Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Pilot Lounge > Safety
UPS Accident - BHM >

UPS Accident - BHM

Notices
Safety Accidents, suggestions on improving safety, etc

UPS Accident - BHM

Old 08-25-2014, 01:45 PM
  #601  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Hoser's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Position: Recliner 105A
Posts: 225
Default

NTSB bans airline, pilots union from participating in UPS 1354 crash investigation


Mike D. Smith | [email protected] By Mike D. Smith | [email protected]
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on August 25, 2014 at 4:26 PM, updated August 25, 2014 at 4:42 PM

UPS PLANE CRASH
NTSB bans airline, pilots union from participating in UPS 1354 crash investigation
Widower of UPS 1354 pilot files lawsuit against manufacturer of plane's ground warning system
One year after UPS 1354 crash, airlines make a few changes; investigation nears end
Southwest Airlines forbids pilots from using short runway at Birmingham airport
Airline warns pilots to avoid Birmingham runway after UPS crash

All Stories |



The National Transportation Safety Board has blocked a pilots union and UPS Airlines from giving any more technical assistance in the investigation of the crash of UPS Flight 1354.

The cargo airline's Airbus A300 crashed short of the runway on approach to Birmingham-Shuttlesworth International Airport before dawn on Aug. 14, 2013, killing the two pilots on board.

The NTSB's investigation is in its final stages, officials have said.

The agency issued a statement Monday that the International Pilots Association violated the terms of participation in the investigation by providing its own analysis of the crash through a press release on the one-year anniversary.

UPS Airlines then publicly commented by posting a response to IPA's analysis on a website.

Both parties acted without first consulting with the NTSB, according to the agency.

Those actions violate their "party status" agreement, which allows them to give technical assistance in the investigation, according to NTSB.

With this status revoked, the union and the airline may no longer assist. The ban will last until the investigation is complete.

The NTSB has sent letters informing the parties of this change.

"NTSB investigations depend heavily upon technical input from the accident parties," acting NTSB Chair Christopher A. Hart said in a statement. "If one party disseminates information about the accident, it may reflect that party's bias. This puts other parties at a disadvantage and makes them less willing to engage in the process, which can undercut the entire investigation."

IPA spokesman Brian Gaudet said that the organization won't comment on the NTSB's decision or the crash until the final report is released.

NTSB spokesman Eric Weiss said the investigation's final report may be complete in early September.

Last edited by Hoser; 08-25-2014 at 01:55 PM. Reason: article
Hoser is offline  
Old 08-25-2014, 02:39 PM
  #602  
Gets Weekends Off
 
USMCFLYR's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,835
Default

That is disappointing that the parties would not follow the rules.
Seems self-serving, but I believe that the NTSB path works too.
USMCFLYR is offline  
Old 08-26-2014, 01:05 PM
  #603  
Gets Weekends Off
 
atpcliff's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Position: Capt
Posts: 3,215
Default

Originally Posted by J Dawg View Post
This is one of the worst procedures at UPS IMHO. Every other place I have worked at, the MDA is set in the MCP crossing the FAF. At UPS procedure is to set the MA altitude after starting down to MDA.... you are now flying away from the selected MCP altitude. If the MDA was set, the altitude would have been captured (considering a/p was on) and this accident most likely would not have happened.

In an effort to be a "step ahead", a valuable error trap is removed with current procedure.

On the MD at UPS, we preselect the MDA/DA and fly towards that altitude until we are visual or reach minimums, then the MA altitude is set. This would be a simple procedure change for the other fleets.
At my airline, on a precision approach, we set the MCP to MA as soon as we have Glideslope capture.

On a nonprecision, we use LNAV/VNAV. We set the MCP for the MDA (or 500' if it's a visual...we can't fly a visual without some sort of electronic glideslope as backup). Once we're past the FAF, and at least 300' below the MA, then we reset the MCP to the MA..sounds like the same thing the UPS crew did.

We basically don't even train to use Vert speed during an approach....about the only time we normally use it on approach is if the controller vectors us to the LOC well above the GS...then we use it to get down to GS capture...
atpcliff is offline  
Old 09-04-2014, 06:47 AM
  #604  
Gets Weekends Off
 
kronan's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 2,418
Default

Doesn't really matter how you set up the approach if you fly through minimums without the rwy in sight.

In this occasion, They clearly wanted to use VNAV guidance to the MDA-and had they set it up properly (sequenced the FMS properly), the autopilot would have automatically disconnected while they were still IMC. Wishfully-that startling event might have prompted a go around and there wouldn't be a mishap to learn from.

They had mental image that they were excessively high. In reality, they leveled off 200' above the FAF altitude prior to the FAF-still kind of fast, but workable. IMO staying at 2500' was a conscious decision, something I do quite frequently on my VNAV approaches. That allows the automation to grab the intended descent angle prior to the FAF and allows a great altitude cross check crossing the FAF in the same way grabbing the ILS glideslope prior to the FAF does as well.

IMO-they also failed to cross check the stepdown fix. Had they caught how close they were to that altitude, quite possible the Capt would have backed the V/S off to the 700 ft/min he originally commanded after the automation failed to Capture the descent angle as he had expected prior to the FAF. (The Automation Didn't catch it because the FMS still thought they were going direct to KBHM, then back out to one of the initial fixes for the LOC 18 approach)

Then both of them missed the MDA. I think because both of them had an expectation that the Wx was better than it actually was. As the Acft passed 1000' MSL, sink rate warning was triggered, V/S was reduced, Rwy called in sight and the autopilot was disconnected-impact with the trees was 1 second later.

Of note: mins using the stepdown fix are 1200'; Airport elevation is 650' so typical stable approach criteria of 1000 ft/min started at 1650 and the 1500 ft/min descent was maintained well beyond that.

One of the great sayings I've heard in my career is "If I have to say what's going on when I'm on final I'm going around". One of the things I hated reading about in this CVR is how irritated the Capt was with ATC keeping them high for the approach-I promise you, if you tell ATC you want a 360 to better align for the approach or more time to setup for the approach, ATC will give it to you.

The WHY's of this mishap will be the subject of the NTSB meeting Sept 9th. Fatigue might or might not be one of the formal causes, but it's for sure going to be way up there.
kronan is offline  
Old 09-11-2014, 07:21 PM
  #605  
Gets Weekends Off
 
kronan's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 2,418
Default

NTSB abstract available

http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/2...ht%201354e.pdf
kronan is offline  
Old 09-13-2014, 05:04 PM
  #606  
Line Holder
 
cub pilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: J3 to CL600; retired doing instrument taining
Posts: 78
Default

Accident report has no mention of the trees that UPS flight impacted. What type trees, estimated growth in height per year and what program the BHM airport had to trim these trees. If only they had been 25 feet higher!!
Flying into Hilton Head, SC has always been a challenge especially at night. Town of Hilton Head refuses to trim back the trees. Early 70’s, a King Air departed Hilton Head doing a shallow climb out and impacted these trees. Fate is The Hunter…EK Gann
cub pilot is offline  
Old 09-22-2014, 05:45 PM
  #607  
Gets Weekends Off
 
sandlapper223's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: More Drag
Posts: 447
Default

Just curious, but why would UPS not activate the automated 500' (or 400') or at least the "minimum" callout from the Airbus flight warning computer?

Such a great safety net. The FAA abstract above stated that the fleet was equipped but did not activate these features.
sandlapper223 is offline  
Old 10-05-2014, 05:27 AM
  #608  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Jun 2011
Position: Retired
Posts: 44
Default

NTSB Final Report

http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2014/AAR1402.pdf
RealityCheck is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
MD90PIC
Cargo
196
05-24-2021 06:56 AM
Ernst
Cargo
148
07-08-2010 06:04 PM
⌐ AV8OR WANNABE
Cargo
16
02-18-2009 03:34 PM
jungle
Cargo
0
12-10-2008 06:55 AM
Freighter Captain
Cargo
23
07-10-2006 06:19 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices