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 28th Mar 2009, 22:55
  #961 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
the point about the airspeed indicator is that it is a large instrument in the world of steam gauges

and in the world of EFIS, its not so big.

a mistake in the making
protectthehornet is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2009, 23:03
  #962 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Same goes for the altimeter.

Anyone want to defend the advances in flight safety made possible by the introduction of tapes and abandoning the discipline of the 'T' scan?
MU3001A is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2009, 00:50
  #963 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
They screwed up if they didn't land straight in. Anybody can overfly an airport and circle to land that knows how to fly. The Aircal (Air California) then, refused to go around when tower ordered it. He ended up botching a go around and destroyed the aircraft. I flew with him in that aircraft several days before the crash. He was a captain that thought he was better than others. It taught me a lot about humility. The copilot was on the first day on the job so was not about to correct him. Landing dead stick straight in was a common approach for us, we could have continued to an unspooled landing but always did the mandatory spool up at 1000 ft. Flying corporate we often had contests to see if we could go idle power at FL350 and land with no power and it wasn't that hard.
bubbers44 is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2009, 01:33
  #964 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Guys, This is all well and good, but remember you have passengers in the back.

These kind of approaches are dangerous. They leave little or no room for error.

Side slipping a large swept wing aircraft is bad. Bad things can happen very fast at a low altitude.

Mach
mach71 is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2009, 17:48
  #965 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If I recall correctly from one of the NTSB briefings, it was stated that full power was applied 6 seconds after the upset began. So application of engine power could not have caused the initial pitch up.
Flight Safety is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2009, 01:44
  #966 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
six seconds is a heck of a long time...could pilot impairment be considered?
protectthehornet is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2009, 13:46
  #967 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
pilot impairment?

those that have listened to the CVR tapes will know that they crew was distracted, chatting about what they would do on the layover. The did a slow decent from cruise altitude and had no auto throttles on the aircraft.
they screwed up
jumbocpt is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2009, 14:16
  #968 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montgomery, NY, USA
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
those that have listened to the CVR tapes will know that they crew was distracted, chatting about what they would do on the layover. The did a slow decent from cruise altitude and had no auto throttles on the aircraft.
they screwed up
Has this been reported somewhere yet? Did I miss something?
patrickal is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2009, 17:03
  #969 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Correr es mi destino por no llevar papel
Posts: 1,436
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by protectthehornet
the point about the airspeed indicator is that it is a large instrument in the world of steam gauges
and in the world of EFIS, its not so big.
a mistake in the making
Not true.

The difference between panel surface occupied by circular electromechanical ASI and speed tape is largely insignificant. However, as the operating speeds range has to be covered in less than one sweep of ASI hand, knots on classic ASI tend to stick close together, making precise speed control by reference to ASI alone somewhat difficult. That's why most of classic and first generation EFIS ADIs have fast/slow pointer, indexed to ASI's internal speed bug. Surprise, surprise - it's just where the speed tape is on modern EFIS is, immediately left of attitude display. Speed tape display on Q400 has its knots evenly and widely spread. Compared to the ASIs of old, it has some other advantages like: speed trend arrow, digital speed readout and low speed cue. Also digital readout and pointer turn red if one somehow fails to spot the low speed cue creeping up and reaching the pointer. So how did the crew fail to notice the dropping airspeed? I have no idea. I'll wait for NTSB to tell me.

Originally Posted by MU300
Anyone want to defend the advances in flight safety made possible by the introduction of tapes and abandoning the discipline of the 'T' scan?
T-scan is alive and well in the cockpits of Q400 or, for that matter, any other EFIS cockpit with speed tapes. Actually it has been made easier by putting the IVSI just right of the altitude tape - quite useful when you're flying the TCAS RAs.
Clandestino is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2009, 19:58
  #970 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
jumbocapt

if what you say is true, I hope it comes out from the NTSB soon.

Sadly, I think you are right...completely and fully. And if it is true< I see a huge lawsuit, easily winnable...by the families of the victims, and I would ditch my stock in this airline, if it is traded on the exchange

KEY WORD IF
protectthehornet is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2009, 20:25
  #971 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: long island
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"Those that have listened to the CVR tapes will know that they crew was distracted, chatting about what they would do on the layover. The did a slow decent from cruise altitude and had no auto throttles on the aircraft.
they screwed up"

This is a very interesting remark. It would be even moreso if there were any indication it is based on fact. I wonder whether it is even possibly actionable.

It is however a matter of record that "sterile cockpit" was one of the factors which the NTSB publicly announced they would be addressing in their public hearings.
finfly1 is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2009, 21:20
  #972 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
don't be surprised

IF one of our members has actually heard the CVR.
protectthehornet is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2009, 21:57
  #973 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sterile cockpit is overrated as a safety issue. I did not notice any change in pilot awareness when the sterile cockpit rule went into effect if observed. Elizabeth Dole's random drug tests probably accomplished the same results. Zero. The NTSB will probably blame the non sterile cockpit as a reason for the crash because it is easy to prove they did it and it was against FAA regulations. I had a bomb threat once and did everything per procedure and evacuated the aircraft but made sure my taxi time back to the gate after the evacuation erased the conversation before we were advised because of the sterile cockpit rule and I couldn't remember if we were talking about anything not related to safety of flight below 10,000 ft.
bubbers44 is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2009, 02:05
  #974 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,569
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Sterile cockpit is overrated as a safety issue. I did not notice any change in pilot awareness when the sterile cockpit rule went into effect if observed. Elizabeth Dole's random drug tests probably accomplished the same results. Zero. The NTSB will probably blame the non sterile cockpit as a reason for the crash because it is easy to prove they did it and it was against FAA regulations. I had a bomb threat once and did everything per procedure and evacuated the aircraft but made sure my taxi time back to the gate after the evacuation erased the conversation before we were advised because of the sterile cockpit rule and I couldn't remember if we were talking about anything not related to safety of flight below 10,000 ft.
Eventually you'll get caught up to just like the Delta 727 crew at DFW with discussing erasing the CVR but never have the chance in the big one.
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2009, 20:15
  #975 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
my remark was based upon fact. the tape was made available to some flight standards departments of a few major US airlines. The manager of flight standards told me on a flight
jumbocpt is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2009, 21:08
  #976 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sterile cockpit is overrated as a safety issue.
bubbers44, how can you say this?

From the NTSB report on the Comair Lexington crash of 8/27/06 (49 fatalities).

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The flight crewmembers's failure to use available cues and aids to identify the airplane's location on the airport surface during taxi and their failure to cross-check and verify that the airplane was on the correct runway before takeoff. Contributing to the accident were the flight crew's nonpertinent conversation during taxi, which resulted in a loss of positional awareness, and the Federal Aviation Administration's failure to require that all runway crossings be authorized only by specific air traffic control clearances.
Flight Safety is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2009, 21:55
  #977 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Exactly why I said the NTSB would use the CVR to blame sterile cockpit violations for this accident too. Does it make much difference if you are distracted a bit by conversation or needing the newest ATIS or a load change from company while in sterile cockpit? Yes, they are related to safety of flight and must be done but a conversation can be stopped in an instant when the safety things require a lot more concentration. The Madrid MD80 crash recently was initially due to a pause in ground control communications allowing them to get taxi clearance for takeoff distracting them from their checklist which unfortunately at that time was flaps. A failed TOWS caused them to take off with no flaps. If they had been discussing the #1 FA in back that accident would have been caused by sterile cockpit violations also by the investigators.

In my opinion neither of these accidents had much to do with sterile cockpit but that will be the final report because regulations were not followed.
bubbers44 is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2009, 22:35
  #978 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,569
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
In my opinion neither of these accidents had much to do with sterile cockpit but that will be the final report because regulations were not followed
It's hard to argue with somebody who already have their mind made up.

Of course your points are valid and somewhat akin to blodd alcohol level.

Yes you are corect about easy claims against non-pertinent conversation but like you also said it can easily be recognized and stopped as we already know. It's when it's not stopped that safety suffers.

This is reasonably demonstrable in a CVR listen even more so than in the transcript.

So right now having not even seen the transcript or a listen I reserve judgement.
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2009, 02:01
  #979 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A lot of my career was before the sterile cockpit rule. It was common to disregard it unless it was a line check or a situation where they might pull the CVR. Nobody really cared much if it was followed or not. It didn't mean much and most pilots didn't enforce it. I only cared if it was going to cause a problem. The new guys might take it a lot more seriously because they started with it.

My bomb threat landing I was at 7,000 ft when notified going into LAX and parked and evacuated 10 minutes later. Since we had a 30 minute CVR recording thought it would be wise to use 20 minutes to park since we were not required at that time to pull the CB so after the evacuation used the 30 minutes up. If we said anything below 10,000 ft not related to safety of flight they could use it against us. We probably didn't say anything.
bubbers44 is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2009, 08:11
  #980 (permalink)  
PJ2
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: BC
Age: 76
Posts: 2,483
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In my experience where we needed the sterile cockpit the most was in the 45 minutes before pushback...
PJ2 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.