No survivors as Pakistan plane crash kills 152

BBC ^ | July 28th 2010 | Aleem Maqbool

[Onelifetogive]

It is not known what caused the crash.

The plane, reported to be an Airbus...

I think I have discovered the cause...

[Retired Greyhound]

The fact that it was an Airbus is notable. Those planes have had many problems.

When they are not crashing or malfunctioning, they are actually very fast and comfortable planes.

We should also consider that Pakistan is not a first world country, and their pilots and standards may not be up to our own.

[Mr. Silverback]

Agreed. Anyone who sees Islam as just another religion is a fool, but the person who sees all Muslims as the same and wishes them all dead is an even bigger fool.

[Soothesayer9]

May CHRIST have mercy.

[buccaneer81]

There have been several Airbus crashes; I don’t know if this one if the same model as the others; but it could be that the plane itself has design problems.

If your referring to AA 587 in 2001 and Air France in 2009, those crashes involved A-330s. And I think both of those incidents were terrorism, not accidents.

Today's crash was an A-321. The entire A-320 series is a workhorse all over the world and seems to be very reliable. In fact, entire routes are A-320 heavy; the US Airways Shuttle is A-320 heavy and Jet Blue's entire operation is A-320s IIRC.

[raygun]

CFIT

[raygun]

A eyewitness snippet from The Guardian:

Saqlain Altaf, who heard the crash, told ARY he had been on a family outing in the hills when he saw the plane looking unsteady in the air.

"The plane had lost balance, and then we saw it going down," he said

An experienced Beech 350 pilot happened to see the ill fated plane while ISB to Rawalpindi -the twin city - moments before the crash...and one of the things noticed was the gear down even after the plane had gained altitude after aborting the intial landing (although that is pretty common at ISB as ILS is only available on one side of the runway)...

FWIW: Pilot of AA 757 entered an incorrect waypoint on the FMC after aborted short final into Cali; tower didn't realize the error due to limited ground system operation; if but for the the spoilers being extended crew unable to avoid mountains rising in front of them.

Any pilot familiar with ISB and surrounding area would have known their headed for the Hills clouds or no clouds - although clouds were literally at rooftop height today in ISB - They were probably both figuring out whether to divert to LHE or go around...prob ignored a couple of fatal warnings.

Speculation has it the crew may have been attempting a circle to land (breaking right) maneuver on RWY 12. It would appear at first glance that the weather conditions were within the minima required for a Cat C circle to land (MDA 2510' (842' AAL), Vis 2400m.

PANS-OPS chart, so the circling area is a radius of 5.28NM from the runway ends for Cat D circling aircraft... Once you leave that circling area, you're on your own!

Now, I don't know exactly where the plane crashed in that chart, but if they went down on the glideslope until the MDA (which would then be at DME 2.5 from RN VOR) and did a right turn for a "left hand circling", and then they "forgot" or "mistimed" the turn, then they might end up where they were.

If this was a runway 30 approach, with that go-around reported, then, someone forgot to follow the Missed Approach procedure, or, decided to rush going back in on a circuit and then screwed up somewhere... of course, we don't know at the moment.

Capt was a retired PIA 747 commander aged 67 (some are saying his age may have affected his responses). Terrorism is not being ruled out. No Fly Zone in vicinity has given birth to some conspiracy theories.

Aircraft was flying at around 2500 feet. Forerst dept. man working in the hills said he say the planes wing hit a tree first which caused a fire before it crashed.

The european sounding passenger is now being called Australian, maybe they cant differentiate between Austria, he was a professor heading to ISB to give a lecture at a University.

None of the remains are identifiable due to mutilation or burning, except for one childs body who was relatively intact, there were no survivors or cries for help at any stage, according to people who helped in the intitial stages of search and rescue.

GPWS Mode 4: Unsafe Terrain Clearance When Not in Landing configuration Mode 4A: Landing Gear Up
- Aural Warning "TOO LOW GEAR" or "TOO LOW TERRAIN".
"TOO LOW GEAR" generated at lower than 500' above ground from 0kts to 190kts.
"TOO LOW TERRAIN" generated at 190kts or faster, at lower than 500ft above ground at 190kts, to lower than 1000ft above ground at 250kts or faster.

Mode 4B: Landing gear down, flaps not in landing configuration.
"TOO LOW FLAPS" generated at 245ft above ground or lower up to 159kts.
"TOO LOW TERRAIN" generated from 245' AGL @159kts, to 1000' AGL @ 250kts or faster.

Both mode 4A and 4B are inhibted below 30' AGL.

So, flaps not in landing config with gear down, reduces the altitude in which the GPWS would sound in Mode 4.

The above is only regarding GPWS Mode 4 warnings (Modes are 1 - 5).
On an interesting note, if the aircraft has a predictive windshear warning coming on, the GPWS audio alert would be inhibited.
Landing gear extended, if I understand the manual correctly, supresses (not inhibit) the GPWS audio.
So, the landing gear extended does, reduce the GPWS alert zone buffer.

Now, if the crew did a go-around in landing flaps and gear down, well, can't really blame the GPWS for not screaming... but that, we don't know at this moment.

[chapin2500]

Kay, I’ll bite. What is ROP?

[1L]

>>AA 587 in 2001 and Air France in 2009, those crashes involved A-330<<

587 was a A300. There’s no evidence that either 587 nor 447 were terrorist related. Just crappy planes. The A320 series has had a number of fatal accidents. I wouldn’t taxi in an Airbus.

[buccaneer81]

587 was the first time in history that a vertical stabilizer allegedly detached during flight. Never happened before, never happened since. Kind of like the center fuel tank crapola the government has fed us about TWA 800 for the past 15 years.

447 was a flight that had been threatened by bomb threats several times before its demise. And thre continue to be security disruptions of AF Rio-Paris flights; one as recently as last week.

As for the A320 being "a crappy plane," I seem to recall UA 585 and US 427 being lost due to a crappy rudder actuator design. Those were both 737s.

Finally, US 1549 landed safely in the Hudson, something nobody thought would be possible. That was an A320.

[buccaneer81]

ROP = “Religion of Peace,” what our previous president called the cult that killed 3000 of our fellow citizens on 9/11.

[1L]

All you have is speculation on 447. 587 was proven to be both plane design error and a lack of training on the part of the pilot. How exactly did a terrorist bring down 587?

I said the Airbus in general were “crappy planes,” not specifically the 320s. As far as the Hudson goes, that was all on the pilot.

[buccaneer81]

A bomb could have brought down 587. Several witnesses said they saw an in-flight explosion. As far as the cause of 587 being “proven,” that’s no different than saying it’s been “proven” that TWA 800 was destroyed by a center fuel tank explosion.

[Erasmus]

You sort of wonder where reports of survivors from a crash like this come from.

[Erasmus]

Also “UDAS:” Unintended Departure from Air Space.