Continental TurboProp crash inbound for Buffalo
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight Safety may be correct about confusing the tailplane stall scenario with the Saab...we shall see.
Chuks...talking about attitude and the like. IF you are demonstrating stalls and trying to be graceful and smooth, your plan is fine. IF YOU ARE REALLY STALLED, the heck with attitudes, just push, don' t think...push. Being smooth is just fine...until it doesn't work. I've taught flying (former CFIIMEI) and in the real world, if you really stall without planning it, INSTINCT has to take over.
One of my students was in a real, life and death stall as he maneuvered to avoid traffic using the wrong traffic pattern at a high mountain area airport. Years after his lessons he came up to me and told me that pushing, without thought, saved his family.
ACMS, of course the height above ground is a vital part of stall recovery (or its brother, windshear recovery), but in the simulator we look at about 100 feet...if the BUF crash had lost 500 feet and recovered to flying speed by using the blind PUSH technique that I wrote about, wouldn't that truly be better than spinning into the ground? I've done the technique you talk about for the 737 in the sim, other jets too. Someday, if you are flying around and you lose an engine while you are stalling, just push!!!!!!!
Long ago it was always taught....better to crash into the ground UNDER CONTROL and NOT STALLED than to just spin in, fully stalled.
Chuks...talking about attitude and the like. IF you are demonstrating stalls and trying to be graceful and smooth, your plan is fine. IF YOU ARE REALLY STALLED, the heck with attitudes, just push, don' t think...push. Being smooth is just fine...until it doesn't work. I've taught flying (former CFIIMEI) and in the real world, if you really stall without planning it, INSTINCT has to take over.
One of my students was in a real, life and death stall as he maneuvered to avoid traffic using the wrong traffic pattern at a high mountain area airport. Years after his lessons he came up to me and told me that pushing, without thought, saved his family.
ACMS, of course the height above ground is a vital part of stall recovery (or its brother, windshear recovery), but in the simulator we look at about 100 feet...if the BUF crash had lost 500 feet and recovered to flying speed by using the blind PUSH technique that I wrote about, wouldn't that truly be better than spinning into the ground? I've done the technique you talk about for the 737 in the sim, other jets too. Someday, if you are flying around and you lose an engine while you are stalling, just push!!!!!!!
Long ago it was always taught....better to crash into the ground UNDER CONTROL and NOT STALLED than to just spin in, fully stalled.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In thinking about this some more, the fact that they let the airspeed decay, and may have confused the stick shaker with a tailplane stall, suggests this ultimately may have been a fatigue accident. The NTSB in the public hearings want to discuss training, cold weather operations, and fatigue, amoung other things.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not just NTSB but other interested parties. One of the purposes (and, perhaps, strengths) of the public hearing is that it provides a formal venue whereby "outsiders" can throw their own theories, ideas and, yes, prejudices onto the table. I'd be astonished if, say, the pilot representatives don't bring at least some of those topics up.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what's not to like about "smooth"?
I would humbly suggest that the very last time you want to be rough with the controls is when you are in a real critical situation. You may only have one chance to get it right so that smooth (but positive, of course) is the only way to go.
I have always believed in visualising the attitude you want out of your aircraft and then trying to make that happen with smooth control inputs. If it won't move in the right direction you put more in but still smoothly.
Okay, you can get into these "stick in all four corners of the cockpit" situations but they are extremely rare in civil aviation. I have only seen that in really rough air in real life or in windshear training in the sim, when, yes, all bets are off and you are just fighting to survive.
You know how the aircraft is going to try to self-recover from the stall anyway, when the nose is going to drop. Often it can just be a matter of stopping pulling to allow it to drop smoothly, along with a smooth rolling of the wings to level.
Why a "smooth" roll? Aileron reversal! You whack in a big, rough roll input and you may get a big surprise from that sudden increase in Alpha on the "down" wing.
There is no one right way to fly, of course but I was taught, and practice has shown me, that "smooth" is better than "rough". Check out that crazy Bob Hoover routine with the Shrike. Do you see him being rough on the controls?
Once the report on this crash comes out let us look at the graphs to see if the controls were handled roughly or smoothly. I know what I am betting on but I am happy to wait to see what went on there.
I have always believed in visualising the attitude you want out of your aircraft and then trying to make that happen with smooth control inputs. If it won't move in the right direction you put more in but still smoothly.
Okay, you can get into these "stick in all four corners of the cockpit" situations but they are extremely rare in civil aviation. I have only seen that in really rough air in real life or in windshear training in the sim, when, yes, all bets are off and you are just fighting to survive.
You know how the aircraft is going to try to self-recover from the stall anyway, when the nose is going to drop. Often it can just be a matter of stopping pulling to allow it to drop smoothly, along with a smooth rolling of the wings to level.
Why a "smooth" roll? Aileron reversal! You whack in a big, rough roll input and you may get a big surprise from that sudden increase in Alpha on the "down" wing.
There is no one right way to fly, of course but I was taught, and practice has shown me, that "smooth" is better than "rough". Check out that crazy Bob Hoover routine with the Shrike. Do you see him being rough on the controls?
Once the report on this crash comes out let us look at the graphs to see if the controls were handled roughly or smoothly. I know what I am betting on but I am happy to wait to see what went on there.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clandesdino says:
The reason lies in that NASA study of 30-40 years ago; Because you "were the autothrottle", you were a basic part of the control loop, and not merely a monitor. 
The fact that I'm posting here somewhat contradicts claims that aeroplanes with autopilot but without autothrottle are death-traps.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: At home
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
suggests this ultimately may have been a fatigue accident.
to me, the call for a hearing implies that NTSB have now identified six "slices of Swiss cheese" which became stacked so that the holes lined up.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
extremely rare in civil aviation...so are crashes.
In one plane I flew, when it gets into a deep stall, you must push the ''stick'' all the way forward to the stop to get ouf ot the stall. This particular plane, of which I speak, is a t tail jet and doesn't have a pusher.
while I agree with you, smoothness is usually very, very good, the learned survival instinct of pushing forward might just save your life...I've seen pilots smoothly apply rudder to get back to the centerline and ended up almost in the weeds.
I do wish that more airlines would do a few hours in the actual plane...no matter how good sims are, the plane is different.
In one plane I flew, when it gets into a deep stall, you must push the ''stick'' all the way forward to the stop to get ouf ot the stall. This particular plane, of which I speak, is a t tail jet and doesn't have a pusher.
while I agree with you, smoothness is usually very, very good, the learned survival instinct of pushing forward might just save your life...I've seen pilots smoothly apply rudder to get back to the centerline and ended up almost in the weeds.
I do wish that more airlines would do a few hours in the actual plane...no matter how good sims are, the plane is different.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is unusual!
Which sort of t-tail jet is it that needs this push forward?
You mean it would just sit there in a deep stall, nose-up, unless you give it the necessary push nose-down? Which is it and how did it get certified with such stall characteristics? I have never heard of an airplane without a pusher that would behave that way.
Well, I am assuming that it was not trimmed full nose-up on the way into the stall, of course. I suppose you could induce this behaviour by doing that, yes. That isn't the way you are supposed to do a stall in training, is it?
I was playing with my motorcycle on a training course on a closed circuit when I lost the front end. Normally this results in a crash but I was lucky enough to recover. The man following got the bigger fright when my machine suddenly assumed this very weird angle and just as suddenly recovered. The key to the recovery was smoothness, something I learned from flying.
I think you all know what I mean about a man-machine interface we need. Roughness can destroy that to leave us just sat there stirring the controls without having much effect on the outcome of a situation or even making it worse by getting into a PIO (Pilot-Induced Oscillation, a sub-set of SBS, for Sh1t Behind the Stick).
Of course some aircraft just fly like pigs anyway, there is that too, when you need something to be smooth with!
As I wrote, it will be interesting to read the accident report on this one, when I think it will have something for all of us to learn from. No real idea what, at this point, I am happy to wait for the report.
You mean it would just sit there in a deep stall, nose-up, unless you give it the necessary push nose-down? Which is it and how did it get certified with such stall characteristics? I have never heard of an airplane without a pusher that would behave that way.
Well, I am assuming that it was not trimmed full nose-up on the way into the stall, of course. I suppose you could induce this behaviour by doing that, yes. That isn't the way you are supposed to do a stall in training, is it?
I was playing with my motorcycle on a training course on a closed circuit when I lost the front end. Normally this results in a crash but I was lucky enough to recover. The man following got the bigger fright when my machine suddenly assumed this very weird angle and just as suddenly recovered. The key to the recovery was smoothness, something I learned from flying.
I think you all know what I mean about a man-machine interface we need. Roughness can destroy that to leave us just sat there stirring the controls without having much effect on the outcome of a situation or even making it worse by getting into a PIO (Pilot-Induced Oscillation, a sub-set of SBS, for Sh1t Behind the Stick).
Of course some aircraft just fly like pigs anyway, there is that too, when you need something to be smooth with!
As I wrote, it will be interesting to read the accident report on this one, when I think it will have something for all of us to learn from. No real idea what, at this point, I am happy to wait for the report.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Canada
Age: 82
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PTH wrote:
"In one plane I flew, when it gets into a deep stall, you must push the ''stick'' all the way forward to the stop to get ouf ot the stall. This particular plane, of which I speak, is a t tail jet and doesn't have a pusher."
And Chuks asked:
Which sort of t-tail jet is it that needs this push forward?
DC9??
"In one plane I flew, when it gets into a deep stall, you must push the ''stick'' all the way forward to the stop to get ouf ot the stall. This particular plane, of which I speak, is a t tail jet and doesn't have a pusher."
And Chuks asked:
Which sort of t-tail jet is it that needs this push forward?
DC9??
The stick shaker seems to have activated when itīs supposed to. But since it only took two seconds for the stall and roll upset to start, whoever pulled back on the controls either had lightning quick reflexes - or was pulling already when the stick shaker activated? 2 seconds is not much...
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Idle Thrust...you win! Chuks, here is your answer.
Idle thrust is right, the DC9, if in a deep stall, requires full forward movement of the yoke to activate the hydraulic ram to insure ''nose down'' elevator movement.
It doesn't have a pusher. It is not required. And believe me, if you miss the stall warning in the DC9 you must be blind and deaf!
It doesn't have a pusher. It is not required. And believe me, if you miss the stall warning in the DC9 you must be blind and deaf!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...isn't flying the airplane.
This does sound like a serious case of expecting and anticipating the worst (a tail stall) and missing the obvious (speed)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is unfortunate that commuters with their low pay and benefits need to accept underqualified people to fill these positions. Sully is right. Didn't think his prediction of bad things to happen because of bad pay and pensions would happen this soon. It already had happened but soon it will also be a problem with the majors.
I'm not a pilot, have been following this thread, and it seems there is renewed discussion of the "tail stall" theory.
Really, how likely is it that an airline pilot, faced with a stall warning/stick shaker in a situation like this would first think "tailplane stall" rather than the more likely reaction? Not saying this didn't happen - how would I know? - just that it seems a highly unlikely default reaction.
Really, how likely is it that an airline pilot, faced with a stall warning/stick shaker in a situation like this would first think "tailplane stall" rather than the more likely reaction? Not saying this didn't happen - how would I know? - just that it seems a highly unlikely default reaction.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No one I have ever met. 23,000 hrs behind me this is the first time I ever heard of it. It must be a problem with a few planes but stall recovery and stick shaker was always the same with all my training, max power, lower the nose and try to not lose much altitude. Windsheer drills were always close to the ground so that was the only time we favored keeping the nose as high as we could nudging stick shaker.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really, how likely is it that an airline pilot, faced with a stall warning/stick shaker in a situation like this would first think "tailplane stall" rather than the more likely reaction?
With the evidence at hand it seems it is likely that the stick was pulled back quite quickly and quite hard after the stick shaker...
So you should be asking... ' Why would that happen?'
GPWS ?
Fear of diving into the ground ??
or a more sensible reason? Such as a pre-occupation with an iced-plane and a powerful point making tail-stall instructional video hammering away in the back of the pilot's mind?
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing... especially in technical matters.
It seems lately with 3 or 4 accidents/incidents, that strong, clear and precise, TYPE-SPECIFIC operational information & training is lacking, and generic experience alone, not enough.
Much more cross-pollination & dissemination of vital operational information is needed, in maintenance as well as in the cockpit - IMHO
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
or a more sensible reason? Such as a pre-occupation with an iced-plane and a powerful point making tail-stall instructional video hammering away in the back of the pilot's mind?
Think you just hit the nail square on the head
Think you just hit the nail square on the head