Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
Looks like an A320 didn't make it back to the airport after a go-around.

Current speculation is that they went around from a belly landing (see apparent damage to both engines in this pic and extended RAT), then both engines failed and they didn't make it back to the airport after climbing to 2000 feet

Some survivors have been reported.

Some other links: ... -pakistan/
Gear not down ?

There is now some security camera video of the aircraft’s final moments before crash showing the aircraft in what appears to be a very nose high attitude. It fire balled on impact so presumably not out of fuel.

User avatar
By Nero
There's a good initial-thoughts video on YouTube by a former airbus pilot, plus the usual great work from VAS.

From the altitude readings, looks like they ballooned up slightly on approach and had to make a steeper descent?

The audio starts with pilot stating he's now "comfortable" (established) which I'm assuming is after their initial instability.

During that statement, you can hear the gear warning noise but perhaps they got thoroughly distracted by fixing the ILS approach because it does look like they belly landed on the engines before attempting a go around - unfortunately over a heavily populated area with broken engines...

Final video shows they got the gear down but didn't have the power to get back to a runway

Sent from my SM-G988B using Tapatalk
Iceman wrote:Unstable approach with no go-around ? No adherence to SOPs and checklists (gear not down) ? Going around from having scraped the engines along the runway ?


Looks that way.

One of the survivors and an eye witness are saying that’s what happened.
We were up in the Cessna 152 do do some ‘airwork’.
The student was good at doing steep turns, usually, but this time we were all over the place!
The student appeared to be at the point of fainting...

Why, I thought carefully, and then it occurred to me “It’s Ramadan” I said.
“Okay, we go back now; if you are going to fast for Ramadan, book your lessons in the mornings.”

If I’m hungry I don’t like to do anything, especially not flying an aeroplane. The loss of concentration is evident.

So missing alarms, being distracted can be a problem.
Whether or not the pilots had eaten that day should be taken into account.

I’ve had many Muslim students, and most of them defer their fasting when they are on flying ‘duty’.

As an aside, there was a recent interview on BBC News where an NHS doctor said how tired she was during this time of fasting... Who can complete complex tasks well on an empty stomach?
As someone that has worked extensively in the ME I feel I can comment that its not really the fasting during the day, its the modern socializing of the "breaking fasting" party well into the night that is possibly more of a factor of daily tiredness. Its like going for a saturday night out and being a bit slow on the Sunday morning, but doing it every night for a month...

Regards, SD..
The preliminary report has been published... it's a horror show.

7k too high at 15DME, declined ATC's suggestions to orbit, gear down at 10DME, raised gear, screamed down the GP way too fast (220 KIAS at 500ft!), landed gear-up, engaged reverse-thrust, then made decision to GA, then the engines died over the city. ... IB-431.pdf
I’d read somewhere else that the airline had suspended a large percentage of its flight crew pending investigations into the validity and provenance of their licences and qualifications.

Iceman 8)
Last edited by Iceman on Wed Jul 01, 2020 8:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
CherokeePete wrote:Probably time we stopped them flying into Manchester, same as they aren't allowed into London.

I think you will find they are no longer able to fly in EASAland for the next 6months...which still includes the UK.
CherokeePete wrote:Probably time we stopped them flying into Manchester, same as they aren't allowed into London.

Must be at least 20 years ago, so not necessarily relevant now ... but in my time at Manchester we had at least one occasion where the PIA 747 was 'declined' a 06 take-off.
The previous few days' flights had limped into the air from 24 around (the then) link echo. That day we were using 06 with a marginal headwind. 06 is uphill, and climb out over the city. What started as a bit of banter 'where do you think he'll get airborne by' turned in genuine concern. Confidence was not helped with some issues with departure clearance and push back instructions. The final straw was airfield ops spotting that the 747 was venting fuel during taxi out, which just got a blase response from the crew when ATC notified them. A bit of delaying tactics, a runway inspection, a slot problem, and swap round to using 24.