Originally posted by Jingogunner
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Pakistan plane crash: Jet carrying 107 people crashes into houses near airport
Collapse
X
-
-
Oh my god, this is frigging unbelievable. How did the engines contact the ground 5000 ft down the runway and how did they kept them dragging them for 2000 ft?????
I think if you want to intentionally do that, you can't.
On May 23rd 2020 Karachi Airport reported based on CAA inspection report that the runway inspection revealed scrape marks of the left engine start 4500 feet down the runway, the right engine scrape marks begin 5500 feet down the runway. About 6000-7000 feet past the runway threshold the scrape marks end.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by xspeedy View PostVideo of the craft going down. Sounds like engines were out.
https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=C1MJ3_1590157626
https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=u5vDK_1590165084
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View PostAnother crazy hypothesis...
They had problems with the nose gear and they went around normally (there are reports of a go around due to problems with the nose gear, but perhaps it was first go-around before a second one where they dragged the engines).
They could not fix the issue and they decided to land with the nose gear not down and locked.
In their second approach, they thought that they had the gear down but they in fact left them up after the previous troubleshooting.
They either deactivated or ignored the several different gear-not-down warnings, because they expected them anyway when approaching with the nose gear not secured down. We can hear the master caution continuous repeating chime in the ATC recording when they receive the landing clearance. Having the gear not down and locked below 750 ft RA seems to be a reason for this warning, which is not cancelled.
They were already in the flare when they had a last-second "oh shit" moment realizing that the gear was up (3 red, not just the nose gear). They initiated a last second go-around but didn't manage to avoid contacting the runway with the engines, but they did manage to complete the go around and climb out.
The rest is history.
I think the far more likely theory is that this was a botched manual go-around where they failed to set TOGA thrust and retracted the gear (again, why?) too soon, lost height and skimmed along the runway for a second or two, long enough to cause fatal engine damage but not enough to slow below flight speed. At least there is some partial precedent for this.
But still crazy.
Leave a comment:
-
What is unfortunate is so many lives could have been saved if he lined up with 25R. The corner of Model Colony comes in front of 25L. 25R had field.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Evan View Post
It's a good question. You recall that Cactus 1549 had Normal Law protections down to the flare, but they also had engine electrical power. The FCOM indicates that on BAT power or on the RAT generator the pitch law reverts to alternate. So that varies depending on whether or not the engines (or the APU) are still able to supply electrical power (I don't think the RAT was deployed in the Hudson ditching). But my research in actual incidents often seems to depart from the FCOM in these situations. Maybe ATL knows.
Leave a comment:
-
Another crazy hypothesis...
They had problems with the nose gear and they went around normally (there are reports of a go around due to problems with the nose gear, but perhaps it was first go-around before a second one where they dragged the engines).
They could not fix the issue and they decided to land with the nose gear not down and locked.
In their second approach, they thought that they had the gear down but they in fact left them up after the previous troubleshooting.
They either deactivated or ignored the several different gear-not-down warnings, because they expected them anyway when approaching with the nose gear not secured down. We can hear the master caution continuous repeating chime in the ATC recording when they receive the landing clearance. Having the gear not down and locked below 750 ft RA seems to be a reason for this warning, which is not cancelled.
They were already in the flare when they had a last-second "oh shit" moment realizing that the gear was up (3 red, not just the nose gear). They initiated a last second go-around but didn't manage to avoid contacting the runway with the engines, but they did manage to complete the go around and climb out.
The rest is history.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by exswissair View PostNot sure if this was posted before:https://youtu.be/YuXv1e68Pq0
Leave a comment:
-
By the way... they were so close to making it to the field (not to the runway). They crashed 1000 to 2000 ft short of the field where the situation would have likely been much more survivable (like the BA 777 at Heathrow)
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View PostMaybe they touched down, started a go around and retracted the gear too early.
Or maybe they started the go-around shortly after landing and didn't add power (like that 777) and the airplane initially climbed, they retracted, but lost speed and started to sink, then they added thrust to recover what they did but not before contacting the ground.
I don't know how or why, but at this point the possibility of them having contacted the runway with the engines seems increasingly probable.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Evan View Post
I don't think it's just 'dirty engines'. I wonder if it's due to oil leakage. Do you think composites contacting with an asphalt runway would leave those black marks?
Do you think they would attempt a gear-up landing without advising ATC?
That said, there are versions of the nose gear not coming down and you can hear the master warning when the tower clears them to land the first time (i.e. before the go around) which they acknowledge.
Maybe they touched down, started a go around and retracted the gear too early. Or maybe they started the go-around shortly after landing and didn't add power (like that 777) and the airplane initially climbed, they retracted, but lost speed and started to sink, then they added thrust to recover what they did but not before contacting the ground.
I don't know how or why, but at this point the possibility of them having contacted the runway with the engines seems increasingly probable.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View PostHere you have the URL to see the photos in full resolution:
https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net...2c&oe=5EEC69AA
https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net...1c&oe=5EEDAC91
Maybe a gear collapse and they got airborne again?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View PostEvan that's not just dirty engines.
Leave a comment:
-
Here you have the URL to see the photos in full resolution:
https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net...2c&oe=5EEC69AA
https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net...1c&oe=5EEDAC91
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: