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

Afriqiyah Airbus 330 Crash

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

Old 24th May 2010, 04:32
  #881 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: mumbai
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
the libyans are the only pilots that have ever given me a shaker at 1000' on final...almost happened twice. only pilots i've ever had drift left of centerline all the way to the edge, still drifting after liftoff with a 10kt crosswind. only pilots i've ever seen lose all situational awareness, inadvertantly cross the fence at ref+35, and float halfway down an 11,000ft runway...all the while pumping the controls while i have to remind them 'don't force it on. don't force it on. don't force it on.'

*sigh* glad i got out of there.
starvingcfi is offline  
Old 24th May 2010, 06:45
  #882 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 1 Post
There is of course the possibility that in early morning thin patchy fog you might be able to see the runway well before minimums. However as you descended lower into the murk the slant and sun caused you to lose visual reference.

I flew an early morning approach last month where we went from Cavok to CAT3 conditions in this way, fortunately reflected in the Atis. So we were doing an autoland. Otherwise it would have been a certain go-around.

It does not change the end result But it would perhaps explain how they got to be where they were.

Equally lining up on a road as suggested earlier would explain it...but at your homebase?
lederhosen is offline  
Old 24th May 2010, 08:17
  #883 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Bothell, WA, USA
Age: 63
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Question: There's a lot of discussion here about CDA vs. dive and drive. Was the crew trained in and executing a CDA approach or were they doing a dive and drive? It seems to me the discussion is pointless unless we know the procedure at Afriqiyah and if the approach was flown properly (which we won't know for awhile).

For my part, CDA in the A330 is no different than a CDA in a Boeing 767. CDA requires everything final before you start down (gear/flaps/speed) and if you are not where you are suppose to be at 1000ft AGL and at DP, you go around. Before anyone starts shouting at me, yes, I do know that an Airbus and Boeing handle very differently, but the procedures aren't that different.

So, what am I missing?

speedbird716
speedbird716 is offline  
Old 24th May 2010, 09:21
  #884 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 1 Post
Well as I pointed out in the post above all could appear fine at 1000 feet or at least the pilot flying might think so. Below that height it is perfectly conceivable that a fatigued crew not terribly current in hand flying could end up unstabilised if they lost visual reference. Add a distracted crew, complacency etc. and the need to recover from an unfamiliar situation where the jet responds in a way you do not expect and some self anointed aces might have been challenged.

I too cannot see the point of the CDA versus dive and drive discussion, simply because I cannot imagine anyone flying a modern EFIS jet any other way than CDA...a jurassic jet that is a different matter.
lederhosen is offline  
Old 24th May 2010, 15:33
  #885 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: here and there
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I actually have information others donīt have and reluctantly will share some of it just to stop some of the bull...t on this thread:

-AAW771 was cleared for and executing the NDB 09 approach
-they did not report any problems nor did they request any medical assistance
-they announced and initiated a go-around at low level (tower radar and Alitalia TCAS)
-according to the official statement of the Alitalia crew that witnessed the crash, AAW771 descended out of the low clouds nose down, wings level and in one piece
-after violently hitting nose first it disintegrated with the tail separating and tumbling over

now please letīs wait for the DFDR and CVR readout to be completed
Sitting Bull is offline  
Old 24th May 2010, 17:34
  #886 (permalink)  
mike-wsm
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Jetjock330,
Mike-wsm,
Has anyone on this thread stalled this plane?
Yes, it does stall, outside of normal law. It is a simulator exercise we do in alternate law and it falls like a brick in a deep stall, nose down in the vertical. Don't expect much out of 14000ft!
Thanks for that.
 
Old 24th May 2010, 19:28
  #887 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Correr es mi destino por no llevar papel
Posts: 1,420
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by sitting Bull
-they announced and initiated a go-around at low level (tower radar and Alitalia TCAS)
Therefore quite long debris field and severe destruction could be result of high-speed shallow dive. Those big fans might need minor eternity to spool up but once spooled will propel light A330 quite spectacularly. I'm putting my money on crew succumbing to somatogravic illusion during manual go-around.

Boxes will tell their tale, anyway.
Clandestino is offline  
Old 24th May 2010, 19:39
  #888 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: here and there
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
dear Clandestine

Somatografic Illusion is one scenario weīre seriously considering at this stage
Sitting Bull is offline  
Old 24th May 2010, 19:48
  #889 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 897
Received 10 Likes on 6 Posts
Is it true of the A330 that the alpha-floor protection is locked out below a given radio altitude, as it is for the 320?
steamchicken is offline  
Old 24th May 2010, 21:59
  #890 (permalink)  
0-8
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yes, Alpha Floor is inhibited below 100ft on the approach.
0-8 is offline  
Old 24th May 2010, 22:11
  #891 (permalink)  
0-8
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Based on the info provided by Sitting Bull, there seems to be many similarities to Gulf Air 072 - i.e. a low altitude GA in marginal visual conditions where the PF lost situational awareness and pitched down instead of up.

Gulf Air Flight 072 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
0-8 is offline  
Old 25th May 2010, 06:16
  #892 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 1A
Posts: 8,532
Received 72 Likes on 41 Posts
If it was as Sitting Bull said, then it could have been similar to this go around event.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 25th May 2010, 08:48
  #893 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 3,032
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes on 11 Posts
Capn Bloggs,

Thank you for that fascinating link. Our lot have recently adopted those new procedures and I was not aware of the source of the problem.

If TOGA was not selected here (levers just short of the detent) and then the A/P engaged after manually pitching up, the aircraft will do exactly what you have told it to do and dive down aggressively with lots of thrust on.

But to do this you would have to:
  • Disconnect the A/P at minimums but forget to switch off the FD (SOP is FD off).
  • Not read and call your FMAs (fundamental Airbus stuff).
  • Engage the A/P with the FDs showing full fly down.

OR (if trying to GA with the AP on):
  • Push the levers almost all the way and you just accelerate downhill with an almost immediate AP disconnect.
  • Fail to pull up with the sidestick (as the FDs guide you down 3° slope).

If you have come from a slightly more old fashioned jet, it is instinctive to be gentle with the thrust levers. The Airbus demands a positive and rapid ramming of those levers at times.

If you are light and powerful, there is a further reluctance to ram the levers to TOGA. But ram them you must.

If you ever "fly through" the FDs in an Airbus, then you are asking for trouble*. You need to turn them off.

* Pedants: I know, apart from during the blending of modes in a V1 cut.

Last edited by HundredPercentPlease; 25th May 2010 at 15:59. Reason: One letter typo
HundredPercentPlease is online now  
Old 25th May 2010, 10:10
  #894 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Gulf Air Go Around

I wonder if this accident report will be similar to the Gulf Air A320 Accident of a few years ago when a combination of poor CRM, a dominant but not very capable Captain, an under confident and inexperienced co pilot managed to drive a perfectly serviceable aircraft into the Gulf at night while "going around"?

Bigpants
Bigpants is offline  
Old 25th May 2010, 14:23
  #895 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: When I am there, it is Thistleland
Age: 73
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I was back on the Thread after 3 days and I was glad to see that I had 3 or 4 pages of posts to read...
I thought that some of the discussions were drifting a little too much toward the "I do, you do" which was taking us nowhere as far as the accident was concerned.
I was admiring 100%Please description of the intricacies of flying the airbus (thanks, excellent post!!)
I was thinking of posting a "Sobering Thought" stating more or less " I am sure that some of the guys and chaps from AAIB, BEA, NTSB etc. with real knowledge will be smiling at our efforts and therefore we should never forget in our postings that ours are mainly guesses, educated guesses most of the time, but still guesses, just to keep all of us focused"

Then I came to Sitting Bull post.... and the light went off!!

Not for long though.... I put the light back on and started thinking again...

I am thinking that what Sitting Bull has shared with us is a great amount of information: Thanks for sharing that with us.
Now we can go back to the beginning and drop all the speculations on good v/s bad pilots, trained v/s untrained pilots, cultural issues, etc.
Here we are: normal approach, no emergencies, nothing out of the norm, including the decision to go around and to start the GA.... so far so good.

Where I am perplexed is in the last two bullets of Sitting Bull information
-according to the official statement of the Alitalia crew that witnessed the crash, AAW771 descended out of the low clouds nose down, wings level and in one piece
-after violently hitting nose first it disintegrated with the tail separating and tumbling over
I am trying to fit this description with what I saw. Granted, I only saw a little part (and I have already said so) of the area outside the field of debris, therefore I am well aware that I do not have all the facts, nor I pretend to say so.

However, Sitting Bull statement has increased exponentially my questions!
Some examples: Where did the nose first impact occurred? How does a nose first impact tie with the debris field and the markings present on the ground? (not only from the limited pictures on the ground, but also the videos from above openly available); How did the nose eradicate the electrical poles (if it was the nose)?; How did the electrical wire ended in the tail cone?; How were the cactus cut? And many more....

Also, I do not think that there is a clear line of sight to the beginning of the debris field from holding point Rwy 09, where the Alitalia aircraft was. I think that there are several trees and bushes. Could it be that the AZ pilots saw the second part of the initial impact? Could it be that during the GA the aircraft bottomed, scraping the electrical line with the tail, hitting with the back, bouncing up, nosing down and this is what the Alitalia pilots saw?
I do not know and I do not want to speculate at this point. From my side, I will stop speculating and will wait for the report.

Sitting Bull, thanks again for the access to real information you have granted all of us.

C-SAR
C-SAR is offline  
Old 25th May 2010, 15:33
  #896 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 776
Received 3 Likes on 1 Post
C-SAR
However, Sitting Bull statement has increased exponentially my questions!
Some examples: Where did the nose first impact occurred? How does a nose first impact tie with the debris field and the markings present on the ground? (not only from the limited pictures on the ground, but also the videos from above openly available); How did the nose eradicate the electrical poles (if it was the nose)?; How did the electrical wire ended in the tail cone?; How were the cactus cut? And many more....
You had been on the scene, so your statement concerning the poles and lines and the beginning of the debris field have a very strong handle, therefore aperently nobody saw any need to question your assesment.
Now, that you rise those questions yourself, iīm keen to add some points. There is no intention to downsize your work, you have done a hell of a job there.

In another non-english forum, which i canīt find anymore, the discussion over the lines and poles was also taking place with on scene pictures shortly after the crash. On those pictures a lot of undamaged lines (power or phone-lines) could be observed. On later pictures some of those lines had been gone. The outcome in this forum being, that there was no contact with powerlines prior to the contact with the ground and some of the lines had been downed later.

So could it be possible, that the lines wrapped around the tailsection are not from the initial impact area and have nothing to do with the downed lines prior to the impact area. Could those lines have been downed earlier, or could they have been damaged during rescue and salvage operations with heavy equipment? Those poles look like being 3 to 4 meters long? Depending on the way they are fixed to the poles those lines may hang as low as two meters in open area (though they would be higher over streets). A Heavy crane might well be too big to go underneath them.
At least one pole looks like it just has fallen near the place it had been standing before, not beeing dragged at all. And at least two poles look on the pictures as if they had been lying already some time. On one pole the lines had been stored in a manner, like companies would do it if they remove a section of cables temporarily.
The lines at the tail could be coming from downed lines after the initial impact area, as mentioned before there seem to bee a lot of lines in the area. Maybe the cause for the downed lines had been known to the authorities, therefore the area was accessible for you.

Considering the hard ground, the area you visited is probably the initial impact area, the initial contact shearing off the nosegear or collapsing it. The cactus can be cut from the wings or a engine nacelle. The main gear together with the strong wingbox gets overstresed in the impact simultaneously, which leads to the immidiate breakup of the fuselage and the detachement of the tail.

The bigger question with all scenarios is imho the absence of contact marks from the engines. Could a crash landing like described above lead to the complete detachement of the wingsection together with the wings and engines, thus not contacting the ground in the initial impact area but tumbling ahead of the airctraft until the final resting place at the end of the debris-field? Later contact-points with the ground would be wiped out by the onfollowing fuselage debris.

franzl

Last edited by RetiredF4; 25th May 2010 at 16:53.
RetiredF4 is offline  
Old 25th May 2010, 15:35
  #897 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: here and there
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
dear C-SAR

youīre most welcome

and I agree with you that the Alitalia witness report is just that: a report of what they witnessed.

whatever happened before AAW771 came into their view remains to be extracted from the DFDR and the CVR (work in progress)
Sitting Bull is offline  
Old 25th May 2010, 16:20
  #898 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 3,032
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes on 11 Posts
Originally Posted by C-SAR
I am trying to fit this description with what I saw
To me the trench looks like it's made by the front of the aircraft going in at a shallow angle but with high energy. The front half of the fuselage is fully destroyed (small pieces), the tough wing box and wings carry on forwards, the rear is destroyed in bigger pieces (as the energy is reduced) until the tail arrives and is left intact.

As has been said - any more has to come from the recorders.
HundredPercentPlease is online now  
Old 25th May 2010, 18:54
  #899 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: When I am there, it is Thistleland
Age: 73
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ret'dF4

Thanks for your post. I fully agree with you that there can be other explanations for what I saw. I tried to convey that thought few pages ago when cautioning that my visit was just a peek, a blink of the eye. Of course only a thorough, long and detailed inspection of all the elements in the crash site can lead the investigators to draw conclusions.

Thanks again for your comments. I am sure most of us will read with great interest the final report, when it will be published.

C-SAR
C-SAR is offline  
Old 25th May 2010, 20:44
  #900 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
C-SAR thanks

You informed us of what you saw and, possibly without realising it, what you did not see. What you saw was likely is close to fact as is reasonable given the time delay and movement on the site. Investigators will have already interpreted what you and they saw.

Others interpreted your info and combined it with info from elsewhere. Let's see how close the recorder dump is to the speculation on this thread. My guess is that you will be in the 5% who's inputs are consistent with the reality.

Thanks again.
daikilo is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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.