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:

Only at MDA, not below.

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:

This runway does not qualify for LPV, LNAV/VNAV, or ILS because the necessary qualifying visual segment areas are not sufficiently free of obstacles. This is true of many runway ends. There also has to be the correct type of survey, which many smaller airports are unwilling to pay for. (that is not the limitation at KBHM).

True most of the time. But, the FAA does have weak advisory standards for safety areas like these

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.

Right that is true, but that applies to the obstacle cleareace afforded by the MDA *if* you are *at* the MDA.

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.

Well no, it really does not. You're confusing two different concepts. The obstacle clearance given by the PAPI has nothing to do with the obstacle clearance provided by being at MDA. And altimeter errors would have no effect on the clearance either way of the PAPI clearance.

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,

- has this been confirmed? I do not see that 'altimeters' would possibly be 'in scan' at the time of the crash ('visual') but if this is true it is difficult to argue against screwing up the visual slope on the VGSIs. I assume they were 'ON'? I cannot also see how this fits with descriptions earlier from someone of 'skiing down the slope to the runway?

"FAA fails to pick up on vital clue that the aircraft were getting close to houses on the 18 approach"

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.



Completely agree with that. I pointed out the PAPI obstacle clearance issue, merely as a point of interest. I never meant to suggest that it was a a factor in this accident, clearly they were far below the PAPI when they started hitting trees.

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...

BOAC, no, it absolutely has not been confirmed. Both Google Earthj *and* the USGS topographic map (See previous discussion) indicate elevations in the neighborhood of 750 ft MSL 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.

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.

- not making sense??

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?

The terrain in the vicinity of where the airplane started hitting trees is between 750 and 800 ft MSL. Trying to define it any closer than that without actually being there and measuring thing would be futile.