PPRuNe Forums - UPS cargo crash near Birmingham AL

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- Tech Log (https://www.pprune.org/tech-log-15/)

- - UPS cargo crash near Birmingham AL (https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/521370-ups-cargo-crash-near-birmingham-al.html)

My understanding is that the a/c had a high rate of descent with engines at idle when it impacted? With terrain on the approach and a high RoD I cannot see how any MSAW system could have helped, on or off, in a practical time scale.

Should not the big question be why the rate of descent when 'visual'?

LOWEST common DENOMINATOR

Quote:

Originally Posted by roulette

Aterpster is right about the VEB, according to ICAO and FAA criteria. And note that the standard criteria for approach designs must necessarily be based on some rules taking into account categorisation of aircraft and some factors for lowest common denominator.

(Bold is mine)
Since years :p I am collecting for fun tens of quotes in media from very high educated people refering to "LOWEST common denominator"...
They are not lapsus but loss of focusing on what is behind a group of four words(four in French, three in English) . It is a good exemple of how something used by (wrong) rote may bring trouble in a logical thought and brain.

Concepts of "HIGHEST common DENOMINATOR" and "LOWEST common MULTIPLE=LCM" are taught to everybody before Highschool and not difficult to understand, and I am sure, roulette, you know them very well, and you are in excellent Company! It warns us seriously about the limit of "logical" thought that we may wait from a pilot at ground, in flight, and in the middle of an approach a little tired with low visibility.

The only way to overcome such failure is replay and replay and replay again any sequence which is developping in parallel brain processes : that is "TRAINING". It needs airline money.;)

Quote:

Aterpster is right about the VEB, according to ICAO and FAA criteria

Dumb question probably, but what is "VEB"? :confused: :{

Dumb answer - 'Vertical Error Budget', but any more I know not, but I will remember it at the next party to impress folk:rolleyes:

Thanks BOAC. I'll add that to my CVE. :}

Oh - go on................

Aha - you are talking about "A band of musical amigos hell-bent on sharing songs and making light, with a seemingly unquenchable thirst for quality wines and German shots." - yeah!:hmm:

Captain's Vast Experience. :D:ok::8

Capn Bloggs:

The Vertical Error Budget was developed so the designers could use less obstacle clearance in the final clearance of an RNP final approach segment than that used in LNAV/VNAV approaches for the unbathed masses.

The OEM has to perform additional tests that demonstrates a particular airframe type's Baro VNAV system performs better than the standard Baro VNAV system.

The "budget" comes in when the designer calculates the RNP AR final approach segment required obstacle clearance, which is proportionally less as the RNP value used decreases from RNP 0.30 to as low as RNP 0.10.

I'm not an engineer nor a designer but it seems to me some of it is based on smoke and mirrors.

ok465:

Quote:

AFD says BHM lights SS-SR like many other mid-tier dromes, e.g. TUS, OKC, etc. Though PAPIs generally on continuously....I gather this implies SS-SR is a lock.

Photo taken of the crash by a news helicopter that morning after the crash shows the PAPI on.

Thanks for your reply. I am still sifting through all the postings, but I believe you have it correct.

I have a really good memory, it's just short sometimes.

Were landing lights found on?

wondering if landing lights were on during this apch? and to clarify I mean the airplane's landing lights not runway lights (for those not in the USA).

anyone know the position the switches in the cockpit were found? does the 'bus have retractable landing lights?

I would also like to know the status of all lights on the plane including nav, rotating beacon, strobes etc

and cockpit lighting

flare:

Quote:

Were landing lights found on?

Quote:

It usually takes about 6-8 months for the factual docket to be posted by the NTSB.

@underfire & aterps ref RNP criteria, VEB, et al

"Real"RNP is related to the criteria aligned with AC120-29A and 120-28D, as amplified by operators and entities doing the original RNP aircraft and procedure certs, representing the only criteria now successfully, safely, and widely used operational globally. That criteria is also still serving as the underlying basis for all modern large transport jet RNP related OEM avionics cert basis. It is the successful criteria used for virtually all real approach and departure RNP air carrier ops to date globally, starting back with KEGE (which essentially applied all the appropriate RNP principles, except for the RNP naming conventions), ....through the PAJN, CYLW, and NZQN eras. Regarding RNP.003, any RNP less than RNP .1 was intended to, and needs to accommodate factors like span and wheel to nav reference point height, at approach theta. RNP .003 is already in fact in practical use, since it is simply an equivalent lateral center of mass displacement reference formulation to the values used back as far as AC20-57 for autoland (before that criteria was absorbed and integrated into the later AC120-28 series). Reference VEB, [Real] VEB is a completely valid, honest, comprehensive, and scientific measure, as well as being operationally practical. [Real] VEB considers each relevant factor, including the three components of normal, rare-normal, and non-normal performance. [Real] VEB is a far better and more accurate characterization of vertical path performance than any of the obsolete faux scientific CRM and iso-probability contour methods that essentially remain the underlying basis of traditional, albeit now limited validity and obsolete criteria used in both TERPS and PANS-Ops. Which is typically why both of those legacy procedure type criteria still require some application of Kentucky windage common sense by specialists, use of "fudge factors" (such as "Precipitous Terrain"additives), and a 250' HAT ROC floor. VEB has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "Smoke and Mirrors". If found anywhere, smoke and mirrors would best be considered to apply to the domain of faux math, flawed assumptions, and fudge factors still underlying legacy TERPS and Pans-Ops. Q.E.D.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PJ2 (Post 8033453)

It has taken a quarter of a century for this industry to acknowledge what we as pilots said regarding automation when the A320 first came out - that continued ability to hand-fly and remain "in-touch" with the machine is an absolute requirement.

Except - and I know you know this - that the FMC fitted to the A320 was no more advanced than those fitted to the B757 and B767 which had been plying their trade for 6 years at that point. If pilot representatives had pushed that point aggressively at the time then is it not possible that an understanding could have been reached more swiftly?

I do not think he is emphasizing the fmcs:hmm:

Well, he is when he uses the word "automation", because the FBW systems are not automation - nor do they preclude handflying.

But his main point is about maintaining situational awareness...

DW why are you picking on us so much today:}

Quote:

If pilot representatives had pushed that point aggressively at the time then is it not possible that an understanding could have been reached more swiftly?

"Understanding" will only occur when the body count gets unpalatable. Why do you think nothing has happened up until now, let alone in the 6 years (your number) between 75/76 and the Deathstar? With the fundamentalist magenta agenda still in full force, reason will not be listened-to.

Besides, the pilots of those early magenta days were seasoned hand-flyers/brain-users. It takes years before the skills of the old hands atrophy, whereas the Children of the Magenta never had them.