UPS cargo crash near Birmingham AL
Sorry if I have missed something (it's my age). Surely an NPA is designed so that you can find the airport and then make a visual adjustment to find the runway and land or else make a go-around at the MAP. That is why the minima is given as an MDA (Minimum Descent Altitude) and not as a DH (Decision Height) as given for a Precission Approach which is designed to take you to the runway.
Although there are things that make me believe they were using V/S, the fact of the matter is we still don't know what mode they were in. At this point, this is easily the biggest question about the accident for me.
Reaching back to Somewherefaraway and his post ... LOC 18 is not kosher to shoot at night per a UPS ... what approach were these gents flying?
... an NPA is designed so that you can find the airport and then make a visual adjustment to find the runway and land or else make a go-around at the MAP.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Atlanta, GA USA
Age: 60
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How does one decide that a crew error could never be made by another crew in similar circumstances? To me it's a dangerous precedent to make the assumption that no one else could ever make the same mistake. I'd much rather see an investigation that looks for elements of the system that allowed the error to occur in the first place. And corrections need not always be major SOP changes or technical improvements. Sometimes raising awareness through training can be quite effective.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: New England
Age: 79
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old Boeing Driver
As a fellow aviator with about the same level of experience as you, we
used to have a term when we were still 16year F/O's "Y.A.R.C." (You're absolutely correct Captain)! Good post!!
used to have a term when we were still 16year F/O's "Y.A.R.C." (You're absolutely correct Captain)! Good post!!
PopeSweetJesus
I mentioned the RWY 27 Localizer approach at KSAN for an example of the visual cues to have flying down the side of the hill. It is a strange illusion sometimes, especially at night.
That particular approach will leave you low on the PAPI's if you hustle to minimums from the FAF, which calls for crossing REEBO at 1,800 and descending to an MDA of 680.
However, the approach shows a 3.14 degree glide path from REEBO to the TCH of 66'
The PAPI's are set with a glide path of 3.50 degrees.
If one setup a descent at about 6-700 FPM at REEBO, you would probably stay on the PAPI's
If one stayed level at 1,800 after passing REEBO, you would capture the PAPI's a little farther in and begin your descent.
I know we should not be discussing this approach on this thread, but it makes the point on the KBHM Localizer 18 approach, that even if they had stayed at 1,380 after IMTOY, they would have eventually seen the 2red/2white PAPI's
The same is true if they had descended to 1,200 after IMTOY. They would have eventually seen the 2red/2white PAPI's.
The mystery still is why were they 200+ feet low, inside of IMTOY.
Sorry to be so wordy on this one.
Regards
That particular approach will leave you low on the PAPI's if you hustle to minimums from the FAF, which calls for crossing REEBO at 1,800 and descending to an MDA of 680.
However, the approach shows a 3.14 degree glide path from REEBO to the TCH of 66'
The PAPI's are set with a glide path of 3.50 degrees.
If one setup a descent at about 6-700 FPM at REEBO, you would probably stay on the PAPI's
If one stayed level at 1,800 after passing REEBO, you would capture the PAPI's a little farther in and begin your descent.
I know we should not be discussing this approach on this thread, but it makes the point on the KBHM Localizer 18 approach, that even if they had stayed at 1,380 after IMTOY, they would have eventually seen the 2red/2white PAPI's
The same is true if they had descended to 1,200 after IMTOY. They would have eventually seen the 2red/2white PAPI's.
The mystery still is why were they 200+ feet low, inside of IMTOY.
Sorry to be so wordy on this one.
Regards
Last edited by Old Boeing Driver; 22nd Aug 2013 at 22:04. Reason: Grammar and spelling
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently the airport had paid to have those trees in Ms. Benson's yard cut in the past...
After UPS 1354 crash, neighbors vent fear and anger with Birmingham Airport Authority | al.com
After UPS 1354 crash, neighbors vent fear and anger with Birmingham Airport Authority | al.com
Barbara Benson, whose home was struck with falling debris after the A600-300 struck trees in her yard, demanded to know why the airport had once paid to cut the treetops in her yard but had left her house there.
MM43 would you please recompute your chart . The threshold is 644ft. The threshold crossing height is 692 ft. The papis are set at 3.2 degrees and the approach descent angle is 3.28 degrees. The approach speed was 140 kt ias but there may have been a 5kt tailwind.
Where would the aircraft been 16 sec and 9 seconds before the end of the recording and more importantly with a circa 800 ft/ min V/S at what altitude?
Where would the aircraft been 16 sec and 9 seconds before the end of the recording and more importantly with a circa 800 ft/ min V/S at what altitude?
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Western USA
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WillowRun 6-3:
Counselor:
As a pilot with more high school than college, along with 46 years of accident, incident and violation free, professional aviating from GA spam cans to airline heavies, I am of the opinion that much of what is happening in aviation these days is due to overthinking within the industry. We've lost track of the basics.
There's a lot of talk about details that don't matter in this thread. From my standpoint as a pilot, I manage the idiosyncracies of the airplane systems to make the approach down to mins, PAPI's insight, land. Some airplanes are easy, some are not. Deal with it.
You don't need a PhD to fly an airplane, and you don't need PhD level discussion to learn the facts of the accident. Quality, from my pilot's perspective, is being safe, efficient and reliable in the pursuit of my profession. We have high tech airplanes with hoop-jumping hiring requirements and yet we still have AF447, a 777 smacking into the sea wall at SFO on a perfect day, a 737 operated by essentially a short haul airline biffing a landing, and an Airbus from a company with a damn good safety record apparently having an issue with an NPA.
What to do? Having people with a passion for the profession who are detail oriented...and who have a talent for the job will go a long way towards improving safety. When I was hiring, 80% of the interview was the sim ride. These days, 80% of the qualifying interview is the chit-chat portion. People with practical experience and desire are dropped in the prioritizing below those with more education, ethnic background and gender. Diversity is not necessarily a good hiring priority when hiring pilots. I always practiced equality in that the best pilots got the job by demonstrating their abilities, regardless of how fancy their resumes were, or what color or flavor they were. Everyone deserves a shot at the game, but only the best sticks get hired...period. Call it quality control.
Focus on airplane capability (common sense, reliable, user-friendly design) and pilot capability/training, because whether things go to hell or not, the airplane/pilot team is the formula for success. All the other details are important, but the magenta line cockpit, increasing pilot minimum hours and the eyewash of fiddling with crewrest regulations doesn't resolve the core problem. I may be accused of over-simplifying the issue, but over-complicating the issue with minutiae isn't going to solve anything either.
At least that's my perspective as an old-school, pro pilot who has never dented aluminum or bruised a body. A dinosaur perhaps, but this dino is still alive and still successfully flying heavies and spam cans with a firm grasp on the basics.
I get that the union has its own investigatory team and that their effort is part of or co-ordinated with NTSB. And also that NTSB in general is very thorough. And while I truly appreciate the comtent of your post, yours did not answer a key part of my inquiries. Please allow me to clarify: I'm starting from a premise about the Quality, writ large, of the cumulative posts here. The content in-thread has: (1) depth (in the sense of sharp focus on detail and thoroughness so as to be comprehensive on any given substantive point);
(2) scope (in the sense of including all (or substantially all) the subject matters that make up the factual picture of this crash, and all the analytic or operational matters as well);
(3) veteran aviator perspective earned through vast accumulations of flight and PIC hours; and
(4) a robust give-and-take which demands participants to think before they post but then also -and this is key - continue thinking as the thread is spun.
(2) scope (in the sense of including all (or substantially all) the subject matters that make up the factual picture of this crash, and all the analytic or operational matters as well);
(3) veteran aviator perspective earned through vast accumulations of flight and PIC hours; and
(4) a robust give-and-take which demands participants to think before they post but then also -and this is key - continue thinking as the thread is spun.
As a pilot with more high school than college, along with 46 years of accident, incident and violation free, professional aviating from GA spam cans to airline heavies, I am of the opinion that much of what is happening in aviation these days is due to overthinking within the industry. We've lost track of the basics.
There's a lot of talk about details that don't matter in this thread. From my standpoint as a pilot, I manage the idiosyncracies of the airplane systems to make the approach down to mins, PAPI's insight, land. Some airplanes are easy, some are not. Deal with it.
You don't need a PhD to fly an airplane, and you don't need PhD level discussion to learn the facts of the accident. Quality, from my pilot's perspective, is being safe, efficient and reliable in the pursuit of my profession. We have high tech airplanes with hoop-jumping hiring requirements and yet we still have AF447, a 777 smacking into the sea wall at SFO on a perfect day, a 737 operated by essentially a short haul airline biffing a landing, and an Airbus from a company with a damn good safety record apparently having an issue with an NPA.
What to do? Having people with a passion for the profession who are detail oriented...and who have a talent for the job will go a long way towards improving safety. When I was hiring, 80% of the interview was the sim ride. These days, 80% of the qualifying interview is the chit-chat portion. People with practical experience and desire are dropped in the prioritizing below those with more education, ethnic background and gender. Diversity is not necessarily a good hiring priority when hiring pilots. I always practiced equality in that the best pilots got the job by demonstrating their abilities, regardless of how fancy their resumes were, or what color or flavor they were. Everyone deserves a shot at the game, but only the best sticks get hired...period. Call it quality control.
Focus on airplane capability (common sense, reliable, user-friendly design) and pilot capability/training, because whether things go to hell or not, the airplane/pilot team is the formula for success. All the other details are important, but the magenta line cockpit, increasing pilot minimum hours and the eyewash of fiddling with crewrest regulations doesn't resolve the core problem. I may be accused of over-simplifying the issue, but over-complicating the issue with minutiae isn't going to solve anything either.
At least that's my perspective as an old-school, pro pilot who has never dented aluminum or bruised a body. A dinosaur perhaps, but this dino is still alive and still successfully flying heavies and spam cans with a firm grasp on the basics.
Desert 185
Amen Brother!
I believe you and I are on the same sheet of music.
Automation is a good thing, but at the end of the day, it is just a tool.
Eventually you have to just fly the airplane within the limits of it and yourself.
Great post.
Regards.
I believe you and I are on the same sheet of music.
Automation is a good thing, but at the end of the day, it is just a tool.
Eventually you have to just fly the airplane within the limits of it and yourself.
Great post.
Regards.
Tubby Linton
I've been wondering that myself.
As a very speculative guess, I would say that they were using the V/S on the automation and possibly forgot about it, or were otherwise distracted.
Taking from memory from some previous posts, they were pretty fast, pretty close in.
I know I have used the V/S mode to work a descent and speed change.
As a further guess, I think they set the MA altitude somewhere along there.
If that is the case, there would never have been an altitude capture.
I saw your earlier post, and I think you are are on the right track.
Regards.
As a very speculative guess, I would say that they were using the V/S on the automation and possibly forgot about it, or were otherwise distracted.
Taking from memory from some previous posts, they were pretty fast, pretty close in.
I know I have used the V/S mode to work a descent and speed change.
As a further guess, I think they set the MA altitude somewhere along there.
If that is the case, there would never have been an altitude capture.
I saw your earlier post, and I think you are are on the right track.
Regards.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NTSB outside 'quality check'
Willow Run,
Short answer, Yes. The final report is circulated as a draft to all parties and they are allowed to provide input in the form of 'Submissions'. The NTSB is free to ignore the submissions, however, they form a portion of the docket when the report is released. You may not see the information in the actual report but each submission is in the docket.
Questions: does NTSB have some review process by which it goes to (for example) ALPA with the results of its investigation, before preparing its report, and ask whether such a representative of pilots would add any other data or tests? Does NTSB vet an outline of its proposed analytic framework for identifying probable cause? Does it circulate a draft report to anyone outside the agency for comment before making and declaring it final?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 81
Posts: 1,330
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Tubby Linton;
As per your suggestions, have realigned the PAPI. The PAPI height is 630.6 feet and 3 feet below the RWY at TDZ. The threshold is 1166 feet to the north.
The graphic at Post #554 has been changed. A larger scale graphic is here.
I think the NTSB reference to 140 KTS IAS was probably taken prior to the initial contact, and time-wise the distance from impact to the top of the hill to the north of Bethel Dr equates to 9 secs and 130kts. I suggest that the tree felling had an impact on the final speed.
As per your suggestions, have realigned the PAPI. The PAPI height is 630.6 feet and 3 feet below the RWY at TDZ. The threshold is 1166 feet to the north.
The graphic at Post #554 has been changed. A larger scale graphic is here.
I think the NTSB reference to 140 KTS IAS was probably taken prior to the initial contact, and time-wise the distance from impact to the top of the hill to the north of Bethel Dr equates to 9 secs and 130kts. I suggest that the tree felling had an impact on the final speed.
Last edited by mm43; 26th Aug 2013 at 20:05. Reason: changed large scale graphic to Rev 2 - 20130825
Speeds and Altitudes
I know this has probably been posted, but I didn't want to look back through 658 posts.
Does anyone know what their speeds and altitudes were at BAKSN and IMTOY?
Regards.
Does anyone know what their speeds and altitudes were at BAKSN and IMTOY?
Regards.
MM43
I need a little education.
I thought the 3.28 degree glide path from IMTOY to the 48' TCH was just an angle between those 2 points.
Does the PAPI angle actually hit IMTOY as depicted on your diagram?
I know the angles posted are just slightly different, but just wondered.
Thanks for your great work.
Regards.
I thought the 3.28 degree glide path from IMTOY to the 48' TCH was just an angle between those 2 points.
Does the PAPI angle actually hit IMTOY as depicted on your diagram?
I know the angles posted are just slightly different, but just wondered.
Thanks for your great work.
Regards.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 81
Posts: 1,330
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Old Boeing Driver
The RWY 18 TCH is 47.7 feet on the 3.20 degree PAPI Glide Slope. The RWY TDZ is 3 feet above the PAPI (630.6') which is the zero baseline for the drawing, i.e. 630 feet above MSL.
Below is a large scale high res portion of the graphic, showing the PAPI origin, with runway in blue which is 644 feet at threshold and a TCH height of 48 feet. So as drawn, the runway negative slope is increased by 3 feet over 1166, but that has no affect on the position of anything else.
The intercept of the PAPI centerline at IMTOY appears to be correct, but I haven't checked the coordinates, and the I-BXO LOC/DME may not be 'exact'.
The RWY 18 TCH is 47.7 feet on the 3.20 degree PAPI Glide Slope. The RWY TDZ is 3 feet above the PAPI (630.6') which is the zero baseline for the drawing, i.e. 630 feet above MSL.
Below is a large scale high res portion of the graphic, showing the PAPI origin, with runway in blue which is 644 feet at threshold and a TCH height of 48 feet. So as drawn, the runway negative slope is increased by 3 feet over 1166, but that has no affect on the position of anything else.
The intercept of the PAPI centerline at IMTOY appears to be correct, but I haven't checked the coordinates, and the I-BXO LOC/DME may not be 'exact'.
Last edited by mm43; 23rd Aug 2013 at 04:50.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by THEPRFCT10
A Squared: sorry, I may have missed it if mentioned earlier, but if the Jepp Plate is in fact in error, how would one know? Was it in the NOTAMs? Sorry, I must have missed it.
(Again, I don't seem to have an option to 'quote' any replies)
(Again, I don't seem to have an option to 'quote' any replies)
Regardless, they were in fact on an authorized procedure. The fact that their charts may have indicated otherwise in error is completely irrelevant to the accident itself.
regarding quoting a post. As far as I nobody has the option to automatically quote a previous post, you have to type it in yourself. In your reply to window, click on the little yellow dialog symbol just at the top of the box. This inserts (quote) (/quote) except that it's they're enclosed in square brackets, not parentheses. In between these type or cut and paste the text you want to quote. When done correctly, it will show as shaded, quoted text when in your post.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Automatically quoting a previous post
regarding quoting a post. As far as I nobody has the option to automatically quote a previous post, you have to type it in yourself. In your reply to window, click on the little yellow dialog symbol just at the top of the box. This inserts (quote) (/quote) except that it's they're enclosed in square brackets, not parentheses. In between these type or cut and paste the text you want to quote. When done correctly, it will show as shaded, quoted text when in your post.
When you click on the "Reply" icon, the URL in the browser address bar is filled in and you are redirected to a blank message pane where you can start writing. For example, when I clicked on "Reply" just now, the browser showed
and gave me an empty "Reply to Thread" message box in which to start writing this.
When you are replying to a post and want it automatically quoted in your reply, click on "Reply", but don't start writing yet. Instead, go up to the string in the address bar and manually delete the last "1" (you can delete the whole "&noquote=1" if you want, but simply deleting the "1" has the same effect), and hit return to reload the page. Hey presto, you're back at the the previous "Reply to Thread" box but the post you're replying to is pre-loaded as a quote.
Hope that helps. It's easier to do than to explain!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cyrano & A squared, thanks V much. I am not comfortable in this modern cyber world & have admired, greatly, those with the skills I lack. Can't wait to highlight (shaded) somebody now ! Cheers.