UPS Accident - BHM
#331
It seems you are stating that they were ON-PATH of the PAPI yet still impacted terrain. Is this your supposition?
#332
Right. Now back to TERPS.
There has to be some type of obstacle clearance protection for the visual segment. Wouldn't the VGSI keep you clear of all terrain and obstacles?
Here is a little test though. How many know the 'service volume of a VGSI' without looking it up (lateral, vertical, and distance from the source)? I certainly didn't, though I admit to NOT flying a lot of VGSIs except for a meatball for 20! That obstacle evaluation is for the service volume of the system - NOT necessarily out the way out to the limits of the system (for instance at night).
In researching all of this, I think the FAA is negligent. First, the FAA's Flight Instrument Handbook says the following:
"Vertical Descent Angle (VDA): The Vertical Descent Angle (VDA) found on nonprecision approach charts provides the pilot with information required to establish a stabilized approach descent from the FAF or stepdown fix to the TCH. [Figure 1-17] Pilots can use the published angle and estimated or actual groundspeed to find a target rate of descent using the rate of descent table in the back of the TPP.
"Vertical Descent Angle (VDA): The Vertical Descent Angle (VDA) found on nonprecision approach charts provides the pilot with information required to establish a stabilized approach descent from the FAF or stepdown fix to the TCH. [Figure 1-17] Pilots can use the published angle and estimated or actual groundspeed to find a target rate of descent using the rate of descent table in the back of the TPP.
In that paragraph is a huge assumption that you're going to be clear of obstacles. I mean, why post it if you're not going to be clear of obstacles? Why provide the pilots a snowflake, pregnant plus, magenta fatty if it is going to lead you into the dirt?
I argue, the VDA will get you to the MDA/VGSI intercept point so as to continue on the VDA coincident with the VGSI to a safe landing.
#333
Banned
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: DAL Widebody
Posts: 104
Recently, while reviewing VDP's in preparation for my upcoming schoolhouse visit, I came across the (linked) eye-opening article which has caused me to begin reassessing some comfort zones and the assumptions upon which they were based. Perhaps unrelated, but this tragic accident in KBHM may well further that reassessment.
?Fly The Plate and You Won?t Get Hurt? | Aviation International News
“Fly The Plate and You Won’t Get Hurt”
Aviation-International-News/August-2012/J. Huddleston
Excerpt:
Documents provided by Saratoga County showed that every runway and every approach had trees penetrating the Obstacle Clear Line, and documents proved that these discrepancies were known about as far back as 1999. One document dated September 1999 stated, “Obstruction analysis study of Runway 5 identified ‘numerous penetrations’ to the approach surfaces, both on and off airport, and determined that ‘to maintain a clear 20:1 approach surface, the Runway 5 threshold would have to be displaced 946.5 feet’ [almost twice the 500 feet calculated initially].” Numerous documents and emails from the Saratoga County Department of Public Works and New York’s DOT were written between September 1999 and (more than two months after our incident) October 2008 addressing the issues, but no action was taken.
Two years earlier, in April 2006, one email stated: “FAA flyover inspection shutdown VASI on Runway 05. Flight Inspection Report states, ‘Obstacle clearance unsatisfactory due to trees near threshold.’” While no one took any action, these trees were growing at a rate of three to five feet per year. From September 1999, when obstacle issues were first identified, until the night of our incident on July 13, 2008, not a single tree on the approach to Runway 5 was topped or removed. An August 2008 email from NY DOT about the results of its inspection stated: “RWY 05-Trees +89’, 1035’ from RWY end, 9:1 slope.”
Last edited by FlighTimeBarbie; 08-19-2013 at 02:39 PM.
#334
Recently, while reviewing VDP's in preparation for my upcoming schoolhouse visit, I came across the (linked) eye-opening article which has caused me to begin reassessing some comfort zones and the assumptions upon which they were based. Perhaps unrelated, but this tragic accident in KBHM may well further that reassessment.
?Fly The Plate and You Won?t Get Hurt? | Aviation International News
“Fly The Plate and You Won’t Get Hurt”
Aviation-International-News/August-2012/J. Huddleston
Excerpt:
Documents provided by Saratoga County showed that every runway and every approach had trees penetrating the Obstacle Clear Line, and documents proved that these discrepancies were known about as far back as 1999. One document dated September 1999 stated, “Obstruction analysis study of Runway 5 identified ‘numerous penetrations’ to the approach surfaces, both on and off airport, and determined that ‘to maintain a clear 20:1 approach surface, the Runway 5 threshold would have to be displaced 946.5 feet’ [almost twice the 500 feet calculated initially].” Numerous documents and emails from the Saratoga County Department of Public Works and New York’s DOT were written between September 1999 and (more than two months after our incident) October 2008 addressing the issues, but no action was taken.
Two years earlier, in April 2006, one email stated: “FAA flyover inspection shutdown VASI on Runway 05. Flight Inspection Report states, ‘Obstacle clearance unsatisfactory due to trees near threshold.’” While no one took any action, these trees were growing at a rate of three to five feet per year. From September 1999, when obstacle issues were first identified, until the night of our incident on July 13, 2008, not a single tree on the approach to Runway 5 was topped or removed. An August 2008 email from NY DOT about the results of its inspection stated: “RWY 05-Trees +89’, 1035’ from RWY end, 9:1 slope.”
?Fly The Plate and You Won?t Get Hurt? | Aviation International News
“Fly The Plate and You Won’t Get Hurt”
Aviation-International-News/August-2012/J. Huddleston
Excerpt:
Documents provided by Saratoga County showed that every runway and every approach had trees penetrating the Obstacle Clear Line, and documents proved that these discrepancies were known about as far back as 1999. One document dated September 1999 stated, “Obstruction analysis study of Runway 5 identified ‘numerous penetrations’ to the approach surfaces, both on and off airport, and determined that ‘to maintain a clear 20:1 approach surface, the Runway 5 threshold would have to be displaced 946.5 feet’ [almost twice the 500 feet calculated initially].” Numerous documents and emails from the Saratoga County Department of Public Works and New York’s DOT were written between September 1999 and (more than two months after our incident) October 2008 addressing the issues, but no action was taken.
Two years earlier, in April 2006, one email stated: “FAA flyover inspection shutdown VASI on Runway 05. Flight Inspection Report states, ‘Obstacle clearance unsatisfactory due to trees near threshold.’” While no one took any action, these trees were growing at a rate of three to five feet per year. From September 1999, when obstacle issues were first identified, until the night of our incident on July 13, 2008, not a single tree on the approach to Runway 5 was topped or removed. An August 2008 email from NY DOT about the results of its inspection stated: “RWY 05-Trees +89’, 1035’ from RWY end, 9:1 slope.”
#335
I fly into several places where the VGSI has published limitations. In some cases you have to be very close in to get terrain clearance.
Just because you can see the VGSI doesn't mean you'll have terrain clearance if you're way off centerline.
Just because you can see the VGSI doesn't mean you'll have terrain clearance if you're way off centerline.
#337
Yes, the notes at the top state when VGSI inop procedure not authorized at night, but look closer and tell us what you see in the lower right corner under "Night" for the KBHM LOC Rwy 18 on the UPS custom Jepp 11-2 page. What is the charted MDA and the minimum required vis to shoot this instrument approach at night?
#338
Banned
Joined APC: Jan 2010
Posts: 332
Yes, you are right. The Jepp LOC 18 Plate says "Night NA". But the note at the top referencing the VGSI takes precedence. FDC notams were published and Jepp just had not removed the "Night NA". RWY 18 LOC NOS charts do not have the restriction. They would take precedence because they are what Jepps are based on.
#340
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: B767
Posts: 795
Recently, while reviewing VDP's in preparation for my upcoming schoolhouse visit, I came across the (linked) eye-opening article which has caused me to begin reassessing some comfort zones and the assumptions upon which they were based. Perhaps unrelated, but this tragic accident in KBHM may well further that reassessment.
?Fly The Plate and You Won?t Get Hurt? | Aviation International News
“Fly The Plate and You Won’t Get Hurt”
Aviation-International-News/August-2012/J. Huddleston
Excerpt:
Documents provided by Saratoga County showed that every runway and every approach had trees penetrating the Obstacle Clear Line, and documents proved that these discrepancies were known about as far back as 1999. One document dated September 1999 stated, “Obstruction analysis study of Runway 5 identified ‘numerous penetrations’ to the approach surfaces, both on and off airport, and determined that ‘to maintain a clear 20:1 approach surface, the Runway 5 threshold would have to be displaced 946.5 feet’ [almost twice the 500 feet calculated initially].” Numerous documents and emails from the Saratoga County Department of Public Works and New York’s DOT were written between September 1999 and (more than two months after our incident) October 2008 addressing the issues, but no action was taken.
Two years earlier, in April 2006, one email stated: “FAA flyover inspection shutdown VASI on Runway 05. Flight Inspection Report states, ‘Obstacle clearance unsatisfactory due to trees near threshold.’” While no one took any action, these trees were growing at a rate of three to five feet per year. From September 1999, when obstacle issues were first identified, until the night of our incident on July 13, 2008, not a single tree on the approach to Runway 5 was topped or removed. An August 2008 email from NY DOT about the results of its inspection stated: “RWY 05-Trees +89’, 1035’ from RWY end, 9:1 slope.”
?Fly The Plate and You Won?t Get Hurt? | Aviation International News
“Fly The Plate and You Won’t Get Hurt”
Aviation-International-News/August-2012/J. Huddleston
Excerpt:
Documents provided by Saratoga County showed that every runway and every approach had trees penetrating the Obstacle Clear Line, and documents proved that these discrepancies were known about as far back as 1999. One document dated September 1999 stated, “Obstruction analysis study of Runway 5 identified ‘numerous penetrations’ to the approach surfaces, both on and off airport, and determined that ‘to maintain a clear 20:1 approach surface, the Runway 5 threshold would have to be displaced 946.5 feet’ [almost twice the 500 feet calculated initially].” Numerous documents and emails from the Saratoga County Department of Public Works and New York’s DOT were written between September 1999 and (more than two months after our incident) October 2008 addressing the issues, but no action was taken.
Two years earlier, in April 2006, one email stated: “FAA flyover inspection shutdown VASI on Runway 05. Flight Inspection Report states, ‘Obstacle clearance unsatisfactory due to trees near threshold.’” While no one took any action, these trees were growing at a rate of three to five feet per year. From September 1999, when obstacle issues were first identified, until the night of our incident on July 13, 2008, not a single tree on the approach to Runway 5 was topped or removed. An August 2008 email from NY DOT about the results of its inspection stated: “RWY 05-Trees +89’, 1035’ from RWY end, 9:1 slope.”
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post