Afriqiyah Airbus 330 Crash

[BOAC]

Enhanced GPWS which would have detected the descent below the virtual terrain floor

- not necessarily here. TCF begins (from memory) at 1Foot at the threshold and increases as you move away from the threshold. As to what height it would be triggered wherever this 'excursion' occurred is purely a guess - partly because we do not know 'where'. Of course, it would have triggered at some point.

[silverline001]

Again and again

Although its not right to jump to conclusions and blame anyone,I think that most of the guys here agree that the system in Tripoli is pretty much f...d up.Most of the times,its good weather ,however when the weather is bad,like sandstorms and reduced visibility,pilots are put so easily ,in the so called chain of events,which normally leads to an accident.

Many of the times its the pilots to blame....of course after a long night flight,alertness at its lowest,then add to all this ...an unreliable airfield with unreliable approach nav aids and a sloppy ATC system...and I call it system.... because I don`t` know what equipment and hi tech the ATC is equipped with.Have you ever been in Tripoli with two or more aircarft approaching the airfield...guess what...all hell breaks loose,with ATC showing lack of trust in their equipment and eventually a couple of last minute go arounds and wierd holdings are not uncommon.

As someone already said,Tripoli is an accident awaiting to happen,and its not the first time.Even the ILS on 27 is not reliable,one day its working,the other day not,how can you trust such a system.Papis are hardly ever calibrated.Where is EASA and where is ICAO?Such a fuss was made on Lockerbie loss of lives...what about this one.....history repeating itself in Tripoli as i remember there was already a similair crash in crappy visibility in the past.

I `m pretty confident this accident could have been spared if one of the richest countries in the world ,could have invested in a good ILS system on both runways and likewise a good reliable ATC system,which is maintained...good.

And by the way,its a pity the runway is in such a disgrace.All this says alot about who is managing the Libyan Airport.Apparently safety is at the end of the priorities.

Enough said
Silverline

[Fuel Dump]

Non precision approaches are always tricky in marginal weather. Even if you do it perfectly right you have a longer visual segment in which you must have at least the approach lights in sight. Unfortunately that's not always enough to align with the runway at very low altitude and desorientation in the poor visibility is real factor in my opinion. And pilots usually work like this: runway in sight (or kind of) = LAND! Sometimes experience is needed to call a go around in such cases...
Please note that I'm not saying the crew wasn't experienced. Let's wait for the accident report.
RIP

[Sir Richard]

takata, I agree with your post #288, that is why I left it to the interested parties to find out for themselves.... not too difficult.

[STC-8]

Article in Dutch quality news outlet (similar to BBC, NYT etc).

Reposted here with version from their English site

It would appear the writer of the article has referenced this very thread here on pprune - indeed there is even mention of a certain online pilots forum on which a British employee of Afriqiyah Air posted..


nrc.nl - International - Obsolete equipment cited as factor in air crash

Obsolete equipment cited as factor in air crash

Published: 14 May 2010 14:53 | Changed: 14 May 2010 17:21

The cause of the Afriqiyah Airways crash near Tripoli remains unknown. But why didn't the Airbus land on the runway outfitted with the most advanced navigation equipment?
By Joke Mat and Mark Schenkel

Much remains unknown about Wednesday’s crash of Afriqiyah Airways' Airbus A330, which killed 103 people including 70 Dutch nationals. But it has become clear that the crash took place near Tripoli International Airport's runway 09, which is not outfitted with modern navigation equipment. Weather conditions above the airport were very poor at the time of the crash, said an Afriqiyah staff member. Low-hanging clowds had reduced visibility.

Benno Baksteen, a former pilot who now chairs a Dutch aviation association, said he wondered why the plane had not landed instead on runway 27, which is equipped with more advanced navigation aids. "That would have made more sense," Baksteen said. "It would also have put them closer to the passenger terminal."

Afriqiyah Airways staff remain puzzled by the same question.
The most sophisticated navigation aid used for aircraft landings is the Instrument Landing System (ILS), used, for example, on all of the runways at Amsterdam's Schiphol airport. The most advanced version allows aircraft to land at a visibility of only 70 metres.

Air traffic control blamed
At Tripoli’s airport, runway 27 has also been equipped with ILS, albeit not its latest version. The Tripoli system guides aircrafts to an altitude of 60 metres, after which the pilot has to manually complete his landing.
An Afriqiyah Airways staff member, who asked to remain anonymous, said that Tripoli air traffic control always directed morning arrivals towards runway 09, regardless of wind conditions or the availability of the other runway. The reason, the source claimed, was that aircrafts descending towards runway 27 arrive from the east. As the air traffic controllers prefer to avoid staring directly into the morning sun, they direct the pilots to the outdated runway, which lies on the same tarmac, but runs in the opposite direction.
Many at Afriqiyah Airways have been unhappy with this situation for quite some time, the staff member said. Not because it leaves the approaching pilots staring directly into the rising sun, but because runway 09 has only been equipped with older navigational aids called Non Directional Beacons (NDB). "Runway 09 is terrible," the Afriqiyah employee said. "Even compared to the rest of Africa."
On Wednesday morning, an additional factor complicated matters. Low-hanging clouds had apparently reduced visibility immediately above the airport, making it even more difficult to land on runway 09. A pilot who landed on the same airstrip minutes before flight 8U771 is said to have warned his colleague about the situation before the plane crashed. Allegedly, he even recommended that the pilot request a different runway. The control tower's only response, it appears, was a request to stand by. "They always do that,"" the Afriqiyah employee said. "It means you can wait for all eternity." Libyan authorities were unavailable for comment on the issue on Thursday.
Weather reports: visibility sufficient
Official weather reports, however, do not confirm the reports of poor conditions. Official visibility at the time of the crash was 5,000 metres. The reports also fail to mention any cloud coverage. Another weather report, issued 25 minutes after the crash, does state that visibility had by then been reduced to 2,000 metres.
"The weather was getting worse," Baksteen said. "But visibility was still sufficient." To land on runway 09, a minimum visibility of 1,600 metres is required. Baksteen said it was possible very low-hanging clouds failed to register on meteorological services' sensors.
Dutch pilots said that an NDB-assisted landing wasn't necessarily dangerous, even at reduced visibility. A pilot who passed through Tripoli airport as recently as six months ago, said he did not have any negative experiences. "I feel that air traffic control there is reliable. Lufthansa and British Airways both frequent the airport. Precision landings, like the ones carried out at Schiphol airport, are impossible there, but that doesn't mean it is unsafe. Clouds or sandstorms could complicate matters, but I have never experienced either," the pilot said.
On Thursday, a British employee posted a message on an online aviation forum describing Afriqiyah Airways – a small airline – as a place where everybody knew each other personally and camaraderie was the norm. The crashed captain, Yousif Al Ssady (1953), had a very good reputation. "Everybody wanted to fly with him," an Afriqiyah staffer interviewed said. Al Ssady learned his trade at the British Oxford Aviation Academy.
Afriqiyah Airways is awash with speculation regarding the cause of the crash. An oft-cited rumour is that the pilot was in the midst of a go-around procedure to reattempt landing, and hit a tower supporting overhead power lines. Afriqiyah's legal affairs manager said he knew nothing of such an incident. He called the possibility that low-hanging clouds had caused the crash "remote".
Officially, more facts will only emerge after Libyan authorities have analysed the information stored on the aircraft's flight data recorder. The inquiry into the crash began on Thursday, but it could take weeks to complete. When a Turkish Airlines aircraft crashed near Amsterdam's Schiphol airport in February last year it took eight days before a first official report was issued. A definitive report wasn't published until last week.

[omaaa]

here is a picture of the approach into 09, u can see the mosque which is clearly visible in the pictures of the crash just on the right of short final


Photos: - Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net

[Right Way Up]

Max Angle,

Looking at the terrain clearance floor in the FCOMs the floor rises from 0 ft a short way from the runway to 400 ft at 5nm. If you flew a 3 degree slope to the ground at 1nm it looks unlikely you would get any warning and if you did it would be a very late one!

[C-SAR]

Summary

Can we all agree that:

• Pilot elected to land on 09
• Procedures for 09 ar VOR and Locator, not very precise, but standard procedures that any current pilot should be able to shoot
• Wind, few knots from 270
• Visibility 2000-5000 but worsening the lower they went
• Sun dazzling effect
• Nothing abnormal until last minute

From the crash site analysis

• First impact point to the west of mosque
• Probably tail first, high AOA
• High energy impact, possibly go around already started
• debris field almost 1 km long

[STC-8]

This principle is definitely known to some here - others maybe not, just adding this to the discussion in relation to trying to unravel events:





Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor[1]), is the meta-theoretical principle that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" ( entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem) and the conclusion thereof, that the simplest solution is usually the correct one.

The principle is attributed to 14th-century English logician, theologian and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham. Occam's razor may be alternatively phrased as pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate ("plurality should not be posited without necessity")[2]. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae (translating to the law of parsimony, law of economy or law of succinctness). When competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood. To quote Isaac Newton, "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes."[3]
In science, Occam’s razor is used as a heuristic (rule of thumb) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.[4][5] In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result.[6][7][8][9]


[edit] Controversial aspects of the Razor

Occam's razor is not an embargo against the positing of any kind of entity, or a recommendation of the simplest theory come what may[33] (note that simplest theory is something like "only I exist" or "nothing exists").
The other things in question are the evidential support for the theory.[34] Therefore, according to the principle, a simpler but less correct theory should not be preferred over a more complex but more correct one. It is this fact which gives the lie to the common misinterpretation of Occam's Razor that "the simplest" one is usually the correct one.
For instance, classical physics is simpler than more recent theories; nonetheless it should not be preferred over them, because it is demonstrably wrong in certain respects.
Occam's razor is used to adjudicate between theories that have already passed 'theoretical scrutiny' tests, and which are equally well-supported by the evidence.[35] Furthermore, it may be used to prioritize empirical testing between two equally plausible but unequally testable hypotheses; thereby minimizing costs and wastes while increasing chances of falsification of the simpler-to-test hypothesis.
Another contentious aspect of the Razor is that a theory can become more complex in terms of its structure (or syntax), while its ontology (or semantics) becomes simpler, or vice versa.[36] The theory of relativity is often given as an example of the proliferation of complex words to describe a simple concept.


Variations

The principle is most often expressed as Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, or "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity", but this sentence was written by later authors and is not found in Ockham's surviving writings. This also applies to non est ponenda pluritas sine necessitate, which translates literally into English as "pluralities ought not be posited without necessity". It has inspired numerous expressions including "parsimony of postulates", the "principle of simplicity", the "KISS principle" (Keep It Simple, Stupid).
Other common restatements are:

Entities are not to be multiplied without necessity.

and

The simplest answer is usually the correct answer.

A restatement of Occam's razor, in more formal terms, is provided by information theory in the form of minimum message length (MML). Tests of Occam's razor on decision tree models which initially appeared critical have been shown to actually work fine when re-visited using MML. Other criticisms of Occam's razor and MML (e.g., a binary cut-point segmentation problem) have again been rectified when—crucially—an inefficient coding scheme is made more efficient.
"When deciding between two models which make equivalent predictions, choose the simpler one," makes the point that a simpler model that doesn't make equivalent predictions is not among the models that this criterion applies to in the first place.[32]
Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519) lived after Ockham's time and has a variant of Occam's razor. His variant short-circuits the need for sophistication by equating it to simplicity.

Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.

Another related quote is attributed to Albert Einstein

Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.

Occam's razor is now usually stated as follows:

Of two equivalent theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred.

As this is ambiguous, Isaac Newton's version may be better:

We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.

In the spirit of Occam's razor itself, the rule is sometimes stated as:

The simplest explanation is usually the best.

Another common statement of it is:

The simplest explanation that covers all the facts is usually the best.

[SimJock]

The crew did indicate a problem before landing. If as reported the aircraft 'exploded' in the air, a possibility is a catastrophic engine separation causing explosion.

How likely is an engine to blow during a landing?

How about upon selecting TOGA power for a go around, one engine says 'no' due perhaps to previous damage and goes bang violently, but the other engine says 'yes' and goes to full thrust.

Worst possible scenario at MDA, how often is this practiced, at V1, V2 EFATO yes but on GA ?

[4PW's]

This is as good as any of the half assed speculation here: look at the direction of the road to the right of the mosque. They may have been lined up on that. Same alignment as the runway. Very little in it by way of lateral displacement at minimums off a non precision approach.

Who hasn't got to minimums off a NPA, landing into the sun, early morning, called visual with the runway but not the PAPI as you can't see it for the bright assed light shining in your eyes, only to find in a few more seconds you are visual with what looked like the runway!

It's not the runway you're looking at but a road...Sharjah's runway 12 was a case in point. VOR, now an ILS. Early morning fog. Same deal. Happens. Happened. May have happened here.

If the Captain realised and tried banking left for the actual runway instead of going around, straight ahead, full power...it could happen very quickly. Bit of speculation, true, and I wasn't there. Somehow it went all wrong, that's for sure.

The crash site looks, the road, the alignment...it looks conspicuous. This is not dragging their asses through the mud. They didn't wake up and think "oh gee, today's the day for me to plough in." I know that. But that they did. Lot of people died as a result.

Speculation. Mine is just speculation. But it fits. The probability of a power failure on one engine at that stage is infitesimally small. This isn't.

Anyway, RIP.

[C-SAR]

STC-8

What about this scenario for an Occam's Razor:

Coming home, I know my base.
Lets' land on 09, I know my procedure.
Weather is not too bad (2000-5000 viz reported)
Shoot the procedure, all ok
Then at MDA look out and... the runway is not where it is supposed to be!! - Instead there is a white wall of mist and the sun blinding me...
A moment hesitation... decide to go around.... but too late....

[HazelNuts39]

SimJock;

How about upon selecting TOGA power for a go around, one engine says 'no' due perhaps to previous damage and goes bang violently, but the other engine says 'yes' and goes to full thrust.

VREF is not less than VMCL, and the 'other engine' requires several seconds to achieve full thrust.

[STC-8]

'Piloot meldde geen technische problemen' - Binnenland - Telegraaf.nl [24 uur actueel, ook mobiel] [binnenland]


STC-8 translation:

Friday 14 May 2010, 13:39

No reports of technical problems by Pilot

The pilot of the Afriqiyah Airways jet which crashed on Wednesday made no reports of any technical problems, stated the head of the Libyan investigation team, Neji Dhaou, on Friday.

"The pilot did not report any type of problem whatsoever. Communication between the air traffic control tower and the pilot was routine up until the crash". "What I can confirm is that the aircraft made contact with the ground before reaching the runway." The investigators are not ruling out any possibilities.

The investigation team consists of Libyan and South African officials, two French experts, five experts from Airbus and two observers from The Netherlands. American investigators will join the team later on Friday as the engines and navigation system on the plane were manufactured in the USA.




+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



vr 14 mei 2010, 13:39 'Piloot meldde geen technische problemen'

TRIPOLI - De piloot van het woensdag verongelukte vliegtuig van Afriqiyah Airways heeft voor de crash geen technische problemen gemeld. Dit heeft het hoofd van de Libische onderzoekscommissie, Neji Dhaou, vrijdag gezegd.

„De piloot heeft geen enkel probleem gemeld. Tot op het laatste moment waren de dingen normaal tussen de piloot en de verkeerstoren”, aldus Dhaou. „Wat ik kan bevestigen, is dat het vliegtuig de grond raakte voordat het de landingsbaan bereikte.” De onderzoekers willen voorlopig 'niets uitsluiten'.
De onderzoekscommissie bestaat uit Libische en Zuid-Afrikaanse functionarissen, twee Franse experts, vijf van vliegtuigbouwer Airbus en twee waarnemers uit Nederland. Amerikaanse onderzoekers sluiten zich later vrijdag aan bij de commissie, omdat de motoren en het navigatiesysteem van de Airbus van Amerikaanse makelij waren.

[wizele]

C-SAR you wrote:

''Can we all agree that:

• Pilot elected to land on 09''

Well according to post 269, it really doesn't look like it was their 'choice' (in a subsequent post you also say they pilots kind of went ''let's land on runway 09''). We could of course add 'if post 269 is proven to be correct', but then, as pointed out by others, it would be 'weird' for a pilot to choose the worst option, if not forced.

[shortfinals]

Was this what happened, then? (Flightglobal.com)

Afriquiyah crash: the circumstances - Learmount

[wasp9]

Vc10Tail, I assume you were asking me;

Have you done any course on air accident investigation-do you know its rudiments even?

Answer; Yes I did and yes.
Why are you asking? If you are looking for a course yourself feel free to PM me.

can you name even one of the crew members

Answer; Yes, all 11 and the 2 state security members.

...only to be discovered by the CVR that the PF might have ben Canadian or some other westerner with God given superior flying skills??

Neither Captain Yusuf Bashir Saadi nor F/O's Tareq Mousa Abu Chaouachi or Nazim Altarhuni were any of those. This is usually found on flight documents rather than trying to figure out someone's identity by CVR. Hope you were not serious here.

Some posters here don't seem to realize that a possible pilot error does not automatically mean that the pilots are to blame. If well seasoned pilots here indicate training, CRM and safety culture as possible contributors then this is not to be seen as mud-slinging.
By no way am I saying anything about the performance of these colleagues who I don't personally know.

While awaiting evidence and following your advise on what we better speculate about and what to ignore I'm curious to hear from you where you've found the fuel slip and OFP.
Very plausible theory but lack of "concrete information" classifies this in your own wording as... "Guess work".

We are probably all biased in some way. Taking this as a fact which would you prefer;

-Biased by ignorance.
-Biased by political correctness.
-Biased by fear of repercussions.
-Biased by patriotism.
-Biased by experience.

note; Experience is simply the name we give our mistakes.

[Willie Everlearn]

Just a couple of points I'd like to address from earlier in this thread....

The Airbus Bulletin covering revised stall recovery procedures is the result of recent Airbus stall accidents.
An A320 accident in France and an A310 accident in the Indian Ocean.
As for the notion this bulletin followed this accident, it's rather this accident followed the bulletin. Coincidence? Yes. Face saving for Airbus? No.
This notice is also coincident with a CAA Safety Notice addressing the same issue of stall recovery.

Whilst it's fun to muck about in a sim, any attempt at looking into fully developed stalls and spins is a waste of time as simulator data packages have NO data beyond the g-break. Therefore, what you see isn't necessarily what you will get. Despite the fun.

Willie

[barit1]

StudentInDebt:

Or maybe it's the APU...

No, the image in msg#286 is readily recognizable as a CF6 core engine. The fan module is missing, and the fan rotor may have spun off some distance away.

[WeeWinkyWilly]

Approach Visual Illusions for Runway first third upslope

Notice the pronounced upslope in the first third of the runway (image of 09 appch at post 303 above). The effect of this (first third only) limited runway field of view in poor visibility is an illusion that will cause the pilot to tend to undershoot - as he descends in his attempt to maintain a normal visual approach angle (an illusion added to by having no VASIS or PAPI to assist him with a visual glideslope on 09).
.
Couple this (low altitude) with any requirement to bank to achieve a late line-up and you have the potential to dig in a wing and cartwheel...... which is my best guess as to what happened..... and it's supported by the impact location in the image above. Occam's Razor cuts deep.
.

At times of sunset and sunrise the pilot's prevailing visibility (as against omni-directional meteorological visibility) can be very directional. For instance, somebody landing into the west at around sunset can easily lose it in the flare (i.e. this phenomenon can be very height sensitive as well).
.
Been there, done that. Cloud isn't a factor and most likely wasn't in this case in Tripoli. My guess is that he just lost it in the glare during a dragged in low approach - and dug in a wing-tip.

Looking at the terrain clearance floor in the FCOMs, the floor rises from 0 ft a short way from the runway to 400 ft at 5nm. If you flew a 3 degree slope to the ground at 1nm it looks unlikely that you would get any warning and if you did, it would be a very late one!