Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Airplane Crash over Tripoli

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Passion for flying View Post
    I thought that was a Boeing not a Boing
    They go "Boing" when they hit the ground

    Comment


    • #77
      Passenger count

      Official passenger count was 93 + 11 crew. With a configured capacity of 230 pax (http://www.afriqiyah.aero/about-us/fleet.html), I think we can be thankful that it wasn't filled to capacity.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
        This plane was mainly made of good ole Al.
        Hmmm. you say "mainly". Well, aren't they all "mainly" metal. But the question is do planes with some composite content shred any more readily?

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Shanwick View Post
          Tell that to the Air Transat pilots that glided into Lajes AFB.

          They know the fuelsystem better than any of us...
          "The real CEO of the 787 project is named Potemkin"

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by LX-A343 View Post
            The only thing I found is this:
            http://www.libhomeradar.org/ -> enter the reg in the search field and you'll get a log.

            Cheerio
            Unfortunatly very wobbly, only useful information was 10/5 CDG, thanks for that at least.
            "The real CEO of the 787 project is named Potemkin"

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by EconomyClass View Post
              Hmmm. you say "mainly". Well, aren't they all "mainly" metal. But the question is do planes with some composite content shred any more readily?
              The fin is composite. Fuselage and wings are Al. Look the results.

              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

              Comment


              • #82
                More on the survivor
                "The real CEO of the 787 project is named Potemkin"

                Comment


                • #83
                  Having looked at the pictures, here's my reaction. Maybe the vertical stabilizer had such strains put on it it tore off. I think if such a thing happens at a critical time, there is no opportunity to react to the loss of control. And the obliteration of the rest is a function of an aircraft still going quite fast with nothing in control. If the tail is separate prior to contact, it might not hit at the same speed. Reminds me of that DC-10 where the cargo door wouldn't close, the control lines got severed, and the passengers sucked downward out of the plane. I think there are some disaster scenarios where safety engineering ceases to matter. In fact, I'm not even sure that any of the recorded data may be helpful at this time. Unless a very brief amount of strain data indicates the preparation for the breakup of the body. Or maybe it was going on through most of the flight. But I'd hope that something like that would cause alarms to the pilots, not just be silently recorded like an epitaph.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                    Nothing of that explains what was the airplane doing below the MDA of 620ft MSL or 358ft AGL.
                    BY the right crew in the right conditions, I mean an overly confident crew trained in a weak safety culture at a moment of confused situational awareness. BUt I don't mean to condemn the crew at this point. I mean to condemn the Libyan Civil Aviation Authority for not equipping the main runway of their main international airport with ILS on both approaches. This is not the Comoros. THis airport is base to a flag carrier airline with 10 A350's on order.

                    CFIT also doesn't explain the devastation, unless it was a bank angle cartwheel or a serious miscalculation of altitude at a high sink rate. There are rumors floating around that the crew called in an emergency prior to the crash. I've seen no substantiated reports on that. But I'm expecting something more than pilot error or fuel starvation here.

                    ADDED: I've read that the ATC radar confirmed that they were not busting the MDA prior to the crash - for what that's worth. It might indicate something catastrophic on short final resulting in a sudden rapid descent.
                    Last edited by Evan; 2010-05-13, 14:10. Reason: Added information

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Thurian View Post
                      They go "Boing" when they hit the ground
                      Or not.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        That's what the world needs. A plane that goes boing.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Amateur

                          I have absolutely no knowlege about aircraft whatsoever but I am intrigued. It appears that a lot of the accidents in recent times are close to the destination / airport (bar the AF Airbus over the atlantic). Landing is obviously a critical time but it appears there are more and more under trained pilots out there. Could this be the case? 2nd'ly there was a theory going around after the Air France disaster that the A330-200 with two engines is badly designed for long haul flights.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Comyn View Post
                            I have absolutely no knowlege about aircraft whatsoever but I am intrigued. It appears that a lot of the accidents in recent times are close to the destination / airport (bar the AF Airbus over the atlantic). Landing is obviously a critical time but it appears there are more and more under trained pilots out there. Could this be the case? 2nd'ly there was a theory going around after the Air France disaster that the A330-200 with two engines is badly designed for long haul flights.
                            Landing and take-off is usually the most dangerous part of flying, no matter what you fly.
                            As for the A330 being dangerous, flown since 1992, made in +600 planes and 3 fatal accidents. Does that sound dangerous, no, I donīt think so.
                            "The real CEO of the 787 project is named Potemkin"

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Alessandro View Post
                              Heh, thereīs always fuel onboard an A332, you canīt use all the fuel since some of it is used to balance the plane and cool the fuelpumps.
                              Fuel is used to balance the plane and cool the fuelpumps? Somebody there has to retake Aviation 101... *lol...

                              Originally posted by MCM View Post
                              (...)Are the 330's equipped for a 2 NDB approach? Depends on what the company concerned ordered. Some are, and some aren't. I would personally guess that an African airline would order them with, as many of their airports would have them... but that is just guessing.

                              While NDB and VOR approaches are not ideal, they are a part of world aviation that we have to deal with. (...)

                              You say it is a sorry excuse for ground based guidance, however you need to remember that the minima and procedures are completely cognisant of that fact. It is KNOWN that NDB approaches are not particularly accurate, which is why the terrain splays and minimum altitudes are so large/high. If you can't see the required amount at the minima, you go around. Simple.(...)
                              Once again, thank you, MCM - yours was one of the few posts on this thread so far that made sense

                              Originally posted by EconomyClass View Post
                              Having looked at the pictures, here's my reaction. Maybe the vertical stabilizer had such strains put on it it tore off.
                              If you look at the pictures you will see that the vertical stabilizer is still attached to the rear fuselage (or what's left of it) - unlike AF447 or AA587.

                              Originally posted by Comyn View Post
                              I have absolutely no knowlege about aircraft whatsoever but I am intrigued. (...) 2nd'ly there was a theory going around after the Air France disaster that the A330-200 with two engines is badly designed for long haul flights.
                              Hmmmmm - the lack of knowledge is quite obvious Sorry - no offense.
                              There is much much more two-engine long-haul flying done than three- or four-engine. The A330 is as well designed for long-haul flights as any other air plane.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                By the way - French BEA or American NTSB - they all do great jobs and I would trust the French with an accident investigation any time.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X