Afriqiyah Airbus 330 Crash

[411A]

I rest my case.

Good, we are thus spared any further of your...nonsense.

PS:
Opertating to TIP next month, just I have been doing for the last many years.
L1011 equipment...the gold standard of older types.

[Machaca]

[lomapaseo]

Machaca

I can always depend on you for better pictures.

That close up of the engine (BTW which looks like the same one posted earlier) does seem to show the last stages of the turbine rather than the booster stage of the compressor (Barit1?)

One can see the yellow containment blanket for the fan at the other end.

At first glance the damage points to a probable tail first impact with the ground crushing the aft end of the engine first.

Any pics of the other engine?

I'm a little leary of speculating based on a single picture so if I see some other more valid arguments I may edit this post

[onetrack]

JetThePilot -

The ~8 second lag before engines respond sealed the fate of the plane

Where does this information come from? Obviously not from any Airbus advice.

QUOTE - FROM AIRBUS FLIGHT OPERATIONS BRIEFING NOTES - If the thrust is set at (approach) idle, approximately 5 seconds are necessary to obtain the engine thrust required to recover from a speed loss or to initiate a go-around...

[deSitter]

It's nothing short of astonishing that an airplane could tear itself to pieces like that without the help of explosive burning. One wonders how they are put together at some point.

-drl

[nojwod]

Is it just me or is anyone else having trouble reconciling the debris trail to the assumption that the aircraft was in descent profile and either flown into the ground or attempting go-around from a late realisation of a situation?

To me the shape of the impact point and the complete shredding of practically every square foot of the fuselage doesn't sit right with the theory that the plane was in a go-around or descent flight path. Also, if the tail breaking off caused the rest of the plane to climb briefly before nosing in, I would have expected to see another point of impact and a separate debris field futher on, whereas this appears to be a continuous shredding of the fuselage from around about where the impact mark appears.

One other thing that troubles me is the relatively compact nature of the impact mark. If the plane was nose high either in approach or go-around power-on attitude, and took out the wires for at least a couple of hundred metres before the impact mark, I would have expected to see a long draggy furrow, not the compact shape we see.

What the photos is suggesting to me is a high rate of descent but nose high, picking up the wires close to the impact mark which pulled the rest of the poles down, immediate disintegration of the fuselage on impact but somehow the tail being left relatively unscathed. If so, why the aircraft would be in a high rate of descent at that point is a complete mystery.

[deSitter]

I have to completely agree here - tumbling and mutual erosion does not reduce seats to small pieces. There's almost nothing left - this reminds me of accidents in which the plane went right in, such as PSA 182 - and the weird lack of fire makes it even more puzzling. Is it possible that a nearly empty fuel tank, or several of them, can explode like a bomb on impact? Where are the wing parts?? That would explain no burning, or rather no slow burning.

Also I agree about the wires - the reason the tangled wires could drag the poles from the ground without breaking is that the attach points on all the poles shared the load all at once - they were pulled up and out of their shallow holes in an instant.

-drl

[Flying Bagel]

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.

What's your obsession with governing bodies? Or you seem like you have a personal grudge of some sort. No one holds onto such an unreasonable argument for so long without having first explaining why from their personal experience they think this is the case.

I fly into airports with bad ATC and poorly maintained equipment all the time. That's part of why I get paid. The other part is to know when not to go into said airport for the fear of my own underpants.

From what I gather, TIP is not half as bad as some places I fly into. Third world countries are just that, third world. They don't have the money to maintain their equipment, the staff is generally poorly paid, and most of them have bigger problems than just inoperative DME's or poor speaking controllers. So what are you suggesting? ICAO dump them out because they're not up to snuff? Surely, that's going to improve the situation.

Really, you have to use your brain a bit more often to think about consequences of said actions.

[V1... Ooops]

I have been following this discussion with great fascination, and I would like to extend my thanks to all of you (especially C-SAR) for your very carefully considered and insightful posts.

I note that many of you have commented on "the debris field" and how "all the small pieces" may possibly suggest a high-energy impact that is not consistent with a typical shallow angle CFIT during the landing phase of flight.

I wonder if perhaps this kind of debris field (many small pieces) is just a characteristic of the construction methods (e.g. bonding) or construction materials (e.g. composites) used on this particular model of aircraft? For sure, we are all used to seeing a more conventional "broken sausage" type of wreckage when a plane lands short of the runway - for example, the recent BA 777 accident, or the more recent Turkish 737 accident.

Is it possible that A330 aircraft break up differently than what we are used to seeing - not due to any deficiency of the aircraft, but just due to their nature? Consider the frustration the French have had trying to find the debris field for the Air France A330 that was lost in the South Atlantic - if that debris field turned out to be anything like this one (and chances are that impact was a heck of a lot more violent than this one), then it is no wonder why they have had so much difficulty locating the remains of the AF aircraft.

Everything I have read so far in this discussion seems to point to a CFIT - most participants appear to agree on that. Perhaps it took place while the crew were still proceeding towards landing, or perhaps it took place in the very early stages of a go-around, but still, it doesn't appear to be anything more complex or sinister than a CFIT. I think we might need to re-evaluate any inferences we have been drawing from the wreckage pattern, because this might simply be a 'normal' wreckage pattern for this aircraft type, even though it is not the same as the wreckage pattern we would anticipate based on observing prior accidents of other types of aircraft.

[SortieIII]

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.

ICAO is a UN body. The UN has been spectacularly ineffective when dealing with crises around the globe, despite being equipped with wide ranging 'powers', and a small army, why should aviation be any different?

Only bunch who have had any effect on Africa is Europe, who have managed to get a small amount of compliance by banning the worst of the bunch from European airspace. Those thus banned have spent a lot of energy bleating about how unfair it all is, etc. etc., instead of taking action to change the situation.

I agree with 411A when it comes to flying in Africa (40 years experience doing it on heavy jets, for the last 20 on 'glass'). Expect and prepare for the worst, then you won't be caught unawares.

I rest my case.

I live in hope.

[mike-wsm]

C-SAR, your pics are stunning and all your on-site information is much appreciated. But there is a question not being asked and there are pics that are simply not there. Have you looked at the area before impact, and is there any evidence of engine thrust? Blown sand, blown-over trees or whatever? In a previous post I hinted at this but the kindly old moderator noticed that I am only an avionice design guy and deleted my post. So, in prof-pilot-speak, were the engines "turnin and burnin"? And blowing half the environment away? Or had the power failed? Many thanks.

[A4]

@CONF iture:

My reference to Air Crash Investigation was purely that - a reference. I don't regard ACI as serious but it is non the less interesting. Regarding Habsheim they did make a big issue surrounding the fact that the aircraft pitched down despite a nose up demand. Airbus even recreated it with another A320 at Toulouse confirming AoA protection. AB wanted to know whether the aircraft had gone into "LAND mode". This is a slight misnomer as there is no Normal Law-"LAND Mode". The FMA annuciation of "LAND" at approx 350' RA is only confirming valid LOC, GS and RA signals and will ensure "FLARE" mode will sequence (memorising pitch attitude at 50' RA and then applying nose down trim from 30' RA to induce the pilot to flare). This all happens in Normal Law - Flight Mode until switching to Normal Law-Flare Mode at 50' RA.

At Habsheim they were not following an ILS and I assume FD's were off so there would not have been any LAND annunciation. Likewise this was obvioulsy a "first release" Airbus so in the event of a GA there would not have been any automatic reinstatement of the FD's. IIRC it required manual pitch to 15 degrees, FD's on, the T/LVR's from TOGA to CLB to TOGA to engage SRS - quite a handful. This would not have been the case with this A330 accident.

I've found the official report but it's in French and I don't speak French so I cannot give any reference to the AoA protection. If any French speakers wish to search feel free - I would like to be either proved or disproved regarding the AoA issue and the report.

The FCOM Ref (Airbus A320 Series) regarding modes/protections is Volume : 1, Chapter : 27, Section : 20, Page : 4

A4

[rottenray]

Really..?

That may be so, 411A certainly has highly personal opinions some find challenging, to say the least.

Be very, very careful here, unless you want an L-10 in your back yard.

411 is very, very professional, and rarely misspeaks.

He is here to speak, unlike many other older or bolder pilots.

The thread has clearly gone to absolute hell, when we start seeing badck-biting comments like this.


C-SAR -

Thanks for your being on scene and able to cope with making a valuable contribution.

It has to have been extremely tough and stressful. Seeing the site, taking photos as you can without "coming to the attention of" various folks.

I think you have done more to keep this thread relevant and on-topic than most others.

There are a lot of others who have contributed theories, and I appreciate you as well.

Without all of you, this thread would have gone Jet Blast a long, long time ago.

Thanks all for the good discussion, hopefully the debate between some folks and others will taper off a bit so we can get back to pondering true causes.

But, damitt, Jim, we can't argue with 411 - the ship cannae take it, we'll break up!


RR

[onetrack]

The almost total fragmentation of the aircraft does raise many questions... and no doubt a lot of them will be answered in the full investigation. There are several factors that could be contributory. One is the obviously hard, dry ground, with the possibility of rock not far under the surface. A ploughed field in a wet climate offers a more compliant surface, with a degree of impact absorption. Second, is the relative absence of larger, foliage-laden trees, which also tend to soften impact. Third, is the likelihood that the impact was very hard... the hull and wings were effectively slammed into the ground with a very high RoD, and high G's. Add in speed of the aircraft at not less than say, 150 kts?... and you have a scenario for some major destruction of the airframe.

The question, of course, that is possibly on most minds, is... if this was a Boeing, with less composites in the construction... would the hull have stayed more intact... and would there have been more survivors?
IMO... perhaps, for the first question... and a big maybe, for the second.
There have been similar crashes with a lot of survivors (the A320 crash at Schiphol - TK1951)... but the Schiphol crash was into a ploughed field, and the AoA at impact was probably far less than this one. The TK1951 flight impacted hard with substantial hull rotation at impact, but the fuselage stayed relatively intact.

Re the powerline and poles. Yes, it is very easy to uproot/pull over poles just with wire pressure. The direction of pull on the poles on impact in this case is horizontal, not downwards, and poles are surprisingly easily dislodged, even if they are sizeable poles... and these ones aren't.
I have a farmer friend who has a two-wire powerline running through his farm, suspended on sizeable wooden poles. The wire clearance is a minimum of around 4.9M. He "bumped" one pole with a trailed implement (large scarifier) recently, and the pole he hit, fell over! He turned to see it fall... then to his great consternation, the falling pole took another 6 poles down with it!!... purely by drag, on the two wires!!

[lexoncd]

The TK crask was a 737 not an A320 and as for the composites in the aircraft making a difference to survival aspects this is a red herring and not worthy of this board.

In the fullness of time the report will be out. The Flight recorders were recovered immediately and were clearly intact. It should be hoped they can provide an insight as to what went wrong.

No doubt it will most likely be a combination or swiss cheese scenario....

[silverstrata]

Downwind:
Taking your approach RadAlt, you make it seem automation should be trusted and used more than the human brain. Why use pilots in the first place?

I suggest we put ILSes in all airports and provide RNAV-to-ILS automatic change and just man airplanes with computers.

Let me get this straight, Downwind - are you suggesting that we should take all the ILSs out of Heathrow and use an ADF instead, because ILSs are unnecessary?

ILSs were devised for a reason - THEY ARE EASIER AND SAFER. An international airport without an ILS is NOT an international airport, and heavy traffic should not be visiting (unless, of course, RNAV approaches become fully certificated).


.

[silverstrata]

Fiero:
Why oh why do we always have to refer back to cultural differences.

Because they are a factor. Not a reason, but a factor. Take this from a N African carrier's CRM course.

"...as a 1st officer you must understand that the captain is always right. you can only give advice..."

[Phoebus]

I think the questions here regarding break-up of manufacturer 'A's vs manufacturer 'B's products is fruitless. The A330 is mainly conventional alloy for wings and fuselage. Is it possible the speed at impact was a little higher? The FDR will provide the answers, and further speculation is just that - speculation.

Regarding approach aids, I think you can buy a few ILS installations for the price of an A330. They just don't look so impressive as a shiny new terminal... ...and I expect the accountants have problems finding a column for 'safety' in their spreadsheet until after the event.

[JetThePilot]

QUOTE - FROM AIRBUS FLIGHT OPERATIONS BRIEFING NOTES - If the thrust is set at (approach) idle, approximately 5 seconds are necessary to obtain the engine thrust required to recover from a speed loss or to initiate a go-around...

Airbus state APPROXIMATELY 5 seconds because it is not exact. It will depend on AoA (because this affects airflow into engine as well as power required to recover), current speed (will determine additional power required), moisture (affects oxygen content per volume of air), tempretaure (also oxygen content), etc. Now if you want to play it safe, as many experienced pilots will tell you, do not operate right on the margin but give some slack. About 8 seconds is the least you can allow under real, not laboratory or simulated, conditions (and this is assuming Airbus computers will not tell the aircraft to do something else!). Just think about the rate of descent for a minute, on approach and near minima altitutde, relying on 5 seconds to GA will see a plane crushed and then draged on the ground. I will be very surprised if the disintegration of 8U771 was not caused by a late surge of power as the plane was about to make contact.

[JetThePilot]

Safety in Tripoli, Culture, etc.

There has been a debate about ILS, ATC, and safety issues in Tripoli and other airports in Libya and Africa. I tend to side with the critical side of the debate. Whilst a poor African nation will be excused for not spending on 'fancy' safety equipment, Libya has absolutely no excuse. A very rich country that has been free from sanctions for a decade that has been told by its own pilots of the need for ILS for at least a decade and chose to ignore them. Further, ATC would direct pilots to 09 when 27 (with ILS) is available! This is not a big issue in good weather when you can see the runway from miles away, but in poor visibility it is criminally irresponsible.

It is not that Libyans do not know the importance of NavAids in poor weather or that they are bad pilots, it is the corruption and carelessness of the poor poor system of administration. This problems exist in hospitals, schools, roads, electricity supply, water supply, courts of law, prisons, etc. To say sanctions have caused the problems may be true if said 10 years ago, but now it is a standard excuse for neglect, corruption, incompetence, and inept governance. Not only excellent pilots left Libya to escape the mindless decay, but also doctors, engineers, professors.