Still bad but it's not just random people off the street flying 777s.
The article says that’s not the case.
> He added those pilots “don’t have flying experience.”
Furthermore, an environment where bribery is common practice raises doubts about everything.
Anyway, Duck it and you will see it on several other sites.
A go around for an unstable approach is 100% the decision of the pilots, because they have the complete picture. They also know the stability requirements of the operator and speed limits of the plane, ATC doesn't know those.
So while ATC can think "wow he is very fast for an A320" or "that looks too high" they cannot see what the actual airspeed is, they cannot see whether the gear is down or not or what the flap settings are. And they don't know the speed limits for each specific type. All they know is roughly how fast the typical plane of that type normally goes.
If you read the report, it seems they were in contact with the approach controller who contacted the tower for landing clearance on their behalf.
Tower and approach have a button to talk directly in each other's headsets, so it's easy for approach to give you a landing clearance on behalf of the tower. Or the other way around, tower could get you radar instructions from approach in case you have a problem right after take off and want to return immediately.
But in this case it was a very bad decision to do that.
This is an aviation rule that everyone lives by. There are many reasons for why that is the most sane and sensible approach to this problem, in addition to what is mentioned, the pilot's attention span is always under attack from various events that they have to correctly and swiftly respond to. This does not happen sometimes, this happens all the time during flight. Everyone has to be prepared for it. It is part of the job. You have to train for it, you have to prepare for your attention to be overflown, and you still have to make the most important decisions even under those conditions.
And this has an important consequence: ATC is at the end of that list ("communicate"). They are at the bottom of the attention span chain of the pilot, and it is better for everyone if ATC knows this and acts like it. In other words, leaves the final decision to the pilot.
Please don't get me wrong. The pilots bear the majority of the responsibility. But it does not sound to me like ATC did their job properly, either.
It is on them regardless. ATC performed badly, and it blew one or two chances to say something that might have saved the day, but it was the pilots who actually caused the accident, through their own free choices of action - nothing that ATC did influenced their decision-making (quite the opposite, in fact.) ATC deserves criticism and blame, but it is different in kind to that which belongs to the pilots.
Controllers on the other hand has years of training about traffic patterns, communications, managing airspace, etc. Most controllers are not pilots, although a significant number are, even those are not likely to be flying around A320s recreationally. Needless to say they deal with thousands of types of aircraft every day and may have only general ideas of how those aircraft may perform.
So, who is in a really good position to quickly know what the critical speeds in a landing are?
Yes, the pilot is in control of the aircraft, but unless and until an emergency is declared, ATC is in control of the airspace, and the pilots should obey any safe command.
Don't get me wrong, the pilots bear the majority of the responsibility, but ATC did not do their job properly, either.
That said, ATC's responsibility is to keep planes from hitting each other and maintain an orderly flow of aircraft. They are not any way responsible for the safety of the flight. That is what the second pilot and all of the automated alarms are for. The crew just ignored all of them.
It takes a basic standard of professionalism to fly a jet airliner, and unfortunately neither of the crew members on this flight had it.
The approach was so bad that they were above the maximum gear extension speed when they tried to put the gear down, and so the Airbus refused to do it, and continuously yelled at them that it was doing this, but somehow they failed to notice.
Monitoring airspeed on approach is about the most basic thing a pilot does, and if you're off on speed and/or altitude by much less than these guys were, the absolutely clear requirement is to go around and try again (before you slam the engines on the ground and destroy them).
If ATC is to blame in this, it is primarily in excessive deference to the PIC.
My point, exactly, though it sounds like there may have been other irregularities in the procedures followed.
ATC should have said "go around" to a plane with no functioning engines?
In this case, according to the preliminary report, `“Karachi Approach” advised repeatedly (twice to discontinue the approach`. Had the cowboy pilots followed that instruction, the unnecessary deaths might have been avoided.
In the case here, approach instructed them to abort the approach, and the pilots should have. Well, they paid the ultimate price for their mistakes, taking many people with them.
The main criticism in the report seems to be that they did not report the lack of landing gear or the subsequent engine strike back to the aircraft.
My criticism, having listened to some of the recording, is that ATC were not more insistent in their instructions. Every other ATC recording I've listened to, ATC instructs and pilots obey. In the rare cases where pilots disobey without immediate good reason, ATC usually gets quite heated. They don't generally just acquiesce.
So, don't get me wrong, the pilots bear the majority of the responsibility, but pilots and ATC are a team, and ATC didn't do a great job either.
They don't bother you in terms of how you fly your own plane. That's captains responsibility in the US at least. The controller was getting into the go around game here (too high / too fast stuff). The CAPTAIN is supposed to monitor and establish the stabilized approach.
For reasons that are not clearly explained (probably everything happening too fast and muddled), they remained in contact with approach during the landing after the approach controller got their landing clearance from tower on the phone.
Tower did report the gear-up landing to approach, but approach did not relay to the crew.
I'm following the aviation industry closely and there are plenty of reports every now and then where PIA flights don't respond on radio anymore, triggering fighter intercepts. It is assumed that those pilots are oftentimes either sleeping or just don't bother because of their ego, which was built in their former careers as military pilots.
I don't want to have PIA planes crashing into others or falling on my head.
“PIA flights from Birmingham, London Heathrow and Manchester airports are suspended with immediate effect,” a spokesman for the UK authority told Reuters.
Also this costs tax money. Why spend the money on intercepts when you can ban the people causing the problems?
Is this really the case? Are there training missions 24/7? If not, does flying an intercept cause a future training mission to be canceled?
Maybe stores should stop hiring security guards in towns where the police don't have much to do. The cops are just sitting around anyway, right?
Why do you believe the current training and safety regime is economically optimal? It is possible that having more cheaper airplanes and pilots that crash a little more often would be better for economy!
It's not quite as strong as because you flew that mission we are cancelling that training session, more because you flew that mission you don't need be booked out on a training session.
Even with sleeping pilots, you still are order of magnitude more likely to die by a car than by a plane.
In that sense, I don't want PIA planes falling on my own or anyone else's head, land, or property, anywhere in the world.
There's no reason to allow pilots and airlines to behave like that, and lots of reasons to sanction them very harshly if they do. After all, who's to believe they're current on their maintenance if they can't even make sure pilots respond when hailed?
Noth of earth surface is not cities, its water/farmland/etc
By that logic as an Englishman I can blame the French for all our screwups.
Russia unified into a single state only because of the Mongoles, so you can blame Communism and cold war on them.
Another example of putting blame through 2 millennia - Space Shuttle booster width as result of the Roman chariot width https://dwanethomas.com/roman-chariots-and-the-space-shuttle...
Good examples though, worth noting that some roman road paths are still used in the UK (our new roads just went over the top) - the past is a fascinating land.
Denmark is apparently far more willing to let it slide, and anyone with a US driving licence can get it converted to a Danish one with just a doctor's approval. Although, in Denmark, their US licence is only valid for a month. But you don't have to retake the test. I am frankly a bit puzzled by this decision.
After having lived 5+ years in Virginia in the US and knowing multiple people that got their driver's license in Virginia, I am really surprised that apparently people with Virginia issued driver's licenses don't need to do a theory nor a practice test in Germany to get the German license. From what I have been told there was no official driving school/education required in Virginia, neither in theory nor in practice. People could just show up for the tests. And at least the practice test was ridiculous: I drove a friend to his test and after 10min of circling around the DMV building the test was done. And consequently people drive really bad (at least in the NoVa region). No one knew anybody who failed the tests. This is all to say the Germany as well is willing to let it slide to a larger extent than I expected.
For comparison, to even register for theory and practice tests in Germany you need to have taken at least 12 90min lessons for the basics and 2 additional 90min lessons for extra topics, all in official driving schools. For the practice test you need at least 12 times 90min driving hours (5 regular roads, 4 autobahn, 3 at night). In average students take 15 practice hours. It is not so uncommon that people fail at theory or practice tests.
Due to Langley being in VA maybe?
For the practical exam though, there are requirements, but not as explicit. I'm only aware of a number of hours, around 20 I think. When I took lessons for the B permit (regular cars) I had a notebook with different sections the instructor had to fill out as I was progressing. For the A permit (motorcycle) there wasn't any such thing.
I'm not sure if they'd have to do the whole driving school (there are mandatory 12 hours one has to drive in Germany, with a driving teacher), or if they can just pass the exams and get a German licence.
Interestingly, Switzerland converts all US licences with no exam requirements. I wonder if someone can move there, get their licence converted, and then move to Germany and convert their Swiss licence to a German one...
On the bright side if you do murder someone by driving on the wrong side of the road you can just catch a plane home and hide there, cant you Anne?
I always wonder about the situations that inspired regulations like these and exactly how they believe they're solving whatever that problem was.
Was there a rash of accidents involving drivers from Texas? Did someone from Delaware blow the German test so badly that they soured the state's reputation forever? Is this somehow American Top Gear's fault?
The EU/EEA reciprocity is due to EU regulations, not the assumption that every EU country has better driving license standards than every other country.
In Switzerland, for instance, which is not part of the EU/EEA but has a variety of bilateral agreements, EU/EEA licenses and US licenses can and must be exchanged within one year (and these countries among a few others are treated equally), and there are no special provisions for EU/EEA license holders to keep their original license, etc.
When I did my driving licence test in the UK that was one of the exercises. In my opinion, anyone without the hand-eye coordination and spatial awareness to reverse around a corner should stay away from operating ~1 ton heavy machinery.
You mean standard test in all of EU?
Corruption is a "well known secret" in every country in the world.
That's certainly not true in my experience. In many countries I've visited I felt like a bribe would be a very bad idea and that above all others trusted the police. In an ex-Soviet-bloc state, I've seen a road police force go from USSR-level corruption to trustworthiness in a matter of ~1.5 decades.
For example, in Bulgaria I rented a police car with 2 real policemen to drive me out of a town where I got lost and I was driving on the wrong way. Not only I did not got a fine, but for something like $5 I got them to drive in front of me, wrong way, then another few kilometers to the city limits. In the same country any speed ticket was voided for $5, maybe $10 if the speed was outrageous.In Romania until recently it used to be mandatory to bribe any surgeon to get a surgery, it still happens on a lower volume even today. If you want a driver permit you talk to an instructor, they will arrange it for you - just give the money to the instructor and get the exams passed. Border crossing - same, bus drivers were collecting $5 from each passenger to bribe customs officials, they were dealing with the actual bribery.
The situation improved a bit in some countries, or just got a lot more expensive. You can still bribe policemen in Eastern Europe, but it is not working with $5 anymore, it takes 20 or 50. But we had a minister of agriculture arrested and convicted for getting bribed with sausages and booze, just to give an example of how weird the bribery can be.
I had a couple of experiences in post-war Bosnia. A policeman would pull you aside for “speeding” and ask for 50 Marks (they had convertible Deutschmark as currency at the time). After some haggling they would agree to a 5 Marks reduced fine and give you a “receipt” from a standard notebook.
Having travelled a fair bit in India, I've seen accidents happen in front of me, I've seen the aftermath of many more, and I've seen ienumerable near misses - after seeing the driving test, it explained a lot!
The silver lining is that it was worse before. People literary did not have to go to the authorities to get their licenses; just pay a middle man some money you'll have your license in your hands in the comfort of your homes. So yaay!(?)
But you don't need to pass any test, they just exchange the paper (at least for EU licenses).
The EU reciprocity is based on a common binding framework for driving exams, with common minimal requirements, and Switzerland adheres to it via bilateral agreements.
The requirement to exchange the license is just an administrative one, there is no theory or driving test for EU and EFTA nationals (there is a vision test though).
I also have no idea how this is even getting votes instead of being deleted.
blancolirio is not a good, nor trust worthy, source.
Nearly every word from this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mampv8DdHlU - is, some would argue, stolen, word for word, from an article by The Air Current
The importance of being on top of licenses and other paperwork is that if you can't get the paperwork right, how can you get the rest right?
Some other notables:
- India has identical fake license problems as Pakistan
- South Korea has CRM and sim evaluation issues with ex-military crews (resulting in the SFO crash)
- SFO has struggled with ILS maintenance in the past decade. (Foreign air crews expect to do ILS approaches, not visuals. See SK SFO accident above.)
- African operators have problems with cabin crews opening doors after landing during taxi to let thieves steal luggage, etc. as the airliner is moving!
- Australia had an issue with drug smugglers accessing luggage. Hope that's resolved.
- Philippines had an issue with airport staff inserting bullets into luggage, then extorting tourists. Resolved after numerous news reports.
I know a few European airlines that encourage their crews not to accept visual approaches in the US and request an ILS approach instead, because it's safer.
Europe has solved the same "we need more planes per hour" problem by allowing a reduced 2.5nm separation when both planes are established in the localizer and are radar monitored by the controller.
As a pilot I prefer the European way, because it's more structured and has a few more safeguards. The US method puts the problem with the pilot, who has far worse means to judge separation than the controller
Those cockpit windows don't seem like they provide the best view... Out of curiosity, do civilian aircraft have onboard radar? If so, what directions can it see (up/down/front/back/sides)?
But it's weather radar, so it mostly sees water droplets (rainshowers, thunderstorms etc), not other planes.
The TCAS system scans for transponders from other planes in all directions, checks their path and altitude and will play audible alerts (it shouts "traffic, traffic!") when there is a potential collision risk. You can use it to see other planes on the navigation display, but you cannot legally call that "visual separation".
If a controller asks you whether you have traffic in sight (they must ask that before they can tell you to follow it for example), you cannot say you have it on the screen. That doesn't count, you have to see it out the window.
In particular we're talking here about aeroplanes on an approach to a major airport (if they aren't on approach then by definition they aren't choosing between ILS and a visual clearance, and if it isn't a major airport why are we trying to bunch them up more?).
All US major airports have a "Mode C veil" which means there's a regulation requiring aircraft near those airports to have transponders ("Mode C" is a transponder mode in which the aircraft reports its own assessment of its altitude based on air pressure as well as a four octal identifier).
Rather alarming to read that as nano-meters briefly!
Aviation is terrible at any kind of SI or even any kind of sane standardization of units at all. Distance is commonly measured in nautical miles (1852 meters), but visibility in the US is in statute miles (1600ish meter?) or feet, while Europe uses km or meters for visibility. Both US and Europe use feet for altitude, but China/Russia use meters for altitude.
Today it's just defined as 1852 metres.
I cannot imagine what a sour taste it will leave if you cannot board a plane. In any case what reason will the authorities have to detain you ? I am assuming you are talking about some official fees and not bribes.
Can you provide a source for this?
apparently the problem is IDENTICAL
If civil engineers in a particular country were all fraudulent and buildings were collapsing that would surely be noticed. Or fraudulent surgeons and people dying.
On one hand, since Pakistan has a small fleet (60 planes across 3 airlines per wikipedia), I would assume it's highly competitive and there isn't any room for error/bribing. It's also possible that it's very competitive so not much incentive to invest time in getting a license?
It's also quite odd that Pakistan has really stagnant airline industry while almost all other economies have growing airline transporation. It was 9.63Mn in 2016, and down to 6.88Mn in 2018. Per https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/Pakistan/Airline_passengers....
Just like Pakrail, and PSM, PIA will be kept afloat, and safe away from privatisation.
Khan's administration took down Sharif, and Punjabi old money people, now come Pathan old money people, and people with even stronger conviction that having a state job legitimately entitles them to run state companies like a family business.
Mixed feelings. He cleaned up the state... a bit. People rightfully raise his, and his officers' lacklustre execution skills. Just like two previous establishments, Khan too bogged down in networks of local elites, and old money people with whom he did horsetrading in order for PTI to come to power. At least, unlike the previous leaders, he recognises it as a problem.
He came to power on the promise of undoing the system of clan elites dominating the country, but that's kind of hard to do when your own lieutenants, and backers are made of the same elites...
Pakistan is effectively split in between three huge ethnocentric elites, Sindhi/Seraiki Bhutto dynasty, Punjabi Sharif, and Pathan Khan. Pathan elites were prominent with military, hence Khan's coming to power. And there is a strong statist culture, where state companies used to provide the most lucrative jobs in the country. And there is a culture where people believe that being made a boss is a fully legitimate entitlement to run a state company/ministry/corporate unit like a family business, and there is nothing wrong with that.
A huge generational struggle is happening with people who want to end it vs. ones who don't.
The a massive brain drain that Pakistan experienced after Zia's coup, and mass immigration of anybody of talent will take years to reverse, and undo the negative selection effect.
The whole "we have grounded people with fake license" sounds like someone knew about it previously, and they are conspiring against PIA. I don't think PIA would be aware of fake licenses and keep them as well? or it took them just a few weeks to find out people with fake licenses?
Pakistani airlines were not the only ones whom Gulf carriers have brought down. They dominate the entire region, and rightfully so (aside from heavy subsidies.) Their service is superb.
PIA used to be a much more higher-end airline, and it was on top of global ranks before the troubles started in the country. A lot of Pakistan's talent called it quit at that point, and immigrated en masse, aviation cadres included. A lot of them settled in the UAE, where they crossed paths with the gulf money, and set the foundation for many of Emirati airlines.
Naturally, conquering Pakistani market was very easy for them given their local knowledge.
> I don't think PIA would be aware of fake licenses and keep them as well?
They would. The phenomenon started with Gen. Zia (who died in an airplane crash, ironically.) The country has been ruled by three political dynasties that effectively normalised the state when state companies were given away to children, relatives, and friends to be ran like family businesses.
A double digit of all professionals in the country are fake degree holders, and that's not surprising in a country where now two generations of people were raised internalising the idea that earning money straight, and fair was made impossible as such, per-design.
I don't have an axe to grind with them. My mother's uncle was head of maintenance for them in Karachi, and a good family friend the station chief in Paris. Sadly, like many other Pakistani institutions, it was overtaken by incompetence and corruption, long before the Gulf carriers burst into the scene (and ate European carriers' lunch, not just third-world ones like PIA or Air India).
The OP posted a verbatim quote, and one that demonstrated the foolishness of the pilots' cockiness.
If the pilots had been westerners, they might have said 'oh god, oh god!' instead - if they had, I doubt you would have made your comment, so you might want to consider if your own biases/prejudices came into play here (I really don't mean that as an attack; I genuinely think it's good to be introspective on these things sometimes, and consider if our own internal biases are at work).
You might want to question why muslims drop arab words in their non-arab current language.
Then again, thanks to hollywood, most non-english speakers say stuff like 'oh fuck' in their non english sentences. Sometimes they don't even know enough english to realize they are basically requesting supernatural intervention from the act of human procreation.
the thing to worry about is this
: The crew was overconfident and not focussed.
"The crew was overconfident and not focussed"
Because they were talking about Corona and ignored the instructions .. Why are you so fixed by the use of word "Allah" .. I really dont see how it should bother anyone
Riight...Best of luck with that.
You can only hold people accountable for what they say, not what you think they might be 'signalling'.
“Dog Whistle” exists just as other coded forms of communication exist - to pass targeted private messages in public, with some plausible deniability.
Having said this, I confirm that this excerpt comes directly from the report.