Afriqiyah Airbus 330 Crash

[Walder]

By ZEEBEE
Quote:
Please only share facts – not guesses! Facts are what you have seen or heard on first hand!

Most have not seen anything, therefore the facts are almost non existent.

Perhaps you should look at the name of this forum again to re-acquaint yourself with its purpose.

Educated guesses by qualified individuals are of value and may help to shed some light to those of us who haven't peddled one of the big machines but still are interested in what might have led to the tragic outcome.

There is a place for this and the pious exhortations by some will do nothing to stop it

Well – facts in this case is:
Pictures, debris, eyewitness’, tapes and other recordings – all as fare as it exists.
That creates all together a very big and probably a complex puzzle which only can be assembled correctly by qualified investigators. I doubts most in this forum is qualified investigators.

The forum is called “Professional Pilots Rumour Network”
“Wild” guessing can easily be unprofessional and start incorrect rumours that in worst case can damage a specific airline or even the whole industry – so take care!

I am glad we have this forum where we can share things, but we should handle it carefully.

Walder

[HundredPercentPlease]

C-SAR,

When you saw this bit for real, did it look like the angle of cuts was steeply downhill?

[Fzz]

C-SAR:

Did you see any evidence that the aircraft actually hit the poles? It looks from your photos that they're lying facing away from the crash site. Some of them look almost as if they have been lifted out of the ground.

So perhaps they were simply pulled over by the wires, then when the wires broke they rebounded and fell over away from the crash site. Or perhaps the aircraft snagged the wires and lifted the poles somewhat. But I'm not sure (at least from the photos) that we can say that the aircraft was low enough to hit the wires or poles 250m before the tailcone impacted.

As always, need to be careful to avoid drawing conclusions from only partial data.

[Havana]

Havana, you are correct. If you look at my pictures just posted ny HundredPercentPlease, the aircraft started to drag poles out of the ground before impact. The power line went to the house close to the mosque, therefore all the other poles after the impact point were entangled in the crash, hence the picture in page 15.
I could not enter the debris area, so my last standing was in front of the impact point... with some nice local guys all wearing the same dress around me asking polite questions...

Hi, thanks for that, now I see the photo all is clear. My mistake I thought the pole line ran 90 across the flight line where as in fact they run along the flight line.

Great photo's by the way.
H

[C-SAR]

HundredPercentPlease said:

C-SAR,

When you saw this bit for real, did it look like the angle of cuts was steeply downhill?

I can't say. I could not approach the cactus more than you can see in the pictures. The picture is squint because I had my camera just out of my pocket "shooting from the hip" for obvious reasons, so I could not be too precise. I know that this "distorsion" inserts optical errors... unfortunately this is the best I could do, given the circumstances. If anything, it looks as if the left cuts are a little lower than the right ones... but without close examination of the cuts and proper measurements it is hard to add any other factual information.

C-SAR

[swedflyer]

PT6A vs RadAlt2010

Engaging the autopilot at 200 feet and disengaging just before landing does not improve your flying skills, it doesn't even maintain them.

We all learned flying by hand. Keep up that skill! One day you might need it in minimum weather. Fly manual departures, ILS, VOR, NDB or visual, whatever it is. Twice a year in the sim is not enough! I bet that the day you need the autopilot the most, it's not there. Then it's nice to be confident. Especially for yourself.

Just another 10 cents.

[C-SAR]

Fzz said:

C-SAR:

Did you see any evidence that the aircraft actually hit the poles? It looks from your photos that they're lying facing away from the crash site. Some of them look almost as if they have been lifted out of the ground.

So perhaps they were simply pulled over by the wires, then when the wires broke they rebounded and fell over away from the crash site. Or perhaps the aircraft snagged the wires and lifted the poles somewhat. But I'm not sure (at least from the photos) that we can say that the aircraft was low enough to hit the wires or poles 250m before the tailcone impacted.

As always, need to be careful to avoid drawing conclusions from only partial data.

I fully agree with you. Getting there my first thought was: these poles are pointing in the wrong direction. But then I saw that they looked like eradicated from the base, like in a pulling action, as you say. If you compare with the picture at page 15 where a pole is cut half way up, you can see the difference between being chopped "japanese sword like" and being pulled off the ground. That is why I agree with your hypothesis.

Your last comment finds me fully in agreement. I have been in too many accident sites for not to know how careful we need to be in looking at evidence and in formimg our own conclusions before corroboration and cross-check.

C-SAR

[takata]

Originally Posted by HundredPercentPlease

C-SAR,
When you saw this bit for real, did it look like the angle of cuts was steeply downhill?

If it is not due to visual illusion (I don't think so), it is showing that cactus were cut by trailing edge of horizontal stab rather than leading edge, and will give the sinking angle in the opposite way. But of course, optical limitation would make it difficult to figure out without the shot being perfectly aligned with the ground and taken from another spot perpendicular to the path (which may be quite difficult to achieve discretly on the crashsite). C-SAR did quite well assuming the risk from local authorities!
S~
Olivier

[RadAlt2010]

JetThePilot:
Thank you for your last post. It explains the situation precisely in Libya and the difficulty faced by pilots and their governing bodies crippled by many years of UN embargo. The lifting of the sanctions and the new purchase of modern aircraft and increased commercial traffic has stressed the capability in dealing with it. In addition, Libyan pilots have been petitioning for ILS facilities for a long time now, but without success. There needs to be a big shakeup at the LYCAA, accountability supervised by ICAO ASAP.

[Spadhampton]

Radalt2010

I refuse to accept any blame or excuse laid upon "UN Sanctions" as being in anyway related to this crash.

Incompetence in management may have played a significant role in this accident, but there is NO Political Blame or any blame or effect that can be placed outside of this company and government facility or oversight. Except in the rare occurrence of an engineering design flaw.

[hoogvlieger]

Compliments for C-SAR's 'on the spot'work and photography. A bold job ... One big remark however regarding all the presented material. As I recall in the first days after the accident the impact/crashsite has been heavily contaminated by flocks of (local) visitors, rescue-workers, journalists, heavy lifting machines and so on and son.
So how sure can we be that everyting in your snapshots is still in its original state or position?
Personally I have my doubts.

RIP

[deSitter]

Flying the A330

I would like to repeat a question for AB pilots - it is more difficult to actually fly - in the seat of pants sense - a large, ponderous aircraft like the A330 with a sidestick controller, than say a 777 with its traditional yoke?

-drl

[RadAlt2010]

Does that include "political" engineering Mr Spadhampton? No lets not get off topic here, but facts are facts. Its well know that sanctions punish the innocent more than the guilty, and you wouldnt be expected to know that unless you were at the receiving end.

[A4]

I would like to repeat a question for AB pilots - it is more difficult to actually fly - in the seat of pants sense - a large, ponderous aircraft like the A330 with a sidestick controller, than say a 777 with its traditional yoke?

No. Without kicking off an Airbus v Boeing debate the Airbus FBW aircraft are easily as agile as a yoke controlled aircraft - perhaps more so because of the built in protections. However, if this aircraft was below 100' RA at initiation of the GA it would not have had the protection of AlphaFloor. Assuming it was at VAPP in a high drag config i.e. 10-15 knots above VAlphaProt then a very late go-around induced by a sudden realisation that you're too low (yank the stick back!) could have resulted in less than desired performance.

The infamous Habsheim A320 crash had exactly this - a sharp pull on the stick actually resulted in a nose down command to PREVENT a stall...... but if you fly too low towards trees no amount of computer wizardry will save you.

The DFDR's should soon yield the information to the point of impact.

A4

[salimedj]

Dont Split In The Soup

Mr PTA-6
among all the expats working for AAW and posting about the crash you are far ahead the most virulent.

Shall I remind you that you applied for a job within AAW (certainly because you were jobless).

So I found your posts and comments about the crash and how Libyan Aviation is managed a bit displaced for 2 reasons

1 st

As I ve read it on the forum people who know what they are talking about do not discuss crash issues on a forum like this and wait for the investigation report to be released

2 nd

You are splitting in the soup by giving a negative picture of the airline who employs you and "insulting" Libyans pilots in public

even if a bit of what you said is true the airline has defaults like any other airlines not to mention local particularities

If it is really your thoughts than you shouldnt express them and keep them for you or discuss it with friends

You are free to stay on leave and not come back to Libya but I m sure you will since you know that at least with AAW you get a salary

Listen to my advice one more time NEVER SPLIT IN THE SOUP

[SLFguy]

'Split pea' soup?

[BOAC]

We owe a huge vote of thanks to C-SAR and 'helpers' - it is incredible that we have such pictures here.

On the question of the angle of cut on the bushes - if that was a real (and not distorted) angle it could not be FPA or we would be looking at a smoking hole in front of the mosque. I would suggest it may well be a rapidly down-pitching tail section?

A4 - a question from a non-AB pilot - you say 'no alpha floor' below 100RA but then you describe the Habsheim AB as reducing pitch to 'prevent a stall'. Is that a different mechanism? I thought I understood the idea of 'alpha-floor' was to give as close to alpha-max as allowed? What function ran in pitch at Habsheim?

[JetThePilot]

C-SAR Images

If gear is down, as the earlier Dutch video suggests, first impact must be either tail of nose of aircraft. If it was level, tracks would have been visible either side of the point of impact. The cactus is cut more horizontally than C-SAR red line on the image suggests. Look at the cactus to the right of the line and you see the cut is almost horizontal. The cut cannot be by the wings, as the engines would have left a great big mark on the sand either side of the point of impact. It seems that C-SAR's suggestion that the first impact was caused by tail is most plausible. Further, pilot must have applied full power to recover as the position of the detached wings suggests great force applied to them. The ~8 second lag before engines respond sealed the fate of the plane. The power came online as the body hit the ground or thereabout and made the impact much worse. In soft sand, without power applied, the aircraft would have slowed considerably and may have saved some lives as it came to the road at a much reduced speed. It hit the road at high speed and completely disintegrated next to the mosque.

[thehighlander959]

I have flown into TIP on Emirates Airlines over the last few years on a four week rotational basis, probably about 96 take-offs and landings.
In 2006 the flight was serviced by an A330-200 to Tripoli via Carthage, Emirates early in 2006 completed all their crew changes in Carthage due to problems they had in Libya ie. Tripoli Airport and Hotel problems for crew rest.
I have completed a cou[le of late afternoon dusk and rain landings on both runways. I always thought the better approach was for R 27, that meant when you landed the Terminal building was on your starboard side.

Two years ago 2008 Emirates changed the service to a Boeing 777.200/300.
This was done due to the length of flight time ie.0900am DXB departure with an arrival time in Tripoli of late afternoon as the stop in Carthage was still done for the Emirates crew change.

On both aircraft we have had imperfect landings but never scary landings.
I also flew in on an Alitalia Airbus 319 on Runway 09. in 2009 the poorest landing I have ever had in Tripoli and that was early morning from Rome, on the approach looking out of the window visibility was very poor. The touchdown and run out along the runway it was like being on a kangaroo.
I always wondered on that flight did the pilot see the air field at all prior to passing the threshold????
Sad to say but my thoughts go out to all the passengers and their families.

[One Outsider]

Originally Posted by BOAC

I thought I understood the idea of 'alpha-floor' was to give as close to alpha-max as allowed?

Alpha-floor is an auto thrust function that, when a certain AoA is exceeded, applies TOGA thrust. It is inhibited below 100' RA for good reason.

It is activated at a lower AoA than the stall protection modes that are part of the flight control laws.