Pakistan Airlines flight PK8303 (A320) Crashes in Karachi

lintdrummer

Roger_007 wrote: »

BBC news are reporting that the Pakistani aviation minister, Mr Khan, has reported to Parliament that the initial report into the accident found that the pilots were at fault for not following ATC instructions. Curiously, ATC were blamed for not informing the crew that their engines had collided with the runway on their first landing attempt.
There was no problem with the aircraft.

Surely the crew knew better than ATC that they had collided with the runway.?

No blame is apportioned in accident reports, that is not their purpose. If you read the report, it states that ATC did not inform the crew that they had observed sparks, but it does not apportion any blame to ATC or anybody else.

Inquitus

lintdrummer wrote: »

No blame is apportioned in accident reports, that is not their purpose. If you read the report, it states that ATC did not inform the crew that they had observed sparks, but it does not apportion any blame to ATC or anybody else.

The Pilots one would assume would be well aware they had hit the ground without the gear down, and would not need ATC to advise them of that, from the moment they went around they were dead, sadly.

Belfast

dilallio

According to this CNN article, almost 1 in 3 pilots in Pakistan have fake licenses, with some of these flying with foreign carriers.

Very scary.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/25/business/pakistan-fake-pilot-intl-hnk/index.html

crushproof

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/25/business/pakistan-fake-pilot-intl-hnk/index.html

Aviation Minister claims almost 1 in 3 pilots have a fake license, quite terrifying!

lintdrummer

dilallio wrote: »

According to this CNN article, almost 1 in 3 pilots in Pakistan have fake licenses, with some of these flying with foreign carriers.

Very scary.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/25/business/pakistan-fake-pilot-intl-hnk/index.html

crushproof wrote: »

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/25/business/pakistan-fake-pilot-intl-hnk/index.html

Aviation Minister claims almost 1 in 3 pilots have a fake license, quite terrifying!

That would go some way to explaining this crash if the pilots of PK8303 are in the 33% ( :eek: ) with fake licenses.

Inquitus

lintdrummer wrote: »

That would go some way to explaining this crash if the pilots of PK8303 are in the 33% ( :eek: ) with fake licenses.

They only cheated on the exam itself, they would have completed all the relevant training. It's still utter madness, and unacceptable, but its not quite random joes off the streets put in charge of a passenger jet!

HTCOne

India is the same. Every year there’s stories of guys flying heavies caught with fake licences they obtained by bribing someone.

1123heavy

Inquitus wrote: »

They only cheated on the exam itself, they would have completed all the relevant training. It's still utter madness, and unacceptable, but its not quite random joes off the streets put in charge of a passenger jet!

If they showed up to class and went to sleep or played on their phones then did 0 follow up study then I'm not so sure about them 'completing' relevant training (everyone who went to flight school knows this type but over here they aren't able to send others in their place).

The only reason they would have had someone else sit their exams for them is because they did NOT complete the relevant training (no paying attention in class followed by no study) and they knew they would fail.

I take grave issue to sharing the skies with these people and would like for them to be banned into Europe. I also don't believe the numbers quoted by the minister, the true numbers are always higher than what they admit to (who can pay the bribe to get passed as 'genuine'?).

The whole thing is clearly rotten from top to bottom and they have no business carrying passengers in Europe, authorities need to act, now.

Inquitus

1123heavy wrote: »

If they showed up to class and went to sleep or played on their phones then did 0 follow up study then I'm not so sure about them 'completing' relevant training (everyone who went to flight school knows this type but over here they aren't able to send others in their place).

The only reason they would have had someone else sit their exams for them is because they did NOT complete the relevant training (no paying attention in class followed by no study) and they knew they would fail.

I take grave issue to sharing the skies with these people and would like for them to be banned into Europe. I also don't believe the numbers quoted by the minister, the true numbers are always higher than what they admit to (who can pay the bribe to get passed as 'genuine'?).

The whole thing is clearly rotten from top to bottom and they have no business carrying passengers in Europe, authorities need to act, now.

I guess my point is they must at least have enough competence to complete the co-pilots role?

If you put me next to you in whatever type you fly, you'd know something was well off within the fist few minutes?

1123heavy

Inquitus wrote: »

I guess my point is they must at least have enough competence to complete the co-pilots role?

If you put me next to you in whatever type you fly, you'd know something was well off within the fist few minutes?

What is the co-pilot's role though? A co-pilot must be fully proficient to fly the aircraft in order to be rated on it, it's no different to a captain. The differences between a captain and co-pilot will come in the form of legal authority, experience and decision making, but make no mistake about it, the co-pilot is very much 'a pilot'.

The traditional idea that a co-pilot isn't really a pilot and isn't expected to be able to do things on his own is nothing but a once widely held false notion, the co-pilot must be able to fly and manage the thing alone if anything happens to the captain and is examined on that as part of the type rating training (your captain will suddenly go quiet to simulate unconsciousness and you find yourself alone to manage the aircraft back onto the ground).

To answer your second question I'd say like to say yes, but I might fall into a trap of suspecting some genuinely qualified people as unqualified and I'm sure fellow pilots will know where I'm coming from with that in regards to some of the newer pilots being churned out of these big academies. I have sat in some sims with people and I've no idea what is going on with them at all.

I am a first officer though and if the captain started asking questions or doing things totally inexplicable for the level of experience you'd expect, I'd first probably discuss it with other first officers and then if there was a widely held suspicion it would go to the airline. It's unthinkable in Ireland though, however I know for a fact it has happened at least once (a person vastly inflated their hours and joined as a commander), they were released immediately upon discovery.

Belfast

Hotblack Desiato

1123heavy wrote: »

The traditional idea that a co-pilot isn't really a pilot and isn't expected to be able to do things on his own is nothing but a once widely held false notion

BEA had this sort of class-ridden cockpit many years ago, it didn't work out well for them in terms of accident rate. Second Officers required by union rules to be in the cockpit, but not really allowed to do anything. First Officers who couldn't question the (usually ex-WW II Bomber or Transport Command) Captain.

The Staines accident appears to be a result of 'defer to authority'.

Interesting pilot's perspective on the different cultures between BEA and BOAC here:

http://www.vc10.net/Memories/Didntwanttofly.html

During my period in BEA only one airline crashed more often and that was Aeroflot.

Korean Air was another one. They developed an appalling accident record when they expanded their operations in the 80s and 90s, it boiled down to a culture where authority is deferred to and many of their pilots were ex-military where authority was completely unquestionable. So many "highly qualified" Korean Air captains flew perfectly serviceable aircraft into the terrain and the first officers just sat there. They've made a huge effort to change their culture since.

What is going on in southern Asia is pretty worrying, if people are prepared to bribe their way through written exams, maybe their families are prepared to offer much bigger bribes to pass check rides? PIA and Air India should be banned from EU airspace until their regulators can demonstrate that they can, well, regulate.

Nijmegen

We know corruption is endemic in these countries, I guess why not extend it to the cockpit, the maintenance supply chain... I wouldn't be quick to fly with one of these carriers, to be honest.

Jack1985

1123heavy wrote: »

...I take grave issue to sharing the skies with these people and would like for them to be banned into Europe. I also don't believe the numbers quoted by the minister, the true numbers are always higher than what they admit to (who can pay the bribe to get passed as 'genuine'?).

The whole thing is clearly rotten from top to bottom and they have no business carrying passengers in Europe, authorities need to act, now.

EASA have issued a ban this afternoon to PIA for a minimum period of 6 months.

Belfast

vicwatson

Jack1985 wrote: »

EASA have issued a ban this afternoon to PIA for a minimum period of 6 months.

Yet there was a PIA into MAN yesterday

JohnC.

vicwatson wrote: »

Yet there was a PIA into MAN yesterday

Can they continue to fly while they appeal? I don't know if they have appealed, but I imagine they would.

Cloudio9

JohnC. wrote: »

Can they continue to fly while they appeal? I don't know if they have appealed, but I imagine they would.

I think repatriation flights are exempt.

Foggy43

Cloudio9 wrote: »

I think repatriation flights are exempt.

Yes I agree. There would have been crews here in the UK that needed to reurn to Pakistan.

Belfast