Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

UPS Cargo Jet Crashes Near Birmingham Shuttlesworth International Airport

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
    About AVION1
    Biography
    My first solo flight: 18 years old....and now I am 49 years old..!!...more than 30 years flying!
    Occupation
    Chief Inspector, FAA Accountable Manager. Licenses: A&P, Repairman Certificate, Private Pilot ASEL


    O.K. Lets see, over 30 years and still a private pilot with single engine only.
    No commercial, instrument, or multi.


    But you are an expert aren't you!
    So Mr. " 5 billion hours" is a better pilot because he flies the SR-71 and I fly a Cessna 172?
    A Former Airdisaster.Com Forum (senior member)....

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
      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
      Assuming these are remotely accurate (the final one can't be) and Google Earth is remotely accurate, I plotted these points against the crossing altitudes for the navaids on the ILS approach plate.

      It seems to depict a rapid descent from 10,000 arrested below the GS and then crossing the GS from below and getting a bit high above it. Is this a stabilized approach?
      Last edited by Evan; 2013-08-15, 22:59. Reason: readjusted for nautical miles

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Evan View Post
        But is that ground speed before the altitude?
        The two numbers before the altitude are both ground speed, the first one in knots and the second one in a more recognizable unit that depends on your location. In my case it was km/h.


        --- 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


        • #64
          Originally posted by Evan View Post
          Assuming these are remotely accurate (the final one can't be) and Google Earth is remotely accurate, I plotted these points against the crossing altitudes for the navaids on the ILS approach plate.

          It seems to depict a rapid descent from 10,000 arrested below the GS and then crossing the GS from below and getting a bit high above it. Is this a stabilized approach?
          Well, they were still above the stabilized approach gate, and they seem to be in a fairly constant path in the last points. Since they were not in a stabilized approach, their exact vertical position is not a factor for the stabilized approach as long as their descent path is more or less constant at a reasonable vertical speed. The speed was not stabilized yet (they were slowing down) but they were already close to the target speed (whatever it was), so it looks that it could be stabilized by the 1000ft gate.

          I wouldn't call it stabilized yet, but at least I see no evidence so far to call it unstabilized at that point. Obviously, it eventually became unstabilized.

          --- 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


          • #65
            Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
            Well, they were still above the stabilized approach gate, and they seem to be in a fairly constant path in the last points. Since they were not in a stabilized approach, their exact vertical position is not a factor for the stabilized approach as long as their descent path is more or less constant at a reasonable vertical speed. The speed was not stabilized yet (they were slowing down) but they were already close to the target speed (whatever it was), so it looks that it could be stabilized by the 1000ft gate.

            I wouldn't call it stabilized yet, but at least I see no evidence so far to call it unstabilized at that point. Obviously, it eventually became unstabilized.
            I just find it interesting (if this is at all accurate) that they are significantly higher than the crossing altitude at IMTOY and then they end up well below the GS (to say the least).

            Also, We all need to get on the same page with the terminology here. A stabilization gate is a target along the approach. There can be a number of them. 1000' is the IMC minimum stabilization height (500' in VMC). I believe the FAF is usually the first gate in an IMC stabilized approach, whereas the 1000' target is the last and ultimately decisive one. According to the Airbus lit, if you are significantly off on any gate, where it is not likely that you will be able to achieve the next target (and they give margins for this), you should consider the approach unstable and abandon it.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by obmot View Post
              Pilots: I'm curious, during a normal approach clearly at some 'point' GPWS will not sound because the aircraft obviously will touch the ground (the runway).

              So at what point during an approach does GPWS 'know' not to sound - and in this incident would the GPWS have sounded given that we know they clipped trees .5 + mile out i.e. below the GS?

              I'm probably not asking this question quite the right way but I'm sure you will understand my query.
              Several things will cause the GPWS to make noise, some normal (altitude callouts on approach for example: "500", "400", "300"... etc. Some of these are selectable by the individual operator) and of course the abnormal callouts that I'm sure you're talking about.

              I'm a Boeing guy, so I can't speak with authority about how the Airbus is set up, but I would imagine it's similar. The "Too Low, Gear" and "Too Low, Flaps" warnings are inhibited by the gear position (down, obviously) or flap position, with the system looking at normal landing flap settings--in the 737 these are 30 and 40 and in the 757/767 they're 25 and 30. On a single engine (or flap abnormality) approach that uses a reduced flap setting we inhibit the flap warning as part of the checklist for the abnormal situation. There is also a gear warning inhibit switch for ditching or gear-related abnormalities.

              In the case of this accident, if they had the gear down and the flaps in a setting used for a normal landing, then they shouldn't have gotten a GPWS warning. The GPWS doesn't look at the position of the airplane relative to the airport or runway. That being said, they WOULD have gotten a "Glideslope" warning if they were more than a dot below the glideslope on the approach.
              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


              • #67
                Originally posted by AVION1 View Post
                So Mr. " 5 billion hours" is a better pilot because he flies the SR-71 and I fly a Cessna 172?
                All I had asked was where you come up with the statement you made.

                You posted from a position of authority, your qualifications are on your profile.

                It has nothing to do with if you fly the space shuttle or a 150.

                And why did I just loose a couple of trillion hours?

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by snydersnapshots View Post
                  That being said, they WOULD have gotten a "Glideslope" warning if they were more than a dot below the glideslope on the approach.
                  Well, that's if there was a glide slope. The runway is served by two non-precision approaches (a LOC one and a RNAV one). While I guess that modern FMS coupled with GPS-WAAS can emulate a precision approach, that doesn't mean that they were using it.

                  Other possible GPWS warnings:
                  "Sink rate", triggered by a combination of vertical speed and radalt altitude (at lower altitudes, the threshold vertical speed is lower).
                  "Terrain", similar to the previous one, except that it uses radalt to get a terrain closure rate instead of using the vertical speed.

                  If the plane featured with EGPWS, then an additional "look ahead" waring is available "Terrain ahead". This "look ahead" feature compares not only the altitude and vertical speed of the airplane, but also it's position against a database. If you are not descending but aiming at the face of a cliff, it will sound. The same if you are descending in what looks like a landing but towars a place where there is no runway. I don't know if the "error" in this case was big enough to trigger this warning (it wasn't enough in the Asiana accident). This is the type of warning that sounded in the Polish AF-1 crash (together with the one below).

                  Any of the above GPWS and EGPWS warnings can turn into a "Woop, Woop, Pull Up" warning if conditions don't improve but worsen.

                  --- 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


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                    And why did I just loose a couple of trillion hours?
                    Times how much an hour? I think you lost more money than the federal government!
                    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


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                      Well, that's if there was a glide slope. The runway is served by two non-precision approaches (a LOC one and a RNAV one). While I guess that modern FMS coupled with GPS-WAAS can emulate a precision approach, that doesn't mean that they were using it.

                      Other possible GPWS warnings:
                      "Sink rate", triggered by a combination of vertical speed and radalt altitude (at lower altitudes, the threshold vertical speed is lower).
                      "Terrain", similar to the previous one, except that it uses radalt to get a terrain closure rate instead of using the vertical speed.

                      If the plane featured with EGPWS, then an additional "look ahead" waring is available "Terrain ahead". This "look ahead" feature compares not only the altitude and vertical speed of the airplane, but also it's position against a database. If you are not descending but aiming at the face of a cliff, it will sound. The same if you are descending in what looks like a landing but towars a place where there is no runway. I don't know if the "error" in this case was big enough to trigger this warning (it wasn't enough in the Asiana accident). This is the type of warning that sounded in the Polish AF-1 crash (together with the one below).

                      Any of the above GPWS and EGPWS warnings can turn into a "Woop, Woop, Pull Up" warning if conditions don't improve but worsen.
                      Well said.
                      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


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by snydersnapshots View Post
                        Times how much an hour? I think you lost more money than the federal government!

                        Didn't even think about that Snyder, I am calling my union in the morning!

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          In cases like this one, only an in depth investigation can tell what really happened.
                          I hope the crew rest in peace, is always terrible when you hear about an accident and there is death involved.

                          That discussion of who knows more about this based on the plane and hours you have just doesn't fit here. I fly a Boeing 767 and the best pilot/instructor I know flies C172 and PA44.
                          Just be friendly with what you know and open for what you don't, share your knowledge with people and hear other opinions always.

                          Happy landings.
                          Juan Felipe Arango Pérez
                          FAA Commercial Multi-Engine Pilot
                          C172 PA44 JS32 B767F A332F

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            So wind shear is ruled out?

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by EconomyClass View Post
                              So wind shear is ruled out?
                              They are still looking into the data from the FDR, so let's wait for the results.
                              A Former Airdisaster.Com Forum (senior member)....

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                As this bird was a 2003 build, I would expect it to be equipped with EGPWS. Basic modes 1 to 5 are only used on the A300 with Rad alt auto call-outs generated within the Flight Warning Computers. It would appear, at this time, that they were below the Terrain Clearance Floor which should have generated a cockpit aural alert from the EGPWS.

                                Whatever the reason, it happened hard and fast. My thoughts go out to the crew and their families.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X