Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Continental TurboProp crash inbound for Buffalo

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Continental TurboProp crash inbound for Buffalo

Old 19th Feb 2009, 04:04
  #681 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 726
Some news media will find these comments. But I don’t think any reporter will ever use an aviation message website as a source.
Thank you for the best laugh I've had all week. You're obviously new around here.
llondel is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2009, 04:08
  #682 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: TX
Age: 48
Posts: 20
Yes,
I am new here. Brand new..
excru is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2009, 04:26
  #683 (permalink)  
Psychophysiological entity
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Tweet Rob_Benham Famous author. Well, slightly famous.
Age: 80
Posts: 4,871
The LHR/Staines Trident accident, whilst different in so many ways, was a case of 'disbelief, question, then fight the pusher' and included elements of poor airspeed monitoring coming close on the tail of configuration change (inadvertent).
Not to mention the captain suffering a grievous myocardial infarction at a crucial time.




Now, I'm just curious, but was post #699 written in invisible ink? I've read in every day, and may have to go back to pick through today's stuff to realize why this did not get a major reaction, but isn't it very important?
Loose rivets is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2009, 04:34
  #684 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: TX
Age: 48
Posts: 20
Everyone should read post 699
excru is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2009, 05:10
  #685 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Finland
Posts: 242
Everyone should read post 699
Very interesting.. and scary, if true. Any similar traps elsewhere?

OTOH, Colgan 3407 approached with a left turn to final, which should have kept it from the danger area. Also there was a post here from someone who said that the radar track from 3407 showed a slight deviation to the left of the ILS before it turned sharply right 180 degrees and went off the radar.

Also it was said that a following airplane had experienced slight lateral excursions on the ILS. Any significance?
snowfalcon2 is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2009, 05:13
  #686 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: CT
Age: 50
Posts: 32
Yeah, they joined from the South, ie. left traffic. Also, who ever heard of a flight director that would drive to 30 degrees pitch up?!?!? It may well be possible, but I've not seen it.
q100 is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2009, 05:47
  #687 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Correr es mi destino por no llevar papel
Posts: 1,418
Does the Q400 simply level off and start bleeding airspeed without any indications at all?
There are three (or two without IESI) speed tapes winding down (it's up actually, but the numbers go down). In my book that's as good indication as it gets.

Fancy building in such a death-trap as an autopilot without autothrottle and an FMS that needs lots of head-down two-pilot trouble-shooting and reprogramming?
There are many aeroplanes with A/P but without autothrottles out there (SAAB, CRJ, Challenger, ATR....) and as long as someone is paying attention to flying the aeroplane, it's not an issue. Which answers your second point: no FMS requires two properly trained pilots to fiddle with it simultaneously.

what I believe was reported by the NTSB: severe pitch and roll as a result of flap deploy.
Wrong! That's what the mediapersons wrote. What the NTSB said is that attitude excursions started after flaps being selected, not because of flaps extension. Post hoc ergo propter hoc strikes again.

Information has been received indicating it is possible to obtain a significant nose pitch up, in some cases as much as 30 degrees, if the glide slope is allowed to capture before established on centerline.
Lemmesee... ATR didn't allow GS capture before LOC capture. Neither did A320. Why do I have the feeling that Q400 doesn't either? Perhaps because my FCOM says so? There might be some false loc capture issues, but they are not applicable here as the aeroplane was established on proper localizer. Sorry pal, but this talk about 30° pitchup as a result of bad glideslope is distilled nonsense. I hope that you made it up and that no self-respecting safety committee would publish such a statement.

Maybe an adventure surcharge could be added to a Q400 ticket.
Yeah! And worldwide tripling of Q400 pilots' salaries, effective yesterday.
Clandestino is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2009, 05:57
  #688 (permalink)  
PJ2
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: BC
Age: 72
Posts: 2,448
Verifying the "note from the union" would be the first order of business - not doubting - verification is part of the process, even here. That said, the following quote leaves a question open:
Information has been received indicating it is possible to obtain a significant nose pitch up, in some cases as much as 30 degrees, if the glide slope is allowed to capture before established on centerline. Pilots who are preparing to configure and land have the potential to experience abrupt pitch up, slow airspeed, and approach to stall if conditions present themselves in a certain manner.
The note says, "before established on centerline". I assume the LOC is captured first, then the GS and I assume that there are separate controls for these two different capture modes, (such as "LOC", and "APPR" for the 320).

1. Does anyone know of an autopilot that captures the glideslope before the LOC?

2. We know that under certain circumstances of GS capture quite quickly after the LOC, the autopilot can pitch the airplane up significantly. I know it has occurred to an A330 so it can happen. I have seen these recommendations on occasion. Toronto's 6's (5's at the time), would occasionally provide an interesting GS capture.

Question: Is the recommendation to capture the LOC first, then engage (ARM) the GS mode? The note doesn't specify nor is it clear. It says centerline, not LOC.

Last edited by PJ2; 19th Feb 2009 at 06:00. Reason: Clandestino - I posted just after you but will let the question stand - that's my impression too - no A/P captures the Loc before the gs. PJ2
PJ2 is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2009, 06:11
  #689 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Virginia, USA
Age: 82
Posts: 77
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  
Old 19th Feb 2009, 06:13
  #690 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls ´old Europe´
Posts: 937
Does anybody have a link to a reliable report about the february 1991 incident with an A310, where pilot and autopilot were fighting for quite a while when performing a go-around in moscow, resulting in extreme pitchup maneuvres and a bent airplane. I just have the "read somewhere" third source report Here. Probably the official report is in russian?
Whau would happen if a pilot with low experience on an aircraft type start fighting aginst an autopilot he does not fully understand? Maybe even thinking the abnormal behaviour of the aircraft is due to icing, and not due to a system interfering with his idea of flying the airplane? The A330 crash (there is only one so far) was also related to pilots (Airbus test pilots!!!) not fully understanding all modes and tricks of the autopilot.

Probably the recommendation to fly the aircraft manually under certain conditions makes perfect sense!
Volume is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2009, 06:19
  #691 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Correr es mi destino por no llevar papel
Posts: 1,418
Dear PJ2:

First assumption correct.

1. none that I would know
2. with properly functioning F/D and AP: pitchup - yes, significant pitchup - very small chance, 30° pitchup - not a chance. Mind you: there were aeroplanes flying down that ILS both before and after the accident. We'd probably hear something about fluctuating GS from NTSB by now, if it were a factor.
3. can't say about the Colgan, there's no such a recommendation where I fly. It used to be SOP on B732s but not anymore on A320 and Q400.
Originally Posted by Volume
The A330 crash (there is only one so far) was also related to pilots (Airbus test pilots!!!) not fully understanding all modes and tricks of the autopilot.
That's what some PPRuNers say. Accident report does not support the view. Aviation safety network is your friend.
Clandestino is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2009, 06:23
  #692 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Virginia, USA
Age: 82
Posts: 77
Right wing sliced 2d House at low angle

On Mon, Feb 16, the NY Times published an aerial still photo of the scene, that was about 6x6 and much sharper than the TV videos. It shows that the right wing sliced through the adjacent house to the immediate south. It hit the back corner of the main 1-sty house (a rear ell addition is to the far side). It entered the sloping roof a bit above the gutter line, putting a down-pressure on the back wall. This left a door frame skewed to the right. The wing then came out the gable end side wall of the main house, its tip exiting a bit below the inside ceiling line, maybe cuts of ten feet each way more or less; not necessarily the same length.

There is not comparable damage to trees and outbuildings on the left side of the path, so the right wing was somewhat low. It may have been rolling lower, or it may have be rolling the other way. So the slope of the cut by the right wing-tip may not match the slope of the fuselage path. The tilt of the wings in flight may not match the tilt of the vert stabilizer as that came to rest.

It is hard to tell exactly the slope of the trajectory of the wing, due to the photo looking down, but I'd say it's about 1 in 8-- rather flat, more or less. Definitely between twice and half that. The plane did not come straight down by any means, nor at 45, nor even at 30 degrees.

The 2d story the Buffalo News will publish this morning is that this damaged house (it did not burn) hit by the wing will be demolished at some point after the family has removed their possessions. I hope the family receives enough to get another house or rebuild. Too often people are told that existing value is less than replacement cost.

OE

Last edited by Old Engineer; 19th Feb 2009 at 13:00. Reason: Sp correction at key word: "above" the gutter...
Old Engineer is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2009, 06:34
  #693 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Austria
Age: 59
Posts: 65
I do not quite understand how this discussion still be fixed on, deicer boots, AP without autothrottle, low position of FMS, response of power levers etc etc.. Earmarking the Q400 as a dangerous plane and on and on.

No solo student pilot on a sunny autum day must ever let the airspeed surprise him/herself. The same is true for a Airliner Multicrew Cockpit with passengers on board in an IMC approach at night.

This is not an airplane, or airplane sytem issue. This is a training problem we are dealing with and I do not mean Typerating. Especially in an AC new to a pilot one would assume that the instrument scan during approach is considered extra important in order to respond well in time to the reactions of a still relatively unknown AC. Same is true about strict adherence to the duties as PF and PNF.

Last edited by maxrpm; 19th Feb 2009 at 08:30.
maxrpm is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2009, 06:43
  #694 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Up North UK
Posts: 95
Q400 will not intercept the ILS glideslope before localiser. It is SOP at least in our company to APPR (arming LOC & GS) when cleared to establish on the localiser.

However, if APPR had been selected it is just possible that the localiser was captured (known as LOC*) just as the aircraft passed through the 'bad glideslope' signal referred to in #699, thus the aircraft/autopilot could then pitch up as it apparently did.

(p.s. The autopilot would then disconnect itself at +20 NU)

Last edited by Pontius's Copilot; 19th Feb 2009 at 07:12.
Pontius's Copilot is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2009, 06:50
  #695 (permalink)  
PJ2
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: BC
Age: 72
Posts: 2,448
Pontius's Copilot
Re the capture sequence, yes, thought so - it only makes sense of course.
However, if APPR had been selected it is just possible that the localiser was captured (known as LOC*) just as the aircraft passed through the 'bad glideslope' signal referred to in #699, thus the aircraft/autopilot could then pitch up as it apparently did.
Yes, seen it and experienced it. Not an issue really - quick disconnect etc, but I agree with Clandestino - 30deg pitch-up would not ordinarily be commanded - more like a couple or three degrees at most - five would be a lot.
PJ2 is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2009, 07:03
  #696 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 2
Clandestino:
> Sorry pal, but this talk about 30° pitchup as a result of
> bad glideslope is distilled nonsense. I hope that you made > it up and that no self-respecting safety committee would > publish such a statement.

At least twice, maybe three times in my career, I have had airplanes, namely the 737, below a GS, all-of-sudden, while on AP, lurch up to grab the GS. May not have been 30 degrees but it was an unusual attitude requiring quick disconnect of the AP. It happens. The ILS in Quito Ecuador is notorious for a moving GS signal. An airplane on AP is in for an undulating ride with Autothrottles chasing to keep up. It was easier just to click it all off.

Do be so quick to call it nonsense.
maxangleofdangle is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2009, 07:17
  #697 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: above it all
Posts: 365
Statement from the airline says the captain received 172 hours of formal training on the Q400.

Welcome to Pinnacle Airlines Corp. - Investor Relations - News Release
Finn47 is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2009, 07:22
  #698 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: france
Age: 58
Posts: 15
Just wondering...

One thing comes to my mind after seeing the NASA video about tailplane icing and reading the posts about the low speed hypotesis.

Could that be a trick for the crew that what the plane does to alert pilots about imminent stall ( shaking the stick, then pushing it forward ) is very similar to the symptoms of tailplane icing ( vibrations in the commands and not in the airframe AND strong nose down force on the stick ) ?
Charles. is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2009, 07:35
  #699 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 2
maxrpm:
No solo student pilot on a sunny autum day must ever let the airspeed surprise him/herself. The same is true for a Airliner Multicrew Cockpit with passengers on board in an IMC approach at night.

This is not an airplane, or airplane sytem issue. This is a training problem we are dealing with.


You'd think so. In a 757 simulator, engine out situation, autothrottles off per checklist. I'm running the checklist, partner is PF. We're given a descent of 1000'. Done in FLCH after setting in lower next altitude in the Mode Control Panel. Descent started, my head goes back into the checklist, PF levels off, forgets to add thrust on the good engine. Yes, until stick shaker gets both of our attentions, followed by a half snap roll upside down. My partner, believe it, wrestled with it and got it upright. Sim instructor freezes the sim and we debrief. Said he has seen this scenario many times with the usual result being a crash.
We didn't crash but it took some fancy stick and rudder work. PF, "You have to watch your speed. Autothrottle as crutches are no longer available". PM, me, scolded for not paying attention to what PF was doing, head in checklist, cheerfully along for the ride. PF was a highly experienced pilot and an instructor on another jet with the company. "To err is human". That's why we train so vigorously and are allowed to make mistakes so the only thing bruised is our ego.

777 allows Autothrottle (split switch for each engine) use with an engine out. Nice.
maxangleofdangle is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2009, 07:48
  #700 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Up North UK
Posts: 95
I wonder what's included in that calculation.

My employer does...
Three weeks classroom: 15 days @ 8h = 120h
11 simulator sessions (incl. CPT) @ 4h = 44h
Perhaps include Sim Briefings/Debriefings: 10 @ 2.5h = 25h
Line training: minimum 40 sectors @ at least 1h = 40h

Total 'formal training' here is well over 200h.
------------------------------------------

At 26t landing mass, VREF would be 121kt for a Flap 15 landing.
That is hardly relavent though, with Flap 5 selected on approach the minimum speed is 147kt (VREF137+10), or 157kt with the INCR REF Sw. selected ON. These are UK speeds, v slightly different in N.America.
Pontius's Copilot is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.