Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   EU Aviation Safety Agency suspends Pakistani International Airlines from operating in Europe for 6 months. Recommends teaching pilots to slow down and lower landing gear before landing   (news.yahoo.com) divider line
    More: Followup, Karachi, Pakistan International Airlines, European Union, PIA spokesman Abdullah Khan, EU Aviation Safety Agency, United Kingdom, Airline, Pakistan's aviation minister  
•       •       •

1126 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Jun 2020 at 11:27 PM (2 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



28 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-06-30 9:10:17 PM  
Probably trained by Saudis
 
2020-06-30 10:22:48 PM  
That's the airline with the guys that land gear up, take off again anyway, then run out of fuel and crash.
 
2020-06-30 11:32:53 PM  
And all of the pilots should be...pilots.
 
2020-06-30 11:37:10 PM  
How the flying fark can it take 14,500 employees to run 31 planes?
 
2020-06-30 11:39:57 PM  

edmo: That's the airline with the guys that land gear up, take off again anyway, then run out of fuel and crash.


They had plenty of fuel, the engines just didn't feel like burning it after being used as improvised landing gears.
 
2020-06-30 11:47:11 PM  

jtown: How the flying fark can it take 14,500 employees to run 31 planes?


Errr..  you do realize that the pilots and cabin crew are the only visible aspects right?

Techs and mechs make up a good chunk.  Admin staff.  Janitorial.  Purchasing.  HR.  Client services.  The list goes on and on.

Keep in mind that these are *planes*.  The associated paperwork, assuming they are in compliance, is insane.  Every bolt and rivot on each of those planes has a paper trial from the manufacturer, through every reseller, to the guy who picked it out of the bin, and installed in hole 1896-J9-13A on part AB-386-L3, on Jan 12, 2019, at 10:14am.

Think about the staff your u need to keep track of that.
 
2020-06-30 11:51:20 PM  

edmo: That's the airline with the guys that land gear up, take off again anyway, then run out of fuel and crash.


That particular detail about the Pakistan Airlines crash really pissed me off. They'd already landed gear up! The plane was already scraped up, plus there was no way to know how bad the damage was. Did they think a go-around would allow them to fix that mistake, or let them keep their jobs? A prime example of extremely poor airmanship all around.

The correct response would have been to accept that they had joined the club of dumbasses who neglected to lower the landing gear, keep the damn plane on the ground and wait for it to grind to a halt. Sure, they would have had a brutal ass-chewing for the plane needing to be written off, and their commercial flying careers would probably have ended there, but they and nearly a hundred people would likely have lived to see another day.
 
2020-07-01 12:00:56 AM  

LurkerSupreme: edmo: That's the airline with the guys that land gear up, take off again anyway, then run out of fuel and crash.

That particular detail about the Pakistan Airlines crash really pissed me off. They'd already landed gear up! The plane was already scraped up, plus there was no way to know how bad the damage was. Did they think a go-around would allow them to fix that mistake, or let them keep their jobs? A prime example of extremely poor airmanship all around.

The correct response would have been to accept that they had joined the club of dumbasses who neglected to lower the landing gear, keep the damn plane on the ground and wait for it to grind to a halt. Sure, they would have had a brutal ass-chewing for the plane needing to be written off, and their commercial flying careers would probably have ended there, but they and nearly a hundred people would likely have lived to see another day.


Well, look at it this way.  Every time you see something so unfarkingly unbelievable that you just know it can never be beat...  you get a couple idiots like this metaphorically saying "Hold my beer for a sec!".

On the plus side, it made them investigate their pilots...  and fire a 1/3 on the spot, and whatever asshats in HR who were responsible for running that simple background check.
 
2020-07-01 12:10:33 AM  

jtown: How the flying fark can it take 14,500 employees to run 31 planes?


Not a complete answer, but let us do some calculations:
Pak airways is not known as a long distance carrier (vs Emirates*/Qatar/Etihad airlines in the region), so I would guesstimate three flights per day per plane. So looking at around 90 trips.
Crew would be what, avg 10 people per trip? (Counting pilots)
That's 900 crew members. (I think IATA has an eight hour flight or two trip maximum per staff per day)
Let's say an average 200 passenger per trip, on 90 flights, and you have 18,000 passengers per day. How many people do you need to cook for them?
How many staff members to clean out 45 planes (assuming the other half of trips are cleaned outsourced at destination).
As country airlines develop, they usually start off not outsourcing any of the above or below mentioned functions, before they either spin off or outsource as they mature. In maturing countries/airlines, the difference between the local airlines and local airport is blurred.
Now consider the following functions and how many people needed if we are looking at 6.5 passengers a year (this is back of envelope, someone else can actually look up the real number):
- ground staff at the gates
- fueling
- maintenance
- guys with flashlights
- ticketing
- customer service/complaints Dept
- check-in desks
- business/first class lounges
-  sales offices
- and so on

These are all customer facing functions, or direct operations, now consider back office:
- finance and accounting
- purchasing
- HR
- marketing
- training
- and so on.
Imagine how many sub-divisions they have in each of the above

/again, this is just "back of the envelope" style thinking
//I just looked it up, Emirates airlines had around 100,000 people in 2018. I'm sure though many jobs will be cut during these corona-days
///I miss traveling
 
2020-07-01 12:19:30 AM  
What I don't get is why EU flight regulators banned them for 6 months instead of commending them when the airlines benched a third of their pilots for license fraud and/or investigation.
Benching a third of your pilots is a big, and embarrassing decision.
Do they want other airlines to be hushhush about issues when they pop up to avoid regulatory punishment and risk worse things?
 
2020-07-01 12:22:08 AM  

LurkerSupreme: edmo: That's the airline with the guys that land gear up, take off again anyway, then run out of fuel and crash.

That particular detail about the Pakistan Airlines crash really pissed me off. They'd already landed gear up! The plane was already scraped up, plus there was no way to know how bad the damage was. Did they think a go-around would allow them to fix that mistake, or let them keep their jobs? A prime example of extremely poor airmanship all around.

The correct response would have been to accept that they had joined the club of dumbasses who neglected to lower the landing gear, keep the damn plane on the ground and wait for it to grind to a halt. Sure, they would have had a brutal ass-chewing for the plane needing to be written off, and their commercial flying careers would probably have ended there, but they and nearly a hundred people would likely have lived to see another day.


The remaining fuel would have been an issue without time to jettison it.
 
2020-07-01 12:30:51 AM  
Maybe next time don't go with the Libertarian Plan™, guys.

LOL WHO NEEDS A LICENSE?! I SAW A YOUTUBE VIDEO!
 
2020-07-01 12:50:37 AM  
The article said the airline had too many employees because it was being used as a way to give retired miltary personnel and friends of the government easy 'jobs'.
 
2020-07-01 1:07:59 AM  

metamax: LurkerSupreme: edmo: That's the airline with the guys that land gear up, take off again anyway, then run out of fuel and crash.

That particular detail about the Pakistan Airlines crash really pissed me off. They'd already landed gear up! The plane was already scraped up, plus there was no way to know how bad the damage was. Did they think a go-around would allow them to fix that mistake, or let them keep their jobs? A prime example of extremely poor airmanship all around.

The correct response would have been to accept that they had joined the club of dumbasses who neglected to lower the landing gear, keep the damn plane on the ground and wait for it to grind to a halt. Sure, they would have had a brutal ass-chewing for the plane needing to be written off, and their commercial flying careers would probably have ended there, but they and nearly a hundred people would likely have lived to see another day.

The remaining fuel would have been an issue without time to jettison it.


It could have been a fire risk, but not an unmanageable one. It sounds like the belly landing wasn't too rough, so the fuel tanks probably hadn't developed any leaks. On the flip side of that though, trying to dump fuel in the air with the unknown level of damage to the plane would probably have been riskier than just riding out the belly landing and then evacuating as quickly as possible. It's also a moot point since the A320 model involved in the crash doesn't have the capability to dump fuel in-flight.

Pilots have landed commercial aircraft gear up before, either purposely or negligently, and while landing that way is usually really expensive, the fatality rate is very low. Unless you try to go around afterward.
 
2020-07-01 1:56:33 AM  

LurkerSupreme: metamax: LurkerSupreme: edmo: That's the airline with the guys that land gear up, take off again anyway, then run out of fuel and crash.

That particular detail about the Pakistan Airlines crash really pissed me off. They'd already landed gear up! The plane was already scraped up, plus there was no way to know how bad the damage was. Did they think a go-around would allow them to fix that mistake, or let them keep their jobs? A prime example of extremely poor airmanship all around.

The correct response would have been to accept that they had joined the club of dumbasses who neglected to lower the landing gear, keep the damn plane on the ground and wait for it to grind to a halt. Sure, they would have had a brutal ass-chewing for the plane needing to be written off, and their commercial flying careers would probably have ended there, but they and nearly a hundred people would likely have lived to see another day.

The remaining fuel would have been an issue without time to jettison it.

It could have been a fire risk, but not an unmanageable one. It sounds like the belly landing wasn't too rough, so the fuel tanks probably hadn't developed any leaks. On the flip side of that though, trying to dump fuel in the air with the unknown level of damage to the plane would probably have been riskier than just riding out the belly landing and then evacuating as quickly as possible. It's also a moot point since the A320 model involved in the crash doesn't have the capability to dump fuel in-flight.

Pilots have landed commercial aircraft gear up before, either purposely or negligently, and while landing that way is usually really expensive, the fatality rate is very low. Unless you try to go around afterward.


Thing is, the pilots didn't realize they'd just made a belly landing (well, engine cowl landing).

They weren't paying enough attention to their job to realize they hadn't put the landing gear down, or to realize that they were approaching too fast and too steep to make any sort of landing that could be generously categorized as being within the general vicinity of "safe;" but they were paying enough attention when they'd landed to realize that they were going too fast to stop before the end of the runway, and so decided to go around, completely unaware that they had just killed themselves and their passengers.

Lady Gravity is a harsh Mistress, and anyone who does not pay Her the proper respect She's due will have that tribute forcibly taken in very short order.
 
2020-07-01 2:23:22 AM  
For comparison to PIA's 14500 employees and 30 planes, Delta has 840 planes and 86000 employees. So ~103 employees per plane, vs PIA has 467 employees per plane. Sure you need a base number of employees that don't scale with the number of planes, or scale slowly, (lawyers, marketing, customer service, ticket checkers) Anyone know if a PIA ticket costs 4x what a comparable Delta ticket would?
 
2020-07-01 6:26:47 AM  

Resident Muslim: What I don't get is why EU flight regulators banned them for 6 months instead of commending them when the airlines benched a third of their pilots for license fraud and/or investigation.
Benching a third of your pilots is a big, and embarrassing decision.
Do they want other airlines to be hushhush about issues when they pop up to avoid regulatory punishment and risk worse things?



Airlines don't get pats on the back for fixing a problem that was entirely avoidable in the first place (competent screening & training programmes for all personnel).

Employing qualified, competent & safe flight crews are a minimum standard for commercial air travel along with well maintained planes with fully verifiable maintenance & service histories... there are no 'attaboys' for tying ones own shoelaces so that you don't fall flat on your face.


Banning flights for six months is a 'pour encourage les autres' message to the public at large, governments & associated agencies, airlines in general & this company in particular; if you don't fly a safe airline you don't get to fly in our airspace. No profitable routes, not yours.

If the airline can't demonstrably get its house in order in six months then it probably deserves business-wise to be bought ought, nationalised or go under.

\$0.02
\\I'm a ground pounder, not a sky-gawd
\\\mandatory cross-check
 
2020-07-01 6:46:37 AM  
As they say in Pakistan, PIA = Prayers In Air
 
2020-07-01 7:06:42 AM  

Aardvark Inc.: Resident Muslim: What I don't get is why EU flight regulators banned them for 6 months instead of commending them when the airlines benched a third of their pilots for license fraud and/or investigation.
Benching a third of your pilots is a big, and embarrassing decision.
Do they want other airlines to be hushhush about issues when they pop up to avoid regulatory punishment and risk worse things?


Airlines don't get pats on the back for fixing a problem that was entirely avoidable in the first place (competent screening & training programmes for all personnel).

Employing qualified, competent & safe flight crews are a minimum standard for commercial air travel along with well maintained planes with fully verifiable maintenance & service histories... there are no 'attaboys' for tying ones own shoelaces so that you don't fall flat on your face.


Banning flights for six months is a 'pour encourage les autres' message to the public at large, governments & associated agencies, airlines in general & this company in particular; if you don't fly a safe airline you don't get to fly in our airspace. No profitable routes, not yours.

If the airline can't demonstrably get its house in order in six months then it probably deserves business-wise to be bought ought, nationalised or go under.

\$0.02
\\I'm a ground pounder, not a sky-gawd
\\\mandatory cross-check


I don't think nationalizing a state run airline is going to accomplish much.
 
2020-07-01 8:02:46 AM  

Benjimin_Dover: don't think nationalizing a state run airline is going to accomplish much.



Good point. I'd made the mistake of assuming - always a dangerous prospect - that it wasn't state run in the way that British Airways was state run, became privatised & but remains a flag carrier.
 
2020-07-01 9:11:18 AM  

Aardvark Inc.: Resident Muslim: What I don't get is why EU flight regulators banned them for 6 months instead of commending them when the airlines benched a third of their pilots for license fraud and/or investigation.
Benching a third of your pilots is a big, and embarrassing decision.
Do they want other airlines to be hushhush about issues when they pop up to avoid regulatory punishment and risk worse things?


Airlines don't get pats on the back for fixing a problem that was entirely avoidable in the first place (competent screening & training programmes for all personnel).

Employing qualified, competent & safe flight crews are a minimum standard for commercial air travel along with well maintained planes with fully verifiable maintenance & service histories... there are no 'attaboys' for tying ones own shoelaces so that you don't fall flat on your face.


Banning flights for six months is a 'pour encourage les autres' message to the public at large, governments & associated agencies, airlines in general & this company in particular; if you don't fly a safe airline you don't get to fly in our airspace. No profitable routes, not yours.

If the airline can't demonstrably get its house in order in six months then it probably deserves business-wise to be bought ought, nationalised or go under.

\$0.02
\\I'm a ground pounder, not a sky-gawd
\\\mandatory cross-check


They had come clean, and self-punished by benching a third of their pilots.
The lesson for others is keep denying and pushing under the carpet.

/unless they knew that the license would easily be discovered by any regulatory visit. Then that means they REALLY messed up
//of all the things there could be corruption in, your think pilot license wouldn't be high on the list, especially in terms of practicality. COMMERCIAL PILOT LICENSE with passengers on board, even.
///had one guy ask me if I could "help" him with his driving test. My answer was "hah. No."
 
2020-07-01 10:09:16 AM  

Resident Muslim: Aardvark Inc.: Resident Muslim: What I don't get is why EU flight regulators banned them for 6 months instead of commending them when the airlines benched a third of their pilots for license fraud and/or investigation.
Benching a third of your pilots is a big, and embarrassing decision.
Do they want other airlines to be hushhush about issues when they pop up to avoid regulatory punishment and risk worse things?


Airlines don't get pats on the back for fixing a problem that was entirely avoidable in the first place (competent screening & training programmes for all personnel).

Employing qualified, competent & safe flight crews are a minimum standard for commercial air travel along with well maintained planes with fully verifiable maintenance & service histories... there are no 'attaboys' for tying ones own shoelaces so that you don't fall flat on your face.


Banning flights for six months is a 'pour encourage les autres' message to the public at large, governments & associated agencies, airlines in general & this company in particular; if you don't fly a safe airline you don't get to fly in our airspace. No profitable routes, not yours.

If the airline can't demonstrably get its house in order in six months then it probably deserves business-wise to be bought ought, nationalised or go under.

\$0.02
\\I'm a ground pounder, not a sky-gawd
\\\mandatory cross-check

They had come clean, and self-punished by benching a third of their pilots.
The lesson for others is keep denying and pushing under the carpet.

/unless they knew that the license would easily be discovered by any regulatory visit. Then that means they REALLY messed up
//of all the things there could be corruption in, your think pilot license wouldn't be high on the list, especially in terms of practicality. COMMERCIAL PILOT LICENSE with passengers on board, even.
///had one guy ask me if I could "help" him with his driving test. My answer was "hah. No."


EASA has been working with PIA for almost a year trying to get them in compliance with EU standards.  Safety management was the last of 6 items and PIA kept asking for more time.  After the Pakistani Air Minister reported to parliament on the high number of invalid licenses PIA Immediately suspended 150 of its 426 pilots.  That and the incredibly reckless actions of the crew of PK8303 left EASA with no choice but to give PIA a time-out until the can demonstrate that they have an effective safety culture and the Pakistan aviation authorities show that they have a legitimate process to certify pilots.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-07-01 11:24:08 AM  
al-Qaeda Academy of Aeronautics has always been weak on sticking the landings.
 
2020-07-01 12:40:32 PM  

edmo: That's the airline with the guys that land gear up, take off again anyway, then run out of fuel and crash.


Actually they did extract the gear correctly, but then retracted it again. But the rest is as you followed.

I guess either the "pilot" or "co-pilot" pulled the gear lever, the other didn't notice, and then pulled it as well, in the opposite of the correct position.

They were busy discussing Covid-19 according to the blackbox, which made them ignore the Airbus being unhappy about the whole thing. It will let you land with the gear retracted, but there will be audible warnings.
 
2020-07-01 12:53:55 PM  

Resident Muslim: What I don't get is why EU flight regulators banned them for 6 months instead of commending them when the airlines benched a third of their pilots for license fraud and/or investigation.
Benching a third of your pilots is a big, and embarrassing decision.
Do they want other airlines to be hushhush about issues when they pop up to avoid regulatory punishment and risk worse things?


That is true.

But the EU might suspect that there's some deeper issues with that airline, since this could have been allowed to happen in the first place.

One that isn't solved by firing 1/3 of the pilots. Hey, for instance, becoming an air plane mechanic requires a long education, and is really difficult as well, if you catch my train of thought.

Perhaps there is some deeper rooted problem in their corporate culture takes a while to solve.


The EU requires a lot just to be allowed to fly into the EU in the first place, most companies aren't. So PIA must have been faking a lot of stuff to clear the barrier.
 
2020-07-01 1:07:31 PM  

GrogSmash: Keep in mind that these are *planes*.  The associated paperwork, assuming they are in compliance, is insane.  Every bolt and rivot on each of those planes has a paper trial from the manufacturer, through every reseller, to the guy who picked it out of the bin, and installed in hole 1896-J9-13A on part AB-386-L3, on Jan 12, 2019, at 10:14am.


I'm sure that's exactly how PIA does it.
 
2020-07-01 1:15:24 PM  

Sexy Jesus: GrogSmash: Keep in mind that these are *planes*.  The associated paperwork, assuming they are in compliance, is insane.  Every bolt and rivot on each of those planes has a paper trial from the manufacturer, through every reseller, to the guy who picked it out of the bin, and installed in hole 1896-J9-13A on part AB-386-L3, on Jan 12, 2019, at 10:14am.

I'm sure that's exactly how PIA does it.


If they don't it is an incredibly serious offense that can result in prison time for anyone involved, revokion of flight permits, and grounding of every farking plane they've got.
 
2020-07-01 9:29:03 PM  

Aardvark Inc.: Benjimin_Dover: don't think nationalizing a state run airline is going to accomplish much.


Good point. I'd made the mistake of assuming - always a dangerous prospect - that it wasn't state run in the way that British Airways was state run, became privatised & but remains a flag carrier.


Although, to counter my own point. An airline could be nationalized and then the actual running of it privatized to a contractor.
 
Displayed 28 of 28 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter




In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.