全部
← Back to Squawk list
Crashed PIA flight 'black boxes' to be examined in France
Work on the flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder from a Pakistan International Airlines flight that crashed in Karachi will begin on June 2, French air safety investigators said Saturday on Twitter. The recorders -- commonly known as "black boxes" -- were recovered after the flight, PIA 8303, crashed in a dense residential area adjacent to Jinnah International Airport in Karachi on May 22, killing all but two of the 99 people on board. (www.msn.com) 更多...
Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
https://youtu.be/5ESJH1NLMLs
Great vid (not great quality, but great message) re: automation dependency.
Great vid (not great quality, but great message) re: automation dependency.
Nice resume! Congrats on makin a retirement date, I'm guessin.
The arrival of RNP arrivals and approaches made the descent profile as critical as all the rest with the compressed lateral and vertical requirements and speed somewhat less so, except at TEB. You might not have to calculate all those alt. crossing restrictions, but you still had to be sure the FMS was.
The arrival of RNP arrivals and approaches made the descent profile as critical as all the rest with the compressed lateral and vertical requirements and speed somewhat less so, except at TEB. You might not have to calculate all those alt. crossing restrictions, but you still had to be sure the FMS was.
The French will do a thorough investigation. Everyone is pointing fingers at the pilots, and there may be good reason to. But those boxes will tell the story of the aircraft and the pilots prior to the crash. There good be something to learn from this tragedy.
Yeah, but how many fatalities and solid anecdotal evidence does it take to indict third world airline crew training and accident records?
Who knows how many souls the wuhan flu saved from another Iranian shoot down or 2.5 world airline crashes? The Maxes are still grounded. It must not have all been that!
Who knows how many souls the wuhan flu saved from another Iranian shoot down or 2.5 world airline crashes? The Maxes are still grounded. It must not have all been that!
Comments from a supposed pilot on TheFlightChannel video. They all make sense to me. It will be interesting, finding out what was going on in that cockpit. So tragic...
As an active A330 captain and having flown the A320 for more than 7 years allow me to make following remarks:
1. During the first approach the aircraft was obviously quite high (possibly also fast) and the gear seems to have been forgotten up apparently as a result of focusing too much on making the landing and avoiding a go around (which could only be just a little embarrassing and nothing more). Approaching high (and fast) can happen in everyday operation as a result of accepting shortcuts by ATC or just simply mismanaging the approach. The safest course of action for that is to cancel the approach and request new vectoring and not force the approach and landing.
2. No pilot makes a belly landing without first completing the relevant checklists and informing the tower. The warnings were for some reason ignored (continuous repetitive chime and most probably also the “TOO LOW GEAR” which by the way cannot be cancelled unless the gear is lowered or a go around performed).
3. After watching a video of a runway inspection it appears that the aircraft touched down with its engines 3 times before going around.
4. As a result of the engines scraping the runway, it seems they got damaged and failed after a while leading to a dual engine loss as also evidenced by the extension of the RAT (Ram Air Turbine) which also comes out automatically if the two engine driven generators are lost.
5. On the second approach the landing gear was down as seen in some videos (so no malfunction) and the aircraft crashed with a very high pitch up attitude which implies it was very near a stall (roughly around 100 knots) obviously in an attempt to delay the crash as much as possible. It is very possible that the gear was lowered quite early after the go around and before the engine failure(s). This explains why the aircraft struggled to climb as with only one engine operating (assuming one failed first) and the gear down the aircraft climb performance is seriously affected. Finally, had the gear remained up, the aircraft might have made it to a more open space near the airport if not to the runway. The gliding performance with gear up is around 3NM/1000ft compared to gear down which is around 2NM/1000ft (meaning that for every loss of 1000ft of altitude the aircraft travels 3 and 2 nautical miles respectively-/1NM=1852 meters).
All this is of course hypothetical and we have to wait for the official accident report to find out what really happened.
As an active A330 captain and having flown the A320 for more than 7 years allow me to make following remarks:
1. During the first approach the aircraft was obviously quite high (possibly also fast) and the gear seems to have been forgotten up apparently as a result of focusing too much on making the landing and avoiding a go around (which could only be just a little embarrassing and nothing more). Approaching high (and fast) can happen in everyday operation as a result of accepting shortcuts by ATC or just simply mismanaging the approach. The safest course of action for that is to cancel the approach and request new vectoring and not force the approach and landing.
2. No pilot makes a belly landing without first completing the relevant checklists and informing the tower. The warnings were for some reason ignored (continuous repetitive chime and most probably also the “TOO LOW GEAR” which by the way cannot be cancelled unless the gear is lowered or a go around performed).
3. After watching a video of a runway inspection it appears that the aircraft touched down with its engines 3 times before going around.
4. As a result of the engines scraping the runway, it seems they got damaged and failed after a while leading to a dual engine loss as also evidenced by the extension of the RAT (Ram Air Turbine) which also comes out automatically if the two engine driven generators are lost.
5. On the second approach the landing gear was down as seen in some videos (so no malfunction) and the aircraft crashed with a very high pitch up attitude which implies it was very near a stall (roughly around 100 knots) obviously in an attempt to delay the crash as much as possible. It is very possible that the gear was lowered quite early after the go around and before the engine failure(s). This explains why the aircraft struggled to climb as with only one engine operating (assuming one failed first) and the gear down the aircraft climb performance is seriously affected. Finally, had the gear remained up, the aircraft might have made it to a more open space near the airport if not to the runway. The gliding performance with gear up is around 3NM/1000ft compared to gear down which is around 2NM/1000ft (meaning that for every loss of 1000ft of altitude the aircraft travels 3 and 2 nautical miles respectively-/1NM=1852 meters).
All this is of course hypothetical and we have to wait for the official accident report to find out what really happened.
So with high automation there is less active direct pilot control of the aircraft.
One day in operations I asked a pilot flying one of the highly computerized aircraft as it compared with the 777 during hand flying. The surprising reply was that he was bound to switch to automation at 500 feet above the airport after takeoff. I was somewhat stunned that the pilot really did not know the aircraft manual flight characteristics especially during decent for landing.
The one "hat tip" to automation is arriving at Bovingdon at the top of a high stack landing LHR with 7000 pounds. One turn in holding we requested alternate to Gatwick. LHR requested our minimums, our reply was 150 meters. Next clearance was to leave the top of the stack for landing. Dim approach lights at 100agl and clear at 50 ft. No other aircraft moving at LHR.