7 ms·

The article makes only a passing reference to the recent crash, but serious pilot error ("incompetence on an astonishing scale" might be a better phrase than "e

The article makes only a passing reference to the recent crash, but serious pilot error ("incompetence on an astonishing scale" might be a better phrase than "error") appears to be a major factor in it. http://avherald.com/h?article=4d7a6e9a&opt=0 http://avherald.com/h?article=4d7a6e9a&opt=0

square_usual 6y ago
This was awful to read. The control tower repeatedly warned them about their trajectory, and even advised them to discontinue the approach. I can't even imagine how awful it must've been to those aboard who placed their trust in the pilots.
- goodcanadian 6y ago
  In my opinion, ATC is also culpable (though much less so). They could have and should have ordered a go around, but instead, they re-cleared the airplane to land.
  - Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
    The final authority in flying an airplane safely is always in the hands of the pilot. The pilot is always responsible. ATC may not have all the information, not know specifics of the aircraft or this specific flight. It is just not practical to have procedures where the ATC is the final authority for every single flight, with all the various different airplanes, so the pilot always is.
    - krisoft 6y ago
      Exactly as Erlich_Bachman wrote. Also want to add one more reason: The pilot's neck is always on the line, while the ATC usually won't get physically hurt. The incentives are better aligned if it's the pilot who has final authority.
      - goodcanadian 6y ago
        Sure, the pilot is the final authority. If it is unsafe, the pilot should declare an emergency, and ATC must get out of the way. Otherwise, if ATC says, "go around," the pilot should go around. And in this case, ATC should have said, "Go around."
        shawabawa3 6y ago
        > reporting they had lost both engines (CFM56) and repeatedly declaring Mayday about 5 minutes after the go around, the RAT (RAM Air Turbine) deployed. Tower cleared the aircraft to land on either runway 25 (25L or 25R) ATC should have said "go around" to a plane with no functioning engines?
        lultimouomo 6y ago
        I think you misread the dynamic of the incident. The pilots were in an unstabilized approach, didn't go around, landed with landing gear up and applied reverse trust, at which point they figured all those sparks were not supposed to be flying around, brilliantly decided to go around and pressed the TOGA switches. Surprisingly the plane was not able to complete the go around, lost both engines, and crashed. This is the stuff of nightmares.
        goodcanadian 6y ago
        That occurred long after the point I am referring to.
        kayfox 6y ago
        Pilots have trained for years on flying in general and the specific performance characteristics of their aircraft. Controllers on the other hand has years of training about traffic patterns, communications, managing airspace, etc. Most controllers are not pilots, although a significant number are, even those are not likely to be flying around A320s recreationally. Needless to say they deal with thousands of types of aircraft every day and may have only general ideas of how those aircraft may perform. So, who is in a really good position to quickly know what the critical speeds in a landing are?
  - _-___________-_ 6y ago
    "ATC should have ordered a go around" implies some authority that is not there. The commander (captain) has final responsibility for the safety of the aircraft. ATC effectively has an advisory role; they issue instructions rather than orders and the commander can ignore any ATC instruction if they believe it to be necessary for the safe performance of the flight.
    - goodcanadian 6y ago
      Perhaps, "order" was the wrong word, but ATC absolutely has authority over the airspace unless and until an emergency is declared.
      - anon102010 6y ago
        That’s not how ATC works - atc ALREADY went beyond what you normally see w their suggestions for a go around. ATC is focused on traffic (keeping it separated), pilots are in charge of flying their planes. In fact communicating with ATC is low on list of things to do when their are problems. Priority is aviate, navigate then communicate. And these controllers went above and beyond w their warnings already
        goodcanadian 6y ago
        The accident report indicates that ATC also didn't follow procedures, so no, ATC did not go above and beyond. The main criticism in the report seems to be that they did not report the lack of landing gear or the subsequent engine strike back to the aircraft. My criticism, having listened to some of the recording, is that ATC were not more insistent in their instructions. Every other ATC recording I've listened to, ATC instructs and pilots obey. In the rare cases where pilots disobey without immediate good reason, ATC usually gets quite heated. They don't generally just acquiesce. So, don't get me wrong, the pilots bear the majority of the responsibility, but pilots and ATC are a team, and ATC didn't do a great job either.
        NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
  - t0mas88 6y ago
    That's not how ATC works. The tower controller is responsible for the runway environment. The only reason they can tell a plane to go around is if there is a traffic conflict or the runway is not available, and they're supposed to give the pilots a reason for the go around instruction. A go around for an unstable approach is 100% the decision of the pilots, because they have the complete picture. They also know the stability requirements of the operator and speed limits of the plane, ATC doesn't know those. So while ATC can think "wow he is very fast for an A320" or "that looks too high" they cannot see what the actual airspeed is, they cannot see whether the gear is down or not or what the flap settings are. And they don't know the speed limits for each specific type. All they know is roughly how fast the typical plane of that type normally goes.
    - NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
      One of the truly astonishing parts of this report is that the pilots do not actually appear to have been in direct contact with the tower controller at any point during the initial, gear-up landing. If you read the report, it seems they were in contact with the approach controller who contacted the tower for landing clearance on their behalf.
      - t0mas88 6y ago
        If the controller thought they were having an emergency (which I guess he did based on the strange approach and all the warning sounds he heard on the radios) it's not that uncommon to hold on to them. Happens because it reduces crew workload if he's not telling them a new frequency. Tower and approach have a button to talk directly in each other's headsets, so it's easy for approach to give you a landing clearance on behalf of the tower. Or the other way around, tower could get you radar instructions from approach in case you have a problem right after take off and want to return immediately. But in this case it was a very bad decision to do that.
    - dmix 6y ago
      While you're probably right apparently the tower didn't tell the pilots that they saw a fire/sparks on the plane when it hit the pavement. Not that the pilots were listening anyway.
thepangolino 6y ago
The fact that nearly a third of Pakistani pilots are known to have a fake license might have something to do with it. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/nearly-a-third-of-pakistan-e2-80-99s-pilots-are-flying-with-fake-licenses-and-e2-80-98don-e2-80-99t-have-flying-experience/ar-BB15YA63 https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/nearly-a-third-of-pakis...
- Darmody 6y ago
  1 of every 3 pilots have a fake license in Pakistan. It's mind blowing. https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2020/06/26/30-of-pakistani-pilots-have-fake-licenses-infographic/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2020/06/26/30-of-...
  - simon1573 6y ago
    Worth noting that Forbes.com/sites/ are basically blog posts and not the same as de-facto Forbes.com
    - Darmody 6y ago
      Yeah, probably should've posted another link but the first one was from a news site I don't like and I didn't want to give them visits so I picked the next one. Anyway, Duck it and you will see it on several other sites.
- sfjailbird 6y ago
  This was very overblown in the media. The issue was with re-certifications after changes to regulations in 2012, with most pilots (many with decades of experience) apparently preferring a bribe rather than cramming for months for the re-certification exam. Still bad but it's not just random people off the street flying 777s.
  - LoSboccacc 6y ago
    this assumes that their previous certifications were legit. now it might be the case that previously all certificate were given out properly and come 2012 corruption ramped 0 to 30% in a day, but I find that unlikely.

square_usual 6y ago

This was awful to read. The control tower repeatedly warned them about their trajectory, and even advised them to discontinue the approach. I can't even imagine how awful it must've been to those aboard who placed their trust in the pilots.

goodcanadian 6y ago
In my opinion, ATC is also culpable (though much less so). They could have and should have ordered a go around, but instead, they re-cleared the airplane to land.
- Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
  The final authority in flying an airplane safely is always in the hands of the pilot. The pilot is always responsible. ATC may not have all the information, not know specifics of the aircraft or this specific flight. It is just not practical to have procedures where the ATC is the final authority for every single flight, with all the various different airplanes, so the pilot always is.
  - krisoft 6y ago
    Exactly as Erlich_Bachman wrote. Also want to add one more reason: The pilot's neck is always on the line, while the ATC usually won't get physically hurt. The incentives are better aligned if it's the pilot who has final authority.
    - goodcanadian 6y ago
      Sure, the pilot is the final authority. If it is unsafe, the pilot should declare an emergency, and ATC must get out of the way. Otherwise, if ATC says, "go around," the pilot should go around. And in this case, ATC should have said, "Go around."
      - shawabawa3 6y ago
        > reporting they had lost both engines (CFM56) and repeatedly declaring Mayday about 5 minutes after the go around, the RAT (RAM Air Turbine) deployed. Tower cleared the aircraft to land on either runway 25 (25L or 25R) ATC should have said "go around" to a plane with no functioning engines?
        lultimouomo 6y ago
        I think you misread the dynamic of the incident. The pilots were in an unstabilized approach, didn't go around, landed with landing gear up and applied reverse trust, at which point they figured all those sparks were not supposed to be flying around, brilliantly decided to go around and pressed the TOGA switches. Surprisingly the plane was not able to complete the go around, lost both engines, and crashed. This is the stuff of nightmares.
        goodcanadian 6y ago
        That occurred long after the point I am referring to.
      - kayfox 6y ago
        Pilots have trained for years on flying in general and the specific performance characteristics of their aircraft. Controllers on the other hand has years of training about traffic patterns, communications, managing airspace, etc. Most controllers are not pilots, although a significant number are, even those are not likely to be flying around A320s recreationally. Needless to say they deal with thousands of types of aircraft every day and may have only general ideas of how those aircraft may perform. So, who is in a really good position to quickly know what the critical speeds in a landing are?
- _-___________-_ 6y ago
  "ATC should have ordered a go around" implies some authority that is not there. The commander (captain) has final responsibility for the safety of the aircraft. ATC effectively has an advisory role; they issue instructions rather than orders and the commander can ignore any ATC instruction if they believe it to be necessary for the safe performance of the flight.
  - goodcanadian 6y ago
    Perhaps, "order" was the wrong word, but ATC absolutely has authority over the airspace unless and until an emergency is declared.
    - anon102010 6y ago
      That’s not how ATC works - atc ALREADY went beyond what you normally see w their suggestions for a go around. ATC is focused on traffic (keeping it separated), pilots are in charge of flying their planes. In fact communicating with ATC is low on list of things to do when their are problems. Priority is aviate, navigate then communicate. And these controllers went above and beyond w their warnings already
      - goodcanadian 6y ago
        The accident report indicates that ATC also didn't follow procedures, so no, ATC did not go above and beyond. The main criticism in the report seems to be that they did not report the lack of landing gear or the subsequent engine strike back to the aircraft. My criticism, having listened to some of the recording, is that ATC were not more insistent in their instructions. Every other ATC recording I've listened to, ATC instructs and pilots obey. In the rare cases where pilots disobey without immediate good reason, ATC usually gets quite heated. They don't generally just acquiesce. So, don't get me wrong, the pilots bear the majority of the responsibility, but pilots and ATC are a team, and ATC didn't do a great job either.
        NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
- t0mas88 6y ago
  That's not how ATC works. The tower controller is responsible for the runway environment. The only reason they can tell a plane to go around is if there is a traffic conflict or the runway is not available, and they're supposed to give the pilots a reason for the go around instruction. A go around for an unstable approach is 100% the decision of the pilots, because they have the complete picture. They also know the stability requirements of the operator and speed limits of the plane, ATC doesn't know those. So while ATC can think "wow he is very fast for an A320" or "that looks too high" they cannot see what the actual airspeed is, they cannot see whether the gear is down or not or what the flap settings are. And they don't know the speed limits for each specific type. All they know is roughly how fast the typical plane of that type normally goes.
  - NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
    One of the truly astonishing parts of this report is that the pilots do not actually appear to have been in direct contact with the tower controller at any point during the initial, gear-up landing. If you read the report, it seems they were in contact with the approach controller who contacted the tower for landing clearance on their behalf.
    - t0mas88 6y ago
      If the controller thought they were having an emergency (which I guess he did based on the strange approach and all the warning sounds he heard on the radios) it's not that uncommon to hold on to them. Happens because it reduces crew workload if he's not telling them a new frequency. Tower and approach have a button to talk directly in each other's headsets, so it's easy for approach to give you a landing clearance on behalf of the tower. Or the other way around, tower could get you radar instructions from approach in case you have a problem right after take off and want to return immediately. But in this case it was a very bad decision to do that.
  - dmix 6y ago
    While you're probably right apparently the tower didn't tell the pilots that they saw a fire/sparks on the plane when it hit the pavement. Not that the pilots were listening anyway.

thepangolino 6y ago

The fact that nearly a third of Pakistani pilots are known to have a fake license might have something to do with it. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/nearly-a-third-of-pakistan-e2-80-99s-pilots-are-flying-with-fake-licenses-and-e2-80-98don-e2-80-99t-have-flying-experience/ar-BB15YA63 https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/nearly-a-third-of-pakis...

Darmody 6y ago
1 of every 3 pilots have a fake license in Pakistan. It's mind blowing. https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2020/06/26/30-of-pakistani-pilots-have-fake-licenses-infographic/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2020/06/26/30-of-...
- simon1573 6y ago
  Worth noting that Forbes.com/sites/ are basically blog posts and not the same as de-facto Forbes.com
  - Darmody 6y ago
    Yeah, probably should've posted another link but the first one was from a news site I don't like and I didn't want to give them visits so I picked the next one. Anyway, Duck it and you will see it on several other sites.
sfjailbird 6y ago
This was very overblown in the media. The issue was with re-certifications after changes to regulations in 2012, with most pilots (many with decades of experience) apparently preferring a bribe rather than cramming for months for the re-certification exam. Still bad but it's not just random people off the street flying 777s.
- LoSboccacc 6y ago
  this assumes that their previous certifications were legit. now it might be the case that previously all certificate were given out properly and come 2012 corruption ramped 0 to 30% in a day, but I find that unlikely.