PPRuNe Forums

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)

flarepilot 14th Aug 2013 23:19

dear A4

OTS means OUT of Service.

tubby linton 14th Aug 2013 23:36

OK 465 I think that the UPS aircraft have the latest version of FMS fitted which will allow the flying of a Vnav path. The FCOM references .
The airbus mod required is 12454 ,12455 or later to be able to do this.

tubby linton 14th Aug 2013 23:45

According to the FCTM if the mod is fitted then it will fly a path. The sub -mode is known as Final Approach Function. FCTM ref is 2.32.72 p8. I think it was somebody at Honeywell who told me that UPS had it fitted.

ImbracableCrunk 15th Aug 2013 00:00

If you don't want to read rumors. . .
 

rumour US, rumor [ˈruːmə]n1.a. information, often a mixture of truth and untruth, passed around verbally
If you don't wan to read rumors, rumours, etc, then maybe you should go to a website that doesn't have RUMOUR in the name. Or simply wait for the NTSB's sunshine report.

Pilots (and people in general) cope with accidents by talking it out.

If you want a more facts-based website, go to AvHerald. Just don't read the Reader Comments.

PJ2 15th Aug 2013 00:03

tubby linton, perhaps slightly OT, but have you ever heard of the "Universal" FMS and if so have you heard of any problems with it? (I'm not saying that the UPS aircraft had this equipment on board, but the discussion points raising LNAV - VNAV caught my eye).

skyken 15th Aug 2013 00:05

Altimeter from Metars at the time
 
A2997 Altimeter from Metars at the time.

Murexway 15th Aug 2013 01:58


If you don't wan to read rumors, rumours, etc, then maybe you should go to a website that doesn't have RUMOUR in the name. Or simply wait for the NTSB's sunshine report.

Pilots (and people in general) cope with accidents by talking it out.

If you want a more facts-based website, go to AvHerald. Just don't read the Reader Comments.
The experienced-based comments, observations, suggestions, etc. on this website from actual, transport-category rated, commercial pilots are most informative and interesting, despite the "Rumor" name. But the number of posts from non-pilot aviation "entuhsiasts" make it much less interesting and more tedious to read. Perhaps you're right.... at least the AvHerald seems to have facts.

Thanks......

tdracer 15th Aug 2013 02:15


This seems surprisingly low.



Quote:
The plane was built in 2003 and had logged about 11,000 hours over 6,800 flights, Airbus said in a statement.

I've noticed this with UPS 757 and 767 Freighters - hour/cycle count is roughly half what is normal for passenger operations (there are some late 1980/early 1990 built passenger 767s that have 100,000+ hours :eek:). They typically fly two flights per day - one to the UPS hub, one back to a destination airport (generally not the airport they came from).

BTW, regarding the witness report of engines "sputtering" - I've often heard surging engines described as "banging" or "backfiring", but never "sputtering". Reasonably sure the UPS A300-600 have PW4000/94" engines - pretty much the same as used on the 767, 747-400, and MD-11. Impressive reliability record (well below 1 shutdown per 100,000 hours), so independent engine failure is highly unlikely. It was still dark at the time, so a large bird strike is also unlikely (plus bird strike caused shutdowns are super rare on the PW4000 - fan damage and maybe a surge - but they usually recover and operate more or less normally for the remainder of the flight).

OTOH, not too many engines out there would deal well with a tree ingestion event :rolleyes:

physicus 15th Aug 2013 02:47

The apparent absence of rotational kinetic impact damage on the fan blades points at little to no power developed at impact. A late change of plans from 24 to a straight in 18 would have left them hot and high: close throttles, barndoors out, nose down, and by the time low energy became apparent, it was either too late due to preoccupation with some other issue, or a compressor surge (for whatever reason) prevented spooling up in time leading to the result at hand. Judging by the fire, fuel starvation appears unlikely.

lomapaseo 15th Aug 2013 03:19


The apparent absence of rotational kinetic impact damage on the fan blades points at little to no power developed at impact. A late change of plans from 24 to a straight in 18 would have left them hot and high: close throttles, barndoors out, nose down, and by the time low energy became apparent, it was either too late due to preoccupation with some other issue, or a compressor surge (for whatever reason) prevented spooling up in time leading to the result at hand. Judging by the fire, fuel starvation appears unlikely
not so fast :)

The engine could have creamed the rear-end (not the fan) when it hit the hill, tail first. All the picture shows so far is after the engine dislodged from the wing and flew a bit farther.

The folks on scene already know this answer even without the DFDR so I'm intent on listening for a clue in the next NTSB summary.

olasek 15th Aug 2013 03:30


the significant point is that the ‘altitude’ is not on the required glide path, which in an RNAV procedure might be confusing
There should be nothing confusing about this particular chart for someone who is a reasonable skilled IFR rated pilot, and even less so for an ATP with thousands of hours behind his belt.

ImbracableCrunk 15th Aug 2013 04:04


The experienced-based comments, observations, suggestions, etc. on this website from actual, transport-category rated, commercial pilots are most informative and interesting, despite the "Rumor" name. But the number of posts from non-pilot aviation "entuhsiasts" make it much less interesting and more tedious to read. Perhaps you're right.... at least the AvHerald seems to have facts.

Thanks......
Quite true. The double-edged sword of free speech. AvHerald for facts, PPrune for discussion.

Capn Bloggs 15th Aug 2013 04:14


Originally Posted by PEI 3721
The Jepp chart for the Loc18 approach does not have a cross reference to DME/ALT box as a LOC/DME approach would have.

Why on earth, in this day and age, don't the Americans have a distance/altitude scale on their NPA charts? It then doesn't matter what the steps are or what the FMS is doing, just get on, and stay on, the distance/altitude scale and you'll be safe.


Originally Posted by PEI 3721
The procedure altitude check appears to be at the FAF ‘BASKN’

Although I don't use FAA charts, it doesn't look to me like the Procedure Altitude is published here; the 2300 is merely a "not below" altitude. It would be interesting to see the Jepp chart for this approach, as it publishes the Procedure Altitude on the chart.


Originally Posted by Olasek
BASKN is the FAF - this is where 3 deg slope counts and points before are not subject to the "slope" rule. Also 2600 ft is the minimum allowed altitude at BIDPE, so yes, this is your altitude check, but better be not lower than 2600.

Say what? 2600 an altitude "check"? "Better be not lower than 2600"?? It's a mandatory "not below" altitude and by my calculations happens to be fully 900ft below the "normal" profile for the RNAV approach.


Originally Posted by Olasek
There should be nothing confusing about this particular chart for someone who is a reasonable skilled IFR rated pilot, and even less so for an ATP with thousands of hours behind his belt.

So what profile would you use down final, or would you just "dive and drive"?

olasek 15th Aug 2013 04:20


not below" altitude and by my calculations happens to be fully 900ft below the "normal" profile for the RNAV approach.
There is no profile at BIDPE yet, as there is no profile at COLIG, profile doesn't start before FAF. You look at a straight line and the picture confuses you because this is just a drawing, it is out of scale and it is meant to be a shortcut. Also if you don't like "altitude check" (I didn't invent this term) you may call it step-down fix. Everybody familiar with IFR operations should know what step-down fix is.


So what profile would you use down final, or would you just "dive and drive"?
Dive& drive is a perfectly valid choice, it all depends on aircraft equipment.

BuzzBox 15th Aug 2013 04:38


Dive& drive is a perfectly valid choice, it all depends on aircraft equipment.
Oh boy, here we go again... :ugh:

Airbubba 15th Aug 2013 04:51


Dive& drive is a perfectly valid choice, it all depends on aircraft equipment.
That may be how they did it back in the old days with piston twin equipment but it is defintely not currently taught in widebody FMS aircraft from what I've seen.

Why not is explained in this FAA circular:

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...%20120-108.pdf

The whole idea of the RNAV (GPS) approach is not to dive and drive.

Capn Bloggs 15th Aug 2013 04:53


Originally Posted by olasek
There is no profile at BIDPE yet, as there is no profile at COLIG, profile doesn't start before FAF.

Well it should (and be published). You guys need to be dragged into the real world.

Airbubba 15th Aug 2013 05:25


Well it should (and be published). You guys need to be dragged into the real world.
Huh?

Step down fixes are not on the final profile path on many approaches. And even if they are, non-standard temperature can cause them to be above the extended profile. The feds have been harping on this in recent years, here is a discussion for ILS approaches, it is a similar situation for non-precision approaches with vertical path guidance:

FAA Releases Updated Guidance on Instrument Landing System Intercepts | NBAA - National Business Aviation Association

And here is the circular:
http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviat.../InFO11009.pdf

olasek 15th Aug 2013 05:26


The whole idea of the RNAV (GPS) approach is not to dive and drive.
Wrong, RNAV with VNAV, there is no VNAV in this approach. If aircraft has no equipment to help him with the vertical part then dive & drive is perfectly fine. Obviously this Airbus was supposed to fly it per airline's SOP but there may be a lowly GA aircraft flying behind it that will in fact do dive & drive - it still happens every day. I stick what I said - depending on the equipment and pilot's training, I refuse to view aviation through the prism of "big iron" only. If my G1000 box in my SR22 doesn't turn this particular approach into LNAV+V and provide me with "advisory" glide path then I am no better off then some steam gauges Cessna circa 1965 flying the same approach.


You guys need to be dragged into the real world.
Say what? What guys? Talk to the people who design approaches or kindly read some IFR textbook.:ugh:

Airbubba 15th Aug 2013 05:47


Wrong, RNAV with VNAV.
Uh, don't know if you know someone who has Jepps but chart 12-2 dated 2 MAR 12 is the RNAV (GPS) RWY 18 at BHM, presumably this is the chart the UPS crew was using. I doubt they would be using the LOC RWY 18 but I will concede that it is possible and legal. And, if they did do the LOC approach, they would normally have vertical path guidance from the FMS.


I refuse to view aviation through the prism of "big iron" only.
I'm not trying to be pedantic, I realize you perhaps don't fly large aircraft for a living.

The only aircraft smaller than the A300 that UPS operates is the B-757 so I guess in that sense you could call it a light twin. But somehow I don't think they would be doing a dive and drive in a widebody in 2013.


All times are GMT. The time now is 19:05.


Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.