The following is from an FAA chart and lists the obstacles for a departure from RW36, i.e in the RW18 undershoot.

Rwy 36: Fence, tree, and vehicles on road beginning 130’ from DER, left and right of centerline up to 28’ AGL/662’ MSL. Tree and pole beginning 467’ from DER, 470’ right o fcenterline, up to 63’ AGL/726’ MSL. Trees beginning 637’ from DER, 420’ left of centerline, up to 13’ AGL/696’ MSL. Pole and tree beginning 1353’ from DER, 669 left of centerline, up to 37’ AGL/739’ MSL. Trees, poles, and fence beginning 1279 from DER, 492’ right of centerline, up to 19’ AGL/713’ MSL. Terrain beginning 43 feet from DER, left and right of centerline, up to 794’ MSL

DER=Departure end of runway.
On an FAA website I found an old version of the GPS approach and the descent angle was originally 3.04 degrees. Chart is dated July 2008.

Tubby, that distance in the last item appears to be in error. It doesn't follow the trend in the list of getting further from DER, and 150 ft obstacles 43 feet from the runway??? :eek:

Some memorial information on one of the pilots is here:

UPS plane crash: Pilot Shanda Carney Fanning's funeral, life celebration planned | al.com

Both pilots were members of this labor union: Independent Pilots Association

I have re-read that a few times and that is what is says . The reference is here:
https://charts.aero/airport/KBHM and the specific chart is Birmingham 5 cont.1

BOAC, re "Yes thanks - do we have an initial impact elevation? "

Even given the inaccuracies described regarding Google Earth's topographical data, using the "ruler" tool in G.E. to draw a line from the 1000ft point on 18 along the approach path over the two houses (photographs showing broken trees), and using the Altitude control, "Clamped to ground" feature available when saving the line to "My Places", one can obtain a slightly better appreciation for the character of the terrain.

And using the Altitude feature, "Relative-to-ground" and placing the same line at the runway elevation, one can see that the line "disappears" anytime it is going through terrain higher than the altitude selected by moving the slider on the "ground - space" control.

Viewing from the side, (perpendicular to the approach course, looking north for example), the same line "Clamped to the ground" shows a rough approximation of the undulation of the terrain.

The limitations are obvious (for example, the actual descent path obviously cannot be described at this time) but with the cautions expressed, it does give one something by which one may roughly examine the terrain.

PJ

I liked Harrison Ford's ambulance driving but, no
 

Sorry this was left obscured. Volunteer my legal services, no charge, free, except for a nominal One Dollar U.S. (unfolded). But not pro bono, which is a slightly different concept of service. I am interested in what sometimes is called public advocacy, not the same thing as pro bono publico, and quite a lot not the same as politics or running for public office. No relation whatsoever to the fee-chasing lawyers who try to sign up injured parties or their surviving kinfolks after an accident - thank you, not why I went to law school.
Thanks for the info on the memorial and the union.
See ya.

Thanks, PJ - I do not have time (I am familiar with the process from wireless broadband mast siting) but if, as you say, the line 'disappears', it presumably means the airfield would have disappeared largely or completely from sight (allowing of course for cockpit height.) Viewing 4 reds through trees is not a preferred option.

Terrain
 

PJ, sir, is it reasonable and accurate - based on the data actually in hand and the review, analysis or other cogitation by learned professionals especially and particularly PJ2 - to say that there appears to be a significant mismatch between the terrain measurements or depictions (or some similar element) upon which the approach corridor was designed - and the actual terrain? It appears that a major factor here will be a deficit in reliable and accurate topographic data? (subject to the above-noted qualification of data preliminary in nature and probable cause analysis yet to be stated). :ugh:

Latest topographical map of area.
 

Although unfortunately the contours aren't labelled but you can see that the initial impact point was to the west of the highest point on the ridge although that's where the cockpit section of the aircraft came to rest as the rest of it continued down the hill.

http://i1280.photobucket.com/albums/...ps5af1082f.jpg

No. There is nothing in this discussion which should be construed to mean that the approach or PAPI was designed using erroneous terrain data, nor is there any suggestion that the LOC 18 approach and PAPI installation do not meet the applicable standards and specifications.

Speed of Sound:

The dark contour line is 700 feet, msl. Trouble is, it is meaningless because so much surface material has been moved around since that chart was issued.

No, that isn't the latest topo map of the area, it's the same vintage as the one previously posted by aterpster:

Aterpster's post with topo map.

And your view does not include the initial impact area, that was well to the north of your picture. The houses and streets in the north portion of your view have been removed. aterpster's map has a much close indication of the initial impact point. The aforementioned Ms Benson has stated that the airplane hit trees in her yard, and dropped airplane parts on her property which is located at the intersection of Tarrant-Huffman road and Treadwell road. That would be the intersection of the red and white striped roads, just west of the "impact" symbol on aterpster's map.

Comparing it to the topography map the first trees hit are on an elevation of 790 to 810 and the first trees are the smaller 40-50 foot tall variety. Google Earth appears to estimate 20 feet higher compared the topo. The second larger tree in front of the house is probably 30-40 feet lower in elevation, but nearly that much taller too. By that time the elevation had deteriorated another 20-30 feet based on it being topped off there. The hill elevation is 790 to 810.

This is based on the topo, and me actually taking a look at the site... so they were not below rwy elevation, but MDA is another matter....

Smilin_Ed:The undulating terrain at KBMH would make any use of RA problematic. Recall that the Polish presidential Tu-154 that crashed in Russia 10 Apr. 2010 was using RA, which misled the crew as they approached over a ravine.

In that case, the ravine was below the airfield elevation; at KBMH the ravine (or other low terrain) was below the intevening hill.

Most of the grading was done south of the final impact. Also, the house existed before then as well as the hill across the street where the trees were initially hit. Assuming the old topo is reasonably accurate, then that gives us a an approximate benchmark. Even if you say a +- of 40 feet then you can still start to draw some conclusions...

WillowRun 6-3, I concur with A Squared's response. AFAIK, one would never use Google Earth's terrain data for such work or verification of such work.

I've plotted the approximate approach path described above but won't post it as it cannot be verified without proper topographic mapping data. The only intention was to view an approximation of the approach terrain, (hilly, vice flat, etc), possible visibility of the runway when lower than the IMTOY minimum altitude, etc. We may expect that the NTSB will do the precise work and the actual approach profile will be known then.

PJ2

Terrain, contd
 

PJ, I regret having interrupted the thread with an incorrect thought process. I shall continue with an effort (very inexperienced though it may be) to acquire a better understanding of the subject matters discussed herein, I mean, on this thread.

A Squared:

That would be the USGS Birmingham North and Irondale 1:24,000 topos.

I have no idea of the date of mine because they are WSG84 seamless bitmaps from Delorme. For my purposes they are usually fine because I am interested primarily in terrain.

My mistake.

I downloaded it from the US Geological Survey website and assumed it was a contemporary map. It is actually from 1978.

But as Sorry Dog (who is local to the area) says, the grading was done between the foot of the hill and the end of RWY18. In that case we can assume that the ridge shown is 794’ MSL as the FAA notice will have used information from an actual survey of the terrain and the hill top remains unaltered from 1978.

When I said initial impact I meant with the ground rather than the trees as I was referring to the area contained within the portion of the map I posted.