UPS Accident - BHM
08-19-2013, 02:25 AM
#291
New Hire
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 9
I found FAA Advisory Circular AC 120-108 to be a great resource. The AC provides guidance on using continuous decent final approach CDFA or path over VS dive to MDA/DDA. Talks about CFIT too.
While not required,it does say operators should have a CDFA training program. The AC breaks it down into 11 training items. How many of us are getting that training? Here is the link.
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...%20120-108.pdf
While not required,it does say operators should have a CDFA training program. The AC breaks it down into 11 training items. How many of us are getting that training? Here is the link.
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...%20120-108.pdf
08-19-2013, 03:50 AM
#292
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Posts: 42
Originally Posted by BRUCE FANZ
I found FAA Advisory Circular AC 120-108 to be a great resource. The AC provides guidance on using continuous decent final approach CDFA or path over VS dive to MDA/DDA. Talks about CFIT too.
While not required,it does say operators should have a CDFA training program. The AC breaks it down into 11 training items. How many of us are getting that training? Here is the link.
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...%20120-108.pdf
While not required,it does say operators should have a CDFA training program. The AC breaks it down into 11 training items. How many of us are getting that training? Here is the link.
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...%20120-108.pdf
08-19-2013, 04:53 AM
#293
New Hire
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Posts: 6
Is this the short story trend line:
The Airbus is an old technology platform, the flight crew was a low total air hours crew and the automation system has a couple of gotchas that are particularly problematic for the BHM approach – it seems a trend line towards pilot error and less capable automation than on current generation aircraft.
The Airbus is an old technology platform, the flight crew was a low total air hours crew and the automation system has a couple of gotchas that are particularly problematic for the BHM approach – it seems a trend line towards pilot error and less capable automation than on current generation aircraft.
08-19-2013, 04:59 AM
#294
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Position: French American
Posts: 417
Anyone want to suggest a possibility of "pilot error" at this point based on the facts that are released ? I'm SURE the NTSB would have thrown this out four days ago if they could. Shyguy best speak to his girlfriend to get the solid facts at this point..
08-19-2013, 05:04 AM
#295
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Position: French American
Posts: 417
Well damn it. Sorry for a double post, but it sounds like it may have very well been a V/S A/P setting. Just does not sound like a profile app to me based on what has come and what yous guys on here who are rated on the A300 have said.
*disclaimer* I have never flown the BHM 18 LOC*
*disclaimer* I have never flown the BHM 18 LOC*
08-19-2013, 05:08 AM
#296
The NeverEnding Story
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,512
Originally Posted by solvability
Is this the short story trend line:
The Airbus is an old technology platform, the flight crew was a low total air hours crew and the automation system has a couple of gotchas that are particularly problematic for the BHM approach – it seems a trend line towards pilot error and less capable automation than on current generation aircraft.
The Airbus is an old technology platform, the flight crew was a low total air hours crew and the automation system has a couple of gotchas that are particularly problematic for the BHM approach – it seems a trend line towards pilot error and less capable automation than on current generation aircraft.
08-19-2013, 05:35 AM
#298
New Hire
Joined APC: Oct 2011
Posts: 2
Originally Posted by Adlerdriver
I just noticed our (FedEx) jepp plate for the LOC 18 BHM has only day mins. There are two, one with the step down IMTOY and one without. Both are listed under "day" and the night section is "NA". There's a ball note that says the approach is NA at night if the VGSI is inop (which seems unnecessary since it appears it's a day only approach).
I'm assuming this is a tailored plate for FedEx and the night restriction on this approach may not apply to all operators. I don't think I've ever seen "day mins" listed like this.
RNAV(GPS) to 18 does not appear to have any night restrictions other than the same VGSI ball note.
I'm assuming this is a tailored plate for FedEx and the night restriction on this approach may not apply to all operators. I don't think I've ever seen "day mins" listed like this.
RNAV(GPS) to 18 does not appear to have any night restrictions other than the same VGSI ball note.
Looking over the Jepps for the past 3 revisions, the LOC-18 has seen some rather significant changes in the past 4 years.
- The airline chart from 16OCT09 did not contain any notes about VGSI and had no restrictions at night. It had different minimums (CAT C 556-1 1/2 w/ IMTOY & 736-2 w/o IMTOY, CAT D 556-1 3/4 w/ IMTOY & 736-2 1/4 w/o IMTOY).
- The 09DEC11 revision combined the CAT C & D minimums to how they show today (556-1 5/8 w/ IMTOY & 736-2 w/o IMTOY, NA at night). Note 2 - Procedure not authorized at night.
- 17AUG12 revision changed note 2 to read "When VGSI inop, procedure not authorized at night."
- The NACO (US Govt) approach plate and the LIDO chart used by a European operator present the minimums without the night NA column but do include the note about VGSI required at night.
I'll be curious to see if the NTSB takes any interest in the changes in the use of this procedure at night over the last 4 years.
08-19-2013, 05:53 AM
#300
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
Originally Posted by Adlerdriver
I just noticed our (FedEx) jepp plate for the LOC 18 BHM has only day mins. There are two, one with the step down IMTOY and one without. Both are listed under "day" and the night section is "NA". There's a ball note that says the approach is NA at night if the VGSI is inop (which seems unnecessary since it appears it's a day only approach).
I'm assuming this is a tailored plate for FedEx and the night restriction on this approach may not apply to all operators. I don't think I've ever seen "day mins" listed like this.
RNAV(GPS) to 18 does not appear to have any night restrictions other than the same VGSI ball note.
I'm assuming this is a tailored plate for FedEx and the night restriction on this approach may not apply to all operators. I don't think I've ever seen "day mins" listed like this.
RNAV(GPS) to 18 does not appear to have any night restrictions other than the same VGSI ball note.
Looking at the gov't plates - you will see the aforementioned 'When VGSI inop, procedure NA at night.' This is due to 20:1 penetrators (also a reason why no VDA is published)
BRUCE/asiabased - I'll just note again for you guys to be very careful using the advisory glidepath angels on NP approaches.
If interested AC 90-107 will contain the specifics, but the highlight is:
'Advisory vertical guidance does not provide a TERPS-protected glidepath.'
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
