Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Page / 6
Link Posted: 8/14/2013 11:42:11 AM EDT
Deepest condolences to the families of the crew and all those who were killed/injured on the ground.
Link Posted: 8/14/2013 11:42:43 AM EDT
Sad loss and prayers out to the families and responders.

I hope the cause can be found quickly, I got nothing when it comes to why this happened.

Link Posted: 8/14/2013 11:43:38 AM EDT
That's tailor made for a black-hole approach illusion. You'd be looking high, and set up a sink to catch.
Link Posted: 8/14/2013 11:45:02 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Luchs:


Um...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Luchs:
Originally Posted By MSC182:
Originally Posted By 94five0:
Fuel issue is what I heard. I don't know shit about aviation I do know there is no such thing as coasting on fumes in a 767.

No chance


Um...

The Gimli Glider is the nickname of an Air Canada aircraft that was involved in an unusual aviation incident. On 23 July 1983, Air Canada Flight 143, a Boeing 767-233 jet, ran out of fuel at an altitude of 41,000 feet (12,000 m) MSL, about halfway through its flight originating in Montreal from Ottawa to Edmonton. The crew was able to glide the aircraft safely to an emergency landing at Gimli Industrial Park Airport, a former Royal Canadian Air Force base in Gimli, Manitoba.[1]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider

I'm aware of the Gimli Glider and I'm telling you there is no chance that that aircraft crashed due to fuel exhaustion. The amount of fire alone rules that out.
Link Posted: 8/14/2013 11:45:30 AM EDT
Me thinks CFIT. The approach to 18 is very visually misleading. Furthermore there is no ILS to that runway. PAPI's are there though.

A heavy pilot would be tempted to take a lower than normal glidepath to attempt to land on "brick-one" due to it being a shorter runway.

All of this is purely speculation on my part, however I am very familiar with KBHM...
Link Posted: 8/14/2013 11:46:22 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MSC182:

I'm aware of the Gimli Glider and I'm telling you there is no chance that that aircraft crashed due to fuel exhaustion. The amount of fire alone rules that out.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MSC182:
Originally Posted By Luchs:
Originally Posted By MSC182:
Originally Posted By 94five0:
Fuel issue is what I heard. I don't know shit about aviation I do know there is no such thing as coasting on fumes in a 767.

No chance


Um...

The Gimli Glider is the nickname of an Air Canada aircraft that was involved in an unusual aviation incident. On 23 July 1983, Air Canada Flight 143, a Boeing 767-233 jet, ran out of fuel at an altitude of 41,000 feet (12,000 m) MSL, about halfway through its flight originating in Montreal from Ottawa to Edmonton. The crew was able to glide the aircraft safely to an emergency landing at Gimli Industrial Park Airport, a former Royal Canadian Air Force base in Gimli, Manitoba.[1]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider

I'm aware of the Gimli Glider and I'm telling you there is no chance that that aircraft crashed due to fuel exhaustion. The amount of fire alone rules that out.


Oh, okay. I thought it was a "767's can't glide". Misread. Do the newer models still have a RAT?
Link Posted: 8/14/2013 11:47:06 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 94five0:
Fuel issue is what I heard. I don't know shit about aviation I do know there is no such thing as coasting on fumes in a 767.
View Quote


That is incorrect. With enough altitude and a safe place to land, you can glide any cargo or passenger plane down without power. Angles, how do they work
Link Posted: 8/14/2013 11:52:07 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 94five0:
Fuel issue is what I heard. I don't know shit about aviation I do know there is no such thing as coasting on fumes in a 767.
View Quote



Read up on the Gimli Glider. That was coasting on fumes in a 767.
Link Posted: 8/14/2013 11:52:27 AM EDT
I glanced through the KBHM NOTAMs but did not see any reason why they would not have used runway 6 or even runway 24 if the cargo area is near taxiway A1. Did I miss something?
Link Posted: 8/14/2013 11:56:15 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/14/2013 11:57:45 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AmericanPeople:
I glanced through the KBHM NOTAMs but did not see any reason why they would not have used runway 6 or even runway 24 if the cargo area is near taxiway A1. Did I miss something?
View Quote



You're absolutely right man. There is a displaced threshold on approach end of 24 but even with that, there is 10k ft available! Heavies RARELY use 18/36 because its only 7099ft.

Link Posted: 8/14/2013 12:00:51 PM EDT
From Airport info, the tower is continuously manned (if still current) so there should be info on radio traffic that is relevant.
Link Posted: 8/14/2013 12:01:22 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By KR35RR:

You're absolutely right man. There is a displaced threshold on approach end of 24 but even with that, there is 10k ft available! Heavies RARELY use 18/36 because its only 7099ft.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By KR35RR:
Originally Posted By AmericanPeople:
I glanced through the KBHM NOTAMs but did not see any reason why they would not have used runway 6 or even runway 24 if the cargo area is near taxiway A1. Did I miss something?

You're absolutely right man. There is a displaced threshold on approach end of 24 but even with that, there is 10k ft available! Heavies RARELY use 18/36 because its only 7099ft.


Well either way, they didn't even get close, so runway length is irrelevant. The LAX crash, at least they hit part of the runway (well, sorta of, threshold). This one was way off :/ Prayers to the families.
Link Posted: 8/14/2013 12:04:28 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By xenophon21:

Well either way, they didn't even get close, so runway length is irrelevant. The LAX crash, at least they hit part of the runway (well, sorta of, threshold). This one was way off :/ Prayers to the families.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By xenophon21:
Originally Posted By KR35RR:
Originally Posted By AmericanPeople:
I glanced through the KBHM NOTAMs but did not see any reason why they would not have used runway 6 or even runway 24 if the cargo area is near taxiway A1. Did I miss something?

You're absolutely right man. There is a displaced threshold on approach end of 24 but even with that, there is 10k ft available! Heavies RARELY use 18/36 because its only 7099ft.


Well either way, they didn't even get close, so runway length is irrelevant. The LAX crash, at least they hit part of the runway (well, sorta of, threshold). This one was way off :/ Prayers to the families.

LAX? Or SFO?
Link Posted: 8/14/2013 12:05:58 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/14/2013 12:08:50 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By xenophon21:
Well either way, they didn't even get close, so runway length is irrelevant. The LAX crash, at least they hit part of the runway (well, sorta of, threshold). This one was way off :/ Prayers to the families.
View Quote


It is relevant. Unless out of service, both runways 6 and 24 have ILS for vertical guidance.
Link Posted: 8/14/2013 12:12:20 PM EDT
Anyone have a cross section topo of the approach?
Link Posted: 8/14/2013 12:13:49 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By fxntime:


If it was a big plane and hit in a burb neighborhood, it's very possible.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By fxntime:
Originally Posted By Killbot:
Rumors keep flying - Facebook seems to think 40 houses were hit.


If it was a big plane and hit in a burb neighborhood, it's very possible.


Ban high capacity assault airplanes, for the children!
Link Posted: 8/14/2013 12:19:47 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Der_Hans:


Ban high capacity assault airplanes, for the children!
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Der_Hans:
Originally Posted By fxntime:
Originally Posted By Killbot:
Rumors keep flying - Facebook seems to think 40 houses were hit.


If it was a big plane and hit in a burb neighborhood, it's very possible.


Ban high capacity assault airplanes, for the children!

Nothing funny about your statement.....
Link Posted: 8/14/2013 12:21:08 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Dog1:


I know quite a few UPS pilots out of the hub in Louisville and shoot USPSA with one...
View Quote


I believe we have at least one member here who has flies an Airbus for a major cargo carrier. It came up in a Boeing vs. Airbus thread a while back.

Prayers out.
Link Posted: 8/14/2013 12:25:30 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Steelburner:

Nothing funny about your statement.....
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Steelburner:
Originally Posted By Der_Hans:
Originally Posted By fxntime:
Originally Posted By Killbot:
Rumors keep flying - Facebook seems to think 40 houses were hit.


If it was a big plane and hit in a burb neighborhood, it's very possible.


Ban high capacity assault airplanes, for the children!

Nothing funny about your statement.....


Have your sarcasm detector recalibrated.
Events like this are the kind of things that make liberals come up with stupid new laws that will drastically change our life so that they can feel better.

Kinda like this one
Link Posted: 8/14/2013 12:29:55 PM EDT
I was watching the news this morning when the story broke.
I told the sammich maker to call her dad who lives about 3 blocks from the National Guard gate and see if he ws okay. It was a couple of tense moments until he finally answered the phone. He didin't even hear anyting (80 years old).
Link Posted: 8/14/2013 12:32:11 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By xenophon21:

Well either way, they didn't even get close, so runway length is irrelevant. The LAX crash, at least they hit part of the runway (well, sorta of, threshold). This one was way off :/ Prayers to the families.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By xenophon21:
Originally Posted By KR35RR:
Originally Posted By AmericanPeople:
I glanced through the KBHM NOTAMs but did not see any reason why they would not have used runway 6 or even runway 24 if the cargo area is near taxiway A1. Did I miss something?

You're absolutely right man. There is a displaced threshold on approach end of 24 but even with that, there is 10k ft available! Heavies RARELY use 18/36 because its only 7099ft.


Well either way, they didn't even get close, so runway length is irrelevant. The LAX crash, at least they hit part of the runway (well, sorta of, threshold). This one was way off :/ Prayers to the families.

Runway length doesn't matter, but orientation does.
Link Posted: 8/14/2013 12:34:00 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By KR35RR:
Me thinks CFIT. The approach to 18 is very visually misleading. Furthermore there is no ILS to that runway. PAPI's are there though.

A heavy pilot would be tempted to take a lower than normal glidepath to attempt to land on "brick-one" due to it being a shorter runway.

All of this is purely speculation on my part, however I am very familiar with KBHM...
View Quote

Is there a particular reason why there is no ILS? Terrain screwing up the signal or something?
Link Posted: 8/14/2013 12:40:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/14/2013 12:48:55 PM EDT by KR35RR]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FivespeedF150:

Is there a particular reason why there is no ILS? Terrain screwing up the signal or something?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FivespeedF150:
Originally Posted By KR35RR:
Me thinks CFIT. The approach to 18 is very visually misleading. Furthermore there is no ILS to that runway. PAPI's are there though.

A heavy pilot would be tempted to take a lower than normal glidepath to attempt to land on "brick-one" due to it being a shorter runway.

All of this is purely speculation on my part, however I am very familiar with KBHM...

Is there a particular reason why there is no ILS? Terrain screwing up the signal or something?


Possibly.

Ill try to explain...

The terrain sort of parallels the approach glidepath on the way down....think flying down into a bowl

Link Posted: 8/14/2013 12:44:57 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FivespeedF150:
Is there a particular reason why there is no ILS? Terrain screwing up the signal or something?
View Quote


More than likely cost versus benefit.
Link Posted: 8/14/2013 12:46:09 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By KR35RR:


Possibly.

Runway length most definitely is a factor in planning and executing an approach.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By KR35RR:
Originally Posted By FivespeedF150:
Originally Posted By KR35RR:
Me thinks CFIT. The approach to 18 is very visually misleading. Furthermore there is no ILS to that runway. PAPI's are there though.

A heavy pilot would be tempted to take a lower than normal glidepath to attempt to land on "brick-one" due to it being a shorter runway.

All of this is purely speculation on my part, however I am very familiar with KBHM...

Is there a particular reason why there is no ILS? Terrain screwing up the signal or something?


Possibly.

Runway length most definitely is a factor in planning and executing an approach.


They are also in the seven figure range and since the main runway already has one for both ends it's probably not worth it at a field with less than 300 landings a day.
Link Posted: 8/14/2013 12:57:18 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By KR35RR:

Possibly.

Ill try to explain...

The terrain sort of parallels the approach glidepath on the way down....think flying down into a bowl
View Quote

Ah, yes I can see how that would complicate matters. Thank you.
Link Posted: 8/14/2013 1:04:15 PM EDT
Looks like the terrain is slowly rising until that quick drop in the picture from the stb side of the cockpit. Too low and CFIT? (as mentioned previously)

Certainly looks like it impacted nose up, forward part of fuselage breaks off, slams down at slight nose up attitude, slamming cockpit down after initial impact (see pics of wrinkling of skin just aft of cockpit from port side), remainder of airframe comes apart as gear rips thru wings and tanks causing fire. Not sure why forward part of fuselage takes a slightly left bearing of centerline though.
Link Posted: 8/14/2013 1:13:38 PM EDT
Descent profile looks fairly normal until they departed 12000 then it appears they dropped the anchor. 346 knots groundspeed down to 9600 where it looks like they leveled off to get back to 250 indicated (possibly gear extension speed as well?). They were about four minutes from the airport at that point and you see the extreme descent rates after they leveled off. 5500 fpm descent rate at 250 knots, they must have had a hell of a lot of drag. Makes me wonder if they had full speed brakes and gear down.

Im not trying to speculate too much, but from that info the situation appears ripe for a CFIT. Being left high, becoming hurried, getting behind the plane so far that you have little to no situational awareness and bad things can easily happen. Throw in possible fatigue issues or other human factors and things can really get ugly fast. I don't know how those cargo guys handle the back side of the clock.

Link Posted: 8/14/2013 1:17:18 PM EDT
I bet the FSA is drooling at the thought of scavenging some free shit while emergency crews work to rescue any possible survivors and to put out any fires.
Link Posted: 8/14/2013 1:18:53 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By KR35RR:


Possibly.

Ill try to explain...

The terrain sort of parallels the approach glidepath on the way down....think flying down into a bowl

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By KR35RR:
Originally Posted By FivespeedF150:
Originally Posted By KR35RR:
Me thinks CFIT. The approach to 18 is very visually misleading. Furthermore there is no ILS to that runway. PAPI's are there though.

A heavy pilot would be tempted to take a lower than normal glidepath to attempt to land on "brick-one" due to it being a shorter runway.

All of this is purely speculation on my part, however I am very familiar with KBHM...

Is there a particular reason why there is no ILS? Terrain screwing up the signal or something?


Possibly.

Ill try to explain...

The terrain sort of parallels the approach glidepath on the way down....think flying down into a bowl



Tricky stuff. Is the runway level or is it an uphill landing?
Link Posted: 8/14/2013 1:19:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/14/2013 1:19:31 PM EDT by samiam513]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By KR35RR:


Possibly.

Ill try to explain...

The terrain sort of parallels the approach glidepath on the way down....think flying down into a bowl

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By KR35RR:
Originally Posted By FivespeedF150:
Originally Posted By KR35RR:
Me thinks CFIT. The approach to 18 is very visually misleading. Furthermore there is no ILS to that runway. PAPI's are there though.

A heavy pilot would be tempted to take a lower than normal glidepath to attempt to land on "brick-one" due to it being a shorter runway.

All of this is purely speculation on my part, however I am very familiar with KBHM...

Is there a particular reason why there is no ILS? Terrain screwing up the signal or something?


Possibly.

Ill try to explain...

The terrain sort of parallels the approach glidepath on the way down....think flying down into a bowl



Two terrain pictures.



Link Posted: 8/14/2013 1:20:54 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 986Flyer:
Descent profile looks fairly normal until they departed 12000 then it appears they dropped the anchor. 346 knots groundspeed down to 9600 where it looks like they leveled off to get back to 250 indicated (possibly gear extension speed as well?). They were about four minutes from the airport at that point and you see the extreme descent rates after they leveled off. 5500 fpm descent rate at 250 knots, they must have had a hell of a lot of drag. Makes me wonder if they had full speed brakes and gear down.

Im not trying to speculate too much, but from that info the situation appears ripe for a CFIT. Being left high, becoming hurried, getting behind the plane so far that you have little to no situational awareness and bad things can easily happen. Throw in possible fatigue issues or other human factors and things can really get ugly fast. I don't know how those cargo guys handle the back side of the clock.

View Quote

Sec. 91.117 — Aircraft speed.
(a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may operate an aircraft below 10,000 feet MSL at an indicated airspeed of more than 250 knots (288 m.p.h.).
Link Posted: 8/14/2013 1:21:59 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Alien:
I bet the FSA is drooling at the thought of scavenging some free shit while emergency crews work to rescue any possible survivors and to put out any fires.
View Quote


I read about people looting suitcases at an airliner crash, my mind couldn't even conceive of such a thing.

Pretty sure there should be a law allowing the police to shoot on sight in a case like that.

Link Posted: 8/14/2013 1:23:40 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DeltaElite777:
Just found out that one of the crew lived right around here, and my brother knows the family... sucks.
View Quote


Several of the pilots I flew with in the AF now fly for UPS.

I hope they are alright.

Prayers to the families of those who were killed.
Link Posted: 8/14/2013 1:28:49 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RarestRX:


I read about people looting suitcases at an airliner crash, my mind couldn't even conceive of such a thing.

Pretty sure there should be a law allowing the police to shoot on sight in a case like that.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RarestRX:
Originally Posted By Alien:
I bet the FSA is drooling at the thought of scavenging some free shit while emergency crews work to rescue any possible survivors and to put out any fires.


I read about people looting suitcases at an airliner crash, my mind couldn't even conceive of such a thing.

Pretty sure there should be a law allowing the police to shoot on sight in a case like that.



That was Nigeria. All the survivors died because the rescuers couldn't get to the wreckage, it was swarmed with thousands of Nigerians looting it (and the badly injured survivors) like ants, even while it was still smoking.
Link Posted: 8/14/2013 1:30:28 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RarestRX:


I read about people looting suitcases at an airliner crash, my mind couldn't even conceive of such a thing.

Pretty sure there should be a law allowing the police to shoot on sight in a case like that.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RarestRX:
Originally Posted By Alien:
I bet the FSA is drooling at the thought of scavenging some free shit while emergency crews work to rescue any possible survivors and to put out any fires.


I read about people looting suitcases at an airliner crash, my mind couldn't even conceive of such a thing.

Pretty sure there should be a law allowing the police to shoot on sight in a case like that.




They came down on airport property. Inside the fence with a good LE perimeter
shortly after unless something fell in their yard before it hit I doubt there's any looting.
Link Posted: 8/14/2013 1:31:23 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Luchs:


That was Nigeria. All the survivors died because the rescuers couldn't get to the wreckage, it was swarmed with thousands of Nigerians looting it (and the badly injured survivors) like ants, even while it was still smoking.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Luchs:
Originally Posted By RarestRX:
Originally Posted By Alien:
I bet the FSA is drooling at the thought of scavenging some free shit while emergency crews work to rescue any possible survivors and to put out any fires.


I read about people looting suitcases at an airliner crash, my mind couldn't even conceive of such a thing.

Pretty sure there should be a law allowing the police to shoot on sight in a case like that.



That was Nigeria. All the survivors died because the rescuers couldn't get to the wreckage, it was swarmed with thousands of Nigerians looting it (and the badly injured survivors) like ants, even while it was still smoking.


Nope, it was in the US.

Googling now to try and find it.
Link Posted: 8/14/2013 1:34:11 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

Sec. 91.117 — Aircraft speed.
(a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may operate an aircraft below 10,000 feet MSL at an indicated airspeed of more than 250 knots (288 m.p.h.).
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:
Originally Posted By 986Flyer:
Descent profile looks fairly normal until they departed 12000 then it appears they dropped the anchor. 346 knots groundspeed down to 9600 where it looks like they leveled off to get back to 250 indicated (possibly gear extension speed as well?). They were about four minutes from the airport at that point and you see the extreme descent rates after they leveled off. 5500 fpm descent rate at 250 knots, they must have had a hell of a lot of drag. Makes me wonder if they had full speed brakes and gear down.

Im not trying to speculate too much, but from that info the situation appears ripe for a CFIT. Being left high, becoming hurried, getting behind the plane so far that you have little to no situational awareness and bad things can easily happen. Throw in possible fatigue issues or other human factors and things can really get ugly fast. I don't know how those cargo guys handle the back side of the clock.


Sec. 91.117 — Aircraft speed.
(a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may operate an aircraft below 10,000 feet MSL at an indicated airspeed of more than 250 knots (288 m.p.h.).


Right. Which makes me think they were in control of a perfectly good aircraft. They left 12000 in a " we need to get the fuck down" mode, expedited out of 12, ended up leveling at 9500 to bleed off speed, then dropped like a rock for the next minute or two. In the last couple of minutes it looks like they started to get things under control.

FedEx flew a perfectly good 727 into the ground in Tallahassee back in 2002. They were lucky to survive.

Link Posted: 8/14/2013 1:36:57 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RarestRX:


I read about people looting suitcases at an airliner crash, my mind couldn't even conceive of such a thing.

Pretty sure there should be a law allowing the police to shoot on sight in a case like that.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RarestRX:
Originally Posted By Alien:
I bet the FSA is drooling at the thought of scavenging some free shit while emergency crews work to rescue any possible survivors and to put out any fires.


I read about people looting suitcases at an airliner crash, my mind couldn't even conceive of such a thing.

Pretty sure there should be a law allowing the police to shoot on sight in a case like that.




Not inconceivable in that area. It's uhh...."ethnic".

sidenote: If one of our Pig (container) trains breaks in the downtown area for more than a couple hours, the FSA types break into them and loot the contents. Everything from clothes to tires!
Link Posted: 8/14/2013 1:42:34 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 986Flyer:
Descent profile looks fairly normal until they departed 12000 then it appears they dropped the anchor. 346 knots groundspeed down to 9600 where it looks like they leveled off to get back to 250 indicated (possibly gear extension speed as well?). They were about four minutes from the airport at that point and you see the extreme descent rates after they leveled off. 5500 fpm descent rate at 250 knots, they must have had a hell of a lot of drag. Makes me wonder if they had full speed brakes and gear down.

Im not trying to speculate too much, but from that info the situation appears ripe for a CFIT. Being left high, becoming hurried, getting behind the plane so far that you have little to no situational awareness and bad things can easily happen. Throw in possible fatigue issues or other human factors and things can really get ugly fast. I don't know how those cargo guys handle the back side of the clock.

View Quote



I doubt fatigue was an issue. Cargo guys operate in the dark.

It is not common to get "Dunked" into BHM. The controllers are very good.
Link Posted: 8/14/2013 1:43:46 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MSC182:

I'm aware of the Gimli Glider and I'm telling you there is no chance that that aircraft crashed due to fuel exhaustion. The amount of fire alone rules that out.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MSC182:
Originally Posted By Luchs:
Originally Posted By MSC182:
Originally Posted By 94five0:
Fuel issue is what I heard. I don't know shit about aviation I do know there is no such thing as coasting on fumes in a 767.

No chance


Um...

The Gimli Glider is the nickname of an Air Canada aircraft that was involved in an unusual aviation incident. On 23 July 1983, Air Canada Flight 143, a Boeing 767-233 jet, ran out of fuel at an altitude of 41,000 feet (12,000 m) MSL, about halfway through its flight originating in Montreal from Ottawa to Edmonton. The crew was able to glide the aircraft safely to an emergency landing at Gimli Industrial Park Airport, a former Royal Canadian Air Force base in Gimli, Manitoba.[1]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider

I'm aware of the Gimli Glider and I'm telling you there is no chance that that aircraft crashed due to fuel exhaustion. The amount of fire alone rules that out.


This, also on top of that such a short flight and depending on the load of cargo, the A-300 Im assuming would have needed at least 18,000- 20,000 lbs. of fuel to be in balance. Even the Concorde would not burn that much fuel in an hour.
Link Posted: 8/14/2013 2:30:36 PM EDT
Hard to see that on the news, I worked for UPS for a long time many years ago.

I am going with CFIT. No distress calls. Ceilings were 7000, but if you look at the pictures it was still a bit foggy. Reduced viz plug approach over a dark field at that time of the morning is a tricky situation. Still, given the quality of most of their pilots its very surprising.

FWIW I spent a lot of time working on one of the ramps in Tulsa deploying some IT gear, I got to see the operations up close. In the evening a bunch of Cessna Caravans come from all the corners of Oklahoma to drop off air packages that are then loaded into a 757 that flies to Louisville a little later. That 757 is expected to depart within a couple of minutes of schedule due to the aircraft arrival spacing in Louisville, which is typically 1.5 minutes apart. However, the surprising part was all 6 Caravans landed together and taxied in together. In general UPS pilots are expected to fly to a much greater level of precision than many other air carriers.

Link Posted: 8/14/2013 2:36:33 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By djbradley:
Here are some aerial photos.

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q139/DAL2750/-b6d10abfa6f64281_zps3924b434.jpg

ETA:

Weather at the time of the accident:

METAR text: KBHM 141053Z 01003KT 10SM OVC070 23/22 A2999 RMK AO2 SLP146 T02330222
Conditions at: KBHM (BIRMINGHAM , AL, US) observed 1053 UTC 14 August 2013
Temperature: 23.3°C (74°F)
Dewpoint: 22.2°C (72°F) [RH = 94%]
Pressure (altimeter): 29.99 inches Hg (1015.7 mb)
[Sea-level pressure: 1014.6 mb]
Winds: from the N (10 degrees) at 3 MPH (3 knots; 1.6 m/s)
Visibility: 10 or more miles (16+ km)
Ceiling: 7000 feet AGL
Clouds: overcast cloud deck at 7000 feet AGL
Weather: no significant weather observed at this time
View Quote


The picture makes it appear that the ground slopes up from the runway back towards the flight path/where the picture was taken.

Is this accurate or an illusion ?
Link Posted: 8/14/2013 2:38:06 PM EDT
Wonder if these guys were flying in heavy fog in a complete white out condition and flew right into the ground?
Link Posted: 8/14/2013 2:46:21 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By realwar:
Wonder if these guys were flying in heavy fog in a complete white out condition and flew right into the ground?
View Quote

Read a few posts back: visibility 10 mi, ceilings 7000.

I think what Screechjet1 said makes the most sense, at this point, but we'll have to see what the investigation yields.
Link Posted: 8/14/2013 2:57:33 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Ltlabner:


The picture makes it appear that the ground slopes up from the runway back towards the flight path/where the picture was taken.

Is this accurate or an illusion ?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Ltlabner:
Originally Posted By djbradley:
Here are some aerial photos.

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q139/DAL2750/-b6d10abfa6f64281_zps3924b434.jpg

ETA:

Weather at the time of the accident:

METAR text: KBHM 141053Z 01003KT 10SM OVC070 23/22 A2999 RMK AO2 SLP146 T02330222
Conditions at: KBHM (BIRMINGHAM , AL, US) observed 1053 UTC 14 August 2013
Temperature: 23.3°C (74°F)
Dewpoint: 22.2°C (72°F) [RH = 94%]
Pressure (altimeter): 29.99 inches Hg (1015.7 mb)
[Sea-level pressure: 1014.6 mb]
Winds: from the N (10 degrees) at 3 MPH (3 knots; 1.6 m/s)
Visibility: 10 or more miles (16+ km)
Ceiling: 7000 feet AGL
Clouds: overcast cloud deck at 7000 feet AGL
Weather: no significant weather observed at this time


The picture makes it appear that the ground slopes up from the runway back towards the flight path/where the picture was taken.

Is this accurate or an illusion ?



I answered this at the top of the page
Link Posted: 8/14/2013 3:05:17 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By KR35RR:



I answered this at the top of the page
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By KR35RR:
Originally Posted By Ltlabner:
Originally Posted By djbradley:
Here are some aerial photos.

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q139/DAL2750/-b6d10abfa6f64281_zps3924b434.jpg

ETA:

Weather at the time of the accident:

METAR text: KBHM 141053Z 01003KT 10SM OVC070 23/22 A2999 RMK AO2 SLP146 T02330222
Conditions at: KBHM (BIRMINGHAM , AL, US) observed 1053 UTC 14 August 2013
Temperature: 23.3°C (74°F)
Dewpoint: 22.2°C (72°F) [RH = 94%]
Pressure (altimeter): 29.99 inches Hg (1015.7 mb)
[Sea-level pressure: 1014.6 mb]
Winds: from the N (10 degrees) at 3 MPH (3 knots; 1.6 m/s)
Visibility: 10 or more miles (16+ km)
Ceiling: 7000 feet AGL
Clouds: overcast cloud deck at 7000 feet AGL
Weather: no significant weather observed at this time


The picture makes it appear that the ground slopes up from the runway back towards the flight path/where the picture was taken.

Is this accurate or an illusion ?



I answered this at the top of the page


Yea...got to get back to the rest of the thread and saw that.

Ground rising towards flighpath, rapid decent towards a realitivley short runway, vis/GPS approach at night...............CFIT wouldn't be totally shocking.

Amature speculation aside RIP to the flight crew
Link Posted: 8/14/2013 3:08:08 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Ltlabner:


Yea...got to get back to the rest of the thread and saw that.

Ground rising towards flighpath, rapid decent towards a realitivley short runway, vis/GPS approach at night...............CFIT wouldn't be totally shocking.

Amature speculation aside RIP to the flight crew
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Ltlabner:
Originally Posted By KR35RR:
Originally Posted By Ltlabner:
Originally Posted By djbradley:
Here are some aerial photos.

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q139/DAL2750/-b6d10abfa6f64281_zps3924b434.jpg

ETA:

Weather at the time of the accident:

METAR text: KBHM 141053Z 01003KT 10SM OVC070 23/22 A2999 RMK AO2 SLP146 T02330222
Conditions at: KBHM (BIRMINGHAM , AL, US) observed 1053 UTC 14 August 2013
Temperature: 23.3°C (74°F)
Dewpoint: 22.2°C (72°F) [RH = 94%]
Pressure (altimeter): 29.99 inches Hg (1015.7 mb)
[Sea-level pressure: 1014.6 mb]
Winds: from the N (10 degrees) at 3 MPH (3 knots; 1.6 m/s)
Visibility: 10 or more miles (16+ km)
Ceiling: 7000 feet AGL
Clouds: overcast cloud deck at 7000 feet AGL
Weather: no significant weather observed at this time


The picture makes it appear that the ground slopes up from the runway back towards the flight path/where the picture was taken.

Is this accurate or an illusion ?



I answered this at the top of the page


Yea...got to get back to the rest of the thread and saw that.

Ground rising towards flighpath, rapid decent towards a realitivley short runway, vis/GPS approach at night...............CFIT wouldn't be totally shocking.

Amature speculation aside RIP to the flight crew


Spot on
Page / 6
Top Top