UPS Aircraft Down In Dubai
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: SLF, living somewhere East in the West
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The B36 was the one. There was a recent feature on one of the cable channels (which I only have in the fitness room of the building so I didn't see everything) which showed that it was found by the Pentagon in a secret mission, all recoverable items removed including something related to the bomb it carried (which was released over the pacific before) and than destroyed intentionally. Sorry for the deviation of the topic.
Guest
Posts: n/a
there was one more
not sure if it was B52...over western part of Greenland, loaded with atomic bombs on more or less constant standby due to Cold War situation, cca 1960 +/- 10 years, not sure
and after the fire in cockpit the crew bailed out,
what happend next is kind of a not very clear
and after the fire in cockpit the crew bailed out,
what happend next is kind of a not very clear
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: london
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From reading this fascinating thread, shame on UPS and many other carriers for operating at the bare minimum crew level 
I hope unions can make something of this.
Maybe this shouldn't be answered here, due to the press etc, i just wondered if an additional crew member or 2 could of helped save this doomed flight?
Secondly someone mentioned putting the plane down asap on land or water, i was under the impression unless you're very lucky (flight 1549) youre looking at a high chance of complete breakup on water, and a slim chance of survival anyway.
I hope unions can make something of this.Maybe this shouldn't be answered here, due to the press etc, i just wondered if an additional crew member or 2 could of helped save this doomed flight?
Secondly someone mentioned putting the plane down asap on land or water, i was under the impression unless you're very lucky (flight 1549) youre looking at a high chance of complete breakup on water, and a slim chance of survival anyway.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: KMCO
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grimmrad
... Wasn't there though an american B-XX (don't know the number, before the 52) bomber that had engine troubles on a trainings mission from Alaska to the Northwest of the US, crew bailed out and the plane flew over terrain for some thirty minutes or so before crashing in a remote, mountainous area of Canada...?
Sorry, also, for the deviation off topic.
Last edited by NWstu; 5th Sep 2010 at 21:13.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Inasmuch as we still don't know the nature of the cargo, this is speculative:
There are hundreds of reported cases of unwanted cargo being shipped: overweight, contraband, controlled substances, HAZMAT, you name it. At a major trading center like DXB, who keeps watch on the agencies and consolidators? Does UPS have their own staff there? Or does a central agency handle several US/foreign carriers?
If criminal activity is determined, what nation does the prosecuting?
There are hundreds of reported cases of unwanted cargo being shipped: overweight, contraband, controlled substances, HAZMAT, you name it. At a major trading center like DXB, who keeps watch on the agencies and consolidators? Does UPS have their own staff there? Or does a central agency handle several US/foreign carriers?
If criminal activity is determined, what nation does the prosecuting?
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are hundreds of reported cases of unwanted cargo being shipped: overweight, contraband, controlled substances, HAZMAT, you name it. At a major trading center like DXB, who keeps watch on the agencies and consolidators? Does UPS have their own staff there? Or does a central agency handle several US/foreign carriers?
There have been numerous cases of shippers falsifying shipping documents w/r/t DG shipments. If they are caught they are prosecuted.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: SLF, living somewhere East in the West
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NWstu:
Yep. There was a feature not too long ago on History channel I believe where they found the crash side and tried to reconstruct what happened. I think some papers are by now released by the Pentagon... (Mods, feel free to remove if too far off topic).
To topic - wasn't the FedEx that made it barely down (was it BOS) where the hazmat was not prepared properly by the shipping company or even factory? So that seems to show that on the side of the freight its tough to change things as too many involved but that a system on board is really neccessary.
To topic - wasn't the FedEx that made it barely down (was it BOS) where the hazmat was not prepared properly by the shipping company or even factory? So that seems to show that on the side of the freight its tough to change things as too many involved but that a system on board is really neccessary.
When we do our DG refresher every 2 years, (not UPS) the most prominent thing that is said is that the declared DGs are not the ones to worry about.
It's the stuff that is not declared that is dangerous.
How much gets through, nobody knows!
It's the stuff that is not declared that is dangerous.
How much gets through, nobody knows!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: at the edge of the alps
Posts: 447
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EVAS should be mandatory equipment (which is also the position of IFALPA) and compared to most other stuff installed on A/C it is rather cheap and does not take up a lot of space.
Unfortunately we won't see it on many A/C unless it is mandated or a large passenger plane crashes and the investigation concludes that EVAS would have saved lives.
Many airlines these days seem to be unwilling to spend money on safety unless it is mandated and try to follow the letters of the law as cheaply as possibly.
Unfortunately we won't see it on many A/C unless it is mandated or a large passenger plane crashes and the investigation concludes that EVAS would have saved lives.
Many airlines these days seem to be unwilling to spend money on safety unless it is mandated and try to follow the letters of the law as cheaply as possibly.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Manchester
Age: 45
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DG is a very messy area, mainly because it is based on trust.
As a handling agent and checker, it is mostly based on trust.
Has the shipper declared all their DG? Most airlines charge IATA book rate, or 150% as opposed to the dirt cheap Consol deals, so if they can get away with it, why not.
Is the DG what it is supposed to be? For those who have read the front of the DG manual, the extent to the classification of DG is very complex, and there must be a great temptation to throw things in as RFL Class 3 Un1993, Pkg Gp III. Who would know unless it all goes wrong?
Freight can be checked, documents, packaging, loaded correctly (No ROX next to RFL etc) but it can never be a 100% certain system due to the trust element.
As for fire suppression, are the EU still considering the insane idea of banning Halon and associate haloalkanes as fire suppressants? If so, this is yet another hurdle in the way of increasing aircraft safety.
As a handling agent and checker, it is mostly based on trust.
Has the shipper declared all their DG? Most airlines charge IATA book rate, or 150% as opposed to the dirt cheap Consol deals, so if they can get away with it, why not.
Is the DG what it is supposed to be? For those who have read the front of the DG manual, the extent to the classification of DG is very complex, and there must be a great temptation to throw things in as RFL Class 3 Un1993, Pkg Gp III. Who would know unless it all goes wrong?
Freight can be checked, documents, packaging, loaded correctly (No ROX next to RFL etc) but it can never be a 100% certain system due to the trust element.
As for fire suppression, are the EU still considering the insane idea of banning Halon and associate haloalkanes as fire suppressants? If so, this is yet another hurdle in the way of increasing aircraft safety.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
post 253 mentioned that they might have had difficulty RTB'ing to Dubai.
1. Any airliner can out descend it's climb profile.
2. From max. certified altitude to a runway will take approx. 9 minutes and 70 n.m. (Max. Alt to 14,000' = 4 minutes. 5 minutes from 14,000' to runway - max drag profile)
100 n.m. to descend is no big deal from cruise.
(no wind)
1. Any airliner can out descend it's climb profile.
2. From max. certified altitude to a runway will take approx. 9 minutes and 70 n.m. (Max. Alt to 14,000' = 4 minutes. 5 minutes from 14,000' to runway - max drag profile)
100 n.m. to descend is no big deal from cruise.
(no wind)
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Nepal
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why?
The NTSB will thankfully divulge the CVR transcripts and the entire decision making process in audio form will be revealed
So we will all see what happens under extreme high stress, smoke & fume filled, perhaps high heat seating positions, possible incorrect use of interphone/speaker switches, loss of FMA awareness, CRM breakdowns (understandable here - for example, how can the other pilot confirm QRH items being done correctly if you cannot see the Overhead Panel?), situational awareness being reduced are all there waiting to happen.
Could we have done better?
Maybe they just crashed legally following all the rules, SOP's, FCOMs, QRH's, etc. because we all know the DISCO SMOKE in the sim (if working) ain't the same here.
Not mention only 2 crew to do the workload of at least 3 in this situation.
So we will all see what happens under extreme high stress, smoke & fume filled, perhaps high heat seating positions, possible incorrect use of interphone/speaker switches, loss of FMA awareness, CRM breakdowns (understandable here - for example, how can the other pilot confirm QRH items being done correctly if you cannot see the Overhead Panel?), situational awareness being reduced are all there waiting to happen.
Could we have done better?
Maybe they just crashed legally following all the rules, SOP's, FCOMs, QRH's, etc. because we all know the DISCO SMOKE in the sim (if working) ain't the same here.
Not mention only 2 crew to do the workload of at least 3 in this situation.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: SLF, living somewhere East in the West
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How fast
How fast is "land as soon as possible" under real time conditions? As a SLF when you guys at the pointy end are initiating the sink - from that moment to touch down can take 30-45 minutes (in NYC longer). Parts are due to vectoring and traffic which largely won't be there in an emergency situation, but how fast can you bring it down? What if its eastbound on a transatlantic flight somewhere over the Atlantic? Ditching, choice between drowning or burning with being crushed by deceleration between it?
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: in the bunk
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
grimrrad, the time factor regarding descent in the NYC area is under normal conditions and factoring standard ATC procedures. No matter where you are, in an emergency you go down pronto and ATC will vector everything else out of the way as expeditiously as possible. Getting down is not the only issue. depending where you are, there's also the issue of where the nearest suitable airport is.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: where the money is
Posts: 385
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ya'll can Monday quarterback all you want but all of us will have to wait until the final report comes out.
Fires onboard are absolute time critical emergencies. On average, given past history of accidents like Swiss Air 111, you have 15 minutes tops before an accident is nearly guaranteed at 20. A good brief for smoke or fire must include time. I brief it simply, at the first sign of smoke or fire onboard, we cancel the warning, and I start my clock. We will be on the ground in 11 minutes or less. Period.
Fires onboard are absolute time critical emergencies. On average, given past history of accidents like Swiss Air 111, you have 15 minutes tops before an accident is nearly guaranteed at 20. A good brief for smoke or fire must include time. I brief it simply, at the first sign of smoke or fire onboard, we cancel the warning, and I start my clock. We will be on the ground in 11 minutes or less. Period.
Heard from an LH driver yesterday that they reckon 15 minutes to be available in case of an onboard fire - knowing that Swissair 111 had 17 minutes until they impacted the sea...
Spooky 2 (post 298)
We've had new issue B757/767 checklists for about 6 months and the smoke-related checklists have been printed in the same font and size as all other checklist pages.
We've had new issue B757/767 checklists for about 6 months and the smoke-related checklists have been printed in the same font and size as all other checklist pages.