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

[Gabriel]

Riddle me this Gabriel, you are at 15,000 feet and too high...we don’t know $hit about transport flying...but maybe (where’d I hear that word?) putting out some flaps and wheels and other garbage might help with descending...

Maybe there were (big) problems with that stuff?

I don't know, but, statistically... unlikely. Maybe some relatively minor problem that caused a distraction, a tunnel vision that had them look away from flying the plane, that caused some irrational reaction, that overwhelmed them due to inappropriate CRM and prioritization... maybe (that word again). A massive set of failures that forced them to make an approach without being able to extend the gear and flaps but didn't tell anything to ATC and yet were able to fully control the plane, execute a go-around, extend the landing gear, and crash with the plane under control when both engines failed? Unlikely to say the least.

A simple "they rushed an unstable approach and overlooked things and made mistakes" happened before and is much more Occam's-razor, and statistically it is what we tend to find when we have accidents related to unstable approaches. Unstable approaches still happen from time to time and are almost never caused by a technical issue the plane. They end up well most of the times, but every once and then they don't.

In my view, this is narrowing down to either a gear-forgotten-up landing or a very low go around with a premature gear retraction. Maybe with some some distraction due to some relatively minor technical issue (like the UAS in AF, was the crash caused by the UAS?).

Again, all this is still very preliminary, with a lot of of unknowns and maybes, but if I had to bet, my money would be in pilots needlessly rushing things and overlooking stuff.

[Evan]

Riddle me this Gabriel, you are at 15,000 feet and too high...we don’t know $hit about transport flying...but maybe (where’d I hear that word?) putting out some flaps and wheels and other garbage might help with descending...

Maybe there were (big) problems with that stuff?

Riddle me this 3WE: You are experiencing a technical problem significant enough to disrupt your approach and leave you way behind it, yet when ATC queries you on three occasions, you say nothing about any problem, in fact you insist you are in good shape...

Now, granted that report about ATC is an allegation. Maybe it's another fabrication. So much about this crash that has come out so far is contradictory and unreliable. I seriously question the 210kts thing. What is known by investigators is being sequestered (there's got to be ACARS and surveillance video). Goes with the territory I guess.

But, remember AF447, when we all tied our minds in knots with every conceivable explanation except the right one: that the pilots had just failed on an epic, unthinkable level? You like to call it my "home base" (it isn't), but right now, given what we have, nothing else but gross pilot error seems to add up.

By the way, it's ok to speculate at this point. That's what we're here for. Nobody is claiming to have this thing figured out. Everyone is prepared to be proved wrong.

[TeeVee]

safe to say there was no pre-landing checklist done, let alone actually doing the checklist items. whatever WAS going on in that cockpit, it was distracting

[Gabriel]

safe to say there was no pre-landing checklist done...

How do you know? I've seen a pilot calling out an item but not really checking it, or accidentally skipping a line, or...

... let alone actually doing the checklist items

... or actually checking the item but doing so wrong, all when in all these cases it was his best intention to do it correctly. I know because it happened to a friend. He told me that it mostly happened with the carb heat (that you would turn on for the descent but need to turn off on final to get full thrust in case of a go around). He also told me that flying a Tomahawk single pilot in the pattern when you are #7 to land in a controlled airport can get your hands full, especially when you have low hours.

[Gabriel]

210 knots over the threshold.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEYiiZdvNh4

[LH-B744]

210 knots over the threshold.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEYiiZdvNh4

Hey my friend.

That's for sure, 210 knots over the threshold?
As I said somewhere above, I know only such a tiny minimum about an A320. But 210 over the threshold....

that even in my eyes does not really seem healthy, and I don't really know the exact vref on final in an A320.

A couple of minutes ago I have 'telephoned' with 3WE, and I told him that the only computer game which I know a litte bit about is
Randazzo's LH-B744 fsx simulator.

Even in a B747-400 simulator, I have never tried to land with 210 over the threshold.

And no checklist done, neither for descent, nor for approach, nor on final?

TeeVee assumes that something in this A320 cockpit happened which distracted the Captain and his F/O.
Whatever that was.

Good to see that all the 'ole jetphotos heroes' are back online and healthy again. Good to see TeeVee again.

[LH-B744]

In the simulator section of this forum, we could argue about what a computer game like fsx is really good for. I must confess, that was the tool which I used to look up the distance between the departure and the planned arrival which hasn't really ended at the gate, but with a fatal crash.

552 nautical miles air-line distance, from dep direct to arr? That is so very much an everyday distance in an A320, I know that from my home airport. Fiumicino, Capodicino, Fontanarossa, all these airports are more than only 552 nmi away.

The very first thing when back then I made my first steps in a Flight simulator was, to concentrate on the landing. Back then it was the default B737-400 fs9, and today I really know as if it were yesterday, how early I had to begin the descent between DUS and FCO.

But here in this topic we don't talk about a computer game, but about professional pilots who .. yes who get paid for what they do, that's what I originally tried to say.
They got paid for what they did, with a result which nobody on Earth is able to produce in a Simulator, Thank God.

PS: After all those years, I more and more see that Flight hours in a semi-pro simulator or better in a professional 6-way-simulator-cockpit with a door to close
are definitely not useless or wasted time!

Insufficient Flight hours, or insufficient practice, was that the problem here?

[LH-B744]

Seahawk, I need another one, please could you let me. And btw a Good morning from Lohausen airport.

Gabe, I do not open that many videos which are thrown to my feet. But I've tried yours. Unstable approach profile.
Only these three words plus the diagram which is shown before I started the video, gave me an idea.

The diagram at 00:00, or rather earlier, in the title of the video, is very blurred or out of focus, but I assume that on top of that diagram there is a 10,000. And then that diagram shows,
what I'd call a nose dive.
And then the man in the video shows what all men should have in their pocket when you have to land at Karachi,
the ILS approach chart rwy 25L for Karachi.
'At 6.3 nmi DME the a/c needs to be at 2100 in order to intercept the 3.0° glideslope. At 160 knots, the vertical speed (v/s) would be 849 fpm. [...]'

Theoretically, I do not need more than this 01:47 minutes of the video. With a given top of descent, let's say 6.3 nmi DME, you always need more than 849 fpm if you are faster than 160.
That's a simple calculation.
With 160, your sink rate is 849 every 2.667 nautical miles. If you do not change a thing in this calculation, you will need 8 nmi to descent 2547 feet.

Now, let's assume somebody tries to land an A320 with 210 instead of 160. The top of descent will clearly be much earlier (further away), assumed that you don't increase the v/s.

I'd say that's not healthy. But probably it is even out of range in an A320.
I have never seen a reference sheet for an A320, which would say, an A320 is technically not able to perform a successful touchdown with 210 knots.

I can only repeat, also in a 747-400 simulator, I wouldn't dare 210 on final, and that's a jet with a quite good reverse thrust, once that you have arrived on the ground.

[Evan]

210 knots over the threshold.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEYiiZdvNh4

How reliable is publically-acquired ADS-B data?

[3WE]

1. Riddle me this 3WE: You are experiencing a technical problem significant enough to disrupt your approach and leave you way behind it, yet when ATC queries you on three occasions, you say nothing about any problem, in fact you insist you are in good shape.

2. By the way, it's ok to speculate at this point. That's what we're here for. Nobody is claiming to have this thing figured out. Everyone is prepared to be proved wrong.

1. Calls for 2.5 replies: A) Indeed, it seems strange and tends to be inconsistent with my "big problem" theory. B) The crew could be preoccupied with their big problem and just want to get it down. C) Maybe they did do something naughty and needed to get down, but NOT_be caught.

2. Concur; however, WE have a lot of bias that is generally evident in our comments. You and Gabriel default your speculation to stupid cowboy monkey improvisation. I default my speculation that folks have a REASON when they do strange things.

Indeed, we could be wrong.

There is also a threshold of intelligent speculation...Such as blurting out "Stall" every time a plane crashes. With so few facts, you and Gabriel are pushing it with your rapid-fire theories of stupid pilot actions.

[Evan]

There is also a threshold of intelligent speculation...

Indeed. So...

Firstly, we have that ADS-B data, which shows not only an extreme deviation from stable approach criteria but also no level-off or hold to work any sort of problem that isn't a time-critical emergency.

Secondly, we have an absence of any report from the crew about a time-critical emergency, or any problem whatsoever, despite repeated communications with ATC.

Thirdly, we have what resulted. We have a gear-up, 210kt attempt at landing. We have a go-around after making ground contact with both engines.

So, where do you place that threshold on speculation? I think both Gabriel and I are well within any reasonable threshold of speculation.

[Evan]

C) Maybe they did do something naughty and needed to get down, but NOT_be caught.

Such as nodding off and missing the top of descent? Careful, you seem to be crossing your own threshold...

[Gabriel]

How reliable is publically-acquired ADS-B data?

I have no idea.

[3WE]

Quote = Evan; Red = 3BS

Firstly, we have that ADS-B data, which shows not only an extreme deviation from stable approach criteria but also no level-off or hold to work any sort of problem that isn't a time-critical emergency. See how you bolded extreme...cowboy monkey improvisation tends to involve minor, incremental deviation from best practices, not gross ones.

Secondly, we have an absence of any report from the crew about a time-critical emergency, or any problem whatsoever, despite repeated communications with ATC. Concur (and stated myself previously)

Thirdly, we have what resulted. We have a gear-up, 210kt attempt at landing. Mr. Black and White (And Gabriel), this is NOT an ADDITIONAL aspect. There is ONE SINGLE OCCURENCE OF A STEEP APPROACH FROM ~15,000 feet to the runway (with indications of little or no use of draggy thingies). They actually did pretty good to wind up 50 knots fast...and why there wasn't some turning or something to address the slight miss...this again points to an urgency to get on the ground, ASAP. If you are uber high at 15,000 feet, uber high at 5000 feet and cross the threshold at 210 knots...it's all rather consistent...make no mistake, from my arm chair, I would think they should have fixed that...

We have a go-around after making ground contact with both engines. Strange as hell, isn't it.

So, where do you place that threshold on speculation? I think both Gabriel and I are well within any reasonable threshold or speculation. Where I criticize you guys the QUANTITY of posts suggesting gross stupidity given no real data about what was going on early in and before the steep approach.

I am on record saying that maybe there WAS a perceived fuel shortage resulting in clean, fast glide ending in an extremely bad landing/go-around (consistent with a lot of evidence)...my over-speculation that the guys didn't want to disclose naughtiness...here's an example for you, and yes it's pushing the envelope and yes it reflects my bias that intelligent humans generally don't do UBER gross deviations from good practice without some logic and reason.

[Evan]

Where I criticize you guys the QUANTITY of posts suggesting gross stupidity

I’ve suggested gross pilot error once here. However, if it turns out that this approach data is real and it was unnecessary getthereitis I will add stupidity if you like.