Afriqiyah Airbus 330 Crash
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RadAlt2010:
The first order of responsibility lies with the commercial carrier itself that intends to operate into any airport, especially an airport that is known to have safety and conformance issues.
The second order of responsibility lies with the sovereign state that holds that commercial operator's certificate of fitness.
The third order of resonsibility lies with the affected carrier's pilot's safety committee, if such exists (they do in cowboy-land.
)
ICAO falls way, way below all of the preceding.
I don’t think I am wrong or naive in saying that ICAO should have more clout in standardising dangerous, ill equipped, badly run airports, nor that it cannot be effective. If an international body can impose sanctions in the name of politics, it can also impose sanctions in the name of safety. About the only thing for certain in this accident is that poorly equipped and maintained airports raise the stakes enormously.
The second order of responsibility lies with the sovereign state that holds that commercial operator's certificate of fitness.
The third order of resonsibility lies with the affected carrier's pilot's safety committee, if such exists (they do in cowboy-land.
)ICAO falls way, way below all of the preceding.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think what salmidj means to say to PT6A is: don’t bite the hand that feeds you! Which is understandable in a way esp. when no conclusions have been reached. Libya is trying to fast-track into the 21st century after years of neglect by the international community. This accident is a massive setback to morale and national pride which is deeply felt by the aviation institutions there. The accident findings will no doubt raise a lot of recommendations for change. Change will come, and it will come fast with a strong resolve for the highest standards, I have no doubt.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: location, location!
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cultural aspects
Salimedj's post nicely sums up some of the cultural aspects at play:
- PT6A is not allowed to voice his opinion
- dirty laundry should be kept inside
- we pay you so shut up
- if you don't like it, then leave; we don't need your input
- other airlines make mistakes so we can hide behind that
- have "respect", i.e. wave the flag for us or shut up some more
All matters that point towards a rather steep cockpit gradient and not such a safety-orientated company culture. Consistent with my experience of 4 years of flying in Libya.
R09 is favoured by ATC in the morning for their convenience. Requests for a change to 27 are met by "not available due to traffic". 80% of ATC instructions are crude vectoring, "extend downwind", or "direct TW" (the locator for R09). Standard holds are almost never used, instead it becomes panicky "make a 360 to the right". Often you'd find yourself at 2000' above TW and cleared for a visual (650' too high on final). If half the navaids aournd HLLT work (even if it's on 'test' or without ident) it's a good day. The VOR approach for 09 brings you in at quite an offset angle. GPS/RNAV approaches do not exist (thus are not allowed) for HLLT. When executing a go-around once at HLLT and informing tower accordingly I was told "negative, continue" followed by "execute 360 to the right". We were at 300' at the time.
Low level aerobatics are the order of the day around TW for R09. "Incompetent at worst, gung-ho at best" is a very accurate description for much flying I've seen displayed at and around Tripoli.
Common denominator in much of this: a (lack of the right) cultural attitude towards safety and accountability.
- PT6A is not allowed to voice his opinion
- dirty laundry should be kept inside
- we pay you so shut up
- if you don't like it, then leave; we don't need your input
- other airlines make mistakes so we can hide behind that
- have "respect", i.e. wave the flag for us or shut up some more
All matters that point towards a rather steep cockpit gradient and not such a safety-orientated company culture. Consistent with my experience of 4 years of flying in Libya.
R09 is favoured by ATC in the morning for their convenience. Requests for a change to 27 are met by "not available due to traffic". 80% of ATC instructions are crude vectoring, "extend downwind", or "direct TW" (the locator for R09). Standard holds are almost never used, instead it becomes panicky "make a 360 to the right". Often you'd find yourself at 2000' above TW and cleared for a visual (650' too high on final). If half the navaids aournd HLLT work (even if it's on 'test' or without ident) it's a good day. The VOR approach for 09 brings you in at quite an offset angle. GPS/RNAV approaches do not exist (thus are not allowed) for HLLT. When executing a go-around once at HLLT and informing tower accordingly I was told "negative, continue" followed by "execute 360 to the right". We were at 300' at the time.
Low level aerobatics are the order of the day around TW for R09. "Incompetent at worst, gung-ho at best" is a very accurate description for much flying I've seen displayed at and around Tripoli.
Common denominator in much of this: a (lack of the right) cultural attitude towards safety and accountability.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Third planet from the sun
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Salimedj's post nicely sums up some of the cultural aspects at play:
- PT6A is not allowed to voice his opinion
- dirty laundry should be kept inside
- we pay you so shut up
- if you don't like it, then leave; we don't need your input
- other airlines make mistakes so we can hide behind that
- have "respect", i.e. wave the flag for us or shut up some more
- PT6A is not allowed to voice his opinion
- dirty laundry should be kept inside
- we pay you so shut up
- if you don't like it, then leave; we don't need your input
- other airlines make mistakes so we can hide behind that
- have "respect", i.e. wave the flag for us or shut up some more
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Holland
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Them versus us
Why oh why do we always have to refer back to cultural differences.
I do not deny that there are any but at this stage we have no absolute knowledge of what happened.
I have been working in the region but disagree that the skill to fly is questionable.
There is a tendency from, in particular but not only, the other side of the ocean to form an opinion about everything that happens in other parts of the world, claiming that everybody else is an ar...
Just looking at the flying conditions, which are in many cases much worse that in the America's, I applaud the relative low number of accicdents/incidents happening there.( am talking about North Africa here)
My admiration goes out to, in particular, the circumstances in Indonesia, Philipinnes and other countries in the region, where pilot skill is really shown. Weather, poor navigation aids and lack of local information forms the profesionalism here which is not seen in other parts of the world.
I am sure that if similar circumstances would excist in the USA, newspapers would even not mention the number of accidents anymore because they were part of daily life there as are traffic accidents.
A disaster is always a chain of events and most of the time happening in an eye blink.
I do not deny that there are any but at this stage we have no absolute knowledge of what happened.
I have been working in the region but disagree that the skill to fly is questionable.
There is a tendency from, in particular but not only, the other side of the ocean to form an opinion about everything that happens in other parts of the world, claiming that everybody else is an ar...
Just looking at the flying conditions, which are in many cases much worse that in the America's, I applaud the relative low number of accicdents/incidents happening there.( am talking about North Africa here)
My admiration goes out to, in particular, the circumstances in Indonesia, Philipinnes and other countries in the region, where pilot skill is really shown. Weather, poor navigation aids and lack of local information forms the profesionalism here which is not seen in other parts of the world.
I am sure that if similar circumstances would excist in the USA, newspapers would even not mention the number of accidents anymore because they were part of daily life there as are traffic accidents.
A disaster is always a chain of events and most of the time happening in an eye blink.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very true Fiero. Bigotry should be kept out of aviation analysis. Accidents will happen anywhere and everywhere. The Libyans ought to be commended for working out of a base that is a pilot's worst nightmare! with relatively few scrapes.
RogerCopyCharlie, have you ever flown into Athens where ATC instructions are, at best, flying on a wing and a prayer? Again, the case of the Delta Airlines from Chicago to Stuttgart who landed in Brussels? I could go on and on.
RogerCopyCharlie, have you ever flown into Athens where ATC instructions are, at best, flying on a wing and a prayer? Again, the case of the Delta Airlines from Chicago to Stuttgart who landed in Brussels? I could go on and on.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: location, location!
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cultural aspects
RadAlt2010
No, I haven't flown in ATH... are half the navaids u/s there also? And NPAs used whilst ILS and w/v favour the other runway?
I flew in Libya where I left because of safety concerns a/o related to the previously listed cultural aspects. Are you suggesting I should have disregarded my concerns because that would have been politically correct?
Please advise.
No, I haven't flown in ATH... are half the navaids u/s there also? And NPAs used whilst ILS and w/v favour the other runway?
I flew in Libya where I left because of safety concerns a/o related to the previously listed cultural aspects. Are you suggesting I should have disregarded my concerns because that would have been politically correct?
Please advise.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Political correctness is inappropriate too. I am suggesting that ICAO and IATA set minimum standards for airports and airline crew training, be it navaids, ATC or pilots training records. Go below those limits and you get outlawed/blacklisted till you improve and stay improved. Its not rocket science.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Go below those limits and you get outlawed/blacklisted till you improve and stay improved.
TIP is used by some carriers as a technical stop for refueling...because of the fuel price.
Surprise, surprise.
'Blacklisting'...what utter nonsense.
I've never found landing on 09 a particular problem...and I've been flying to TIP well before there even was a runway 09....18/36 was the only runway then in use.
Is ATC rather poor at TIP?
Yes, without a doubt...and not much change since the early seventies, when I first started flying there.
Much complaining it seems, by those that simply cannot cope.
No surprise, certainly....
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by A4
However, if this aircraft was below 100' RA at initiation of the GA it would not have had the protection of AlphaFloor.
Not sure you fully understand what you just wrote.
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 believe what you write, you should be able to quote it from the Official Report or at least publish some figures in that direction.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh God, not another macho bush pilot! I never found any problem landing in TIP 09 either 411A, in all weathers. But that doesnt mean safety standards there cannot be improved. Aviation is a LEARNING experience 411, not bravado. You learn from accidents so you dont repeat them. A very serious accident has occured here and you leave no stone unturned. the smallest details need to be explored to avoid repetition. I suggest you are the one who needs to review their coping strategy.
RadAlt2010;
That's far too broad a brush to be a meaningful or effective comment.
Though their effectiveness will always be the subject of debate, many of the processes described are already in place.
The banning of certain carriers due to concerns over historical and/or current flight safety issues is already done in NA, Europe and Australia but such is not done on an ad hoc basis nor without significant cause.
Within the air carrier industry, IATA has its IOSA process. Such process may deserve debate but it is nevertheless in place and, to a degree, works as it is intended.
The ICAO Annexes already directly address your points. What is needed if you're going to argue this line of thought is detailed research and examples over time to be able to argue that standards are not effective. Most professional aircrew here know or are at least familiar with, for example, the FSF work on such matters, among other organizations.
It does nothing to merely state the obvious need for change; many are already quietly engaged in same and have been for decades, not just after one accident in an African country.
Insofar as accident investigation goes, much that is good has already been offered here and elsewhere on the process.
"What, not who" is a primary key as I'm sure you'll agree. There are no accidents in which there are not inappropriate "interests"; for the investigation, data is not a point of view, nor is a point of view, data.
As long as that is understood and the report(s) written as such, the report in question will likely come very close to what happened.
Under Annex 13, it is almost certain that at least France, (BEA), the UK, (AAIB) & the US, (NTSB), will be involved in the investigation though the Libyan authorities will lead. If the industry is not happy with such a process, ICAO and IATA both, incorporate the means of change.
PJ2
Political correctness is inappropriate too. I am suggesting that ICAO and IATA set minimum standards for airports and airline crew training, be it navaids, ATC or pilots training records. Go below those limits and you get outlawed/blacklisted till you improve and stay improved. Its not rocket science.
Though their effectiveness will always be the subject of debate, many of the processes described are already in place.
The banning of certain carriers due to concerns over historical and/or current flight safety issues is already done in NA, Europe and Australia but such is not done on an ad hoc basis nor without significant cause.
Within the air carrier industry, IATA has its IOSA process. Such process may deserve debate but it is nevertheless in place and, to a degree, works as it is intended.
The ICAO Annexes already directly address your points. What is needed if you're going to argue this line of thought is detailed research and examples over time to be able to argue that standards are not effective. Most professional aircrew here know or are at least familiar with, for example, the FSF work on such matters, among other organizations.
It does nothing to merely state the obvious need for change; many are already quietly engaged in same and have been for decades, not just after one accident in an African country.
Insofar as accident investigation goes, much that is good has already been offered here and elsewhere on the process.
"What, not who" is a primary key as I'm sure you'll agree. There are no accidents in which there are not inappropriate "interests"; for the investigation, data is not a point of view, nor is a point of view, data.
As long as that is understood and the report(s) written as such, the report in question will likely come very close to what happened.
Under Annex 13, it is almost certain that at least France, (BEA), the UK, (AAIB) & the US, (NTSB), will be involved in the investigation though the Libyan authorities will lead. If the industry is not happy with such a process, ICAO and IATA both, incorporate the means of change.
PJ2
Last edited by PJ2; 17th May 2010 at 17:56.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IOSA started out as just a concept, but it is now getting a grip and the airlines are sitting up and paying attention. Why is it a broad brush? If ICAO can enforce a similar inspection and enforcement process then we can have safer skies. Its all too easy to say it cant be done.
RadAlt2010;
I will indulge you one more time. You're not reading the message being conveyed here: The processes you speak of are already in place and working.
Argue as you will, but that such processes are not working fast enough or effectively enough or broadly enough for you because you see one accident as cause for sweeping change, is wholly immaterial. You clearly do not comprehend how difficult it is for true advocates of this work to get even this far.
If you don't like the pace, make a difference and sign up for work where it counts, as there is plenty of it to go around.
PJ2
I will indulge you one more time. You're not reading the message being conveyed here: The processes you speak of are already in place and working.
Argue as you will, but that such processes are not working fast enough or effectively enough or broadly enough for you because you see one accident as cause for sweeping change, is wholly immaterial. You clearly do not comprehend how difficult it is for true advocates of this work to get even this far.
If you don't like the pace, make a difference and sign up for work where it counts, as there is plenty of it to go around.
PJ2
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just where did you see that I wanted changes done tomorrow PJ? Any accident, be it in Africa or Washington, should be a catalyst for change. Just get the BALL ROLLING. Setting minimum standards and enforcing them is not a Herculian task. Admittedly, some poor countries would not be able to comply, but then they will need to find the currency somehow or they loose out on the wealth that aviation traffic brings them.. ie cough up! I an sorry, but safety is non-negotiable. Thank you
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: in a cigar lounge smoking a Partagas P2
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RadAlt2010
Years of neglect by the ...........
Change will come fast with higher standards ........
What do you smoke mornings ?? Sure is bad stuff. Change it.
I have my doubts - been to both TIP and BGZ
I think what salmidj means to say to PT6A is: don’t bite the hand that feeds you! Which is understandable in a way esp. when no conclusions have been reached. Libya is trying to fast-track into the 21st century after years of neglect by the international community. This accident is a massive setback to morale and national pride which is deeply felt by the aviation institutions there. The accident findings will no doubt raise a lot of recommendations for change. Change will come, and it will come fast with a strong resolve for the highest standards, I have no doubt.
Change will come fast with higher standards ........
What do you smoke mornings ?? Sure is bad stuff. Change it.
I have my doubts - been to both TIP and BGZ
BOAC;
There is no other "pitch mode" which will behave in the manner described. The only other mode is 'FLARE' which has nothing to do with the stated purpose below.
It is not possible to, ". . . [deselect] the autothrust via the FMGC . . . ".
Nonsense. See above.
Originally Posted by BOAC in a question to A4 in post #581
What function ran in pitch at Habsheim?
Originally Posted by Gutter Airways responding to BOAC in post #584
The Pilots deselected the autothrust via the FMGC prior to carrying out their low pass manoeuvre.
Originally Posted by Gutter Airways, same-same
The pitch down they experienced was due to the aircrafts normal law which will initiate a pitch down if it thinks the aircraft is about to stall and the autothrust is not available. It is separate to the alpha-floor protection.
Last edited by PJ2; 17th May 2010 at 20:38. Reason: clarification on who's post is who's
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There were some reports about visibility but I have not seen the actual (metar). Anyone knows the QNH at the time?
edit: mea culpa, 'scuse me.. (used the search function and no hits, didn't look at the first page)
edit: mea culpa, 'scuse me.. (used the search function and no hits, didn't look at the first page)
Last edited by golfyankeesierra; 17th May 2010 at 21:14.
RadAlt2010
Can you provide an example of an enforcement that befits ICAO. I mean something other than words to the effect "stop it".
A regulatory agency within a country (Europe etc.) has the power to ban only the flights within its purview and not the flights into some other country.
ICAO like the UN can use words which are equally ineffective outside a specfic country unless an individual regulator decides to adopt them.
We've come a long way in having organizations, representing many, publish words of "best practices" when it comes to safety but we still don't have equality among national aviation entities.
IOSA started out as just a concept, but it is now getting a grip and the airlines are sitting up and paying attention. Why is it a broad brush? If ICAO can enforce a similar inspection and enforcement process then we can have safer skies. Its all too easy to say it cant be done.
A regulatory agency within a country (Europe etc.) has the power to ban only the flights within its purview and not the flights into some other country.
ICAO like the UN can use words which are equally ineffective outside a specfic country unless an individual regulator decides to adopt them.
We've come a long way in having organizations, representing many, publish words of "best practices" when it comes to safety but we still don't have equality among national aviation entities.