DaveReidUK

Thank you for taking the time to point that out, as I said it was just a thought. Having taken your advice and reviewed the thread in a little more detail I can see its been mentioned. May I also say your post of a picture (315) in response to the landing gear is equally as useless.

"Many accidents have happened in the past when undesired high rates of descent developed when both crewmembers were involved in attaining visual contact/references with the runway/lights/PAPI etc...etc...and nobody was minding the store.(monitoring inside)."

Is there an effective way to change this behavior? Improved procedures and training?

I do not understand why there is a discussion about R/A EGPWS, given an obvious obstacle it would have most likely been inhibited by the flight crew.

Given that proficiency in instrument flying and approaches are checked at every PC and NPA's are normally covered in PTs, it is strange that incidents like these are still happening in the developed world. Maybe they are so good at visual flying that complacency set in, when instrument approaches are deemed to be a walk in the park!

However I think the pilots had more instrument approaches under their belts than visual approaches and it is baffling how a localiser approach could be so badly stuffed up? Maybe some electronic interference from an active system in their freight or l@ser light interference from the ground? I believe the pilots were highly experienced and very competent, so pilot error must be a very very remote possibility!

As aircraft accident statistics show competency and experience has nothing to do with it. Take some most egregious cases of pilot error (in commercial flying) in the last say 40 years and they were all caused by experienced and well trained crews.
Not sure what it is supposed to mean, approaches in IMC weather are flown in minority of cases, say 10-20% (will depend on geographical area) so visual approaches tend to dominate in pilot's logbook.

@olasek

I think you got trolled:)

mm43, I'm more interested in the sight angle of that bridge from UPS just before the troubles. I have a crazy idea that they may have mistook stalled morning rush hour traffic on this bridge - a mix of red and white lights - for the PAPI. The highway stands at a rather acute angle to the runway so this is possible.

I don't know, but I think that inhibiting the EGPWS only inhibits the terrain database function; the basic functions such as the Sink Rate call would still be active.

I think you can't understand English. His opinion post reads OK to me.

Using Google earth, I compute the following:
highway altitude:+/- 640ft
Mrs Benson pine tree altitude: +/-830ft
distance from highway to pine tree: +/-14200ft

That makes for an angle of less than one degree (0.77°).

The highway altitude is somewhat below runway southern threshold (660).

If they could see the highway, it must have seemed awfully high on their windshield...

@deSitter
 

I go the other way about this arrival.

I think they may have been too low to even see the PAPI or REIL's.

The runway in sight call out was what the PNF saw of the remaining runway lights.

If they mistook lights on I-59 for PAPI's, they (the PAPI's) would have been at the wrong end of the string of runway lights.

If Mrs. Benson's trees are 921' MSL, they were already more than 279' below minimums, possibly before IMTOY.

Also, it's been a long time since I have driven through Birmingham in the morning, is there that much bumper to bumper traffic there at 5 AM?

I live ten miles from the accident site. I frequently drive in to the airport at o'dark thirty. I don't believe there was much traffic on the I-20/59 interstates at that hour. Not saying it couldn't happen, but...

I'm more interested in my brother-in-law's account: He drove to work at an auto shop about 5 miles from the accident, about a half-hour later (5:30). He says the ditches were filling up with fog....

Significative information! Thanks

I'm surprised at the suggestion that pilots routinely inhibit the EGPWS terrain floor function if they think there might be ''obstacles''. I would only do this if I knew that the landing runway was not in the database; after all, the whole point of it is to warn that you're following an unsafe path relative to terrain/obstacles. If you're close enough to trigger a caution or warning, then you need to do something positive quickly!

As they were on an NPA, my reading of FAR 91.175 (being an EU-OPS guy, although it's very similar) says the visual references required are fairly broad and don't mandate slope guidance. Just the approach lighting would be fine until <100' above the TDZ.

Given the falling ground under the approach path and the shorter runway, the expected visual illusion is that of being too low. This might have been countered by uncertainty from the 'black hole effect'. Puzzling. It would be very interesting to synthesise the view out of the window at various stages during the approach when accurate flight data becomes available...

Anyone like to guess at the power setting at impact based on post #315?

...Idle...

Yeah... :}

Fullwings this runway had no approach lighting.

Yes, you're right, I've just looked at the plate. Nearly diverted there a couple of months ago. Makes the VGSI all the more important.

Has anyone here landed on this runway at night? Is there any sort of ''texture'' to the lead-in: lights, strobes, lit areas, etc. or is depth perception difficult?

An approach to this runway was described many pages back as being a black hole. There are strobes on the runway ends and the runway lights are only medium intensity. Do you have a copy of the Navtech(aerad) chart for this place?Does it mention anything about the approach not being available at night?

Yes...

It says: ''Note: When VGSI inop, procedure NA at night. Circling NA'' and the note was revised Dec 2012.

It also gives a 3.3deg slope on the profile chart but a 3.2deg one on the DME vs. ALT box; probably rounding either way.

There are CAT D minima of 1200' and 1 & 5/8sm for the LOC+IMTOY and 1380' and 2sm for just the LOC. Out of interest, the RNAV (GPS) 18 has 1200' and 1 & 3/4sm.