Posted on 08/17/2013 5:15:47 PM PDT by BunnySlippers
BIRMINGHAM, Alabama (Reuters) - The UPS cargo jet that crashed in Alabama this week, killing its two crew members, was flying on autopilot until seconds before impact, even after an alert that it was descending too quickly, authorities said on Saturday
"The autopilot was engaged until the last second of recorded data," said Robert Sumwalt, a senior official with the National Transportation Safety Board.
(Excerpt) Read more at ca.news.yahoo.com ...
These pilots died because the weather was NOT what it was reported to be!
Thought 06/24 was closed for maintenance, also thought they were using the LOC-18 app.(?) Still(unless I’ve got the date/times wrong)a FEDEX plane appeared to land shortly after(?)the crash... http://flightaware.com/live/flight/FDX1488/history/20130814/0854Z/KMEM/KBHM ...and looks like it used 06...so exactly how long was 06/24 down?
If you set up and fly any instrument approach....
And the (sudden or not) weather at minimums prevents visual acquisition of the runway environment and landing...
THENCE --
The published missed approach procedure or verbal missed approach instructions yield the next appropriate response from the flight crew.
(1) Fly the procedure as briefed... safely back into the sky...
(2) Hold as needed at a safe fix & altitude...
Get new weather... wait for better weather
(3) Select a precision approach with lower ceiling/visibility requirements -- as I suggested earlier...
...Or...
(4) Proceed to an acceptable alternate airport and land SAFELY.
****************
Any all of those listed options--correctly decided and flown...
... PREVENT these types of accidents.
*************
The weather... including faulty weather reporting....
(If that is the case)...)
Should not deceive or induce a professional crew to make mistakes with these tragic results.
Just my (retired) professional opinion...
(24 years in the cockpit... major domestic carrier)
How would the pilots use what they see (PAPI), with autopilot and autothrottle? I've seen nothing yet about whether they were using GPS.
Don't know, but I think it's logical that they ceased maintenance and reopened the main runway after the crash.
I’m thinking when going into Missoula MT in summer, 104F 3200ft had to clear a pass to the south at 6,000+ - in a Cessna 152.
The longer runway was closed.
LOL. what bull crap! The wx wasn't flying the ac they were. At least until they were in proximity to the ground. This is like blaming ATC or tower for a crash. Last I looked, they don't have a set of pipes in either place. It is the Pilot's job to fly, all else is secondary. AVIATE is first, these guys didn't get it done.
I haven't seen the actual NOTAMS for that specific day & time...
Even so...
The call for "missed approach" would have been appropriate ---
Get up... clean up...
Settle in at the holding fix...
or ask for vectors at a safe altitude---
Talk to the company dispatcher--
Get updated local weather...
Re-brief & try it again... same approach...
--OR--
Proceed to alternate
**********
Any of those options preferred pressing lower than MDA on a non-precision RNAV(GPS) LOC... or otherwise...
Just say'n
Under(somewhat)marginal VFR conditions, combined with a tricky approach(terrain)...why not allow both those aircraft to use the ILS...and either do the maintenance(runway center-line lights?)before or after their arrival?
I'd say that once the crash occurred, keeping the airport open was a top priority. The shorter runway would have been closed at that point. They only have the two runways.
NTSB said they were briefed on LOC 18, so I assume that’s the approach they used.
AFAIK, you don’t use A/P when landing unless you are doing some form of Autoland with ILS, which wouldn’t apply here.
With PAPI you just need to watch the lights. You don’t need anything but your eyes on the runway and your hands/feet on the controls.
A/T would primarily be to maintain the correct landing speed.
But I’m not any sort of pilot...
Looks like 6/24 has precision approach capability.
18/36 does not. 6/24 was closed at the time, so this was a non-precision approach.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_approach#Non-precision_approaches_and_systems
Having the A/P and A/T on until the crash sort of suggests that they were not set up correctly, and that the crew allowed the A/P to fly them into the ground...
Pending further/more accurate info, of course...
CFIH - controlled flight into hill.
“Years ago, before the A-300 received its airworthiness approval one flew into the trees, on autopilot, at the end of a runway in France.”
BS. That planecash in france was a A320. A completely different ac type. The A300 is a rock solid reliable workhorse when well maintained and treated according to it’s flight envelope. The acceident in AL was most likely just a CFIT.
A A300 can withstand even a MANPAD attack.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUstvXSytRc
**************
For the record--
I never trusted them (AWOS)....
... flying commercial - or light civil...
More than once I radio'd the local base ops 50 miles out-- espec late at night...
Asked the crew chief.. "Look out the window--what do you see?"
To get the latest info-- if AWOS was the last source.
Take it easy.. fly safe...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.