Afriqiyah Airbus 330 Crash
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Manchester
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Initial Findings from the Investigation
Here is a link to a news report on the initial findings of the investigation. Reuters AlertNet - Libya crash investigators say no technical fault
It seems, fuel was o.k., no distressed radio communication, no technical faults, no fire or explosion prior to crashing. Nothing yet to change my initial specultion:
Fatigued crew made errors in poor visibility, without reliable ground NavAids ended up attemting to recover the plane too close to the ground and crashed with engines fully powered up.
It seems, fuel was o.k., no distressed radio communication, no technical faults, no fire or explosion prior to crashing. Nothing yet to change my initial specultion:
Fatigued crew made errors in poor visibility, without reliable ground NavAids ended up attemting to recover the plane too close to the ground and crashed with engines fully powered up.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Glorious West Sussex
Age: 76
Posts: 1,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GarageYears
Continuous G-load is not the problem, but rapid longitudinal acceleration being interpreted as continuous pitch-up. Simulators reproduce this quite well, and the pilot may respond with nose-down sidestick in spite of the attitude indication.
And I personally witnessed this effect in an A320 simulator only last month - the trainee reached 10°nose-down at 1500 ft. AAL .. the illusion is very powerful.
For the greatest part simulator motion systems cannot generate continuous G-loads and hence, no, a pilot would not be able to experience the same causal effects that are postulated to cause the "pitch-up" illusion in a simulator.
And I personally witnessed this effect in an A320 simulator only last month - the trainee reached 10°nose-down at 1500 ft. AAL .. the illusion is very powerful.
TyroPicard
Continuous G-load is not the problem, but rapid longitudinal acceleration being interpreted as continuous pitch-up. Simulators reproduce this quite well, and the pilot may respond with nose-down sidestick in spite of the attitude indication.
And I personally witnessed this effect in an A320 simulator only last month - the trainee reached 10°nose-down at 1500 ft. AAL .. the illusion is very powerful
Continuous G-load is not the problem, but rapid longitudinal acceleration being interpreted as continuous pitch-up. Simulators reproduce this quite well, and the pilot may respond with nose-down sidestick in spite of the attitude indication.
And I personally witnessed this effect in an A320 simulator only last month - the trainee reached 10°nose-down at 1500 ft. AAL .. the illusion is very powerful
A very good proof, that a simulator is nothing more than a box full of programmed gimmicks, but not the real thing at all.
franzl
Dog Tired
fantom follows RetiredF4. Excellent.
Are you getting a bit too geeky here? Go back to basics.
Read again that which I wrote.
A non-precision approach in difficult light, in a huge aircraft, with late visual leading to a G/A = potential recipe for disaster.
If the crew delayed the initiation of G/A - for whatever reason - that may have been the cause.
It matters little, which part of the A/c struck the ground first.
Are you getting a bit too geeky here? Go back to basics.
Read again that which I wrote.
A non-precision approach in difficult light, in a huge aircraft, with late visual leading to a G/A = potential recipe for disaster.
If the crew delayed the initiation of G/A - for whatever reason - that may have been the cause.
It matters little, which part of the A/c struck the ground first.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Glorious West Sussex
Age: 76
Posts: 1,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RF4
Irrelevant since the human sensors cannot distinguish between the two - the pilot's wrong reaction and poor I/F technique is the important point.
(And being picky the simulator uses a fixed pitch angle to simulate constant acceleration, not a continuous pitch-up).
So your trainee didn´t fall for the illusion, but he reacted to the real thing.
(And being picky the simulator uses a fixed pitch angle to simulate constant acceleration, not a continuous pitch-up).
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: French Riviera
Age: 50
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CONF iture, the two operators I am refering to are Jet Blue (see above) and Air France.
The two event are similar but slightly different with the same result anyway, Jet-Blue was AP ON hit the FLX detent only and continued to the ground, and Air France AP OFF went to the CLB detent only and set back the AP ON and went back to the ground.
Regarding the AF incident, no official BEA report (no comment), only an internal AF document to witch I can give you a basic translation. it happened at the end of September 2009 at CDG.
Pitch escape during Go-Around on A319 with TOGA thrust not set (they are very poetic ).
The followings event have been reported spontanously by the crew, then detailled by flight analysis. At the end of september , a A319 of AF is authorized for the ILS 27R at CDG by unfavorable(french poetry) weather conditions : visibility 1100m, broken 300, scattered 200. LVO operations are not in force during this first approach (normal CDG ops, they go to LVO from BKN 200). The crew decide to conduct the approach in manual flight with FD, without A/THR
At Decision height (yes height !, in cat one !) , visual reférences are not acquired and a go-around is announced and initiated by the CPT PF (he is also an instructor as well).
The flaps comes back to 3 and the gear is selected UP when call "positive rate"is made.
The published altitude for interupted approach (french poetry) on 27R is low ,2000ft and the CPT decides "a soft go-around" (as written in french "une remise de gaz souple"
).
The pitch rate is low, the trust levers are moved forward gradually and are set by mistake in the CLB detent.
AP1 is engaged very soon during the "resource" (french poetry, means something like pitching up ) when the pitch has reached 6°up.
The trurst levers are never reaching the mechanical "end" TOGA detent, and the GO AROUND is not sequenced by the automatisme.
The FMA and the AP/FD logic stay consequently in LAND mode (landing logic).
the AP, as soon as it is reengaged, triggers immediatly a pitch down . The pitch becomes rapidly negative and the airplane goes back down with a heavy negative vertical speed.
The IAS increases very rapidly with the combination of the CLB thrust and the negative gradient.
4 seconds of GPWS warnings are recorded. when in sight of the ground, the CPT disconnects immidiatly the AP and set a positive pitch.
The TLA (yes they wrote TLA ! not TL...) stays initialy in the CLB detent and will never go up to the TOGA notch.
the crew will only understand their mistake when preparing the second approach, when they realize that the active PERF page stayed in the APPR phase.
The second approach is conducted in CAT 3 without any other event.
Brilliant
The two event are similar but slightly different with the same result anyway, Jet-Blue was AP ON hit the FLX detent only and continued to the ground, and Air France AP OFF went to the CLB detent only and set back the AP ON and went back to the ground.
Regarding the AF incident, no official BEA report (no comment), only an internal AF document to witch I can give you a basic translation. it happened at the end of September 2009 at CDG.
Pitch escape during Go-Around on A319 with TOGA thrust not set (they are very poetic ).
The followings event have been reported spontanously by the crew, then detailled by flight analysis. At the end of september , a A319 of AF is authorized for the ILS 27R at CDG by unfavorable(french poetry) weather conditions : visibility 1100m, broken 300, scattered 200. LVO operations are not in force during this first approach (normal CDG ops, they go to LVO from BKN 200). The crew decide to conduct the approach in manual flight with FD, without A/THR
At Decision height (yes height !, in cat one !) , visual reférences are not acquired and a go-around is announced and initiated by the CPT PF (he is also an instructor as well).
The flaps comes back to 3 and the gear is selected UP when call "positive rate"is made.
The published altitude for interupted approach (french poetry) on 27R is low ,2000ft and the CPT decides "a soft go-around" (as written in french "une remise de gaz souple"
).The pitch rate is low, the trust levers are moved forward gradually and are set by mistake in the CLB detent.
AP1 is engaged very soon during the "resource" (french poetry, means something like pitching up ) when the pitch has reached 6°up.
The trurst levers are never reaching the mechanical "end" TOGA detent, and the GO AROUND is not sequenced by the automatisme.
The FMA and the AP/FD logic stay consequently in LAND mode (landing logic).
the AP, as soon as it is reengaged, triggers immediatly a pitch down . The pitch becomes rapidly negative and the airplane goes back down with a heavy negative vertical speed.
The IAS increases very rapidly with the combination of the CLB thrust and the negative gradient.
4 seconds of GPWS warnings are recorded. when in sight of the ground, the CPT disconnects immidiatly the AP and set a positive pitch.
The TLA (yes they wrote TLA ! not TL...) stays initialy in the CLB detent and will never go up to the TOGA notch.
the crew will only understand their mistake when preparing the second approach, when they realize that the active PERF page stayed in the APPR phase.
The second approach is conducted in CAT 3 without any other event.
Brilliant
Quote: TyroPicard
Irrelevant since the human sensors cannot distinguish between the two - the pilot's wrong reaction and poor I/F technique is the important point.
(And being picky the simulator uses a fixed pitch angle to simulate constant acceleration, not a continuous pitch-up).
Irrelevant since the human sensors cannot distinguish between the two - the pilot's wrong reaction and poor I/F technique is the important point.
(And being picky the simulator uses a fixed pitch angle to simulate constant acceleration, not a continuous pitch-up).
So don´t jump to the wrong conclusions here, in the simulator the movement of the box gives an artificial feeling for the intended simulated reality, and it only works if you get tricked by the combination of your senses.
Whereas in reality you run in problems, if you get tricked by one sense only, because the others (visual, instruments, situational awareness) are reduced , lost or not observed.
So what you could find out of the reaction of your student, not falling to the intended illusion of the simulator, that his instrument cross check was not existent and therefore recognizing the correct movement of the box by his sitting muscle.
A box stays a box, also there are quite a lot of differences in simulation.
franzl
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
Well it's not particular to this state ...
What about the (state) news coming from Russia and Poland about the Smolensk accident ?
The lack of state sanctioned information on this accident by this date speaks very loudly about the host country.
UGH!!!!!
UGH!!!!!
What about the (state) news coming from Russia and Poland about the Smolensk accident ?
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: ? ? ?
Posts: 2,281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jcjeant:
Fellow travelers.
Well it's not particular to this state ...
What about the (state) news coming from Russia and Poland about the Smolensk accident ?
What about the (state) news coming from Russia and Poland about the Smolensk accident ?
Person Of Interest
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Keystone Heights, Florida
Age: 68
Posts: 842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aterpster...your last 2 posts are ignorant and non-germain...A major accident less than 30 days (that's less than 1 month) old takes time to investigate...regardless of the "host nation....I applaude Libya for their info updates to this point...Have you ever flown in the Mid-East or Africa???
Didn't think so....
Didn't think so....
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Green:
Where is all this information I have missed?
How much information did we have on the Colgan BUF crash after 30 days? US Airways 1549? etc, etc? The BAC 777 at London?
And, I keep reading about deficient nav aids. This is 2010 and that country is still in the dark ages, aviation wise.
My views certainly are relevant about this host nation.
Where is all this information I have missed?
How much information did we have on the Colgan BUF crash after 30 days? US Airways 1549? etc, etc? The BAC 777 at London?
And, I keep reading about deficient nav aids. This is 2010 and that country is still in the dark ages, aviation wise.
My views certainly are relevant about this host nation.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Age: 70
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Libya is not poor!
All: Libya may be thought of as "developing" but it is not poor: Libya has a Sovereign Wealth Fund of over $70 billion. One of the investment vehicles is the Libya-Africa Investment fund. The fund has around $8 billion in capital and was created by the Libyan government in February 2006. It is a sovereign wealth enterprise (SWE) of the Libyan Investment Authority, and one of the significant shareholders is............Afriqiyah Airways. Libya can well afford a decent airfield with state of the art navaids.
Pinkman
.
Pinkman
.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
perspective
During my seance in Abu Dhabi 1981-82, it was evident there was always plenty of money for "show" - new airplanes, new airport, new buildings (there was a beautiful new public library downtown, but it remained unopened because there weren't enough Islamic censors to approve the books). 
Meanwhile, the engine shop was quite makeshift. The roof was half-gone from a windstorm in early '81, and a year later no effort was expended on repairing same. Oh, did I tell you it rains in Abu Dhabi? We got 30 cm in a few days in Jan. '82. The shop was flooded 2-4 cm deep. Much of my time was spent on damage control.
So would I expect Tripoli to be much better? You'd have to prove it to me.
Meanwhile, the engine shop was quite makeshift. The roof was half-gone from a windstorm in early '81, and a year later no effort was expended on repairing same. Oh, did I tell you it rains in Abu Dhabi? We got 30 cm in a few days in Jan. '82. The shop was flooded 2-4 cm deep. Much of my time was spent on damage control.
So would I expect Tripoli to be much better? You'd have to prove it to me.
Person Of Interest
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Keystone Heights, Florida
Age: 68
Posts: 842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aterpster...Exactly, you "keep reading"...what about "doing"?...
I repeat, have you ever worked or flown in the Mid-East or Africa?
Still don't (didn't) think so....
I repeat, have you ever worked or flown in the Mid-East or Africa?
Still don't (didn't) think so....