UPS A300 down at Birmingham AL

Bumblebee said:
I mean cut you some slack

you know double entendre...

oh well
...if I have to explain it I guess it's not funny...
Click to expand...
Don't feel bad it just went over my head :D

I had to look up double entendre as well, I need a word a day TP, my vocabulary is getting smaller and smaller as time goes on
 
BobDDuck said:
I swear they are trying to increase their Klout score or something with all the tweeting and what not they are doing.
Click to expand...

Cutbacks.

Methinks they're trying to "crowdsource" accident investigation. Nevermind the accuracy of the conclusion, look at the money we saved!
 
Derg said:
Cutbacks.

Methinks they're trying to "crowdsource" accident investigation. Nevermind the accuracy of the conclusion, look at the money we saved!
Click to expand...

Wave of the future, Dough. You're being left behind, grandpa. Also: This was your fault. I heard it from the RAA.
 
Boris Badenov said:
Wave of the future, Dough. You're being left behind, grandpa. Also: This was your fault. I heard it from the RAA.
Click to expand...

"Mainline didn't want actual crash investigation! So we're just filling in the gaps that those snot-nosed widebody guys were too good to fill"? :)

Op op RAA-style?
 
ChasenSFO said:
Back in the day, we had to wait months, sometimes even YEARS before the NTSB would give out these details. I'm sure our grandchildren will just be able to stream the accidents live from the cockpit cams.
Click to expand...


That's not entirely true. I can't remember exactly which accident it was, but it was back in the '80s (may have been AA 191 at ORD) but very early in the investigative process one of the lead NTSB investigators proclaimed an "Aha!" moment very spectacularly in front of the press. He was later proven completely wrong in his initial assessment.
 
They're now making NYPD cops wear GoPro-type cameras after a federal judge tossed out their "Stop & Frisk" program. How would you feel about giving cockpit camera data to the NTSB so your last actions and utterances can be dissected - Monday morning quarterback-style - even before you're buried?
 
GypsyPilot said:
That's not entirely true. I can't remember exactly which accident it was, but it was back in the '80s (may have been AA 191 at ORD) but very early in the investigative process one of the lead NTSB investigators proclaimed an "Aha!" moment very spectacularly in front of the press. He was later proven completely wrong in his initial assessment.
Click to expand...

It indeed was the AA191 accident. NTSB IIC Elwood Driver's news conference regarding the pylon bolt found on the runway, and announced this as a "cause" of the accident; when in fact, it had broken as a result of the accident sequence. NTSB was under pressure from the FAA, American Airlines, McDonnell Douglas, etc; but the NTSB spoke WAY too soon.....and spoke of investigative items and evidence in process, that had not even been analyzed yet.

That news conference was a grim reminder of how not to give too much information, or any evidentiary information that hasn't either been completely or obviously ruled out; as evidence that is ruled-in or still under consideration should still be spoken of only in general terms until it can be know how it relates to the accident or correlates with other evidence.

That news conference also served to severely curtail the DC-10 as a widebody contender, simply due to the negative press regarding it. UA232s accident was the final nail in the proverbial coffin.

The way the AA191 investigation was handled, plays a big influence in what I as an investigator, don't do in my investigative work, as well as what i do do.
 
tomokc said:
They're now making NYPD cops wear GoPro-type cameras after a federal judge tossed out their "Stop & Frisk" program. How would you feel about giving cockpit camera data to the NTSB so your last actions and utterances can be dissected - Monday morning quarterback-style - even before you're buried?
Click to expand...
It's only a matter of time....
Within my life, I think we will have cameras in the cockpit. They will provide live feed or will at least relay data to the CVR or FDR.

that having been stated, it seems the GPWS was correct in this case. Makes me wonder what was going on to make the crew disregard the warning. I hope, in some manner of justification, it was something more than a CFIT.
 
wheelsup said:
I can't believe in this day and age w/ GPWS and all we are even talking about CFIT

On a side note, 5 secs from warning to impact...yikes
Click to expand...
I know it's not airline GPWS grade equipment, but we had a CFIT accident last year in an airplane equipped with functioning synthetic vision, WAAS moving map GPS, and TAWS. In cruise flight no less. Hard to believe but this stuff happens...
 
I believe the NTSB only mentioned a "sink rate" call. That's different from a "pull up" call. Also, with gear and flaps down, the terrain warnings are inhibited.
 
dustoff17 said:
that having been stated, it seems the GPWS was correct in this case. Makes me wonder what was going on to make the crew disregard the warning. I hope, in some manner of justification, it was something more than a CFIT.
Click to expand...
Because in VMC, "SINK RATE" isn't a mandatory go-around at most places. The correct response is, er, correct the flight path and state "CORRECTING."
 
wheelsup said:
I can't believe in this day and age w/ GPWS and all we are even talking about CFIT
Click to expand...

Roger Roger said:
Hard to believe but this stuff happens...
Click to expand...

Yup. In this day and age of TCAS, and we still talk about midairs. So take it for what its worth. People still hit other planes in this mass of airspace we have. People still fly planes into the ground.

deadstick said:
Already available for the helicopters.
Click to expand...

Not just available, but required as part of sale; at least for us.
 
MikeD said:
Yup. In this day and age of TCAS, and we still talk about midairs. So take it for what its worth. People still hit other planes in this mass of airspace we have.
Click to expand...

I can only think of two midairs in the last 10 years where both aircraft had TCAS and still managed to collide. The one in Brazil may not even count because the transponder on the Legacy wasn't working.
 
Here is some info on the sink rate call which you will get in mode 1 of the EGPWS with the gear and flaps down:
The “SINK RATE” alert is based on altitude and initiated when the rate of descent exceeds the
following approximate values:
Altitude (AGL) Descent Rate (FPM)
500 1500
400 1400
300 1300
200 1200
100 1000
If the rate of descent exceeds these values by an additional margin, the EGPWS will initiate the
“PULL UP” warning. A go-around following the “PULL UP” aural warning is mandatory.

Looking at Gypsy's PDF, if your high descent rate worsens, it looks like you'd get a "pull up" call at 1600 fpm at 100 feet while 1000 fpm will get you "sink rate".

According to the LOC 18 into BHM, it has a 3.28 degree glide path. Let's round that to 3.3 degrees. Then, look at page 11 of 13 of the descent rate PDF here:

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC 120-108.pdf

Looks like you need 876 fpm to stay on path. You get a "sink rate" call at 1000 fpm at 100 agl.

My point with all this is that at very low altitudes you have little margin between required descent rates and the EGPWS saying "sink rate". To get a "Pull up" you need 1600 fpm at 100 feet. Just throwing all that out. I've got "sink rate" a few times on approach and corrected. It's not good but it's correctable.

I'm not trying to speculate. Just throwing out some interesting numbers that show the challenge of a non-precision approach at typical high heavy jet airspeeds. Be safe.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top