Originally posted by 3WE
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
UPS Cargo Jet Crashes Near Birmingham Shuttlesworth International Airport
Collapse
X
-
The "keep my tail out of trouble" disclaimer: Though I work in the airline industry, anything I post on here is my own speculation or opinion. Nothing I post is to be construed as "official" information from any air carrier or any other entity.
-
Originally posted by snydersnapshots View PostGood question. The other thing that popped into my mind was the time of day ...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostAlmost as obvious as the instruments right in front of you.Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostRelatively quick instruments scans with obvious indications.
--- 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 PostHaving been there and done that (well, just a bit), I can tell you that it's quite hard to tell from the instruments if you are low, high or on target on an approach with no vertical guidance (ILS or similar glide slope indication).
The airspeed gauge doesn't help with the glide path either, but I kind of like knowing how fast I'm going...it's of some secondary value to avoid stalls and sea walls.Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 3WE View PostHow about more useful than the instruments right in front of you. It's generally better to have your eyes outside the cockpit, with relatively quick instrument scans.
Stated another way, at the precise time of day (lighting) and weather when they approached, perhaps instruments would have provided more accurate information, but their eyes sort of fooled them because they could see pretty well out the window only because the bright runway lights were like a 'beacon' and the sky was starting to brighten. So they felt (again subconsciously) that they had a 6 or 7 out of 10 visual situation, when in reality it was only a 2 or 3 at that moment because they couldnt -actually- see (or distinguish) the treeline/slight hill in their path.
I wish I know how to express this concept more cogently.
Comment
-
Originally posted by obmot View PostI wish I know how to express this concept more cogently.
However, the PAPI should be a very obvious cue to over ride such misperceptions- not that it would be 100% though either.
Bottom line- this is just as likely or just as unlikely as all of the other theories right now.Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
If the NTSB says that the engines were functional before the accident, I can onlyy assume that the lack thrust at impact was due to the ingestion of tree branches. So at least one engine must have spooled down fairly quickly to have hit the ground hard without deforming all the fan blades.
Again, what happened after hitting the trees was inevitable. Question is how low on the glidepath do you have to be to hit them?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Dispatch Dog View PostAgain, what happened after hitting the trees was inevitable. Question is how low on the glidepath do you have to be to hit them?
I did a little research on the ILS in the Aeronautical Information Manual and learned (re-learned?) that the width of the localizer approximately 700 feet at the runway threshold and the thickness of the glideslope is +/- 0.7 degrees for 1.4 degrees total. Gabriel will tell me if I'm wrong (at least I hope he will, math is NOT my forte'), but I believe that equates to about 140 feet/mile. At .5 miles, the thickness of the glideslope would be about 70 feet, so a full-scale deflection would give you about 35' below glideslope at 1/2 mile. If I'm wrong in my calculations, please let me know...
Of course, that's for a precision approach and I understand the runway in question does not have an ILS.The "keep my tail out of trouble" disclaimer: Though I work in the airline industry, anything I post on here is my own speculation or opinion. Nothing I post is to be construed as "official" information from any air carrier or any other entity.
Comment
-
Originally posted by snydersnapshots View PostOf course, that's for a precision approach and I understand the runway in question does not have an ILS.
But I don't see the point since there was no ILS available here.
If (again: IF) they were using an FMS generated glide slope, those ones don't follow the conic geometry of the ILS.
--- 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 snydersnapshots View PostThe rule of thumb for a normal three degree glidepath...the runway in question does not have an ILS.
...probably not of great significance...then again it's probably steeper for a reason...
Edits:
http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1308/00050R18.PDF (Ok, 3.24 degrees for the virtual glidepath)
http://www.airnav.com/airport/KBHM (and 3.2 degrees for the PAPI).
So, of even less significance except that it's steeper for reason.Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
Comment