          • https://youtu.be/G62sSwC4t_g

            Comment


            • EASA just suspended PIA's authorization

              EDIT: BB beat me to it.

              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Myself
                So the questions is how do we weed out airlines and management and regulators and policy makers that permit a safety culture that in turn permits or even promotes these pilots to be in the cockpit and being regarded as role models..
                Originally posted by EASA
                "Pakistan, as the state of the operator [PIA] is currently not able to certify and oversee its operators in accordance to applicable international standards"
                EASA also mentions the hundreds of fake pilots throughout the country, not just in PIA.

                I don't understand why they suspended just PIA. Maybe it is the only Pakistani airline flying to Europe, but the normal practice, when you have a breakdown in the system that goes to the regulator (as it is typically the case, because how can you have a breakdown in a single airline if you have a solid regulator) is to ban the country, not individual airlines.

                --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post



                  EASA also mentions the hundreds of fake pilots throughout the country, not just in PIA.

                  I don't understand why they suspended just PIA. Maybe it is the only Pakistani airline flying to Europe, but the normal practice, when you have a breakdown in the system that goes to the regulator (as it is typically the case, because how can you have a breakdown in a single airline if you have a solid regulator) is to ban the country, not individual airlines.
                  Well, a bit late. 40 days too late. Years late really. Why does this stuff always happen after the fact? "Won't happen again..." Wonderful.

                  AirBlue was the wake up call. The PIC didn't know how the FCU worked. Guess they hit the snooze button on that one.

                  So... Hello, FAA... Is Pakistan Category 2 yet? How could they not be.

                  BTW, Category 2 only restricts carriers from expanding into new routes. It's not a ban on existing service.

                  However, I've noticed on the Wikipedia page that all of PIA's US routes are TERMINATED. So, what happened there?

                  Pakistan only has one airline serving the EU and North America, and the EU Aviation Safety list bans specific airlines, so I guess that is why the ban is on the operator and not the CAA.

                  They'll probably just get around this with code-sharing or wet leases.

                  Comment


                  • Pariah International Airlines

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_destinations

                    Comment


                    • PIA firing fake pilots

                      https://www.yahoo.com/news/pakistani...100007466.html

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by xspeedy View Post
                        Only 28 ?

                        Comment


                        • Al Jazeera is reporting that PIA encouraged 'hot and high' unstable approaches to save on fuel. Very damning.

                          Originally posted by Al Jazeera
                          Pilot B, who also works with the safety department of PIA, said pilots had been encouraged to conduct approaches to airports "hot and high" - meaning flying for longer at higher altitudes, approaching runways at a steep angle of descent and higher speed - to save fuel.

                          "If you come hot and high then you are cruising higher and saving fuel on the way down," said Pilot B.

                          "[Management] started writing emails saying that pilots need to log how much fuel they use and how much they saved. Pilots with the highest fuel savings were given the best routes."

                          Pilot B said there had been more than 30 runway overruns - where pilots had missed their targeted landing range on the runway - and at least three runway threshold overruns - where aircraft actually departed the runway - in the last year alone, all based on a pattern of "hot and high" approaches.

                          "It became obvious that this hot-and-high thing was an issue that needs to be handled by the regulator," said Pilot B. "We'd had three overruns which were all incidents [in the last year], the fourth one may not be so lucky. We told them that the fourth one could kill people. And the fourth one was [the crash]."
                          This explains the PIC's indifference to ATC warnings and his reluctance to abandon the approach. As I suspected, he had probably pulled off many similar approaches and developed a false confidence.

                          There is a VERY important lesson here: aviation safety protocols and procedures are not built around pilot and aircraft capabilities; they are built around the things that can go wrong, things that cowboy airmen might fail to consider or even recognize. Just because a pilot has sucessfully done something against protocol 'a million times' does not mean it is not a dangerous gamble. It's usually just a matter of time before you lose.

                          Comment


                          • For the record, while teevee may not be distinguishing the LEVEL of incompetence, corruption nor level of response, I believe he is arguing that it's the same fundamental issue, and therefore has a valid point.
                            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                              Al Jazeera is reporting that PIA encouraged 'hot and high' unstable approaches to save on fuel. Very damning.



                              This explains the PIC's indifference to ATC warnings and his reluctance to abandon the approach. As I suspected, he had probably pulled off many similar approaches and developed a false confidence.

                              There is a VERY important lesson here: aviation safety protocols and procedures are not built around pilot and aircraft capabilities; they are built around the things that can go wrong, things that cowboy airmen might fail to consider or even recognize. Just because a pilot has sucessfully done something against protocol 'a million times' does not mean it is not a dangerous gamble. It's usually just a matter of time before you lose.
                              It has been discussed several times, "high and hot" is not really the issue here.

                              The issue is forgetting the landing gear, or more correctly RETRACTING the landing gear...(and seemingly crummy decision making on a go-around- then again, they probably never practiced engine-dragging landings during recurrent training).

                              ALSO, if you want to save gas, you do NOT descend fast...(but perhaps that concept is too much for them)

                              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by 3WE View Post

                                It has been discussed several times, "high and hot" is not really the issue here.

                                The issue is forgetting the landing gear, or more correctly RETRACTING the landing gear...(and seemingly crummy decision making on a go-around- then again, they probably never practiced engine-dragging landings during recurrent training).
                                I totally disagree.They crossed the threshold with 210 kts and "floated" along the runway for several thousands of feet, way past the touchdown zone, until they touched down still an excessive speed. There are many things that can go wrong in an stabilized approach (especially one that is highly unstabilized and that remains highly unstabilized when you cross the threshold) and forgetting the gear up was the least of the concerns that the industry had in mind when they created the stabilized approach rule. What they did was dangerous even if they had not touched down with the gear up, and this practice was bound to end bad sooner of later if not in this particular flight.

                                --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                                --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X