Airbus A320

Pakistan International Airlines - PIA

On 22 May 2020 at 13:05 hrs PST, the Pakistan International Airlines aircraft Airbus A320-214, registration number AP-BLD, took off from Lahore (Allama Iqbal International Airport – AIIAP) Pakistan to perform a regular commercial passenger flight (PK8303) to Karachi (Jinnah International Airport – JIAP) Pakistan, with 8 crew members (01 Captain, 01 First Officer, and 06 flight attendants) and 91 passengers on board. At 14:35 hrs the aircraft performed an ILS approach for runway 25L and touched down without landing gears, resting on the engines. Both engines scrubbed the runway at high speed. Flight crew initiated a go-around and informed “Karachi Approach” that they intend to make a second approach. About four minutes later, during downwind leg, at an altitude of around 2000 ft, flight crew declared an emergency and stated that both engines had failed. The aircraft started losing altitude. It crashed in a populated area, short of runway 25L by about 1340 meters. An immediate subsequent post impact fire initiated. Out of 99 souls on-board, 97 were fatally injured and 02 passengers survived. On ground 04 persons were injured however 01 out of these reportedly expired later at a hospital. Below, the preliminary report published by the Pakistan AAIB.

Smartlynx Airlines

On 28th February 2018 at 10:021, the Smartlynx Airlines Estonia Airbus A320-214 registered ES-SAN took off from Tallinn airport Estonia to perform training flights with 2 crew members (captain and safety pilot), 4 students and 1 ECAA inspector on board. Following several successful ILS approaches and touch-and-go cycles, at 15:04, after a successful touch down with the runway, the aircraft did not respond as expected to sidestick inputs when reaching rotation speed. After a brief lift-off, the aircraft lost altitude and hit the ground close to the end of the runway. In the impact, the aircraft engines impacted the runway and the landing gear doors were damaged. After the initial impact, the aircraft climbed to 1590 ft from ground level and pitched down again. The pilots were able to stabilize the flight path by using manual pitch trim and engine thrust and make a U-turn back towards the runway. The crew declared an emergency and the aircraft was cleared for an emergency landing. During the approach, the aircraft lost power in both engines. The aircraft landed 150 m before the threshold of runway at 15:11. On landing, aircraft tires burst, and the aircraft veered off the runway and finally came to a stop 15 m left to the runway. The safety pilot and one of the students suffered minor impact trauma in this accident. The aircraft landing gear doors, landing gears, both engine nacelles, engines and aircraft fuselage suffered severe damage in this accident resulting in aircraft hull loss.

Egyptair

The aircraft departed Paris-Roissy-Charles de Gaulle Airport at 2321LT on May 18 on an international schedule flight to Cairo. carrying 56 passengers and 10 crew members. The crew maintained radio contacts with the Greek ATC and was transferred to the Egyptian ATC but failed to respond. Two minutes after the airplane left the Greek Airspace, the aircraft descended from FL370 to FL220 in few seconds, apparently making a first turn to the left and then a 360 turn to the right before disappearing from the radar screen at 0229LT while at an altitude of 10'000 feet. It is believed that the aircraft crashed in the Mediterranean sea about 200 km north of Egyptian coast. The crew did not send any mayday message, thereby all assumptions remains open. It appears that some various debris such as luggage were found on May 20 about 290-300 km north of Alexandria. Two days after the accident, it is confirmed that ACARS messages reported smoke on board, apparently in the lavatory and also in a technical compartment located under the cockpit area. Above that, several technical issues were reported by the ACARS system. The CVR has been recovered on June 16, 2016, and the DFDR a day later. As both recorder systems are badly damaged, they will need to be repaired before analyzing any datas. On December 15, 2016, investigators reported that traces of explosives were found on several victims. Egyptian Authorities determined that there had been a malicious act. The formal investigation per ICAO Annex 13 was stopped and further investigation fell within the sole jurisdiction of the judicial authorities. Contradicting the Egyptian finding, the French BEA considered that the most likely hypothesis was that a fire broke out in the cockpit while the aircraft was flying at its cruise altitude and that the fire spread rapidly resulting in the loss of control of the aircraft.

Turkish Airlines - THY Türk Hava Yollari

The aircraft departed Milan-Malpensa Airport at 0700LT and proceeded to the east. Following an uneventful flight, the crew initiated the approach to Istanbul-Atatürk Airport Runway 05. At a height of 100 feet above the runway, the aircraft banked to the right, stalled and struck the runway surface. On impact, the right main gear was severely damaged and punctured the right wing. In such condition, the captain decided to abandon the landing manoeuvre and initiated a go-around procedure. The aircraft climbed to an assigned altitude of 3,800 feet then the crew declared an emergency and confirmed that the right engine was out of service. Few minutes later, the right engine caught fire. The crew followed a 20-minutes holding circuit over the bay of Marmara before a second approach to runway 35L. After touchdown, the right main gear collapsed, the aircraft slid for few dozen metres then veered off runway to the right, completed a 180 turn before coming to rest in a grassy area. All 97 occupants evacuated safely while the aircraft was damaged beyond repair. According to the operator, the loss of control during the last segment was caused by turbulences from a preceding Boeing 787 that landed on the same runway 05.

Asiana Airlines

The approach to Hiroshima Airport was completed in marginal weather conditions. The autopilot was disengaged at 2,100 feet MSL when the aircraft descended below the glide path and hit approach lights and the localiser antenna located 325 meters short of runway 28. The aircraft continued the descent, hit the soft ground short of runway. Then it rolled on runway for some 1,154 meters, veered to the left, went off runway and came to rest 130 meters to the left of the concrete runway, some 1,477 meters past the runway threshold. All 82 occupants were evacuated, among them 27 (25 passengers and 2 crew members) were injured. The aircraft was considered as written off due to severe damages on both engines, ailerons, wings and the bottom of the fuselage. At the time of the accident, weather conditions were difficult with visibility up to 4 km, RVR on runway 28 variable from 300 to 1,800 meters, light rain, partial fog, one octa cloud at 0 feet, 4 octas at 500 feet, 6 octas at 1,200 feet.

Germanwings

The aircraft left Barcelona at 1000LT on a scheduled flight to Düsseldorf (flight 4U9525/GWI18G). At 1032LT, one minute after reaching its assigned cruising altitude of 38,000 feet near Toulon (level off), the aircraft started to lose altitude and continued a straight in descent during nine minutes, until it reached the altitude of 6,800 feet. It was later confirmed that no distress call was sent by the crew. Radar contact was lost at a height of 6,800 feet at 1041LT when the aircraft hit a mountain slope located near Prads-Haute-Bléone, northeast of Digne-les-Bains. At the time of the accident, weather conditions were considered as good with no storm activity, reasonable wind component and no turbulence. The crash site was reached by first rescuers in the afternoon and the aircraft disintegrated on impact. None of the 150 occupants survived the crash. The second black box (DFDR) was found on April 2, nine days after the accident.

Air Asia Indonesia

The aircraft left Surabaya-Juanda Airport at 0535LT and climbed to its assigned altitude of FL320 that he reached 19 minutes later. The crew contacted ATC to obtain the authorization to climb to FL380 and to divert to 310° due to bad weather conditions. At 0617, the radio contact was lost with the crew and a minute later, the transponder stopped when the aircraft disappeared from the radar screen. At this time, the aircraft was flying at the altitude of 36,300 feet and its speed was decreasing to 353 knots. It is believed the aircraft crashed some 80 nautical miles southeast off the Pulau Belitung Island, some 200 km from the Singapore Control Area. The Indonesian Company confirmed there were 156 Indonesian Citizens on board, three South Korean, one Malaysian, one Singapore and one French (the copilot) as well. At the time of the accident, the weather conditions were marginal with storm activity, rain falls and turbulence in the area between Pulau Belitung and Kalimantan. First debris were spotted by the Indonesian Navy some 48 hours later, about 150 NM east-south-east off the Pulau Belitung Island. About forty dead bodies were found up to December 30. The tail was recovered on January 10, 2015 and the black boxes were localized a day later. On January 12 and 13 respectively, the DFDR and the CVR were out of water and sent to Jakarta for analysis and investigations.

USAir - US Airways

Before pushback from the gate, the first officer, who was the pilot monitoring, initialized the flight management computer (FMC) and mistakenly entered the incorrect departure runway (27R instead of the assigned 27L). As the captain taxied onto runway 27L for departure, he noticed that the wrong runway was entered in the FMC. The captain asked the first officer to correct the runway entry in the FMC, which she completed about 27 seconds before the beginning of the takeoff roll; however, she did not enter the FLEX temperature (a reduced takeoff thrust setting) for the newly entered runway or upload the related V-speeds. As a result, the FMC's ability to execute a FLEX power takeoff was invalidated, and V-speeds did not appear on the primary flight display (PFD) or the multipurpose control display unit during the takeoff roll. According to the captain, once the airplane was cleared for takeoff on runway 27L, he set FLEX thrust with the thrust levers, and he felt that the performance and acceleration of the airplane on the takeoff roll was normal. About 2 seconds later, as the airplane reached about 56 knots indicated airspeed (KIAS), cockpit voice recorder (CVR) data indicate that the flight crew received a single level two caution chime and an electronic centralized aircraft monitoring (ECAM) message indicating that the thrust was not set correctly. The first officer called "engine thrust levers not set." According to the operator's pilot handbook, in response to an "engine thrust levers not set" ECAM message, the thrust levers should be moved to the takeoff/go-around (TO/GA) detent. However, the captain responded by saying "they're set" and moving the thrust levers from the FLEX position to the CL (climb) detent then back to the FLEX position. As the airplane continued to accelerate, the first officer did not make a callout at 80 KIAS, as required by the operator's standard operating procedures (SOPs). As the airplane reached 86 KIAS, the automated RETARD aural alert sounded and continued until the end of the CVR recording. According to Airbus, the RETARD alert is designed to occur at 20 ft radio altitude on landing and advise the pilot to reduce the thrust levers to idle. The captain later reported that he had never heard an aural RETARD alert on takeoff, only knew of it on landing, and did not know what it was telling him. He further said that when the RETARD aural alert sounded, he did not plan to reject the takeoff because they were in a high-speed regime, they had no red warning lights, and there was nothing to suggest that the takeoff should be rejected. The first officer later reported that there were no V-speeds depicted on the PFD and, thus, she could not call V1 or VR during the takeoff. She was not aware of any guidance or procedure that recommended rejecting or continuing a takeoff when there were no V-speeds displayed. She further said she "assumed [the captain] wouldn't continue to takeoff if he did not know the V-speeds." The captain stated that he had recalled the V-speeds as previously briefed from the Taxi checklist, which happened to be the same V-speeds for runway 27L. The captain continued the takeoff roll despite the lack of displayed V-speeds, no callouts from the first officer, and the continued and repeated RETARD aural alert. FDR data show that the airplane rotated at 164 KIAS. However, in a postaccident interview, the captain stated that he "had the perception the aircraft was unsafe to fly" and that he decided "the safest action was not to continue," so he commenced a rejected takeoff. FDR data indicate that the captain reduced the engines to idle and made an airplane-nose-down input as the airplane reached 167 KIAS (well above the V1 speed of 157 KIAS) and achieved a 6.7 degree nose-high attitude. The airplane's pitch decreased until the nose gear contacted the runway. However, the airplane then bounced back into the air and achieved a radio altitude of about 15 ft. Video from airport security cameras show the airplane fully above the runway surface after the bounce. The tail of the airplane then struck the runway surface, followed by the main landing gear then the nose landing gear, resulting in its fracture. The airplane slid to its final resting position on the left side of runway 27L. The operator's SOPs address the conditions under which a rejected takeoff should be performed within both low-speed (below 80 KIAS) and high-speed (between 80 KIAS and V1) regimes but provide no guidance for rejecting a takeoff after V1 and rotation. Simulator testing performed after the accident demonstrated that increasing the thrust levers to the TO/GA detent, as required by SOPs upon the activation of the "thrust not set" ECAM message, would have silenced the RETARD aural alert. At the time of the accident, neither the operator's training program nor manuals provided to flight crews specifically addressed what to do in the event the RETARD alert occurred during takeoff; although, 9 months before the accident, US Airways published a safety article regarding the conditions under which the alert would activate during takeoff. The operator's postaccident actions include a policy change (published via bulletin) to its pilot handbook specifying that moving the thrust levers to the TO/GA detent will cancel the RETARD aural alert. Although simulator testing indicated that the airplane was capable of sustaining flight after liftoff, it is likely that the cascading alerts (the ECAM message and the RETARD alert) and the lack of V-speed callouts eventually led the captain to have a heightened concern for the airplane's state as rotation occurred. FDR data indicate that the captain made erratic pitch inputs after the initial rotation, leading to the nose impacting the runway and the airplane bouncing into the air after the throttle levers had been returned to idle. Airbus simulation of the accident airplane's acceleration, rotation, and pitch response to the cyclic longitudinal inputs demonstrated that the airplane was responding as expected to the control inputs. Collectively, the events before rotation (the incorrect runway programmed in the FMC, the "thrust not set" ECAM message during the takeoff roll, the RETARD alert, and the lack of required V-speeds callouts) should have prompted the flight crew not to proceed with the takeoff roll. The flight crewmembers exhibited a self-induced pressure to continue the takeoff rather than taking the time to ensure the airplane was properly configured. Further, the captain initiated a rejected takeoff after the airplane's speed was beyond V1 and the nosewheel was off the runway when he should have been committed to the takeoff. The flight crewmembers' performance was indicative of poor crew resource management in that they failed to assess their situation when an error was discovered, to request a delayed takeoff, to communicate effectively, and to follow SOPs. Specifically, the captain's decision to abort the takeoff after rotation, the flight crew's failure to verify the correct departure runway before gate departure, and the captain's failure to move the thrust levers to the TO/GA detent in response to the ECAM message were all contrary to the operator's SOPs. Member Weener filed a statement, concurring in part and dissenting in part, that can be found in the public docket for this accident. Chairman Hart, Vice Chairman Dinh-Zarr, and Member Sumwalt joined the statement.

East Air

Following an uneventful flight from Moscow-Domodedovo Airport, the crew was cleared to land on runway 01 at Kulob Airport. In heavy snow falls, the aircraft landed 230 metres past the runway threshold at a speed of 255 km/h. After touchdown, the crew started the braking procedure when, after a course of 520 metres, the right main gear contacted a snow berm. Simultaneously, both engines impacted a snow berm (up to 95 cm high) and stopped due to the high quantity of snow ingested. The aircraft veered to the right, lost its nose gear and came to rest in snow, 20 metres to the right of the runway and 1,190 metres from its threshold. All 192 occupants evacuated safely and the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.