Afriqiyah Airbus 330 Crash
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jetlag:
On 727, you select F25 then F30 or F40 when you are visual. Any large flap retraction on GA would result in serious trim problems.
On 727, you select F25 then F30 or F40 when you are visual. Any large flap retraction on GA would result in serious trim problems.
Selecting three stages of flap, only when visual, on a CAT III approach - now that would make for one wild ride. Yeeehaaa.
Glad the old generation have retired....
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: tripo;i libya
Age: 65
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dont job over
I dont have mutch to say but you should know that libyan pilot are Experienced crews and the expats. only due to short of crew Libyan pilots did not fly for decades during embargo yes and most of them did not get tested, is wrong . and yes we can fly but you must see what happens to the air france a330 are they libyan 
we use to fly to a same weather in africa and we never crashed . and if you are apilot which Ithing yes but you are very weak because accidint it can happend to any one most of the crashes happend to amoust experince company so Ithing you took from the dark sid of you personality
we use to fly to a same weather in africa and we never crashed . and if you are apilot which Ithing yes but you are very weak because accidint it can happend to any one most of the crashes happend to amoust experince company so Ithing you took from the dark sid of you personality
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ USA
Age: 66
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm assuming that a non stable approach would be aborted and a non precision approach would be aborted at the briefed minimum. Under what circumstances would you consider it appropriate to breach minimums and perform such a maneuver vs initiating a go around the moment things were clearly not as expected?
Only thing I can think of is either fuel starvation or loss of power/control authority such that a controlled landing of some kind was the only viable option left.
To me if your less then 100M of the ground and 500M from the threshold and your doing avionic gymnastics something very unexpected (wind shear/equipment failure,etc) happened or you belong in the back of the tube with the rest of us...
Only thing I can think of is either fuel starvation or loss of power/control authority such that a controlled landing of some kind was the only viable option left.
To me if your less then 100M of the ground and 500M from the threshold and your doing avionic gymnastics something very unexpected (wind shear/equipment failure,etc) happened or you belong in the back of the tube with the rest of us...
Unfortunaely the thread is running dry, including some turf-wars about how to do this and that in my company versus your habit..........
Some trolls also doing their job pretty good as well and the most expierienced people of PRunNe keeping quiet probably being tired to react to the above mentioned nonsense.
Although i dont feel qualified to do so, i try to summarize a few points which i think are to be considered valuable having read all of the past 777 posts to this event (as retired there is the time for it).
Feel free to ammend and comment (copy and paste would be a method)
* the aircrew was familiar with the field (homebase)
* the flight was cleared for an NPA (NDB, due to VOR being unreliable) Approach to RWY 09
* It could have been flown visual (speculation)
* Weather forecast was VMC bottom line
* however actual weather was worse due to morning fog and rising sun
* No communication wirh ATC is known jet
* There are no confirmed reports concerning technical problems
* Alitalia Flight observed AC with nose down prior or at impact
* Aircraft desintegrated after contact with ground completely
* The ground is hard surface covered with some sand and gravel
* Destruction of Hull shows signs of lot of energy
* Looking at the damage to wheel-assembly the gear was most probably down and was probably sheared of by initial contact with the ground
* There are no visible impact marks from gear or engines
* The tail assembly broke off, HTP and VTP stayed with the tail
* A skin-part of the forward fuselage section is found not far down from the tail
* The wings made it to the end of the debris field
* At least one engine shows signs of higher rpm at time of impact
Thing not yet clear:
* How was the approach flown (auto,.........)?
* What was the reason to descent below MDA?
* Was a goaround initiated and when?
*What could go wrong on an aproach leading to this accident?
* What could go wrong on a goaround leading to this accident?
* What did ATC observe on Radar or Visual?
There might be no answers until data from the recorders are available, so be it, then we wait for them.
And if i overstressed my limits in your sandbox with this post, than shame on me.
franzl
Some trolls also doing their job pretty good as well and the most expierienced people of PRunNe keeping quiet probably being tired to react to the above mentioned nonsense.
Although i dont feel qualified to do so, i try to summarize a few points which i think are to be considered valuable having read all of the past 777 posts to this event (as retired there is the time for it).
Feel free to ammend and comment (copy and paste would be a method)
* the aircrew was familiar with the field (homebase)
* the flight was cleared for an NPA (NDB, due to VOR being unreliable) Approach to RWY 09
* It could have been flown visual (speculation)
* Weather forecast was VMC bottom line
* however actual weather was worse due to morning fog and rising sun
* No communication wirh ATC is known jet
* There are no confirmed reports concerning technical problems
* Alitalia Flight observed AC with nose down prior or at impact
* Aircraft desintegrated after contact with ground completely
* The ground is hard surface covered with some sand and gravel
* Destruction of Hull shows signs of lot of energy
* Looking at the damage to wheel-assembly the gear was most probably down and was probably sheared of by initial contact with the ground
* There are no visible impact marks from gear or engines
* The tail assembly broke off, HTP and VTP stayed with the tail
* A skin-part of the forward fuselage section is found not far down from the tail
* The wings made it to the end of the debris field
* At least one engine shows signs of higher rpm at time of impact
Thing not yet clear:
* How was the approach flown (auto,.........)?
* What was the reason to descent below MDA?
* Was a goaround initiated and when?
*What could go wrong on an aproach leading to this accident?
* What could go wrong on a goaround leading to this accident?
* What did ATC observe on Radar or Visual?
There might be no answers until data from the recorders are available, so be it, then we wait for them.
And if i overstressed my limits in your sandbox with this post, than shame on me.
franzl
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: us
Age: 63
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the doubters, check out the pics of the Polish Tu-154 crash in the thread below, which hit upside down. Only the engines, wings and wheels are recognizable, the rest is bits and pieces of trash.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Scotland
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
White Knight, those tailwind figures you are playing with, for take off for example: are they with MTOW, what ambient temp, what length runway? Have you ever done performance graphs? Your figures are meaningless twaddle. Hey the B727 can do auto-trim too how about that? But ask too much from it and you could have runaway stabilizer to make your day.
A lot of things could have gone wrong if the guy didnt actually screw up on the GA. He could have applied the power too late and the stick pusher compensated to prevent a wing stall. Could explain Alitalia's guy saying he saw a nose dive. (or does the clever Airbus not do that with all its spatial awareness?). He could have had assymetric flap on retract, compressor stall, fuel blockage (as in BA 777). Look at that Air France that mowed some trees down doing a go around on a demo flight on the A320. Dont know what happened precisely, but that was automation gone mad. So keep an open mind guys.
A lot of things could have gone wrong if the guy didnt actually screw up on the GA. He could have applied the power too late and the stick pusher compensated to prevent a wing stall. Could explain Alitalia's guy saying he saw a nose dive. (or does the clever Airbus not do that with all its spatial awareness?). He could have had assymetric flap on retract, compressor stall, fuel blockage (as in BA 777). Look at that Air France that mowed some trees down doing a go around on a demo flight on the A320. Dont know what happened precisely, but that was automation gone mad. So keep an open mind guys.
For the doubters, check out the pics of the Polish Tu-154 crash in the thread below, which hit upside down. Only the engines, wings and wheels are recognizable, the rest is bits and pieces of trash.
To make comparisons you must track ground scars vs distance and spread of the debris field in similar open space or heavily treed area.
If significant ground fires were present then destruction from post crash fires might make it even more difficult to compare.
From a resulting debris standpoint after consideration of the impact vector, it's best to look at crushing damage to the hard areas of the aircraft like wing boxes and engines to make finer point assessments.
And of course I suspect that neither of these reference accidents hit upside down, but only ended up having parts tumble after the first impact with trees or ground.
The answer of differences, is in the details which are not resolvable from the photos that we have available to us.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Republic of Tejas
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
100PP,
Is it SOP for the Airbus to fly NPAs using a constant rate of descent? Is the NPA flown in MAP mode (not sure about the Airbus term) with the raw data being monitored?
BS
Is it SOP for the Airbus to fly NPAs using a constant rate of descent? Is the NPA flown in MAP mode (not sure about the Airbus term) with the raw data being monitored?
BS
I Have Control
Join Date: May 2004
Location: North-West England
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maghreb Aviation
Live, work and fly in Libya (A320) and you won't be amazed. Corrupt and medieval country, although the general population are actually good friendly folk. Not so the dictator's people...the "authorities". They'll have tried to analyse the data themselves, and maybe even cook it.
As for Libyan pilot's abilities. Hard to judge, due to the many years of minimal flying on ancient equipment they have endured. I will however volunteer that the macho culture prevails, and maintenance standards are lamentable.
As already said, this was an accident waiting to happen. Watch this space for the next one. The odd crash doesn't discourage this lot.
As for Libyan pilot's abilities. Hard to judge, due to the many years of minimal flying on ancient equipment they have endured. I will however volunteer that the macho culture prevails, and maintenance standards are lamentable.
As already said, this was an accident waiting to happen. Watch this space for the next one. The odd crash doesn't discourage this lot.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,832
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jetlag50
I beg to differ 0-8. The pilot was not flying manually. What sane pilot would fly on idle power at that height if he didnt have confidence in his automation, please explain? He was trying to show the aircraft's ability at automated critical speed and configuration
Quote:
Very low speed, reduced to reach maximum possible angle of attack.
and then hoping to recover with an automated GA. That was the whole purpose of the demo, automated flight at critical speed. OK the trees spoiled his day in the end.
Quote:
Very low speed, reduced to reach maximum possible angle of attack.
and then hoping to recover with an automated GA. That was the whole purpose of the demo, automated flight at critical speed. OK the trees spoiled his day in the end.
Well said Roy Hudd - some folks just have no idea about the MAghreb
and the mentality
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding some recent postings here, may I draw attention to this thread on the mil forum. It contains some good advice.
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...iot-troll.html
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...iot-troll.html
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Effin' Limbo
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, now I mostly lurk here, leaving posting to far more experienced guys than myself, and greatly enjoy most of your contributions and insights. However, some of the things said lately have spurred me to actually write this.
"Privilege of a stabilized approach" - I sure hope that JetLag was trolling when he wrote this, because the stabilized approach cannot and never should not be a privilege. It is a requirement. 1000 feet in IMC, and 500 feet in VMC seem to be what most companies prescribe these days. If you are unstabilized at any point below that - go around. No ifs, no buts, no low-level aerobatics - go around. A failure to do so is poor airmanship.
"Twaddle" when speaking of tailwind limitations. How exactly is it twaddle? Twaddle is bringing performance tables into this - it is an operator's limitation, based on the manufacturer's demonstrated wind limitations. If you want to look at the performance tables, you will not limit wind by your TOW, you will limit your TOW by the wind that is blowing down the runway, and thus calculate your max load. Saying that you will not operate with a tailwind is... well, lets just call it - detached from the reality of worldwide day to day operations. There is no contradiction between tailwind and safe operation.
"727 autotrim" While the 727 trims while the autopilot is engaged, it certainly does not have autotrim in the Airbus sense - which operates with the autopilot off. Case in point:
Boeing 727 Stabilizer Trim System
I think I have wasted enough time and reading patience of the people who make this thread, and the rest of pprune, a worthwhile excercise.
"Privilege of a stabilized approach" - I sure hope that JetLag was trolling when he wrote this, because the stabilized approach cannot and never should not be a privilege. It is a requirement. 1000 feet in IMC, and 500 feet in VMC seem to be what most companies prescribe these days. If you are unstabilized at any point below that - go around. No ifs, no buts, no low-level aerobatics - go around. A failure to do so is poor airmanship.
"Twaddle" when speaking of tailwind limitations. How exactly is it twaddle? Twaddle is bringing performance tables into this - it is an operator's limitation, based on the manufacturer's demonstrated wind limitations. If you want to look at the performance tables, you will not limit wind by your TOW, you will limit your TOW by the wind that is blowing down the runway, and thus calculate your max load. Saying that you will not operate with a tailwind is... well, lets just call it - detached from the reality of worldwide day to day operations. There is no contradiction between tailwind and safe operation.
"727 autotrim" While the 727 trims while the autopilot is engaged, it certainly does not have autotrim in the Airbus sense - which operates with the autopilot off. Case in point:
Boeing 727 Stabilizer Trim System
I think I have wasted enough time and reading patience of the people who make this thread, and the rest of pprune, a worthwhile excercise.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Patterson, NY
Age: 66
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've noted a couple of references to an Alitalia flight which witnessed the accident aircraft with a nose down attitude. From reading all of these posts it seems that many believe the tail hit first, perhaps breaking off and then the nose down attitude. Which makes sense to this SLF.
It would seem to me, though, that if the Alitalia flight witnessed the nose down attitude and the subsequent crash wouldn't the flight crew also have noticed the lack of a tail and made reference to this as well?
Has anyone seen/read mention of this?
BOAC: Excellent advice on how to deal with the infamous troll.
It would seem to me, though, that if the Alitalia flight witnessed the nose down attitude and the subsequent crash wouldn't the flight crew also have noticed the lack of a tail and made reference to this as well?
Has anyone seen/read mention of this?
BOAC: Excellent advice on how to deal with the infamous troll.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DutchExpat:
It sure got my attention. "Eyebrow raising" was my reaction.
It tends to not paint the Libyian aviation authorities in a particularly good light.
I am a little amazed they took untill today to send the flight recorders to France?
It tends to not paint the Libyian aviation authorities in a particularly good light.
I just don't see the time delay in reading out the recorders as significant.
Sure the readers of PPRune would like instant confirmation that their speculation is correct.
Questions about the pre-crash integrity of the aircraft are easily answered in a day or two by on-site examinations in conjunction with review of ATC tapes.
The recorders are quite useful to confirm and/or examine what's going on in the performance of the crew. This should be a secondary-time-line issue and it's very important to take the time to select a venue that is free from conspiracy rumours among the seasoned investigators, with the exception of PPrune
Sure the readers of PPRune would like instant confirmation that their speculation is correct.
Questions about the pre-crash integrity of the aircraft are easily answered in a day or two by on-site examinations in conjunction with review of ATC tapes.
The recorders are quite useful to confirm and/or examine what's going on in the performance of the crew. This should be a secondary-time-line issue and it's very important to take the time to select a venue that is free from conspiracy rumours among the seasoned investigators, with the exception of PPrune
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Republic of Tejas
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roy,
What STAR would this aircraft be flying for the Locator 09 approach? Would ATC (radar vectors) normally take the aircraft off the STAR and vector to final or would the aircraft stay on the STAR until joining the approach? If on a radar vector, what altitudes would normally be assigned when cleared for the approach?
Thanks,
BS
What STAR would this aircraft be flying for the Locator 09 approach? Would ATC (radar vectors) normally take the aircraft off the STAR and vector to final or would the aircraft stay on the STAR until joining the approach? If on a radar vector, what altitudes would normally be assigned when cleared for the approach?
Thanks,
BS