UPS Accident - BHM
08-15-2013, 06:43 AM
#161
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2008
Posts: 617
Originally Posted by trip
What Happened to UPS Flight 1354 - Analysis by Sooeet.com
Last few minutes of flight data is graphed here, two pages.
Last few minutes of flight data is graphed here, two pages.
08-15-2013, 07:02 AM
#162
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
Originally Posted by trip
What Happened to UPS Flight 1354 - Analysis by Sooeet.com
Last few minutes of flight data is graphed here, two pages.
Last few minutes of flight data is graphed here, two pages.
Additionally, UPS1354 flew well above the PAPI glide-slope for runway 18 until about 15 nautical miles out, at which time UPS1354 began a very rapid descent while maintaining 300 knots, likely using a combination of engine power to maintain speed, and spoilers to increase descent rate. UPS1354 attempted to intercept the PAPI glide-slope from above by means of this rapid descent between 15 and 10 nautical miles from the runway touch down zone.
In Figure 1, the green lines represent the 3.20° Glide Path Angle of the PAPI glide-slope for runway 18 (the center green line), and the upper and lower vertical limits of the PAPI glide-slope (3.90° upper limit, and 2.50° lower limit).
Last edited by USMCFLYR; 08-15-2013 at 09:29 AM.
08-15-2013, 07:29 AM
#164
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2011
Position: Piper passenger
Posts: 337
Originally Posted by USMCFLYR
At least one major flaw in the analysis is that PAPI-4 systems are only designed for use to 4 miles. Garphing their approach path in relation to the 3.20 angle out at 10 or 15 miles is useless.
I'm also not sure where they are getting the upper and lower limits of the PAPIs. Anybody know where this comes from?
I'm also not sure where they are getting the upper and lower limits of the PAPIs. Anybody know where this comes from?
Last edited by SenecaII; 08-15-2013 at 08:06 AM.
08-15-2013, 08:15 AM
#165
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: B747-400 Cpt retired
Posts: 83
[QUOTE=trip;1463394]What Happened to UPS Flight 1354 - Analysis by Sooeet.com
Don't know who Sooeet.com is, but they lose all credibility with the following statement:
"likely using a combination of engine power to maintain speed, and spoilers to increase descent rate."
A nonsensical analysis. The two would not be used together, and if they were would simply cancel each other's effect.
Don't know who Sooeet.com is, but they lose all credibility with the following statement:
"likely using a combination of engine power to maintain speed, and spoilers to increase descent rate."
A nonsensical analysis. The two would not be used together, and if they were would simply cancel each other's effect.
08-15-2013, 08:33 AM
#166
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
[QUOTE=crbnftprnt;1463449]
No kidding. Flightaware is bad data used to create analysis by people who don't have anywhere close to a fundamental understanding of how jet aircraft operate.
Originally Posted by trip
What Happened to UPS Flight 1354 - Analysis by Sooeet.com
Don't know who Sooeet.com is, but they lose all credibility with the following statement:
"likely using a combination of engine power to maintain speed, and spoilers to increase descent rate."
A nonsensical analysis. The two would not be used together, and if they were would simply cancel each other's effect.
Don't know who Sooeet.com is, but they lose all credibility with the following statement:
"likely using a combination of engine power to maintain speed, and spoilers to increase descent rate."
A nonsensical analysis. The two would not be used together, and if they were would simply cancel each other's effect.
08-15-2013, 08:43 AM
#167
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,293
Originally Posted by gdube94
NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams
Nightly News story tonight briefly mentions the Cargo industry lobby winning an exemption from the new crew rest regulations. Never understood that. There's no difference in the job, there shouldn't be any difference in the rest rules.
Nightly News story tonight briefly mentions the Cargo industry lobby winning an exemption from the new crew rest regulations. Never understood that. There's no difference in the job, there shouldn't be any difference in the rest rules.
The FAA is not providing passenger pilots a higher level of safety than cargo pilots...they are providing passengers with a higher level of safety than boxes.
The pilots in either case are just along for the ride. There are more dangerous aviation (and non-aviation) jobs than 121. I guess they take the view if loggers, electrical linemen, etc can be in daily danger, why not pilots?
But keep lobbying, the squeaky wheel might get some grease. One can argue, correctly, that a loaded widebody poses a danger to people on the ground as well as the pilots.
08-15-2013, 09:34 AM
#169
New boss = Old boss
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Position: Ca B737
Posts: 2,762
Originally Posted by rickair7777
Well in this case it's not the job, it's what's in the back that determines the level of safety acceptable to the government.
The FAA is not providing passenger pilots a higher level of safety than cargo pilots...they are providing passengers with a higher level of safety than boxes.
The pilots in either case are just along for the ride. There are more dangerous aviation (and non-aviation) jobs than 121. I guess they take the view if loggers, electrical linemen, etc can be in daily danger, why not pilots?
But keep lobbying, the squeaky wheel might get some grease. One can argue, correctly, that a loaded widebody poses a danger to people on the ground as well as the pilots.
The FAA is not providing passenger pilots a higher level of safety than cargo pilots...they are providing passengers with a higher level of safety than boxes.
The pilots in either case are just along for the ride. There are more dangerous aviation (and non-aviation) jobs than 121. I guess they take the view if loggers, electrical linemen, etc can be in daily danger, why not pilots?
But keep lobbying, the squeaky wheel might get some grease. One can argue, correctly, that a loaded widebody poses a danger to people on the ground as well as the pilots.
08-15-2013, 09:51 AM
#170
Nice lookin' tree, there!
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: MD-11, old man
Posts: 2,198
[QUOTE=crbnftprnt;1463449]
Not so fast guys, remember AA at Cali?
fbh
Originally Posted by trip
What Happened to UPS Flight 1354 - Analysis by Sooeet.com
Don't know who Sooeet.com is, but they lose all credibility with the following statement:
"likely using a combination of engine power to maintain speed, and spoilers to increase descent rate."
A nonsensical analysis. The two would not be used together, and if they were would simply cancel each other's effect.
Don't know who Sooeet.com is, but they lose all credibility with the following statement:
"likely using a combination of engine power to maintain speed, and spoilers to increase descent rate."
A nonsensical analysis. The two would not be used together, and if they were would simply cancel each other's effect.
fbh
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
