A320 down in Pakistan

[Trevatanus]

Pilot sent a mayday 1 minute before landing apparently.
Reports of no survivors

[BrettMRC]

Gone into a residential area on Karachi it seems

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-52766904

Location footage:
https://twitter.com/_Mansoor_Ali/status/1263788123...

Looks pretty awful

[drdino]

Alleged picture of the aircraft in question... RAT looks like it's deployed, the engines' undersides look quite damaged...

[Trevatanus]

was just about to post this, from a slightly different angle. Could be genuine

[aeropilot]

Trevatanus said:

was just about to post this, from a slightly different angle. Could be genuine

That looks like fire damage to the underside of both nacelles......and that photo has even captured a bird in the shot.......was there a big flock on his first approach, and they got double bird strike perhaps?

[Trevatanus]

Confirmation of at least two survivors, also speculation over on PPRUNE, that, looking at the undersides of the engines, the reason for the initial go-around could be pilot aborted first landing as gear not deployed, which damaged the engines causing them to fail on the 2nd landing attempt.

[aeropilot]

Trevatanus said:

Confirmation of at least two survivors, also speculation over on PPRUNE, that, looking at the undersides of the engines, the reason for the initial go-around could be pilot aborted first landing as gear not deployed, which damaged the engines causing them to fail on the 2nd landing attempt.

Yeah, just been reading that. That damage on the nacelles does look more consistent with that idea.

That would indicate that the crew didn't know the gear wasn't down on the first approach....!!

[BrettMRC]

aeropilot said:

Trevatanus said:

Confirmation of at least two survivors, also speculation over on PPRUNE, that, looking at the undersides of the engines, the reason for the initial go-around could be pilot aborted first landing as gear not deployed, which damaged the engines causing them to fail on the 2nd landing attempt.

Yeah, just been reading that. That damage on the nacelles does look more consistent with that idea.

That would indicate that the crew didn't know the gear wasn't down on the first approach....!!

[Starfighter]

I thought that there were various alarms to warn of low altitude when the gear was still up.

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

This would appear to indicate that the GPWS does warn of low altitude if the gear and flaps are not in landing configuration.

[aeropilot]

Starfighter said:

I thought that there were various alarms to warn of low altitude when the gear was still up.

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

This would appear to indicate that the GPWS does warn of low altitude if the gear and flaps are not in landing configuration.

The alarms and gongs go off at 700ft by all accounts if the Dunlops are not dangling.....

[David87]

Maybe it’s just me, but would it really be possible that two professional pilots would try and land an aircraft with the wheels up?

[seawise]

David87 said:

Maybe it’s just me, but would it really be possible that two professional pilots would try and land an aircraft with the wheels up?

if they were exhausted, hadn't eaten or drunk anything due Ramadam...not sure i'd fancy flying on an airplane with pilots effectively running on empty (food/fluids)

[TheRainMaker]

David87 said:

Maybe it’s just me, but would it really be possible that two professional pilots would try and land an aircraft with the wheels up?

If they don’t have a choice I would guess every one of them.

[CAPP0]

seawise said:

David87 said:

Maybe it’s just me, but would it really be possible that two professional pilots would try and land an aircraft with the wheels up?

if they were exhausted, hadn't eaten or drunk anything due Ramadam...not sure i'd fancy flying on an airplane with pilots effectively running on empty (food/fluids)

Are they actually allowed to fly under those constraints? Whilst I don't especially want to kick off a whole religion debate, even a PPL requires you to pass a Human Performance and Limitations exam; surely the requirements which that exam references are the absolute minimum for someone in charge of a passenger jet, and an 18-ish hour absolute fast must surely render you incapable of that?

[aeropilot]

ATC transcripts indicating crew had landing gear issue....presume for the initial attempt.

Gear was certainley down for the second attempt when they lost the engines, as you can clearly see it down in the security video posted of it dropping to the ground in a very slow and high AOA attitude.

[David87]

TheRainMaker said:

If they don’t have a choice I would guess every one of them.

For sure. I hadn’t seen reports that there was a landing gear issue, but perhaps that’s not the case. If so, completely understandable!

[aeropilot]

ash73 said:

Poor show hitting a residential area 6 mins after the first aborted landing, imo.

Crash sight is also in a strange location relative to the runway approach....

[Eric Mc]

I reckon it ran out of fuel.

[Starfighter]

Likely the pilots were trying to get the the runway anyway they could. The ATC recordings indicate they were struggling to gain altitude so a standard go around circuit was not an option.

https://youtu.be/xfzwYKGLNnY

[Bradgate]

Eric Mc said:

I reckon it ran out of fuel.

I was thinking exactly the same, Eric