Originally posted by AVION1
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
UPS Cargo Jet Crashes Near Birmingham Shuttlesworth International Airport
Collapse
X
-
9,000 Ft is the typical altitude some autopilots are switched to manual, sounds like he found some serious problems with the flight controls after that.
And diving the aircraft from 9,000 to 2,000 ft in less than a minute, sounds like a hell of a problem to me. I bet the pilots were fighting with the controls and trying to maintain the aircraft airborne. We need to listen the CVR.
A Former Airdisaster.Com Forum (senior member)....
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View PostNot standard, but not an airplane plummeting from the sky either.
4500fpm is a vertical speed that a pilot could intantionally and safely use if they are two high over the intended path. It would typically require the use of speedbrakes.
Now, this is not something that you do that low and especially not if you are below the glidepath, as this airplane evidently eventually was.
Shows a 3,960fpm then 5,520fpm descent towards the end of flight. Very scary descent rate.
Prayers to the families involved
Comment
-
B757 -
re: the witness who 'saw' the jet "on fire" before impact...if the jet was not in fact on fire, maybe (?) it is a small possibility that as it clipped powerlines (as it did) that a bunch of transformers 'blew up' in sparks which could have been perceived as emanating from the aircraft
it's a stretch but theoretically possible i suppose (i saw one blow years ago, a transformer that is, and it did put on quite a flame/spark show for 5 seconds or so); what do you think?
Comment
-
Possible, but the power company had said that the aircraft didn't take out any power lines, although perhaps a tree branch hit one and caused it to arc.
I just don't trust eye witnesses because they are so often 100% wrong. You can interview 10 people who see the same event and get 10 completely different versions that conflict with the other 9.
And it's worse with aviation because everyone suddenly becomes an expert, when most couldn't tell you what kind of plane they saw except perhaps for a 747. Even I would be wary of going to the media with an eye witness report unless I had the entire thing on video or at least pictures; although I'd give it to the NTSB before going to the press.
Comment
-
Originally posted by hongmng View Posthttp://flightaware.com/live/flight/U.../KBHM/tracklog
Shows a 3,960fpm then 5,520fpm descent towards the end of flight. Very scary descent rate.
05:43AM 33.8230 -86.7190 206° SW 288 533 9.500 -3.960 Level FlightAware
05:44AM 33.7760 -86.7480 207° SW 275 509 5.500 -5.520 Descending FlightAware
05:44AM 33.7247 -86.7489 207° SW 278 515 2.600 -1.860 Descending Atlanta Center
05:45AM 33.6644 -86.7469 178° S 248 459 2.500 -420 Descending Atlanta Center
05:46AM 33.6206 -86.7456 178° S 200 370 1.800 -540 Descending Atlanta Center
05:47AM 33.5681 -86.7539 188° S 191 354 1.500 -300 Descending Atlanta Center
I'll tell you what I hope didn't happen: They were descending at a high VS, so the throttles were at idle. They greatly reduced the sink rate, but left the throttles at idle (maybe because they thought that the automation would catch up).
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View PostI am not an expert in this kind of analysis, but this fan doesn't seem to have been turning at impact.
Forward fuselage off to one side also suggests a yaw angle at impact, although initial impact scar looks directional with the forward fuselage position.
Hitting trees 200yds from impact seems like a shallow approach, but topography is unknown.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View PostNo, why? Sorry, but I really don't understand.
Basically, I've said that such VS is neither typical nor crazy either, but that you would't use it so low.
According to the data the VS is well under that below 2500. It doesn't appear that the a/c dropped out for any reason. But yes...
I'll tell you what I hope didn't happen: They were descending at a high VS, so the throttles were at idle. They greatly reduced the sink rate, but left the throttles at idle (maybe because they thought that the automation would catch up).
Comment
-
Originally posted by BoeingBobby View PostWhere do you come up with this stuff?
Not an FAR, but a very loose rule of thumb.Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Dispatch Dog View PostAgree. I doubt even idle power at impact would leave some fan blades unbent. But I would also imagine an engine failure would usually prompt a mayday unless it happened very late.
Forward fuselage off to one side also suggests a yaw angle at impact, although initial impact scar looks directional with the forward fuselage position.
Hitting trees 200yds from impact seems like a shallow approach, but topography is unknown.
If there was an engine out, would they still have attempted landing on the shortest runway? 18 is already kinda shortish.
Comment
-
This is a decent description albeit from a standard media outlet paraphrasing the NTSB...I've reposted the pics that member B757 posted yesterday that seem to conform with the description below..
'Evidence shows the plane clipped a stand of trees before hitting the ground at the bottom of a hill, where it appears the cargo jet caught fire and started breaking apart, Sumwalt [of the NTSB] said. The front section of the plane — which included the cockpit — ramped up the hill and continued for about 200 yards before finally coming to a rest, he said.
The rear section of the plane — including the wings and tail — continued on about 80 yards further...'
Comment
-
Originally posted by obmot View PostIf there was an engine out, would they still have attempted landing on the shortest runway? 18 is already kinda shortish.
If the engine quit early- it's a good bet they would have said something over the radio.
So if the engine quit, it quit late.
In that case, you do not go around (because it's a lot more challenging to power up, get the flaps set right, get the speed near-perfect and conduct a wimpy climb out, and fly all the way around with semi-critical flying and turning requirements to a new runway, versus going ahead and landing in a situation where you aren't going to use all that much power anyway).
AND....7000 feet is not that short of a runway. I know we all think of big airports and 10K feet+ runways, but I'm thinking the average landing roll of an airliner making a normal landing with passenger comfort in mind is roughly 5000 feet- to say nothing of a concerted effort to make a short landing.Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
Comment