May 12, 2010 at 8:11 am
Just hearing that a Libyan airliner has crashed in Tripoli, killing 105 people on board. Was inbound from South Africa.
Details awaited.
By: Arabella-Cox - 30th May 2010 at 22:32
Libya plane crash ‘not technical fault’
A plane crash in Libya that killed 103 people on 12 May was not caused by mechanical failure, according to a preliminary inquiry.
The “black box” recorders indicated that the Afriqiyah Airways plane had enough fuel and made no call for help.
By: Newforest - 16th May 2010 at 21:58
Don’t believe it was a go around. Reports from an Alitalia pilot holding for departure on runway 09 state that the plane hit nose first at about a 20* angle.
By: Arabella-Cox - 16th May 2010 at 11:59
From that report it looks like they still haven’t decided which runway they were attempting to land on?
By: Newforest - 16th May 2010 at 11:49
Revised ASN report.
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20100512-0
By: Arabella-Cox - 13th May 2010 at 11:48
You’re right. I am now looking at the correct airfield. Not many buildings on the approach.
By: tenthije - 13th May 2010 at 11:28
I plotted the reported impact point on Google Earth. It seems that the plane ploughed through some buildings, if that is correct. The image is a bit small – the impact point of 980 yards before the runway is left of the blue colored buildings.
Unless the plane diverted, you are looking at the wrong airfield. You’re looking at the military airbase. The commercial airport is some 25 kilometers to the south of Tripoli.
By: KabirT - 13th May 2010 at 11:27
ah i stand corrected, thanks.
By: wilhelm - 13th May 2010 at 11:19
@27vet: I don’t think there are any reports that suggest the aircraft hit any buildings.
On news24 this morning.
Ploughed through trees, buildings, vehicles
According to Wolmarans, 36, an operations manager at Global Aviation’s office in Tripoli, he was waiting for a colleague, Cathrine Tillett, who was on the flight.
Tillett, 44, an aviation training officer at Global Aviation in Johannesburg, died along with two former colleagues who retired recently, Norbert Taferner and his wife, Paula.
“The plane hit the ground about a kilometre from runway number 9. Then it ploughed through trees, several buildings and some vehicles,” said Wolmarans.
He said the weather was very bad.
“Visibility was poor. When I got to the scene, the tail of the Airbus was the only part that was still recognisable. Pieces of wreckage lay everywhere. It was gruesome.”
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/A-loud-crash-then-bodies-everywhere-20100512
By: KabirT - 13th May 2010 at 09:54
@27vet: I don’t think there are any reports that suggest the aircraft hit any buildings.
By: Bmused55 - 13th May 2010 at 09:37
Aren’t the onboard computers and automated landing systems supposed to prevent this sort of thing??
my thoughts exactly.
By: Arabella-Cox - 13th May 2010 at 09:37
I plotted the reported impact point on Google Earth. It seems that the plane ploughed through some buildings, if that is correct. The image is a bit small – the impact point of 980 yards before the runway is left of the blue colored buildings.

By: KabirT - 13th May 2010 at 09:01
missed approach theory does sit in, the inquiry is now under way.
By: Mpacha - 13th May 2010 at 08:58
Good weather..brand new aircraft..terrorism??
Mohammed Ali Zidan, Libyan minister of transport, ruled out the possibility of terrorists being involved in the crash, the Associated Press has reported.
It would appear that the aircraft had done a missed approach, so conditions were less than ideal.
See my previous post about a possible false localizer.
By: steve rowell - 13th May 2010 at 08:47
Aren’t the onboard computers and automated landing systems supposed to prevent this sort of thing??
By: Newforest - 13th May 2010 at 08:41
If reported time correct, accident happened one minute before sea level sunrise. With airport slightly higher, the approach would have involved transitioning between sunlit and shaded airspace. Visibility reports suggest dusty/hazy conditions rather than fog (it is the middle of the sandstorm season), with nighttime visibility 6000-5000m, dropping to 2000m (and staying there) after sunrise. Sunlit dust may produce whiteout conditions, even if reported ground visibility may have been 5000m, the sunlit part of the approach would have been flown virtually blind, at that time these conditions would have persisted almost till touchdown.
Would suggest that the weather was not ideal?:confused:
By: steve rowell - 13th May 2010 at 08:35
Good weather..brand new aircraft..terrorism??
By: Bmused55 - 13th May 2010 at 07:36
Not if you’re a drug dealer
By: KabirT - 13th May 2010 at 07:32
not denying that…but clearly the crash news is more important than ‘fungus hits Afghan poppies’? 😎
By: Newforest - 13th May 2010 at 07:31
Political changes are more topical at the moment for the majority of people!;)
By: KabirT - 13th May 2010 at 06:53
Just got up and trying to get myself updated on the crash and it seems its off almost all major websites such as BBC, or is in some corner as news. :confused:
stunning!