PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Continental TurboProp crash inbound for Buffalo
Old 19th Feb 2009, 06:11
  #689 (permalink)  
Old Engineer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Virginia, USA
Age: 86
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
More on Chealander's 3rd Briefing

Continuing (from #690) my account of Chealander's remarks at his 3rd press meeting:

5. (continued... the second engine had two blades missing which were found at the crash scene, which meant that both engines operated to the point of the crash.)

6. FBI determined the planes axis at the crash scene lay at 77 magnetic.

7. The Buffalo News has posted two stories which are dated for publication this coming morning, Thurs 2.19.'09, one including items from this briefing and jogging my memory on icing boot valves found as 5 of 6-- I think it was also 6 of 6 on other side as well-- which per Chealander indicated this deicing was working.

8. Further on icing (Buf News has this right also), only severe icing per pirep at this time was at Dunkirk, some large distance to the south.

9. Given that severe icing was not reported at the scene, Cheaslander did not take exception to the continued use of autopilot-- I'd say he was somewhat non-committal. (Buf News said that the crew reported "significant" icing, which was taken as not fitting the formal list 'slight, moderate, serious.')

10. He said an investigator told him that "if the wings were iced, the tail was iced." (prepared remark).

11. He said that 15 flaps was correct choice, only 15 and 35 available (sic) with 35 used only in very unusual situations, so a mistaken setting was very unlikely. (I think this was a Q/A remark, and I cannot explain his omission of 5 and 10 flaps mentioned on Pprune, unless it's that Colgair policy prohibits use of 5 and 10.) No discussion of unsymmetry or partial retraction that I recall; possibly that wasn't in the question.

12. He said that the stick-pusher activated, and I got the inference that it was at this point that the A/P disconnected.

13. Chealander never said that the pilots put the engines to full power at this point (except I did miss a last Q/A, as I mentioned). He did not say anything about that, AFAIK, except that to say at another point, as I mentioned previously, that the engines were running [full power, I think] when the A/C hit the ground. Nor do I recall him saying that the pilots pulled back against the stick pusher.

I was particularly listening for engine and stick inputs from any cause including the pilots, because I had been trying to construct a vertical profile of the flight trajectory. I do not know where the WSJ got their idea that both these actions occurred at this point. At some later point (plane at flying speed and wings sufficiently level), the pilots obviously had to pull back on the stick, and did do so (see my next post). But WSJ looks to have some events out of sequence and seems to be accepting unproven causes of others-- and from unnamed "inside" sources.

OE

Last edited by Old Engineer; 19th Feb 2009 at 06:54. Reason: Added 2 briefing points missed.
Old Engineer is offline