Several hurt as PIA plane hits air pocket

Discuss issues and news related to PIA, Pakistani airlines and Pakistan's civil & military aviation.
User avatar
FULLTHRUST
Registered Member
Posts: 777
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 4:57 pm

Post by FULLTHRUST »

Yes, it did, and to an extent of getting written off.
User avatar
umar744
Registered Member
Posts: 944
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 8:00 pm

Post by umar744 »

sad
i flew ap bdz isb to bkk last friday 15 sept.
best wishes
umar
User avatar
Abbas Ali
Site Admin
Posts: 52155
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:52 pm
Location: Pakistan

Post by Abbas Ali »

Thanks FULLTHRUST for sharing info.

Was AP-BDZ ferried Islamabad to Karachi in normal configuration or un-pressurized and gear down position. And if it's written off, is it because of damaged wing spar, pressure bulkhead or twisted airframe.

Abbas
Dil Dil Pakistan... Jaan Jaan Pakistan

See you at:
Image
FMC
Deactivated
Posts: 467
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:37 am
Location: al-ain

Post by FMC »

cheetah wrote:This is a coverup by PIA. The chairman was in touch with the Pilot, and instructed him to maintain the air pocket story. The truth is that the Auto pilot misbehaved and the pilots were a litle slow in reacting.
Cheetah. Truth is always bitter. Such cover ups have landed PIA in a quagmire of shame from which salvage is an uphill task.
AM
Registered Member
Posts: 139
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:39 am

BDZ

Post by AM »

AP-BDZ is grounded w.e.f 08th DEC by engineering for initial 10 days in liason with AIRBUS technical for extensive checks due high speeds observed in FDR for 08 secs.Area control radar transcription also sought from PAF to superimpose the same on the FDR profile created by engineering.
User avatar
Charliedelta11
Registered Member
Posts: 523
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 2:46 pm

Post by Charliedelta11 »

the info given sounds legitimate enough..but i must let uknow BDZ has had autopilot malfunctions before...and they were added to the flight log..and does anyone know how high the speed went ? when it breached the max velocity ?
Image
FMC
Deactivated
Posts: 467
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:37 am
Location: al-ain

Post by FMC »

It is high time that TK comes down hard on PIA engineering deptt: How can you let people get away with such incidents?
pk757
Registered Member
Posts: 296
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 7:04 pm
Location: Lahore, Pakistan

Post by pk757 »

THEYLL realize it soon enuff.......... or they are waiting for another crash to happen, so they can conveninetly say human errors led to it, Unbeleivible , we arent bein told anything , still dont know what happend to my father's plane (PK688).
User avatar
FULLTHRUST
Registered Member
Posts: 777
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 4:57 pm

Post by FULLTHRUST »

pk757 wrote:THEYLL realize it soon enuff.......... or they are waiting for another crash to happen, so they can conveninetly say human errors led to it, Unbeleivible , we arent bein told anything , still dont know what happend to my father's plane (PK688).
For sure this incident was not handled well by the crew.!!!!!

FYI at one point in time the IAS was ONLY 40 kts. Check the DFDR readouts if you can. (it could be eroneous, but thats what DFDR recorded)
User avatar
FULLTHRUST
Registered Member
Posts: 777
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 4:57 pm

Post by FULLTHRUST »

FMC wrote:
Charliedelta11 wrote:the info given sounds legitimate enough..but i must let uknow BDZ has had autopilot malfunctions before...and they were added to the flight log..and does anyone know how high the speed went ? when it breached the max velocity ?

It is high time that TK comes down hard on PIA engineering deptt: How can you let people get away with such incidents?
Yes, you are very right in saying that, but before coming down hard on engineering, TK has to bring up the wage structure at par with the industry standards/regional airlines.

This particular incident reflects improper CRM .
AM
Registered Member
Posts: 139
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:39 am

Post by AM »

The whole episode can be described as following which might answers many questions and amiguities.

The aircraft was in descent with autopilot engaged and with auto thrust probably also engaged with a speed of 270 kt and in slight turbulent weather conditions.When descending through 23,000 ft, the recorded speed from ADC1 (CAS1) drops rapidly from its current value (270 kt)
and reaches 40 kt (16 seconds after) .This reading may be erroneous in the event of probe icing and AIRBUS has said that this has happened to other operators as well operating A310 where pitot probe icing on Captain side was faulty.

In these conditions the auto thrust computer reacts to the speed decrease by ordering a thrust increase (throttle levers move from 43° TRA=IDLE to 68° TRA=CLIMB). The recorded CAS1 keeps decreasing due to probable icing conditions, the crew take over with autopilot disconnection and nose down orders (positive elevators deflection). The pitch attitude decreases from +1° nose up to -8° nose down.The crew further increase the thrust (with throttles moving to full forward stop) and still order a nose down on control column (positive elevators deflection).In these conditions, with full thrust order and nose down orders maintained, the actual aircraft speed builds up toward VMO whilst the rate of descent increases significantly up to 12,000 ft/min.Overspeed warning is triggered when crossing 20,500 ft indicating that the airspeed from ADC2 is valid at this time (overspeed warning triggers after crossing VMO=340 kt with either CAS1 or CAS2). Nose down orders are still recorded and pitch attitude further decrease to -15° nose down. In the meantime, increased vertical load factor excursions are recorded. At this time, the CAS1 recovers progressively from the probable icing conditions (CAS1 records 100 kt increasing). The crew maintain a nose down order with overspeed warning still active (and lasting 52.34 sec). The aircraft is now flying in overspeed conditions with
actual speed increasing beyond VMO and at high rate of descent (-12,000 ft/min).When reaching 16,000 ft, the CAS1 shows 471 kt (=VMO+131kt =VD+50 kt). During the event, the aircraft experiences vertical load factor excursions between -0.33g and +2.59g.As per Airbus discussions during descent,aircraft may have experienced probable icing conditions and turbulent conditions, erroneous CAS1 value (abnormally low) and increasing vertical load factor excursions. The autopilot and the auto thrust were disconnected and the aircraft was set in a descent with nose down orders and increased thrust. In these conditions, the actual aircraft speed has built up and increased beyond VMO (with associated warning triggered thanks to valid ADC2 source at that time) and eventually to 471 kt (according to recorded CAS1 after recovery). In the meantime the aircraft also encountered vertical load factor excursions between -0.33g and +2.59g.During this event the aircraft was flown (in excess of
VMO) . Therefore, the aircraft requires in depth load analysis and definition of applicable inspection program. . Airbus recommends (probe ice protection) checks, with particular attention to pt1 (Captain Pitot) probe ice protection check. No autopilot malfunction and no other system malfunction was highlighted as per preliminary analysis and AIRBUS has said that the autopilot defect does not have the relevence in the scenario.

The above is based on DFDR analysis by experts in PIA engineering and this was the reason AIRBUS was contacted and the aircraft grounded.A keen eye and a probing mind (full thrust do you read ) can conclude the issue logically .The autopilot defect does not have the relevence in the scenario.CVR transcripts have also been recorded and transcribed and is in concurrance with these facts .Probe ice checks are being done here at KHI to confirm if anti icing was ok.Poor Airbus design if icing comes out to be the reason. I would like some proffesional comments on the scenario as a food for thought.
User avatar
FULLTHRUST
Registered Member
Posts: 777
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 4:57 pm

Post by FULLTHRUST »

Thanks AM for the detailed readout of DFDR, but I want to know some more facts, in order to comment.

What AP was engaged; #1 or #2
What was the indicated Airspeed on F/O indicator
What was the Indicated Airspeed on Standby
At what time crew disengaged AP and AT
What was the fuel qty in the tanks
Who was PF
What was the source of VMO+131Kts....ADC1 or ADC2, (you have indicated it to be CAS1). Did CAS2 indicated/recorded the same.


The aircraft was subjected to heavy airframe stresses during the abnormal operation beyond the flight envelope. Now the reason to ground the aircraft is very obvious, to check the major/critical areas for stresses and cracks. Those include but not limited to;

Engine/pylon attachements
Wing to fuselage attachments
Rudder, Elevator areas (Empennage)
Flaps attachments
Landing Gear attachments
and so on and so forth.

VMO exceedence and +2.59g and -0.33g and 12,000ft/min vertical speed means a lot.

Also, what does TRA stands for, I have never heard of it.

It could be TLA or PLA, which are Throttle Lever Angle and Power Lever Angle on Throttles and MEC (Main Engine Control) respectively.
pk757
Registered Member
Posts: 296
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 7:04 pm
Location: Lahore, Pakistan

Post by pk757 »

Listen FULLTHRUST< i know ur on the maintenance dept or have sum connection there obviously you will defend the aircraft's stability (whereas AP-BAL was subject to airworthiness and had a questionable safety record). But let me tell u one thing. What ever gibberish or technical crap u utter here>> it was claerly the sick aged aircraft alone! Plus the fact that it was over loaded.
dont try to shut me up with your technicalities as we all know that only a handful of ppl are familiar with the terms that u use . and plus its very easy to blame the pilots when they are no longer there for explanations!
U better watch before u speak .
User avatar
FULLTHRUST
Registered Member
Posts: 777
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 4:57 pm

Post by FULLTHRUST »

First of all I did not comment on AP-BAL.

For sure this incident was not handled well by the crew.!!!!!

FYI at one point in time the IAS was ONLY 40 kts. Check the DFDR readouts if you can. (it could be eroneous, but thats what DFDR recorded)


The comments above were for AP-BDZ, and I think I am able to do so. You cannot stop me speaking the truth.

Now as far as AP-BAL is concerned, you answered the question by yourself;
PLUS THE FACT THAT IT WAS OVEr loaded.
As a SON of a crew member, you came to a conclusion that it was overloaded, and I tell you it was!!!!!!

But at the same time your father should have known this fact too, as a COMMANDER of the aircraft, and he should have asked the traffic staff to off-load the EXTRA, which can go onboard, only and only with Captains' discretion. Also unlike the wide-bodies, Fokker hold the cargo in the cabin, where everybody observes it.

To correct you, on the first place, why did your dad accept the SICK, AGED, and NON-AIRWORTHY aircraft for flight from Multan to Lahore, and then secondly, why took-off with the EXTRA LOAD?

Also, I have nothing to do with PIA, I am not in PIA Maintenance, I have no connections there. Whatever I contribute on this forum, I get it from the forum. It is just like you drink water, and I speak here.

I will keep on contributing here, no matter what you say, and I tell you, you have got absolutely no idea what we are talking about in this AP-BDZ incident.

Thanks very much pk seven fifty seven.
pk757
Registered Member
Posts: 296
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 7:04 pm
Location: Lahore, Pakistan

Post by pk757 »

why did he take the flight????
because he was forced into taking it, he was told that this aircraft should fly today and we are putting an engineer onboard too.. i wonder what the engineer could have done mid air, but facts remain, OVERLOADING, DEL st.mg taking excess mango cartons to DEL from MUX as a gift to sum one. TRIM /LOAD SHEETS ARE OFTEN WRONGLY DONE. U refuse a flight ur shown the door!
im not a layman , obviously we know better what goes on. Its just that i dont want to elborate on it .