Well said 4A2b. 15+ hour duty days during icing events are a killer when starting work at 8:00 PM. The most skeptical people seem to be the commuters - not sure how they will be affected by 117 tho.

 

I think one of the reasons that cargo outfits do not want to go 117 is crew rest facility requirements for augmented crew. Far 117 does not allow the cockpit of the 767 to be a crew rest for a three crew required flight. Even with one augmented crew, 117 requires the resting crew member an approved rest facility.

 

With a bit of modification, the jumpseat will work for the 767, not cheap, but doable.

From 117,
(3) Class 3 rest facility means a seat in an aircraft cabin or flight deck that
reclines at least 40 degrees and provides leg and foot support.

 

I disagree. Does the mod include curtains to block out light? Can the other pilots get to the lav without disturbing you? You could make that jumpseat lie flat, but if the FO has to wake you up every time he needs to get up, that's not an adequate rest area.

 

class 3 is the lowest one required, and in the case of the 767-300F there are other options if you need a class 1 approved crew rest area. One is a loadable module in the first position that is a very nice unit with all the bells and whistles.

I think that this issue is certainly another issue lobbied by industry (Cargo) as extra cost, and once again an improvement that we could use to ensure the best possible rest environment for off duty crews. Let's face it, crappy coach/old business class style seats or an unsafe futon on the floor needs to be fixed.

 

It was heartbraking to read the various factual sections, to include the cvr.

Crew seemed professional, imo. Just made some mistakes, and it was on the wrong day. Better weather, results would have been different.

IMO-they lost SA, and didn't take advantage of the opportunities to regain it....or abandon the approach.
They failed to clean up the FMS, and that supported their perception that they were well above the computed flight path...and they were counting on capturing that profile, didn't crosscheck any altitudes as they crossed various points on the approach.

Why, don't know. Contributing factors were fatigue, definitely in the PM. Lookback and electronic useage eye opening. My advice for all us freight dawgs is to aggressively create opportunities to rest.

The legal, not legal LOC discussion....well, conflicting information on the plate would have led me to selecting the RNAV approach the sorting it out on the ground. But, they missed it. Still, we know NOW that it was a chart error and it WAS a legal approach.
And, it is my preference to have the more precise LOC guidance into the rwy combined with the VNAV guidance they intended to fly.

As PM, be Reaganite, trust-but verify what the PF is doing.

 

Are you applying the standards you expect to be used by the best FAA money can buy when you say that?

 

I hope you are a MGT pilot and the company comes under fire from the NTSB over your disclosure of information that is not yours to disclose. If you are a line guy, good luck with the rest of your time here.

 

Great advice. It is amazing how well the crew's opportunities for rest and whether they took advantage of those opportunities are documented.

UPS Crash Pilot Told Colleague Schedule Was ?Killing? Him - Bloomberg

 

Your assessment seems pretty good to me. I'd add that once your VVI exceeds your altitude AGL you've put yourself in a dangerous situation. "Unless required by the constraints of an approach, when operating at low altitude do not let the aircraft descent rate in feet per minute exceed your altitude in feet AGL. This will ensure a reduced terrain closure rate and an increase in recognition and response time in the event of an unintentional conflict with terrain." I also remind myself that Monday-Morning-Quarterbacking is easy and makes you look smart.