|
I imagine that the reason for this crash, like most, will be a serious of incremental events that on their own would be benign but in combination prove fatal, "Swiss cheese" etc. I wonder if some kind of visual illusion might be one of those small events.
Visual Illusion Awareness “Black hole” along the final approach flight path: In case of approach over water or with an unlighted area on the approach path, the absence of visible ground features reduces the crew ability to perceive the aircraft lateral and vertical position relative to the intended flight path. Uphill or downhill terrain before the runway threshold: An uphill slope in the approach zone or a drop-off of terrain at the approach end of the runway creates an illusion of being too high (i.e., impression of a steep glide path, as shown on Figure 1), thus: Possibly inducing a correction (increasing the rate of descent) that places the aircraft below the intended glide path; or, Preventing the flight crew from detecting a too shallow flight path. |
Fatigue and Performance
As people are talking of fatigue affecting performance and the associated regulations both in the US and EU, I thought I would refer to research that has been done using driving simulators. There is a lot of this research so just one link for now, it really merits its own thread perhaps in Tech Log.
from How do prolonged wakefulness and alcohol com... [Accid Anal Prev. 2001] - PubMed - NCBI How do prolonged wakefulness and alcohol compare in the decrements they produce on a simulated driving task? " Alcohol consumption produced changes in speed deviation and off-road occurrences of greater magnitude than the corresponding levels of prolonged wakefulness. While limited to situations in which there is no other traffic present, the findings suggest that impairments in simulated driving are evident even at relatively modest blood alcohol levels, and that wakefulness prolonged by as little as 3 h can produce decrements in the ability to maintain speed and road position as serious as those found at the legal limits of alcohol consumption." |
Speed of sound:
I don't buy this. You are not flying into a black hole if visibility is 10nm, you are below the scattered cloud and you can see eight bright red lights in front of you. PAPIs either work or they don't. They are either on or off and they don't change angle once they are installed and certified. Even if I was Albert Einstein I would trust eight red lights over my calculations. There is a very good reason why 'too low' is red and 'too high' is white. But, for all we know at this point the flight may have been cleared for a visual. |
18 LOC approach according to Bloggs:
350ft per nm/3.28°. 21 7580 20 7230 19 6880 18 6530 17 6180 16 5830 15 5480 14 5130 13 4780 12 4430 11 4080 10 3730 9 3380 8 3030 7 2680 6 2330 (limit 2300) 5 1980 4 1630 3.3 1385 (MDA) 3 1280 2 930 1 580 Get on it, stay on it. End of story. Too hard to work out? Get the FAA to put it on your charts. |
Lonewolf the Jepp chart gives a descent rate of 813ft/min at 140kt ground speed. The FAF is at BASKN 6D, but only 4.7nm from threshold at 2300ft. The next check height is IMTOY 3.3D, 2nm from threshold at 1380ft.The Jepp shows the 3.28 descent angle starting at BASKN so you wouldn't need all the previous checkheights.
The runway threshold is at 1.3D IBXO, why didn't the installer get it to read zero at te threshold? Jepp also shows a spot height just after IMTOY of 910ft amsl. Jepp also has the following note: Only authorized operators may use VNAV DA(H) in lieu of MDA(H). Were UPS approved for this? |
possible as well their FPA calcs were wrong, sighting 4 reds and not wanting to "de-stabilize" (by climbing back up to the PAPI) they levelled off to re-establish the PAPI and encountered the trees and other in the process of doing this...the boxes looked pretty well cooked....hope they still have retrievable data...
|
If they were planning on doing a GPS approach then they might not have even tuned up the LOC with associated DME. The only distance reading would have been to the threshold from the FMC. This would have left them low instead of high. I know it's a bit far fetched but..... stranger things have happened. |
Only authorized operators may use VNAV DA(H) in lieu of MDA(H). It's odd that the FAA GPS chart makes no mention of an LNAV/VNAV minima ie a DA when Jeppesen does. The FAF is at BASKN 6D, but only 4.7nm from threshold at 2300ft. The next check height is IMTOY 3.3D, 2nm from threshold at 1380ft. |
8driver: Not disputing anything you say. The human factor, including the tendency to be able to "hack it" and be slow to realize the need for a missed approach, is very big in most incidents/accidents, especially on the back side of the clock.
|
Sorry, I admit I'm old school.... all this stuff about black holes and no lights until the REIL's seems irrelevant. I'm presuming that they were cleared for some sort of instrument approach. Black holes and lack of adequate visual references are why we have instrument approaches in the first place. Even if they were cleared for a visual, especially at night it would be unthinkable that they wouldn't have had some sort of instrument approach briefed and set up. Those are hard altitudes at specific DME's for a reason, and the PAPI's are there for the same reason: obstacles between you and the end of the runway - including terrain.
|
Just another airport in USA, nothing special really.....Been to Aspen, Telluride, etc and many abroad that would constitute a wording of SPECIAL Show me a published IFR approach to a major airport that has terrain impacting the glidepath like that over the last mile to the runway ? |
The published altitudes are not below figures for their relavent dme positions. The gps rnav chart also has the same note about approved operators using vnav minima
|
Murexway, you're pretty hard on somebody suggesting a catastrophic incapacitation. We lost a Captain who had a heart attack rolling out in a DC-8 in Indy on 32 roughly 13 years ago. He started to drift off centerline and the F/O took control but couldn't stop it before they ran into the mud off the end. The engineer had to pry the guys hand off the thrust reversers. No movie, it can happen and it takes awhile to recognize incapacitation. Does your airline train for it? Mine does, although truth be told we always know its coming in training. It can be very ugly (ala JetBlue), it may come on slowly, or it may be very fast Passenger 389- Nobody is being insulting saying fatigue might be a factor. It isn't like the guy said they planned to have a sleep and wake up on short final. Unless you've been there, done it, and got the T-shirt with back of the clock flying you don't know what it feels like. |
Did you bother to read Sooeet's article for Asiana 214?
There's no point in such work (other than for ego) because it can't possibly describe what occurred without the flight data from the recorders. Anything else is just a cartoon. What Happened to Asiana Airlines Flight 214 - Analysis by Sooeet.com |
Nope, not offended or "hurt" at all. Since I've flown many all-night trip pairings, I'm not discounting physiology and didn't mean to sound immune to it. :)
|
In the lower left hand corner, FAF to MAP times are 1:53 at 150 kts GS, and 1:34 at 180 kts GS. This would tell me, as a pilot, that if I were flying a CAT C or D aircraft on this approach, I should be configured, and on approach speed well before the FAF, and have my estimated ROD figured out before I hit the FAF. If I had a tool in the cockpit that allowed me to create a 3.28 glide slope that keeps me above min altitudes before FAF, all the better. It looks as though the approach need ~700 fpm ROD if GS is 180, ~580-600 FPM ROD if GS is 150. I'm just a driver, not a rocket scientist but you might want to re-check those numbers for a 3.28 degree glide path. Airbubba: The approach plate I am looking at is dated 25 July 2012, from SE-4, AL-50(FAA). Glide slope noted as 3.28 degrees. The math went like this. (It may or may not reflect said glide slope. I don't have my old GS table at hand ...) Hmm, you have a point, my calc was to MAP, not touchdown. I'll try a different method. If I start at the IAF at 3500 feet (as shown) and arrive at threshold (644 feet), I lose 2856 feet over a distance of 12.8 nautical miles. 150 kts GS gives me 2.5 nm per minute (5.12 minutes) 558 FPM. 180 kts GS gives me 3 nm per minute (4.27 minutes) =670 FPM. (Not far from ~700 fpm) Granted, one should cross the threshold higher than 0 feet AGL. Call the total delta in alt -2800 feet and decrease ROD slightly to hit the box. I was thinking the crew would probably shoot the RNAV (GPS) RWY 18 approach but they certainly were legal to do the LOC Rwy 18 (don't know why it's RWY on one plate and Rwy on the other). Anyway, take look at the LOC Rwy 18, chart 11-2 dated 17 AUG 12. There is a small rate of descent table on the left side. For 140 knots groundspeed, the rate is 803 fpm, for 160 knots, 929 fpm. This seems about right from my experience, your ROD numbers appear to me to be too low for the groundspeed. You are not flying into a black hole if visibility is 10nm, you are below the scattered cloud and you can see eight bright red lights in front of you. PAPIs either work or they don't. They are either on or off and they don't change angle once they are installed and certified. Even if I was Albert Einstein I would trust eight red lights over my calculations. It has been claimed by ALPA in defense of the pilots in the 2002 FedEx TLH crash that moisture can affect the operation of PAPI's: ALPA is disappointed that the Board did not fully explore the possibility that moisture condensation on the visual approach aid (Precision Approach Path Indicator, or PAPI) gave the crew a false indication. The FAA was aware of this problem as far back as 1983. |
Show me a published IFR approach to a major airport that has terrain impacting the glidepath like that over the last mile to the runway ? Vel, perhaps not major....but it does welcome A300 and larger aircraft on a regular basis. Bardufoss/ENDU |
Not trying to hang the crew, but unlesss there's evidence of mechanical failure or crew fatigue/impairment, the possiblility does exist of an intentionally flatter than 3.28 degree final approach (with a lower than 48' TCH) in order to plant it on the numbers of a 7,000' runway.
|
Originally Posted by -JC-
The last mile on the runway 18 approach into BHM seems unique in that the terrain rises to almost 200 feet above threshold elevation just over 1/2 mile from the end of the runway,
|
On the 10-9 airport chart there is a symbol almost on the centreline forRW18 for a lit obstacle at 819 ft amsl, The obstacle is within 2000ft of the runway threshold and it would be 175 feet above it. Slightly to the left of the centreline some terrain is depicted at 757ft amsl.
|
|
Originally Posted by Aterpster
At an airport such as BHM I presume the FAA had verified these PAPIs as being correctly aligned. Otherwise, the two approaches would have categorically been NA at night because the visual segment is encumbered by penetrations of a 34:1 slope in the visual segment and, perhaps even a 20:1 slope (higher terrain a bit left of centerline with lots of trees and homes.
|
A Squared:
The approach charts for both R18 approaches contain the note that the procedure is NA at night, which seems to support your presumption. |
Old topo and less old sat photo. Note the houses that were on the topo are gone in the sat photo:
http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/a...ps07c2912d.jpg http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/a...pse2043d13.jpg |
In the U.S. an unrestricted VGSI must clear all obstacles 1 degree below the commissioned angle, out to 4 n.m, and with a 15 degree splay. Any restriction to the splay or distance must be published in the FAA's Airport and Facilities Directory.
This PAPI has no published restrictions. |
Some local new sources have an article about the airport buying property near to the airport.
BIRMINGHAM, Alabama -- Drive the neighborhoods surrounding the Birmingham Shuttlesworth International Airport and on one stretch you might think you are in the countryside. Wild animals, trees and tall weeds have begun to reclaim city blocks where houses once stood. Streets and alleys have begun to crumble back into the earth. You'll see things out of place - such as a mailbox on a curb but no house. But then turn a corner, and you are right back in the city, with single family homes and residents waiting for their turn to move. Since 1986, the Birmingham Airport Authority has purchased thousands of houses in surrounding neighborhoods, where jet engines pollute the air and shake residents awake at night. But other households are left to deal with the noise and pollution - and also the unthinkable, a plane falling from the sky - and wonder why their houses have not been bought. Barbara Benson, whose home off Treadwell Road was nearly struck by a falling plane on Wednesday, doesn't understand why homes around her have been acquired, but hers, which is the last house a plane flies over before landing, has never been bought. "Why would they buy every house around us and leave us here?" Barbara Benson asked. Barbara Benson Describes Hearing A UPS Plane Crash Near Her Birmingham Home BIRMINGHAM, Alabama -- Barbara Benson describes hearing a loud boom and red flash as she was awoke from a UPS cargo plane crashing through the trees by her Airports Hills home in Birmingham, Alabama Wednesday August 14, 2013. The property purchases the airport authority have done are part of a program known as "Part 150," which refers to the section of federal regulations which govern them.The program allows airports to buy nearby properties which, through a study and map, have been determined to be affected by airplane noise. The airport authority submitted its study in 2005 to the Federal Aviation Administration identifying more than 600 single-family residences, two multi-family residences, three churches and a school, according to airport authority information. At that time, the study estimated the purchases would cost $80 million spread out over several fiscal years, with federal matches covering about 95 percent of the cost. Information publicly available on the airport's website - which airport officials said is up-to-date - shows that in phases since 2009, the airport has purchased at least 570 properties. It is unclear how many more properties are left to be purchased. The airport authority did not provide further comment on the program. "We are reserving comment at this time to allow NTSB to complete their investigation of Flight 1354," spokeswoman Toni Herrera-Bast said in a statement. But for airport neighborhood residents, how the airport authority defines an affected neighborhood and how they define "affected" differ. Tyrone Reed, who lives about a block away from Benson, said that the airport has yet to make an offer on his house, too. "She called me at work and after she told me what happened she said, 'Now are you ready to move?'" Reed said. Reed said that in the last three weeks, he had seen more planes flying low into the north-south runway. "On Saturday I was sitting on the porch, and I saw one fly right over Mrs. Benson's home so low, I didn't think it was going to make it," he said. Reed had just started his shift at ACIPCO, when UPS Flight 1354 crashed Wednesday, but his wife, Letita Reed, was awake and at home when the plane crashed. She was close enough that she heard what sounded like engines sputtering before a series of explosions, he said. "She called me at work and after she told me what happened she said, 'Now are you ready to move?'" Reed said. Reed said that after Wednesday, he is ready. Since 1989, Birmingham city council woman Kim Rafferty had owned a home on 90th Street until the Airport Authority bought it from her in June. For Rafferty, relocating was an end to a decades-long struggle with the airport, but when Flight 1354 went down on Wednesday she spent three hours responding to phone calls and texts from friends and former neighbors. According to Rafferty, the airport's acquisition of property has lacked transparency, and many homeowners never know whether their houses are slated for buyouts until they receive a letter of intent in the mail. "It says that someone is going to come by your house and you need to work with them," she says. "Then some guy comes by to do an appraisal and about five or six months later, they make you an offer." The airport has not been using eminent domain in recent years, Rafferty said. But homeowners are left with only once choice - accept the offer the airport gives you or be left behind as the homes around you deteriorate and are eventually demolished. Homeowners who aren't made offers by the airport can have even worse problems, she said. While she lived in the Roebuck neighborhood, her home was burglarized three times. Many homeowners move away and rent the homes they leave behind, creating a lack of cohesion and community there, she said. The airport's strategy, according to Rafferty, has been to create a blight barrier between itself and the surrounding neighborhoods, rather than reintegrating itself into those communities. "In their whole history they have not done one thing to meld with the community that is around them," she said. "All they have done has been (noise) mediation or their expansion programs." Birmingham City Hall has little control over the airport authority, other than appointing board members, and there has not been a cooperative effort to address neighborhood issues, Rafferty said. While Rafferty has ties to those neighborhoods, Councilwoman Maxine Parker represents that district. When UPS Flight 1354 clipped power lines and treetops on Treadwell Road, Parker's campaign signs were mixed among the debris. Once the crash investigation concludes, Parker said, she would like to host community meetings along with the Birmingham Airport Authority to hear those residents' concerns and to learn what more needs to be done to help them. According to Parker, the city and airport need to do more to help those residents with their concerns, especially how low planes are allowed to fly over those neighborhoods. "I had no idea that planes were going as low as they are until I talked to residents out there today," she said. "The airport needs to do something about that." AL.com reporter Mike Smith contributed reporting for this article. This article was edited at 10:40 to correct the neighborhood where Kim Rafferty lived. Her house was in the Roebuck neighborhood, not Airport Hills. |
I wonder if runway 18 was in existence when Ms Benson bought her house.
I bet it was. |
One doubts the neighbourhood would be named "Airport Hills" if there wasn't already an aerodrome somewhere nearby. :=
|
I wonder if runway 18 has just recently been used for larger aircraft, as Tyrone Reed indicates in the article? Someone mentioned, earlier in the thread, that runway 18 was usually used for General Aviation. Maybe the airport felt like they've cleared out enough houses, where they don't need to worry so much about noise abatement, so they are using it to land bigger aircraft. Landing on runway 18, may be like landing at a different airport for even crews very experienced at landing in Birmingham, since they come in from a different direction, and Birmingham has varied terrain, having not only hills, with coal, lime, and Iron ore, for Iron and steel production, but navigable rivers for barges to transport it, that made it a steel boom town in the first place. The Magic City, as it popped out of nowhere, except a railway crossroads, when the Bessemer process of mass producing Iron was brought there . Even though it isn't perfect, it's sounds like the buyout of homes, to clear a path, is going comparatively well (compared to clearing for a roadway, for instance). I'm surprised that the funds to buy the houses, haven't been somehow diverted for the City of Birmingham's use. They've had some financial difficulties; ya know. Sorry, I digress.
|
Reply to JC
I do not know if your calculation are correct, but your observation is. I had to do several years ago the same approach at night ( 6/24 close for repair at night ) flying an ATR for a freight company. The last 1/2 to 1 mile you litteraly buze the hill all the ways down to the RWY. It is like doing a low flyby over a downhill slope to the rwy. Landing on 18 , is like landing at the bottom of a bowl. The glide path is already steeper than normal = landing long will be a given, shallowing the path and you get extremely close to the ground. if you are high on approach you will absolutely land long on a down slope rwy ( not the best scenarion for an heavy). |
One doubts the neighbourhood would be named "Airport Hills" if there wasn't already an aerodrome somewhere nearby. |
Reply to JC I do not know if your calculation are correct, but your observation is. |
M609,
perhaps not major....but it does welcome A300 and larger aircraft on a regular basis. BOAC, hmm. That would make a 3.28 slope VERY interesting. You sure about that? The highest point of terrain within 1 nm of the theshold appears to be at a distance of 3527 feet (0.58nm), 256 feet to the right of the extended centerline, at 844 feet asl. Exactly 200 feet above the runway threshold elevation of 644 feet. I now see the PAPI's are set a 3.20 degrees. Using a TCH of 48 feet, a 3.20 degree glidepath would put you at 889 feet asl. when 3527 feet from the threshold. (tan(3.20) x 3527 + 644 + 48). So it would appear that on the PAPI's and just slightly right of the centerline would clear the hill by 55 feet (not counting how far your landing gear extends, or at exactly what angle (altitude) the PAPI's change from 2 white to one white). Unless these elevation figures from Google Earth are wrong (?) I'm very surprised such an approach could be certified for night operations with a PAPI set a 3.20 degrees ? This is all somewhat accademic to the accident because they flew into the trees 1.0nm from the threshold then impacted the ground at an elevation of around 750 feet agl at a point around 0.8nm from the threshold. Still it would seem to make for an interesting approach. As anyone on the forum here actually flown this approach at night ? |
One doubts the neighbourhood would be named "Airport Hills" if there wasn't already an aerodrome somewhere nearby. |
I'd suggest reading the FedEx 1478 report, which appears to have involved very similar circumstances, instead of amateurish interpretations of flawed data points. A large newspaper blundered by publishing a similar "analysis" of the Asiana 214 flightpath, only for it to be shown to be complete fiction. Sooeet's flight path analysis of Asiana 214 coincides perfectly with the FDR data released by the NTSB which makes me think that Sooeet's analysis of UPS 1354 is also correct. The NTSB report on FedEx 1478 basically says that the TLH accident was caused by crew error attributed to all 3 crew, and that black hole conditions may have been a contributing factor, as were crew fatigue and physiological factors, but that PAPI was indicating plain bright and simple FOUR-RED, and that the reason PAPI exists is to prevent these types of accidents, but all 3 crew overlooked the PAPI cues. And a similar thing probably happened to both pilots of UPS 1354. What's wrong with this picture? Poor crew training? Overworked crews? It looks like a systemic problem if the recent rash of large airplanes falling out of the sky is any indication. The public has a right to know. Reading NTSB accident reports many months after the accident is fine well and good, but I want to know what happened to UPS 1354 now, to the extent possible. I see no good reason to ignore all sources of information, and I will also read the NTSB AAR on UPS 1354 when it comes out many months from now. More information is a good thing. We are talking about very serious public safety issues here. Just ask the hundreds of people whose houses are directly under or near the approach path to runway 18 at BHM. |
His calculations are wrong at least in one respect - he incorrectly assumes that glidepath is calculated to the runway threshold, but in fact it should be calculate to a touchdown zone - usually around 1000-1500 ft from runway threshold. |
JimField:
More information is a good thing. We are talking about very serious public safety issues here. Just ask the hundreds of people whose houses are directly under or near the approach path to runway 18 at BHM. If the city had done nothing homes would have been hit as shown on my old topo map. |
The highest point of terrain within 1 nm of the theshold appears to be at a distance of 3527 feet (0.58nm), 256 feet to the right of the extended centerline, at 844 feet asl. Exactly 200 feet above the runway threshold elevation of 644 feet. |
Originally Posted by JimField
Sooeet's flight path analysis of Asiana 214 coincides perfectly with the FDR data released by the NTSB which makes me think that Sooeet's analysis of UPS 1354 is also correct.
|
JC read 3 post above yours.
I have done that approach LOC 18 ( no vertical guidance, doing the down step fix ) couple years ago and probably my past employer flew that same ATR 2hrs prior UPS using LOC 18. And yes it is an " interesting approach " day or night !!!!! |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:29. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.