WSJ article on UPS BHM crash
10-17-2013, 11:14 AM
#93
Organizational Learning
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Originally Posted by satpak77
OK, well with that said, what is the answer.
.
10-17-2013, 11:16 AM
#94
Working weekends
Joined APC: Jul 2005
Position: Left Seat
Posts: 2,384
Originally Posted by TonyC
The only official word we've heard regarding communications in the cockpit is from NTSB Member Sumwalt in the briefing linked above.
.
.
10-17-2013, 12:59 PM
#95
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,055
Originally Posted by TonyC
...What I've learned by studying the GPWS Mode 1 graph is that if I ever hear "Sink Rate" a half mile from the runway, it AIN'T just fine, it AIN'T A-Okay...So, it doesn't trigger a GPWS escape manuever in our airplane book, but it sure as heck triggers one in MY book from now on.[/COLOR]
I had never thought of "SINK RATE" in VMC conditions in that way. Maybe night VMC should always be treated as IMC... The ever-intensifying push for stabilized approaches will continue, and there will very likely be some changes to our books as a result of this accident. Sad to learn from someone else's tragic mistake, but at least by learning from this as an industry, and maybe more specifically, cargo night-ops, we pay our respects those who perished.
Last edited by CloudSailor; 10-17-2013 at 01:24 PM.
10-17-2013, 02:11 PM
#96
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,055
I have no idea what the legacies are doing in regards to stabilized approach criteria limitations (500' vs. 1000' agl), but at a previous carrier I was with, there used to be a 500' agl limitation for stabilized approaches in VMC, which was later changed to 1000' agl, in all conditions. I can see that happening at FDX.
10-17-2013, 02:27 PM
#97
trip trading freak
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Position: MD-11
Posts: 673
Originally Posted by CloudSailor
I have no idea what the legacies are doing in regards to stabilized approach criteria limitations (500' vs. 1000' agl), but at a previous carrier I was with, there used to be a 500' agl limitation for stabilized approaches in VMC, which was later changed to 1000' agl, in all conditions. I can see that happening at FDX.
10-17-2013, 02:31 PM
#98
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: MD-11 Captain
Posts: 4,304
If Management disciplines folks for alleged Stabilized Approach criteria violations, why wouldn't everyone lower the landing gear and slow to final approach speed at the FAF? I doubt the FAA would say anything during a Line Check 
10-17-2013, 03:05 PM
#99
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 128
Originally Posted by CloudSailor
I have no idea what the legacies are doing in regards to stabilized approach criteria limitations (500' vs. 1000' agl), but at a previous carrier I was with, there used to be a 500' agl limitation for stabilized approaches in VMC, which was later changed to 1000' agl, in all conditions. I can see that happening at FDX.
We need to realize that it's ok to go-around. Just at FDX we've seen unstable approaches lead to the "Dude, where's your gear?" incident and a tail strike. There's also been the Asiana accident, the Southwest gear collapse in LGA and possibly the UPS accident in BHM. I don't know all of the details of the UPS accident, but all of the others could've been avoided had the crews just gone around.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
