Originally posted by Evan
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
UPS Cargo Jet Crashes Near Birmingham Shuttlesworth International Airport
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostTOWER: UPS Airbus crashed approximately two mile final.
UNKNOWN: Uh... do want us to hold our standby positions?
TOWER: ...the aircraft isn't coming to the airport...
UNKNOWN: You mean it already crashed?
TOWER INTERNAL MONOLOGUE: No, I just came back from the future in my time machine to warn you about that
TOWER: uh..firmative
Aside from that bit of comedy, not much here.
The chatter with the airport vehicles sounds more like maintenance folks, not rescue types.
However, there is a "new" tough swiss cheese nuance here that "the real runway" was apparently minutes from reopening...give them a hold or "senic-route vector" and no crash.Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
On Feb 20th 2014 the NTSB released a number of documents into their public docket as part of the scheduled public hearing into the crash [...] The flight data recorder showed the aircraft was on autopilot maintaining 2500 feet while intercepting the localizer, the autopilot captured the localizer successfully and subsequently tracked the localizer until end of recording. A vertical speed of -700 fpm was selected into the master control panel, the aircraft began to descend below 2500 feet MSL consistent with intercepting the glidepath, 26 seconds after the begin of the descent the vertical rate was increased to 1500 fpm in the master control panel followed by the change of target altitude from 2500 feet to 3775 feet MSL. 45 seconds after the vertical speed was increased to -1500 fpm the EGPWS sounded "Sink Rate", an immediate response reduced the rate of descent to about -500 fpm. The control column position began to move towards nose up commands, 8 seconds after the EGPWS warning the autopilot disconnected (not stated whether disconnected by pilot command or automatically disconnected), an autopilot disconnect aural warning occurred, the autothrottle changed from speed to retard mode and the recording ended showing 7 degrees nose up and 138 KIAS at 14 feet AGL at last recording. The factual report regarding the cockpit voice recording shows the crew believed they were kept high and were complaining just after reading the final landing checklist and decided to use vertical speed. Shortly after the missed approach altitude was selected, both crew again commented they were too high for the approach, then the first officer commented "thousand feet", instruments cross checked, no flags, the captain remarked "DA is twelve hundred", then called 2 miles, shortly after the EGPWS sounded "Sink Rate", the captain got visual with the runway, the first officer confirmed runway in sight, the captain stated "autopilot's off", the autopilot cavalry charge (disconnect) sound was recorded following by first sounds of impact within a second after the begin of the cavalry charge, the EGPWS sounded "too low Terrain", the captain asked "Did I hit something?" followed by exclamations from both crew and sounds of impact until end of recording.
--- 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 Post
Comment
-
...the crew believed they were kept high...both crew again commented they were too high...they hit trees only a few seconds later...
That plus a lesson from MSFS of all things: Clouds + A short period of inattention + A short period of an increased descent rate = "look there's the gr[sound of impact]"Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leftseat86 View PostI'd like to see a simulation of what kind of view of the runway they had when they called it in sight. They hit trees only a few seconds later, PAPI must have been solid red.
On Sep 9th 2014 the NTSB conducted their board meeting to determine the cause of the crash and concluded the probable causes of the crash were:
- the crew continued an unstabilized approach into Birmingham-Shuttlesworth International Airport in Birmingham, Ala.
- the crew failed to monitor the altitude and inadvertently descended below the minimum descent altitude when the runway was not yet in sight.
Contributing factors were:
- the flight crew's failure to properly configure the on-board flight management computer
- the first officer's failure to make required call-outs
- the captain's decision to change the approach strategy without communicating his change to the first officer
- flight crew fatigue
The NTSB stated the final report will become available in a number of weeks.
Aren't you guys getting a little bit tired of these unstabilized approach accidents? Time to call it quits, me says.
--- 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
-
contributing factors were:
- the flight crew's failure to properly configure the on-board flight management computer
- the first officer's failure to make required call-outs
- the captain's decision to change the approach strategy without communicating his change to the first officer
which are all caused by:
- flight crew fatigue
which is easily prevented by:
- regulation
which might eat into:
- profits
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View PostAren't you guys getting a little bit tired of humans making errors on rare occasions?
Twisted your words but it's part of the discussion.
And Evan- isn't there already awesome stabilized approach guidelines and a myriad of rules that govern approaches and make it nearly impossible to crash if you follow them?Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 3WE View Post...ban all airplanes?
Twisted your words but it's part of the discussion.
And Evan- isn't there already awesome stabilized approach guidelines and a myriad of rules that govern approaches and make it nearly impossible to crash if you follow them?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View Post...No, but there is a simple set of rules...
My point is that maybe we don't since we already have rules that should be effective which is what you say here...
Or we're you in a Duty- hour context?Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 3WE View PostTwo posts ago, you said we need more regulations.
My point is that maybe we don't since we already have rules that should be effective which is what you say here...
Or we're you in a Duty- hour context?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostYes, duty-hour regulations. We can't be having fatigued pilots crashing into our precious trees like this. Nobody should be piloting a 150 ton object through the skies above us in a state of fatigue. It's insanity.
Concur- I think duty hour regs could be a bit better.
I think existing 'regs' on stabilized approaches are good.Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
Looks like the final report on this is out: https://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2014/AAR1402.pdfBe alert! America needs more lerts.
Eric Law
Comment
-
Originally posted by elaw View PostLooks like the final report on this is out: https://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2014/AAR1402.pdf
Forecasted weather at BHM indicated that the low ceilings upon arrival required an alternate airport, but the dispatcher did not discuss the low ceilings, the single - approach option to the airport, or the reopening of [longer ILS] runway 06/24 about 0500 with the flight crew. Further, during the flight, information about variable ceilings at the airport was not provided to the flight crew.The flight crew then failed to manage the FMC to engage the profile approach using an FMC generated glideslope, resulting in a dive-and-drive approach. They subsequently failed to manage that, allowed it to become and remain unstabilized, failed to communicate key information with each other and succeeded in flying a perfectly good A306 into the ground.
Why? Fatigue. They were flying impaired.
The report indicates an 'epidemic' scheduling problem at UPS, putting increased pressure on flight crews to fly around difficult sleep schedules in the name of corporate profit. As I've said before, this is commensurate with pressuring pilots to fly intoxicated and UPS should face serious legal ramifications for the loss of life here. If there are no legal consequences, this practice will continue and the threat will remain.
The Captain did see it coming: He told one colleague , “I can’t do this until I retire because it’s killing me.”
Sad that the world's safest mode of transportation has to be made into a dangerous profession by corporate greed. Even sadder that this can't be prevented by regulation because of corporate influence over government.
Comment
-
I generally agree, but without having read the whole report I do notice one interesting technical issue (from page 15):
The cockpit voice recorder then recorded the sound of the airplane contacting trees followed by an EGPWS “too low terrain” caution alert.Be alert! America needs more lerts.
Eric Law
Comment
Comment