Afriqiyah Airbus 330 Crash

[C-SAR]

WIZELE your #319

Rumors about the "habits" of Tripoli ATC are just rumors. I am in Tripoli and I can tell you that one of the rumors I heard is that the pilot was going for 09, that the Tower told him to go for 27 due to visibility and that he replied that he was going to go for 09 because the visibility was ok.
BUT because it is a rumor I have not mentioned.
What I was trying to describe was a possible sequence of events accepting the fact that, for whatever reason, the approach was being flown to 09.

Another issue that I picked from the italian forum, it seems that the alitalia flight that departs at 0605 was at holding point for 09 and saw the crash. APPARENTLY they said they saw the aircraft impacting nose first 20 to 30 degrees nose down....

[UNCTUOUS]

Upsloping First third plus limited visibility at sunrise?

The answer's pretty straightforward and Occam's coloured.

Most of us with 10K plus hours have fallen for (and nearly done) this one.

See Sensory illusions in aviation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
.
and upsloping runway illusion - Google Search

Already low due to the upsloping runway approach illusion plus a banking late line-up - and it's easy to dig in a wingtip.

UNC

[Sqwak7700]

Already low due to the upsloping runway approach illusion plus a banking late line-up - and it's easy to dig in a wingtip.

Still doesn't explain the utter destruction of the fuselage. If it hit even remotely in approach attitude, the main gear would have softened the impact and the wreckage would be much more intact, with a possibility of many more survivors.

Just look at other approach CFIT accidents for comparison. Korean in Guam, Turkish in EHAM, Avianca in KJFK, China Airlines MD-11 in VHHH. These were all approach and landing accidents that struck the ground in somewhat of a landing attitude. All were much more intact and all were more survivable.

There is almost nothing left of this A330, haven't even seen pictures of the wings. Maybe it is the media coverage in gagged state like Libya, but I think this aircraft hit with a lot more energy than your usual approach CFIT.

Wether this energy come from the attitude, the speed, or both we will have to wait for the investigation findings (if they ever goes public).

[wingview]

No visibility, tail first, banking hard to the right (or left) and tumble (with maybe GA power) might give you this debris field.

[douwetjerk]

Tripoli

Nothing wrong with HLLT.

[Sqwak7700]

No visibility, tail first, banking hard to the right (or left) and tumble (with maybe GA power) might give you this debris field.

Yeah, maybe. But again, look at other tumbling accidents like the UAL DC10 in Iowa, it tumbled and flipped several times, and it still had some very distinct pieces of fuselage. Not to mention they hit the ground going well over 200kts!

It just seems that this aircraft must have hit with a considerable down angle to destroy the fuselage in such a complete manner.

Simply falling or settling onto the earth doesn't destroy aircraft parts as much as hitting with lots of energy.

[shortfinals]

See entry 320 for a plausible damage scenario

[takata]

@ C-SAR

Originally Posted by C-SAR

I am in Tripoli and I can tell you that one of the rumors I heard is...

Before you may leave for elsewhere, any chance that you could take some pictures of contact point West of the Mosque?
I'll be very curious to see if it impacted the constructions here. There is obviously some recent traces of fire on this Mosque's roof and the airfield picture previously posted seems to indicate other buildings close to the minaret. I wonder if that explosion witnessed "before landing" could be the result of this aircraft contact with those infrastructures causing fire and possibly this tail separation. Then aircraft's forward section could end near airfield's fences.
S~
Olivier

[takata]

Originally Posted by Sqwak7700

It just seems that this aircraft must have hit with a considerable down angle to destroy the fuselage in such a complete manner.

There were still some important sections of the aircraft remaining. Just they didn't end near the rear section wreckage but several hundreds meters farther. Have a look again at this CNN video I posted one or two pages ago. It was badly filmed but one can notice also wing parts and fuselage sections near those airfield fences.
S~
Olivier

[vanHorck]

If the Alitalia crew, holding for 09, indeed saw the plane 20 degrees nose down during the crash, it could well be that the plane had previously impacted some building and it could explain the damage especially if after hitting the building engines were spooling up for a go around...

Just speculating

[STC-8]

From the NRC English version - Dutch quality news outlet similar to BBC, New York Times etc:


nrc.nl - International - Features - Libyan authorities open up to Dutch investigators

Libyan authorities open up to Dutch investigators

Published: 14 May 2010 17:20 | Changed: 14 May 2010 17:35

The Libyan regime is trying hard to show its best side to Dutch investigators who have arrived on the scene of the air crash that killed 70 of their compatriots.

By Leonie van Nierop in Tripoli

The Tripoli air crash is remarkable for a number of reasons. Not because of the high toll in human lives it has taken, or because its cause still remains a mystery. These conditions tend to be the rule rather than the exception. What makes this crash special is the reverence curious visitors are treated to. In February of last year, Dutch authorities were quick to shield the site of a Turkish Airlines crash from prying eyes. But in Tripoli on Thursday, a Dutch delegation was allowed to wander amidst the debris unchecked for hours.

The backdrop was a barren plot of land in Libya. Dry brushwood dotted the peach coloured sand. In the distance, the runways of a cluttered airport could be made out. Birds chirped as the hot summer sun beat down on the desert. In the middle of it all were hundreds of thousands of pieces of debris, spread out in a ribbon stretching out over almost a kilometre. Amongst the parts of the destroyed aircraft lay crumpled jeans, an elegant pink shoe and a bikini, a language guide, a ragged stuffed animal and a wooden fork shaped like a giraffe.

Larger pieces of debris were easier to spot: the plane's tail, an engine, the cockpit and two charred wings. Other recognisable parts of the airplane included earplugs, chairs, a remote control, and a sheet with safety instructions. Add to that all the unrecognisable bits of twisted metal that, apparently, once made up an entire aircraft.

Cause remains a mystery
But to the naked eye the debris raises more questions than it answers. Who can explain why fire has raged in one part and not another? Or how two shoes of the same pair were thrown hundreds of metres apart? Nobody can. At least not yet. Why this plane disintegrated in mid-air shortly before landing remains a mystery. The question why one nine-year-old Dutch boy was the only one to survive can probably never be answered.

Libyan rescue workers had already carried the remains of the crash's 103 victims to two morgues on Wednesday. A day later, the crash site was still littered with latex gloves and mouth caps, but not a single drop of blood was anywhere to be found. Most personal items had been collected as well, to help identify the bodies.

On Thursday, not a single investigator was spotted anywhere near the wreckage. Only a few Libyan soldiers and police officers idly stood by in the shade. Perhaps the Libyan authorities hoped to cast themselves in a positive light by letting the press run free throughout the crash site. It was odd that Dutch journalists were eagerly granted access to Libya, a country generally reluctant to issue visa. A delegation of the Dutch foreign affairs department received a warm welcome upon arrival at a military airport, which looked as though it has only just been cleaned. The smell of air freshener was overwhelming. The floors were still wet.

Making nice with the Libyans
Daan Noort, in charge of the Dutch National Forensic Investigation Team, which hopes to identify victims of the crash, said his team was received "more warmly than anticipated" on Thursday night. He added the Libyans had also exceeded his expectations when it came to the manner in which they had recovered the victims' bodies. The Dutch safety board has also praised the openness of the Libyan team in charge of the investigation.

On Wednesday night, before leaving the Netherlands, the men in both delegations joked they were happy not to be Swiss. Ever since Geneva police arrested Hannibal Gaddafi, a son of the Libyan leader, on suspicion of assault in July of 2008, the Libyans have been livid at the alpine nation. Libya has taken a number of punitive measures against Switzerland since, including trade restrictions, and it has practically taken two Swiss bankers hostage. One Dutch forensic investigator recalled that the infamous Lockerbie trial against two Libyans, while tried in a Scottish court, took place on Dutch soil. Perhaps Tripoli had not yet forgotten about that.

According to top Dutch foreign affairs official Ed Kronenburg, Dutch relations with Tripoli are "currently normal". There is a Dutch embassy in Tripoli and Libya maintains a diplomatic post in The Hague, which was recently "upgraded" to an embassy. According to Kronenburg, Dutch representatives were welcomed into the country after the crash, but Libya was "not so keen" about the arrival of journalists. "It made the authorities a little nervous," he said. Kronenburg's advice: "Stick to the disaster. This is not the time to start a dialogue over human rights for the foreign affairs department either."

Still a dictatorship
Libya is, of course, still a dictatorship. The oil-rich nation has been ruled by colonel Muammar Gaddafi with an iron fist for 41 years. His portrait is everywhere. The Dutch delegation is also constantly surrounded by hordes of men sporting gilded framed glasses and black moustaches, who could be relaying all sorts of information to any secret service.

But the dictatorship is trying to show its good side now. On Thursday, school classes visited the Libyan hospital to drop off floral arrangements intended for the crash's sole survivor. In front of the entrance, a driver handed out cooled water to anyone interested. "How is that little boy doing?" he wondered out loud. At least, he was being treated in "the best hospital in northern Africa," the man said consolingly.

But the newsstands did not attest to a similar interest in the country. Of the 15 Arabic newspapers lining the stands, only one had a picture of the air disaster on its front page. The papers knew better than to discuss the failings of the airline company. But the boy saved in a Libyan hospital, the "Miracle of Tripoli," was splashed over many a front page in the Netherlands.

[RetiredF4]

Go to 5:50 minutes in the video i posted before. I know, its in native language (dutsch), i´m also not familiar with. But at the mentioned time there is a guy explaining big junks of aircraft parts as left and right wing. The place is the fence of the airfield.

NOVA - detail - Uitzendingen

The quality is fairly good, even in full screen
franzl

[GarageYears]

Anyone know of a clear overhead showing entire debris field?

So far I have pieced together an understanding of the crash site from a number of disjoint photos and several news reports with video footage.

Here's what I think I know:

- Debris field length = 800m +/-?
- Starts just prior to Mosque and finishes at airfield perimeter fence
- Tail assemblage is first large identifiable piece and is facing opposite direction to direction of crash
- Wings appear to have stopped at far end of debris field just short of perimeter fence (Dutch TV News report)
- Larger pieces of debris are toward airport fence end of site
- TV reporter claimed that a number of trees to the West of the mosque were first indications of contact

It would be very useful to know what the first sign of ground contact is; does it infer tailstrike, wingtip, nose, or landing gear?

- GY

[C-SAR]

Olivier,

I will try, but access is still VERY restricted.

C-SAR

[JW411]

At the risk of teaching the professional pilots among you who are posting on this forum and for the interest of those of you who are not professional pilots, I would like to make a very fundamental point.

NPAs (Non Precision Approaches) such as NDB and VOR approaches are NOT landing aids. They are airfield approach aids. In other words, they allow a crew to find an airfield NOT a runway. After that, a visual approach has to be made to the landing runway (which might mean a circling approach).

Now, in the case where the inbound course is roughly in line with the runway
in use, we all try to emulate a 3 degree glide path so that a landing MIGHT be made from the approach if everything works out just fine.

Flying an NPA is part of the LPC (Licence Proficiency Test) which every pilot has to pass at least once per year. It was always important to remember as an examiner (which I was for many years) that the item being assessed was the NPA and not the subsequent landing attempt.

In other words, a perfectly flown VOR approach might result in a cloud break in a position whereby a split-arsed turn and an unstabilised rate of descent might be necessary for a straight in landing to be made.

Anyone who flew an accurate NPA but then assessed that making a landing from the approach would be just a bit challenging and consequently made a go-around at MDA got a good result (for it was the approach that was being assessed).

Those who decided to practice their low level aerobatics whilst ignoring the EGPWS shouting at them about their excessive descent rate and bank angle were, for sure, going to be invited to one of my famous debriefs followed by a re-sit!

[dreamflier]

Originally Posted by STC-8

Why this plane disintegrated in mid-air shortly before landing remains a mystery.

Where did this come from?

[Wide-O]

FWIW, I'm in no way an expert, but I do speak Dutch, so there goes.

It seems that both the wings have ended right at the fence of the airfield, the right wing crushing part of it.

From there, the journalist estimates one would need to walk back about 800 meters to the starting of the debris.

Judging by what he found (magazines, books), there are no indications of a big fire.

Edit: this was an answer to post 335.

[takata]

Originally Posted by RetiredF4

NOVA - detail - Uitzendingen
The quality is fairly good, even in full screen

I could watch it at least. Thank you for the link.
But curiously, again, when they were close to the tail section, they were only showing their feet and the ground around but not what I would like to see: the first traces of contact. I guess that they are not allowed to film this place.

[dec26]

To dreamflier:

Quote:
Originally Posted by STC-8
Why this plane disintegrated in mid-air shortly before landing remains a mystery.

Where did this come from?

This was just a Dutch newspaper journalist's impressionistic report, can safely be ignored.

[PJ2]

wasp9;

With all due respect PJ2, despite you choosing to call yourself "Flight Safety Specialist & Consultant" you are doing just that.

Not that I have any problem with that. Some of your comments and thoughts are actually very good indeed. I would expect however that someone involved in Flight Safety does not automatically, or by "feeling", rule out cultural factors, cockpit gradient, training and other valid points brought up by a number of pilots that actually operate in Libya. (not talking about the KL pilot that flew there 12 times...).
Why is it that speculations on the hard factor are apparently allowed on this forum but information on the soft factor is considered finger pointing, politically incorrect or even racism...?
By the way, speculation (estimation part of assessment) is part of any normal accident investigation process. For all those here thinking that only the DFDR & CVR will provide the answers; Think outside the box (literally) and invest some time in, for instance, an SMS course or better, accident investigation (Tripod etc.)

My thanks for your comments.

I chose to join the conversation because the wild speculations and conspiracy theories began to dwindle and some serious discussion was becoming possible.

If the impression gained by any of my remarks is that I "rule out cultural factors, cockpit gradient, training", etc, then I have been mis-communicating in all previous posts on other threads; One cannot discount such factors at all. In this particular case I didn't think that there was sufficient information upon which to base a serious discussion; nor was there in the Turkish/AMS accident although some tried.

It is a known, statistical fact, (as you'll be well aware) that the aviation accident and fatality rate for Africa is the highest, compared against other areas of the world. My view, to clarify, is, what cannot be accepted as a universal, is an assessment of competency (or lack of) based purely upon nationality or race. Comments offered by "those who operate there, (Libya) are of an anecdotal nature and may or may not reflect relevant factors in this accident. I made the comment 144 posts into the dialogue (May 12th, perhaps the one you're referencing), that "I don't get the feeling that this outcome had anything to do with the airport, the navaids, ATC or the country the accident occurred in." I still think that, but it is clear from others' posts that this sense of things is not shared universally. The truth or falsity of such statements is, for an accident investigation, not particularly relevant. However, cultural elements are relevant, (though we don't know if that is so here), as evidenced in the extensive historical literature on same. The matter is subtle; the line between 'pc' and honest, frank commentary is not necessarily fixed.

I don't think it is possible to discuss things such as cockpit gradient, training or CRM at the moment because, without knowledge of those things as they relate directly to this accident, that IS mere speculation without foundation; such discussion is not, 'not allowed'...it is just not possible to have it because, (though some such as yourself may know), we don't know anything about these issues yet as they relate to Afriqiyah, the crew involved or the safety culture of the airline. By many accounts, the comments have been highly complementary of the crew, not critical.

Establishing the pathway to the accident, how the aircraft was flown in the minutes before the accident, assessing such from the many excellent photographic contributions, are the primary goals right now, and inform the present discussion. I never considered that comments regarding nationality, the country involved, the character observations were helpful in understanding what happened. I think it is reasonable to expect that at some point, when more is known about the 'softer' factors, that discussion will, and should, take place, likely in the report.

The question regarding the airport and the airport's navaids as well as ATC do not, (for me) seem key points in this accident. I say this only because the A330, as you may know, programmed correctly through the FMGEC and autoflight system, is quite capable of executing a non-precision approach without the use of external navaids. The question has arisen regarding the permitted use of such technology, apparently either by the Libyan regulator or the airline, (can't recall which it was). But I have mentioned that a "Selected-Selected" approach, (meanin the use of Heading/VS-Track FPA) is a standard non-precision technique for the A320/A330/A340 series aircraft.

I can see both fatigue and the often-mentioned sun-in-the-eyes being factors to consider but we know nothing else except that which has been offered, once again, anecdotally. Having flown such approaches many times in all these types, I am not convinced of the relevance of either factor but that is just an opinion.

One thing I might add (and ask of others here) is, what did the wreckage pattern look like of the A330 flight test stall accident at Toulouse? Are there aerial photos available? The Afriqiyah accident has all the earmarks of a high-energy impact, but it may not necessarily have been a high-speed event, so I think the question is an important one to ask in determining how the impact occurred.

Originally Posted by wasp9

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.

Absolutely the case; this is the essence of accident investigation when assessing human factors. Well stated.

kind regards,

PJ2