Afriqiyah Airbus 330 Crash
BOAC:
PBL - reducing to basics, and ignoring the 'doubts' on the AB control laws, we have to accept that the tail broke off well before the rest of it came down and if the Alitalia is to be believed it was well nose-down at impact. As said many times, all pitch/power etc is recorded up to loss of tail section at least
PBL - reducing to basics, and ignoring the 'doubts' on the AB control laws, we have to accept that the tail broke off well before the rest of it came down and if the Alitalia is to be believed it was well nose-down at impact. As said many times, all pitch/power etc is recorded up to loss of tail section at least
Finding those two pieces together it could be possible, the gear broke off together with or shortly after the tailstrike?
franzl
Last edited by RetiredF4; 19th May 2010 at 09:59.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To snowfalcon #1, and infrequentflyer: Maybe. But we would then have to reconcile this with the apparent fact that one main is lying close to the start of the debris trail, which suggests rather that they weren't stowed. Or at least not completely stowed. That might account for it.
To snowfalcon #2: no, the protection does not allow the AoA to exceed AlphaMax. (A stall would be LOC, wouldn't it, not CFIT.)
Another puzzle: If the aircraft were pointing 16+° in the air when the tail hit, where are the swathes from the blast of those engines, which I would expect to see before the "tail cone impact" point?
Suppose one says: they were idling. I don't think that would fit: if they were idling, how come the nose would have been pointing 16+° up?
PBL
To snowfalcon #2: no, the protection does not allow the AoA to exceed AlphaMax. (A stall would be LOC, wouldn't it, not CFIT.)
Another puzzle: If the aircraft were pointing 16+° in the air when the tail hit, where are the swathes from the blast of those engines, which I would expect to see before the "tail cone impact" point?
Suppose one says: they were idling. I don't think that would fit: if they were idling, how come the nose would have been pointing 16+° up?
PBL
Last edited by PBL; 19th May 2010 at 10:54. Reason: forgot whom I was replying to!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: At home
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(A stall would be LOC, wouldn't it, not CFIT.)
But if the protection system precludes the above, then that's it.
Regarding CFIT and what is not. I have not seen any strict formal definition of "CFIT" but IMHO it means something like "CFIT is when the aircraft is flown into a position from where a terrain impact is inevitable". What happens thereafter, in control or not, is then irrelevant. Pls correct me if wrong.
Guest
Posts: n/a
If the portion of the tail that's relatively intact is indicative of where the tail became separated, there's a good chance the DFDR/CVR were not affected and should contain data to the very end, for what it's worth. According to the training manual, the A332 has them located ahead of the left aft door which is a fair distance further forward than the tail section on the ground.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Camel jockey
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I say, it was just a thought. In a calm, prepared environment, a selected-selected NPA is a complete doddle (though I prefer and love managed-managed!). There will be something amiss on this one, which only the boxes will reveal.
So it is quite possible that they did everything right and lost sight of the field and control of the aircraft after they had commited to land.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Scotland
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is more than likely Bia, as any pilot of experience would admit. Landing into the sun and mist is never a doddle even for John wayne types! This was not a CATIII approach, and by its nature requires visual contact. In what circumstances the sighting was made, what actions were taken when it was made, we will never know till we see the report.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: bush
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The picture linked from post #311 shows a maintainence road paralell to the runway starting right behind the mosque. What would be the chances the pilot was errenously aiming for that road? The road being much thinner than the runway, the optical illusion would be that one is still safely high and far away.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Patterson, NY
Age: 66
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been reading this thread with a lot of interest and have noted an occasional post alluding to blinding sunlight as a possible source of flight deck disorientation.
However, as SLF I don't quite understand that premise. Don't you guys and gals up front in the pointy end wear sunglasses? If you do, don't they help? I"m sure the sunglasses you wear are of the highest quality so I don't understand how sunlight can be of such a distraction.
I'm sure someone will be along shortly to correct my assumptions. I meant this not in the least bit disrespectful. Merely curious.
Thanks.
However, as SLF I don't quite understand that premise. Don't you guys and gals up front in the pointy end wear sunglasses? If you do, don't they help? I"m sure the sunglasses you wear are of the highest quality so I don't understand how sunlight can be of such a distraction.
I'm sure someone will be along shortly to correct my assumptions. I meant this not in the least bit disrespectful. Merely curious.
Thanks.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rgbrock1:
They don't help when the fireball is close to the runway.
However, as SLF I don't quite understand that premise. Don't you guys and gals up front in the pointy end wear sunglasses? If you do, don't they help? I"m sure the sunglasses you wear are of the highest quality so I don't understand how sunlight can be of such a distraction.
Guest
Posts: n/a
There must be dozens of differences between this incident and AF447, but there are two similarities, both planes were flying little more than stall speed and both planes simply fell out of the sky. Can the professional pilots who fly these types comment on the possiblity of unintended spoiler deployment, please? I read that the spoilers deploy when the spoiler lever is armed and the throttles are both reduced to idle.
Edit: This may be relevant - click here
Edit: This may be relevant - click here
SkyGod
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Palm Coast, Florida, USA
Age: 67
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
1 Post
I read that the spoilers deploy when the spoiler lever is armed and the throttles are both reduced to idle.
pictures today ground level
More pictures from a favored source, which I believe were taken today in three batches.
I'll post in the three batches. The original images I've posted on the same photo-hosting site I am using to host the ones down-sampled for inline posting here. If you wish to review or download any of the pictures (from these three batches and a previous batch) at full original resolution, you can find them here:
Full resolution photos from a favored source
All the pictures suffer serious blurring, whether from focus, camera motion, or imperfect transparencies. They still may help as to one point or another. With this in mind, I've chose to post all the pictures available, thinking the chance I might hide useful information by failing to post some outweighs the inconvenience and extra bandwidth of posting some which add nothing. On another topic of less interest or with better alternate information I would not be so profligate.
This first batch appear to have been taken at ground level, earlier in the day than the other two batches. The three are quite similar.
I'll post in the three batches. The original images I've posted on the same photo-hosting site I am using to host the ones down-sampled for inline posting here. If you wish to review or download any of the pictures (from these three batches and a previous batch) at full original resolution, you can find them here:
Full resolution photos from a favored source
All the pictures suffer serious blurring, whether from focus, camera motion, or imperfect transparencies. They still may help as to one point or another. With this in mind, I've chose to post all the pictures available, thinking the chance I might hide useful information by failing to post some outweighs the inconvenience and extra bandwidth of posting some which add nothing. On another topic of less interest or with better alternate information I would not be so profligate.
This first batch appear to have been taken at ground level, earlier in the day than the other two batches. The three are quite similar.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike:
Can the professional pilots who fly these types comment on the possiblity of unintended spoiler deployment, please? I read that the spoilers deploy when the spoiler lever is armed and the throttles are both reduced to idle.
Can the professional pilots who fly these types comment on the possiblity of unintended spoiler deployment, please? I read that the spoilers deploy when the spoiler lever is armed and the throttles are both reduced to idle.
from the air, second of two batches
more from the air, different viewpoint and camera, same favored source:
The observer made these comments based on cumulative personal site viewing:
I, personally, am not a pilot, but am attempting to assist as an intermediary.
The observer made these comments based on cumulative personal site viewing:
First: It looks like the parallel marks that originate from the impact point could actually have been left by the fuselage itself sliding on the sand, then upon hitting the slightly elevated perpendicular road, the tail shears, the rest "trampolines" up and the destruction sequence begins as already amply and expertly described.
Second: the field of debris, although thinning out, seems to extend all the way to the final resting place of the wings.
Third, short of the wings resting place it seems to be a part of some size and bulk. I leave to the experts on the A330 to try to identify it.
Second: the field of debris, although thinning out, seems to extend all the way to the final resting place of the wings.
Third, short of the wings resting place it seems to be a part of some size and bulk. I leave to the experts on the A330 to try to identify it.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chester, Cheshire, UK
Age: 68
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, as SLF I don't quite understand that premise. Don't you guys and gals up front in the pointy end wear sunglasses? If you do, don't they help? I"m sure the sunglasses you wear are of the highest quality so I don't understand how sunlight can be of such a distraction.
If you do, you will surely have been in the situation where you find it almost impossible to look directly out of your windscreen because the sun is directly in front of you. No sunglasses are good enough to protect you from that!
On another note, there is much use here of the rather unfortunate term "Pilot Error" and as non-pilots I think we need to look at it in relation to our own situation. The closest we come to being in the same situation as the pilots on an aircraft is when we're driving our car where everything happens at snails pace compared to the speed of an aircraft in flight and I know from my own history just how close I've been to having a serious accident on more than one occasion due to any number of factors where sheer luck seems to have been the only thing between us and disaster ... and we have the advantage of being able to stop if necessary without gravity having a significant negative effect.
In those situations there are an infinite number of possible scenarios and often a similar number of solutions more wrong than right and a very fine line between "Oh s**t!! You idiot!" and "Phew, that was close! Well done!".
In a car that might mean an expensive repair job and a week on the bus ... in an aircraft that usually means many dead and injured.
So, even if this comes back as "Pilot error" don't be too quick to condemn them. That "error" may simply have been one of any number of split second decisions that had to be made which on a flip of the coin could have gone either way.
We know pilots train endlessly in simulators to avoid this but in the heat of the moment the situation may not exactly match the carefully simulated rehearsal and they're effectively on their own at that point.
Like many kids, when I was young, I dreamed of learning to fly and seriously considered it, but don't consider I have "the right stuff" to be able to react correctly in all situations. I have nothing but great respect for those who do.
Originally Posted by archae86
more from the air, different viewpoint and camera, same favored source
On the very last photo an interesting detail not seen before: the wings came to rest upside down (flap mechanism cowlings clearly visible), yet pointing forward. That is clearly at odds with the break-up sequence I have speculated on earlier. I cannot envision how after a tail strike in wings level attitude the wings could have become inverted while maintaining a straight line of motion, and remain intact in the process. Anyone any ideas... ?
From looking at the recently posted pictures by archae86 (thanks for doing that) does anyone see what I think I see - in the third to last picture (sort of overview of the final resting place for the wings) does it seem that there is a break in the debris field to the right of what appears to be a significant impact gouge in the ground leading to the wings? I'm trying to figure how the debris field can be so long, and how the various pieces can to be where they are. What seems plausible from the pictures so far is something like:
- Initial contact with the ground in a pitch-up attitude causing tail strike and shortly after loss of the tail assembly entirely
- The remaining aft fuselage continues to contact the ground, breaking up as it travels
- Assuming TOGA thrust was demanded just before or coincident with ground contact, thrust is still available from the engines, however shortly after loss of the tail, at least one engine leaves the wing (probably both).
- However the immediate attitude is one of pitch-up, causing the remaining structure to leave the ground momentarily (accounting for the gap in the debris field/ground contact path, though I suppose some debris continues to leave the aircraft, just a lot smaller pieces)
- Obviously stricken, and primarily due to the loss of the tail the CofG, moves far forward, and combined with the center of pressure being far behind (due to flaps), the aircraft pitches violently nose down, resulting in destruction of the forward cabin, leaving the wings as effectively the only remaining part of the aircraft (which would explain the Alitalia report seeing the aircraft 20 degress pitch down)
- The wings and wing box continue as one structure and tumble (explaining the fact they are upside-down) until arrested by the perimeter fence, whereupon a short lived flash fire consumes whatever is left of the fuel (I can only really see evidence of fire at the wing site)
Comments?
- GY
- Initial contact with the ground in a pitch-up attitude causing tail strike and shortly after loss of the tail assembly entirely
- The remaining aft fuselage continues to contact the ground, breaking up as it travels
- Assuming TOGA thrust was demanded just before or coincident with ground contact, thrust is still available from the engines, however shortly after loss of the tail, at least one engine leaves the wing (probably both).
- However the immediate attitude is one of pitch-up, causing the remaining structure to leave the ground momentarily (accounting for the gap in the debris field/ground contact path, though I suppose some debris continues to leave the aircraft, just a lot smaller pieces)
- Obviously stricken, and primarily due to the loss of the tail the CofG, moves far forward, and combined with the center of pressure being far behind (due to flaps), the aircraft pitches violently nose down, resulting in destruction of the forward cabin, leaving the wings as effectively the only remaining part of the aircraft (which would explain the Alitalia report seeing the aircraft 20 degress pitch down)
- The wings and wing box continue as one structure and tumble (explaining the fact they are upside-down) until arrested by the perimeter fence, whereupon a short lived flash fire consumes whatever is left of the fuel (I can only really see evidence of fire at the wing site)
Comments?
- GY
Last edited by GarageYears; 20th May 2010 at 01:05.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Scotland
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike:
Can the professional pilots who fly these types comment on the possiblity of unintended spoiler deployment, please? I read that the spoilers deploy when the spoiler lever is armed and the throttles are both reduced to idle.
Can the professional pilots who fly these types comment on the possiblity of unintended spoiler deployment, please? I read that the spoilers deploy when the spoiler lever is armed and the throttles are both reduced to idle.
