UPS Airbus down in Birmingham

[livin'thesim]

Hard to see how the cargo carriers are going to be able to resist implementation of 117 now.

I would hate to be one of those "UPS officials" who are trying to sell the idea that this crew wasn't tired, with the crew essentially telling people that their schedules were fatiguing them.

 

[frank rizzo]

I hope the pilot group gives them hell and demand the same duty rest times as passenger ops The chair person of the NTSB Hersman is not qualified to talk or run the agency her only previous experience was child safety seat certifications at the highway transportation dept. she has put everything back fifty years WTF !!

 

[Golden Falcon]

PF looking outside as he should on a LOC APP!!
I though that happens after PNF says at least "APP LIGHTS inside" or one of does required calls, or did I mis when the PNF says it?

Unfamiliar with UPS SOP's...All I know was there was a comment by the Capt...who was PF, "runway in sight"...One would assume (hope) the other pilot would be "inside" monitoring minimums, sink rate speed etc....etc...doesn't appear to be the case...a study in CFIT accidents while on approach showed the majority were on track, but for some reason or the other, blew the vertical profile and crashed short....as is the case here..last callout regarding altitude on the transcript was at 1000'....if this was from the baro altimeter, that would be approximately 200' above minimums...don't see any reference to any specific call "minimums"...which they passed through at VS-1500...(unstable by any standard)...

 

[livin'thesim]

passed through at VS-1500...(unstable by any standard)...

It's within criteria if briefed at a lot of carriers. VS1000 is a default standard with a lot of operators, but no reason not to use 1500 if there is a legitimate reason, such as a steep gradient in the final segment.

 

[DCAA320]

It's within criteria if briefed at a lot of carriers.

-1500 VS inside FAF

Been flying 30 years, hell no. Never heard it briefed before and just fu{king stupid.

 

[ackattacker]

It's within criteria if briefed at a lot of carriers. VS1000 is a default standard with a lot of operators, but no reason not to use 1500 if there is a legitimate reason, such as a steep gradient in the final segment.

Read Advisory Circular 120-71A and get back to us.

3.2 degree glidepath and 140kts approximate groundspeed for this approach results in 792 FPM.

 

[Caddaddy]

Whatever happened to the basic 3 to 1? It's the most basic tool available to any approach! Just type in the runway into the fix page or prog or whatever it's called in your airplane and put it in the scan. I'm working 3 to 1 from top of descent all the way to touchdown. In 33 years of flying it hasn't failed me yet! I do see many of my fellow aviators not have a clue when they're cleared all the way from TOD down to the final approach altitude. The magic's great and we still have to fly and show up well rested. It's personal responsibility!

 

[DCAA320]

Whatever happened to the basic 3 to 1? It's the most basic tool available to any approach! Just type in the runway into the fix page or prog or whatever it's called in your airplane and put it in the scan. I'm working 3 to 1 from top of descent all the way to touchdown. In 33 years of flying it hasn't failed me yet! I do see many of my fellow aviators not have a clue when they're cleared all the way from TOD down to the final approach altitude. The magic's great and we still have to fly and show up well rested. It's personal responsibility!

If there are obstacles, you cannot use that.

99.99% of the time you are right, I use it too.

 

[livin'thesim]

Okay, all-knowing, all-seeing Lord of the Sky.

Perhaps you've just not been exposed to one of the (relatively) rare situations where greater than VS-1000 is required.

Obviously, Birmingham was not one of those situations.

 

[DCAA320]

Okay, all-knowing, all-seeing Lord of the Sky.

Perhaps you've just not been exposed to one of the (relatively) rare situations where greater than VS-1000 is required.

Obviously, Birmingham was not one of those situations.

OK, good luck to you guys, wish u well.

-1500 VS that close is just strange.

 

[livin'thesim]

Read Advisory Circular 120-71A and get back to us.

3.2 degree glidepath and 140kts approximate groundspeed for this approach results in 792 FPM.

First, as I stated earlier, this was not an approach requiring VS>1000.

But, how would you handle a steeper final segment, with a notably higher corrected ref than that with a tailwind that becomes a crosswind upon landing?

I've seen ref speeds in the high 140s, plus 5, plus 15 knots of tailwind aloft, changing to direct crosswind.

Call it 160 knots groundspeed. At the max published gradient per Terps (400 ft/nm) that yields a descent rate of 1100 fpm.

Now, the 400 ft/nm is measured from the FAF crossing altitude to threshold plus 50 ft. This means that on some approaches, to get an effective chance at visual contact, you may need to beat 400 ft/nm slightly, depending on whether the MDA and "approximate" VDP falls above or below the average descent gradient.

Also, the 1100 fpm I referenced earlier is the required average rate of descent, which means unless you are capable of instantaneously achieving that rate and leveling off instantaneously, some additional descent rate will be required in order to account for initiating and ending the descent.

In short, there is nothing magic about VS-1000, other than that for 99+% of flights, it serves as a useful limit for descent rate.

However, the right mix of ref additives, winds, and approach gradient/MDA geometry can push the required rate higher.

Brief it, be aware, and use sparingly.

 

[livin'thesim]

OK, good luck to you guys, wish u well.

-1500 VS that close is just strange.

Again, using it in a reactive way from being too high is not a wise move.

It has to be necessary, and intentional, IMO.

 

[Golden Falcon]

It's within criteria if briefed at a lot of carriers. VS1000 is a default standard with a lot of operators, but no reason not to use 1500 if there is a legitimate reason, such as a steep gradient in the final segment.

steep gradient in the final sector doesn't exist on THIS approach...I fly approaches into Kathmandu and other places where it does...but in this case doesn't seem to be a legitimate reason....especially when passing through minimums....these folks seem to have lost all awareness of their vertical situation, and were stuck in the mindset they were very high above profile...

 

[imacdog]

OK, good luck to you guys, wish u well.

-1500 VS that close is just strange.

Just because you haven't seen an approach that requires a descent like that, doesn't mean they don't exist. Several airports in SE Alaska, for example. There's nothing black magic about descending quicker than 1000fpm on an approach.

 

[DCAA320]

Just because you haven't seen an approach that requires a descent like that, doesn't mean they don't exist. Several airports in SE Alaska, for example. There's nothing black magic about descending quicker than 1000fpm on an approach.

YES THERE IS IDIOT If you are flying with me, u try this ********************, you better have a good reason and have briefed it, otherwise, u r going around.

Really, these guys are in Ala********************ingbama and u bring up Alaska.

Next time in SE Alaska I'll keep that in mind.

What's your point?

 

[imacdog]

My point is, your one-size-fits-all attitude isn't necessarily the end-all of SOPs. Descendind at greater than 1000fpm isn't going to put you in the dirt unless you're messing up other things. Nice job on your CRM skills, by the way.

 

[DCAA320]

My point is, your one-size-fits-all attitude isn't necessarily the end-all of SOPs. Descendind at greater than 1000fpm isn't going to put you in the dirt unless you're messing up other things. Nice job on your CRM skills, by the way.

The SOP is there so guys don't fly into the fuc{ing ground.

 

[imacdog]

That's nice. Though it was the descent below minimums that did it in this case.

 

[Golden Falcon]

excessive rate of descent loss of SA=accident....one will discover that most airlines SOP's specify stable approach criterion which include rate of descent not greater than 1000fpm, unless required by the procedure...commencing at 1000AAL and thereafter...I don't understand why folks here are bring up Alaska etc....etc..this particular approach was an unstable approach full stop...why they became confused about their vertical situation is the real issue here...I suspect they were both half asleep....

 

[livin'thesim]

Some people on this thread have severe reading comprehension challenges.

There is no one suggesting that greater than VS-1000 was required on the Birmingham approach. So stuff that notion, please.

The discussion, for those of you lucid enough to be paying attention, is on whether greater than VS-1000 is warranted in some cases.

Now, there is a commenter here who seems to be afflicted with a certain type of Tourette's syndrome regarding vertical speed, and is attempting to lend weight to his words through the use of some gratuitous profanity. Such attempts to adorn his argument have, in my oh-so-humble opinion, merely served as an indicator that he feels his words have insufficient weight of their own accord, and therefore require augmentation.

It's okay, I don't always expect the highest level of discourse from denizens of the flight deck, but in this case even my lowered expectations are being disappointed.

While there is a certain Rain-main style charm to his stubborn insistence on missing everyone else's points, like all character eccentricities, it eventually wears thin.

If VS > 1000 is outside of his comfort level, then I applaud him for recognizing his personal limitations, and for abiding them.

For the rest of us, an engaged conversation on the approach geometry in question is more interesting than a crusty rebuke from someone who, well, isn't really listening.