NTSB companion video on UPS 1354 crash investigation

Although this video is intended to be more of an informational/advisory video for professional pilots, I found it still informative (from a no n-pilot stand point) on the particulars of the accident that day.

The National Transportation Safety Board today released an 8-minute video that focuses on the key lessons that pilots can learn from the investigation of a UPS cargo plane crash in Birmingham, Ala., in August 2013.

The video is a first-ever such companion to an official NTSB report. The Board plans to produce other videos in the future on major accidents.

“People consume information and absorb lessons in different ways,” said NTSB Chairman Christopher A. Hart. “This video is another way to reach pilots and aviation safety professionals with the lessons we learned through our investigative work.”

The video is aimed at commercial and other professional pilots, but many of the lessons of the accident apply to every pilot – for example, avoiding unstable approaches.

www.ntsb.gov...

a reply to: Sammamishman

There's a lot of back and forth between the NTSB and FAA over this type of approach. The NTSB wants to stop them, and the FAA won't without more accidents.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I think I'm on the NTSB's side. I'd hate to be on the one plane that gets the decision made in favor of the NTSB's point of view.

a reply to: Sammamishman

The problem is that not enough people have died for the FAA to get off their ass and act yet.

if the FAA think that a particular aviation practice is safe - theier staff should demonstrate
it -with an aircraft full of thier families

From my impression of the video, not setting all the navigation data correctly was a big balls up for the confusion and crash. Is it common to not set all the flight data for these bigger planes? With so many different types of planes are there are lot of different navigation systems as well?

a reply to: kwakakev

Fatigue played a role in this accident.

This type of approach is called a dive and drive approach. Instead of a constant rate of descent they'll descend, level off, the descend again.

The FAA had this to say:

The FAA does not agree, stating that while a CDFA is the “preferred method” of accomplishing a non-precision approach, dive and drive use should not be prohibited. “In certain situations, primarily dependent on weather conditions and runway alignment in combination with runway visibility, a dive and drive maneuver could benefit an operator,” the FAA wrote in its December 2014 final response to the recommendation, noting that potential problems with the technique are spelled out in an Advisory Circular.

m.aviationweek.com...

Re-posting the video from its release today via the official NTSB YT since the original one was removed.

a reply to: DaMac

Thanks!