Pope:
V/S or Profile can be used with a LOC appr and LOC* then LOC would be the FMA in either case. The A300 has a very old FMS and unless upgraded by UPS, it has likely been suffering from memory issues with all of the stuff that didn't exist when it was created back in the early 80's. EPGS, complex OPD's, RNAV approaches, huge influx of new enroute waypoints, etc. Long story short, something has to give and operators sometimes selectively remove approaches and waypoints from the database to fit the space. UPS has a big theatre of ops, so it's easy to see this being an issue. It's possible that there were no database approaches available to the crew, which would X out the use of profile and put them in dive and drive mode with vertical speed. Also the NTSB reported 140kt approach speed is pretty high for an A300, probably pretty close to the landing weight limit for a flaps 30/40 landing I doubt we will hear on the CVR from the PNF, "PAPI in sight." |
Airbubba..Just repeating what a Birmingham controller wrote on a union blog....
|
Originally Posted by aterpster
In the U.S. an unrestricted VGSI must clear all obstacles 1 degree below the commissioned angle, out to 4 n.m, and with a 15 degree splay.
|
Airbubba..Just repeating what a Birmingham controller wrote on a union blog.... Possibly not having any Rwy 18 NavDB stuff would definitely explain why they opted for the LOC (manually tuned I assume) and not the RNAV. |
Originally Posted by A Squared
Turns out that a obstacle clearance plane of 2.2degrees would give a clearance of about 65 feet to an airplane exactly on a 3.2 degree PAPI, 3700 ft from the threshold. That's remarkably close to the clearance from the terrain which JC figured using Google earth. Granted, the first point of impact was quite a bit further out and lower than this, so this is only peripherally related to the accident. However it is interesting to note how little clearance you might have over a half mile from the threshold and perfectly centered on the PAPI.
|
This is ridiculous. How could such an approach be allowed, especially at night, with such little terrain clearance? The threshold crossing height is 50ft; 6000ft/1nm further back, you only have another 50ft higher (100ft in total) to give 2W/2R on the PAPI, with wheels hanging probably 30ft below that? |
It will be interesting to see when more of the CVR is released. Considering the AP wasn't disengaged (or dis-engaged itself) until 1 second before it, one could wonder if they recognized the terrain issue in time to realize how low they really were. In context of the "black hole" visual anomaly, wouldn't it be rather ironic if lack of lighting and other visual features from the houses removed (for safety reasons) actually ended up contributing to the accident.
I really wonder if this still would have happened if there was some kind of marker lighting on hill where the cockpit currently resides or on the plateau towards the threshold. I know I would rather have that to help judge the distance. |
wouldn't it be rather ironic if lack of lighting and other visual features from the houses removed (for safety reasons) actually ended up contributing to the accident. |
Surprising ....but real....
As I posted before the last 1/2 to 1 mile you litteraly buze the hill all the ways down to the RWY. It is like doing a low flyby over a downhill slope to the rwy. It has been several years since I have done that approach, so I can not really say how high above the terrain you are. But the first night I did that approach the only think that came to my mind was " Only sh.. that is close !!! and that is being on the Papi. In my opinion, on a "normal approach" the ground appear that close when you are really close to crossing the threshold and not being 1/2 to 1 mile away from the rwy. |
The Careful Enough Statement of a Problem -
....implies the solution.
"This is ridiculous. How could such an approach be allowed, especially at night, with such little terrain clearance? The threshold crossing height is 50ft; 6000ft/1nm further back, you only have another 50ft higher (100ft in total) to give 2W/2R on the PAPI, with wheels hanging probably 30ft below that?" So I'm assuming that FAA is the authority that decides what specific approach parameters will be published as officially sanctioned (or otherwise designated as safe and effective). And that in the ordinary course of the business of regulation of civil aviation in the US, FAA will await the outcome of the NTSB investigation and report process, prior to changing the approach parameters. Or is this not correct: might FAA change the published approach parameters on an interim basis? Has this happened after other mishaps on final? (And I'm sorry if there is a term more technically appropriate than 'parameters' for the (evidently) altitude and/or glideslope limits.) Also, is there some periodic review process by which FAA checks on whether approach corridor limits have been shown, through the experience of the aviators who flew them, to need adjustments? It is easy to have the sense that FAA has its hands full just keeping the creaky ship afloat, and things like checking for any needed updates to APP corridors is a luxury the taxpayers have neither demanded nor realized they need to pay for. How does it work? |
obstacle clearance from FAF to VDP/MAP is SUPPOSED to be 250'
http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/811.pdf |
WillowRun 6-3, A-Squared, Capn Bloggs & All those who believe GoogleEarth Elevation/Hgt data:
GoogleEarth provides good approximations of real-earth elevations and is good for relative differences, but it cannot be considered accurate at any single location within confidence levels that you'd want to consider whether you have appropriate clearance or not for approach/dep procedure design. Sometimes it's spot on to the nearest metre, other times not. Depending on where the location is and also often where the location is in relation to nearby terrain and buildings, the elevations can easily be out by up to say ±8 mtrs / ±26.5ft. This is due to the various sources of the data and how the data is modelled. The positional referencing of the image data to WGS84 lat/longs however is far more accurate. In a sense it's a bit like the FlightAware data, in that it's sampled from actual observations using available data sources. The data is not certified to a particular integrity level though and thus needs to be used and interpreted with care and qualifications, depending on the purpose. If Capt Bloggs and ASquared calcs are actually more or less correct, then that will come out in the investigation as result of FLT inspection of the PAPIs and resurvey of the terrain and remaining obstacles near the crash site, as well as review of the procedure flown (as selected in the FMS and as flown). In any case, if as it seems to be that the aircraft was simply way too low at that point, the issues you raise may, or may not, in fact be relevant or significant. ironbutt57: Yes, you're right: obstacle clearance for an NPA (with a FAF) in the primary area of a final approach segment is 250' (246' actually, or 75m). Take the highest obstacle between the FAF and the MAPt, add the obstacle clearance margin (and any comfort buffer that the designers feel appropriate for whatever reason, including taking into account potential inaccuracy tolerances in the obstacle and terrain data they're using) and round up to the nearest 10' = MDA. Use of stepdown fixes allow interim descent points in the final segment, obviously. However, when flying on the VDA (or even dive & drive), once you get to the MDA, that's it: can't continue descent unless RWY in sight and intending to land, and from then on you're in the visual segment and obstacle clearance is up to the pilot. See also the next bit. For info: re Obstacle Clearance in the Visual Segment (of Charted APCHs): Some time back ICAO mandated that all States should assess new and old procedures (when reviewed/amended) for obstacles in the visual segment - ie, between the MDA/DA and the THR (actually, 60m prior usually). Basically this is done by assessing a pseudo surface at 1.12° less than the promulgated APCH angle. Safety assessments, mitigations (which could include removal or cutting down of obstacle) &/or amendments to the procedure would be required if an obstacle penetrated the visual segment surface. Safety assessment might also indicate additional mitigations, such as additional marking/lighting of obstacles / terrain in the visual segment - eg, like the hill area 1/2-1 mile prior to the runway - ref skysign's post #380). As I posted before the last 1/2 to 1 mile you litteraly buze the hill all the ways down to the RWY. It is like doing a low flyby over a downhill slope to the rwy. It has been several years since I have done that approach, so I can not really say how high above the terrain you are. But the first night I did that approach the only think that came to my mind was " Only sh.. that is close !!! and that is being on the Papi. In my opinion, on a "normal approach" the ground appear that close when you are really close to crossing the threshold and not being 1/2 to 1 mile away from the rwy. In any cases, statements regarding obstacles in the visual segment and implications for pilots are contained in the FAA AIM (relevant extracts are in this thread). Note also previous posts on the 1° clearance for the PAPIs when installed and calibrated as additional mitigation. Missed Approach: To those who have discussed the relevant techniques when reaching the MDA whether flying dive & drive (heavies seriously still doing that?) or CDFA (or even DDA = MDA+50 for CANPA technique): Unless the operator has a specific approval to do otherwise, the MDA is a legal minimum and busting it is a serious no-no. With regard to this thread though, they'd gone well past the MDA and info provided by NTSB indicates that they were proceeding to land, so further discussion of handling the missed in this case is irrelevant. ATerpster: Thx for trying to correct the various misunderstandings of the different types of APCHs with regard to LNAV, LNAV/VNAV, RNAV GNSS APV, LPV, RNAV RNP AR, etc. Saved me some time. Well done on providing all of the other relevant AFM and FAA material for reference too. Ian W: If, after reading Aterpster's reply and other material from qualified sites, then you could continue the discussion on the TechLog, but not in this thread as those issues are irrelevant here. |
and UPS normally use r/w 18 if available . Which brings up another point about the flight planning on UPS1354. Whether or not 6/24 was ever an option. Although 6/24 was NOTAM'd closed until further notice it is being claimed that aircraft were being landed on it less than 15 minutes after the crash. So when was 6/24 reopened and when was the decision to reopen made? Were the crew of 1354 made aware of 6/24's availability albeit after a short delay and a few extra track miles? I appreciate that if your preferred runway is NOTAM'd 'CLSD UNTIL UFN' you plan for another approach but if it is onto an unfamiliar runway that puts you down in the wrong part of the airport surely at some point in the sector the question would have been asked "Does anybody know when 6/24 is due to reopen?" |
guess what we all don't know yet is whether the airplane had levelled off, then drifted below the appropriate altitude for that segment of the approach, (unlikely since the autopilot was engaged) or the aircraft was on a high rate of descent and continued below acceptable altitudes in an attempt to regain profile..(likely given the "sink rate" callout") wait and see what the DFDR reveals
|
All that said, if you're continuing down a NPA based on approach lights alone, you are already rolling the dice IMO. Because it's allowed by regulation, my company has decided to give the option to pilots. Whether or not it is good practice in reality is another discussion. |
Maybe 06/24 was reopened because there was a pile of smouldering wreckage and a few fire engines in the undershoot of 18. :zzz:
|
Capn Bloggs Quote: Originally Posted by A Squared Turns out that a obstacle clearance plane of 2.2degrees would give a clearance of about 65 feet to an airplane exactly on a 3.2 degree PAPI, 3700 ft from the threshold. That's remarkably close to the clearance from the terrain which JC figured using Google earth. Granted, the first point of impact was quite a bit further out and lower than this, so this is only peripherally related to the accident. However it is interesting to note how little clearance you might have over a half mile from the threshold and perfectly centered on the PAPI. This is ridiculous. How could such an approach be allowed, especially at night, with such little terrain clearance? The threshold crossing height is 50ft; 6000ft/1nm further back, you only have another 50ft higher (100ft in total) to give 2W/2R on the PAPI, with wheels hanging probably 30ft below that? |
if you're continuing down a NPA based on approach lights alone, you are already rolling the dice IMO.
Originally Posted by Ian W
the small vertical error margin does make altimeter setting something to return to
|
I wonder if the crew was fighting sleep. Micronaps are not uncommon flying overnight.
|
The FAA as well as EASA need to establish and approve GPS/LPV approaches at all airports in lieu on the traditional N/P/As.
It will help to keep pilots out of the dirt a mile short of the runway, with the advances in the glass cockpit for both GA and Transport Category Aircraft. TAWS technology could be improved too. |
All this talk about approach types etc is very interesting, however these folks appear to have been below airport elevation when striking trees and power lines....was somebody not monitoring inside??
|
ironbutt57:
obstacle clearance from FAF to VDP/MAP is SUPPOSED to be 250' The VGSI provides 1 sloping 1 degree obstacle clearance surface, which begins about 1,000 feet south (in this case) of the runway threshold. |
captjns:
The FAA as well as EASA need to establish and approve GPS/LPV approaches at all airports in lieu on the traditional N/P/As. It will help to keep pilots out of the dirt a mile short of the runway, with the advances in the glass cockpit for both GA and Transport Category Aircraft. TAWS technology could be improved too. |
To be clear, the homes were purchased/removed for noise abatement, not safety. |
Radio Altimeter???
Does this aircraft not have a radar altimeter? Every aircraft I ever flew in actual IFR conditions had a radar altimeter (some better than others). To my knowledge, no one has even mentioned it on this thread. I would think that once an approach is commenced the radar altimeter would be an integral part of the normal instrument scan.
|
Originally Posted by ironbut57
obstacle clearance from FAF to VDP/MAP is SUPPOSED to be 250'
That's a completely separate issue than the clearance afforded by the PAPI once you have descended below MDA on the PAPI. |
A Squared,
The exchange between Aterpster and I was about the fact that the current Jepp plate lists the minimums to LOC Rwy 18 as NA at night. I was asking what could drive this requirement and he advised that the Jepp plate was inaccurate, the ball note making the approach NA if the VGSI are inop is accurate. |
And as Airbubba raised a lot earlier in the thread, the small vertical error margin does make altimeter setting something to return to - the difference between 29.92 and BHM QNH 29.97 just happens to be 50ft low - "with wheels hanging 30ft below that". The place where the airplane first started contacting trees was much lower than 50 feet below MDA and much lower than 50 feet below the PAPI so the approximately 50 ft altimeter error from not setting QNH on descent couldn't explain the accident. |
Thanks for clarifying that Pipeliner,
|
Originally Posted by ironbutt57
All this talk about approach types etc is very interesting, however these folks appear to have been below airport elevation when striking trees and power lines...
|
To be clear, the homes were purchased/removed for noise abatement, not safety. Dear Mr Administrator I'm writing to you to complain about the noise emanating from those homes underneath the approach to 18 at BHM. It's like they have parties all night every night. When my buddy and I fly the LOC 18, we try real hard to keep to sterile cockpit procedures but it's impossible with all that din. Can't you tell 'em to keep it down? Regards UPS Crew --- Dear UPS crew You're right, it is pretty loud, isn't it!? But it's OK, we're gonna get the airport to buy the houses and leave them empty. That should keep the noise down. Regards The Administrator :) Seriously, lots to learn all round from this one, I imagine. |
Roulette,
As someone with a degree in surveying an mapping and who worked in that industry for years before I started flying for a living, I probably have a better understanding than most of the limitations of Google earth. I agree with your comments, especially that the accuracy varies widely in different locations. Certainly there are areas where even the 8 meters +/- accuracy in elevation would be optimistic. And again you're correct that there is no guaranteed level of accuracy anywhere, as here would be in a professionally prepared topographic product. But given that the elevations at the airport match the published ones very well, it's probable the the errors are in the range of tens of feet, and not hundreds of feet. Which is useful for estimating things like: Did the crash happen above or below the airport elevation, or MDA. In any case, if as it seems to be that the aircraft was simply way too low at that point, the issues you raise may, or may not, in fact be relevant or significant. And it is worth noting that the image of the USGS topographic map posted by aterpster, which *is* a professional topographic product with a specified level of accuracy, shows elevations of around 840 MSL at the high point, and about 750 where the trees were first contacted. |
boac....having previously operated there and reviewing the topography, the accident initial impact seems to be on an upslope, then sliding over the top to the top of the rise where the airport lies, also RE the monitoring, not sure of UPS' task sharing procedures, but generally speaking the pilot monitoring has the task of monitoring inside to assure the pilot flying has not fallen prey to some optical illusion and developed a wrong mental picture, resulting in significant deviation from the desired flight path...which is very possible during a night approach with scattered cloud layers...
|
Originally Posted by BOAC
Quote:
Originally Posted by ironbutt57 All this talk about approach types etc is very interesting, however these folks appear to have been below airport elevation when striking trees and power lines... - has this been confirmed? There is nothing to suggest that they were below the airport elevation. |
In Re Memoriam thirteen fifty-four
Having finished the morning portion of APCH acronym & abbreviation soup (mostly), I would like to proffer a question. The finely-honed details being discussed here (if my zero-hours legal mind is working at all) coalesce around the critical inquiry "How could this have happened?" The incredulousness seems rooted in the sense that this flight crew - while not open to criticisms such as those being leveled at the Asiana crew (and they too, and the people who were killed in that accident, should rest in peace) - flew way too low. Somewhere in the approach sector they deviated from a minimally safe altitude and the Swiss cheese holes lined up such that they didn't realize it and had no substantial reason to wonder. Quite different than the non-FTFA op on the Asiana flight deck, right?
The clue-seeking and thinking out loud here, the data scrutiny, the contextualizaion of approach sector design - to an administrative law and regulatory mindset, all speak to some subtle flaw in the approach corridor design. Subtle, and no less fatal. So, here's my question. The UPS freightdogs perished in a moment both tragic and revelatory. Tragic because they were working stiffs who were just doing their gigs, to provide for their families, or to chase wine and women, or whatever their lives were about. In our system we honor the workaday ones, we don't fly couches or practice the law of cutting the lawn, we work. And revelatory because the approach corridor design process is revealed here to need mending. (In my discipline of the law this sometimes is known as "mend your hold".) What does your fraternity of PIC and civil aeronautics do to honor their memory? Will a scholarship fund be established for their children or nieces or nephews or the kids at the local church temple mosque or yoga studio if they have none of their own? or at the Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts or 4-H or Explorers or the entity which the US ought to form combining all four of these groups? I began my career as a labor attorney and I don't even know if they were organized into a labor union! What can be done that will honor their memory, and at the same time help the taxpayers of this country realize that aviation safety doesn't just happen. It does not just happen by itself. I'd gladly volunteer my legal services, saving to suitors the proverbial dollar (Sound as a Dollar), to set up a trust or scholarship. Or to press for legislative reform of how FAA updates approach corridors. I'm WillowRun Six-Three, good day. |
in the area where the flight first started hitting trees. From there the ground slopes up toward the airport. There is nothing to suggest that they were below the airport elevation. |
The trees are higher than the airport elevation on a ridge with an upslope. The ridge was higher than the airport elevation.
After clearing the crest of the ridge it slopes downward towards the airport. |
BOAC, sorry, that was worded poorly. Yes, where the accident occurred, the ground is sloping up in the direction of the airport. Somewhere in the vicinity of where the wreckage came to rest, the hill crests, then the terrain slopes *down* toward the airport.
TDZE for RWY 18 is 644 feet, significantly lower than the area of the accident. Does that clarify what I meant? |
Yes thanks - do we have an initial impact elevation?
|
do we have an initial impact elevation? |
All times are GMT. The time now is 16:30. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.