Airplane Crash over Tripoli

[MCM]

When the sun blinds the pilot to the point of losing visibility, then he does what he would in any situation of losing visibility - he goes around.

That said, it is quite unusual for it to be bad enough that you can't see the runway to continue the approach... I've certainly seen decreased visibility due to the sun making it very difficult, but not to the point of having to go around... but the theory that it could is certainly sound.

[AJ]

When the sun blinds the pilot to the point of losing visibility, then he does what he would in any situation of losing visibility - he goes around.

That said, it is quite unusual for it to be bad enough that you can't see the runway to continue the approach... I've certainly seen decreased visibility due to the sun making it very difficult, but not to the point of having to go around... but the theory that it could is certainly sound.

I have had to go around on Runway 27 in Melbourne due to the sun. Not only was the sun in our eyes, but the runway surface was reflecting the sun as well.

[EconomyClass]

How does "going around" change anything. On your second landing attempt, will things have improved? Will you have made adjustments so the blinding sun doesn't matter?

[MCM]

Well thats just typical of Melbourne hey AJ .

Closest I have been in in HKG with the sun lighting up the smog in the morning, however the runway was visible by the minima.

Going around does a few things.

1 - Time... the sun will often move a small amount which will be sufficient to remove the worst of the glare

2 - Choice of runway - If the wind isn't too strong, it may be possible to land on the reciprocal runway, if not another.

3 - You may be able to choose a different approach.

Just some of the available options... there are of course more.

[EconomyClass]

3 - You may be able to choose a different approach

"Different approach". I thought the story said they were almost on the ground. By the time you are that close, you'll always be pointed the same way.

Yeh, if you have the option of taking a different runway that is not parallel, then you're getting an advantage. Hell, can't the just put shades on the cockput windows that work like sunglasses and cut the glare? How about sunglasses in their flying kit? Seems to me that if this "glare of sun" theory is right, there wasn't much thinking going on. Which brings me back to the quality of the pilots. Do we know their history?

[mpe]

I have had to go around on Runway 27 in Melbourne due to the sun. Not only was the sun in our eyes, but the runway surface was reflecting the sun as well.

Did you wind up landing on 27 or 09?

[MCM]

EC,

Yes, in most cases. However it depends how low to the ground you are when you lose visibility, and what approach you are conduncting. You may be able to reassess your options and perform an automatic landing for example.

If you just want to use flippant remarks like wear sunglasses, then fine, but you think that aviators and airlines haven't thought about shades and sunglasses? Sun glare on approach can be far more severe than simple shades or glasses will solve.

We have no idea if that was responsible for this crash. I am simply answering the fact that yes, sunglare can be significant, and on approach CAN lead to a loss of visibility consistent with conducting a missed approach, as AJ can attest to.

[EconomyClass]

My point being that there must be a lot more to the story since the solutions to the scenario given are pretty obvious. But this time they didn't lose the recorders. So it hardly seems necessary to speculate.

[Peter Kesternich]

My point being that there must be a lot more to the story since the solutions to the scenario given are pretty obvious.

What scenario and what solutions? Glare and sunglasses?

But this time they didn't lose the recorders. So it hardly seems necessary to speculate.

Hmmmm - maybe then you should stop specualting

[3WE]

Economy Class:

May I suggest that you purchase Microsoft Flight Simulator and read three books on how to fly- and maybe even learn how to drive a car.

What bugs me about your posts is a tone of "why didn't they just......"

Sometimes that is valid. But many times, it comes down to imperfect human being being presented with "a perfectly wrong, one-in-a-million scenario" or that human making a perfectly wrong, one-in-a-million mistake.

MSFS will not simulate sun glare, but you can experience a large number of other scenarios when you are flying along fat, dumb and happy, and seconds later are a virtual smoking hole in the ground- and recognize that this flying stuff (as in another thread) can be tricky at times. You will realize that YOU could be the person that other people are saying, Why didn't he just level off instead of descending into the ground?

Car crashes: Yes, there's tons of "why didn't they just" car crashes. Then again, people who are otherwise intelligent and careful and competent at driving, sometimes make mistakes and crash cars.

Sun Glare is being offered as a possible cause here....POSSIBLE cause. Most of the posters have the ability to realize that it would most likely be a sudden and unexpected loss of visibility....AND MAYBE ALSO followed by the pilots making a subtle, but bad choice? It's not as simple as- "gee, let's put on our sunglasses".

The other thing that comes up in most airliner crashes is an incredibly insidious, sneaky CHAIN of events. Why didn't they just do x, y, or z is usually a gross over simplification. A lot of professional pilots would say- "wow, if I were presented with a, b, c, d, e, f and g, I would HOPE to do the right thing, but it would be tricky.

[BoeingKing77]

False. Midair collisions.


False. Engineers use analogies. Engineers use technology from other applications. If engineers don't use what they've learned from other materials; then that means they end up repeating mistakes that they have learned from other materials.

It wouldn't make much sense to compare apples to apples anyway; now would it?

If Airbus engineers would have imported the knowledge from the masonry industry and applied it to the aviation industry and its use of fiberglass composites the Airbus A320 Air Transat Flight 961 probably wouldn't have lost its rudder. If Airbus designers would have used weep holes in the fiberglass design like engineers often use in masonry, that would have allowed any hydraulic fluids and water to drain out and would've likely prevented the freeze thaw cycle that fractured the rudder. Airbus engineers insisted on repeating the mistakes that have been learned by others. Weep holes would've also likely made inspection easier, more thorough and more effective.

Thats what she said.I think.

[EconomyClass]

3WE: I've been driving since 1961. I have a superlative record. Maybe you need to get over yourself.

[mecheil.edwar]

is there any technical report from Airbus
Or as usual they study the case but it will take times!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
and finally we will not get any information from the designers

[Crunk415balla]

is there any technical report from Airbus
Or as usual they study the case but it will take times!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
and finally we will not get any information from the designers

Well seeing as the accident just happened a matter of days ago...

Anyway, very tragic. The loss of life is such a shame, I hope the investigation comes to light quickly.

[EconomyClass]

Will they ever get faster than this? Is the air traffic control chatter recorded? Its kind of surprising that details are so hard to extract even under the best of circumstances.