Tweet
In their third press briefing on Aug 16th 2013 the NTSB said, the "recorders did their job", there are good data, the cockpit voice recorder as well as the flight data recorder hold the entire flight. The captain (ATPL, 8,600 hours total, 3,200 hours on type) was pilot flying, the first officer (ATPL, 6,500 hours total, 400 hours on type) was pilot monitoring, the crew briefed the LOC approach runway 18, 2 minutes prior to the end of recording the aircraft received landing clearance on runway 18, 16 seconds before end of recordings there are two audible alerts by the GPWS "Sink Rate! Sink Rate!", 13 seconds prior to end of recording one crew member said "runway in sight", 9 seconds prior to end of recording sounds consistent with impact occurred. The flight data recorder contains more than 400 parameters requiring verification that these parameters are valid, this process takes time. It holds 70 hours of data including the entire accident flight. There were two controllers on duty at Birmingham tower, one controller was taking a break as permitted. The remaining controller observed the crash, he saw sparks and a large bright orange flash that he interpreted as breaking of a power line, he saw the landing lights, then no longer saw the landing lights and instead saw a large orange glow, he activated the crash button. There were no alerts regarding minimum safe altitude issued by his radar system. The crew started their "duty day" in Rockford,IL at 9:30pm on Aug 13th and flew to Peoria,IL as flight 5X-617 on A306 N161UP, then to Louisville,KY again as flight 5X-617 on N161UP before departing for the accident flight 5X-1354 on N155UP.
-
--- 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 --- -
Hmm... a lot of stuff unfolding very fast.Originally posted by Gabriels Post
...and maybe not neccesarily wrong, but not neccesarily kosher either.
I'd also express some doubt on the flightaware data- which in my experience- is not exceptionally accurate.Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.Comment
-
My first impression when I read that is, these pilots didn't know where they were.
First, it seems that the runway was NOT in sight just 4 seconds before impact. I can't imagine how that could be not below minimums.
Second, I wonder if the copilot actually saw the runway when he called it in sight, or if he saw something else and took it for the runway. Giver that they were far too low by then, had he actually seen the runway I would have expected not a "runway in sight", but rather a "holly shit look where is the runway!"
--- 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
-
Indeed this sounds very wrong.Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
For the moment, I'm speculating (yes, MEGA parlour talk), that that was some sort of "standard short final utterance": "Runway in sight, gear down, three green, checklist complete"
or perhaps a non-standard utterance...we're at some minimum altitude (200 ft?) (a minimum that has nothing to do with the particular approach) the runway IS (and has been) in sight, time go go visual...
?
Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.Comment
-
not that it makes a difference, but i think the FO was a woman. 37 y/o.Comment
-
I don't know how accurate Google Earth's elevation database is, but I am changing my mind in some aspects.
If you stand on the hill before the runway, the sight of the runway is that of a too low approach, yes, but not that low.
--- 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
-
Are you implying that it could be a contributing factor?Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
You cannot make any such suggestion. That's why the PAPI is at 3.2 degrees and not 3 degrees and there is no excuse for the pilots not following the PAPI and/or a computer generated glidepath. That is the only cause!Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.Comment
-
"The controller said he saw the plane on approach and saw a spark shortly before the crash. Investigators said the plane appeared to have taken down a power line before the crash."
Looks like my earlier posted hunch may have been correct about witnesses who saw the plane 'in flames' before impact.Comment
-
Blue font, uh?Originally posted by 3WE View Post
Actaully, I'm implying that 3.2° could be not steep enough to provide for a healthy margin.
I know this is not scientific, but I've made a couple of visual approaches in Google Earth's flight simulator, and the terrain ahead of that runway resulted intimidating. And I did it in CAVU daylight conditions.
--- 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
-
Probably the engines surging, result of eating wood.Originally posted by obmot View Post
--- 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
-
So, I'm betting a beer that 3.2 degrees provides a margin that is deemed "healthy" by some very specific FAA requirementsOriginally posted by Gabriel View Post
Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.Comment
-
I won't bet against that.Originally posted by 3WE View PostSo, I'm betting a beer that 3.2 degrees provides a margin that is deemed "healthy" by some very specific FAA requirements
But I have my (preliminary, speculative) sentence: CFIT, to the point that they didn't know what was going on as they were flying through the tree tops.
--- 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
-
So i'm confused. Does a visual approach (nocturnal at that) mean you ignore the instruments altogether? Because you do have a PFD right in front of you with a big altitude reading on it. And vertical speed. You really don't have to break a sweat to read that. And then you have an audible "SINK RATE, SINK RATE". Do you just ignore that and go by dead reckoning there? In spite of all this, is the optical illusion of whatever you are seeing out the window going to take precedence? Why not turn off all the displays so that you can better see out the window? You have completely lost me here.Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
I still think we have some variation on the unstable approach, inability to arrest sink rate theme.Comment
-
Please explain me how do you use your altimeter and VSI to judge your glide slope both in angle (2.5°, 3°, 3.5°) and in position (where you'll hit if you keep this path).
There are some indirect ways, but none of them is very straightforward and very accurate.
In a visual approach, your key inputs are the airspeed indicator and the sight out there (especially the VASI or PAPI if available).
Have those two nailed, and you don't need to worry about the altitude or the vertical speed. Not that you won't include them in your scan pattern.
Now the real question would be... Were they in a visual approach really? Calling "runway in sight" 4 seconds before impact well shy of the runway?
I don't thing we have an unability to arrest the descent as in "we tried but couldn't", but rather as in "we couldn't even try because the first news that we were really should have arrested the descent the sound of impact".
Regarding the "sink rate" warning, that's a point. But my main concern is what were they doing that low, 4 seconds before impact, I suspect well below minimums, with the runway NOT yet in sight (and hence the PAPI not in sight either).
--- 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
-
I'm wondering the same. Light rain suggests they would have descended through cloud at some point. Any info on the cloud base?Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
Even if it was a bit murky, I would ahve thought the landing lights would pick up some trees ahead on a true visual approach?
Feeling a little uncomfortable about how easy it seemed to crash, assuming CFIT.Comment
Comment