UPS cargo crash near Birmingham AL
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: In a hold
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DaveReidUK
Thank you for taking the time to point that out, as I said it was just a thought. Having taken your advice and reviewed the thread in a little more detail I can see its been mentioned. May I also say your post of a picture (315) in response to the landing gear is equally as useless.
Thank you for taking the time to point that out, as I said it was just a thought. Having taken your advice and reviewed the thread in a little more detail I can see its been mentioned. May I also say your post of a picture (315) in response to the landing gear is equally as useless.
"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)."
Is there an effective way to change this behavior? Improved procedures and training?
Is there an effective way to change this behavior? Improved procedures and training?
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Last edited by grounded27; 24th Aug 2013 at 17:31.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Tanah Melayu
Age: 60
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given that proficiency in instrument flying and approaches are checked at every PC and NPA's are normally covered in PTs, it is strange that incidents like these are still happening in the developed world. Maybe they are so good at visual flying that complacency set in, when instrument approaches are deemed to be a walk in the park!
However I think the pilots had more instrument approaches under their belts than visual approaches and it is baffling how a localiser approach could be so badly stuffed up? Maybe some electronic interference from an active system in their freight or l@ser light interference from the ground? I believe the pilots were highly experienced and very competent, so pilot error must be a very very remote possibility!
However I think the pilots had more instrument approaches under their belts than visual approaches and it is baffling how a localiser approach could be so badly stuffed up? Maybe some electronic interference from an active system in their freight or l@ser light interference from the ground? I believe the pilots were highly experienced and very competent, so pilot error must be a very very remote possibility!
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
. I believe the pilots were highly experienced and very competent, so pilot error must be a very very remote possibility!
However I think the pilots had more instrument approaches under their belts than visual approaches and it is baffling how a localiser approach could be so badly stuffed up?
Last edited by olasek; 24th Aug 2013 at 23:44.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mm43, I'm more interested in the sight angle of that bridge from UPS just before the troubles. I have a crazy idea that they may have mistook stalled morning rush hour traffic on this bridge - a mix of red and white lights - for the PAPI. The highway stands at a rather acute angle to the runway so this is possible.
I do not understand why there is a discussion about R/A EGPWS, given an obvious obstacle it would have most likely been inhibited by the flight crew.
I think you got trolled
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: CFE
Age: 65
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mm43, I'm more interested in the sight angle of that bridge from UPS just before the troubles. I have a crazy idea that they may have mistook stalled morning rush hour traffic on this bridge - a mix of red and white lights - for the PAPI. The highway stands at a rather acute angle to the runway so this is possible.
highway altitude:+/- 640ft
Mrs Benson pine tree altitude: +/-830ft
distance from highway to pine tree: +/-14200ft
That makes for an angle of less than one degree (0.77°).
The highway altitude is somewhat below runway southern threshold (660).
If they could see the highway, it must have seemed awfully high on their windshield...
@deSitter
I go the other way about this arrival.
I think they may have been too low to even see the PAPI or REIL's.
The runway in sight call out was what the PNF saw of the remaining runway lights.
If they mistook lights on I-59 for PAPI's, they (the PAPI's) would have been at the wrong end of the string of runway lights.
If Mrs. Benson's trees are 921' MSL, they were already more than 279' below minimums, possibly before IMTOY.
Also, it's been a long time since I have driven through Birmingham in the morning, is there that much bumper to bumper traffic there at 5 AM?
I think they may have been too low to even see the PAPI or REIL's.
The runway in sight call out was what the PNF saw of the remaining runway lights.
If they mistook lights on I-59 for PAPI's, they (the PAPI's) would have been at the wrong end of the string of runway lights.
If Mrs. Benson's trees are 921' MSL, they were already more than 279' below minimums, possibly before IMTOY.
Also, it's been a long time since I have driven through Birmingham in the morning, is there that much bumper to bumper traffic there at 5 AM?
Last edited by Old Boeing Driver; 25th Aug 2013 at 13:11.
Trash du Blanc
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I live ten miles from the accident site. I frequently drive in to the airport at o'dark thirty. I don't believe there was much traffic on the I-20/59 interstates at that hour. Not saying it couldn't happen, but...
I'm more interested in my brother-in-law's account: He drove to work at an auto shop about 5 miles from the accident, about a half-hour later (5:30). He says the ditches were filling up with fog....
I'm more interested in my brother-in-law's account: He drove to work at an auto shop about 5 miles from the accident, about a half-hour later (5:30). He says the ditches were filling up with fog....
Last edited by Huck; 25th Aug 2013 at 12:33.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: france
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Huck
I'm more interested in my brother-in-law's account: He drove to work at an auto shop about 5 miles from the accident, about a half-hour later (5:30). He says the ditches were filling up with fog....
I'm surprised at the suggestion that pilots routinely inhibit the EGPWS terrain floor function if they think there might be ''obstacles''. I would only do this if I knew that the landing runway was not in the database; after all, the whole point of it is to warn that you're following an unsafe path relative to terrain/obstacles. If you're close enough to trigger a caution or warning, then you need to do something positive quickly!
As they were on an NPA, my reading of FAR 91.175 (being an EU-OPS guy, although it's very similar) says the visual references required are fairly broad and don't mandate slope guidance. Just the approach lighting would be fine until <100' above the TDZ.
Given the falling ground under the approach path and the shorter runway, the expected visual illusion is that of being too low. This might have been countered by uncertainty from the 'black hole effect'. Puzzling. It would be very interesting to synthesise the view out of the window at various stages during the approach when accurate flight data becomes available...
As they were on an NPA, my reading of FAR 91.175 (being an EU-OPS guy, although it's very similar) says the visual references required are fairly broad and don't mandate slope guidance. Just the approach lighting would be fine until <100' above the TDZ.
Given the falling ground under the approach path and the shorter runway, the expected visual illusion is that of being too low. This might have been countered by uncertainty from the 'black hole effect'. Puzzling. It would be very interesting to synthesise the view out of the window at various stages during the approach when accurate flight data becomes available...
Fullwings this runway had no approach lighting.
Has anyone here landed on this runway at night? Is there any sort of ''texture'' to the lead-in: lights, strobes, lit areas, etc. or is depth perception difficult?
An approach to this runway was described many pages back as being a black hole. There are strobes on the runway ends and the runway lights are only medium intensity. Do you have a copy of the Navtech(aerad) chart for this place?Does it mention anything about the approach not being available at night?
Do you have a copy of the Navtech(aerad) chart for this place?Does it mention anything about the approach not being available at night?
It says: ''Note: When VGSI inop, procedure NA at night. Circling NA'' and the note was revised Dec 2012.
It also gives a 3.3deg slope on the profile chart but a 3.2deg one on the DME vs. ALT box; probably rounding either way.
There are CAT D minima of 1200' and 1 & 5/8sm for the LOC+IMTOY and 1380' and 2sm for just the LOC. Out of interest, the RNAV (GPS) 18 has 1200' and 1 & 3/4sm.