UPS cargo crash near Birmingham AL
OK 465 I think that the UPS aircraft have the latest version of FMS fitted which will allow the flying of a Vnav path. The FCOM references .
The airbus mod required is 12454 ,12455 or later to be able to do this.
The airbus mod required is 12454 ,12455 or later to be able to do this.
Last edited by tubby linton; 14th Aug 2013 at 22:41.
According to the FCTM if the mod is fitted then it will fly a path. The sub -mode is known as Final Approach Function. FCTM ref is 2.32.72 p8. I think it was somebody at Honeywell who told me that UPS had it fitted.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Ankh Morpork, DW
Posts: 652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you don't want to read rumors. . .
rumour US, rumor [ˈruːmə]n1.a. information, often a mixture of truth and untruth, passed around verbally
Pilots (and people in general) cope with accidents by talking it out.
If you want a more facts-based website, go to AvHerald. Just don't read the Reader Comments.
Last edited by ImbracableCrunk; 14th Aug 2013 at 23:01.
tubby linton, perhaps slightly OT, but have you ever heard of the "Universal" FMS and if so have you heard of any problems with it? (I'm not saying that the UPS aircraft had this equipment on board, but the discussion points raising LNAV - VNAV caught my eye).
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: America
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you don't wan to read rumors, rumours, etc, then maybe you should go to a website that doesn't have RUMOUR in the name. Or simply wait for the NTSB's sunshine report.
Pilots (and people in general) cope with accidents by talking it out.
If you want a more facts-based website, go to AvHerald. Just don't read the Reader Comments.
Pilots (and people in general) cope with accidents by talking it out.
If you want a more facts-based website, go to AvHerald. Just don't read the Reader Comments.
Thanks......
This seems surprisingly low.
Quote:
The plane was built in 2003 and had logged about 11,000 hours over 6,800 flights, Airbus said in a statement.
Quote:
The plane was built in 2003 and had logged about 11,000 hours over 6,800 flights, Airbus said in a statement.
BTW, regarding the witness report of engines "sputtering" - I've often heard surging engines described as "banging" or "backfiring", but never "sputtering". Reasonably sure the UPS A300-600 have PW4000/94" engines - pretty much the same as used on the 767, 747-400, and MD-11. Impressive reliability record (well below 1 shutdown per 100,000 hours), so independent engine failure is highly unlikely. It was still dark at the time, so a large bird strike is also unlikely (plus bird strike caused shutdowns are super rare on the PW4000 - fan damage and maybe a surge - but they usually recover and operate more or less normally for the remainder of the flight).
OTOH, not too many engines out there would deal well with a tree ingestion event
The apparent absence of rotational kinetic impact damage on the fan blades points at little to no power developed at impact. A late change of plans from 24 to a straight in 18 would have left them hot and high: close throttles, barndoors out, nose down, and by the time low energy became apparent, it was either too late due to preoccupation with some other issue, or a compressor surge (for whatever reason) prevented spooling up in time leading to the result at hand. Judging by the fire, fuel starvation appears unlikely.
The apparent absence of rotational kinetic impact damage on the fan blades points at little to no power developed at impact. A late change of plans from 24 to a straight in 18 would have left them hot and high: close throttles, barndoors out, nose down, and by the time low energy became apparent, it was either too late due to preoccupation with some other issue, or a compressor surge (for whatever reason) prevented spooling up in time leading to the result at hand. Judging by the fire, fuel starvation appears unlikely
The engine could have creamed the rear-end (not the fan) when it hit the hill, tail first. All the picture shows so far is after the engine dislodged from the wing and flew a bit farther.
The folks on scene already know this answer even without the DFDR so I'm intent on listening for a clue in the next NTSB summary.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the significant point is that the ‘altitude’ is not on the required glide path, which in an RNAV procedure might be confusing
Last edited by olasek; 15th Aug 2013 at 02:31.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Ankh Morpork, DW
Posts: 652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The experienced-based comments, observations, suggestions, etc. on this website from actual, transport-category rated, commercial pilots are most informative and interesting, despite the "Rumor" name. But the number of posts from non-pilot aviation "entuhsiasts" make it much less interesting and more tedious to read. Perhaps you're right.... at least the AvHerald seems to have facts.
Thanks......
Thanks......
Originally Posted by PEI 3721
The Jepp chart for the Loc18 approach does not have a cross reference to DME/ALT box as a LOC/DME approach would have.
Originally Posted by PEI 3721
The procedure altitude check appears to be at the FAF ‘BASKN’
Originally Posted by Olasek
BASKN is the FAF - this is where 3 deg slope counts and points before are not subject to the "slope" rule. Also 2600 ft is the minimum allowed altitude at BIDPE, so yes, this is your altitude check, but better be not lower than 2600.
Originally Posted by Olasek
There should be nothing confusing about this particular chart for someone who is a reasonable skilled IFR rated pilot, and even less so for an ATP with thousands of hours behind his belt.
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 15th Aug 2013 at 03:17.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
not below" altitude and by my calculations happens to be fully 900ft below the "normal" profile for the RNAV approach.
So what profile would you use down final, or would you just "dive and drive"?
Last edited by olasek; 15th Aug 2013 at 03:33.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Dive& drive is a perfectly valid choice, it all depends on aircraft equipment.
Why not is explained in this FAA circular:
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...%20120-108.pdf
The whole idea of the RNAV (GPS) approach is not to dive and drive.
Originally Posted by olasek
There is no profile at BIDPE yet, as there is no profile at COLIG, profile doesn't start before FAF.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Well it should (and be published). You guys need to be dragged into the real world.
Step down fixes are not on the final profile path on many approaches. And even if they are, non-standard temperature can cause them to be above the extended profile. The feds have been harping on this in recent years, here is a discussion for ILS approaches, it is a similar situation for non-precision approaches with vertical path guidance:
FAA Releases Updated Guidance on Instrument Landing System Intercepts | NBAA - National Business Aviation Association
And here is the circular:
http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviat.../InFO11009.pdf
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole idea of the RNAV (GPS) approach is not to dive and drive.
You guys need to be dragged into the real world.
Last edited by olasek; 15th Aug 2013 at 04:45.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Wrong, RNAV with VNAV.
I refuse to view aviation through the prism of "big iron" only.
The only aircraft smaller than the A300 that UPS operates is the B-757 so I guess in that sense you could call it a light twin. But somehow I don't think they would be doing a dive and drive in a widebody in 2013.
Last edited by Airbubba; 15th Aug 2013 at 04:55.