Airplane Crash over Tripoli

[Evan]

I had to go to Pprune for this, but it's interesting enough to swipe. From a Dutch article...

according to Afriqiyah employee who wishes to remain anonymous, Tripoli ATC always lets aircraft land on rwy 09 in the morning even if there is no wind. The reason for this is that aircraft landing on rwy 27 approach from the East, which obliges ATC to look into the sun, which they find unpleasant. [..]

[..] A pilot who landed on the same rwy a few minutes earlier was said to have warned his colleague on the ill-fated plane about this. Allegedly he even recommended him to request rwy 27 instead. The tower then merely answered "stand by". "They always do that. It means that you have to wait an eternity".

I would expect the pilots to give fk-all what the ATC finds unpleasant. But then I'm new to Libya.

[SYDCBRWOD]

Composites have been around for decades iun importatnt structural parts of commercial airliners and there have never been any problems so far.

Not quite correct - ITS did flag issues with GLARE (was it or some other composite?) delaminating. Given this aircraft was so young and that these problems have been known about for a while (and maintenance would or should know what to look for) that would be unlikely you'd think.

[Gabriel]

As for ZK's post - the YouTube link doesn't work, at least not where I am sitting (and this is the danger you encounter when posting YouTube links) and apart from that I see one of the press pictures of the crash site and a Google satellite picture. For me, that is not a definte location of a crash site - and even ZK admits it's not sure but probable.

Peter,

It's a pitty that you couldn't see the youtube video.

If you did, you'd see a video taken through a right-hand window of a plane approaching to land and, very shortly before touchdown, it passes by a building that looks very very much like the one in the photo of the tail. Given the short time it takes for the airplane to touch down, the position of the plane while passing by that building is very consistent to the google maps mark. And other landmarks (the terrain, the road, the trees) complete the picture.

While I agree it's not 100% sure, I'd rate it 95%+
If th't the case, the broken tail is looking away from the runway, as if it had rotated 180 deg.

[Gabriel]

Not quite correct - ITS did flag issues with GLARE (was it or some other composite?) delaminating.

Let's put it in this terms:

After several decades of using composites in critical parts of airplanes (including control surfaces, fins, wings and pressurized fuselages), AFAIK, there has never been a fatal accident related with composites failing within the design and ultimate loads, or an accident where the survivability was found to be compromised for reasons related with the composites.

[MCM]

Evan,

There can be any number of reasons to land on runway 09. Which direction were they arriving from? Where does the traffic at that time of morning usually arrive from, and where does it fly to?

If the weather is reasonably above minimums, its surely reasonable to make an approach on runway 09? Sure, the sun may have ultimately proved to be a hinderance, but they may not have known that when making the approach. Thats what go-arounds are for.

Sure, the navigation of an ILS is preferable if the weather is right on the minima, but so far I haven't seen that as being the case. Crew frequently use a non-ILS runway for commercial reasons, and it isn't necessarily unsafe. Remember, the approach they were doing was not terrain affected, and could have been done in the "style" of an RNAV approach, making it just as stable as an ILS.

Some places in the world have ILS's on all runways, but many do not. The weather often plays a big part of this. Why would there be an ILS on 09 if low cloud and visibility always accompany weather that allows approaches on 27? Simply not necessary.

[EconomyClass]

Maybe so, but the two aren't really separate (not intentionally anyway). One must be attached to the other, and what happens in the junction of the two?

[ced ampo]

Not sure if it has been posted yet, but I have found some photographs.

[canair67]

The absolute shredding of the aircraft is deplorable and shocking to say the least.It remind me of the Tenerefe disaster. Condolences to the families.

[snanceki]

Location?

Hi Guys,
Excellent work putting the Utube video etc together to define crash site location but I'm not sure I agree with the published result.
95% confident it isn't rather than 95% it is!
If all goes OK I attach a screen shot from the video showing the building at 4.03 which I compare with the image published with point "b" on it.
How about some of you super sleuthes having a further look.
I haven't got the magnifying glass out but the pattern of the olive? trees in the field adjacent to the stated building is not the same.
Since the photo video was taken only a few months ago something doesn't stack up IMHO.
Incidentally the utube link worked fine for me. Maybe you need Flash or something installing.
A previous post showed blackened interior surfaces towards the rear of the aircraft. Nobody has yet replied / challenged this observation.
Stuart

[Cairns65]

A 330-200 A : bird full of mystery ?

5A-ONG A 330-200 crashed on approach in Tripoli / Lybia. Not even one year after the accident over the shoreline from Brazil with the french airliner from the same type.
Nobody knows until today what was going on abroad Air France flight from Rio to CDG. Now the situation is pretty scary too. The plane was over the treshold , fully slats and flaps down and ready for touchdown. Why did it slip away and crashed ? Was it on the pavement already ? Did the pilot land the bird beside the runway in the grubble ? There was absolutely no wind during landing.
In 2007, 8 and 9 there were even more icidents with the same type. One happened to QANTAS ( A 330-300 from Singapore to Perth ) at 32.000 feet when the plane descended it`s nose 12 degrees down. The pilots managed to get back control but then it happend again. What they did then was disengaging the ap and flew the plane with the control stick down to the next airport.
I flew with this type so many times ( A 330-200 Etihad , Emirates , Qatar and Jetstar ) . I guess i was lucky. It`s time now for AIRBUS to find answers to all that questions !!

[EconomyClass]

Libyan Airbus may have been attempting go-around

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i4lSCGdMkAlC6Fuj6PIwXSq2uZgQD9FM3PU00

[Cairns65]

Well , if the pilot wanted to make a go around , why did he go so low ?
I think the reason for the crash was that the pilot looked right into the sun just before tochdown.

[friday]

crash site

2 photo of the same place 100 % sure

[Evan]

Evan,

There can be any number of reasons to land on runway 09. Which direction were they arriving from? Where does the traffic at that time of morning usually arrive from, and where does it fly to?

If the weather is reasonably above minimums, its surely reasonable to make an approach on runway 09? Sure, the sun may have ultimately proved to be a hinderance, but they may not have known that when making the approach. Thats what go-arounds are for.

Sure, the navigation of an ILS is preferable if the weather is right on the minima, but so far I haven't seen that as being the case. Crew frequently use a non-ILS runway for commercial reasons, and it isn't necessarily unsafe. Remember, the approach they were doing was not terrain affected, and could have been done in the "style" of an RNAV approach, making it just as stable as an ILS.

Some places in the world have ILS's on all runways, but many do not. The weather often plays a big part of this. Why would there be an ILS on 09 if low cloud and visibility always accompany weather that allows approaches on 27? Simply not necessary.

From the plates I have, most arrivals from the south vector through the ABU VOR almost directly south of the airport, so I don't see how one would favor 09 based on direction of arrival (see attachment).

From what I've read so far, there was some visibility problem with haze near the ground (dust?), and previous arrivals had reported difficulty (one reportedly missed the approach). I realize this are unsubstantiated reports.

Add to this a 7-10kt wind from 270° and a rising sun just breaking the horizon at that time (potentially blinding in haze). That is known.

RWY 27 seems like the choice if safety is your greatest concern.

I don't mean to imply that I think this is simply CFIT at normal approach speed (It doesn't explain the apparent impact energy). I'm addressing what I see as an issue regardless of whether it directly caused this crash. Safety has to remain the driving factor in choosing an approach. We can't have pilots doing NDB practice in less than favorable conditions if an ILS is available.

I wonder:

What if they broke through the cloud ceiling, sighted the runway, continued below MDA and suddenly found themselves blinded by a pocket of intensely sunlit haze, then attempted to abort, went to TOGA but didn't get pitch up or banked and struck a wingtip somehow... cartwheeled... or...

The debris field is most puzzling. High energy and off-track. I'm inclined to go with Gabriel's meteorite theory at this point.

[Dream_In_Flight]

2 photo of the same place 100 % sure

Definitely. 800 meters (0.4 NM) from threshold 09, 200 meters (0.1 NM) right of runway extended centerline.

What seems odd to me, is the large white floor building west of the mosque, clearly visible on Google Earth, however missing on the youtube landing video.

This building can be seen on all Google archives, from april 2002 to august 2008. I assume it has been pulled down since. On the youtube video, adjacent land seem have been nicely leveled.

Another possibility is that Youtube video is much older that understood, and was taken before the building was built, which is as least before april 2002.