UPS cargo crash near Birmingham AL
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capn Bloggs,
I was responding to the issues raised by Retired F4's more generic question on safety of NPAs.
An RNAV LPV does not need to follow the 'rules' of an ILS as it is not constrained by needing to be 'in the beam'. The aircraft can be 'established' on the procedure while in a turn and with varying descent rates. Look at the approach into DCA along the Potomac. This makes RNP LPV approaches and departures more suited to complex terrain: there are some in China that zigzag along mountainous valleys.
I do not know whether the particular UPS A306 fit was capable of RNP LPV. However, if crews have a choice on which approach aids and procedures to use I would hope that they use the aid/procedure that provides the highest safety level; unless there is a justified requirement for doing otherwise.
RNP arrival and departure procedures could have been rolled out US wide but the rate has been very slow. Moreover, in many cases to make procedure generation and use simple the RNP arrival procedures are merely overlays of the existing ILS procedures. This means the ROI on equipping aircraft and training crews is insufficient for companies to do so. Therefore, despite the RNP LPV capability being nearly a decade old we are still seeing NPAs in use.
This is another discussion that perhaps could move to Tech Log
Some good points there but:
- Does the A300-600 have the gear to be RNP-AR (or indeed LPV or LNAV/VNAV) capable;
- Why doesn't KBHM 18 have a glideslope? I suspect cost or terrain (which was collided-with) prohibits (could also preclude an RNP-AR approach).
- RNP LNAV works well when the aircraft can use the FMS database-coded approach slope/VNAV (even if just following it with VS/FPA or handflying), but aircraft must be capable.
- Does the A300-600 have the gear to be RNP-AR (or indeed LPV or LNAV/VNAV) capable;
- Why doesn't KBHM 18 have a glideslope? I suspect cost or terrain (which was collided-with) prohibits (could also preclude an RNP-AR approach).
- RNP LNAV works well when the aircraft can use the FMS database-coded approach slope/VNAV (even if just following it with VS/FPA or handflying), but aircraft must be capable.
An RNAV LPV does not need to follow the 'rules' of an ILS as it is not constrained by needing to be 'in the beam'. The aircraft can be 'established' on the procedure while in a turn and with varying descent rates. Look at the approach into DCA along the Potomac. This makes RNP LPV approaches and departures more suited to complex terrain: there are some in China that zigzag along mountainous valleys.
I do not know whether the particular UPS A306 fit was capable of RNP LPV. However, if crews have a choice on which approach aids and procedures to use I would hope that they use the aid/procedure that provides the highest safety level; unless there is a justified requirement for doing otherwise.
RNP arrival and departure procedures could have been rolled out US wide but the rate has been very slow. Moreover, in many cases to make procedure generation and use simple the RNP arrival procedures are merely overlays of the existing ILS procedures. This means the ROI on equipping aircraft and training crews is insufficient for companies to do so. Therefore, despite the RNP LPV capability being nearly a decade old we are still seeing NPAs in use.
This is another discussion that perhaps could move to Tech Log
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Wyoming
Age: 74
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was BHM Runway 06-24 really closed?
Hey guys,
Take a look at FlightAware's arrival history for BHM on Aug. 14 just before and just after the UPS crash at 4:49 a.m.
All reports so far have said RW06-24 (the long runway with an ILS to 06) was closed, BUT Mountain Air landed on RW06 at 3:32am and FedEx landed on RW06 at 5:08 a.m. FlightAware's track log confirms this.
So,
a) was Runway 06/24 really closed at the time of the UPS crash?
b) if so what were the closure times?
c) if not, why did the UPS crew elect to use RW 18 if RW 06 was available?
None of these questions however, no matter what the answer, change the apparent cause of the accident as crew error (barring some sort of ground or flight equipment malfunction, which is unlikely here).
1) failure of situational awareness,
2) failure to fly the standard instrument approach to RW 18 until glide path on final could be assured by visual PAPI light indications,
3) failure to monitor sink rate and observe altitude limitations on approach, and
4) apparent failure to either acquire PAPI visually (which would have shown all red lights) or initiate immediate go-around if that indication was acquired.
Take a look at FlightAware's arrival history for BHM on Aug. 14 just before and just after the UPS crash at 4:49 a.m.
All reports so far have said RW06-24 (the long runway with an ILS to 06) was closed, BUT Mountain Air landed on RW06 at 3:32am and FedEx landed on RW06 at 5:08 a.m. FlightAware's track log confirms this.
So,
a) was Runway 06/24 really closed at the time of the UPS crash?
b) if so what were the closure times?
c) if not, why did the UPS crew elect to use RW 18 if RW 06 was available?
None of these questions however, no matter what the answer, change the apparent cause of the accident as crew error (barring some sort of ground or flight equipment malfunction, which is unlikely here).
1) failure of situational awareness,
2) failure to fly the standard instrument approach to RW 18 until glide path on final could be assured by visual PAPI light indications,
3) failure to monitor sink rate and observe altitude limitations on approach, and
4) apparent failure to either acquire PAPI visually (which would have shown all red lights) or initiate immediate go-around if that indication was acquired.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Update on AvHerald including last 16 seconds of CVR transcript.....no surprises there...
Crash: UPS A306 at Birmingham on Aug 14th 2013, contacted trees and touched down outside airport
Crash: UPS A306 at Birmingham on Aug 14th 2013, contacted trees and touched down outside airport
Last edited by ironbutt57; 17th Aug 2013 at 12:14.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Gone sailing
Age: 58
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are several different types of VGSI(s). The primary systems covered in this chapter are visual approach slope indicators (VASI), precision approach path indicators (PAPI), pulsating visual approach slope indicators (PVASI), T-VASI, three-color VASI, and helicopter approach path indicator (HAPI). Each of these systems presents a different type of visual indication to the pilot and requires different in-flight interpretation
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder why they chose to fly the localizer and not the RNAV GPS approach which the A300 is capable of and the crews are trained for. I'm also curious if the standard of setting the missed approach altitude in the window instead of setting the MDA is a player.
I'm not judging the crew because I truly believe in "there but for the grace of God" and these things can happen to any of us.
RIP Shanda and Cerea (my friend)
I'm not judging the crew because I truly believe in "there but for the grace of God" and these things can happen to any of us.
RIP Shanda and Cerea (my friend)
Last edited by legomaniac; 17th Aug 2013 at 13:23.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IAN W:
In order to have what the FAA these days calls an Approach with Vertical Guidance (APV), which could be either an ILS, LNAV/VNAV, LPV, GLS, or RNP AR, requires that an area between DA and the runway threshold be fairly flat. This is the Glideslope Qualification Surface (GQS). Because of the terrain in this area for KBHM Runway 18, an APV is not possible. If it was, the RNAV approach to Runway 18 at KBHM would have both an LPV and LNAV/VNAV line of minima.
As to RNP AR and its values as low as RNP AR 0.10, the accuracy and integrity of such an approach is not as good as an unrestricted ILS within the last approximate one and one-half miles of the runway. The advantage of RNP AR approaches are the use of RF legs to avoid terrain. If there is no significant terrain above several hundred feet, RNP AR offers no advantage whatsoever and requires an inordinate amount of aircraft avionics, particularly to values of less then RNP 0.30 or RNP AR missed approaches with RNP of less than 1.0
KBHM has two RNP AR approaches, one to Runway 6, and one to Runway 24.
These RNP AR IAPs have DAs and visibilities considerably higher than the Runway 6 CAT I and II IAPs, and the Runway 24 LPV IAP.
Outside of the airline world RNP AR is essentially a myth. OTOH, where runways qualify LPV is ubiquitous, but even LPV (thus far) cannot compare to a CAT II and especially a CAT III ILS.
Finally, thus far there are no RNP AR approaches that use LPV for the final segment. RNP AR was a concept to use air carrier avionics in use at the time; i.e., IRUs and Baro VNAV.
In order to have what the FAA these days calls an Approach with Vertical Guidance (APV), which could be either an ILS, LNAV/VNAV, LPV, GLS, or RNP AR, requires that an area between DA and the runway threshold be fairly flat. This is the Glideslope Qualification Surface (GQS). Because of the terrain in this area for KBHM Runway 18, an APV is not possible. If it was, the RNAV approach to Runway 18 at KBHM would have both an LPV and LNAV/VNAV line of minima.
As to RNP AR and its values as low as RNP AR 0.10, the accuracy and integrity of such an approach is not as good as an unrestricted ILS within the last approximate one and one-half miles of the runway. The advantage of RNP AR approaches are the use of RF legs to avoid terrain. If there is no significant terrain above several hundred feet, RNP AR offers no advantage whatsoever and requires an inordinate amount of aircraft avionics, particularly to values of less then RNP 0.30 or RNP AR missed approaches with RNP of less than 1.0
KBHM has two RNP AR approaches, one to Runway 6, and one to Runway 24.
These RNP AR IAPs have DAs and visibilities considerably higher than the Runway 6 CAT I and II IAPs, and the Runway 24 LPV IAP.
Outside of the airline world RNP AR is essentially a myth. OTOH, where runways qualify LPV is ubiquitous, but even LPV (thus far) cannot compare to a CAT II and especially a CAT III ILS.
Finally, thus far there are no RNP AR approaches that use LPV for the final segment. RNP AR was a concept to use air carrier avionics in use at the time; i.e., IRUs and Baro VNAV.
Last edited by aterpster; 17th Aug 2013 at 13:32.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I wonder why they chose to fly the localizer and not the RNAV GPS approach which the A300 is capable of and the crews are trained for. I'm also curious if the standard of setting the missed approach altitude in the window instead of setting the MDA is a player.
It's been a long time since I've flown the A306, are you implying that perhaps the missed approach altitude instead of MDA was set prior to the FAF so there was no path guidance and a late descent was initiated when the error was realized?
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's been a long time since I've flown the A306, are you implying that perhaps the missed approach altitude instead of MDA was set prior to the FAF so there was no path guidance and a late descent was initiated when the error was realized?
Last edited by legomaniac; 17th Aug 2013 at 15:06.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder why they chose to fly the localizer and not the RNAV GPS approach which the A300 is capable of and the crews are trained for.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It doesn't seem that it would have made any difference either way.
Last edited by legomaniac; 17th Aug 2013 at 15:31.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, the speculation that the houses were built on the north side after the airport was is incorrect.
Last edited by A Squared; 17th Aug 2013 at 16:05.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No. On the A306 once you start down on a profile approach, inside the FAF, you set the missed approach altitude, not MDA. (I don't remember if it's the same on a V/S approach but guessing it is) But that makes it possible to go below MDA without having the field in sight, the airplane won't automatically level off.
I thought it was established "big planes" do not do "dive and drive", they fly a constant flight path approach and at (M)DA they either continue to descend (visually) or GA. In the event you put MDA in, and mistakenly, even though visual, allowed the AP to level you off you have now destabilised the approach significantly enough to require a GA anyway.
There are auto call outs, SOPs and 2 pilots to prevent inadvertent descent below (M)DA without the required visual refs.
PS the above is not intended to relate to the UPS accident - just the post above.
NoD
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Western USA
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JimField:
I retired from UPS as a crewmember after almost 20 years. I have been involved with flight crew/pilot training for almost my entire aviation career. I found their crew training to be within the top two of the five airlines and three corporate jobs with whom I was employed. Did something fall between the cracks? Possible, but we don't know yet.
As far as fatigue, I may have a better tolerance for it than most, but learning to mitigate it is, and should be, part of the job. Flying, for me, never was a job (which is probably why I still have a post-retirement hobby job), so perhaps that helped in the fatigue department. I still fly the occasional ten hour all-nighter.
There are cry babies in the industry who cry fatigue even after a three-day layover. Boo hoo. Sorry. Get a King Air job flying the owner to his ranch on the weekend.
@ A Squared:
Quote:
immature and dishonest
Just a suggestion: Any chance we can discuss the substantive issues I raised, including systemic problems in the airline industry, such as poor crew training, overworked crews, etc., which are posing important public safety hazards, rather than engaging in personal attacks based on your feelings?
Quote:
immature and dishonest
Just a suggestion: Any chance we can discuss the substantive issues I raised, including systemic problems in the airline industry, such as poor crew training, overworked crews, etc., which are posing important public safety hazards, rather than engaging in personal attacks based on your feelings?
As far as fatigue, I may have a better tolerance for it than most, but learning to mitigate it is, and should be, part of the job. Flying, for me, never was a job (which is probably why I still have a post-retirement hobby job), so perhaps that helped in the fatigue department. I still fly the occasional ten hour all-nighter.
There are cry babies in the industry who cry fatigue even after a three-day layover. Boo hoo. Sorry. Get a King Air job flying the owner to his ranch on the weekend.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But why would you want to "level off" at MDA??
There are auto call outs, SOPs and 2 pilots to prevent inadvertent descent below (M)DA without the required visual refs.
Last edited by legomaniac; 17th Aug 2013 at 15:57.