Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

UPS Cargo Jet Crashes Near Birmingham Shuttlesworth International Airport

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Evan View Post
    TOWER: UPS Airbus crashed approximately two mile final.

    UNKNOWN: Uh... do want us to hold our standby positions?

    TOWER INTERNAL THOUGHT: No, I want you to go two miles final and search for survivors, put out the fire, you know, to do your frigging job!!!

    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.
    Fixed.

    --- 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 Evan View Post
      TOWER: 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.
      I belive (and hope) that this is a tape ONLY of the "tower frequency" and that there's a bunch of phone calls, information transfer, rescue activity, and broadcasts on EMS frequencies that are not represented.

      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


      • Aviation Herald - News, Incidents and Accidents in Aviation

        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


        • I'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.

          Comment


          • ...the crew believed they were kept high...both crew again commented they were too high...they hit trees only a few seconds later...
            I believe more and more in that psychological condition where something tells you convincingly you are right, when you aren't- and sometimes it hits simultaneously.

            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 Post
              I'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.
              It seems that kind of view of the runway they had when they called it in sight can be described with one word: none.

              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.
              Aviation Herald - News, Incidents and Accidents in Aviation


              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
                Fixed.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                  Aren't you guys getting a little bit tired of humans making errors on rare occasions?
                  ...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?
                  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?
                    No, but there is a simple set of rules that govern stabilized approaches that will prevent you from crashing like this. Although 3WE perhaps you could throw in your stick and rudder skills below 50' and still crash it. Nothing is foolproof.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                      ...No, but there is a simple set of rules...
                      Two 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?
                      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                        Two 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?
                        Yes, 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.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                          Yes, 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.
                          Ok

                          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.pdf
                            Be alert! America needs more lerts.

                            Eric Law

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by elaw View Post
                              Looks like the final report on this is out: https://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2014/AAR1402.pdf
                              UPS is directly responsible for this for several reasons.
                              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.
                                I'm thinking either 1) those trees were 1,000+ feet high or 2) the EGPWS was not doing its job properly.
                                Be alert! America needs more lerts.

                                Eric Law

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X