User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/14/2013 11:42:11 AM EDT
[#1]
Deepest condolences to the families of the crew and all those who were killed/injured on the ground.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2013 11:42:43 AM EDT
[#2]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2013 11:43:38 AM EDT
[#3]
That's tailor made for a black-hole approach illusion. You'd be looking high, and set up a sink to catch.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2013 11:45:02 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2013 11:45:30 AM EDT
[#5]
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... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2013 11:46:22 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2013 11:47:06 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. 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 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2013 11:52:07 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Read up on the Gimli Glider. That was coasting on fumes in a 767. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2013 11:52:27 AM EDT
[#9]
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?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2013 11:56:15 AM EDT
[#10]
I know quite a few UPS pilots out of the hub in Louisville and shoot USPSA with one... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2013 11:57:45 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2013 12:00:51 PM EDT
[#12]
From Airport info, the tower is continuously manned (if still current) so there should be info on radio traffic that is relevant.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2013 12:01:22 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2013 12:04:28 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2013 12:05:58 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's tailor made for a black-hole approach illusion. You'd be looking high, and set up a sink to catch. Crater illusion? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2013 12:08:50 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. It is relevant. Unless out of service, both runways 6 and 24 have ILS for vertical guidance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2013 12:12:20 PM EDT
[#17]
Anyone have a cross section topo of the approach?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2013 12:13:49 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If it was a big plane and hit in a burb neighborhood, it's very possible. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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! |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2013 12:19:47 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ban high capacity assault airplanes, for the children! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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..... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2013 12:21:08 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I know quite a few UPS pilots out of the hub in Louisville and shoot USPSA with one... 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2013 12:25:30 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nothing funny about your statement..... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2013 12:29:55 PM EDT
[#22]
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). |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2013 12:32:11 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2013 12:34:00 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2013 12:40:32 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is there a particular reason why there is no ILS? Terrain screwing up the signal or something? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2013 12:44:57 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is there a particular reason why there is no ILS? Terrain screwing up the signal or something? More than likely cost versus benefit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2013 12:46:09 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Possibly. Runway length most definitely is a factor in planning and executing an approach. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2013 12:57:18 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Possibly. Ill try to explain... The terrain sort of parallels the approach glidepath on the way down....think flying down into a bowl Ah, yes I can see how that would complicate matters. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2013 1:04:15 PM EDT
[#29]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2013 1:13:38 PM EDT
[#30]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2013 1:17:18 PM EDT
[#31]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2013 1:18:53 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Possibly. Ill try to explain... The terrain sort of parallels the approach glidepath on the way down....think flying down into a bowl Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2013 1:19:14 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Possibly. Ill try to explain... The terrain sort of parallels the approach glidepath on the way down....think flying down into a bowl Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2013 1:20:54 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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.). |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2013 1:21:59 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2013 1:23:40 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just found out that one of the crew lived right around here, and my brother knows the family... sucks. 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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2013 1:28:49 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2013 1:30:28 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2013 1:31:23 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2013 1:34:11 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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.). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2013 1:36:57 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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! |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2013 1:42:34 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2013 1:43:46 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2013 2:30:36 PM EDT
[#44]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2013 2:36:33 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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 ? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2013 2:38:06 PM EDT
[#46]
Wonder if these guys were flying in heavy fog in a complete white out condition and flew right into the ground?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2013 2:46:21 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wonder if these guys were flying in heavy fog in a complete white out condition and flew right into the ground? 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2013 2:57:33 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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 ? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2013 3:05:17 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I answered this at the top of the page Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2013 3:08:08 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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 |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
