UPS Airbus down in Birmingham

[Newkem]

The jepp plate does reference the VGSI inop stipulation under notes...and also states N/A under Night Minimums. Ambiguous, yes. But without published minimums, how do you brief an approach? Really sucks if they missed that the published minimums were for Day only. We all could easily make that mistake at that time of day...

Or could that mean circling is N/A at night? ON first read, I thought it said Straight in mins N/A at night in the minimums section. <confusing>

Look closely at the Jepp chart, guys. The line for Straight In minimums goes all the way across the mins box, no mention of circling.

 

[t-bone]

The Conditional minimums at the top seems to refer specifically to straight-in Day/Night conditions. The lack of circling mins seems to be an indirect way of saying its NA at all times.

 

[Benjamin Dover]

They were doing the Localizer appch.

Someone posted 1100 foot ceiling but last METAR wx observation before their approach was 7500 bkn. Are you sure they were doing the localizer and not a visual approach?

 

[Ticker]

Someone posted 1100 foot ceiling but last METAR wx observation before their approach was 7500 bkn. Are you sure they were doing the localizer and not a visual approach?

Yes, Localizer approach. That's what they were cleared for.

I'll check my info again but it's possible the METAR hand't been updated. I believe the 1100 BKN-OVC was at the time of the accident. Given the time of the accident at :45 after the hour, the METAR could have been as much at 50-55 old.

 

[flyboyike]

According to the NTSB, data on the CVR confirms the crew had briefed and was flying the LOC 18 to BHM.

Has anyone flown that approach / reviewed the plate? The minimums area on the plate suggests the approach is NA at night. (?)

There is a hill out there just to the right of CL (around 850-900 feet?) which may be the reason that straight in mins are NA at night on that approach.

The RNAV GPS 18 approach, however, does not list this restriction, and allows mins of 1200 MSL / 556 AGL, well below the height of that hill just to right of CL.

May God bless the loved ones of these two professional pilots and may he rest their souls. Thoughts and prayers to all involved and all those who feel this terrible loss.

In all honesty, I don't think I remember seeing anyone ever land on 18 there, which is part of why I'm trying so hard to understand why they were so hell-bent on landing on it. Even if the GS for 24 was OTS, it's still a more suitable runway. Granted, I've always been somewhat overly conservative in my decision making, it seems to me that between two runways neither one with a glideslope, I'd pick the longer one with a shorter taxi and with less terrain issues, if only because it's less work.

 

[BoilerUP]

6/24 was closed when UPS was landing.

 

[flyboyike]

6/24 was closed when UPS was landing.

I keep hearing that, but I can't seem to find the NOTAM. The only NOTAM posted was that the Easternmost part of it was closed which still left over 10,000' available.

 

[THEPRFCT10]

Tbone is right, the VGSI inop restriction for night is in the notes and the Night Mins on the plate state N/A. That's screwy!

May be airline specific. SWA Jepps has no note to reference Night NA.

★Sent from my Galaxy S4★

 

[X-rated]

May be airline specific. SWA Jepps has no note to reference Night NA.

★Sent from my Galaxy S4★

Do you have night minimums on your LOC Rwy 18, or is it the same as day? Are you required to use V-NAV from BASKIN?

I'd be curious to see a UPS airline specific plate. They very well may be authorized especially if they are required to use V-NAV from BASKIN which would make the approach identical to the RNAV (GPS) Rwy 18.

The Standard Jepps definitely say Night NA. My guess is note 2 is because airline specific charts allow it, and they keep the notes the same. The RNAV (GPS) Rwy 18 has the same note regarding VGSI though no unique Night visibility min's apply.

 

[BoilerUP]

The Standard Jepps definitely say Night NA.

The Jeppesen LOC 18 chart is wrong.

Note the date:

Here's the NACO LOC 18 chart for comparison:
http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1308/00050L18.PDF

 

[X-rated]

The Jeppesen LOC 18 chart is wrong.

Note the date:

Here's the NACO LOC 18 chart for comparison:
http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1308/00050L18.PDF

Thanks! Mystery solved.

 

[Newkem]

Mystery solved?

The Jeppesen LOC 18 chart is wrong.

Note the date:

Here's the NACO LOC 18 chart for comparison:
http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1308/00050L18.PDF

I just searched FDC notams for BHM on the FAA site and that above NOTAM is not currently published. The current BHM LOC 18 Jepp chart date is 17 AUG 12. Terps AMD 2A 8 MAR 2012.

It says "Night: NA."

There is a note on the briefing strip that says 2. When VGSI inop, procedure not authorized at night.

Still somewhat of a mystery...

 

[Quimby]

i keep hearing that, but i can't seem to find the notam. The only notam posted was that the easternmost part of it was closed which still left over 10,000' available.

bhm 08/034 bhm rwy 6/24 clsd wef 1308140900-1308141000

 

[G4dude]

Just my opinion, but pilots depend too much on inst during visual approaches. With this being possibly the second instance of visual approach issues, maybe visual approaches without inst assistance should be part of training during initial and recurrent.

I agree, and so do many of my colleagues. Too much emphasis on automation, not enough manual flying skills. Not that necessarily has ANYTHING to do with this UPS disaster. What a sad thing, condolences to all affected.

 

[Bringupthebird]

I disagree. The pilots have become complacent in manipulation of the automation, but lack situational awareness. The average pilot could manually fly out of a given situation, but it doesn't dawn on him what the real problem is until it's too late. I blame the wholesale erosion of training (computer-based instruction, training by memo, etc.) as a place for airlines to save money. AQP basically proves how little the airlines care about really training pilots. If it's cheaper and the FAA buys off on it, it must be OK.

The most recent automation-related accidents (and I am not saying that the UPS can be counted as one) are proving that this apparently is not the case.