The Press at it Again (Continental Q400 crash)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: europe
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Press at it Again (Continental Q400 crash)
Video Library - wcbstv.com
Seems the "experts" have all crawled out of the woodwork again and are passing off their half baked conjectures and prejuduces as informed analysis of the Continental Q400 tragedy. This supposed NTSB type has it all figured out...you see, the crash occurred because the Dash 8 has wings and tail positioned so the crew cannot see them accumulating ice, therefore rendering them unable to determine when/whether to activate the de-icing systems.
Then the reporter chimes in about "little" airlines--of course--not being blessed with the kind of Air Force Academy "Sullies" like the "big" airlines are ! What brilliant analysis this would be, except for the fact (for starters) that even the vaunted U.S. Air Force does not recruit most of its pilots from its own Academy but from civilian universities. And, despite the huge military pilot output in the US, the majority of "Big-Airline" pilots there have civilian backgrounds.
But the NTSB guy concurs with the reporter, relating the crew's obvious lack of experience, compounded by the "little" airlines' well known lack of standardization as having played a part here. See, everybody?... how they like to keep things simple for us...Big=good..Little=bad...That's the lesson here...That and there are not enough "Sullies" out there flogging turboprops.
Yup, there you have it, mere hours after the event, with accompnying CG artwork ! :
1) the cause of the crash (Evidently, this was a sloppy and inexperienced crew. A couple of ex-fighter jocks... former Vietnam types are the best-if you can still get 'em..would have prevented this). And...
2) ...hints of the required remedial measures (Reposition the crew seats under individual bubble canopies somewhere at the top of the T-tail?....Are you listening, Bombardier?)
Is it just me or does this drivel disgust and repel anyone else on here? How can we trust the press to accurately cover, analyse and explain the really big, pressing problems of our age (worldwide financial mayhem/war and peace/terrorism/environmemtal collapse, etc. etc.) with any kind of nuanced reasonning and sobriety when this is what spews out of these guys every time an airplane goes down? This just disgusts me.
Seems the "experts" have all crawled out of the woodwork again and are passing off their half baked conjectures and prejuduces as informed analysis of the Continental Q400 tragedy. This supposed NTSB type has it all figured out...you see, the crash occurred because the Dash 8 has wings and tail positioned so the crew cannot see them accumulating ice, therefore rendering them unable to determine when/whether to activate the de-icing systems.
Then the reporter chimes in about "little" airlines--of course--not being blessed with the kind of Air Force Academy "Sullies" like the "big" airlines are ! What brilliant analysis this would be, except for the fact (for starters) that even the vaunted U.S. Air Force does not recruit most of its pilots from its own Academy but from civilian universities. And, despite the huge military pilot output in the US, the majority of "Big-Airline" pilots there have civilian backgrounds.
But the NTSB guy concurs with the reporter, relating the crew's obvious lack of experience, compounded by the "little" airlines' well known lack of standardization as having played a part here. See, everybody?... how they like to keep things simple for us...Big=good..Little=bad...That's the lesson here...That and there are not enough "Sullies" out there flogging turboprops.
Yup, there you have it, mere hours after the event, with accompnying CG artwork ! :
1) the cause of the crash (Evidently, this was a sloppy and inexperienced crew. A couple of ex-fighter jocks... former Vietnam types are the best-if you can still get 'em..would have prevented this). And...
2) ...hints of the required remedial measures (Reposition the crew seats under individual bubble canopies somewhere at the top of the T-tail?....Are you listening, Bombardier?)
Is it just me or does this drivel disgust and repel anyone else on here? How can we trust the press to accurately cover, analyse and explain the really big, pressing problems of our age (worldwide financial mayhem/war and peace/terrorism/environmemtal collapse, etc. etc.) with any kind of nuanced reasonning and sobriety when this is what spews out of these guys every time an airplane goes down? This just disgusts me.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The most confounding question asked to an "expert" I just so happened to catch was
" Is there a situation that a pilot would intentionally dive the plane straight into the ground to save lives on the ground?"
I watch as the "expert's" credibility hung in the balance, I noted the stupefied look on his face I thought ok he's human, he Answered " Um well no but, there are so many variable's and situations that could occur, but I cannot imagine as a pilot willingly controlling a plane into the ground with a possibility of saving lives" his eyes glazed over and continued the interview.
" Is there a situation that a pilot would intentionally dive the plane straight into the ground to save lives on the ground?"
I watch as the "expert's" credibility hung in the balance, I noted the stupefied look on his face I thought ok he's human, he Answered " Um well no but, there are so many variable's and situations that could occur, but I cannot imagine as a pilot willingly controlling a plane into the ground with a possibility of saving lives" his eyes glazed over and continued the interview.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha 
What a great clip from SNL. NO? Not SNL? You've got to be kidding.
I watched the video clip. No wonder this Yurman guy is a former NTSB investigator. He sounds more like someone (let's call him an expert, for now) who isn't a pilot and who has never flown in icing. You can't see the tail from the cockpit? No sh*t!!!
Maybe he needs to look at those smaller aircraft with NO de-ice boots on the tail and tell us what he thinks.
For me, this video is a completly incredible piece of journalism and only feeds the fear of those in the audience who are, and always will be, afraid of flying.
So who cares about this kind of crap?
While we may easily appreciate what's involved or likely to be the main contributing factor in this accident, I sure wouldn't give this interview a seconds worth of credibility.
Here's what's starting to puzzle me.
Apparently, 11 minutes after departing KEWR the de-ice boots were switched on. The boots cycled from that point till impact. I've also heard through NASA recommendations, the FAA have mandated the Q400 (and others) have its' de-ice boots on while in icing. It's been a few years since I flew with de-ice boots but I've always consider them as de-icing equipment, NOT anti-icicing.
How about yourselves???
Could it be possible? If so, I now understand why this beautiful brand new aircraft is no longer.
What a great clip from SNL. NO? Not SNL? You've got to be kidding.
I watched the video clip. No wonder this Yurman guy is a former NTSB investigator. He sounds more like someone (let's call him an expert, for now) who isn't a pilot and who has never flown in icing. You can't see the tail from the cockpit? No sh*t!!!
Maybe he needs to look at those smaller aircraft with NO de-ice boots on the tail and tell us what he thinks.
For me, this video is a completly incredible piece of journalism and only feeds the fear of those in the audience who are, and always will be, afraid of flying.
So who cares about this kind of crap?
While we may easily appreciate what's involved or likely to be the main contributing factor in this accident, I sure wouldn't give this interview a seconds worth of credibility.
Here's what's starting to puzzle me.
Apparently, 11 minutes after departing KEWR the de-ice boots were switched on. The boots cycled from that point till impact. I've also heard through NASA recommendations, the FAA have mandated the Q400 (and others) have its' de-ice boots on while in icing. It's been a few years since I flew with de-ice boots but I've always consider them as de-icing equipment, NOT anti-icicing.
How about yourselves???
Could it be possible? If so, I now understand why this beautiful brand new aircraft is no longer.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Europe
Age: 50
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bridging Myth
Leaving ice boots off to prevent "bridging" of ice that would prevent further attempts is an outdated procedure. Research has shown that bridging doesn't really occur and has never been a factor in any accident. Leaving the boots of when in ice has been of course (but doesn't seem to be a factor in this case though). So even before you are about to enter icing conditions, just turn on and leave on the boots. Check out the "latest" (10 years old) NASA info about deicing and boots (and the myth of bridging, starting around 5 minutes in the video, yes sound is a bit behind):
Icing for Regional & Corporate Pilots
This one is more interesting perhaps, concerning the Q400 case, about tailplane stall due to icing:
Tailplane Icing
Here's a video with the main NTSB guy involved in this case, explaining that AP switched on IS normal procedure and icing didn't appear severe:
BBC NEWS | Special Reports | US crash plane 'was on autopilot'
Icing for Regional & Corporate Pilots
This one is more interesting perhaps, concerning the Q400 case, about tailplane stall due to icing:
Tailplane Icing
Here's a video with the main NTSB guy involved in this case, explaining that AP switched on IS normal procedure and icing didn't appear severe:
BBC NEWS | Special Reports | US crash plane 'was on autopilot'
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: somewhere in Western Canada
Posts: 202
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know what worked for me when I dragged 4" of severe rime around the sky on my wings with decaying airspeed and funny vibrations.
I also know how quickly things improved when the boots were cycled, not left ON.
Leave the de-icing equipment ON? No thanks.
Ground all turboprops????
Why stop there??
If icing conditions exist, ground everything capable of flying!
Now we're talking.
Maybe the ground-all-turboprops advocates need some 'critical thinking' time.
Regulators contributed to this accident by advocating de-icing equipment be operated continuously in icing conditions. The crew followed their edict. Let's see what that crew thinks of that edict now.
Sorry guys and gals, tunneling is a reality. It's dangerous and could kill you. Ask anyone flying 'up north'.
I also know how quickly things improved when the boots were cycled, not left ON.
Leave the de-icing equipment ON? No thanks.
Ground all turboprops????
Why stop there??
If icing conditions exist, ground everything capable of flying!
Now we're talking.
Maybe the ground-all-turboprops advocates need some 'critical thinking' time.
Regulators contributed to this accident by advocating de-icing equipment be operated continuously in icing conditions. The crew followed their edict. Let's see what that crew thinks of that edict now.
Sorry guys and gals, tunneling is a reality. It's dangerous and could kill you. Ask anyone flying 'up north'.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: europe
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very nice finds, Clear of Conflict...I admit I was still a member of the "Old School" thinking about when to blow the boots, but then I haven't flown with boots for a few years now. However, the video seems to be saying the Old school thinking may still actually apply to older airplanes and, in any case, refer to the POH.
All of which re-enforces the conclusion, in my mind, that many of these issues are not at all clear cut or something anyone should expound on without proper research and background knowledge, least of all the Brylcreem Boys from the Media
All of which re-enforces the conclusion, in my mind, that many of these issues are not at all clear cut or something anyone should expound on without proper research and background knowledge, least of all the Brylcreem Boys from the Media
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was watching CNN, when the anchor said "the airplane was made in Canada so it should be capable of flying in winter conditions". My jaw hit the floor, do these guys think before they talk?
Dave F.
Dave F.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Age: 41
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mainstream media does not portray the facts....it hasn't for decades. Are you kidding....you believe what you hear on CNN??!!
Before you really take anything you hear thru mainstream media, check to see what weapons company, or government (not officially obviously...remember Halliburton?) or heck, even a deicing equipment manufacturer owns them.
Mainstream media's first objective is to make money, not report the facts.
Stop watching mainstream media and you'll lower your blood pressure.
But I agree with the discussion about deicing.
Before you really take anything you hear thru mainstream media, check to see what weapons company, or government (not officially obviously...remember Halliburton?) or heck, even a deicing equipment manufacturer owns them.
Mainstream media's first objective is to make money, not report the facts.
Stop watching mainstream media and you'll lower your blood pressure.
But I agree with the discussion about deicing.
