UPS cargo crash near Birmingham AL
Kenneth House, to answer your question I would remind you that the software of the A306 is 1980s vintage. Once airbus proved the technology they forgot about this aircraft type and in systems such as the Ecam much of the software has never been updated.Consequently the QRH has become a very large document. The only way to change the software is by changing the box as there are no data loading platforms as you see in more modern airbus.
The autoflight system is basic but robust. and does what it says on the tin.
The autoflight system is basic but robust. and does what it says on the tin.
Last edited by tubby linton; 31st Aug 2013 at 00:33.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.The autoflight system is basic but robust. and does what it says on the tin.
Last edited by olasek; 31st Aug 2013 at 00:49.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mm,
The path is pretty much direct on centerline and matches the damage to the trees, and at 86° 44' 47...I am sure that 2 seconds off at 2 miles is all good, so not sure what you are talking about.
I would look at the damage to the trees further out, as these were likely damaged by the wake turbulence, rather than aircraft contact.
86° 44' 49.18"W
I would look at the damage to the trees further out, as these were likely damaged by the wake turbulence, rather than aircraft contact.
Last edited by underfire; 31st Aug 2013 at 15:19.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not looking for cause...I'm looking at whether or not an aircraft in that Height Category should EVER (at night) have been allowed to use either instrument approach?!?
Had there been some note in either approach procedure, in conjunction with the notes on BOTH that specify that the VGSI must be operative in order to fly the procedures at night, OR in the AFD stating that the mandatory lights were not compliant with aircraft larger than height cat 3 --- NO CARRIER WOULD EVER HAVE SENT AN AIRCRAFT OF THAT SIZE INTO BHM WITH ONLY 18 AVAILABLE IN THE FIRST PLACE?
Thoughts?
Had there been some note in either approach procedure, in conjunction with the notes on BOTH that specify that the VGSI must be operative in order to fly the procedures at night, OR in the AFD stating that the mandatory lights were not compliant with aircraft larger than height cat 3 --- NO CARRIER WOULD EVER HAVE SENT AN AIRCRAFT OF THAT SIZE INTO BHM WITH ONLY 18 AVAILABLE IN THE FIRST PLACE?
Thoughts?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 81
Posts: 1,330
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
underfire,
You are right, there is no problem with your profile. Where it crosses the Tarrant Huffman Rd is right, and I had transposed a figure here.
I'm sure the NTSB have done a thorough examination of the bush and will be able to quantify how broken twigs/branches came to be that way.
You are right, there is no problem with your profile. Where it crosses the Tarrant Huffman Rd is right, and I had transposed a figure here.
I'm sure the NTSB have done a thorough examination of the bush and will be able to quantify how broken twigs/branches came to be that way.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Beech35
You have a point regarding the suitability for the A300 to use this runway at night, but it wasn't the cause of the low altitude and CFIT.
Last edited by A Squared; 31st Aug 2013 at 05:22.
Person Of Interest
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Keystone Heights, Florida
Age: 68
Posts: 842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well that does it I guess...All of those night over water non-precision approaches I've made over the years I've been doing wrong...
Hand flying on instruments with an occasional glance outside was simply not the right way...
Analyze all you want...fly the airplane, look out the window and calculate time/speed/distance...or am I speaking Greek here?
Never mind...they blew it...
Hand flying on instruments with an occasional glance outside was simply not the right way...
Analyze all you want...fly the airplane, look out the window and calculate time/speed/distance...or am I speaking Greek here?
Never mind...they blew it...
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, GGNP's point on TCH is 'interesting' but not really any different to operating a small jet onto a runway with TCH of 75'? You, as type operator, just 'get on with it', surely, and a diff of 27' at the threshold is not going to explain what happened here.
- can you explain what mode might do this?
Originally Posted by Kenneth H
and the software takes action based upon the dominant mode to throttle back the engines and begin a very steep descent.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Down 3 Greens ; I get the sarcasm and you are completely correct. No, you have been doing it right, Sir. That is why you are here to tell the tale. Kids of the Magenta line are never going to get this. However, this incident was with the A300 with older technology.Manage the aircraft, use whatever automation and level of automation you wish but be profoundly aware of it's limitations. Non precision approaches are exactly that. Non precision. In olden days we used to call it "cloud break". A procedure for use in IMC to get the aircraft into a position from which a VISUAL approach can be made. I quite liked the "Dive & Drive" although, in practice, it was NEVER that sporty. Within 5 degrees of the published inbound, you "started down"...............not a DIVE............and on reaching MDA you looked out of the window. Again, in practice, bringing in visual cues started way back in the procedure. "Driving" was, again, never a imprecise manouevre, more, controlled flight while, again, seeking & confirming the runway. Trying to make modern technology work in a NON-PRECISION environment has always been a recipe for disaster.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote from earlier:
I'm not looking for cause...I'm looking at whether or not an aircraft in that Height Category should EVER (at night) have been allowed to use either instrument approach?!?
Had there been some note in either approach procedure, in conjunction with the notes on BOTH that specify that the VGSI must be operative in order to fly the procedures at night, OR in the AFD stating that the mandatory lights were not compliant with aircraft larger than height cat 3
Maybe this should be in a different thread, because I'm not questioning the final vertical path of UPS 1354. So here is the same concern asked another way:
Is the LOC 18 or RNAV 18 AS PUBLISHED RIGHT NOW legal for a A-300 or B-747 to fly or be cleared to fly under IFR at night, given the fact the VGSIs are required to be operative (yet aren't compliant for that size aircraft)?
refer to my first post if you haven't seen the vgsi specification table based on aircraft height category
I'm not looking for cause...I'm looking at whether or not an aircraft in that Height Category should EVER (at night) have been allowed to use either instrument approach?!?
Had there been some note in either approach procedure, in conjunction with the notes on BOTH that specify that the VGSI must be operative in order to fly the procedures at night, OR in the AFD stating that the mandatory lights were not compliant with aircraft larger than height cat 3
Maybe this should be in a different thread, because I'm not questioning the final vertical path of UPS 1354. So here is the same concern asked another way:
Is the LOC 18 or RNAV 18 AS PUBLISHED RIGHT NOW legal for a A-300 or B-747 to fly or be cleared to fly under IFR at night, given the fact the VGSIs are required to be operative (yet aren't compliant for that size aircraft)?
refer to my first post if you haven't seen the vgsi specification table based on aircraft height category
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: chicago
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
landing flap and three green...wow...brilliant...KISS (keep it simple stupid).
descend to arrive at the MDA prior to missed approach point and look out window...see runway and proceed visually.
don't see...go around.
punching buttons ...my hnads are too big to punch buttons right each time...of course you know what big hands means...esp for a pilot.
(yes, that's right, big gloves)
back before it was called ''dive and drive'' we limited ourselves to 1000fpm descent on NP apchs...seemed to work ok.
descend to arrive at the MDA prior to missed approach point and look out window...see runway and proceed visually.
don't see...go around.
punching buttons ...my hnads are too big to punch buttons right each time...of course you know what big hands means...esp for a pilot.
(yes, that's right, big gloves)
back before it was called ''dive and drive'' we limited ourselves to 1000fpm descent on NP apchs...seemed to work ok.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In this approach at night, it is absolutely essential to fly the aircraft vertical path manually using the PAPI for visual guidance for any descent below the MDA. Descent below the MDA using the automation on a procedure that was not suited for vertical guidance in the first place is different than flying a GS on an ILS. A 3 degree ILS has a clear visual segment (34 to 1) and pilots are advised to follow the GS to the runway in the visual segment. This visual segment was not clear on a 20 to 1 slope and is why the PAPI was required (3.2 degrees is 17.9 to 1 slope). My question is why was the autopilot still on below the MDA, even if it is treated as a DA by Opspec? Is using the autopilot below the MDA(DA) on such an approach normal procedure in airline operation?
As a side note, if the aircraft had advisory vertical guidance that follows the VDA on the chart and the autopilot was operating properly and programmed to follow the advisory vertical guidance, the guidance would not have resulted in a CFIT.
As a side note, if the aircraft had advisory vertical guidance that follows the VDA on the chart and the autopilot was operating properly and programmed to follow the advisory vertical guidance, the guidance would not have resulted in a CFIT.
Dive and Drive
I remember those types of approaches and in the simulator, if you did not dive, you wouldn't see the airport no matter what. It was part of the "game".
Hopefully the NTSB will give us more preliminary info soon, but it looks like the mowed a lot of trees for some distance to the north of Mrs. Benson's place.
From the info we have about the A/P being on, I lean towards a descent in the V/S mode with no MDA set.
I would really like to hear the last few minutes of the CVR.
Hopefully the NTSB will give us more preliminary info soon, but it looks like the mowed a lot of trees for some distance to the north of Mrs. Benson's place.
From the info we have about the A/P being on, I lean towards a descent in the V/S mode with no MDA set.
I would really like to hear the last few minutes of the CVR.
OBG...yep...some amazing variations and interpretations of "automation's job". Some time ago I became aware of a diversion to the alternate because the Stadium Visual onto 31 at LGA "couldn't be programmed" in the FMC, (meaning neither of the two dogs up front watching TV were sufficiently confident to actually fly the A320). One derives very small satisfaction from the decision to divert instead of hand-flying.
Sigh.
Sigh.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 81
Posts: 1,330
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strange things happen in the USA when State governments get involved with aviation. Just check the PAPI 4 light display according to the Kentucky Department of Transportation.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: canada
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FLIGHT PATH ANGLE
Here is my take on the slope problem.
I do these quite often but only use the Trig function (right angled triangle) and the SIN as this is the angle for slant range DME distance.
Here are the two formulas I use
1. For gradient, Gradient ÷ 6076 = SIN of angle
6076 x SIN = Gradient
Grad ÷ SIN = 6076 (# of feet in a NM)
2. For Height and Distance
Height ÷ Distance NM = Gradient
Distance x Gradient = Height AGL
Gradient x height = Distance NM
In the right angled triangle, the opposite side (side opposite the angle) represents height above the ground
The hypotenuse represents the slant range DME distance and the adjacent represents the flat (map) ground distance. When you fly over the DME station (in a jet) the distance goes down to about 5 nm then starts going up again. That’s because of the slant range distance, since you are never less than 5 nm (31000 ft) from the station.
Let’s check out at the approach to Birmingham Airport. Notice the 3.28 slope.
crossing baskn at 2300 ft 4.7 nm from the threshold, TDZ = 644 ft (2300 - 644 = 1656 feet to loose). If we divide the heigh by the distance we get a grad of 1656 down for each nm forward. Now had I been doing that approach, here is what I would have done instead.
I would have used the 3.3 deg slope 5.8%, and 350 ft per nm. That would have had me crossing Colig at 5120 ft ASL (4480 AGL) and using the Flight Path Angle Computer which all Airbus planes have, I would have easily and safely executed the approach and be alive today. Pilots must understand that there is NO requirement to cross or be at the published minimum altitude. Those altitudes are “NOT BELOW” altitudes, nothing else.
So, Colig, 12.8 nm, 5120 asl, and each NM after, 350 ft lower,all the way to 2.8 nm at 1624 ft and 1.8 nm at 1274 ft. Pilots need to use more math in the cockpit to stay alive.
Hope some of you will take this valuable info and put it into practice.
I do these quite often but only use the Trig function (right angled triangle) and the SIN as this is the angle for slant range DME distance.
Here are the two formulas I use
1. For gradient, Gradient ÷ 6076 = SIN of angle
6076 x SIN = Gradient
Grad ÷ SIN = 6076 (# of feet in a NM)
2. For Height and Distance
Height ÷ Distance NM = Gradient
Distance x Gradient = Height AGL
Gradient x height = Distance NM
In the right angled triangle, the opposite side (side opposite the angle) represents height above the ground
The hypotenuse represents the slant range DME distance and the adjacent represents the flat (map) ground distance. When you fly over the DME station (in a jet) the distance goes down to about 5 nm then starts going up again. That’s because of the slant range distance, since you are never less than 5 nm (31000 ft) from the station.
Let’s check out at the approach to Birmingham Airport. Notice the 3.28 slope.
crossing baskn at 2300 ft 4.7 nm from the threshold, TDZ = 644 ft (2300 - 644 = 1656 feet to loose). If we divide the heigh by the distance we get a grad of 1656 down for each nm forward. Now had I been doing that approach, here is what I would have done instead.
I would have used the 3.3 deg slope 5.8%, and 350 ft per nm. That would have had me crossing Colig at 5120 ft ASL (4480 AGL) and using the Flight Path Angle Computer which all Airbus planes have, I would have easily and safely executed the approach and be alive today. Pilots must understand that there is NO requirement to cross or be at the published minimum altitude. Those altitudes are “NOT BELOW” altitudes, nothing else.
So, Colig, 12.8 nm, 5120 asl, and each NM after, 350 ft lower,all the way to 2.8 nm at 1624 ft and 1.8 nm at 1274 ft. Pilots need to use more math in the cockpit to stay alive.
Hope some of you will take this valuable info and put it into practice.
So, Colig, 12.8 nm, 5120 asl, and each NM after, 350 ft lower,all the way to 2.8 nm at 1624 ft and 1.8 nm at 1274 ft. Pilots need to use more math in the cockpit to stay alive.
Originally Posted by Landflap
Trying to make modern technology work in a NON-PRECISION environment has always been a recipe for disaster.
Not to mention, in some countries, Distance/Altitude scales on the charts which remove all of the profile guesswork...