UPS 1354 NTSB Investigation - CVR
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Florida
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UPS 1354 NTSB Investigation - CVR
The CVR transcript was released. Cockpit conversation starts on page 12.
http://dms.ntsb.gov/public%2F55000-5...7%2F550788.pdf
Interesting to note the conversation about fatigue and rest during the cockpit setup. In the US, we just implemented new rest rules (FAR117), but cargo operations were carved out and are operating under the old rules. This transcript is proof enough that we need one level of safety in our industry.
http://dms.ntsb.gov/public%2F55000-5...7%2F550788.pdf
Interesting to note the conversation about fatigue and rest during the cockpit setup. In the US, we just implemented new rest rules (FAR117), but cargo operations were carved out and are operating under the old rules. This transcript is proof enough that we need one level of safety in our industry.
Last edited by AKAAB; 20th Feb 2014 at 23:13.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Amazingly enough I don't think new regulations would have helped here.
I read the transcript and noticed some things that impressed me. Things that indicate they were not that tired. They were up for the approach.
They actually identified the Localizer/DME using the morse code.
They picked up on a similar call sign plane.
They noticed their plane was vectored HIGH. And complained about it (as pilots do inside the cockpit instead of saying: Approach, that was a SHIRTY vector, how about another one on altitude 5miles outside the FAF?)
Something about starting their day at 9pm at night, scheduled to land before 6 am is something like a 9 hour duty day. MIND YOU it is all ''back of the clock" flying. But many of us have worked 16 hour duty days under the old regs.
I think the instrument discipline should be maintained even with a runway in sight call (was there a callout at imtoy?)
Two pilots died. This is sad.Over 50 years ago many in the industry said every runway served by a jet transport should have an ILS.
I read the transcript and noticed some things that impressed me. Things that indicate they were not that tired. They were up for the approach.
They actually identified the Localizer/DME using the morse code.
They picked up on a similar call sign plane.
They noticed their plane was vectored HIGH. And complained about it (as pilots do inside the cockpit instead of saying: Approach, that was a SHIRTY vector, how about another one on altitude 5miles outside the FAF?)
Something about starting their day at 9pm at night, scheduled to land before 6 am is something like a 9 hour duty day. MIND YOU it is all ''back of the clock" flying. But many of us have worked 16 hour duty days under the old regs.
I think the instrument discipline should be maintained even with a runway in sight call (was there a callout at imtoy?)
Two pilots died. This is sad.Over 50 years ago many in the industry said every runway served by a jet transport should have an ILS.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
glendalegoon:
"Should" is the operative word.
BHM runway 18 close-in obstacle environment precludes an ILS.
The crew could have safely flown the LOC approach had they not used the airport reference point as their active waypoint, had they not selected 1,500 fpm on VS, and had they observed the note requiring use of the PAPI.
The crew will eat this one big time. RIP.
Two pilots died. This is sad.Over 50 years ago many in the industry said every runway served by a jet transport should have an ILS.
BHM runway 18 close-in obstacle environment precludes an ILS.
The crew could have safely flown the LOC approach had they not used the airport reference point as their active waypoint, had they not selected 1,500 fpm on VS, and had they observed the note requiring use of the PAPI.
The crew will eat this one big time. RIP.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting to note the conversation about fatigue and rest during the cockpit setup. In the US, we just implemented new rest rules (FAR117), but cargo operations were carved out and are operating under the old rules. This transcript is proof enough that we need one level of safety in our industry.
The F/O had been off duty for 62 hours.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aterpster
could an ILS have been installed with much higher minimums? even with some earth moving?
folks, I'll make an easy observation. if you are not right on the altitudes with an instrument approach of any kind and its not a sure thing you will see the runway very early, demand vectors back for another try, don't try to salvage the apch
could an ILS have been installed with much higher minimums? even with some earth moving?
folks, I'll make an easy observation. if you are not right on the altitudes with an instrument approach of any kind and its not a sure thing you will see the runway very early, demand vectors back for another try, don't try to salvage the apch
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the instrument discipline should be maintained even with a runway in sight call (was there a callout at imtoy?
Bingo!!!! Hit the nail on the head...nobody minding the store...both sets of eyes out the window, plane goes through minimums at VS-1500....think the Capt lost/never had a correct awareness of the aircraft's vertical situation...
Bingo!!!! Hit the nail on the head...nobody minding the store...both sets of eyes out the window, plane goes through minimums at VS-1500....think the Capt lost/never had a correct awareness of the aircraft's vertical situation...
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ironbutt57
chances are you and I have been around the block about the same amount of time.
many people/flight crews, lose all instrument discipline when they look out the window and see A RUNWAY.
it isn't so much when things are to minimums, its the place in between beautiful DAY VMC and absolute to the mins approaches. It is the inbetween place at twilight, night, or when the weather is below 1000/3 but above minimums.
it causes pilots to go and land at the wrong airfield. or, as you said, when both everyone is looking at one thing, everything else goes to hell.
can I say hell?
Remember the everglades L1011, everyone started looking at the landing gear lights, not altimeter and everything else.
IF the copilot had stayed, "INSIDE" she would have noticed the high rate of descent and said something. A visual approach with a sink rate of 1500fpm is worth a HUMAN warning.
that's the name of that tune.
And to all you old captains who said: shut up, I've got the runway.
YOU ARE WRONG.
Callouts must be made, good or bad, in sight or not.
chances are you and I have been around the block about the same amount of time.
many people/flight crews, lose all instrument discipline when they look out the window and see A RUNWAY.
it isn't so much when things are to minimums, its the place in between beautiful DAY VMC and absolute to the mins approaches. It is the inbetween place at twilight, night, or when the weather is below 1000/3 but above minimums.
it causes pilots to go and land at the wrong airfield. or, as you said, when both everyone is looking at one thing, everything else goes to hell.
can I say hell?
Remember the everglades L1011, everyone started looking at the landing gear lights, not altimeter and everything else.
IF the copilot had stayed, "INSIDE" she would have noticed the high rate of descent and said something. A visual approach with a sink rate of 1500fpm is worth a HUMAN warning.
that's the name of that tune.
And to all you old captains who said: shut up, I've got the runway.
YOU ARE WRONG.
Callouts must be made, good or bad, in sight or not.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BHM runway 18 close-in obstacle environment precludes an ILS.
I have never flown into (this) Birmingham before but remember well a very similar approach that I used to fly regularly into Stuttgart, Germany before the runway was lengthened eastwards.
In those days (I'm talking early 1990's), likewise the terrain to the west precluded a 'normal' ILS and one carried out an NDB/DME procedure. The Germans had, however, installed a full 3 degree ILS which was promulgated as 'not for navigational use', but it did provide for a very useful cross check and help SA enormously when flying the NDB.
Surely, without bulldozing land, a 3.3 degree ILS could be installed, even if not for operational use?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
From the original thread that has somehow ended up over on Tech Log:
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/52137...ml#post8330120
See: http://dms.ntsb.gov/public%2F55000-5...7%2F550065.pdf
Mention of crew training issues was conspicuously absent from the NTSB hearing. Also, the captain's military background as an aviator would normally be documented in an NTSB docket in my experience.
It could be argued that lower standards are accepted for night freight operations, indeed the accident crew makes this assertion concerning rest rules on the CVR.
Also, I would observe that industry training standards were lowered in the 1990's, sometimes inconsistently and egregiously, to embrace a broader demographic in the wake of the landmark United Airlines EEOC settlement.
Written tests were dumbed down or abolished and systems knowledge was de-emphasized to reach out to those with less technical background and ability. Interview sim rides were switched to general aviation trainers (e.g. the Frasca at United) so that people with experience flying large planes would not have an undue advantage in the hiring process.
It has been observed that we are very quick to comment here on cultural and training issues here when an Asian crew flies a perfectly good aircraft into the ground. However, when a U.S. crew does it we tiptoe around our own cultural taboos in my view.
Would better training standards help prevent accidents like the BHM crash? Should multiple training failures be discussed along with fatigue and other human factors issues when analyzing causes of the mishap?
I wonder if these questions will be addressed in the final NTSB report.
The captain tried to upgrade from first officer twice unsuccessfully in 2002 before finally making it on the third try in 2009. He also somehow failed homestudy training three times in 1991 and 1992 and failed recurrent FO sim training in 2007. He failed his CFI ride in 1985. This would be unusual for most of the pilot group in my experience.
See: http://dms.ntsb.gov/public%2F55000-5...7%2F550065.pdf
Mention of crew training issues was conspicuously absent from the NTSB hearing. Also, the captain's military background as an aviator would normally be documented in an NTSB docket in my experience.
It could be argued that lower standards are accepted for night freight operations, indeed the accident crew makes this assertion concerning rest rules on the CVR.
Also, I would observe that industry training standards were lowered in the 1990's, sometimes inconsistently and egregiously, to embrace a broader demographic in the wake of the landmark United Airlines EEOC settlement.
Written tests were dumbed down or abolished and systems knowledge was de-emphasized to reach out to those with less technical background and ability. Interview sim rides were switched to general aviation trainers (e.g. the Frasca at United) so that people with experience flying large planes would not have an undue advantage in the hiring process.
It has been observed that we are very quick to comment here on cultural and training issues here when an Asian crew flies a perfectly good aircraft into the ground. However, when a U.S. crew does it we tiptoe around our own cultural taboos in my view.
Would better training standards help prevent accidents like the BHM crash? Should multiple training failures be discussed along with fatigue and other human factors issues when analyzing causes of the mishap?
I wonder if these questions will be addressed in the final NTSB report.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Mana Ada...yup pretty much....no vertical situational awareness....need to check alt vs distance..it's published on the charts..possible they penetrated a small cloud layer shortly after sighting the "runway" and kept her going down, still believing they were above profile...either way...sloppy task sharing...but it was assumed, not briefed...would be interesting to see what UPS SOP's are regarding task sharing on a non-precision approach..especially after PF calls "runway in sight"
Last edited by ironbutt57; 21st Feb 2014 at 09:43. Reason: dumb spell checker
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The F/O had numerous glamour shots done of herself in uniform.
Just something to think about.
Just something to think about.
That is a disgraceful thing to say. I do hope the mods remove your post asap.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the differences between asiana and ups is the difference between crawling (asiana, day visual apch, perfect wx) and running a marathon (ups, non precision, night/predawn, odd terrain and low scud).
comparing the two is like comparing the B52 to the C152. Both are planes, but not too much else in common.
being deceived at night and being deceived in the daylight is one thing.
And yes, loss of instrument discipline is a problem.
comparing the two is like comparing the B52 to the C152. Both are planes, but not too much else in common.
being deceived at night and being deceived in the daylight is one thing.
And yes, loss of instrument discipline is a problem.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ormond Beach
Age: 49
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Hotel Tango
Oh come on now That is a disgraceful thing to say. I do hope the mods remove your post asap.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flyboykite:
I just did. Good for her.
What possibly could be wrong with that? Does being an attractive woman mean a woman (any woman) would be a less able pilot?
The F/O had numerous glamour shots done of herself in uniform.
Just something to think about.
Just something to think about.
What possibly could be wrong with that? Does being an attractive woman mean a woman (any woman) would be a less able pilot?
