Planespotting II
#766
I approved this message
Joined: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,425
Re: Planespotting II
Here's a tour of the Udvar-Hazy annex of the National Air and Space Museum at Dulles Airport. If you didn't know, the Udvar-Hazy houses the bulk of the Smithsonian's (incredible) collection and presents the aircraft very well. Also, this guy has a very relaxing voice and does a nice job describing what he's looking at.
Of particular note to me in this video are some nice shots of really interesting late WW2 German aircraft, all of which are the last surviving examples in the world:
- At 32:00, a Dornier DO 335 Pfeil, which is a very large fighter with an unusual push-pull prop design that was the fastest prop-driven fighter of the war.
- At 13:52 and again later in the video, some brief shots of a Horten Ho 229 while it was under restoration at the time of this video. This plane finally went on display in 2018 after 7 years of restoration. This is a jet powered flying wing designed by untrained brothers and built out plywood that apparently actually worked fairly well. It's incredible what desperate people can accomplish.
- And, my favorite, at 32:30 the only surviving Arado AR 234 Blitz. An absolutely beautiful jet-powered light bomber / reconnaissance plane and the spiritual father of the U2. This one still has the reusable JATO packs under the wings and a tank-style periscope. The pilots of this plane were incredibly brave:
1. All airstrips in Germany had been destroyed by the time this was available, so they launched in rough fields, clearings in forests etc. Whatever they could find. The early jet engines didn't develop enough thrust at low speeds, so the plane used the aforementioned recoverable JATO packs that were filled with toxic, volatile chemicals.
2. Earlier versions used a very rickety-looking trolley that (usually) dropped off after takeoff and some very sketchy looking skid landing gear. Imagine landing this lightly constructed thing at 200 mph in an icy field on skids.
3. Likewise, imagine doing 400+ mph in a rattly, flexy plane made out of baling wire, tin foil and hope. It has essentially no armament, no redundancy and no armor at all. Well placed small arms fire could likely bring it down. You ain't getting out of that cockpit if you have a problem.
Just a total deathtrap.
All of those aircraft were captured during Operation Lusty, which is a really interesting story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Lusty
Of particular note to me in this video are some nice shots of really interesting late WW2 German aircraft, all of which are the last surviving examples in the world:
- At 32:00, a Dornier DO 335 Pfeil, which is a very large fighter with an unusual push-pull prop design that was the fastest prop-driven fighter of the war.
- At 13:52 and again later in the video, some brief shots of a Horten Ho 229 while it was under restoration at the time of this video. This plane finally went on display in 2018 after 7 years of restoration. This is a jet powered flying wing designed by untrained brothers and built out plywood that apparently actually worked fairly well. It's incredible what desperate people can accomplish.
- And, my favorite, at 32:30 the only surviving Arado AR 234 Blitz. An absolutely beautiful jet-powered light bomber / reconnaissance plane and the spiritual father of the U2. This one still has the reusable JATO packs under the wings and a tank-style periscope. The pilots of this plane were incredibly brave:
1. All airstrips in Germany had been destroyed by the time this was available, so they launched in rough fields, clearings in forests etc. Whatever they could find. The early jet engines didn't develop enough thrust at low speeds, so the plane used the aforementioned recoverable JATO packs that were filled with toxic, volatile chemicals.
2. Earlier versions used a very rickety-looking trolley that (usually) dropped off after takeoff and some very sketchy looking skid landing gear. Imagine landing this lightly constructed thing at 200 mph in an icy field on skids.
3. Likewise, imagine doing 400+ mph in a rattly, flexy plane made out of baling wire, tin foil and hope. It has essentially no armament, no redundancy and no armor at all. Well placed small arms fire could likely bring it down. You ain't getting out of that cockpit if you have a problem.
Just a total deathtrap.
All of those aircraft were captured during Operation Lusty, which is a really interesting story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Lusty
Last edited by Hiro11; May 25th 2020 at 12:45 pm.
#767
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2010
Location: 1.2 East
Posts: 762
Re: Planespotting II
The video is apparently the runway where the aircraft engines scrapped along it.
https://youtu.be/RUIbxhyM-KQ
https://youtu.be/RUIbxhyM-KQ
The latest information available suggests that the final was commenced at 3,500 ft, 5 miles out, should have been around 1500ft. agl.
Result:
Unstable approach.
Touched down a mile or so after the R/W threshold.
Landing gear was not down and locked.
Both engines hit the R/W, landing aborted, go around initiated.
The resulting damage caused a double flame-out.
This deployed the RAT (no electrics, which stalls if below 140kts.)
Glide approach attempted.
Crashed.
All the above is not confirmed.
Last edited by audio; May 25th 2020 at 2:33 pm. Reason: clarity
#768
Re: Planespotting II
Thanks for the link Jsmth321
The latest information available suggests that the final was commenced at 3,500 ft, 5 miles out, should have been around 1500ft. agl.
Result:
Unstable approach.
Touched down a mile or so after the R/W threshold.
Landing gear was not down and locked.
Both engines hit the R/W, landing aborted, go around initiated.
The resulting damage caused a double flame-out.
This deployed the RAT (no electrics, which stalls if below 140kts.)
Glide approach attempted.
Crashed.
All the above is not confirmed.
The latest information available suggests that the final was commenced at 3,500 ft, 5 miles out, should have been around 1500ft. agl.
Result:
Unstable approach.
Touched down a mile or so after the R/W threshold.
Landing gear was not down and locked.
Both engines hit the R/W, landing aborted, go around initiated.
The resulting damage caused a double flame-out.
This deployed the RAT (no electrics, which stalls if below 140kts.)
Glide approach attempted.
Crashed.
All the above is not confirmed.
I'm not an avionics expert but that sounds to me as though the pilot's doctor messed up on his medication prescription...
#769
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2010
Location: 1.2 East
Posts: 762
#770
Re: Planespotting II
Thanks for the link Jsmth321
The latest information available suggests that the final was commenced at 3,500 ft, 5 miles out, should have been around 1500ft. agl.
Result:
Unstable approach.
Touched down a mile or so after the R/W threshold.
Landing gear was not down and locked.
Both engines hit the R/W, landing aborted, go around initiated.
The resulting damage caused a double flame-out.
This deployed the RAT (no electrics, which stalls if below 140kts.)
Glide approach attempted.
Crashed.
All the above is not confirmed.
The latest information available suggests that the final was commenced at 3,500 ft, 5 miles out, should have been around 1500ft. agl.
Result:
Unstable approach.
Touched down a mile or so after the R/W threshold.
Landing gear was not down and locked.
Both engines hit the R/W, landing aborted, go around initiated.
The resulting damage caused a double flame-out.
This deployed the RAT (no electrics, which stalls if below 140kts.)
Glide approach attempted.
Crashed.
All the above is not confirmed.
We will have to see what the official report eventually says to confirm, or give an alternative explanation.
Last edited by Pulaski; May 25th 2020 at 7:40 pm.
#771
Re: Planespotting II
I have so many problems with this!
There is no mention on the tapes of the gear not being down, either from the pilot or ATC.
Why did the crew try and put the aircraft down 1000ft outside of the TDZ.
Why did the crew try and instigate a go around after striking the runway 3 times with the engines.
Why did the pilot ignore 3 separate calls from ATC to say he was above assigned altitude (by a considerable margin)
If there was any issue, why did the crew not declare an emergency.
I read on Twitter that the captain was one of PIA’s most senior pilots. This is all very screwed up. I suspect once the black boxes are recovered and examined (I haven’t heard that they’ve been recovered yet), the answers will become apparent rather quickly. If this turns out to be pilot error, and it’s unfair to apportion blame without all the facts being known, this will probably be one of the most major **** ups in aviation history!!!!!
There is no mention on the tapes of the gear not being down, either from the pilot or ATC.
Why did the crew try and put the aircraft down 1000ft outside of the TDZ.
Why did the crew try and instigate a go around after striking the runway 3 times with the engines.
Why did the pilot ignore 3 separate calls from ATC to say he was above assigned altitude (by a considerable margin)
If there was any issue, why did the crew not declare an emergency.
I read on Twitter that the captain was one of PIA’s most senior pilots. This is all very screwed up. I suspect once the black boxes are recovered and examined (I haven’t heard that they’ve been recovered yet), the answers will become apparent rather quickly. If this turns out to be pilot error, and it’s unfair to apportion blame without all the facts being known, this will probably be one of the most major **** ups in aviation history!!!!!
#772
Re: Planespotting II
Without a doubt, and while PIA don't have the best record (to put it mildly) one would be surprised if a long time pilot with 4700 hours on the A320 alone was in the habit of making high and fast approaches on a regular basis.
Last edited by zzrmark; May 25th 2020 at 9:55 pm.
#773
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2010
Location: 1.2 East
Posts: 762
Re: Planespotting II
IMO, it was all over when a landing was attempted from the approach at 3500ft 5 miles out. It could be done by some but only in an extreme emergency, an out of control cabin fire for example.
As well as audible warnings for gear not down and locked, there are several visual warning lights.
Most A320 pilots would suggest that forgetting to lower the gear would be virtually impossible. Sadly, it appears that it was possible in this case.
As mentioned previously, we will have to wait until the CVR and FDR's are examined.
As well as audible warnings for gear not down and locked, there are several visual warning lights.
Most A320 pilots would suggest that forgetting to lower the gear would be virtually impossible. Sadly, it appears that it was possible in this case.
As mentioned previously, we will have to wait until the CVR and FDR's are examined.
#774
Re: Planespotting II
.... This is all very screwed up. I suspect once the black boxes are recovered and examined (I haven’t heard that they’ve been recovered yet), the answers will become apparent rather quickly. If this turns out to be pilot error, and it’s unfair to apportion blame without all the facts being known, this will probably be one of the most major **** ups in aviation history!!!!!
#776
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2010
Location: 1.2 East
Posts: 762
Re: Planespotting II
Markonline1, I’ll try to answer some of your questions.
There is no mention on the tapes of the gear not being down, either from the pilot or ATC.?
I too am surprised ATC did not tell the crew that the gear was not down.
Why did the crew try and put the aircraft down 1000ft outside of the TDZ.?
Too fast and too high over the R/W threshold, I guess. I think it was more than 1,000.
Why did the crew try and instigate a go around after striking the runway 3 times with the engines.?
Perhaps on realizing the gear was not down until the engines hit the ground. If the a/c was doing say 140kts, 1 mile of concrete left and no brakes would have made a mess but much fewer casualties I would have thought. Landing distance available is 11,152 ft .
Why did the pilot ignore 3 separate calls from ATC to say he was above assigned altitude (by a considerable margin)?
He was in overload mode I would expect or the PNF (pilot not flying) who would be talking to atc missed the calls.
If there was any issue, why did the crew not declare an emergency.?
Bad airmanship, bad communication between the crew (CRM) possibly.
For the crews sake, I hope I’m wrong.
There is no mention on the tapes of the gear not being down, either from the pilot or ATC.?
I too am surprised ATC did not tell the crew that the gear was not down.
Why did the crew try and put the aircraft down 1000ft outside of the TDZ.?
Too fast and too high over the R/W threshold, I guess. I think it was more than 1,000.
Why did the crew try and instigate a go around after striking the runway 3 times with the engines.?
Perhaps on realizing the gear was not down until the engines hit the ground. If the a/c was doing say 140kts, 1 mile of concrete left and no brakes would have made a mess but much fewer casualties I would have thought. Landing distance available is 11,152 ft .
Why did the pilot ignore 3 separate calls from ATC to say he was above assigned altitude (by a considerable margin)?
He was in overload mode I would expect or the PNF (pilot not flying) who would be talking to atc missed the calls.
If there was any issue, why did the crew not declare an emergency.?
Bad airmanship, bad communication between the crew (CRM) possibly.
For the crews sake, I hope I’m wrong.
#778
Re: Planespotting II
Why did the pilot ignore 3 separate calls from ATC to say he was above assigned altitude (by a considerable margin)?
#779
Re: Planespotting II
Again, I’m not a pilot, but isn’t the requirement that the approach is stable by 1000 ft? High and over speed is anything but stable. It goes back to if there was an issue, why did the crew not declare an emergency. There’s bad airmanship, and then there’s suicidal flying. This appears at the moment to be the latter.
Why did the pilot ignore 3 separate calls from ATC to say he was above assigned altitude (by a considerable margin)?
That’s the thing though, he didn’t miss the calls. If I remember correctly, he was told he was at 7000 instead of 3000 and he responded with something like we’re fine.
Why did the pilot ignore 3 separate calls from ATC to say he was above assigned altitude (by a considerable margin)?
That’s the thing though, he didn’t miss the calls. If I remember correctly, he was told he was at 7000 instead of 3000 and he responded with something like we’re fine.
#780
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2010
Location: 1.2 East
Posts: 762
Re: Planespotting II
Again, I’m not a pilot, but isn’t the requirement that the approach is stable by 1000 ft? High and over speed is anything but stable. It goes back to if there was an issue, why did the crew not declare an emergency. There’s bad airmanship, and then there’s suicidal flying. This appears at the moment to be the latter.
Why did the pilot ignore 3 separate calls from ATC to say he was above assigned altitude (by a considerable margin)?
That’s the thing though, he didn’t miss the calls. If I remember correctly, he was told he was at 7000 instead of 3000 and he responded with something like we’re fine.
Why did the pilot ignore 3 separate calls from ATC to say he was above assigned altitude (by a considerable margin)?
That’s the thing though, he didn’t miss the calls. If I remember correctly, he was told he was at 7000 instead of 3000 and he responded with something like we’re fine.
Never heard about the 1000ft rule (JAR-OPS1), maybe a company or FAA thing. When I last operated into Gatwick, 2001, a frequent request from atc was to keep 170kts to the marker, that was 1325 agl on 26L about a 4-mile final. Vref would be around 130kts.We could refuse their request but it was never a problem. Certainly, stabilised by 500ft.
Good point