UPS cargo crash near Birmingham AL
And if you want to put in the quoted poster's name, you put it in the opening quote code like this:
[quote_=Bloggs]quoted text in here[/quote].
Don't use the red underscore before the = sign, I had to otherwise my example quote would become a real quote like this!
[quote_=Bloggs]quoted text in here[/quote].
Don't use the red underscore before the = sign, I had to otherwise my example quote would become a real quote like this!
Originally Posted by Bloggs
quoted text in here
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 23rd Aug 2013 at 08:36.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: huntsvegas
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G/S angle?
@MM43
The FAA LOC18 approach plate that aterpster showed earlier had TCH of 48' and G/S angle of 3.28. Did you have a different plate, or why did you use 3.20 on your excellent profile graphic?
The FAA LOC18 approach plate that aterpster showed earlier had TCH of 48' and G/S angle of 3.28. Did you have a different plate, or why did you use 3.20 on your excellent profile graphic?
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Before a report goes final it is sent as a draft to all the parties. They have an opportunity to comment by submitting Submissions. The Board (or Staff) may ignore the comments but the Submissions are published as part of the docket when the final report is released. You have to download the entire docket to get them so if you just read the final report you may or may not see the fruits of the Submissions.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Kansas
Age: 85
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I don't believe it looks at VS. Radio altimeter sees acft closing on the terrain. Acft could be going down or terrain could be rising.
It's just a dumb box.
It's just a dumb box.
You are correct: V/S vs Rad Alt Logic
There is a published formula that describes the "SINK RATE" alert logic which is a function of V/S and Radio Altitude. UPS would have had a VS higher than -1000 FPM (perhaps more like -1200) for the alert to sound.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 853
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mm43's chart - visuals - flying testbed (huh?)
Two (2) questions, somewhat connected.
Charts, Plates, and angles/distances of REILs, PAPIs & etc. Readers' attention is respectfully requested to be directed to mm43's chart or graph, depicted in post no. 661, above. It depicts a range of approach information, altitudes and ground elevations especially, and related data points derived therefrom. QUESTION is, do there exist depictions of visual cues at distances along a given approach to a given runway? Let me attempt, at least, to illustrate the underlying predicate for this query using the current quasi-investigatory thread. A goodly number of members have analyzed and/or commented upon, or at least provided input of just an informational variety about, the ability of the 1354 pilots to see the PAPIs, and related stuff about the visual set on approach. Stuff like was there a beacon on a hill at some point, what could the CT guy see and whether that matters, and especially the possibly emerging consensus that the approach was flown so low that the visuals blocked the pilots from knowing they were too low -- no, let me make that harsher - the visuals worked in a very nice evil and ultimately fatal conspiracy to lock the pilots into a terribly wrong sense of complacency. So, are there Jepps of the visual variety? I'm asking this even though I am willing to gamble that the Flight Safety simulator programs depict approaches (duh) but how close or or far are those depictions from what the Mark 1 eyeball sees out in front of the aircraft? In terms of very specific alignments of PAPI at given combinations of altitude and distance, and terrain or obstructions, and so on.
Question two. Has anyone tried to build (I know, you'd need funding first, I get that) a testbed aircraft that would shoot approaches which experience has shown to be troublesome, for the purpose of finding out not just what the next approach plate will depict, but a truly safe approach? Let's say a souped-up ex-Pan Am DC-10-30, loaded with instrumentation, ramped up powerplants, and pilots holding zero bs tolerance for other than precision in measurement and analysis. I note this even though I once tried to buy exactly that type of Airplane using nothing but my own name to pay for it...no of course I had not figured the cost of redoing the livery so that it would read, in bright Maize letters outlined in a Blue border with a narrow white space in between THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN. (Against a Gleeming white base coat all the way down to about 10 degrees port & starboard up from the nose gear doors.) Anyway, does somebody already operate such a testbed for getting better parameters for FAA to improve approach designs?
Thanks for reading. It is a privilege and an honor to be able to communicate with all the fine pilots and others on this board who actually know about this stuff - and I am loath to overstate my welcome, and hence welcome all comments and criticisms.
I'm WillowRun 6-3, la-covet (Hebrew for, 'in honor of') the Willow Run Laboratories of the University of Michigan. Good Day.
Charts, Plates, and angles/distances of REILs, PAPIs & etc. Readers' attention is respectfully requested to be directed to mm43's chart or graph, depicted in post no. 661, above. It depicts a range of approach information, altitudes and ground elevations especially, and related data points derived therefrom. QUESTION is, do there exist depictions of visual cues at distances along a given approach to a given runway? Let me attempt, at least, to illustrate the underlying predicate for this query using the current quasi-investigatory thread. A goodly number of members have analyzed and/or commented upon, or at least provided input of just an informational variety about, the ability of the 1354 pilots to see the PAPIs, and related stuff about the visual set on approach. Stuff like was there a beacon on a hill at some point, what could the CT guy see and whether that matters, and especially the possibly emerging consensus that the approach was flown so low that the visuals blocked the pilots from knowing they were too low -- no, let me make that harsher - the visuals worked in a very nice evil and ultimately fatal conspiracy to lock the pilots into a terribly wrong sense of complacency. So, are there Jepps of the visual variety? I'm asking this even though I am willing to gamble that the Flight Safety simulator programs depict approaches (duh) but how close or or far are those depictions from what the Mark 1 eyeball sees out in front of the aircraft? In terms of very specific alignments of PAPI at given combinations of altitude and distance, and terrain or obstructions, and so on.
Question two. Has anyone tried to build (I know, you'd need funding first, I get that) a testbed aircraft that would shoot approaches which experience has shown to be troublesome, for the purpose of finding out not just what the next approach plate will depict, but a truly safe approach? Let's say a souped-up ex-Pan Am DC-10-30, loaded with instrumentation, ramped up powerplants, and pilots holding zero bs tolerance for other than precision in measurement and analysis. I note this even though I once tried to buy exactly that type of Airplane using nothing but my own name to pay for it...no of course I had not figured the cost of redoing the livery so that it would read, in bright Maize letters outlined in a Blue border with a narrow white space in between THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN. (Against a Gleeming white base coat all the way down to about 10 degrees port & starboard up from the nose gear doors.) Anyway, does somebody already operate such a testbed for getting better parameters for FAA to improve approach designs?
Thanks for reading. It is a privilege and an honor to be able to communicate with all the fine pilots and others on this board who actually know about this stuff - and I am loath to overstate my welcome, and hence welcome all comments and criticisms.
I'm WillowRun 6-3, la-covet (Hebrew for, 'in honor of') the Willow Run Laboratories of the University of Michigan. Good Day.
Last edited by WillowRun 6-3; 23rd Aug 2013 at 18:52. Reason: adding THE is the reason
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
to mm43 RE diagram
Nice work - can you do something for us? Figure out the sight lines to the bridge on the extended centerline over which I-59 passes - it's just south of the threshold for 36. Here's a Googly from it..
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll...359.08,,2,4.34
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll...359.08,,2,4.34
Last edited by Jetdriver; 25th Aug 2013 at 20:12.
The FAA has 33 planes and about 200 pilots and technicians in their Flight Inspections Operations Group. Their full time job is to fly approaches and airways and make sure they are up to standards. No DC-10s, just King Airs and biz jets. Every ILS in the National Airspace System is flown every 270 days and every non precision approach is flown about half as often.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 81
Posts: 1,330
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ kenneth house
I got confused when I initially looked at the AL-50 plate, and Tubby Linton drew my attention to the differing G/S angles for RWY 18.
Here is a link to the up-to-date plate info for AL #:50 that was originally posted by aterpster.
@ deSitter
I'll have a look at the clearances for RWY 36 over the I-59 when I get some time in the next day or so.
I got confused when I initially looked at the AL-50 plate, and Tubby Linton drew my attention to the differing G/S angles for RWY 18.
Here is a link to the up-to-date plate info for AL #:50 that was originally posted by aterpster.
@ deSitter
I'll have a look at the clearances for RWY 36 over the I-59 when I get some time in the next day or so.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Western USA
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WillowRun 6-3:
NASA has a DC-8 airborne science laboratory that could be configured to do just that. Approach some science types, maybe through Univ of North Dakota National Suborbital Education and Research Center (NSERC). You never know what might become of it.
DC-8 | NASA Airborne Science Program
The airplane is presently flying the SEAC4RS program out of Houston (KEFD) until Oct 1, in case you're in the area.
NASA has a DC-8 airborne science laboratory that could be configured to do just that. Approach some science types, maybe through Univ of North Dakota National Suborbital Education and Research Center (NSERC). You never know what might become of it.
DC-8 | NASA Airborne Science Program
The airplane is presently flying the SEAC4RS program out of Houston (KEFD) until Oct 1, in case you're in the area.
Last edited by Desert185; 23rd Aug 2013 at 23:23.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Kansas
Age: 85
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oz, et al, even if not intelligent, EGPWS has excellent logic and when heeded has immense capability to save lives.
If the reported EGPWS alert was ‘Sink Rate’ (which I am unable to confirm) then this should have been generated by mode 1 which uses aircraft vertical speed vs Rad Alt. The VS required would appear to be very high for the scenarios surmised so far.
However, if the alert was ‘Don’t Sink’ then this might have been generated by mode 3, but the description of this suggests a dependency on gear and flap switching to determine a difference between after take-off and go around. Although the latter function might apply in this accident, the reported gear and flap position suggests not.
If the reported EGPWS alert was ‘Sink Rate’ (which I am unable to confirm) then this should have been generated by mode 1 which uses aircraft vertical speed vs Rad Alt. The VS required would appear to be very high for the scenarios surmised so far.
However, if the alert was ‘Don’t Sink’ then this might have been generated by mode 3, but the description of this suggests a dependency on gear and flap switching to determine a difference between after take-off and go around. Although the latter function might apply in this accident, the reported gear and flap position suggests not.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many accidents have happened in the past when undesired high rates of descent developed when both crewmembers were involved in attaining visual contact/references with the runway/lights/PAPI etc...etc...and nobody was minding the store.(monitoring inside).
Just a thought, apologies if it has already been mentioned.
Then you would know whether or not it had been discussed (it has).