Continental TurboProp crash inbound for Buffalo

[protectthehornet]

excrab

it seems you are looking for a fight. I have consistently maintained the correct thing to do is reduce the angle of attack as you are approaching or in a full stall. you don't seem to understand that.

A student, in a spin is not going to determine the axis blah blah blah...the nose is low to him and that's all that matters, so to speak of angle of attack and REDUCING IT is the only way to make sure you don't die in a stall/spin.

you mentioned 3 jet events...two in the UK and the tukish plane...yet I can't find one in the USA by a USA crew enroute from EWR to BUF except the colgan air. I was refering to US airlines and not any other.


Again, you seem to miss the fact that I posted the way I taught stall recovery which was to REDUCE ANGLE OF ATTACK first!

end

[protectthehornet]

thanks barbiesboyfriend

I just can't get across to them that I was being Ironic with the bit about FAA approved and explaining how people got mistaken ideas about stall recovery.

MUSTANGSALLY...coming from you I take it as a compliment...you still don't get that I was being IRONIC with the FAA approved bit...and that I don't think their level of safety is good enough.

Did you even read the part about: So much for anything FAA approved . or something quite close?

are you even a pilot?

[mustangsally]

PTH

Answer just one question at a time.

1. Does the FAA set the minimum standard for FAR 121/135 operation of US carriers?

A: Yes
B: No
C: Yes Butt......
D: No, Butt

Hope you can handle that one....

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

PTH

Here's an example of when using rudder to 'pick up' a wing is a great idea....when being aerotowed in a glider.(in the early stages of an aerotow the ailerons are useless) But the rudder will pick that wing up straightaway. and of course energy is being added.

Another is: when a stall is about to kill you and only the rudder is still working. The ailerons are of in a huff for sure, but the roll spoilers?

Personally, I think this guy flapped. Got a shaker, hoiked it up, lost it

Fuxxackes! if he had done NOTHING for a few seconds it would have been ok.

It might look like a bus, feel like a bus (at least to pax) a bus it is not

[Brian Abraham]

Clandestino

Sadly, the fact that Q400 is not prone to tailplane stall leaked out only after the accident.

khorton

For future designs, now that the issue of tailplane stall was recognized, Transport Canada mandated specific flight tests to no susceptibility to tailplane stall.

excrab

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.

Somewhat confused (easily done). Are we to believe then that the aircraft is susceptible to tail plane stall if anti icing procedures are not followed?

[captainsmiffy]

PTH - just been to bed so have missed a lot of the ongoing discussion - I am very well aware of the dfference between altitude and height for the record and I operate to some places around the 6 or7000 foot elevation. I also know that height loss at stick shake is minimal which is why I have not concerned myself with the a/f elevation in this incident.

There is much c**p being espoused on this forum about technique and I do take issue with it when I see it.

It is interesting how many side arguements that you appear to be having with so many people. Does this say anything about what you are posting, maybe? May I suggest that you lighten up and don't let it get to you too much, mate? You might live a little longer (particularly with proper stall recovery technique.....only joking!)

[Balbi]

Clandestino Quote:

"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."


I have followed this topic with great interest. I must say I admire the intelligence, knowledge and professionalism depicted in the thread.

I am just a casual observer that enjoys aviation and its is passionate about his Microsoft Flight Sim. Having said that I have a question.
There are quite a few here that theorize about the Captain mistaking this for a tailplane stall.

How could he have done so? The symptoms are quite opposite from what he experienced. Could it be possible he did mistake it and still fumbled the proper way to recover from a tail stall after all? He did power up 75%,
this is contradictory to the procedure as quoted above.

The 5 flunked checkrides do weigh heavily in this argument.

[spyder105]

My background is on the maintenance end of things so take my opinion for what its worth. I am normally happy to be a reader but I feel compelled to duck out of cover just this once so please be gentle.. I think this investigation has, or at least should have a huge impact on the industry I am passionate about.

I will not bore you with my theories other than to say I think the article Huck copied in post 1341 is spot on. I just wanted to pass on what I read today and how I think it clears up the tail plane stall issue. (in my mind at least)

After reading the transcripts of the CVR my impression was that it is being kind to think that tailplane stall was what the captain was thinking.
I followed up today by reading the NTSB interviews in their docket section on this investigation, ( CD List Of Contents ) particularly the "Buffalo interviews" section with line captains and F/Os, that view is reinforced. When asked what tailplane stall training they had, they state the NASA video was the only training received with the instructors saying afterward that the tailplane stall portion of the video was not applicable to the Q400.

The responses from students and check airmen both stressed not losing more than 100 ft in response to the stick shaker. Power on and "Riding the shaker" to minimize the altitude loss until you get your airspeed back up. Refer back to the article Huck posted on how this training affects reactions to the shaker.

I am afraid dwelling on icing, tail plane or otherwise is muddying the waters as to the cause of this accident and the training issues that need to be addressed. That's my take on it anyway.
William (ducks back under cover)

[Ralph Cramden]

excrab

Your post 1364 is bang on. PTH is like the Energizer Bunny. He just keeps on going.

[protectthehornet]

mustang sally...do you mean Butt or BUT? I could say the obvious , however I choose not to.

CORRECTION, capnsmiffy (sorry crab)...gee 6000'/7000'...wow, can I have your autograph?

Ralph cramdon...you must be a bus driver with a name like that.



FAA approved is not a guarantee of safety.

flight controls and stall recovery...read "Stick and Rudder"

and why fly a regional, when you can fly a mainliner?

[captainsmiffy]

Actually it was me who mentioned the 6/7000 feet elevation and this was only mentioned because you were commenting on my mentioning the 2300' that was clearly sufficient for recovery. You retorted with the buffalo elevation being 700' and went off on one about AGL, AFE etc....! Clearly, the professional pilots have all disregarded this since you shouldn't really need any height at all to recover from a stick shaker event. Certainly no more than 100' on a BAD day!!

You seem to have a problem with receiving criticism and reasoned debate and seem to want to argue with all and sundry. This I don't mind but don't let it get personal. Re-read all of your posts - you seem to just have long lists of grudges against individuals who are trying to add reasoned thought to the debate.

Let's get back to the salient points; as someone pointed out earlier, this aircraft wasn't stalled until the pilots reacted in a very bizarre manner, which sealed their fate and the lives of those entrusted to them...Now I am somewhat discouraged to find that pilots see fit to argue about stall recovery and have some strange ideas on how to recover - it is very clear and should be actioned like you would to an EGPWS event; ie react first and with the correct technique. Sort out the 'whys' afterwards.

At the end of the day, this perfectly serviceable aeroplane crashed as a result of crew action. It shouldn't matter how the bugs were set - they built themselves a trap, maybe, from which they ought to have been guaranteed to have recovered from, and they didn't. The focus thus should be on that crews individual training and why they reacted as they did. There are some huge questions to be asked....

I strongly believe that there should be a call for standardisation here; if you have argued, for example, about aileron use at the stall and many of us have cringed at what you have said then clearly one of us is wrong. How has this arisen? It is a question over the basics of flying and we are poles apart. I am clear in my mind about the aerodynamics of the situation and why you don't use the aileron - I have a degree in aeronautical engineering and have stalled more aeroplanes in my time (deliberately!), including the Dash 8, than some have had hot dinners. I can vouch for STANDARD STALL RECOVERY. 3000 hours plus were on basic instruction.

As I said, drop the personal crusade and back to reasoned debate. We'll all be the better for it.

[Cacophonix]

Stall recovery

Have been following this debate with some interest and would say in fairness to protectthehornet that he is not advocating the use of ailerons or rudder in a stalled aircraft to pick a up a wing. He appears to be pointing out that it can be done (on some types).

My instructor demonstrated it, fully stalled, to me in a slab winged trainer and insisted that I do it and it worked fine. I tried it years later in another more unforgiving type (just because you can) and surprise, surprise, I put the aircraft into a spin.

This thread with good detail from professional guys who have so much more experience than me has just proved that even the most basic (and vital) aircraft handling actions have subtle interpretations that might catch out the unwary. I will continue to live and learn.

[Clandestino]

I have expressed myself somewhat vaguely, my apologies. I did not mean to infer that Q400 is not prone to tailplane stall only if operated IAW AOM. It's still off the record but Q400 testing has shown that even if one somehow manages to get significant ice on the horizontal stabilizer, chances of tailplane stalling are very nearly zero as no test has pushed the tail near the brink of the stall.

It is possible that aerotunnel and flight testing did not cover every possible form of ice on the stabilizer so the manufacturer has cautiously decided not to pronounce its aeroplane tail stall free. However now there's a dilemma whether to tell the crews that they don't have to worry about the tailplane stall, and risk that the unlucky few who somehow manage to defy the laws of the probability and stall the tailplane don't know how to get out of it, or teach pilots to recover from tailplane stall and risk the procedure getting applied at inappropriate time. I don't envy those who have to make that call.

Thank you for pointing out the part in the FCOM, Excrab. It is very good advice but my speculation is that it was written as a general warning based on NASA's tests in twotter (BTW its configuration is as bad as it gets for tailplane stall; high wing coupled with low tail and powerful flaps). Stick force lighting is what happens as the tail with unpowered elevator approaches the stall but I can't see the way in which nearly stalled tail can fool Q400's pitch feel and trim unit into decreasing the stick pressure.

As for why did the crew do what proved to be their final undoing, I'll have to disappoint some of the readers: more often than not the accident investigations don't manage to get that deep. We still don't know what made captain of PH-BUF to attempt take off without clearance or captain of TC-GEN to put his thrust in the only faulty instrument on board. The investigation is finished when it can be said with high probability: "What happened is this-and-this and we have to do that-and-that to prevent it from recurring". And there's good chance we'll never be able to find out just why the stall warning recovery procedure applied by the crew was not only contrary to type specific one but also to every other known to mankind. My speculation is that it was both pilots' incapacitation brought on by the fatigue.

[FoolsGold]

both pilots incapacitated by fatigue?
It seems that is at this time the most likely conclusion, though a formal and more thorough investigation is in progress.
I just wonder:
Exactly how utterly exhausted would an EXPERIENCED and WELL TRAINED pilot have to be in order to keep the nose raised during a stall despite all the forces acting on the stick?
So its probably a matter of training despite the simultaneous utter exhaustion.

[captainsmiffy]

Stall recovery

NamibFox, yes PTH is advocating unstalling the wings first but he also prattles on about being able to raise the wing with ailerons and, in the early days on wings without washout, if the ailerons were unsuited then you could use the rudder....and this is the knub of the whole matter, I believe. Why show the student that you can do this because sooner or later that student will do it! Now there is no way of knowing how advanced that stall is along the wing root ergo you don't know how far from initiating a fully developed stall/spin you really are. So what exactly is the point? What actually happens is that you see no end of pilots that believe that this is the correct thing to do. You yourself were initially taught this and you have seen for yourself the sorry results of mis-handling - thankfully you have learnt. Well done sir! I don't know whether the accident pilots in question also employed this technique - the Dash 8 311 certainly dropped a wing in a lively fashion when I stalled it! (I had a CAA flight testengineer on the jumpseat and I very enthusiastically said "hey, let's do that again!" but he wasn't amused and wanted no more of it!)

In my book, the average pilot should be shown very clearly standard stall recovery. The niceties and nuances are lost on them (such as you can pick up the wing but it is highly ill-advised) with the very real danger of them actually learning the wrong technique, so don't flirt with it!

[captainsmiffy]

Exhaustion?

Did anybody else read between the lines and get utter exhaustion simultaneously from both pilots? I didn't. Surely the tape would have had reference to that. If I was that bloody tired that I couldn't think straight I would have announced it to the other guy. That is CRM, is it not? I have done so, recently, in my present job. (We are encouraged to take in-flight 'rest' when required)

Undoubtedley they were knackered but not to the point of being incapacitated with it.

[egbt]

My instructor demonstrated it, fully stalled, to me in a slab winged trainer and insisted that I do it and it worked fine. I tried it years later in another more unforgiving type (just because you can) and surprise, surprise, I put the aircraft into a spin.

As did an instructor or his student a few years ago in a T67c, at lowish level he did not have time to recover. Result 2 dead. AIAB report here: Air Accidents Investigation: Slingsby T67C Firefly, G-FORS

Summary

the investigation concluded that the aircraft probably entered an unintentional spin during an exercise involving oscillatory stalling. This particular exercise is not part of the UK Private Pilot’s Licence syllabus. As this exercise is considered inappropriate for ab initio flying training, a recommendation has been made to the CAA to ensure that flying instructors do not include oscillatory stalling during early flying training.

[protectthehornet]

nambifox

thank you for understanding that speaking about the different myths of stall recovery is not the same as my primary statement.

some people just like to argue for arguments sake.

unstall the wing by pushing forward on the yoke...say this a thousand times, so the one time you need it...you won't think twice.

level the wings in the normal fashion will reduce the ''loading'' and make the remainder of the recovery more efficient.

I encourage you to read "Stick and Rudder" from which I took all information about washin and washout...and not to read capnsmiffy's book (this is a joke as he says ''in my book'')

[captainsmiffy]

PTH - am confused; are you saying that I do anything different then?! I merely will always argue that you don't pick the wing up with rudder! Other than this, we are in full agreement; unstall the wings every time! We know it; why didn't they?

I think that you like to 'polarise' people and opinion and court confrontation but if you don't espouse the idea of picking the wing up with rudder then we'll get along fine!

I am familiar with Langweischs' book by the way! (Oh, I am an author by the way!)

[finfly1]

"FAA approved is not a guarantee of safety."

Is this intended to be opinion or fact?