Afriqiyah Airbus 330 Crash

[PJ2]

snowfalcon2;

Quote:
There were some reports about visibility but I have not seen the actual (metar). Anyone knows the QNH at the time?
See post #5 in this thread.

I get the sense that the vis in some local pockets was not that good. The investigation will of course include comments from or actions by other aircraft on approach to 09 (or 27) before and after the accident so we may know more about such conditions then. PJ2

[RadAlt2010]

I dont know why you are drowning in an inch of water Iomapaseo. Its dead simple. The country that falls below ICAO minimum standards in NAV, ATC, engineering maintenance, crewing etc loses its ICAO membership. Member airlines are then penalised for flying into the offending country so that it becomes uneconomical for them to even pick up cheap fuel. Thats how economic sanctions work right? I understand that some standards are hard to monitor and enforce, but at least the offending countries would not be given an easy ride of making a mockery of safety and there will be a need to even "be seen to improve safety". Who knows, it may even grow to be a genuine effort.

[C-SAR]

Crash Site Layout

For those interested and with the patience to wait for a 7 Mbyte document to download follow this link:

7 Mbyte pdf file summarizing pictures and locations

to view a few pages presentation that correlates google earth overview with pictures from different media sources, in order to give a comprehensive view of the crash site layout.

My sincere thanks to archae86 for his help with the mysteries of linking files and for the use of holding space.

C-SAR

PS: This is a "home made" tentative production, made with what was available openly in the media. It is not, and never wanted to be, a precise representation of the crash site diagram.

[Niner_Mike]

Active METAR

According to Afriqiyah, the crash took place at 4:00 UTC

Afriqiyah Airways ,Announce that our flight 8U771 had an accident during landing at Tripoli International airport at 04:00 UTC. (06:00 AM Tripoli time) Today Wednesday 12 May.

The active metar at that time was

Hllt 120350z Vrb01kt 6000 Nsc 19/17 Q1008

or even

Hllt 120250z 35003kt 6000 Skc 19/17 Q1008

So the crew was expecting with high probability a visual approach, unless warned otherwise by TAF, experience, approach, tower, previous landing traffic or haze visible from above and afar (in darkness).
Does anyone have the active TAF of that moment?
Under above active metar, the choice of runway 09 wasn't all that crazy (apart from sunrise to be expected) if ATC preferred that direction.

This further contributes to my speculation that this was an unexpected instrument approach gone sour.

Niner Mike.

[jcjeant]

Hi,

Sorry to derail a little but ... despite my eyes are less accurate than 40 years ago .. where I can seen a "pitch down" there ... (give me the time line when pitch down begin)
YouTube - Accidente aéreo de Habsheim (ángulo opuesto)
YouTube - Accidente aéreo de Habsheim

[PJ2]

C-SAR;

With the help of the others who you have mentioned, your field work stands among others who have made contributions of exceptional quality and dedication to the art and science of flight safety work; I add my sincere thanks for your efforts and risking the "questions..."; it really helps to get a sense of the accident scene when discussing various notions of how this happened. Hopefully it will be determined from the recorders a bit more about why it occurred. PJ2

[C-SAR]

PJ2

Thanks for your words.
I feel privileged to have been accepted into this forum as a new comer and to be able to relate to so many wiser and more experienced professionals.
C-SAR

[411A]

Many replies to this particular forum/thread have been quite interesting and informative, keep 'em up.
As a long time pilot to TIP(circa 1971, onwards), I find these informative replies... most interesting.

However, those from RadAlt2010...much less so, sadly...

I suggest the 'ignore function', as an alternative.... I (and perhaps many others have noticed)...he /she is a troll...IE: totally detached from reality, vis-a-vis ICAO etc.

He/she? should know better.

We can only hope...

NB.
TIP is what it is, plan accordingly...or, go elsewhere.
Rocket science...it ain't.
And, never has been.
BEN...likewise.

[A4]

Confiture said:

A4, what's the point to have Alpha Floor Protection if a GA is already initiated ... ?
Not sure you fully understand what you just wrote.

Ok, I can understand where you're coming from but what I was alluding to is this. Imagine a scenario where you are below 100' RA and suddenly the ground looms out the mist. Instinctively you haul the sidestick back but leave the T/LVR's in CLB - what will happen? No AlphaFloor (<100' RA) but AoA protection will activate? (> half stick). Sure, A/THR will increase thrust to try to maintain VAPP but it won't be AlphaFloor. AoA protection may well lower the nose initially.......... Don't forget we're talking here about flying around just above min speeds not 250 knots - the tolerence for activation is minimal.

FCOM

HIGH ANGLE OF ATTACK PROTECTION

Under normal law, when the angle of attack becomes greater than αprot, the system switches elevator control from normal mode to a protection mode, in which the angle of attack is proportional to sidestick deflection. That is, in the αprot range, from αprot to αmax, the sidestick commands directly. However, the angle of attack will not exceed αmax, even if the pilot gently pulls the sidestick all the way back. If the pilot releases the sidestick, the angle of attack returns to αprot and stays there.

This protection against stall and windshear has priority over all other protections. The autopilot disconnects at αprot + 1°.

V αprot, V αfloor, V αmax vary according to the weight and the configuration.

To deactivate the angle of attack protection, the pilot must push the sidestick :

- More than 8° forward, or

- More than 0.5° forward for at least 0.5 second, when < αmax.

In addition, below 200 feet, the angle of attack protection is also deactivated, when :

- Sidestick deflection is less than half nose-up, and
- Actual is less than αprot – 2°.

Rock and a hard place? Haul it back - no AlphaFloor and AoA protection active = negative flight path? Don't haul it back AoA protection not active - but if the levers aren't pushed a perhaps less than optimal spool up to try to maintain VAPP? In both cases the flight path is going to remain pretty similar which is not ideal close to the ground.

Once again, how to keep the Myth alive ...
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.

I don't wish to start a debate about Habsheim. I've tried to find the official report in English but can't. I do recall though on Air Crash Investigation that the claims of the Captain that when he pulled the stick back, the nose actually lowered were verified by the DFDR data. This was AoA protection. As he was below 200' RA (circa 30'-40' so no AlphaFloor) presumably he must have had more than half backstick otherwise it would have been deactivated.

Hope that clears up my thinking. I stand to be corrected and am only interested in sensible, technical debate - nothing else.

A4

[PapaThreeCee]

Question regarding C-SAR's montage of photos

C-SAR,

There were reports in earlier threads about the aircraft hitting the roof of a house. Does that house appear to the far right in the third page of your overlay (titled "Impact") ?? If so, would that be the actual point of initial impact, even before the aircraft struck the utility poles / wires?

Thank you VERY much for your on-the-ground coverage of this accident.

Cheers!

[overthewing]

C-Sar, I'd like to thank you also for your excellent work, and all the information you've gathered and posted. Pprune is rarely so lucky.

But please don't get into trouble, taking photographs near an accident site, in Libya...

[takata]

Hi;
Another picture found by C-SAR in Libya showing the debris field and track left before tail separation. This view is from mosque's roof; initial impact is on the left but out of the pict. The perpendicular road, packed with ambulances, is clearly above previous ground elevation:

S~
Olivier

[RadAlt2010]

411A thinks that since he was flying in Libya in 1971 (must be well past retirement now and only speaking as a clueless armchair pliot) he's an authority on the region, ICAO and even the psychological state of others. He hasnt produced a single valid argument for his animosity/objection towards my suggestions.. just personal attacks/ name calling which speaks volumes about his disposition.

[gums]

Salute!

Adding to the others, C-SAR's inputs have been most useful to get an impression of what happened without the CVR/FDR. Outstanding on-the-scene info and pics. And PLZ try to stay outta trouble.

+++++++++++

I was puzzled by A4's description of the AoA limiter control laws.

How does the flight control computer know your altitude? AGL or baro?

Some of the angles A4 mentions seem very small. Actual stick angles or commanded elevator?

I flew FBW well before the Airbus, and tho our mission was vastly different, the basic rate and AoA limiters did not depend upon altitude. Control laws were different once gear was down, as AoA was more of a factor than "gee" command. Gains were different compared to clean configuration gains, but the thing felt like every other plane you had flown with gear and flaps down. The stick also used "pressure" and not degrees of movement. Hell, the sticks in the first 40 or 50 jets didn't move a mm. So I wonder about all the "normal" laws and the "other" laws and approach modes and ...

Gums sends ...

Viper pilot since 1979

[ATC Watcher]

RadAlt2010 you wrote , among other things , the following :

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.

and :

Its dead simple. The country that falls below ICAO minimum standards in NAV, ATC, engineering maintenance, crewing etc loses its ICAO membership.

and :

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..

Well either you are very young, in which case , you should listen to those here wo are a bit older and vey wise like PJ2 and , yes, 411A and learn. In case you are older, then you have not been paying much attention in the real world out there.For info, Nobody has the authority to withdraw membership of ICAO . ICAO is not a club, it is a part of the UN . ICAO set standards and recommended practices . ICAO cannot by its nature enforce regulations. The individual States have that responsibility.

[CONF iture]

A4, Gutter Airways,
Did I read you correctly : You actually base your comments on Air Crash Investigation TV Show ?

In addition, below 200 feet, the angle of attack protection is also deactivated, when :

- Sidestick deflection is less than half nose-up, and
- Actual is less than αprot – 2°.

A4, I am not familiar with this FCOM quote.
Would you have the precise reference, please ?

[PJ2]

Gutter Airways;

Believe as you wish or need. As far as aviation goes, the video has absolutely no redeeming qualities. It is a profoundly stupid piece of work and of no interest or value whatsoever.

If you prefer learning from such videos to discussing Airbus technologies with those who fly all these types and even trained other pilots on them then there is nothing further to discuss.

[bugg smasher]

411A thinks that since he was flying in Libya in 1971 (must be well past retirement now and only speaking as a clueless armchair pliot) he's an authority on the region, ICAO and even the psychological state of others. He hasnt produced a single valid argument for his animosity/objection towards my suggestions.. just personal attacks/ name calling which speaks volumes about his disposition.

That may be so, 411A certainly has highly personal opinions some find challenging, to say the least. In this case, though, he makes valid points, I respect his experience in that particular theater of operations. I’ve followed a somewhat similar career path, have even worked for one or two of the same airlines, although I have never met him.

In every, any, and all respects, Africa pretty much leaves you to your own wits. If you don’t have the requisite aviation chops, and they are very hard won, you’ve really no business strapping on any kind of flying machine there. North Africa is no different in this respect, the great sandy desert will kill you just as fast as the central jungles will.

Without remorse. It’s just the way it is. TIA.

[RadAlt2010]

Thank you for your response ATC watcher. I am well aware what ICAO is, what it can and cannot do, its history etc. I am not new to aviation, I am almost a decade younger than 411A who sadly has lost touch with current practices, if not his social skills. In the interest of safety, I was merely suggesting new roles and powers for ICAO. OK, if you cannot see ICAO fulfilling that, lets invent a NEW body and call it International Agency For Aviation Standards & Safety, fund it through the UN and give it international executive powers. I cannot understand why you, or 411 are so vehemently opposed to the idea of such an international lobby. Tripoli (or any other airport for that matter) may seem very safe to some, but very dangerous to others. Lets set up a body that sets standards that say this airport is bad, and that airport is good (to put it at its simplest), and actually attach some teeth to it, not just a name, so that the offending airfields or CAA's or countries get their act together through deadlines and penalties. It will need legislation that over-rides regional CAA's where safety is concerned, because what is safe and what is not can be clearly audited and ought to be internationally agreed. I would like to know why this is so hard to implement particularly at a time of declining safety standards all over the world. Aviation safety took a dive in the last two/three years.

[RadAlt2010]

I think you will find that all what I have been saying is vindicated here:
Google Answers: airline management

ICAO has no teeth and it needs to grow them or hand over control to another body.

I rest my case.