The dreadful incident of PIA PK8303 at Karachi on the day before Eid will be a painful memory for the time to come but unlike other incidents, this may carry significance within Pakistani Aviation community.
For the first time, the mechanical upkeep of the aircraft as well as the training and ethical standards of PIA Pilots, are under scrutiny by the public at large and not just Journalists or Aviators.
There has been lots of confusion over what could have gone wrong in an aircraft manned by a highly experienced captain and checked by similarly experienced ground crew before giving it a go-ahead to fly.
With over 30 aircraft losses under its belt, the first blame PIA had to take was when Air Traffic Controller’s last minute of conversation with the PK8303 were published on Social Media websites where the pilot only mentions losing both the engines followed by a “Mayday” call and no further information.
PK8303: We are proceeding direct, sir. We have lost both engines.
ATC: Confirm you are going for Belly landing?
PK8303: (static)
ATC: (unclear) runway available to land at 25
PK8303: Roger
PK8303: Mayday, Mayday, Mayday. Pakistan 8303
ATC: Pakistan 8303, Roger. Sir both runways are available to land.
*Lost Connection*
“The engines were faulty” was general sentiment by the evening as the recording spread like wildfire and people started recording their negative sentiments about the national carrier.
What could have gone wrong?
A strange question during Air-traffic controller’s conversation with the pilot was the mention of “belly landing” – In aviation terms, it means to land the aircraft without its Landing Gear deployed – Body of the aircraft would be in direct contact with the surface.
As observed by the Air Traffic Controllers, PK8303 headed towards runway 25L without its landing gear deployed, which made the controller ask if they intend to land without gears deployed.
This raises so many questions as to why would they not deploy it while they already had almost landed in the first attempt. Did they forget to and was that the reason why they decided to go around and make another attempt at landing? Did they deploy but retract it again to gain speed? Did the gear not deploy?
To put all the scenarios to perspective, let us go back a few minutes before the first attempt:
The aircraft is cruising at the altitude of 3500ft when ATC requests the pilot to reduce their altitude as they are nearing the runway. The pilot responded, “We are comfortable. We can manage(?), inshallah” in a very confident tone.
Moments later, as the ATC operator observes that the aircraft has crossed the safe margin of reducing altitude and airspeed to safe threshold, he instructed the pilot to change their heading so that they can perform a ‘detour’ and get more room to safely reduce their altitude and airspeed to land.
PK8303: “Sir, We are comfortable now and we are out of 3500ft for 3000ft. Established ILS 25- Left”
ATC: (static) “Turn left heading 180”
PK8303: “Sir, We ARE established on Runway 25-Left”
ATC: “You are 5-miles from touchdown and still passing 3500ft.
As earlier, the pilot is adamant that his final approach is acceptable and that he is “comfortable”. What we hear in a conversation few moments later is nearly as bad as hearing flat-line tone in an ICU. The “Master Warning” tone of an aircraft.
ATC: “Pakistan 8303, you are cleared to land 25-Left”
PK8303: “Roger, Pakistan 8303” (ding ding ding ding)
A modern aircraft is equipped with dozens of systems that aids the pilot in its operation as well as to keep itself safe in case of a malfunction or wrong input by the pilot.
For example, if a pilot tries to lift or turn the aircraft too steeply, the aircraft’s computer will immediately increase the throttle to avoid losing airspeed or stalling and will not let the aircraft bank or pitch more than its maximum permitted values.
A loud buzzer will warn pilot of their incorrect input while the aircraft does not go beyond its permitted angles.
As PK8303 failed to land, the pilot requested for a “go-around” – A request for another chance to land after circling the airport. A request which is not uncommon but does raise a few questions as to why a confident pilot could not land and requested for a go around? Was the runway not clear? Did he descend too quickly that he had no chance to reduce airspeed to the manufacturer’s safe threshold?
PK8303: “..8303, going around”
ATC: “Please report reaching altitude 3500 feet.”
PK8303: “Pakistan 8303, we would like to come again for ILS 25-Left”
ATC: “Turn left heading 110, climb 3000”
after a pause
ATC: “8303, you are jumping altitude..2000”
PK8303: “..sir we are, just give me 2000”
ATC: “Maintain 2000”
ATC: “8303, (ineligible) 1800 ft (ineligible)”
PK8303: “Sir cooperate. We are maintaining….trying to maintain sir”
At this point, it was evident that the pilot did have a problem more than the airspeed or even altitude. It was far worse than the crew may have even imagined that day. The next conversation added further perspective to what was unfolding in the cockpit of fateful Airbus A320 that day.
ATC: “8303, Approach”
PK8303: “Jee Sir”
ATC: “You appear to be turning left”
PK8303: “We are proceeding direct, sir. We have lost engines”
ATC: “Confirm you are going for belly landing?”
As the pilot tried to reach 3000ft, he realized that the aircraft is not giving him the necessary thrust anymore. In fact, the engines are giving no power at all. This is a nightmare for any pilot regardless of their experience or medals but nothing would be as concerning as the mention of ‘Belly Landing’.
At a cruising altitude, a pilot has the luxury of time to run a diagnostic check and attempt to restart at least one engine to land safely. If that is not possible, the crew calculates the nearest airport where the aircraft can safely glide to and land.
[bs-quote quote=”Air Transat Flight 236 is a famous flight from Toronto, Canada to Lisbon, Portugal that lost all engine power while flying over the Atlantic Ocean on August 24, 2001. The Airbus A330 ran out of fuel due to a fuel leak and its Captain and First Officer flew the plane to a successful emergency landing, saving all 306 people (293 passengers and 13 crew) onboard.” style=”style-17″ align=”center” color=”#dd0000″ author_name=”Lucman Khan”][/bs-quote]
Unfortunately, with inadequate airspeed and very low altitude, that was no longer an option for PK8303.
PK8303: Mayday, Mayday, Mayday. Pakistan 8303.
ATC: Pakistan 8303, Roger. Both runways available to land.
Moments later, the news broke with loud cries of residents in the background as they witnessed the aircraft crashing in the densely populated Model town, 1300 meters away from the runway.
Speculations: Belly Landing vs ‘Ding Ding Ding’
The following simulation can help you visualize Airbus A320’s protection system that proactively informs the pilot at a safe altitude that he has forgotten to deploy the Landing Gear.
The infamous ‘Ding Ding Ding’ is heard here which was also heard in ATC recording before PK8303’s first landing attempt where the pilot requested to go-around after touching down on the runway.
Was the Landing Gear forgotten or did it fail to deploy? This technical conversation has turned into PIA Management vs Pilots’ Union (PALPA) war where both sides seem to write or record their views to pin blame on each other.
After PK8303’s failed landing attempt, there were several scraping marks on the runway consistent with the pictures taken by an aircraft spotter while PK8303 was making a second attempt to land.
This indicates that the Landing Gear was indeed not deployed, as there is NO ground clearance for engines in aircrafts such as Airbus A320 without a landing gear. In case of a belly landing, the engines are first to take hit.
The same appears to happen as the aircraft ‘bumped’ the runway and requested to go around for another attempt to land but the ‘bump’ had already damaged the engine. As a result, a possible fuel or oil starvation may have ceased the engines.
Speculations: Landing Gear deployment vs Failure
One of the most common speculation has been Landing Gear failure which could have been the case but the generally practiced protocol is to declare Landing Gear failure to your Air-traffic controller so that they can prepare the runway for belly landing.
As a high-speed aircraft comes in contact with hot tarmac, not only does it damage the fuselage or engines but carries imminent fire risk as well.
Airbus A320 ‘abnormal landing’ checklist asks the pilot to turn on emergency exit lights, inform the crew & passengers to “brace for impact” prior to landing, to deploy fire retardants in both engines right after performing a belly landing and immediately evacuate the aircraft.
[bs-quote quote=”If both main gear are unavailable, the engines should be shut down in the flare. Pitch attitude at touchdown must be less than 6° – Excerpt from ‘Airbus A320 Family Non-Normal Notes’.” style=”style-17″ align=”center” color=”#dd0000″ author_name=”Lucman Khan”][/bs-quote]
This clearly shows that no such sequence was initiated and can be corroborated with the survivor’s testimony.
Conclusion:
From the available data, it appears that there has been a clear violation of Standards of Operations on BOTH the Pilot’s & Air-traffic controller’s end.
The job of an Air-traffic controller is to ensure that the aircrafts comply with the given instructions and if they find an aircraft not complying with their instructions, they should NOT clear the aircraft to land until they correct their approach or maneuver.
If the controller noticed the high and fast approach of PK8303, they should have asked it to go around with frequent interventions to reduce altitude until they were within prescribed parameters for a safer landing.
Even if the altitude was manageable, the speed was not. According to FlightRadar24 data, the aircraft was far from Airbus A320’s recommended maximum normal landing speed. The lowest recorded speed during first attempt was 190 KTS @ 300ft while Airbus recommends to ‘descent’ while maintaining an airspeed of under 140 KTS (260 Km/H) until touchdown.
Pilots would generally attempt to maintain under 130 KTS when attempting a belly landing, as the impact needs to be as smooth as possible to avoid disintegrating the airframe upon impact.
Until the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) is decoded and its findings published, along with Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) – We can merely speculate using available data. A CVR can give us an insight from the cockpit crew’s conversation into what happened during the last 15 minutes while the FDR would help us rebuild the moments before the accident to see what technically went wrong that day.
While the incident was indeed a painful one with ninety-eight precious lives lost and calls for thorough investigation, Air Travel is still the safest means of transportation in Pakistan and Globally.
There have been 11121 Accidents involving 13134 vehicles during 2017-18, killing 5948 persons and Injuring 14489 persons on the roads of Pakistan alone.
We hope that the same enthusiasm is also applied to #SaferCarsPakistan as it is being employed to run campaigns such as #BoycottPIA that could be detrimental to ourselves in the end.
#BoycottPakistanRoads maybe?
Stay tuned to Baaghi TV for the latest news, updates and interesting content!