Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

UPS cargo crash near Birmingham AL

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

UPS cargo crash near Birmingham AL

Old 27th Feb 2014, 16:51
  #1021 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Washington.
Age: 69
Posts: 465
Thumbs up

@ PJ2 totally agree with you and look forward to more insightful comments from yourselff, MM43 and others.
GlobalNav is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2014, 19:05
  #1022 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 76
Posts: 1,331
@GlobalNav,

Thanks for the link to the Aircraft Performance Study group report. The extra 8.2 seconds of CVR certainly makes a difference!
mm43 is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2014, 21:15
  #1023 (permalink)  
PJ2
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: BC
Age: 71
Posts: 2,405
mm43;

Re, "The extra 8.2 seconds of CVR certainly makes a difference! "

Does it ever!
PJ2 is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2014, 01:17
  #1024 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,193
pj2:


mm43;

Re, "The extra 8.2 seconds of CVR certainly makes a difference! "

Does it ever!
The realization of death is so extremely brief, unlike many fatal CVRs.

Makes tragic sense in the circumstances.
aterpster is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2014, 01:28
  #1025 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 76
Posts: 1,331
An updated graphic of the approach profile using the integrated accelerometer altitudes from the NTSB Aircraft Performance Study included with the UPS1354 docket. The altitudes fit well with the Google Earth terrain data, which includes the treetop heights as drawn.

mm43 is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2014, 17:29
  #1026 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: france
Posts: 756
Snoop

Félicitations pour ce merveilleux travail.
Thank you mm43.


EDIT : Perfect With your Update Rumours & News \ UPS 1354 NTSB Investigation-CVR \ #41 21st Feb 2014

Last edited by roulishollandais; 2nd Mar 2014 at 16:14.
roulishollandais is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2014, 03:08
  #1027 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: france
Posts: 756
Thanks and Congratulations to PJ2's picture in post 1037.

Such pictures (mm43, PJ2) are able by themselves to help air safety, so demonstrative they are
roulishollandais is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2014, 13:19
  #1028 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: farmm intersection, our ranch
Age: 53
Posts: 208
So what has been said about the approach plate saying night NA?

Ref pg 37 Document 42 ATC 3 - Attachment 1 - BAA - ATC Airport Emergency Operating Procedures Letter of Agreement Filing Date December 16, 2013 4 page(s) of Image (PDF or TIFF) 0 Photos
flyingchanges is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2014, 13:37
  #1029 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bedford, UK
Age: 65
Posts: 1,189
In the Colgan thread a few years back there was much angst about chattering about icing and the need for a 'sterile' flight deck. Not seen that concept raised here. Is it a dead letter?
Mr Optimistic is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2014, 16:22
  #1030 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: france
Posts: 756
@mm43,
your post 1051 : Perfect With your Update Rumours & News \ UPS 1354 NTSB Investigation-CVR \ #41 21st Feb 2014
Thank you
roulishollandais is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2014, 16:46
  #1031 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: huntsvegas
Posts: 41
At Vertical speed of -25fps

@mm43 chart:

From IMTOY to MDA only took 5 seconds,

Then to bottom of clouds, sink rate alert, just 8 more seconds.

Runway in sight, 3 more seconds.

By then the treetops were only 80 feet below...another 3 seconds.
kenneth house is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2014, 20:08
  #1032 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 76
Posts: 1,331
@kenneth house,

... and your point?
mm43 is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2014, 08:09
  #1033 (permalink)  
PJ2
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: BC
Age: 71
Posts: 2,405
mm43, no worries, I couldn't figure out the point of the post either! States the obvious.

I thought I would put out a revised GE version using now-available data.

What I can't quite understand yet is why they maintained 2500ft after the localizer intercept - they were cleared the approach "upon interception" well before BASKN, so he could have descended to the FAF Xing altitude but didn't. It was not a big deal as 200ft high isn't a problem but I wonder what led then to the persistent selection of "1500" on the VS?

I'm sure the final report will have some interesting observations.



PJ2 is offline  
Old 22nd May 2014, 17:32
  #1034 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Somewhere Over America
Posts: 189
Pilot Fatigue Revisited in Filings About UPS Crash - WSJ.com
Halfnut is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.