Airbus A330 registered to UPS down in Birmingham, AL

UPS cargo plane crashes, explodes at Alabama airport - U.S. News

UPS cargo plane crashes, explodes at Alabama airport.

A large cargo plane crashed early Wednesday morning near the airport in Birmingham, Ala., city police confirmed to NBC News.

The aircraft was a UPS cargo plane, Flight 1354, that crashed at about 6am at Birmingham-Shuttlesworth International Airport, the Federal Aviation Administration said, and was an Airbus A300 coming from Louisville, Ky.

UPS has "been notified of an incident involving one of our aircraft near Birmingham," the company said on its official Twitter feed.

The crash caused at least two explosions and strewed debris across a long path, according to NBC News affiliate WVTM. The plane crashed in an open field owned by the airport, WVTM reported. Police said no homes were affected by the crash.

The pilot and co-pilot were aboard when the plane went down, said Birmingham Mayor William Bell told the TODAY Show, but declined to comment on the condition of the crew. There was no unusual weather before the crash, and it was unknown if there were any mechanical issues, Bell said.

There was no immediate information on whether or not there were any people killed or injured in the crash.

This is a breaking news story and will be updated.
.

 

It is an A300-600 that went down.

Crash: UPS A306 at Birmingham on Aug 14th 2013, touched down outside airport

 

Looks like both the pilot and copilot were killed unfortunately

2 dead in Alabama crash of UPS flight - CNN.com

 

Crash: UPS A306 at Birmingham on Aug 14th 2013, touched down outside airport

Images of the crashed plane and shows it's location in relation to the runway.

 

Unfortunately the crew apparently did not survive.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9evXl7f2Fs]Raw Video UPS Jet Crashes Pilot and Co Pilot Dead Birmingham Alabama - YouTube[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IyHaa8D8HI]UPS Airbus Plane Crash Birmingham Alabama | News Video - YouTube[/ame]

 

There is already another thread...

 

This link shows 2 approach charts, both non - precision approaches for runway 18. The crash site appears to be inline with runway 18.

As many of you know, airports are typically dark areas in a sea of lights. Is it possible the crew mistook the dark area for the airport? Both are preceded by a prominent road.

I hope this isn't the case. But it appears based on the long wreckage trail and intact forward fuselage, that the plane was in stable (level) approach attitude when it hit the ground. I'm assuming it didn't run out of fuel based on the fire.

Just my thoughts.... The crew is somewhat familiar with the airport, having been there before a few times. They're shooting a non precision approach and break out of the clouds. They see the somewhat familiar road followed by a dark area. The continue descent looking for runway lights. They hit the ground in approach attitude......Again, just some thoughts. My thoughts. Based on very little evidence. Almost none. Just a few pictures.

Hopefully I'm wrong.......

 

Are you saying that this airport does not have runway lights?

 

No, just that it is very dark in the area before the runway.

The localizer approach to runway 18 is actually prohibited at night, FYI.

I believe they were doing a visual approach.

 

Some witnesses are now saying the aircraft appeared to be having engine trouble as it approached, and at least one reported that it was already on fire, but of course those reports often tend to be false.

But it is possible that the plane was coming in on 18 because it had a problem and couldn't make it to the longer runway? When you've got a problem, any runway will be better than the one that you can't reach.

 

Ah yes, the 'ole "It had engine trouble and was on fire" witness report. lol

I just hope this isn't another Asiana crash (where the plane was flown into the ground). They did not declare an emergency I don't think.

 

Exactly. If it was on fire with engine failure, they would have said something.

 

Runway 18 looks narrow in the photo. It would have runway lights, but probably no approach lighting system.

Not sure what mechanical failures other than dual engine could cause a short landing in what looks like a normal approach attitude.

Time will tell I'm sure.

Leaving Tokyo for LAX now. Looking forward to more info in the morning....

Lou

 

The second video....


This is great...


"...we don't know what the cargo plane was carrying, but of course, it has all that DIESEL FUEL on board..."

Unbelievable.

 

A visual approach in clouds?? I don't think so.

 

Stranger things have happened.....

 

" Eye witness" reports quote that the " engine was sputtering and then the engine was on fire". Then the Birmingham TV reporter said that there was " diesel fuel on board." I have realized before that the TV personalities here in the Seattle area are some of the best, if not the best in their reporting knowledge not only on aviation matters but everything else. It appears that these guys had a problem with recognizing where the end of the runway was. Sad.

 

If they were on approach then I'm sure what they mistook as engine trouble was just the engines spooling up and down to maintain speed.

 

Unless you consider the road to be part of the runway environment they had no reason to continue a descent below 1200 ft (MSL). Which would make this another case of pilot error. Odds are this is the case.

Wonder why they choose that approach versus the other runway which appears to have a precision approach (wind was calm).

 

Why would they be in the clouds? It was broken clouds at 3,500 at the time.

 

My knowledge of flying is limited (ok, that's an understatement). Anyway, in looking at those photos, it appears the approach was perpendicular to the run way. Not sure I understand how that happens w/ pilots who, presumably, fly w/ some degree of regularity into a large airport.

Stupid, stupid question, so brace yourself; in looking at the photo of planes's front, the impact does not appear to have damaged the actual interior cockpit area. What kills the pilots? Was thinking immediate stop (i.e. hitting brick wall), but appears as those forces are dramatically reduced as the plane skids along the impact field.

 

Footage on the news shows it hit trees and powerlines before touching down in the field. Looks to have been very low well before the runway.

John

 

METAR also states FEW011. How far does a METAR extend from the airport? I've seen automated reports state sky clear when 1/2 mile there is still thick fog.

 

I don't see perpendicular The plane was flying south in line with and parallel to runway 18 (the narrow runway, not the wide northeast/southwest one). Runway 18 means the landing heading is 180 degrees, or directly south.

There's enough damage on the bottom of the cockpit area that it could have been fatal. Injuries might have been from the chest down, for instance. There could also have been whiplash or other issues due to impact. But we won't know for awhile.