Continental TurboProp crash inbound for Buffalo
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Weston Super Mare/UAE
Age: 60
Posts: 406
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While were at it, my comment about the new york airbus tragedy - I wonder how he would have fared had he tried to prevent further yaw instead of what I believe he might have actually tried - and that is 'trying to pick the bloody wing up' with rudder, which will almost certainly put breaking strains on the fin. Pound to a penny he employed quasi-stall recovery technique and overcooked it.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: LPPT
Age: 58
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AND I STILL THINK the nuttiest think of all is to apply power and pull up when you get the shaker, instead of accepting the altitude loss and getting right out of the stall.
PTH,
Like mustangsally I think I also missed the point of your post about jets and props. Were you saying that a jet couldn't accidentally stall, or that a jet would be flown by more experienced crews who couldn't accidentally stall? Sadly the recent accident to Turkish Airlines in Amsterdam would seem to disprove that thesis, as would the two very similar events to UK registered 737s in the last two years where reasonably experienced crews failed to notice autothrottle malfunctions until the stick shaker drew their attention to what was going on...
Also I would suggest that even in the olden days of wings with no washout, you didn't pick up a wing with opposite rudder. As has rightly been said on here you prevented further yaw with rudder, lowered the nose to reduce the angle of attack and unstall the wing (adding power if you had it) and then levelled the wings using the ailerons.
At the point where the stick shaker operated in this accident, the crew didn't have to do any of these things. If they had just firewalled the power levers (or indeed just pushed them forward to the rating detent) and held the pitch attitude they were in the aircraft would rapidly have accelerated out of the stall.
Sadly I suspect that we will never know why they didn't do those things, all we can do is speculate, and hope that from all the speculation some benefit may come.
Like mustangsally I think I also missed the point of your post about jets and props. Were you saying that a jet couldn't accidentally stall, or that a jet would be flown by more experienced crews who couldn't accidentally stall? Sadly the recent accident to Turkish Airlines in Amsterdam would seem to disprove that thesis, as would the two very similar events to UK registered 737s in the last two years where reasonably experienced crews failed to notice autothrottle malfunctions until the stick shaker drew their attention to what was going on...
Also I would suggest that even in the olden days of wings with no washout, you didn't pick up a wing with opposite rudder. As has rightly been said on here you prevented further yaw with rudder, lowered the nose to reduce the angle of attack and unstall the wing (adding power if you had it) and then levelled the wings using the ailerons.
At the point where the stick shaker operated in this accident, the crew didn't have to do any of these things. If they had just firewalled the power levers (or indeed just pushed them forward to the rating detent) and held the pitch attitude they were in the aircraft would rapidly have accelerated out of the stall.
Sadly I suspect that we will never know why they didn't do those things, all we can do is speculate, and hope that from all the speculation some benefit may come.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The instintive fear of hitting high terrain or some other landmark may lead people to desperatly try to climb away to a safer altitude, so their automatic reaction is to firewall the engines and (wrongly) pull up.
Last edited by MU3001A; 18th May 2009 at 18:12.
GearDown&Locked,
I understand where you are coming from but, looking at it logically, how about this:-
1. If you are on the GP when the Shaker goes off, the Procedure provides you with a sizeable protected area under the aircraft anyway. Use it! True, the total height of this protected area diminishes as you approach the runway. But even so. And I bet, 99.9999% of the time, the shaker will go off while you are on the GP.
2. If you are well trained in proper pre-Stall recoveries (and I think many who have Posted here would agree this is an area which needs addressing), height loss can be minimal. I agree that chucking the nose down to 45 deg below the horizon would be very unwise, but you don’t have to do that at the Shaker!
3. If you go against the tried and tested Stall Recovery techniques – apply power while reducing AoA, preventing further wing-drop with rudder (which you should not get at the Shaker anyway as you are not Stalled) – you risk pushing a pre-Stall condition into far, far worse – a fully developed Stall. As this Crew found out.
IMHO, my take on the worst case scenario – close to touchdown. I would prefer to belly it in wings level through the boundary fence from a height of 100 ft, rather than cartwheel it in having hauled back on the CC at 100 ft, climbed a couple of hundred feet before the aircraft finally bit, and then hit the ground half way into an incipient spin at 45+ deg AoB.
I would suggest that it is this preconception that must be eliminated as part of Training! Just my thoughts. I’m with protectthehornet and MU3001A!
In IMC at low altitude (approach phase) unless you know the airport like the back of your hand, loosing more altitude to unstall the aircraft seems a very unlogical and risky (read terrifiying) procedure in the heat of that moment.
1. If you are on the GP when the Shaker goes off, the Procedure provides you with a sizeable protected area under the aircraft anyway. Use it! True, the total height of this protected area diminishes as you approach the runway. But even so. And I bet, 99.9999% of the time, the shaker will go off while you are on the GP.
2. If you are well trained in proper pre-Stall recoveries (and I think many who have Posted here would agree this is an area which needs addressing), height loss can be minimal. I agree that chucking the nose down to 45 deg below the horizon would be very unwise, but you don’t have to do that at the Shaker!
3. If you go against the tried and tested Stall Recovery techniques – apply power while reducing AoA, preventing further wing-drop with rudder (which you should not get at the Shaker anyway as you are not Stalled) – you risk pushing a pre-Stall condition into far, far worse – a fully developed Stall. As this Crew found out.
IMHO, my take on the worst case scenario – close to touchdown. I would prefer to belly it in wings level through the boundary fence from a height of 100 ft, rather than cartwheel it in having hauled back on the CC at 100 ft, climbed a couple of hundred feet before the aircraft finally bit, and then hit the ground half way into an incipient spin at 45+ deg AoB.
loosing more altitude to unstall the aircraft seems a very unlogical and risky (read terrifiying) procedure in the heat of that moment.
Last edited by Hot 'n' High; 18th May 2009 at 19:01.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Weston Super Mare/UAE
Age: 60
Posts: 406
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hot n high, maybe i'm reading your last post wrongly but agreed perfectly with you right up to the last sentence when you seemed to be apologising ('I'm with MU300A and PTH i'm afraid'!) A proper stall/incipient stall recovery flown with negligible height loss AND PROPER TECHNIQUE will win the day! It has degenerated into a bit of a row over correct rudder use (but nevertheless obviously needs to be said!) but the fact remains had they reacted correctly to the shaker scenario, maybe losing a little height then they would have lived to fly another day. Why the concern, at 2300', about height loss in a stick shaker recovery? Am I missing something or do pilots here really think that they don't have the room to recover at the platform altitude?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
captainsmiffy:
It all comes down to training and situational awareness. If you're trained in minimum height loss, your altitude is not part of the recovery equation.
If you're trained in getting the airplane flying again, you weigh the option of trading a bit of height for airspeed.
BTW - I've been meaning to ask: If an aircraft is susceptible to tailplane stall, is the stick shaker/pusher active for that condition?
Why the concern, at 2300', about height loss in a stick shaker recovery?
If you're trained in getting the airplane flying again, you weigh the option of trading a bit of height for airspeed.
BTW - I've been meaning to ask: If an aircraft is susceptible to tailplane stall, is the stick shaker/pusher active for that condition?
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
captain smiffy
if you read my entire post you would have seen that I TAUGHT THAT YOU REDUCE ANGLE OF ATTACK FIRST
I even went back to reread my post. I am afraid...no I am not...YOU DIDN'T READ IT, including the admonishment about lack of imagination. YOU DIDN'T Perceive the tone about FAA approved etc.
I don't think you should ''bring a wing up first'' I say PUSH THE STICK FORWARD.
UNDERSTAND? AND IF YOU HAD READ THE POST FROM THE START YOU AND OTHERS MIGHT UNDERSTAND. I was trying to give a background for all of the incorrect thinking about stall recovery.
SHEESH
I even went back to reread my post. I am afraid...no I am not...YOU DIDN'T READ IT, including the admonishment about lack of imagination. YOU DIDN'T Perceive the tone about FAA approved etc.
I don't think you should ''bring a wing up first'' I say PUSH THE STICK FORWARD.
UNDERSTAND? AND IF YOU HAD READ THE POST FROM THE START YOU AND OTHERS MIGHT UNDERSTAND. I was trying to give a background for all of the incorrect thinking about stall recovery.
SHEESH
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MustangSally
I have never used dope.
I responded to you and your response about the departure point meaning something. I meant that EWR BUF was a pretty short flight...but even 30 years ago it rated a jet and not a turboprop.
AS to stall recovery and the like, I was trying to kill two birds with one stone...or in the language of the internet, respond to two different topics. I made a tragic assumption that you and I were on a similiar level...I stand corrected. And as I said to captainssmiffy...reread my post and see how I TAUGHT stall recovery...I even typed it in CAPS so you might understand that I was saying what I did, but providing an analysis of the mythology of how stalls are taught...sometimes incorrectly.
You obviously didn't understand the ironic intent of my FAA Approved comments. And the comment about lack of imagination must have gone over your head.
I responded to you and your response about the departure point meaning something. I meant that EWR BUF was a pretty short flight...but even 30 years ago it rated a jet and not a turboprop.
AS to stall recovery and the like, I was trying to kill two birds with one stone...or in the language of the internet, respond to two different topics. I made a tragic assumption that you and I were on a similiar level...I stand corrected. And as I said to captainssmiffy...reread my post and see how I TAUGHT stall recovery...I even typed it in CAPS so you might understand that I was saying what I did, but providing an analysis of the mythology of how stalls are taught...sometimes incorrectly.
You obviously didn't understand the ironic intent of my FAA Approved comments. And the comment about lack of imagination must have gone over your head.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gear down and locked:
if you haven't briefed the terrain feattures in the approach phase of flight, you haven't done your job. Also, the crew was VMC at this point in the flight, having left the clouds behind.
Certainly, holding altitude or gaining altitude is a good thing to do. And avoiding a full stall is a good thing to do too. But Colgan 3407 didn't avoid a full stall did they? And if you are fully stalled you are going to lose altitude...or don't you know that? Again...FULLY STALLED.
if you haven't briefed the terrain feattures in the approach phase of flight, you haven't done your job. Also, the crew was VMC at this point in the flight, having left the clouds behind.
Certainly, holding altitude or gaining altitude is a good thing to do. And avoiding a full stall is a good thing to do too. But Colgan 3407 didn't avoid a full stall did they? And if you are fully stalled you are going to lose altitude...or don't you know that? Again...FULLY STALLED.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
excrab
I have made a terrible assumption...that you and most of the others on the forum have read all the posts since number one.
IF SO , you would have seen my reasoning about jets vs props on this route.
either we all read from page one, or at least admit it in the body of your post.
and lest anyone misunderstand: I AM OF THE OPINION THAT REDUCING ANGLE OF ATTACK FIRST IS THE BEST WAY OUT OF A FULL STALL. All of my additional material was a background in the mythology of stall training.
And let me add: WHY DIDN"T COLGAN 3407 go to FIREWALL POWER instead of 75% power during the reocvery?
The energizing effect of prop blast over the wing would further aid in stall recovery.
READ EM ALL BOYS & GIRLS or don't play the game...or at least say: I haven't read the thread from day one!
EXCRAB, you also seem to be confusing reducing angle of attack with lowering the nose...while most of the time this is the case, when you are in a spin, the nose might be quite low already.
Excrab, you also cite the turkish crash etc. First off, many people survived that crash. Second off the Q400 doesn't have autothrottles. And my rationale for better paid, trained, and seasoned flight crews stands.
IF SO , you would have seen my reasoning about jets vs props on this route.
either we all read from page one, or at least admit it in the body of your post.
and lest anyone misunderstand: I AM OF THE OPINION THAT REDUCING ANGLE OF ATTACK FIRST IS THE BEST WAY OUT OF A FULL STALL. All of my additional material was a background in the mythology of stall training.
And let me add: WHY DIDN"T COLGAN 3407 go to FIREWALL POWER instead of 75% power during the reocvery?
The energizing effect of prop blast over the wing would further aid in stall recovery.
READ EM ALL BOYS & GIRLS or don't play the game...or at least say: I haven't read the thread from day one!
EXCRAB, you also seem to be confusing reducing angle of attack with lowering the nose...while most of the time this is the case, when you are in a spin, the nose might be quite low already.
Excrab, you also cite the turkish crash etc. First off, many people survived that crash. Second off the Q400 doesn't have autothrottles. And my rationale for better paid, trained, and seasoned flight crews stands.
Last edited by protectthehornet; 18th May 2009 at 20:51.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
post 1351 by MU3001A is right on.
post 1351 by MU3001A is right on.
I'll bet a recovery could have been made within the confines of the glideslope had it been properly handled.
I'll bet a recovery could have been made within the confines of the glideslope had it been properly handled.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
captain smiffy
you mention 2300' and stall recovery
perhaps the desert sands are all the same height...but with BUF at about 700'plus, all of a sudden it isn't really 2300'
I wish people would always say: 2300 MSL, or 2300'AFE or 2300'AGL
altimetry and stall recovery...hmmmmmm
perhaps the desert sands are all the same height...but with BUF at about 700'plus, all of a sudden it isn't really 2300'
I wish people would always say: 2300 MSL, or 2300'AFE or 2300'AGL
altimetry and stall recovery...hmmmmmm
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Moses Lake, WA
Age: 63
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been meaning to ask: If an aircraft is susceptible to tailplane stall, is the stick shaker/pusher active for that condition?
In the past, tailplane stall was not formally considered in the design or certification process. That changed as a result of several DHC-6 Twin Otter ice contaminated tailplane stall accidents and incidents. DeHavilland and Transport Canada were very surprised and concerned by these events. They addressed the issue on the Twin Otter by an AFM limitation prohibiting use of full flap after flight in icing. For future designs, now that the issue of tailplane stall was recognized, Transport Canada mandated specific flight tests to no susceptibility to tailplane stall. These criteria were applied to Canadian manufacturers, and to foreign manufacturers that wished to obtain a Canadian type certificate. Eventually, the other authorities adopted similar tailplane stall criteria.
Now days, any type that receives a type certificate from any of the major airworthiness authorities should have received a comprehensive flight test evaluation for susceptibility of tailplane stall, and any design changes made before the type design was issued. Even older types with tailplane stall problems (e.g. unmodified Saab 340As) should have had Airworthiness Directives that required either modifications or AFM changes to address tailplane stall. In theory, if flown in accordance with the AFM, none of the major Transport Category aircraft types in service today should have a susceptibility to tailplane stall. I'm not sure what was done with some of the less numerous types though - are there any Viscounts still in service anywhere?
Some stick pushers are inhibited at airspeeds greater than XXX kt, but this is done for structural reasons, not because of tailplane stall.
Stick-pusher is installed to counteract the deep stall, not tailplane stall. Sadly, the fact that Q400 is not prone to tailplane stall leaked out only after the accident. There is still no official word about it from Bombardier but it's expected soon.
Primary symptom of fully blown tailplane stall is abrupt and very fast pitchdown as flaps are extended. Recovery from tailplane stall in DHC-6 is: retract flaps, cut the power, pull to recover from dive. Preferably do all three simultaneously.
Primary symptom of fully blown tailplane stall is abrupt and very fast pitchdown as flaps are extended. Recovery from tailplane stall in DHC-6 is: retract flaps, cut the power, pull to recover from dive. Preferably do all three simultaneously.
PTH
You seem determined to prove that you are right and everyone else is wrong.
No I didn't confuse lowering the nose with reducing the angle of attack. In an erect spin whilst the nose may be low relative to the horizon, it is still pitching up relative to the aircrafts lateral axis as the aircraft follows a descending helical path, and you are lowering the nose of the aircraft to unstall the wing, the effects of the controls in pitch roll and yaw are relative to the aircrafts axis, as a flying instructor you know that as well as I do.
And whatever you say, you never pick up a wing with rudder which is what you stated, you prevent yaw with rudder and pick the wing up with aileron after the wing is unstalled - unless I, and every other pilot trained in the uk, and the RAF central flying school are all wrong and you are right...I'm not conceited enough to rule out that possibility, however.
Anyway, when the stick shaker in that Q400 went off the aircraft was neither stalled nor spinning, the stick shake is a warning of an impending stall and the recovery action would have been to lower the nose and increase power, whether you like it or not.
As for the jets v props thing, you claimed that an experienced crew would not have had the same problem. I cited three examples on jet aircraft where experienced crews had done the same thing - they let the aircraft get to slow and didn't notice it happening. One of those events ended in tragedy and it was just good luck that anyone survived, as it was bad luck that no one did in the Q400 crash. The other two incidents just resulted in ASRs and retraining for the crews but in one of them they allowed a 737 to decelerate to below 100kts and get to eighteen degrees nose up before they noticed, and only recovered at the stick shaker, and the crew was far more experienced than the crew of this dash 8.
The autothrottles are irrelevant - or are you suggesting that a 737 can't be flown without the autothrottle...which is obviously incorrect, as otherwise you would not be allowed by the MEL to dispatch with them inoperative. The fact is that all four crews let the aircraft decelerate, didn't increase the power or thrust, and didn't notice...
You seem determined to prove that you are right and everyone else is wrong.
No I didn't confuse lowering the nose with reducing the angle of attack. In an erect spin whilst the nose may be low relative to the horizon, it is still pitching up relative to the aircrafts lateral axis as the aircraft follows a descending helical path, and you are lowering the nose of the aircraft to unstall the wing, the effects of the controls in pitch roll and yaw are relative to the aircrafts axis, as a flying instructor you know that as well as I do.
And whatever you say, you never pick up a wing with rudder which is what you stated, you prevent yaw with rudder and pick the wing up with aileron after the wing is unstalled - unless I, and every other pilot trained in the uk, and the RAF central flying school are all wrong and you are right...I'm not conceited enough to rule out that possibility, however.
Anyway, when the stick shaker in that Q400 went off the aircraft was neither stalled nor spinning, the stick shake is a warning of an impending stall and the recovery action would have been to lower the nose and increase power, whether you like it or not.
As for the jets v props thing, you claimed that an experienced crew would not have had the same problem. I cited three examples on jet aircraft where experienced crews had done the same thing - they let the aircraft get to slow and didn't notice it happening. One of those events ended in tragedy and it was just good luck that anyone survived, as it was bad luck that no one did in the Q400 crash. The other two incidents just resulted in ASRs and retraining for the crews but in one of them they allowed a 737 to decelerate to below 100kts and get to eighteen degrees nose up before they noticed, and only recovered at the stick shaker, and the crew was far more experienced than the crew of this dash 8.
The autothrottles are irrelevant - or are you suggesting that a 737 can't be flown without the autothrottle...which is obviously incorrect, as otherwise you would not be allowed by the MEL to dispatch with them inoperative. The fact is that all four crews let the aircraft decelerate, didn't increase the power or thrust, and didn't notice...
Guest
Posts: n/a
PTH
Whoah old Buddy, you made a few posts there.
No one can help these guys. They're dead.
I don't know you but I bet you are extremely wary when you fly.
Be wary, or be dead.
Personally, I prefer wary, but a lot of folk I fly with seem to think that flying is a quite harmless activity. Something one must do, by rote, in order to accept next months pay.
You can't help these twats. Hopefully they'll find out that flying can be perilous before killing themselves or their pax, unlike the BUF Q400 crew.
Whoah old Buddy, you made a few posts there.
No one can help these guys. They're dead.
I don't know you but I bet you are extremely wary when you fly.
Be wary, or be dead.
Personally, I prefer wary, but a lot of folk I fly with seem to think that flying is a quite harmless activity. Something one must do, by rote, in order to accept next months pay.
You can't help these twats. Hopefully they'll find out that flying can be perilous before killing themselves or their pax, unlike the BUF Q400 crew.
Clandestino,
Sorry, the information that the Q400 isn't prone to tailplane stall didn't "leak out only after the accident"
I quote from the AOM, Chapter 3 abnormal and emergency procedures. Page 3.4.23, section 3.4.6.5 This is from revision 7 dated 16 march 2001 should you wish to refer to it.
Landing
If landing flap selection is accompanied by stick force lightning or stick force irregularities, immediately retract flap to previous setting and cycle the de-ice boots several times. If practicable, land using a lower landing flap setting. This condition, which is the precursor to tailplane stall, will not occur unless the AOM icing procedure are not followed.
The bold emphasis is mine but it isn't anything new. I have had that manual since 2001, almost eight years before this accident occured.
Sorry, the information that the Q400 isn't prone to tailplane stall didn't "leak out only after the accident"
I quote from the AOM, Chapter 3 abnormal and emergency procedures. Page 3.4.23, section 3.4.6.5 This is from revision 7 dated 16 march 2001 should you wish to refer to it.
Landing
If landing flap selection is accompanied by stick force lightning or stick force irregularities, immediately retract flap to previous setting and cycle the de-ice boots several times. If practicable, land using a lower landing flap setting. This condition, which is the precursor to tailplane stall, will not occur unless the AOM icing procedure are not followed.
The bold emphasis is mine but it isn't anything new. I have had that manual since 2001, almost eight years before this accident occured.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Far be it from me, but Protectthehornet should........
I'll try one more time! In this industry the FAA sets the minimum standard, for US carriers. If a company exceeds these standard the FAA does not care, just meet the minimum.
Minimum equal cheap. Cheap equals minimum cost. Minimum cost equals cheaper seats. Cheaper seat means lower break even load factors. Cheap crew cost equal cheaper cost per hour equal lower break even costs. Longer crew duty days with two hours between legs means cheaper labor costs. Does management care if you are on duty for sixteen hours and only fly three two hour legs, no. Wake up or maybe just find a burger to flip and make some money.
And we have not even mentioned major maintenance being done off shore.
Got it now?
PHT you are pathetic....
I'll try one more time! In this industry the FAA sets the minimum standard, for US carriers. If a company exceeds these standard the FAA does not care, just meet the minimum.
Minimum equal cheap. Cheap equals minimum cost. Minimum cost equals cheaper seats. Cheaper seat means lower break even load factors. Cheap crew cost equal cheaper cost per hour equal lower break even costs. Longer crew duty days with two hours between legs means cheaper labor costs. Does management care if you are on duty for sixteen hours and only fly three two hour legs, no. Wake up or maybe just find a burger to flip and make some money.
And we have not even mentioned major maintenance being done off shore.
Got it now?
PHT you are pathetic....