Good observation. During previous press briefings the approach was referred to as a "localizer" which is as he described today a NON precision approach. Typical non precision approaches become purely visual approaches between 500- 700 feet above ground based on the lack of vertical guidance. An ILS would be a precision approach with vertical guidance.
Question, Mr. Sumwalt: What kind of localizer approach were they flying? Was it a database FMS localizer approach, or were they using manual procedures, with a 1000-1500 fpm descent after the FAF? If it was not a database (profile available) approach then it was normal for them to dip below a 3 degree glidepath to the runway, at least until they reached the MDA and leveled off, looking for the VDP. This knowledge may have led to their deliberate disregard of the "sink rate, sink rate" call.
Mr. Sumwalt mentioned "ILS to RWY 18". I do not know of an ILS approach, there is a localizer approach and I assume he misspoke. The autopilot would not be controlling the descent based on a glideslope signal.
What most likely happen is the crew did not input the correct MDA in the "altitude select" window or the auto pilot did not level off and the pilots being so tired didn't notice it. The other option is they just we're tired and went below the MDA too far away from the runway. How do I know this I'm an airline pilot.
Flightaware shows GS only. They could have been doing 250 at 10. They had normal decent rates during the arrival phase of flight. He even said they were doing 140kts KIAS before the crash so thats my point flightaware isnt a good source of VS and IAS. Fatigue is going to play a factor in this crash. Cargo pilots were not included into the new rest rules. This type of airplane has been written up in the past for malfunctioning avionics due to excess moisture in the avionics compartment.
Possible froward cargo shift due to the intense rates of decent may have also resulted in an undetectable forward GC which would not be recognizable until they tried to level off and assume a normal rate of decent which probably didn't occur until they were at or just inside the outer marker looking at the Flightaware data. Automated computer controlled aircraft with auto pilot trying to fly an un-stabilized approach with a possible forward CG, not what any aircraft is designed for.
They do a good job of a very difficult task. I agree to a certain extent, comraderedcomando. Something to consider also is that this was before dawn. I wonder if we didn't have a case of a black hole illusion in play.
Flightware data shows them at almost 4k feet per minute decent through 9.5k and 6k feet. Then shows them at almost 5.5k feet per minute decent 6k through 3k. FAF altitude on the 18 Localizer and 18 GPS approaches is 2500. There is no ILS. These guys were also fast at 346knots at 10.5, Right at 300 at 9.5 busting the 250 speed limit, around 250 through 5k feet, and never got below about 220kts when the data ended. There was only about 4 minutes between10.5k feet and end of the data
![Skilla Baby - Misfit (Feat. Polo G) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IjsylSnNMyw/mqdefault.jpg)
Good observation. During previous press briefings the approach was referred to as a "localizer" which is as he described today a NON precision approach. Typical non precision approaches become purely visual approaches between 500- 700 feet above ground based on the lack of vertical guidance. An ILS would be a precision approach with vertical guidance.
What modes were selected in the FCU?
Question, Mr. Sumwalt: What kind of localizer approach were they flying? Was it a database FMS localizer approach, or were they using manual procedures, with a 1000-1500 fpm descent after the FAF?
If it was not a database (profile available) approach then it was normal for them to dip below a 3 degree glidepath to the runway, at least until they reached the MDA and leveled off, looking for the VDP. This knowledge may have led to their deliberate disregard of the "sink rate, sink rate" call.
Mr. Sumwalt mentioned "ILS to RWY 18". I do not know of an ILS approach, there is a localizer approach and I assume he misspoke. The autopilot would not be controlling the descent based on a glideslope signal.
What most likely happen is the crew did not input the correct MDA in the "altitude select" window or the auto pilot did not level off and the pilots being so tired didn't notice it. The other option is they just we're tired and went below the MDA too far away from the runway. How do I know this I'm an airline pilot.
Flightaware shows GS only. They could have been doing 250 at 10. They had normal decent rates during the arrival phase of flight. He even said they were doing 140kts KIAS before the crash so thats my point flightaware isnt a good source of VS and IAS. Fatigue is going to play a factor in this crash. Cargo pilots were not included into the new rest rules. This type of airplane has been written up in the past for malfunctioning avionics due to excess moisture in the avionics compartment.
Possible froward cargo shift due to the intense rates of decent may have also resulted in an undetectable forward GC which would not be recognizable until they tried to level off and assume a normal rate of decent which probably didn't occur until they were at or just inside the outer marker looking at the Flightaware data. Automated computer controlled aircraft with auto pilot trying to fly an un-stabilized approach with a possible forward CG, not what any aircraft is designed for.
They do a good job of a very difficult task.
I agree to a certain extent, comraderedcomando. Something to consider also is that this was before dawn. I wonder if we didn't have a case of a black hole illusion in play.
Flightware data shows them at almost 4k feet per minute decent through 9.5k and 6k feet. Then shows them at almost 5.5k feet per minute decent 6k through 3k. FAF altitude on the 18 Localizer and 18 GPS approaches is 2500. There is no ILS. These guys were also fast at 346knots at 10.5, Right at 300 at 9.5 busting the 250 speed limit, around 250 through 5k feet, and never got below about 220kts when the data ended. There was only about 4 minutes between10.5k feet and end of the data
Less than 1,000 feet off the ground?
I have a feeling it was a controlled crash into terrain but I could be wrong
brieifing?....it's NTSB
RIP cardboard boxes.