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 15th Aug 2013, 12:00
  #121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: On the dark side of the moon
Posts: 928
Many approaches that don't have VNAV/LNAV minimums published, are still encoded in the database....however in FBW bus...(dont know about the A300) it is prohibited to fly these in Final Approach mode
That may be the rule in your neck of the woods but it isn't universally so. With certain restrictions, many jurisdictions permit the use of the fully managed NPA without having an LNAV/VNAV minima published.

Last edited by J.O.; 15th Aug 2013 at 12:05.
J.O. is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2013, 12:27
  #122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,777
If they were doing 190KTS less than 1 nm out
If they were doing 190kt at that point.

But that calculation is presumably based on the same dodgy FlightAware data that puts the final position of the aircraft within the airport boundary.

However if we assume that the two previous position plots are valid (granted, an equally precarious assumption) then they put the aircraft at 5.46nm from the threshold and then a minute later at 2.83nm.

That's an average GS of 158kt - a lot different from 190kt.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 15th Aug 2013, 12:37
  #123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Zone of Alienation
Age: 74
Posts: 3
Referencing the 'Sooeet' vertical path someone posted above:

This was not an ILS. It is NOT a good analysis. In fact, it is almost completely irrelevant and actually looks quite reasonable for a non precision profile until the very last, if it is to be believed at all.
FIRESYSOK is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2013, 13:12
  #124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,361
EDIT:
NVM, just realized there were two pages.

Analysis of interest, but taken with a grain of salt for reasons noted above.

Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 15th Aug 2013 at 13:18.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2013, 13:21
  #125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,788
Like their Asiana 214 analysis, Sooeet did a new analysis for UPS 1354, including nice plots of position and airspeed. It's darned good,
I tend to agree with firesysok: that article is dodgy.

If Soooeeet's plot is to be believed, it's plainly obvious the crew couldn't see the runway because the track deviates well left from a long way out. It's claim that weather was not a factor appears itself to be a furphy. The crew either couldn't see the runway or were majorly distracted by something in/with the aircraft.

Additionally, UPS1354 flew well above the PAPI glide-slope for runway 18 until about 15 nautical miles out, at which time UPS1354 began a very rapid descent while maintaining 300 knots, likely using a combination of engine power to maintain speed, and spoilers to increase descent rate. UPS1354 attempted to intercept the PAPI glide-slope from above by means of this rapid descent between 15 and 10 nautical miles from the runway touch down zone.
What is this rubbish? Intercepting the PAPI glideslope at 10-15nm? If they are like ours, you can't even see them that far out; at night they are just a white/pink/red blur. And let's not forget that it was Scattered at 1100 and Broken at 3500ft. PAPI would not have been visible.

"Engine power to maintain speed and spoilers to increase descent rate"? And these guys are casting judgement on a dead crew??
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2013, 13:23
  #126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 67
Posts: 194
Objection, speculation, assumes facts not in evidence

To add to the sub-thread here on the matter of whether any and all rumor and conjecture posted here - sometimes by members who do not possess PIC hours or even any license to operate any aircraft, and also sometimes by full-authority Four-Stripers - even amongst the posts of the cognoscenti there can be, and are, disagreements over the meaning of observations. There is something to be said, despite apparent derision or condescension offered previously, for non-pilot "enthusiasts" who ALSO are seeking to participate in or contribute to the business at hand: improved safety, or more sensible R/T protocol and compliance therewith (the R/T Standard thread on another part of the board), and perhaps even in the looming if not imminent governmental and regulatory challenge of assuring that manufacturers' automated avionics suites in new types (and retro-fits and/or upgrades) work in concert with, not in opposition to, the vast complexity of approach flying in civilian-controlled U.S. (and presumably most ICAO national jurisdictions) airspace. Was not one main impetus emerging from the SFO Asiana mishap the need to assure something like "coordination" of avionics, ATC, automation protocols, and CRM (send me back to Primary if I have omitted something critically important from said list). Stated in a little bit different terms, would not every full-authority Driver want the General Counsel of Boeing (just for example) to be pretty conversant, and to have a decent cognitive -- though OBVIOUSLY not experiential- comprehension of LNAV VNAV Wx and all the rest of the pilot talk posted here? So, what that leaves us with is, one, don't eject the enthusiasts who have something to contribute or are striving to learn so that they may do so in some other professional careerist role, and two, in a day when the masses shoot 140-keystroke messages in sheer mass numbers and widespread the world over, the pace of information-sharing is so fast, which is a good thing - and if it turns out there is a little bit of noise amidst that torrentious signal, deal with it, move on (though be glad for the incredibly fast dissemination of information).

Last edited by WillowRun 6-3; 15th Aug 2013 at 13:24. Reason: Speeling
WillowRun 6-3 is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2013, 13:29
  #127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ireland
Posts: 595
Capn Bloggs

And these guys are casting judgement on a dead crew??
Can you actually show me where judgement is being cast on the crew?
Speed of Sound is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2013, 13:38
  #128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,788
We analyzed the range data (distance from the airport), and altitude data published by FlightAware.com. Our analysis suggests that UPS Flight 1354 (UPS1354) made a non-stabilized approach to runway 18.
Heavy transport aircraft such as the Airbus A300-600F, should routinely perform stabilized approaches
It clearly shows that UPS1354 flew the majority of the approach well above the PAPI glide-slope. "High energy" approaches, like this approach flown by UPS1354, are inherently risky for heavy transport aircraft such as the Airbus A300-600F.
However, at 1 nautical mile UPS1354 was still flying at 190 knots, much too fast for the final approach. It should have been flying at about 135 knots during this portion of the approach.
In fact, the more I read it, the more the whole article stinks.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2013, 13:45
  #129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: England
Posts: 842
olasek, Capn Bloggs, Airbubber, et al,
Whilst the gist of my original question was to stimulate discussion as above, one aspect remains unanswered. Why have ‘BIDPE’ on the RNAV chart but not for LOC.
If ‘BIDPE’ pre-empts a VNAV path approach, then by not being on the desired path, albeit before the FAF (FAF is a more a check and not necessarily a start point?), it adds confusion and may encourage a step down procedure.
Alternatively if ‘BIDPE’ is just for info, ‘not below’ point, then it provides opportunity for an erroneous early descent – “Calculate a vertical speed to use from the FAF and make small adjustments to V/S as necessary for the proper path and step downs if applicable”, where flying the calculated descent path from ‘BIDPE’ - mistaken for FAF, would result in a 900ft error.

Re ‘lateral’ deviation. What is the primary navigation source on this aircraft how is it updated? Is this subject to ‘map slip? If so, then it might contribute to longitudinal / lateral path errors; the data link information discussed elsewhere might not represent ‘real world’.
Furthermore, we have yet to hear about EGPWS, which should have provided an alert, but if ‘the map’ - the assumed position from ‘NAV’ was closer to the airfield than reality, then EGPWS might not have alerted the crew (a good reason to have GPS embedded in EGPWS).
Also, if the crew focused on the computed RNAV solution then they similarly might not have been concerned until the ‘visual’ stage of the approach (=<MDA).
PEI_3721 is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2013, 13:49
  #130 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ireland
Posts: 595
Capn Bloggs

In fact, the more I read it, the more the whole article stinks.
I'll take that as a no then?
Speed of Sound is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2013, 14:04
  #131 (permalink)  

Left Seat 747
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Malaysia
Age: 76
Posts: 91
"just read the altimeter setting and it was not too far off standard, so I am thinking it wasn't altimetry...29.97 is close enough to 29.92 that it shouldn't have caused the crash... "

AHHH, I guess we should always keep our altimeters at standard - avoid many accidents.
Flying Guy is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2013, 15:33
  #132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ireland
Posts: 595
Like their Asiana 214 analysis, Sooeet did a new analysis for UPS 1354, including nice plots of position and airspeed. It's darned good, check it out:

What Happened to UPS Flight 1354 - Analysis by Sooeet.com
Not entirely sure why they have included a profile of an approach to RWY 24 on their graph.
Speed of Sound is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2013, 15:42
  #133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,016
Additionally, UPS1354 flew well above the PAPI glide-slope for runway 18 until about 15 nautical miles out, at which time UPS1354 began a very rapid descent while maintaining 300 knots, likely using a combination of engine power to maintain speed, and spoilers to increase descent rate. UPS1354 attempted to intercept the PAPI glide-slope from above by means of this rapid descent between 15 and 10 nautical miles from the runway touch down zone.
However, at 1 nautical mile UPS1354 was still flying at 190 knots, much too fast for the final approach. It should have been flying at about 135 knots during this portion of the approach.
In fact, the more I read it, the more the whole article stinks.
I agree, the idea of a 300 knot descent 15 miles out in the U.S. somehow doesn't seem right. It is definitely 250 kts. below 10,000 ft. and they don't give you 'high speed' in the U.S. even at night in Alabama. And if they were really doing 190 kts. one mile out they couldn't get land flaps out at that speed, right? Below 1000 agl and not stable and not configured they would go around, long before a one mile final I would think.

Furthermore, we have yet to hear about EGPWS, which should have provided an alert, but if ‘the map’ - the assumed position from ‘NAV’ was closer to the airfield than reality, then EGPWS might not have alerted the crew (a good reason to have GPS embedded in EGPWS).
The EGPWS I am familiar with has its own GPS and functions whether the LNAV in the aircraft has GPS or not. And, yes, I believe the EGPWS will give terrain warnings for descent toward terrain that is not the runway in the landing configuration. Seems like you would get a false alert at KUL (Sepang, not Subang) years ago due to a hill that had been removed to lower landing minima but was not yet updated in the EGPWS terrain database.
Airbubba is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2013, 15:59
  #134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: arizona
Posts: 14
Another reliable eyewitness report...

"It sounded like an airplane had given out of fuel. We thought it was trying to make it to the airport. But a few minutes later we heard a loud `boom,'" she said.


A few minutes later ?

Lacking a complete language, we Americans frequently measure intervals using the folllowing precision estimator:
'Then it went" = immediate
'Few minutes later" = greater than 'then it went'
'While later" = greater than a few minutes
'A while later" = greater then while later
'Sometime later' = 1 day to 6 weeks, used only by journalists
ohnutsiforgot is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2013, 16:00
  #135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Age: 51
Posts: 63
Aerial photos of UPS crash site.




more here.. Aerial Photos of UPS Crash Site
Mudman is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2013, 16:02
  #136 (permalink)  
PJ2
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: BC
Age: 72
Posts: 2,410
"In fact, the more I read it, the more the whole article stinks. " - Capn Bloggs

Agree completely, including your quoted passages. It's terrible work, dressed up pretty.

Those who know accident investigation and flight data work routinely ignore such contributions as the data source used is not an investigative tool but a polished internet toy that gives the appearance of careful work that in truth just fuels uninformed internet speculation in advance of the facts.

There's no point in such work (other than for ego) because it can't possibly describe what occurred without the flight data from the recorders. Anything else is just a cartoon.

PJ2
PJ2 is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2013, 16:09
  #137 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 67
Posts: 194
Just a minute

@ ohnutsiforgot:
Imagine how much fun it is to take the deposition testimony of such folks - or to take their statements for NTSB field investigation purposes. I recall seeing in the NTSB interview record of some of the people who were in the JAL 787 at BOS when smoke first was observed certain references to their estimations or expressions of perceived lapse of time...and thinking 'hmmm, a tad imprecise, is it not?' Not suggesting the wiggle in those facts impacted anything material in that causality analysis, but it might matter quite a lot in some other case.
WillowRun 6-3 is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2013, 16:11
  #138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 44
There has been discussion about Harold and Maude seeing the plane on fire or hearing sputtering, and I agree, you almost always get "witnesses" that say that. In this case, I think there may be some truth to the matter. As mentioned previously, the plane clipped the power lines (and trees) before impacting the hill. This could have ruptured a fuel tank and the impacted electrical lines could have ignited it. From the insulators I can see in the photos, it looks like that there is 12KV service in that area, so the arcing could have been significant.

I also think that the "sputtering engines" may have been the sound of high voltage arcing, spring fuses melting, or the utility recloser in operation. The recloser is a type of automated circuit breaker that attempts to "re close" the circuit several times (usually three) after a fault, the theory being that most faults are temporary, so why keep the juice off. When this operation occurs into a hard fault like downed lines, it does indeed sound like very loud "sputtering".

Last edited by areobat; 15th Aug 2013 at 16:13.
areobat is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2013, 16:13
  #139 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Gone Flying...
Age: 59
Posts: 274
"Additionally, UPS1354 flew well above the PAPI glide-slope for runway 18 until about 15 nautical miles out, at which time UPS1354 began a very rapid descent while maintaining 300 knots, likely using a combination of engine power to maintain speed, and spoilers to increase descent rate. UPS1354 attempted to intercept the PAPI glide-slope from above by means of this rapid descent between 15 and 10 nautical miles from the runway touch down zone"
..."likely using a combination of engine power to maintain speed, and spoilers to increase descent rate."


That sentence could not have been written by a credible author...
aguadalte is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2013, 16:30
  #140 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ireland
Posts: 595
because it can't possibly describe what occurred without the flight data from the recorders. Anything else is just a cartoon.
Not strictly true!

A number of people carried out 'reconstructions' after the Asiana 214 crash using published radar data for altitude and ground speed which turned out to be surprisingly accurate once the DFDR information was released.
Speed of Sound is offline  

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.