|
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. correct alt (feet, asl) = tan(a) x distance (feet) + threshold elevation (feet) + TCH (feet), where a = glidepath angle |
Originally Posted by JimField
What makes you think that a similar analysis for UPS 1354 is any less accurate?
|
For those of you more familiar with the airport and the UPS operation of the 306 what result do you come ou with for the flight using this risk assesment tool?
(The Flight Safety Foundation CFIT assessment tool) http://flightsafety.org/files/cfit_check.pdf |
@ A Squared:
immature and dishonest |
Are you saying that it's not dishonest to pretend you're not Sooet? It may ruffle your feathers to be called on your pointless deception, but it is what it is. And yeah, dishonest and immature are reasonable descriptions of what you're doing.
|
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 |
Are you saying that it's not dishonest to pretend you're not Sooet? |
I have a low tolerance for people who use sock puppets on internet forums.
|
For those of you more familiar with the airport and the UPS operation of the 306 what result do you come ou with for the flight using this risk assesment tool? (The Flight Safety Foundation CFIT assessment tool) http://flightsafety.org/files/cfit_check.pdf |
I have a low tolerance for people who use sock puppets on internet forums. |
@ A Squared
Uhhh, you're basing it on a data set which places the final position of the aircraft a mile or so beyond where it came to rest. And your "fix" is to merely delete the obviously incorrect data and substitute a position from another source, without any consideration of the fact that the rest of the data you're accepting as true may also be flawed, but not as detectible. The FDR and CVR could very well be toast and all their data lost. Should the people who want to know what happened to UPS 1354 throw away all other data sources too? Are you saying that all FlightAware data is useless and cannot be trusted? |
Everybody is in a rush these days and expects everything instantly. Well, guess what? Accident investigations take time. I can tell you what likely happened right now. What good is it? Absolutely zero, because it's based on the what facts we have right now - which are exactly zero. |
Nothing particular unusual about it, there are many airports with similar "hills" in immediate runway vicinity (for example RNO). The important point is that minimum vis for this approach is 1 mile so they would clearly see all the obstacles well in advance. Reports from pilots in this very thread appear to indicate it is not just another approach. skysign: 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. And yes it is an " interesting approach " day or night !!!!! |
Hey guys, just watched about half of today's NTSB press conference. The biggest news was that they have good data on both the CVR and the FDR. On the CVR, something like 10-20 seconds (don't quote the time until I/you re-watch the press conference) before the end of the recording the plane called out "SINKRATE". The captain was flying. They interviewed the controller and he saw a "bright flash" that looked "like lightning" that he believes was prior to the actual impact into the ground (I personally think this is the plane hitting the trees/powerlines). Finally they said BHM has software in the control tower that is supposed to alert if a plane is dropping too fast and that it did NOT alert in the tower.
And some people were talking earlier about how long that runway has been there. 6/24 has been there since the 30s, and 18/36 has been there since the very early 50s from what I can tell. There was a pretty big noise abatement buyout project funded by the FAA about 10 years ago, and of course since then there have continuously been people that were outside the project that have been complaining to get their homes bought out. Those neighborhoods are low-income already and most of those homes are probably sub $50,000 value. |
Originally Posted by JimField
(Post 7996677)
Are you saying that all FlightAware data is useless and cannot be trusted?
|
Reports from pilots in this very thread appear to indicate it is not just another approach |
Original Quote by Coagie: Of course, the airport is probably there since the '20's or '30's, and might not have been such a noisy place for the surrounding neighborhoods, since it may not have extended out so much, or had noisy jets. http://i1166.photobucket.com/albums/...ps07e8fba8.jpg |
Need I remind? UPS 1354 crashed and burned 1 nm short of RWY 18. Why is it surprising that the last data point in the FlightAware feed may be incorrect? The FDR and CVR could very well be toast and all their data lost. Should the people who want to know what happened to UPS 1354 throw away all other data sources too? Are you saying that all FlightAware data is useless and cannot be trusted? I don't have time to explain all the defects in your "analysis", but as one example out of many: It's pretty obvious that the data for the last position is grossly in error, right? I mean after all it shows the airplane on the national guard ramp about a mile from where we know it ended up. So, gotta be in error right? so we just delete that position from the analysis. Cool. Now here's the hysterical part, even though we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the last data record in the FlightAware is hopelessly flawed, You still preserve the velocity reported in that defective record, and inexplicably incorporate it into your charts and "analysis The fact that you don't see the folly of taking that velocity reported in the final record, and basing conclusions on it speaks volumes. |
From The Birmingham News:
Cockpit voice recordings show the pilots were cleared to land on Runway 18/36 two minutes before the end of the recording, Sumwalt said. Sixteen seconds before the end of the recording, the pilots received the first of two "sink rate" warnings, a mechanism which kicks in if the plane's descent does not match its programmed path, he added. Thirteen seconds to the end, one crew member reported the runway was in sight. Nine seconds prior to the end, there are "sounds that are consistent with impact," Sumwalt said. |
NTSB: UPS plane's cockpit voice recorder reveals first descent warning came 16 seconds before end of recording BIRMINGHAM, Alabama -- The flight data recorders captured "good quality" information and recorded UPS Flight 1354's entire flight, a National Transportation Safety Board official said. "I am very happy to say that the recorders did their job," said Robert Sumwalt, board member with the NTSB. "We have very good data from both the cockpit voice recorder and the flight data recorder." The UPS cargo plane crashed about 5 a.m. Wednesday on approach to Birmingham-Shuttlesworth International Airport, killing the two pilots. The plane's cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder were retrieved on Thursday and flown to NTSB's lab in Washington, D.C. There, analysts were able to open the recorders and begin retrieving data Friday morning, Sumwalt said. Cockpit voice recordings show the pilots were cleared to land on Runway 18/36 two minutes before the end of the recording, Sumwalt said. Sixteen seconds before the end of the recording, the pilots received the first of two "sink rate" warnings, a mechanism which kicks in if the plane's descent does not match its programmed path, he added. Thirteen seconds to the end, one crew member reported the runway was in sight. Nine seconds prior to the end, there are "sounds that are consistent with impact," Sumwalt said. The voice recorder also revealed the captain, Cerea Beal, Jr., was the flying pilot. The flight data recorder captured 70 hours of data, including the entire flight. The data recorder contains more than 400 parameters which must all be validated to ensure they were accurately recorded, Sumwalt said. Investigators also interviewed the two air traffic controllers who were on duty. One was on an allowed break at the time of the crash. The controller who witnessed the crash said "he saw what appeared to be a bright spark flash, which he equated to what it would look like if a power line broke," Sumwalt said. The air traffic controller said the landing lights disappeared and there was bright orange flash followed by a red glow. Starting to look like there was no mechanical malfunction. 'SINK RATE' at night on approach should have triggered an immediate go around at most carriers in my experience. |
Sixteen seconds before the end of the recording, the pilots received the first of two "sink rate" warnings. Nine seconds prior to the end, there are "sounds that are consistent with impact" |
Murexway,
You obviously haven't read all the posts. I previously expressed my opinion that a BHM RNY 18 approach ... should not result in catastrophe. IF the Google Earth elevation data is accurate, then flying this approach on a 3.20 degree PAPI WILL take you to within 55 feet of terrain at just over 1/2 mile from the runway when you are 255 feet above threshold elevation. If in your "opinion" you think that this is an acceptable risk to take in a large widebody aircraft, flying at 170 knots, 55 feet over terrain 1/2 mile final, in total darkness, then so be it. Apparently the FAA agrees with you (assuming they didn't screw up when they certified it), in which case I say you are both nuts. Now maybe the Google elevation data is in error, or I've made a calculation error (I doubt it), then by all means please correct my data. But don't tell me it's your "opinion" that just because the FAA says it's safe means that it really is. And yes I have read every post in this thread. Have you ? |
@ A Squared
I don't have time to explain all the defects in your "analysis", but as one example out of many: It's pretty obvious that the data for the last position is grossly in error, right? ... In the coming days the FDR should clear things up. Hopefully the NTSB will give us a taste of the FDR data, as they did with Asiana 214, or at least make statements hinting at the probable causes of the accident. |
JC:
That assumes the obstruction clearance analysis was done correctly and the certification requirements were actually met for this approach ? Can you verify that ? IF the Google Earth elevation data is accurate, then flying this approach on a 3.20 degree PAPI WILL take you to within 55 feet of terrain at just over 1/2 mile from the runway when you are 255 feet above threshold elevation. If in your "opinion" you think that this is an acceptable risk to take in a large widebody aircraft, flying at 170 knots, 55 feet over terrain 1/2 mile final, in total darkness, then so be it. Apparently the FAA agrees with you (assuming they didn't screw up when they certified it), in which case I say you are both nuts. Now maybe the Google elevation data is in error, or I've made a calculation error (I doubt it), then by all means please correct my data. But don't tell me it's your "opinion" that just because the FAA says it's safe means that it really is. I assess FAA approach procedures all the time. Significant mistakes are very rare at a major airport like this one. The U.S. VGSI criteria require a 1 degree obstacle clearance plane, which starts at approximately 1,000 feet from the approach end of the runway and crosses the threshold at the TCH. Thus, that is almost 50 feet of obstacle clearance at the threshold. Where they apparently first hit the threes they were almost 200 feet below the PAPI vertical on slope. If the FAA made any mistake in the design of the final segment of the two Runway 18 approaches and/or the alignment of the PAPI, it will come out in the NTSB's report. That approach is presently being reviewed with an electron microscope, so to speak, by the NTSB. |
If you had bothered to thoroughly read the article you're so roundly condemning, before casting aspersions and pointing fingers, you would have realized that all of the "defects" you mention in your last post are explained in clear and plain English in that article. However, we chose to keep the groundspeed of the FlightAware end-point because doing so does not affect our analysis. Then your "analysis" says UPS1354 apparently collided with terrain while flying at 191 knots, |
There is indeed high terrain but it is not on centerline and just outside the PAPI 15 degree splay. |
Should the people who want to know what happened to UPS 1354 throw away all other data sources too? Are you saying that all FlightAware data is useless and cannot be trusted? My question to you is, why and upon what basis is this amateur sleuthing work defendable? What is the motivation behind the work when we know that in time, the recorders may tell us what occurred. The only motivation that is reasonable to consider is that someone just wants to be first, and that is about ego and prestige, not about finding out, and frankly that insults the crew's memory and those who do this work. That this data may coincide with later findings is beside the point. Dressing up and masquerading Flight Aware data as "what happened" is misleading because the basis upon which the data is created and displayed is not proven as an investigative tool with high and reliable accuracy. If you want to present an argument for your particular data sources such that the argument garners the respect due such arguments because they are based technical specifics, you might begin by describing/demonstrating the accuracy and robustness of your data sources further based upon your knowledge of flight data analysis. There are a good number of people here who know their stuff and can argue the details about accident investigation, flight data, human factors as well as terminal and approach chart design. If you wish to convince, be specific about why Flightaware isn't just a consumer-interest entertainment website and can stand beside the recorders as a valid source of aircraft data. PJ2 |
That assumes the obstruction clearance analysis was done correctly and the certification requirements were actually met for this approach ? Can you verify that ? IF the Google Earth elevation data is accurate, then flying this approach on a 3.20 degree PAPI WILL take you to within 55 feet of terrain at just over 1/2 mile from the runway when you are 255 feet above threshold elevation. If in your "opinion" you think that this is an acceptable risk to take in a large widebody aircraft, flying at 170 knots, 55 feet over terrain 1/2 mile final, in total darkness, then so be it. Apparently the FAA agrees with you (assuming they didn't screw up when they certified it), in which case I say you are both nuts. Now maybe the Google elevation data is in error, or I've made a calculation error (I doubt it), then by all means please correct my data. But don't tell me it's your "opinion" that just because the FAA says it's safe means that it really is. And yes I have read every post in this thread. Have you ? Now I have a question for you. Are you a professional pilot, type-rated in any commercial jet aircraft? |
JC
That terrain I see on Google Earth rising to 844 feet asl is offset 5 degrees from the final approach course (measured from the center of the theshold). |
Agree 100% with PJ2s post.
Sooeet nailed the Asiana 214 final approach profile days before the NTSB released several data points of FDR data for the last 3 nm of the approach. Any number of us could guess what happened and come up with the right answer but what is the point, we will have the facts soon enough. The funny thing is you claim to be right but a lot of the stuff on your post is based on what people here have said and all of your mistakes, that show a total lack of aviation understanding, are removed once spotted here. Its pathetic and not even your own conclusions or knowledge based reasoning, just what you can pick up from here. Sad, sad individual. |
If I may offer a respectful thought - these two statements are just rhetoric. My question to you is, why and upon what basis is this amateur sleuthing work defendable? What is the motivation behind the work when we know that in time, the recorders may tell us what occurred. The only motivation that is reasonable to consider is that someone just wants to be first, and that is about ego and prestige, not about finding out, and frankly that insults the crew's memory and those who do this work. That this data may coincide with later findings is beside the point. Dressing up and masquerading Flight Aware data as "what happened" is misleading because the basis upon which the data is created and displayed is not proven as an investigative tool with high and reliable accuracy. If you want to present an argument for your particular data sources such that the argument garners the respect due such arguments because they are based technical specifics, you might begin by describing/demonstrating the accuracy and robustness of your data sources further based upon your knowledge of flight data analysis. There are a good number of people here who know their stuff and can argue the details about accident investigation, flight data, human factors as well as terminal and approach chart design. If you wish to convince, be specific about why Flightaware isn't just a consumer-interest entertainment website and can stand beside the recorders as a valid source of aircraft data. PJ2 |
Cockpit integrity
Just my two cents worth so please don't jump down my throat on this one...
I'm surprised at how intact the cockpit looks, including the windows, and yet I realize that the two pilots unfortunately lost their lives. The crash almost looks completely survivable based upon the integrity of the cockpit, at least with the pictures released so far. I make these observations as a lowly pathologist, but still.... I've seen my share of blunt force trauma injuries and this one perplexes me. Of course, I've seen forces much less kill people, so you never can tell. It will be interesting to read the medical/pathological/survivability information that's released in this case from the NTSB. Thanks for listening! |
@ PJ2
Thank you for your civil and thoughtful post. Very refreshing in the aftermath of the violent verbal assaults on a newb by some PPrune members. It is comforting to know that people like you exist in the commercial pilot community, and that hopefully people like you constitute a majority of that community, rather than a majority of knee-jerk reactionaries, as some other members of PPrune have proven themselves to be. My concern and approach are those of a layman: are there serious systemic problems with commercial aviation, for example poor flight crew training, overworked flight crews, frequent day/night shift rotations that affect the normal sleep cycles of flight crew, etc., that may underlie or be causal to the rash of recent fatal accidents involving large airplanes? I'm sure you agree that these issues go well beyond the community of ATP rated pilots, and affect all of the flying public, as well as the people on the ground, for example the residents of Birmingham Alabama who live in close proximity to BHM. And as in many close-knit work communities, is there a reluctance on the part of insiders to speak the truth within the community, let alone in public, about these issues, for fear of reprisals such as demotions, pay cuts, lay-offs, etc.? Thanks again for your thoughtfulness. |
JimField:
Are you saying that all FlightAware data is useless and cannot be trusted? |
I'm somewhat amazed that 3 seconds go by after the sink rate warning with one of the crew then saying runway in sight....if it was a dive and drive wouldn't they intend to be level at MDA? If it was some sort of stabilized approach wouldn't that have been a clear signal the approach had gone unstable and an immediate go around was called for....???
Sadly seems like another clear case of pilot error... |
Also from the news conference today, the FAA planned to do a flight test of the ILS equipment and the PAPI lights today but were unable to due to weather. Several questions were asked about the serviceability of these systems, specifically the PAPI lights and the NTSB did not have answers.
|
I was born and raised in the deep south. My mother is from central Alabama (you don't have to tell anybody... I know what you're thinking "That explains a lot!"). Anyway, a 100 foot+ pine tree is not only, not unusual, it's the norm! 55 feet of altitude is usually described in two words ...too late!
|
If the FAA made any mistake in the design of the final segment of the two Runway 18 approaches and/or the alignment of the PAPI, it will come out in the NTSB's report. This approach brings you to 1200 ft about 1 mile from the runway (in the worst weather), then you transition to your regular VFR flying. PAPI lights should by then be fully visible and as long you don't loose them or make sure at least on of them remain white you should be OK. Nobody can guarantee you terrain clearance when all lights turn red. If you count on a "mistake" in the design of this approach - I think you will be grossly disappointed. So yes, wait for NTSB report but the odds that NTSB will find fault with the approach itself are miniscule, it would be first in like 50 years. This approach had plenty of safety buffer that could have been flown by a competent crew in a partially disabled aircraft (say with one engine inop). Fortunately, the FAA doesn't design the critical final approach segment using Google Ear |
Originally Posted by olasek
Again you are harping at this point ad nauseam already ...
This approach brings you to 1200 ft about 1 mile from the runway (in the worst weather), then you transition to your regular VFR flying. PAPI lights should by then be fully visible
Originally Posted by olasek
instead of sitting in an armchair with a calculator doing some trigonometry...
|
it would be first in like 50 years.
Oddly enough several years ago they did find fault with a non precision approach involving a light aircraft under very similar circumstances..in upstate New York I think |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 19:33. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.