Pulaski

Not even - please take a look at the video I posted above, with commentary from someone more knowledgeable than me.

To paraphrase, the plane made a weird pop as it flew past the person taking the video, and the pilot apparently tried to trade speed for altitude, which would have given him the (vertical) space to eject safely. Unfortunately in climbing he put it into a stall, and spun once before he and his passenger could eject. In short, he was too low for a safe ejection.
​​​

audio

The ‘weird pop’ could be engine failure by ingestion or mechanical means.

Yes, it’s normal to trade speed for height for ejection and to gain a little time.

Your comments don’t appear to have an in-depth knowledge of the theory of flight, I do.

Assuming fairly level ground, it is most important to keep the wings level while climbing with no power, any bank angle will increase the angle of attack and stall speed. In other words, you will gain more height, have a lower stall speed and more time to plan your actions including ejection. Aircraft have stall warning systems.



From the video, the a/c made a climb then while still climbing banked to the left, this greatly increased the stall speed. The aircraft stalled then spun in this climbing turn. This is a classic unintentional spin entry.

In my opinion the pilot was trying to make a return as I suggested earlier.
Very sadly a crew member died.

The official inquiry will tell all hopefully

johnwoo

Quite a bit of discussion on the subject.

https://www.pprune.org/military-avia...olumbia-3.html

Pulaski

Thank you for posting that link, that was some of the funniest material I have read in a long time. I thoroughly recommend reading at least a least as far as the anecdote about the Blue Angels diverting to Cold Bay, AK, ... and don't drink while you're reading it!

audio

From that link,post 124 is not funny but might be of interest:

I instructed on this jet 35 years ago so let me set a few things straight (those things I can remember!). I also want to say there are those of us who have been there/done that and for those who are "armchair quarterbacks" ..... IT IS EASY TO CRITICIZE WHEN YOU ARE SITTING BEHIND A DESK DOING ZERO KNOTS. You have no idea how rapidly situations develop and how quickly you need to make split-second decisions of life and death. Everything below is pure speculation.

• seat is a 0/60 seat (ground level but requires minimum 60 kts forward velocity to assist with 1-swing chute inflation). Optimal glide speed is 130 kts.
• each ejection seat sequence is independent. First one to the handles is the 1st one out.
• canopy shed is part of the process prior to going up the rails. The seat has a ram in case the canopy removal does not trigger so you can go through the canopy if it does not release.
• there is no gyro-stabilization; straight rocket vector so a/c angle and trajectory is the most important factor in a successful ejection.

Ejection sequence:

• pull the handles/slam your head back into the headrest as the belt tensioner will pull you back into the seat (you do not want your head down when the rocket fires due to neck injury).
• canopy release fires; hopefully canopy separates (otherwise you are going though the canopy with the ram leading the way)
• rocket seat initiates up the rails
• seat drogue fires to provide drag to the seat to help with man/seat separation.
• seat/man separator fires . This releases the 5-point harness and a "kicker" pushes the body/seat pack (which contains the survival equipment) out of the seat.
• as you exit the seat a lanyard is attached to the harness which initiates chute deployment

I have looked at the video many times. It appears to me there was an engine issue (single engine jet) at low velocity at low altitude (my worst nightmare when I flew this type). Could be bird ingestion, compressor stall or engine failure.

Initial reaction (straight ahead zoom) was perfect but for some reason the pilot elected to commence a left turn. This is sub-optimal as in a single engine jet you want to maximize kinetic energy for potential energy (any turn reduces the amount of kinetic-to-potential energy you have). This jet was in a very low kinetic energy state to begin with so a wings level zoom was optimal.

Looking at the google map data provided by other it appears the left turn actually took the jet towards population whereas straight ahead was nothing but a river. This indicates to me he was not steering from population so what was his plan? I suspect he thought about a 180 degree gliding return back to the airport.

It appears to me as he hit the top of zoom he stalled the a/c initiating a right wing drop. At this point he needed to get the a/c level to best achieve successful ejection so rolled as best he could towards wings level. Unfortunately the vector at this point was well beyond the seat envelope. He is very fortunate to have survived while the passenger (who initiated fractionally later) was not so fortunate.

markonline1

Air France the latest to announce they are phasing out their A380’s early. When I think about all the time and money Heathrow spent upgrading their taxiways whilst I was there to accommodate the A380, and all for an aircraft that will be lucky to see 20 years of service.

scrubbedexpat091

As the sports teams Air Canada usually fly's around in their Jetz aircraft are not currently playing, Air Canada will be using these aircraft on select Toronto - Montreal and Toronto - Ottawa flights.

Aircraft is A319 with 57 seats vs the usual 120.

The service on these flights will include prime gate assigning and boarding 25 minutes from departure.

Air Canada website announcement here.

Oops. Crew wasn't aware of the missing pieces. A spotter caught it on camera landing in San Diego.



Article.

civilservant

Pakistan AL A320 crashes on go-around. Initial reports are that they had 'technical difficulties' and attempted to land. Pilot abandoned the approach close to touchdown and crashed while attempting the GA.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/22/w...gtype=Homepage

Just what aviation didn't need right now

scrubbedexpat091

Looking at what appears to be a photo of the aircraft in question prior to it crashing, the RAT was deployed which seems to indicate they had no engine power, and there appears to be possible damage to the bottom of the engines, if the ATC recording going around is authentic, the pilots reported they had lost engines as well.

Crash: PIA A320 at Karachi on May 22nd 2020, impacted residential area during final approach

civilservant

EDIT: Reading this second article now. It seems very different than what was originally reported.

Ok so it appears that BOTH engines were severely damaged by an attempted no-gear landing, as evidenced by the scrapping on some of those pictures. Enough for a dual engine failure? The deployment of the RAT suggests so.

Those videos also show the aircraft essentially gliding into terrain. Seems they were unable to extend the glide to the airport perimeter where they might have been able to put it down with less casualties.

Pulaski

"...the aircraft "attempted a belly landing", went around ..."

That's a hell of a circuit and bump manoeuvre, if that report is correct!

civilservant

Yep. See my updated post above. It seems that attempted belly landing destroyed both engines! I'm sure the damaged engines, and possibly damaged underside of the aircraft, may have affected the lift of the aircraft to the point where the glide was never going to reach the airport.

Pulaski

Who on God's earth would try a go around if you had just dragged the engines along the ground?

Sounds like another case of there being more to the safe operation of an aircraft at the edge of the performance envelope than the quality of the hardware.

civilservant

Reading into it a little more, it seems initially the nose wheel did not deploy.

Did they cycle the gear up again and perhaps forget to cycle it back down? A belly landing is not exactly standard procedure for a nose wheel issue.

Perhaps they realized their mistake too late and initiated the GA when they heard the engines contact with the ground? Iy wouldn't be the first time a pilot in a stressful situation had forgot a step on the approach or landing checklist.

Quite. That single act doomed the aircraft.

Pulaski

I also update my post .... it's not the first time that an aircrew has failed to handle a very high stress situation appropriately. .... Asiana 214