And actually, the Jepp chart, 11-2 dated 17 AUG 12, LOC Rwy 18 indeed has both notations.

Note 2. at the top says 'When VGSI inop, procedure not authorized at night.'

And, in the minima boxes at the bottom of the approach plate under 'NIGHT' it says 'NA'.

Since the minima boxes are recently shuffled on Jepp charts and some precision approaches now have Cat I,II and III depicted on the same chart, I've certainly grabbed the wrong MDA or DA before through the habit of looking in the same place on the minima matrix as in years past.

Like most of us in large planes, I usually shoot either precision approaches (e.g. ILS) or visual approaches with precision guidance for backup. And I normally have the luxury of operating out of larger international airports. I'm pretty sure I would not have caught the discrepancy between Note 2. and the night minima box. I looked long and hard at that approach plate last week sitting at a desk and never saw the night minima notation at the bottom.

The NA on this Jepp chart is thought to be a typo given the note at the top and the lack of night minima NA on the corresponding government chart:

http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1308/00050L18.PDF

The UPS crew had paper Jepps from what I've read elsewhere.

In my experience, it is not at all normal to hear "SINK RATE" on any approach, it would sure get my undivided attention on a night non-precision approach to an unfamiliar runway. Sadly, as others have noted, the warning came very late for this crew.

FAA has it one way, Jepp the other (?) (evidently)
 

Per Lonewolf_50 @ post #481:

"Per A squared:
Quote:
the Jepp plate for the LOC approach (posted in post #228 of this thread) seems to suggest in the minima section that it's N/A at night. However it also contains the note that the procedure is N/A *if* the PAPI is inop. That taken by itself implies the the procedure is approved for night ops if the PAPI is operative. So there seems to be conflicting information on the Jepp chart."
Is Jepp liable?
_____
Is this question (as to liability) a suggestion for a legal analysis (subject to all applicable caveats as to information flows and validity, lack of a full "totality of the queries" analytic framework, and others of similar kind or circumstance)? My client can spare me for a bit of time, I should think (particularly on such a subject both high in public importance and captivatingly interesting to WR63), though unsolicited legal garble is worse than sour beer in the pub, both to be avoided among friends and compatriots.

The tree (leftmost) of the first picture is a pine. I cannot tell which variety it is from that photo (likely are slash or longleaf). Typical crown height (when it reaches full maturity) is anywhere between 70-100 feet AGL. Some older examples of longleaf go up to 120-feet. The 17 y/o longleafs I have here are growing at roughly 3-feet/year. Many are over 60-feet tall.

AirBubba, your last post has reinforced my statement that there are charting discrepancies at this airport. It also probably explains why for Eu-OPs this procedure is not authorised at night, as there is no straight in landing minima published for night operations.The GPS approach for RW18 does not have this restriction even though it has the same caveat as to the servicability of the Papi.for night operations. Would anyone care to explain why these anomalies exist?
For those interested in tree heights in Alabama search for "Champion Trees of Alabama" published by the Alabama Forestry Commision.

The FAA chart is correct. The Jepp chart is in error. Jepp picked up the Amendment 2A note but failed to update their minima section. Here are links to the applicable four pages of source documents for those who care to see them:

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa214/aterpster/KBMHLOC181_zpsc9733eda.jpg

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa214/aterpster/KBMHLOC182_zps27053a33.jpg

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa214/aterpster/KBMHLOC183_zps2d25df9b.jpg

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa214/aterpster/KBMHLOC184_zps87fe4799.jpg

If it helps, the typical utility pole for 12.47/7.2KV Wye primary service (which is what this appears to be) is 45 feet with about 6 feet of that buried in the ground. This would make the primary conductors about 40 feet AGL.

Looking at these two pictures, it certainly looks like the distribution secondary/cable/phone were taken out by falling tree limbs, but I'm not sure about the primary. Primary conductors running both parallel to the flight path and perpendicular to it seem to be missing which seems unusual to me for tree damage.

"The FAA chart is correct. The Jepp chart is in error. Jepp picked up the Amendment 2A note but failed to update their minima section."

Wanna bet that total ban on LOC at night (and maybe more) is re-instated PDQ?

Aterpster, what criteria would the originator of the LOC procedure have used to decide that it was not to be used at night and then a few years later change this policy? I have not had time to perform a thorough analysis of how many aircraft have used this approach since its inception but perhaps somebody with local knowledge could provide an estimate.
When was the last time the procedure was flight checked?

I am certainly confused - what makes a LOC n/a at night but other approaches OK? With the published DAs there is no obstacle issue, and once you are visual off ANY approach................................ Was it just a typo?

aerobat
 

Thanks for that.

That is higher than my rough estimate based on the height of the engineers in the pic I posted, and the height of a semi trailer passing a pole on a Google streetview pic on a road nearby.

I made the poles about 25 feet tall with the cables at about 20 feet.

tubby:

Penetrations of the visual segment's 20:1 surface. Later, the PAPI was determined to be accurate, thus (as is done on a case-by-case basis) the PAPI, when operating, was determined to be mitigating.

I still cannot understand why the 'LOC' was special - the visual is surely the same for all from MDA?

I agree, but from one who 'knows'???? So why not ALL night visuals???

Is there a published procedure for an GPS-RNP approach to 18? If there is not, you cannot do it. Is the company/aircraft authorised and trained for Rnav-Vnav approaches? If not, you cannot do it.



And regards why they may have descended below the nominal glideslope. One possible reason is mistaking/confusing the perspective of the approach, especially if you are not used to doing non-precision approaches.

There have been quite a number of aircraft over the years that have drifted below the glideslope, on a nice visual approach, and not realised it. Especially when making a 'black hole ' approach, where there are no ground lights below you to gain perspective from. There was an incident with a corporate jet, many years ago, on a gin-clear visual night approach to an island runway just inland from the sea in Scotland. The sea was, of course, completely pitch black. And they flew down so low, while still thinking they were on the perfect approach, that they touched down in the sea.



Silver

Do UPS have a FOQA programme and if they do was the aircraft fitted with a QAR? No mention has been made of a QAR module but if it exists the NTSB would know quite quickly what autopilot modes were being used and how the flight was conducted if the disc was readable.

For those of you curious about how a UPS A300 flies the LOC18 and RNAV18 into KBHM, here's a pretty detailed answer. From a UPS A300 F.O. -

I pose the question again: if Jepps and the FFA approach plate are not the same on a bit of detail, to which one would you default? You are the captain on a given mission, or you are the FO preparing for a flight and you note a discrepancy in the approach info ... what do you do?

Willow: in this case, while "liability" may be an interesting question as you rephrase it, if the crew were using Jeppson and took the NA at night on Jeppson for guidance (even if it is an error) then they'd not have shot that approach at night. They'd have flown another approach to that airport.

For an error to have the kind of liability a lawyer might make a civil case over, I suspect it would need to be in the other direction: mark something as "OK" when it's not. In this case, the error would have the crew try a different approach, even though the FAA chart allows it with VGSI working.

(PS: aterpster once again shows up with facts and some expertise on this topic. Many thanks, sir! :ok: )

Aviation Week summary of what is known about this accident as of August 18.

Just because the crew could see some of the runway lights over the crest of the hill doesn't mean the aircraft would clear the crest of the hill.

NTSB member Sumwalt addresses the recovery of non-volatile memory from various electronic modules at 8:25 in this briefing:


I would think the FDR data would give autopilot mode status as well.