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 14th May 2009, 22:23
  #1161 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: CT
Age: 54
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dani,

Where to Begin...

"So enlighten me:

Does your (A)OM say that Bombardier recommends using rudder during a stall?"
Dunno, I fly heavies now, had to turn my manual back in. If I had to guess, I'd say Bombardier assumes pilots will maintain coordinated flight unless landing in a crosswind.
"Of course you need rudder for power changes, and for engine failures.

I have more than 6000 hrs on Saab 2000, the most powerful and fastest turboprop in the world. Still better performance than a Q400. I hate to show off but you started."
No, you were the one with the snide remark about how we talk about airliners here... Oh, and check out the TU-114 for power, or the Avanti for speed. Not sure how they stack up against the SAAB 2000
"You simply try to belittle my argument, you don't argue to find the truth. Which is: Don't use rudder for stall recovery."
I don't use the rudder for stall recovery. But, I do use the rudder to maintain coordinated flight during a stall recovery.
I think our little discussion has gone long enough. I'll do some reading, but you'd best do some too...

Q.

Last edited by q100; 15th May 2009 at 03:28.
q100 is offline  
Old 14th May 2009, 22:25
  #1162 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Seattle, WA USA
Age: 77
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"...The stick pusher pushes the control column forward to decrease pitch, increase airspeed and get the airplane out of a stall (designed actually for higher altitude scenarios). ..."

Yes. Designed for higher altitude scenarios, practiced at high altitudes, ... but the wing doesn't have eyes to see how close the ground is and stall recovery is the same: lower the nose and add power and do it but quick! If the ground is inconveniently close, you still lower the nose and add power. It may take some real determination to do it but there really is no other choice aerodynamically. If you raise the nose you won't recover from the stall you will only make it worse.

Although this was a difficult altitude, my understanding is that recovery was possible, even probable. What went wrong is that the pilot raised the nose, the co-pilot changed the flap setting (albeit not by very much, it seems) and although power seems to have been added it seems to have been insufficient and unusual attitudes may have eroded air speed simply too far for power to have been sufficient when the high angle of attack kept the wings stalled.

Systemic problems with the industry that put poorly trained or perhaps even untrained (in certain critical maneuvers) personnel in the cockpit and put them in that cockpit while utterly exhausted are bad enough. Individual problems that make a pilot want to raise the nose in a stall are a final wrinkle to the puzzle that is most perplexing.

It may indeed have been a fear of a tail-stall due to "remembrance of former aircraft" but I'm not even certain that unusual tail-stall was really part of a prior or then-current mindset. I guess we will never know about that.
FoolsGold is offline  
Old 14th May 2009, 22:33
  #1163 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Hollywood, CA
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In defense of Captain Renslow's flying skills during the crisis, we need to look into his probable state of mind, and consider how brains work in cases of dire emergency. OK, flying is 99 99/100 percent boredom (hence any old chitchat and a coffee, one assumes just to stay awake but relaxed). The remaining 1/100 of 1 percent is sheer panic, when adrenaline kicks in, and the brain freezes up (which is why preceding a stall, there can be a voice accompanying the stick-shaker with the sharp command "Down! Down!", yes, to highly professional pilots in state of the art jets.)

At such times of instant brain panic, embedded instincts take over. Stalling? Push stick forward to gain airspeed! But am I low and slow with reduced lift because of ice? I can't see the wings! Not enough altitude, maybe. What do I do? Clean-up drag (raise flaps), add max power of course, and hope to get the hell out of it.

If anyone hopes to learn something about flying from this tragedy, (apart from thinking that "there but for the grace of God go I"), it's not about airmanship, it's bearing in mind how the brain works for everybody in times of panic. Training and discipline mean to never enter that state of mind, by calm preparedness ahead. It means to never risk getting to that place.

This was a cautionary tale. At least the guy who landed in the Hudson had a few minutes of cool thought ahead of time to make a decision. But one senses that there was no panic there.
Tfor2 is offline  
Old 14th May 2009, 22:35
  #1164 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
OK, I agree.

Also with FoolsGold.

Dani
Dani is offline  
Old 14th May 2009, 22:39
  #1165 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Correr es mi destino por no llevar papel
Posts: 1,422
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Nope. Stick pusher is designed for any altitude.

Recovery was possible from stall warning - before the actual stall . Once the aeroplane was stalled it became largely unlikely.
Clandestino is offline  
Old 14th May 2009, 22:43
  #1166 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Nope, stick pusher is designed for higher altitudes. On most types pusher is disabled on low altitudes (typically below 1000 ft or so).
Dani is offline  
Old 14th May 2009, 22:50
  #1167 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The middle
Posts: 565
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes on 4 Posts
Dani,

You say:
"so enlighten me - does your (A)om say that Bombardier recommends using rudder during a stall"

If you have flown a Q400 you will no doubt be familiar with this paragraph from the AOM :

"Once ready to accomplish the stall - reduce power slowly to flight idle - as the aeroplane decelerates towards the stall the wing is held level by use of roll control, heading is maintained by use of the rudder..."

In your previous post you categorically stated that rudder should never be touched near a stall - it would appear that the manufacturer, presumably backed up by its own flight test department, thinks differently.

If you haven't flown a Q400 then that's fair enough, you won't be aware of it, anymore than I know what it says in the flight manual or AOM for a Saab.

Clandestino also says that teaching pilots to recover from a full blown stall in a pusher equipped aircraft is unproductive - but I think that this accident proves otherwise.

It is a straight wing aeroplane, not a swept wing jet. If it stalls, rudder is used to prevent further yaw and aileron to raise the wing once you have increased the airspeed/lowered the angle of atttack and unstalled the wing. If it has a more or less powerful rudder you use a smaller or greater rudder input, but the principle remains the same.
excrab is offline  
Old 14th May 2009, 22:53
  #1168 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Correr es mi destino por no llevar papel
Posts: 1,422
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Errrr.... Dani, it's to prevent it from misfiring and burying you in front of the threshold. Idea is that above 1000AGL, you'll have the time to counteract the faulty pusher, not that deep stall is impossible below 1000.

Anyway B.P. Davies' book has it all neatly explained. Pages 111 and 130 if you have third edition.

EDIT: Q400 is not a swept-wing jet but its wings are highly loaded and its tail sits atop the vertical stabilizer. If you stall it, you're half dead.
Clandestino is offline  
Old 14th May 2009, 22:54
  #1169 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
OK,HOLD IT...somebody just said stick pushers were usually disabled below 1000'

I"ve flown stick pusher equipped planes and that is not the case.

There was a higher likelyhood of someone surviving this crash if the pilot had just let go of the stick than what he did (pull back) and what the copilot did (retractflaps and distract the captain with gear up)

During the dawn of flying...it took great courage to push forward on the stick to recover....but now we know it is the only way out...

Imagine this plane recovering inches above the ground and slamming into it (the ground) not stalled at 100 knots. Woe be to whomsoever is in the way, but someone would have lived.
protectthehornet is offline  
Old 14th May 2009, 23:23
  #1170 (permalink)  
Michael Birbeck
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Growing disrespect for the arrrogance in this thread

Firstly with respect to two plilots who have died (and to all who have died and those living who are suffering as a result of this terrible accident).

I ask all pilots who are making judgement calls here (a lot of you are I know). When was the last time you made a Category A mistake that YOU KNOW YOU GOT AWAY WITH.

I'd put money on it that there is not one man or woman amongst you that, as much as you might deny it, have not made mistakes,

Let's be a little humble and learn.
 
Old 14th May 2009, 23:41
  #1171 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: US
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Let's be a little humble and learn.
Humility is one thing. However, this was a perfectly airworthy airplane that was stalled and crashed. If you watch the animation the props were shoved to high RPM with the gear extension. That created tons of drag, to which the pilot applied ZERO throttle input. Speed rolled backwards into the red area of the speed tape.

There were two "qualified" pilots on the flight deck and no one utilized those qualifications and airmanship to keep the airplane flying. That is a shame to the profession. Hate to say it but they make us all look bad when they do something like that.
lambourne is offline  
Old 14th May 2009, 23:45
  #1172 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 71
Posts: 3,410
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
MB

If by Category A mistake, you mean an inadvertent stall at ANY altitude, not me. I have, in the USAF, investigated several and had a hand in removing the wings of a pilot that did, it is inexcusable to pay so little attention to such a basic fact of flying. Pay attention to airspeed, lest the Earth rise up and smite thee is a rule the Wright brothers taught us.

GF
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 14th May 2009, 23:49
  #1173 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Ex-pat Aussie in the UK
Posts: 5,787
Received 110 Likes on 54 Posts
made a Category A mistake that YOU KNOW YOU GOT AWAY WITH.
Isn't that the point? That those that made a mistake, recovered safe flight - which is the job of a pilot?
Checkboard is offline  
Old 14th May 2009, 23:57
  #1174 (permalink)  
Michael Birbeck
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Who knows what was going on in their minds.

I cannot for one moment countenance the thought that two pilots, inexperienced in icing conditions as they might have been, would have simply f@cked up like this.

Hard as it might be to admit, we may never know.

I (for what it is worth) believe he thought he was in a tail stall situation. He had one shot at the right answer. The laws of life and statistics called against him.
 
Old 15th May 2009, 00:18
  #1175 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: canada
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I cannot for one moment countenance the thought that two pilots, inexperienced in icing conditions as they might have been, would have simply f@cked up like this.

Hard as it might be to admit, we may never know.
I dunno. I have worked many years in 703 ops in Canada, and the things I have seen would make your skin crawl. and that's from pilots FAR more experienced than these guys. There is a new normal. The one where it's not your fault. it must be the company or the aircraft. Sorry, they $%^ed up royally, and if they were are tired as we have been lead to believe they should never have accepted that flight.

Sorry, but I've just about had enough of this ****. Pilots have become whores (seriously, who takes a job that pays $16000/yr??????) and have helped create this mess. And from where I sit, it will only get worse.

As pilots we should step back and take a good hard look at where we are headed, because from my position, it's not pretty.
BartBandy is offline  
Old 15th May 2009, 00:21
  #1176 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
IF he feared tailplane stall!

Then why would he keep the plane on autopilot?

I feel badly talking about, pointing fingers at the dead. I feel very sorry for their families. But I feel sorrier (is that a word?) for the passengers and sorriest of all for the totally innocent man on the ground who died.

I just read that the mother of the copilot said she was an excellent pilot. I can think of 5 pilots that might be excellent. Lindbergh, Doolittle, Hoover, Yeager, and the brother's wright.(ok, 6)...

WE WHO KNOW THE SKY must be the harshest judges on our brothers and sisters.

THEY GOT SLOW...both pilots have Airspeed indicators and in icing conditions I would be doubly aware of air speed...ice's effect on the wings and possible pitot problems.

THEY DIDN'T REACT TO A STALL WARNING properly. IF the copilot saw the pilot doing the wrong thing SHE could have done something other than RETRACT the flaps.

THEY FOUGHT the only thing that could have saved them, the pusher. The copilot could have yelled...push forward or NOSE DOWN or kicked the wheel forward.

Fatigue, Poor training and EVALUATION, illness all played a factor.

BUT THE BIGGEST COMMON DENOMINATOR IS: IT was an FAA certified airliner, operated by an FAA certified Airline, with FAA approved Maintenance, and FAA approved Pilot training, and FAA certificated pilots.

FAA needs a change and randy babbit aint it.
protectthehornet is offline  
Old 15th May 2009, 00:40
  #1177 (permalink)  
Person Of Interest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Keystone Heights, Florida
Age: 68
Posts: 842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Timbob...jump back into the cesspool trailer park YOU live in...

I don't know what "Sully" (by the way, do you know him enough to speak for him and say what he would have done early in his career?) but from what I've read about him he did his job...period...

It's not right to generalize RE:an airlines training and/or hiring procedures unless you have been there and know the facts and situations...

Obvivously, you are above all of this despite the fact that you are "King of Your Double-wide"

Your comment rates you as the "cess=pool" dweller...

And BTW, I live in a trailer-home and I'm proud of it...

So when does your episode air on "Springer"? I want to watch on a station near me...
DownIn3Green is offline  
Old 15th May 2009, 01:52
  #1178 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,558
Received 38 Likes on 17 Posts
The Stepping Stone and Dues Payers Ecosystem

The holy grail is LHS on a big jet. That allows Stepping Stone operators to be very attractive to up and coming Dues Payers, even with burger flipper pay levels .

That pay level pretty much forces you to stay with mom and dad.

Nor does that kind of pay leave you enough money for a decent night's sleep after a long commute, nor for between duty days.

Looks to me that the Stepping Stone operators with long distance commute pilots need to provide accommodations.
RatherBeFlying is offline  
Old 15th May 2009, 02:04
  #1179 (permalink)  
Person Of Interest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Keystone Heights, Florida
Age: 68
Posts: 842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
RBF,

True, however when I started w/the commuters in the late 70's, we knew what we were getting into...crash pads next to your base...no life, "hot bunking" if needed, and crying out loud to scheduling for an extra day's flying just to build those hours...

BUT...we were flying C-402's and BE-99's with 8-15 pax, not multi million turboprops carrying upwards of 70 pax plus crew...still, standard airmanship applied...the Cessnas actually had an A/P, but we hand flew the 99 forever...

IMHO if you sign up for a job under stated conditions, be prepared to live up to those conditions or don't take the job...
DownIn3Green is offline  
Old 15th May 2009, 02:10
  #1180 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,569
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
IMHO if you sign up for a job under stated conditions, be prepared to live up to those conditions or don't take the job...
or.... unfortunately it won't be only them that suffer the consequences
lomapaseo 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.