Airbubba
 

15

Autopilot operating modes, autothrottle and AFCS systems engagement status and operating modes.

I saw that briefing and I thought it odd that he did not mention the QAR, perhaps it was destroyed in the crash. Using industry standard software it is very easy to recreate the flight and crew actions from QAR data.

Airbubba, re, "I would think the FDR data would give autopilot mode status as well."

It may or may not.

I believe the prior reference to a QAR was intended to highlight the fact that QARs are often programmed with "richer" data frames, (more parameters, higher sample rates, higher resolutions) than SSFDRs.

Usually, data frames on DFDRs is somewhat standard from the manufacturer, (although I haven't met a truly standard data frame yet...nor do aircraft always have the best dataframe documentation). IIRC, there are about six or seven "standard" frames for the B737C (classic - 200, 300, 400).

Because QAR data is not legally scheduled and defined as with DFDRs, those who are capable of programming data frames from documentation can extend the utility (and available but not programmed parameters) of QARs substantially. It is intensely detailed work and therefore normally very expensive and time-consuming.

QARs are generally located either in the EE bay or the cockpit. If the installation is an older one with a "DAU*" (Digital Acquisition Unit), the QAR "mirrors" the DFDR. If the QAR is supported by a "DMU*", (Data Management Unit), it has it's own processor(s) and processes the data independently of the DFDR. With the substantial damage to the lower cockpit area I doubt if a QAR is available but if mounted in the cockpit it may be.

* terms may differ - the nice thing about standards within flight data systems is that there are so many to choose from.

tubby linton....re, "Using standard software it is very easy to recreate the flight and crew actions from QAR data."

I know what you mean but just so there isn't any misunderstanding regarding the term, "standard software" - such software is proprietary and very expensive - in other words, it can't be done using MS Excel, etc.

I know you know this but many who salivate at the thought of getting their mitts on accident flight data do not know this and believe everyone and anyone should have access to flight data so, not trusting those who do this work, they can make up their own minds about what happened.

PJ2

If you have never seen a QAR recreation of a flight, then I will describe it for you. The one my company uses has multiple windows which show the aircraft position overlaid on Google earth, the PFD with the modes selected, the position of slats flaps and gear , flying control positions and engine parameters.. There are probably other items displayed which I have forgotten but it is described here:
http://www.aerobytes.co.uk/docs/Aero...eyFeatures.pdf
By standard i meant industry standard software not something you can download for a few $$$$.
The PFD representation in the software replicates a 320 family pfd which consolidates all of the flight instruments on one screen. This is satisfactory for flight analysis purposes but differs slightly to a standard A300 PFD display.

PJ2
 

It is not optional, it is a ICAO required parameter.

Jeppesen regularly makes transcription errors (from source documents to their own documents) in my part of the woods. A recent one quite bad.

"Sink Rate" below 1000ft AAL in my outfit is an immediate Go Around, no questions asked.

In my outfit only "Pull up, Pull up!" is an immediate go-around. A "sink rate" is only a go-around if the flying pilot doesn't respond with "correcting" and actually makes said correction to the sink rate.

Seems to me that this whole thread goes through ALL the possible technical causes of the accident in great detail. IF this incident had involved an ASIAN carrier, we would by now be having ALL the torrid discussions about ASIAN pilots' lack of basic flying skills.

Quoted:

"I saw that briefing and I thought it odd that he did not mention the QAR, perhaps it was destroyed in the crash. Using industry standard software it is very easy to recreate the flight and crew actions from QAR data."


I've been intimately involved with the FOQA program with two airlines, and typically the Quick Access Recorder (QAR) and the FDR have the same data. Some airlines program their QARs to record additional parameters, but most just mirror the FDR. Modern FDRs record hundreds of parameters, and animations/recreations can certainly be made from those data.

At one airline, no QARs were installed, so the FOQA program ran off of data downloaded directly from the FDR. Each airline will have the data frame set up for both the QAR and FDR data (if different from each other), so it takes almost no time to view the data once it is on-hand. For instance, once our safety department had a download from either a QAR or FDR, we could be viewing the data in as little as 10 - 20 minutes, depending on the size of the file.

So if UPS has QARs, they most likely do not contain any different data than the FDR, and the FDR data can be accessed and processed just as quickly as QAR data. They are functionally equivalent.

The one advantage to having a QAR is that if there is an incident, occasionally the NTSB will allow the airline to keep the QAR data media, and they can review the data independently from the NTSB. It appears that the NTSB is getting more permissive with its data policies, so that may become less of an advantage going forward.

Yep
 

[CODE]Seems to me that this whole thread goes through ALL the possible technical causes of the accident in great detail. IF this incident had involved an ASIAN carrier, we would by now be having ALL the torrid discussions about ASIAN pilots' lack of basic flying skills./CODE]

Sad but true.

sera

This UPS accident involves an instrument approach procedure with complex technical conditions and limitations.

Asiana fu*** up a visual approach on a wonderful clear day to a very benign runway.

That one was easy to throw stones at. The UPS accident is far more complex.

In any case, your rant is racist.

I'm a Captain with UPS (won't say which fleet) and work in our TC. Currently I am out of the country.

Our company charts for the LOC approach say NA at night. I'm not talking about the NA at night for lack of VGSI. This is due, undoubtedly to the terrain and black hole effect of night operations.

Also, interestingly, we have an RNAV GPS to 18 which does not have that restriction, but according to NTSB briefings they were using the LOC 18 as reference.

However, with the hourly observation, I would guess they shot a visual approach, "backed up" by the LOC and in that case, the reference for the LOC would be legit

I don't have much to say.. but if you all need facts that I can share, I will do so. It has been a long week of grieving for us.

I am not familiar with the A300, but I am typed in all of our other aircraft

I was there yesterday. The wreckage is in easy site range of the passenger terminal. I watched several of them go the end of the glass to take a look and snap some pictures. Sad. Tragic. Lots to learn from this. Could've been any one of us.

"This UPS accident involves an instrument approach procedure with complex technical conditions and limitations."

I'm not so sure.
To me, the NTSB briefings so far suggest a black hole illusion which seems to have resulted in CFIT. If so, it's not the first time and unlikely to be the last. So the mystery is in how this was set up?

It's extremely sad to lose assets both human and machine this way.
My sincerest sympathies go out to the entire UPS operation.

Willie :ok:

The QAR and the FDR typically have the same data, or at least very similar. Some airlines even directly download their FDR, instead of a QAR, for the FOQA program.

You use the approach plate issued by your company. Ours (not UPS) for the LOC 18 are tailored and state VGSI required at night, and the night minimums block says NA. An easy one to miss for sure.

I think it's become clear from the conversations and preliminary information that there likely was no technical flaw at the root of this (I'm not saying there wasn't one, but it would not have to be causal), nor was there any blatant crew misconduct apart from perhaps them not having shown the amount of discipline needed in a non precision approach.

There is no such thing as an "unsafe" instrument approach. They are all designed to have safety margins built in, IF the procedures outlined are adhered to. As JPJPs A300 FO friend states, no jet today flies a non precision approach as we used to in IFR school (dive and drive) the FMC will create an artifical glideslope (a continuous descent approach, or CDA, wiki for those who are not familiar: Continuous descent approach - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), the MDA is substituted by a DH (e.g. MDA+50 to account for the GA transition) which should match with the missed approach point (MAP). What does that mean? You are always above the step altitudes published in the approach plates.

The CDA provides you with check altitudes just as well as the classically flown approach does. If your FMC does not calculate them for you, you have to calculate them yourself. But even without calculation, you can read off the charts as you fly off the points: "BASKN, check 2300 or above, next IMTOY, 1380 or above." then "Minimum, visual, landing" or "Minimum, no contact, go around!".

It takes discipline to always, always do this. Complacency settles in with all of us unfortunately, it would be wonderful if somehow we could have a less costly reminder to keep the basic skills running even on flights we've done a million times!

"You use the approach plate issued by your company. Ours (not UPS) for the LOC 18 are tailored and state VGSI required at night, and the night minimums block says NA. An easy one to miss for sure."

Absolutely -- anyone reading the minimums block is going to go left to right until they get a hit. When I looked at the approach plate for the first time, I went to MDA with IMTOY, then to Cat C/D. There is no reason to look any farther. In fact, I probably looked at the chart fifteen times before I twigged that night block.

If there is a condition where mins are NA -- meaning the approach itself is NA -- then it needs to be in the first column, not the last.

Aterpster, Where exactly do you perceive racism in serangga's honest observation?

Do you guys check the PAPI even when you don't need it, just as a sanity check?

-drl