Originally Posted by
tubby linton
Lonewolf on an airliner
Tubby, we went through all this in the other thread.
Not interested in your hamsterwheel, particularly as regards causes of the accident. I disagree with you that the approach was not flyable by a professional crew. The issue of a non stable approach not being waved off/gone around ... this isn't the only case where that has ended in tears.
Jepp were negligent because they did not update the chart and they have admitted the mistake.
Lovely
mea culpa, after the fact.
Their (well earned) rep is that their charts and plates are very good. Living up to that rep takes some doing.
That is interesting, but most likely not why the crew hit the ground.In part of the testimony last week an FAA employee stated that the approach had never been intended for a heavy aircraft so where does that leave the FAA chart?
In re that question, aterpster has the answer. You once again seem not to be following along with this discussion regarding selected items of fact.
Not sure why.
Another question is that with the larger runway closed, why was the UPS dispatcher sending that flight to that airport with an ETA before the usual runway was open?
UPS realised that they do not do a lot of NPA and produced a script to follow to fly them safely.
This case suggests to me that UPS may need some work on that script, and training related to same.
To me what they hadn't catered for was poor ATC vectoring, inadequate charting of an approach, and specifically tiredness.
UPS has no control over the charting of the approach.
I agree with you on the matter of the late descent. That was to me an interesting data point from the CVR transcript. Previous discussion about how fast they were coming down related to the glide path is all over the Tech Log thread.
The tiredness/fatigue/ crew rest issues are certainly within the UPS sphere of span and control, and perhaps the FAA .... "one set of rules for Airliners and Freight Haulers" may be in the offing.