UPS Flight 1354 was a pre-dawn cargo flight from Louisville to Birmingham on August 14, 2013. The Airbus A300-600 crashed short of Runway 18 during a nighttime nonprecision approach. Both pilots were killed. The NTSB’s investigation pinpoints what went wrong and offers durable lessons for families and practitioners.
What the NTSB found
-
Unstabilized approach, no go-around. The crew continued an unstabilized localizer approach, did not adequately monitor altitude, and descended below the minimum descent altitude before the runway was in sight—ending in controlled flight into terrain.
-
Fatigue as a contributor. The captain displayed performance deficiencies; the first officer had acute sleep loss. Fatigue was cited among contributing factors degrading monitoring and decision-making.
-
Procedural and communication misses. The flight management computer was not properly configured for the profile; required callouts (e.g., “minimums”) were missed; the captain’s intentions were not clearly briefed as the vertical profile went off-plan.
The durable lessons
1) Stabilized approach criteria must be enforced
Nonprecision approaches at night demand strict gate criteria (speed, descent rate, configuration) and a no-fault go-around culture when any element is off. Altitude cross-checks against MDA are non-negotiable.
2) Fatigue management isn’t abstract
Cargo schedules create circadian and sleep challenges. The record shows how acute sleep loss can erode monitoring, callouts, and decision-making. Fatigue risk management systems (FRMS), training, and scheduling policies are part of a carrier’s safety case.
3) Briefing, automation mode, and callouts matter
Profile programming and mode awareness (what the airplane will actually do) must match the procedure. Required callouts (“minimums,” deviations) are safety nets; when they’re absent, errors propagate.
4) Data sources drive truth
Families often ask “what evidence exists?” In events like 1354, investigators align:
-
ATC audio/radar for timing and tracks,
-
FDR parameters for vertical profile/energy state, and
-
CVR transcripts (audio itself is restricted by law) for crew intent and fatigue cues.
How this translates to civil cases
-
Standards of care: Part 121 operations manuals, training programs, and stabilized-approach policies frame the duties owed. Deviations from company procedures and industry guidance are probative.
-
Fatigue evidence: schedules, sleep/wake histories, and FRMS records can corroborate impairment and inform punitive-exposure arguments where warranted.
-
Evidence timing: ATC data, ramp/facility video, and maintenance/dispatch records are time-sensitive; early preservation protects the record while NTSB proceeds on a separate track.
References & Further Reading
-
NTSB Accident Page — UPS 1354 (DCA13MA133): summary, docket links, and materials. ntsb.gov
-
NTSB Aircraft Accident Report AAR-14/02 — Crash During a Nighttime Nonprecision Instrument Approach to Landing, UPS Flight 1354 (full findings, probable cause, factors, and recommendations). Library Online
-
NTSB Executive Summary/Abstract (UPS 1354) — concise synopsis of findings and cause. ntsb.gov
-
NTSB Most Wanted: Reduce Fatigue-Related Accidents — fatigue risk context and 1354 reference. ntsb.gov
(This historical overview is neutral and factual and relies on NTSB determinations and publicly released materials.)
0 Comments