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 3rd Jun 2009, 22:47
  #1421 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Here and there
Posts: 3,104
Received 14 Likes on 11 Posts
From the Dash 8 200 FCOM:

The Ground Proximity Warning System is inhibited during stick shaker operation to prevent proximity warnings during impending stall at low altitudes.
400 probably has the same logic.
AerocatS2A is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2009, 00:13
  #1422 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
fox just interviewed an FAA inspector who reported violations while COLGAN was introducing the type of plane that crashed near buffalo

he is saying he was ordered by higher ups to remove the violations as the owner of COLGAN was a friend to the FAA office.
protectthehornet is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2009, 00:53
  #1423 (permalink)  
Person Of Interest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Keystone Heights, Florida
Age: 68
Posts: 842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Commuting

When Flying for Bar Harbor in the 80's we were required to live within 1.5 hours of our base...sucked, along with the $800 P/M salary..but we were safe (and yes, I remember Auburn/Lewiston), but by gosh, what a LEARNING experience...

My Captains had 2000+ hours and when we merged with PBA...oh boy...try to get this wealth of knowledge from a flight school...

All of this experience gained has made me a (in my opinion) a very safe, if not superior, pilot because I am not afraid to "stand down" if it "doesn't feel right"...

Tired we were, yes, stupid we were, not!!!

As an aside...I'm not saying the flt crew of Colgan was "stupid", but as I learned from some very experienced EAL Capt's (when I was still an F/E on the 727) just because the MEL says you're "legal", that doesn't mean it is safe...

Same with FAR's and crew rest, etc...
DownIn3Green is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2009, 01:46
  #1424 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
did you know a girl named chris L? or a guy named John G.????
protectthehornet is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2009, 02:55
  #1425 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
aerocat

if they were looking at each other and not at the airspeed...bang

I've seen it happen in the cockpit...you get to talking and someone doesn't look at the gauges
protectthehornet is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2009, 18:50
  #1426 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: TX
Age: 52
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In defense of colgan crew

I still will not believe it was all that simple. The crew was aware. They switched on the appropriate equipment. They were discussing ice buildup and this is the type of scenario where you may be talking to one another about unrelated things, possibly to put your mind at ease, but you are also highly aware of what's going on (been there, done that..). The easiest thing to do is blame the dead guy. Just like the AE ATR accident. Yet, despite the blame on the pilots, AE moved all of its ATR's to a warm region.. Why would an airline move its aircraft (at tremendous operational expense) if the fault was so obviously with the crew?
excru is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2009, 20:19
  #1427 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Feriton
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The difference between Buffalo and Roselawn crashes is that Roselawn was an actual stall caused by ice. Buffalo was the incorrect response to a stall warning. The ATR was removed from cold weather operations because it had a history of icing problems. I don't believe the Q400 has such a history.
Diamond Bob is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2009, 21:11
  #1428 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: TX
Age: 52
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Maybe the Q400 history is in the making...
Just so you know, I was a flight crew member for AE (SF340) before I went on to fly the B72 elsewhere. I think AE was a great company to work for (except for the pay) so I am not out to get anyone. Nonetheless, the ATR accident in my opinion was mis-diagnosed in favor of the manufacturer/operator.
excru is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2009, 22:19
  #1429 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Correr es mi destino por no llevar papel
Posts: 1,422
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
For Roselawn sake!

There were two reports on Roselawn accident; one by NTSB the other by BEA. They both agreed that primary cause of accident was design of ATR ailerons and de-icing boots combined with freakish icing conditions (nota bene - icing was not severe but light to moderate) and that at no point did the aeroplane stall. Main difference between reports was order of contributory factors: BEA put crew performance on top, making fuss about non-flight related rant recorded on CVR while NTSB put ATR design and certification process on top, making fuss about aerotunnel tests that shown aileron hinge moment reversal at AoA well above stall.

For the n-th time: while the actions of the N401AM's crew were somewhat unusual and lead to the accident, they were far from unreasonable and no one can blame the crew for the crash. Also at the time of the ATR72 icing certification there were no spray tankers capable of producing supercooled large droplets (and I very much doubt that we have them today) so there was no way ATR would know that their aeroplane misbehaves when hit by SLDs. Actually if it weren't for the Roselawn, chances are we wouldn't know anything about SLDs.

Regarding the Buffalo accident: chances that there was ice accretion on airframe that adversely affected aeroplane's aerodynamics are very, very close to zero and NTSB has stated it almost three months ago.
Clandestino is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2009, 22:28
  #1430 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pensacola, Florida
Posts: 771
Received 29 Likes on 14 Posts
DownIn3Green:
I've gone off duty at the hotel at 3 PM for instance, and I leave a fuel load with Dispatch for upload for my 4 AM departure...

It never fails...the oncoming Dispatcher calls me at midnight to confirm the "fuel load"....

That's another 8 hours for me...so says the FAA...

No wonder I didn't "conform" to "Captain Standards" at several FAR 121 Pax/Cargo Operations I've worked at...
Yeaahhhh, no wonder at all, actually.

You answer the phone at midnight when you have a 4 AM departure?! Shame on you, bubba! By the time you got to that level of decision-making, you had obviously been around awhile. Hadn't learnt to unplug the hotel phone and switch the cell phone off yet, eh?

No wonder you didn't conform. With decision-making like that, it tells us a lot about your thought processes. I'd sit down and re-examine them if I were you.

No one interrupts my crew rest. No one. It is not their prerogative nor option.
FH1100 Pilot is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2009, 22:39
  #1431 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Torquay UK
Age: 95
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yeah, unplug the phone, and the receptionist falls asleep or just forgets your wake up call................
wilyflier is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2009, 03:15
  #1432 (permalink)  
IAW
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Over there
Posts: 187
Received 5 Likes on 3 Posts
Most mobile phone alarms will sound even with the phone switched off.
IAW is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2009, 04:15
  #1433 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA (PA)
Age: 47
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
excru:
In defense of colgan crew
I still will not believe it was all that simple. The crew was aware. They switched on the appropriate equipment. They were discussing ice buildup and this is the type of scenario where you may be talking to one another about unrelated things, possibly to put your mind at ease, but you are also highly aware of what's going on (been there, done that..). The easiest thing to do is blame the dead guy. Just like the AE ATR accident. Yet, despite the blame on the pilots, AE moved all of its ATR's to a warm region.. Why would an airline move its aircraft (at tremendous operational expense) if the fault was so obviously with the crew?
For f*** sake! whoever was flying (supposedly the captain) was staring at the airspeed indicator for more than 6 seconds (try to count, 21 22 23... see how much time that is?), seeing the aircraft was below stall speed and STILL pulled instead of pushed on the yoke! What more can you do wrong?
Give me a break! Poor fella ate the big one, but I have yet to see a more convincing explanation than pilot error (based on published evidence).
'nouf said.

Last edited by Phil77; 6th Jun 2009 at 04:29.
Phil77 is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2009, 08:23
  #1434 (permalink)  

Aviator
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Norveg
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Please phil77; you have absolutely NO idea of how many seconds any of the pilots were "staring at" the ASI. You weren't there. Hindsight is bull****. It must have made sense for the pilot(s) to act the way they did - otherwise they would have done something else. Question is; why? Fatigue, inadequate training, routine/expectations, distractions? Combinations?
I do, however, suspect the crew were not proficient (by that I mean that their actions/inactions possibly weren't second-nature) with regards to handling the aircraft in/near a stall. I'm not thinking about pushing or pulling the yoke - the Q400 has enough power to pull itself right outta there without any additional help, and it could be that the a/c pitched up because of the added downwash on the T-tail...
BUT: if you look at the animation, the PF is using aileron input whilst the a/c is approaching a stall. What happened to basic flying skills??? NEVER use ailerons when you are close to stalling the a/c!!! The aircraft flips quite violently opposite to aileron input from what I can see from the animation.
Crossunder is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2009, 08:51
  #1435 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Here and there
Posts: 3,104
Received 14 Likes on 11 Posts
Originally Posted by Protectthehornet
if they were looking at each other and not at the airspeed...bang

I've seen it happen in the cockpit...you get to talking and someone doesn't look at the gauges
But they weren't talking when they stalled. They effectively became sterile once they started configuring. So unless they were just vacantly staring into each other's eyes without saying anything, I don't see how it's relevant.
AerocatS2A is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2009, 13:49
  #1436 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA (PA)
Age: 47
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Crossunder:
Sorry, in hindsight my words appear a bit harsh

...and yes, I have no idea what he was looking at; rephrase: he had six seconds where the speed decayed and the stickshaker finally came on. Agreed, he was apparently lacking the most basic flying skills.
I don't think it made sense to him what he did like you said, because you either pull and retard with tailplane stall, or push and increase power on "regular" stall, correct? - he pulled and added power (the latter obviously didn't help as much I guess you want to suggest with that "pulling itself out" comment).

I'm sorry to disagree on your last comment too: the stick shaker came on, the autopilot off and immediately he pulled aft slowing down even more; only than he used right aileron when the a/c banked to the left - maybe overcontrolled, but more important is the fact that he never released back pressure.
Phil77 is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2009, 16:35
  #1437 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Feriton
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
at no point did the aeroplane stall
Yes, Clandestino, my mistake. I always assumed Roselawn was a stall, but according to the NTSB the cause was:

loss of control, attributed to a sudden and unexpected aileron hinge moment reversal
The fact remains that Roselawn was an aircraft problem and Buffalo a pilot problem. I think that's something most agree on.
Diamond Bob is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2009, 19:59
  #1438 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Roselawn only became an a/c problem due to the flight crew not flying the a/c as per the AOM. In my book, that's a pilot problem.
jurassicjockey is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2009, 20:49
  #1439 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Petaluma
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
crossunder -

I would suggest that the rolling shown on the animation had less to do with aileron, and more to do with the pilot's ruddering. He was pulling on the yoke against the pusher, (A seventy pound threshold), and in my opinion was misusing his feet to gain purchase in his 'tug of war' with the a/c safety system.
Will Fraser is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2009, 21:25
  #1440 (permalink)  
Person Of Interest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Keystone Heights, Florida
Age: 68
Posts: 842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Jurassic...100% correct...
DownIn3Green 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.