Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Afriqiyah Airbus 330 Crash

Wikiposts
Search
Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Afriqiyah Airbus 330 Crash

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 7th Jun 2010, 08:18
  #1021 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hendrik - they are indeed valid questions you ask. I think I would have waited a while. In any case, I would expect the airfield to 'close' because all the rescue services would be off-field.
BOAC is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2010, 09:13
  #1022 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The European continent
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This is probably the reason why Alitalia refuses to give a statement. They probably have an internal investigation to find out why (if) they took off with the knowledge that emergency service is not available. There is room for an explanation.
METO power is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2010, 10:19
  #1023 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Netherlands
Age: 71
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Witness report Alitalia

Thanks Sitting Bull. I did read your post carefully but remain with the question: if, as you post you know for a fact from your source, the Alitalia crew witnessed the crash how is it then possible that none of the passengers have spoken to the press?

That can be explained very simple: either there were very few passengers on board and nobody looked outside (it is very unusual passenger do NOT look outside at time of take-off), or the passengers actually did not see anything because the angle they looked to the outside was different to the viewing angle of the pilot. And that I do not understand.

AZ is fully entitled to keep the official report confidential. I absolutely understand that. But no company can order passengers not to speak out.

Last edited by HendrikJan; 7th Jun 2010 at 13:37. Reason: spelling error
HendrikJan is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2010, 11:17
  #1024 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: EU
Age: 82
Posts: 5,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Alitalia

Hendrik: My drift would be the following: The pilots had more information than the passengers. They knew there was a plane coming and had the collision warning system on - they knew what to look for. Then probably only some parts of the a/c were visible at times above the bushes and there was no major immediate fire. Pretty conceivable that the pax did not realize anything. What is not conceivable to me is how did the pilots have or considered that they had a take-off clearance. Good reason for a big silence, right?
RegDep is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2010, 14:28
  #1025 (permalink)  
wozzo
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by HendrikJan
But no company can order passengers not to speak out.
How do you know they didn't talked or want to talk about it? If no journalist was quick enough to catch them at arrival, it will be hard if no one of the passengers called the media directly. Have you searched Facebook, *Twitter*, Italian fora etc. thoroughly?

Anyway, I guess they wouldn't have much information. If (if!) they looked outside a window, can one expect a non-professional to provide accurate information?

Last edited by wozzo; 7th Jun 2010 at 14:31. Reason: Clarifying, Masking *Twitter*
 
Old 7th Jun 2010, 14:51
  #1026 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Netherlands
Age: 71
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Alitalia

Thanks wozzo. I am getting out of the discussion now. I will wait for the official report. I had hoped that more info on the official report was available. As long as it is not published I guess we have to let it rest as speculation rather than facts may dominate further discussions. I don't want to go that way.
HendrikJan is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2010, 15:25
  #1027 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: SOF BG/EU
Age: 63
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
CVR: "conversations don't show signs of pilots noticing something going wrong"

Dutch media (Afriqiyah-crash een groot raadsel - Binnenland - Telegraaf.nl [24 uur actueel, ook mobiel] [binnenland]) quote Afriqiyah CEO Shadi saying in interviews in Berlin that, according to the CVR transcripts "as extracted this week in Paris", at least the conversations in the cockpit do not show any signs of the pilots "being aware of a sudden danger or of a pilot noticing that someting goes wrong." "Suddenly there is silence", Shadi is quoted, after he indicated that "until one second before the crash" there was radio-contact with the tower. Shadi continues to say that the accident cause is "therefore also for us a great mystery".

I have underlined "the conversations", because I cannot believe that there were no aural messages to be heard under the circumstances.

Dutch
D Bru is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2010, 19:32
  #1028 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A jet descending towards the ground in landing configuration at a normal rate will not trigger the GPWS and may nog trigger the EGPWS.
76-er is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2010, 19:41
  #1029 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: VA, USA
Age: 58
Posts: 578
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
According the System Description document issued by Airbus for the Allied Signal CVR, the unit records 4 channels of audio:

Channel 1 - Capt - all audio transmitted by the capt (radio and i/c)
Channel 2 - F/O - all audio transmitted by the F/O (radio and i/c)
Channel 3 - 3rd occupant - all audio transmitted by the 3rd crew (radio and i/c)
Channel 4 - Cockpit ambient mic

Therefore any background noise, warnings and cautions, etc, along with non-transmitted audio (crew chat) would have been picked up on the 4th channel.

Doesn't the FWC issue normal rad alt height call outs during descent? Synthetic voice callouts are issued in increments of 100 feet starting at 300 feet down to 100, and then at 50 feet in 10 foot increments.

- GY
GarageYears is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2010, 19:46
  #1030 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From what I know, the exact altitude callouts on approach can be pin-selected by the operator.
76-er is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2010, 19:53
  #1031 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: VA, USA
Age: 58
Posts: 578
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From what I know, the exact altitude callouts on approach can be pin-selected by the operator.
That may indeed be true - I don't have access to the FWC documentation to know whether you can pin-select all of the call outs to OFF... that would seem a rather foolish design if you can.

- GY
GarageYears is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2010, 20:00
  #1032 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yes it would be. On my airplane (747-4) the next autocallout after '500' is '50'. Dunno about the average 332...
76-er is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2010, 20:17
  #1033 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Subterranea
Age: 70
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This A330 FCOM example contains info about the automated voice callouts. See section 1.34.40 - Radio Altimeter.

http://www.smartcockpit.com/data/pdf...Navigation.pdf

G-d
Green-dot is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2010, 11:45
  #1034 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: EU
Age: 82
Posts: 5,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
@ Sitting Bull

Do you see a discrepancy in the postinng #1036 and the statement in your posting #894: "-they announced and initiated a go-around at low level (tower radar and Alitalia TCAS)"? If yes, would you be in a position to elaborate some?
Thanks RD
RegDep is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2010, 15:27
  #1035 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: SOF BG/EU
Age: 63
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
@ 76-er

I was indeed not only referring to rad alt callouts, but also to Premature Decent Alerting (PDA), or in Honeywell terms Terrain Clearance Floor (TCF) alerts.

You are right to say that EGWPS MAY not give an alert when the A/C is fully configured for landing and within an normal descent envelope.

Up to how close to the RWY PDA will provoke an alert in those circumstances depends on the advancement of the EGWPS/PDA hard- and software installed.

I presume this allmost brandnew A/C was mounted with the latest (incl. data on the A/C home-base), and therefore likely to provoke an alert relatively close to the RWY. A Honeywell TCF video speaks of 0,5 nm (link below).

General Information - Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System - Honeywell Aerospace

Dutch

Last edited by D Bru; 11th Jun 2010 at 11:56. Reason: adding link to Honeywell TCF video
D Bru is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2010, 09:52
  #1036 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: here and there
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dear RegDep

Just where do you see a discrepancy?

Do you suggest that the initiation of a go-around should cause confusion or even panic in the cockpit?

Dear HendrikJan

Alitalia was approaching the holding point for Rwy 09
Sitting Bull is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2010, 10:23
  #1037 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: EU
Age: 82
Posts: 5,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sitting Bull

Sir, in my ill-thought-of question I was looking for confirmation that the newspaper article was correct in its reference to the CVR in not mentioning the go-around and/or the reason of it. I am not thinking, nor believing, that the crew could not handle a GA. As told by you earlier and repeatedly, I, as all of us, should have waited for the official information to be published.
RegDep is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2010, 11:42
  #1038 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: en route
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
possible answer to your conundrum...

HendrikJan: If you are still monitoring this, I might propose a scenario.

A pilot is at holding point (or nearby) on a foreign airfield with no real facilities for a long ground stay, where the local authorities and facilities are, (shall we say), not exactly "first world" in all aspects; and where the pilot is in command of a lightly-loaded aircraft, working for an airline that is in deep financial trouble.

He sees, directly ahead of him, an inbound aircraft fly into the ground and disappear in a cloud of dust.

Perhaps he has two choices:

1: abort take off, return to stand, park up, shut down, offload pax, and prepare for himself, crew, aircraft, cargo and pax to be stuck there, in a grotty hotel, more or less indefinitely (or until local authorities decide to let them all go, which if the pilot is a material witness might not be for some time).

2: He pushes TL to TO power, and slips away in the confusion, flying directly over the wreckage trail of the crashed aircraft, (which his pax would not see as they are not looking directly ahead), and mutters "there but for the grace of God" or words to that effect.

I would suggest that Airline management, freight recipients, pax, and crew would all be intensely grateful for him to take the second option.

Not, of course, suggesting that this is what happened. But if I were aboard that aircraft, I would be grateful he made that call.

Whether the Alitalia internal investigation agrees is a different matter, of course.
rcsa is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2010, 14:33
  #1039 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Age: 83
Posts: 3,788
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Well, if I were in the situation of watching a large passenger aircraft spearing into the ground right in front of me just before my take-off, my first reaction (after "Oh Dear") would be "Where are the fire engines likely to be in the next few seconds"?

For a passenger flight that requires at least a Fire Category of 6 (or similar) for departure, then that is not going to happen in these circumstances is it?

Are you seriously going to tell me that, in the event of something very simple such as my having a rejected take-off leading to a brake fire etc and an evacution being needed, then the fire engines are going to leave the site of the original major disaster and come and assist me within two minutes? Of course not.

Even if they did, would the fire engines have anything left on board with which to fight a fire?

I'm sorry, but this is one of those occasions where the smart move is to taxi back to the ramp and let existing events take their course first. After all, you and your crew and all of your passengers are going to be safe.
JW411 is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2010, 15:04
  #1040 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: en route
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
JW411

Of course, if the Alitalia aircraft was operating within SOPs, you are right JW411. I am just mulling around an answer to a puzzling question, and putting a hypothesis out. If, as it seems, the Alitalia flight was ready for TO (but not yet airborne) as the Afriqiya aircraft crashed, yet it arrived in FCO on schedule, there has to have been a decision process that was out of the ordinary. I'm proposing one possibility.
rcsa is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.