WSJ article on UPS BHM crash

Subscribe
6  7  8  9  10 
Page 10 of 10
Go to
Quote:
I hate to speculate ...


Then let's not.






.
Reply
Quote: Then let's not.






.
OK, well with that said, what is the answer.
Reply
Quote:
OK, well with that said, what is the answer.

The only official word we've heard regarding communications in the cockpit is from NTSB Member Sumwalt in the briefing linked above.






.
Reply
Quote: The only official word we've heard regarding communications in the cockpit is from NTSB Member Sumwalt in the briefing linked above.

.
roger that. I respect and understand your remarks by the way. Later
Reply
Quote: ...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]
Nicely summarized and well said.

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.
Reply
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.
Reply
Quote: 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.
It has been there done that. The one thing that has been consistent with stabilized approaches at purple is change.
Reply
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
Reply
Quote: 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.
I'm not sure how much that would really help. If guys aren't going around for unstable approaches now I doubt they'll do it if the criteria was changed to 1000 ft. There would probably just be an increase in FOQA events.

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.
Reply
6  7  8  9  10 
Page 10 of 10
Go to