7 month old Airbus A330-200 Crash Lands in Tripoli - Libya with one survivor

[Danny]

Link

Another tragic air mishap. Its not a great year for commercial aviation, Especially Airbus. If this one is found to be aircraft fault (Airbus A330-200 "5A-ONG" - Delivered to Afriqiyah in September 09'), then Airbus will be bleeding. Apparently it came to rest 900m from the end of the runway within the airport perimeter, with no post crash fire.

Its the third hull loss to date of an Airbus A330 where fatalities were involved. One 8 year old Dutch boy survived. RIP to those tragically killed in this incident. Lets hope the Libyan government provides full co-operation to investigators so the cause of this loss can be found.

-Dan

[max]

Yes, dreadful business. What are the reports saying actually happened? I thought I heard it broke up prior to touchdown?

[CFOUR]

Sole survivor, mabey he's unbreakable like Bruce wills in that horrible movie of the same name.

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by max

Yes, dreadful business. What are the reports saying actually happened? I thought I heard it broke up prior to touchdown?

The aircraft had touched down well before the runway... not broken up in the air. It was a low speed crash into the ground. More then likely witnesses possibly saw the plane bounce into the air after initial impact?

Several news reports say different things, one inlcuded a witness saying it plowed through buildings at the airport perimeter. Another story say the weather was foggy, one said it was clear.
One report says the ILS system at the airport was also reported faulty by prior landing aircraft.

At the end of the day will have to wait what the accident investigation report reads.

A sad day indeed for all families affected.

[GT0132]

Airbus A330 - the modern day DC-10

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by GT0132

Airbus A330 - the modern day DC-10

To quote a phrase often used, but one is innocent till proven guilty.
Most aircraft accidents (yes the majority) are cause by human error.

A plane landing short of the runway has nothing to do with its make.

[MexicanBatman]

no fire = no fuel

just a guess...

but every vid i've ever seen of a plane going down has ended in a spectacular fire ball

[DBourne]

1 survivour? how errie would that be

[Danny]

Originally Posted by GT0132

Airbus A330 - the modern day DC-10

Three Fatal hull losses in nearly 20 years, the first was human error, the second is unknown (but it has been assumed to be aircraft error), and this one we have no idea yet. The Boeing 747 had nearly 15 hull losses in it's first 20 years, and fatal accidents involving loss of life that were by manufacturer fault.

Unfortunately for Airbus its the timeframe of these incidents involving A330's that the media is over hyping now as a result of AF447 and the QF 330 that lost altitude over Perth. Its insane, I do not believe there is a thing wrong with the 330 Airframe, it's used in the A340 with little problems. Its media hype, and a willingness of people to point the finger with little knowledge.

Apparently the Afriqiyah 330 was attempting a second landing. A take off Go around (I'm led to believe) is one of the most dangerous maneuvers a pilot can pull. I highly doubt then that this was a failure on the part of the aircraft. As these Airbus 330 "errors" have generally caused havoc during Cruising height in full AP mode. Of course this is speculation.

I do believe that the runway that was being used was a non ILS runway as well...

[xy500]

Originally Posted by Danny

Three Fatal hull losses in nearly 20 years, the first was human error, the second is unknown (but it has been assumed to be aircraft error), and this one we have no idea yet. The Boeing 747 had nearly 15 hull losses in it's first 20 years, and fatal accidents involving loss of life that were by manufacturer fault.

Unfortunately for Airbus its the timeframe of these incidents involving A330's that the media is over hyping now as a result of AF447 and the QF 330 that lost altitude over Perth. Its insane, I do not believe there is a thing wrong with the 330 Airframe, it's used in the A340 with little problems. Its media hype, and a willingness of people to point the finger with little knowledge.

Apparently the Afriqiyah 330 was attempting a second landing. A take off Go around (I'm led to believe) is one of the most dangerous maneuvers a pilot can pull. I highly doubt then that this was a failure on the part of the aircraft. As these Airbus 330 "errors" have generally caused havoc during Cruising height in full AP mode. Of course this is speculation.

I do believe that the runway that was being used was a non ILS runway as well...

It was a libyan airline wasn't it? common sense says dodgy libyan pilot. people love a scare story, and picking on the airbus is a great one for the un informed.

[CFOUR]

Originally Posted by andrewg6e

no fire = no fuel

just a guess...

but every vid i've ever seen of a plane going down has ended in a spectacular fire ball

I watched a doco on plane fire-balls, they put a big effort into stopping fireballs.

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by andrewg6e

no fire = no fuel

just a guess...

but every vid i've ever seen of a plane going down has ended in a spectacular fire ball

No fire doesnt mean no fuel...

AVTUR is Kerosene. Difficult to ignite unless its a fine mist or compressed.

It was a libyan airline wasn't it? common sense says dodgy libyan pilot. people love a scare story, and picking on the airbus is a great one for the un informed.

Oh please grow a brain.... yes of course he is dodgey. He must be.
"They" allow anyone to fly "overthere" in Libyia.... Dumbest comment I heard all week....

[Jim Goose]

I do believe that the runway that was being used was a non ILS runway as well...

I havent been able to find any info on what runway it was landing at.
RWY09 has an ILS and RWY27 had a Localiser.

[opto]

If it aint Boeing,Im not going

[MexicanBatman]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

No fire doesnt mean no fuel...

AVTUR is Kerosene. Difficult to ignite unless its a fine mist or compressed.



Oh please grow a brain.... yes of course he is dodgey. He must be.
"They" allow anyone to fly "overthere" in Libyia.... Dumbest comment I heard all week....

when they find the fuel gauge it'll be empty.... ok no gauge but still she was empty

[Swordsman88]

Some particularly silly comments so far in this thread. If you don't understand what you are talking about then best keep quiet IMO. Or at least be smart enough to ask those more knowledge to assist (bearing in mind this early on in the investigation there is little but conjecture).

Plenty of online resources out there just a google sweep away that will provide some useful discussion material to get started. Such as the issue of the runways in use at tripoli and the weather in this case.... the former raised by Jim Goose earlier....

[aye you]

from a well known rumour network (well, well known to pilots anyways)

* Approach was made at dawn, straight towards the rising sun (sea level sunrise 6:11LT)
* Conditions were hazy, reported visibility on ground ~5000m, however in sunlit haze no more than ~2000m
* Depending on actual time of accident (btw. 6:00-6:10LT) the aircraft made some or all of the approach in sunlight, possibly descending into earth shadow shortly before hiting the ground.
* Impact position about 1.5km from threshold, wreckage field slightly right of centerline, in line with far end of approach lights.
* Very fragmented wreckage suggests impact in unusual attitude, a wings level low descent approach speed impact on flat terrain with hardly any meaningful obstacles would not have resulted in such disintegration.
* Based on above a likely scenario a sharp low level corrective bank when seeing approach lights resulting in a wingtip clipping ground (or buildings).

Not my own writing, but a quick summary. Sword, looks like they were using RWY09 at the time, but Tripoli is well known for having faulty navaids

[xy500]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Oh please grow a brain.... yes of course he is dodgey. He must be.
"They" allow anyone to fly "overthere" in Libyia.... Dumbest comment I heard all week....

You obviously didnt get my point, which is that everyone seems to like to pick on airbus, but my suggestion was it is less likely an aircraft problem as it was human error. So why don't you take a chill pill. you wouldn't catch me flying garuda indonesia, whether their planes are boeing's or airbus's. their crash record is shocking - obviously not the airplane's fault though is it?
and it's spelt LIBYA buddy.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by aye you

from a well known rumour network (well, well known to pilots anyways)

* Approach was made at dawn, straight towards the rising sun (sea level sunrise 6:11LT)
* Conditions were hazy, reported visibility on ground ~5000m, however in sunlit haze no more than ~2000m
* Depending on actual time of accident (btw. 6:00-6:10LT) the aircraft made some or all of the approach in sunlight, possibly descending into earth shadow shortly before hiting the ground.
* Impact position about 1.5km from threshold, wreckage field slightly right of centerline, in line with far end of approach lights.
* Very fragmented wreckage suggests impact in unusual attitude, a wings level low descent approach speed impact on flat terrain with hardly any meaningful obstacles would not have resulted in such disintegration.
* Based on above a likely scenario a sharp low level corrective bank when seeing approach lights resulting in a wingtip clipping ground (or buildings).

Not my own writing, but a quick summary. Sword, looks like they were using RWY09 at the time, but Tripoli is well known for having faulty navaids

Nicely sumarised. Tallies with what i've read on it so far. At one point there was still conjecture on what runway they were using (not easy to get acurate reporting from that part of the world aparently....) but it now seems as though it was a RWY09 approach. This is a little wierd since the weather at the time would indicate a preference for RW27.....certainly considering that while winds were within limits for RW09 the visibility with the sun (haze included) was much worse from that end. Some people have gone as far as to suggest that RW09 approaches were 'pushed on' captains by the tower so the ATC guys could avoid 'looking into the sun'. Sounds like claptrap to me TBH (regardless captain could have refused it....others have apparently...)

More concerning is the dodgy equipment at tripoli (described by several pilots at 'dodgy even by african standards'). Given that i'd take a higher vis, ILS RW27 over the sketchy vis wobbly NDB approach on RW09 no?

Crash does seem wierd given the separation of the aircraft. low energy impacts on approach (when level) generally 'pancake' the aircraft and it ends up reasonably good RE survivability esp with the lower fuel levels for an ariving craft. Could be overbanked and stalled out (sideslip low to the ground little room for error) trying to get back online (made worse by spatially disorientating sun haze) or nicked a wingtip as you say. Easy to forget how long those wings are especailly on the very light airbi.....they respond to sidestick (roll) inputs very quickly indeed.

If it did rip off the wing and (possibly) cartwheel then its a miracle anyone survived frankly....

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by xy500

You obviously didnt get my point, which is that everyone seems to like to pick on airbus, but my suggestion was it is less likely an aircraft problem as it was human error. So why don't you take a chill pill. you wouldn't catch me flying garuda indonesia, whether their planes are boeing's or airbus's. their crash record is shocking - obviously not the airplane's fault though is it?
and it's spelt LIBYA buddy.

If you were trying to be sarcasic before, please make sure you add a smiliey as judging by some of the other idiotic responces on here one can only assume you were carrying on with the norm....

Thank you for your spelling assistance.....

[aye you]

Sword, possibly the flight crew noticed they were close to the ground and attempted to initiate a G/A. I'm willing to bet that an A330 loaded with pax is going to take a bit to arrest the descent and begin climbing. I wonder if the flight crew have manually initated the G/A as opposed to hitting the TOGA, might have dropped a wing causing it to clip the ground/buildings?

[Yellow_Festiva]

Can you mention what some of the acronyms are in your posts for those not versed in aviation terms please ;)

[aye you]

Pax = Passengers
G/A = Go Around (aborted landing)
TOGA = Take Off / Go Around = A switch on the throttles in the cockpit that will automatically set take off power and i believe in some instances in some aircraft will also begin configuring the aircraft for the go around. Takes a massive load off the flight crew allowing them to focus on other items eg why they had to abort the landing in the first place.

[MexicanBatman]

So of the people in the know. Who here actualy flies and what?

[ELGT4me]

Some are pilots, some are Lame's, some are enthusiasts, doesn't matter .I am learning from them. I admit I also have difficulties with the "jargon" .

[MexicanBatman]

No I deal with pilots and crew everyday. I'm just interested to know what they are flying

[aye you]

Im a pilot, currently not flying anything as i'm looking for work

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by aye you

Im a pilot, currently not flying anything as i'm looking for work

Sorry, that sounded so familier in the late 1990s!!
There was a glut of pilots 20yrs ago and the typical thing said to me when looking for work was.. "you see that tree outside? If I shake that tree, 10 pilots would fall out of it"

I left the GA industry in 2005 as I had enough.

Now im told everyone is desperate for crews, hence all these sausage factory flight schools which pop up everywhere and take your money.

[Romulus]

I agree, there are some silly comments made about Airbus, or is that scarebus :

My bet is pilot error is the cause but until the investigation is complete it's mere speculation.

[ELGT4me]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Sorry, that sounded so familier in the late 1990s!!
There was a glut of pilots 20yrs ago and the typical thing said to me when looking for work was.. "you see that tree outside? If I shake that tree, 10 pilots would fall out of it"

I left the GA industry in 2005 as I had enough.

Now im told everyone is desperate for crews, hence all these sausage factory flight schools which pop up everywhere and take your money.

Yep, spot on Jim Goose, too bad I am too old, too dumb to fly a commercial aircraft.