it is very easy to put the blame on dead..because they cannot defend.... investigation has been diverted toward pilot errors from day one and it was all started from the last few moments audio conversation released witin few hours of incident between ATC and pilot.
.team of investagtors are also questionable so...
PIA has a long track record of technical issues in past how many have been punished?
1 so investigation should be carried out through international investigators
2 who is responsible for first time landing gear problem?
3 if the landing gears were not in position why ATC did't informed it to pilot? and why allowed it to land?
frankely i am feeling this investigation has ended even before it started through intentionally creation of pilot error narrative
The local pilots body has said that they will not accept a biased probe.
Not much can be hidden given that all comms are recorded (in the tower and in the blackbox; pls keep in mind that the leaked audio is just small snippets) and there are survivors who can shed more light on the sequence of events. Finally, there will be airport CCTV footage.
All international observers believe it is pilot error for the following reasons:
-too high/too fast for the initial approach; warned thrice by ATC (this has been confirmed by altitude readings)
-forgot to lower the landing gear (if the landing wasn't lowering due to a technical glitch, obviously the pilot would/should have informed the tower that he was going to go for a belly/crash landing --- in which case there is a special foam and other arrangements made on the runway by the ground staff)
-went for a go-around despite scraping engines multiple times on the runway (confirmed by survivor, pictorial evidence of the plane and runway markings.)
This does
not mean that the ATC also didn't fail in some of its responsibilities and everybody who was found to have been lacking in the dispensing of their duties should be punished --- but the primarily responsibility for the plane and its safety in situations like this (where no other air traffic is involved and all on-the-ground conditions are clear ofr the pilot) rests with the Captain of the aircraft.
Peace.
an equipment malfunction.
Is a possibility which I am contemplating
From day one and for some reason no one
seems to be giving it a thought?
Either the pilot was out of his mind
Or
He relied on a faulty data provided to him
by the aircraft. And not the ATC.
I have a commercial pilot license which I got in early 90s I have almost forgotten everything but I wouldn't have made such a mistake on that day that's why it's so hard for me to stomach such a monumental
error by such a seasoned pilot though it's possible we are human beings we can
lose our minds seldom but it's possible.
Almost all crashes are due to highly unlikely events --- therefore, however unlikely it is, it is still a possibility that the pilot --- whose situation awareness (SA) was totally consumed by fixing the botched approach (too high/too fast) forgot to lower the landing gear. After all, however remote the possibility, this has happened in the past.
PIA8303 had a descent of over 7000 ft/min on Friday
Altitude graph:
Source: Aviation Safety Network
https://aviation-safety.net/photo/10639/Airbus-A320-214-AP-BLD
More 5500+ ft/min descents of PIA at Karachi airport in May 2020:
May 17- The very same Aircraft, PIA 8303 . 30,574 ft to 13,575 ft in 3 min . Descent rate of 5633 ft/min.
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/PIA8303/history/20200517/0754Z/OPLA/OPKC/tracklog
May 21- PIA 8309 - 16725 to 11150 ft in 1 min. 5500 ft/min descent.
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/PIA8309/history/20200521/0740Z/OPIS/OPKC/tracklog
Since the crash, the descent rates are more stable at a consistent sub 2500 ft/min.
This goes well beyond a one time pilot error.
Given these past approaches of PIA flights , the PIA 8303 crash being pilot error just shifts the responsibility form the PIA maintenance department to the PIA Human Resource department.
PIA has the responsibility to train their flight crews, monitor their performance and to enforce standards.
Exactly --- even pilot error comes back directly to the management.
My father's friend failed this pilot THRICE in his evaluations --- but somehow he eventually passed and started flying.
It's looking more and more like a pilot error bringing it too hot and high, a docile/submissive "yes-sir" co-pilot not pro-actively monitoring the situation and calling for a go-around, a passive/submissive ATC not exercising his authority to decline clearance for landing while seeing the plane was too hot and high to safely land.
What's needed is a change in mind-set, the pilot might be experienced and senior but there is a reason why there are two pilots in the cockpit, if the second one has to stay quiet and go along with anything the main pilot does, then he is not doing his job and is not needed in the cockpit.
Maybe there is a need to review/modify the protocols for take-off and landing with co-pilot taking more assertive role. ATC's own the airspace and GC's own the runways, they need to be more authoritative and assertive and should be able to call shots, when they see that the conditions are not right for the planes to take-off or land safely.
The cultural aspect is HUGE. In the past, a Korean Air flight was doomed similarly because certain cultural/respect-based elements prohibited the ATC and/or the co-pilot (I'm forgetting which) from properly identifying the situation as a proper emergency.
Moreover, pilots often feel embarrassed if they mess up the first approach and have to initiate a go-around (and may even be reviewed for the hot approach) --- so there is even more unsaid 'pressure' on the pilot to try and force a landing the first time. It's ridiculous.
