Safety board finds multiple errors in UPS crash

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    Sept. 10, 2014 6:06 a.m.

    When a pilot tunes in ATIS, he expects current information. The approach control and tower didn’t give them information as the pilots would indicate they had the current ATIS data.

    For 13 minutes, since it was night time and especially since the weather was not as the pilot expected, he could have held for a few minutes and landed on the normal runway. Daylight gives so much more visibility to hazards.

    The report doesn’t indicate what non-flight operations the crew were discussing. Why did the first-officer put in the wrong information? Was that fatigue or was it because they were having things happen the company and FAA didn’t tell them about.

    If the pilot expected visual conditions based on the lack of information otherwise, he should have been able to fly a normal type of approach.

    The Company didn't do their part in training and enforcing FAA and their own rules. The aircraft manufacturer and UPS didn't do their part in maintaining the aircraft to expected standards.

    "The board isn't going to sacrifice our credibility to make that point," Sumwalt said but then criticized UPS' safety culture,

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    Sept. 10, 2014 5:59 a.m.

    If one reads the NTSB report, this an accident was waiting to happen. It was not just a crew problem it was the whole system that was to provide them information and procedures, crashed.

    The one NTSB investigator stated he was concerned about the board’s credibility but the whole report is full of holes that any pilot would question their credibility.

    The report blamed the pilots as the cause of the crash. The pilot-in-command does take some responsibility as he was the final link in the broken chain. However, he didn’t know about the weather conditions due to his own company and also at the destination due to the FAA. There are significant lapses in the report linking blame and causes on the company and FAA.

    The closed runway that would have given them 5,000 feet more distance was to be opened in 13 minutes. The report doesn’t indicate when it actually opened nor how many times these pilots had used the runway and approach they were doing. If 3 airlines quit using that runway after the accident, maybe the criteria for that approach and runway was in error, especially at night and obscured visibility conditions.