UPS cargo crash near Birmingham AL
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Age: 56
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I imagine that the reason for this crash, like most, will be a serious of incremental events that on their own would be benign but in combination prove fatal, "Swiss cheese" etc. I wonder if some kind of visual illusion might be one of those small events.
Visual Illusion Awareness
Visual Illusion Awareness
“Black hole” along the final approach flight path:
In case of approach over water or with an unlighted area on the approach path, the absence of visible ground features reduces the crew ability to perceive the aircraft lateral and vertical position relative to the intended flight path.
Uphill or downhill terrain before the runway threshold:
An uphill slope in the approach zone or a drop-off of terrain at the approach end of the runway creates an illusion of being too high (i.e., impression of a steep glide path, as shown on Figure 1), thus:
Possibly inducing a correction (increasing the rate of descent) that places the aircraft below the intended glide path; or,
Preventing the flight crew from detecting a too shallow flight path.
In case of approach over water or with an unlighted area on the approach path, the absence of visible ground features reduces the crew ability to perceive the aircraft lateral and vertical position relative to the intended flight path.
Uphill or downhill terrain before the runway threshold:
An uphill slope in the approach zone or a drop-off of terrain at the approach end of the runway creates an illusion of being too high (i.e., impression of a steep glide path, as shown on Figure 1), thus:
Possibly inducing a correction (increasing the rate of descent) that places the aircraft below the intended glide path; or,
Preventing the flight crew from detecting a too shallow flight path.
Last edited by Mudman; 16th Aug 2013 at 13:59. Reason: clarity
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fatigue and Performance
As people are talking of fatigue affecting performance and the associated regulations both in the US and EU, I thought I would refer to research that has been done using driving simulators. There is a lot of this research so just one link for now, it really merits its own thread perhaps in Tech Log.
from How do prolonged wakefulness and alcohol com... [Accid Anal Prev. 2001] - PubMed - NCBI
How do prolonged wakefulness and alcohol compare in the decrements they produce on a simulated driving task?
" Alcohol consumption produced changes in speed deviation and off-road occurrences of greater magnitude than the corresponding levels of prolonged wakefulness. While limited to situations in which there is no other traffic present, the findings suggest that impairments in simulated driving are evident even at relatively modest blood alcohol levels, and that wakefulness prolonged by as little as 3 h can produce decrements in the ability to maintain speed and road position as serious as those found at the legal limits of alcohol consumption."
from How do prolonged wakefulness and alcohol com... [Accid Anal Prev. 2001] - PubMed - NCBI
How do prolonged wakefulness and alcohol compare in the decrements they produce on a simulated driving task?
" Alcohol consumption produced changes in speed deviation and off-road occurrences of greater magnitude than the corresponding levels of prolonged wakefulness. While limited to situations in which there is no other traffic present, the findings suggest that impairments in simulated driving are evident even at relatively modest blood alcohol levels, and that wakefulness prolonged by as little as 3 h can produce decrements in the ability to maintain speed and road position as serious as those found at the legal limits of alcohol consumption."
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speed of sound:
PAPIs and VASIs have been found on occasion to be badly misaligned. In fact, for purposes of the visual segment (as defined in TERPs, Chapter 2) the FAA presumes such lights are unreliable for purposes of the visual segment of a NPA. (That presumption can be overcome on a case by case basis.) At an airport such as BHM I presume the FAA had verified these PAPIs as being correctly aligned. Otherwise, the two approaches would have categorically been NA at night because the visual segment is encumbered by penetrations of a 34:1 slope in the visual segment and, perhaps even a 20:1 slope (higher terrain a bit left of centerline with lots of trees and homes.
But, for all we know at this point the flight may have been cleared for a visual.
I don't buy this.
You are not flying into a black hole if visibility is 10nm, you are below the scattered cloud and you can see eight bright red lights in front of you.
PAPIs either work or they don't. They are either on or off and they don't change angle once they are installed and certified. Even if I was Albert Einstein I would trust eight red lights over my calculations.
There is a very good reason why 'too low' is red and 'too high' is white.
You are not flying into a black hole if visibility is 10nm, you are below the scattered cloud and you can see eight bright red lights in front of you.
PAPIs either work or they don't. They are either on or off and they don't change angle once they are installed and certified. Even if I was Albert Einstein I would trust eight red lights over my calculations.
There is a very good reason why 'too low' is red and 'too high' is white.
But, for all we know at this point the flight may have been cleared for a visual.
18 LOC approach according to Bloggs:
350ft per nm/3.28°.
21 7580
20 7230
19 6880
18 6530
17 6180
16 5830
15 5480
14 5130
13 4780
12 4430
11 4080
10 3730
9 3380
8 3030
7 2680
6 2330 (limit 2300)
5 1980
4 1630
3.3 1385 (MDA)
3 1280
2 930
1 580
Get on it, stay on it. End of story. Too hard to work out? Get the FAA to put it on your charts.
350ft per nm/3.28°.
21 7580
20 7230
19 6880
18 6530
17 6180
16 5830
15 5480
14 5130
13 4780
12 4430
11 4080
10 3730
9 3380
8 3030
7 2680
6 2330 (limit 2300)
5 1980
4 1630
3.3 1385 (MDA)
3 1280
2 930
1 580
Get on it, stay on it. End of story. Too hard to work out? Get the FAA to put it on your charts.
Lonewolf the Jepp chart gives a descent rate of 813ft/min at 140kt ground speed. The FAF is at BASKN 6D, but only 4.7nm from threshold at 2300ft. The next check height is IMTOY 3.3D, 2nm from threshold at 1380ft.The Jepp shows the 3.28 descent angle starting at BASKN so you wouldn't need all the previous checkheights.
The runway threshold is at 1.3D IBXO, why didn't the installer get it to read zero at te threshold?
Jepp also shows a spot height just after IMTOY of 910ft amsl.
Jepp also has the following note:
Only authorized operators may use
VNAV DA(H) in lieu of MDA(H).
Were UPS approved for this?
The runway threshold is at 1.3D IBXO, why didn't the installer get it to read zero at te threshold?
Jepp also shows a spot height just after IMTOY of 910ft amsl.
Jepp also has the following note:
Only authorized operators may use
VNAV DA(H) in lieu of MDA(H).
Were UPS approved for this?
Last edited by tubby linton; 16th Aug 2013 at 14:40.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
possible as well their FPA calcs were wrong, sighting 4 reds and not wanting to "de-stabilize" (by climbing back up to the PAPI) they levelled off to re-establish the PAPI and encountered the trees and other in the process of doing this...the boxes looked pretty well cooked....hope they still have retrievable data...
Last edited by ironbutt57; 16th Aug 2013 at 14:47.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: America
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they were planning on doing a GPS approach then they might not have even tuned up the LOC with associated DME. The only distance reading would have been to the threshold from the FMC. This would have left them low instead of high.
I know it's a bit far fetched but..... stranger things have happened.
I know it's a bit far fetched but..... stranger things have happened.
Last edited by Murexway; 16th Aug 2013 at 15:51.
Only authorized operators may use VNAV DA(H) in lieu of MDA(H).
It's odd that the FAA GPS chart makes no mention of an LNAV/VNAV minima ie a DA when Jeppesen does.
The FAF is at BASKN 6D, but only 4.7nm from threshold at 2300ft. The next check height is IMTOY 3.3D, 2nm from threshold at 1380ft.
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 16th Aug 2013 at 15:21.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: America
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
8driver: Not disputing anything you say. The human factor, including the tendency to be able to "hack it" and be slow to realize the need for a missed approach, is very big in most incidents/accidents, especially on the back side of the clock.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: America
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, I admit I'm old school.... all this stuff about black holes and no lights until the REIL's seems irrelevant. I'm presuming that they were cleared for some sort of instrument approach. Black holes and lack of adequate visual references are why we have instrument approaches in the first place. Even if they were cleared for a visual, especially at night it would be unthinkable that they wouldn't have had some sort of instrument approach briefed and set up. Those are hard altitudes at specific DME's for a reason, and the PAPI's are there for the same reason: obstacles between you and the end of the runway - including terrain.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just another airport in USA, nothing special really.....Been to Aspen, Telluride, etc and many abroad that would constitute a wording of SPECIAL
Show me a published IFR approach to a major airport that has terrain impacting the glidepath like that over the last mile to the runway ?
The published altitudes are not below figures for their relavent dme positions. The gps rnav chart also has the same note about approved operators using vnav minima
Last edited by tubby linton; 16th Aug 2013 at 16:29.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Atlanta, GA USA
Age: 60
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Murexway, you're pretty hard on somebody suggesting a catastrophic incapacitation. We lost a Captain who had a heart attack rolling out in a DC-8 in Indy on 32 roughly 13 years ago. He started to drift off centerline and the F/O took control but couldn't stop it before they ran into the mud off the end. The engineer had to pry the guys hand off the thrust reversers. No movie, it can happen and it takes awhile to recognize incapacitation. Does your airline train for it? Mine does, although truth be told we always know its coming in training. It can be very ugly (ala JetBlue), it may come on slowly, or it may be very fast
Passenger 389- Nobody is being insulting saying fatigue might be a factor. It isn't like the guy said they planned to have a sleep and wake up on short final. Unless you've been there, done it, and got the T-shirt with back of the clock flying you don't know what it feels like.
Last edited by Coagie; 16th Aug 2013 at 17:04. Reason: Left out a word. Messed up more punctuation than usual.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did you bother to read Sooeet's article for Asiana 214?
There's no point in such work (other than for ego) because it can't possibly describe what occurred without the flight data from the recorders. Anything else is just a cartoon.
What Happened to Asiana Airlines Flight 214 - Analysis by Sooeet.com
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
In the lower left hand corner, FAF to MAP times are 1:53 at 150 kts GS, and 1:34 at 180 kts GS. This would tell me, as a pilot, that if I were flying a CAT C or D aircraft on this approach, I should be configured, and on approach speed well before the FAF, and have my estimated ROD figured out before I hit the FAF. If I had a tool in the cockpit that allowed me to create a 3.28 glide slope that keeps me above min altitudes before FAF, all the better.
It looks as though the approach need ~700 fpm ROD if GS is 180, ~580-600 FPM ROD if GS is 150.
It looks as though the approach need ~700 fpm ROD if GS is 180, ~580-600 FPM ROD if GS is 150.
I'm just a driver, not a rocket scientist but you might want to re-check those numbers for a 3.28 degree glide path.
Airbubba: The approach plate I am looking at is dated 25 July 2012, from SE-4, AL-50(FAA). Glide slope noted as 3.28 degrees. The math went like this. (It may or may not reflect said glide slope. I don't have my old GS table at hand ...)
Hmm, you have a point, my calc was to MAP, not touchdown.
I'll try a different method.
If I start at the IAF at 3500 feet (as shown) and arrive at threshold (644 feet), I lose 2856 feet over a distance of 12.8 nautical miles.
150 kts GS gives me 2.5 nm per minute (5.12 minutes) 558 FPM.
180 kts GS gives me 3 nm per minute (4.27 minutes) =670 FPM. (Not far from ~700 fpm)
Granted, one should cross the threshold higher than 0 feet AGL. Call the total delta in alt -2800 feet and decrease ROD slightly to hit the box.
Hmm, you have a point, my calc was to MAP, not touchdown.
I'll try a different method.
If I start at the IAF at 3500 feet (as shown) and arrive at threshold (644 feet), I lose 2856 feet over a distance of 12.8 nautical miles.
150 kts GS gives me 2.5 nm per minute (5.12 minutes) 558 FPM.
180 kts GS gives me 3 nm per minute (4.27 minutes) =670 FPM. (Not far from ~700 fpm)
Granted, one should cross the threshold higher than 0 feet AGL. Call the total delta in alt -2800 feet and decrease ROD slightly to hit the box.
I was thinking the crew would probably shoot the RNAV (GPS) RWY 18 approach but they certainly were legal to do the LOC Rwy 18 (don't know why it's RWY on one plate and Rwy on the other).
Anyway, take look at the LOC Rwy 18, chart 11-2 dated 17 AUG 12.
There is a small rate of descent table on the left side. For 140 knots groundspeed, the rate is 803 fpm, for 160 knots, 929 fpm. This seems about right from my experience, your ROD numbers appear to me to be too low for the groundspeed.
You are not flying into a black hole if visibility is 10nm, you are below the scattered cloud and you can see eight bright red lights in front of you.
PAPIs either work or they don't. They are either on or off and they don't change angle once they are installed and certified. Even if I was Albert Einstein I would trust eight red lights over my calculations.
PAPIs either work or they don't. They are either on or off and they don't change angle once they are installed and certified. Even if I was Albert Einstein I would trust eight red lights over my calculations.
It has been claimed by ALPA in defense of the pilots in the 2002 FedEx TLH crash that moisture can affect the operation of PAPI's:
ALPA is disappointed that the Board did not fully explore the possibility that moisture condensation on the visual approach aid (Precision Approach Path Indicator, or PAPI) gave the crew a false indication. The FAA was aware of this problem as far back as 1983.
Last edited by Airbubba; 16th Aug 2013 at 18:36.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Show me a published IFR approach to a major airport that has terrain impacting the glidepath like that over the last mile to the runway ?
Vel, perhaps not major....but it does welcome A300 and larger aircraft on a regular basis.
Bardufoss/ENDU
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: America
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not trying to hang the crew, but unlesss there's evidence of mechanical failure or crew fatigue/impairment, the possiblility does exist of an intentionally flatter than 3.28 degree final approach (with a lower than 48' TCH) in order to plant it on the numbers of a 7,000' runway.
Last edited by Murexway; 16th Aug 2013 at 17:58.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by -JC-
The last mile on the runway 18 approach into BHM seems unique in that the terrain rises to almost 200 feet above threshold elevation just over 1/2 mile from the end of the runway,
On the 10-9 airport chart there is a symbol almost on the centreline forRW18 for a lit obstacle at 819 ft amsl, The obstacle is within 2000ft of the runway threshold and it would be 175 feet above it. Slightly to the left of the centreline some terrain is depicted at 757ft amsl.