Continental TurboProp crash inbound for Buffalo
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Will
No altitude beyond 100 feet gain or loss is permitted, to pass the exercise. The Shaker is a Stall alert, not a Stall.
Read my other post statement responses to see what I am saying... particularly on KISS Vs Differentiation for type training aircrews. Specifying those sort of criteria, whether an aircraft has the power to safely accelerate from 'initial shaker onset' or not, as a fundamental requirement - puts an emphasis on 'a critical case' and 'ticking a box'... when in fact 99/100 times, +/- 100 ft altitude is not and never will be, the PRIME stressor and should not therefore be a KEY parameter in recovery, unless that recovery is specifed as very clearly defined e.g. 1/100 likely.cases
If this style of (ridiculous) training requirement (just because the aircraft can!), ignoring the esential 'default, cautionary slow speed response, always taught previously ' - slight fwd stick (about 10 ~100 times faster in moving away from shaker speed than even moving hands towards throttles), then 2ndary actions - is allowed to blossom, we are building in enormous extra complexity (& thus possibility of mental confusion) to type training.
We seem to be training to ridiculous (& seemingly unnecessary) criteria, perhaps even well before the basics are firmly imprinted (in hard-wired synapses)..
We (again) may never know, but it does seem there was gross confusion at shaker - what price pass/fail +/- 100 ft height gain training then? Especially when that same training (large sudden power increase in a slow and overpowered craft) probably also exacerbated the (non) crisis.
Patently naive and grossly overemphasised criteria in my opinion... that might have played a part in the deaths of 50 poeple?
Additionally, this style of training, assumes (a very dangerous thing in aviation) that everything else is fully functional & accurate; engine response, trim state, instruments and shaker speed onset
Question: Can you power away from shaker speed with <= 100ft ht change with iced wings or tail - and if not, what happens if you try? (yes, I know the bug will be higher, but all the same...)
====
Sorry, a bit angry at a/c manufactuirers and airlines and certification authorities these days, something's gone to their heads... arrogance and power, perhaps automation too. Common sense and caution and conservatism seems to have flown away for a rush of new, trendy ideas...
Last edited by HarryMann; 8th Aug 2009 at 23:24.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAA proposes new certification category for upset training aircraft
FAA proposes new certification category for upset training aircraft
If old news, apologies
FAA proposes new certification category for upset training aircraft
If old news, apologies
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Petaluma
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Harry
Except to say that my impression was that you believed the a/c was stalling or nearly so at shaker, I don't disagree with any of your post.
The training by Colgan in this instance would seem to be appropriate. The shaker fired at the high bug speed, as it turns out, the a/c was fully capable at shaker of flying past it with power and no (or min.) alt. loss. The scenario that inspired the training, eg min loss/alt on approach, seems correct. Capt. Renslow remembered the hold altitude, but was in the weeds on attitude, power response, Prop pitch, and perhaps more. Had a different pilot corrected with nose down and applied power as trained, we wouldn't be discussing a small feeder's training syllabus.(IMO) The amount of nose down needn't have been commensurate with Stall recovery, just enough to cure the a/p's handling trim (Done because he didn't advance power with condition levers.)
My impression of this Captain's actions doesn't implicate the a/c or the line.
He forgot to increase power at conditon change, he had forgotten his ref speed had increased with anti ice select, he hadn't paid attention to Pitch increments with a/p; all this in VMC with the airport lights straight ahead, at correct altitude with a little flap. It takes an awful lot to start faulting Bombardier and Colgan. IMO. The article you refer to includes the Pinnacle CRJ accident. As I recall that had little to do with training. The pilot treated the a/c as if it was a different type, zooming to a FL it was not certified to.
Will
Except to say that my impression was that you believed the a/c was stalling or nearly so at shaker, I don't disagree with any of your post.
The training by Colgan in this instance would seem to be appropriate. The shaker fired at the high bug speed, as it turns out, the a/c was fully capable at shaker of flying past it with power and no (or min.) alt. loss. The scenario that inspired the training, eg min loss/alt on approach, seems correct. Capt. Renslow remembered the hold altitude, but was in the weeds on attitude, power response, Prop pitch, and perhaps more. Had a different pilot corrected with nose down and applied power as trained, we wouldn't be discussing a small feeder's training syllabus.(IMO) The amount of nose down needn't have been commensurate with Stall recovery, just enough to cure the a/p's handling trim (Done because he didn't advance power with condition levers.)
My impression of this Captain's actions doesn't implicate the a/c or the line.
He forgot to increase power at conditon change, he had forgotten his ref speed had increased with anti ice select, he hadn't paid attention to Pitch increments with a/p; all this in VMC with the airport lights straight ahead, at correct altitude with a little flap. It takes an awful lot to start faulting Bombardier and Colgan. IMO. The article you refer to includes the Pinnacle CRJ accident. As I recall that had little to do with training. The pilot treated the a/c as if it was a different type, zooming to a FL it was not certified to.
Will
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WhyIsThereAir writes:
Just change the entire corporate and social philosophy of the US back to "proud of making THINGS" rather than "proud of making MONEY" and the whole problem will solve itself.
I wish I knew how to do that.
Just change the entire corporate and social philosophy of the US back to "proud of making THINGS" rather than "proud of making MONEY" and the whole problem will solve itself.
I wish I knew how to do that.
)I believe the key is in education. When I was in high school 30 years ago, PE was a requirement and so was at least one "shop" class per year.
Today, neither are, and you see what we have. Slobs who can't assemble a bicycle.
I think people who have no "real-time" skills are actually afraid of us who do; having the credentials to tell others what to do is a lot less secure a position than having the knowledge and skill to do the actual work. It's a reversal of Darwin's theories.
This follows in politics and media as well. Most of those I truly respect are/were avid hobbyists. Barry Goldwater, Paul Harvey, and Walter Cronkite had hobbies like amateur radio, radio-controlled model aircraft, building Heathkit electronics.
I agree with Why - we need to once again become makers instead of buyers.
As far as re-regulating the US airlines, it would prolly put them at a distinct disadvantage globally, unless there was a subsidy of some sort - and the folks who like to shout warnings about socialism would have a field-day.
...
Well it's an idea!
How about requiring airline pilots to do say aerobatics training - on a regular and ongoing basis. This would be really, really cheap compared to any real flying time training on an airliner. I suspect maybe even a lot cheaper than a simulator - by factors or even orders of magnitude.
Of course, probably inevitably, some trainees will die during this process.
What does the team think?
==added subsequently==
Well, its not exactly what I suggested but it is along the same lines.
FAA proposes new certification category for upset training aircraft
"The US FAA is proposing to create a new certification category for aircraft that can be used to teach airline pilots how to recover from upset situations in actual flight conditions."
==end of addition==
Of course, probably inevitably, some trainees will die during this process.
What does the team think?
==added subsequently==
Well, its not exactly what I suggested but it is along the same lines.
FAA proposes new certification category for upset training aircraft
"The US FAA is proposing to create a new certification category for aircraft that can be used to teach airline pilots how to recover from upset situations in actual flight conditions."
==end of addition==
Last edited by jimjim1; 9th Aug 2009 at 01:49. Reason: FAA agree - ish.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about requiring airline pilots to do say aerobatics training - on a regular and ongoing basis.
Better to risk losing a few pilots in training than risk pilots and a bunch of passengers out on the line.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes Will, no doubt guilty of over-egging the custard there...or drinking too much red wine
Attaining a high level of proficiency in such a specific task must be accurately contextualised, if that be say < 400 ft on the approach, then equal or more emphasis requires on simple instinctive flying.
Shaker should should then become more of a wake-up call than a frightener, which it seems to have become here... some or all of the following seem implicated here: lack of situational awareness, tiredness, over-concern about icing and poor CRM/crew combination.
Training specifics and pass/fail skills can, if the candidate fails to fully contextualise, create a 'set of dots' in a 3-D world. If these are too bright and remain randomised there is always a danger that what should be innate, previously learnt behaviour (the unchanging backdrop those dots should reside upon), fades in significance.
I suppose the questions raised these days are along the lines of: can 'anyone' be trained to be a good pilot, by training alone (i.e. just a job, as any other) and not by a degree of self assessment, introspection and honesty. Without early years immersion in flight, flying and aviation, the backdrop - a lot of re-programming is required.
Is it again a case of not just knowing what you know (the dots), but knowing what you don't know - and at least not going there without acquaintaing oneself with that particular skill or knowledge, or suitable hand-holding.
What was so obviously missing, to me anyway, was that backdrop, in this case - a wee precuationary push on that stick, and the bells, alarm heart-rate should have died away almost instantly - time for a quick instrument scan and a more leisurely reach and more leisurely push on the power levers.
=====
Yes, that link should have appeared in AF447 thread... not here. Thanks
We seem to be training to ridiculous (& seemingly unnecessary) criteria, perhaps even well before the basics are firmly imprinted...
Shaker should should then become more of a wake-up call than a frightener, which it seems to have become here... some or all of the following seem implicated here: lack of situational awareness, tiredness, over-concern about icing and poor CRM/crew combination.
Training specifics and pass/fail skills can, if the candidate fails to fully contextualise, create a 'set of dots' in a 3-D world. If these are too bright and remain randomised there is always a danger that what should be innate, previously learnt behaviour (the unchanging backdrop those dots should reside upon), fades in significance.
I suppose the questions raised these days are along the lines of: can 'anyone' be trained to be a good pilot, by training alone (i.e. just a job, as any other) and not by a degree of self assessment, introspection and honesty. Without early years immersion in flight, flying and aviation, the backdrop - a lot of re-programming is required.
Is it again a case of not just knowing what you know (the dots), but knowing what you don't know - and at least not going there without acquaintaing oneself with that particular skill or knowledge, or suitable hand-holding.
What was so obviously missing, to me anyway, was that backdrop, in this case - a wee precuationary push on that stick, and the bells, alarm heart-rate should have died away almost instantly - time for a quick instrument scan and a more leisurely reach and more leisurely push on the power levers.
=====
Yes, that link should have appeared in AF447 thread... not here. Thanks
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PJ2
Enjoy your posts and invariably learn from them. I ran the $780 figure you quote for a trans-Atlantic flight in 1958 through the CPI converter, and it works out to just under $5,000 in today's dollars (am using U$D, not Canadian here). Which, curiously, $5,000 is just about the cost of a first-class ticket nowadays over the Atlantic. Back in 1958, pre- Freddie Laker et. al, nearly all over-the-ocean airliner travel was first class by today's standards. There were sleeper berths in the 377s and Connies. Mind you, the trips took longer and were made more exciting by four flaming (at night) Pratts or Wrights out the portholes, but nobody in the pointy end ever fell asleep from ennui. So really, we're paying the same for first class travel today as we did back then. At the risk of sounding elitist, perhaps the transport industry should haul the steerage clientele on ships and require those truly in a hurry to pay the 1958 price.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Petaluma
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Due to all the requirements to prolong heavier than air flight to distances that are unimaginable by standards of yesteryear, the cost has been artificially low for many years. By my definition, there is NO 'steerage'. A seat in the cabin should cost what it did when people were honest, eg MORE. It isn't rocket science, every dime it costs to carry should be folded in, including the costs of engineering, research, TRAINING, and handsome salaries for all in the mix.
What idiot worked his a** off to get people to think flying should be on a par with fast food ?? I look at fares over the last decade, and frankly, knowing what's at risk, it frightens me. It doesn't take a big brain to see where the offsets are.
What idiot worked his a** off to get people to think flying should be on a par with fast food ?? I look at fares over the last decade, and frankly, knowing what's at risk, it frightens me. It doesn't take a big brain to see where the offsets are.
Will;
Yup. It should frighten the flying public as well but when the focus is on a twenty dollar bill and not the larger picture, coming as it does from a flying public trained and raised on $1.49-fare-entitlement-or-else thinking, one's well-being and safety on an airplane is "assumed-or-else".
For such thinking you can thank Milton Friedman and the "Chicago Boys" from the University of Chicago and Ronald Reagan (he once said, "Not bad for an actor - four years' steady work") and his neoliberal deregulatory economics and the industry's response to same for the industry's mythologically-based fares.
Some of the early (viscerally hated by employees) responders were Carl Icahn and Bob "Fang" Crandall but the industry is littered with those men who saw the power resident in de-regulatory thinking and saw employee contracts as wealth-transferring ATM machines. The lever for such extractions was simple: Chapter 11.
GHOTI;
Thanks for putting reality to the imagined numbers - very interesting indeed. It puts meat on the theory but unfortunately the fatal accident rate, not any awareness of how much aviation costs to do safely and well, is the only factor that will alter the current turn upwards of a number of disconcerting trends.
There are far greater underlying factors at work here, wonderfully outlined in a book, (one of dozens), entitled, "Capital and Language". Sorry, off-thread but it is WELL worth reading. It's by an Italian author and not, thankfully, by an American observer/writer.
What idiot worked his a** off to get people to think flying should be on a par with fast food ?? I look at fares over the last decade, and frankly, knowing what's at risk, it frightens me. It doesn't take a big brain to see where the offsets are.
For such thinking you can thank Milton Friedman and the "Chicago Boys" from the University of Chicago and Ronald Reagan (he once said, "Not bad for an actor - four years' steady work") and his neoliberal deregulatory economics and the industry's response to same for the industry's mythologically-based fares.
Some of the early (viscerally hated by employees) responders were Carl Icahn and Bob "Fang" Crandall but the industry is littered with those men who saw the power resident in de-regulatory thinking and saw employee contracts as wealth-transferring ATM machines. The lever for such extractions was simple: Chapter 11.
GHOTI;
Thanks for putting reality to the imagined numbers - very interesting indeed. It puts meat on the theory but unfortunately the fatal accident rate, not any awareness of how much aviation costs to do safely and well, is the only factor that will alter the current turn upwards of a number of disconcerting trends.
There are far greater underlying factors at work here, wonderfully outlined in a book, (one of dozens), entitled, "Capital and Language". Sorry, off-thread but it is WELL worth reading. It's by an Italian author and not, thankfully, by an American observer/writer.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PJ2 and GHOTI - all well and good.
But don't be surprised, and don't complain, when the market for air travel shrinks to a fraction of its current size. The Econ 101 law of downward-sloping demand has not been repealed.
But don't be surprised, and don't complain, when the market for air travel shrinks to a fraction of its current size. The Econ 101 law of downward-sloping demand has not been repealed.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PJ2, Barit1 and Will et. al
Thankfully I am retired (though I miss the steam- and coal-powered days which didn't stink up the place like Jet-A). We keep stuffing Airbii and Triple-7s into the farm at about the annual rate we are up to for reasons unexplained, indeed the law of diminishing demand will roll into play. They had to give away tickets on the Electra even after the whirl-mode flutter business was resolved in her last years. (No civilian experience with same but the beefed-up P-3 was/is a delight to drive.) There is a sociological, if not legal, obligation to provide safe passage. Safety comes at a price that is not market driven. Can we roll back this industry to the pre-Thatcher/Reagan days when at least some nods and winks were given to safety both in airframe and flight crew? I don't know. But letting the price return up to 1958 levels and putting regulators back in the responsibility seat might create a higher demand for same. Wealthy travelers tend to demand a higher standard of performance than back-packers on a discount ticket.
barit1;
If I may, surprise and complaint aren't relevant to the focus or thrust of the dialogue. Observation, thought and suggestion are not the same as having an involved, goal-directed interest, through which both elation and disappointment and their cousins, compliment and complaint, work. I'm retired and, along with a number of others here, am making experienced observations upon an industry which is mirroring and thereby following the desecration of the airline pilot profession. There is far more at stake here than mere disappointment.
It is the industry itself which must come to terms with itself and its unfolding, just as passengers must of necessity come to terms with the conditions under which air travel has devolved and the means and illusions by which "cheap seats" are made, if temporarily, possible. I don't believe in "Economics 101 laws" as viable lenses which make complex relationships and factors clear. "Supply and Demand" fails to explain and address (in terms of solutions) many economic realities, the present crisis included.
GHOTI;
I recall the Electra's problems well and know the smoke and smell of castor oil.
We can't go back to 1958 without the great and obvious dangers of cherrypicking our social and economic milieux. The industry is a far better one today than then and we are all far better off now than then. What has been achieved, as Will so eloquently states, is nothing short of unimaginable by yesteryear's standards, and at relatively little cost.
What has happened however, is, the vision which created the safest transportation system in the world has, since the early '70's, been appropriated by a neoliberal vision of unbridled de-regulated profit-making regardless of the cost to others. If we telescope the intervening "if-then's", we may see a direct, though perhaps not a "mechanical" relationship between the loss of standards in aviation on the one hand and the "will to profit at all cost" on the other. It is that "turn" which I think is important to focus on and which may now be showing itself.
Aviation CAN be done cheaply and successfully as has been proven, but not by amateurs and MBAs or lawmakers who cater to popularity. That is the key here but, as was proven in Canada with "Jetsgo", anyone with enough money and no ethics can start an airline (and does), and come close to killing people before corrective interventions are undertaken "by the regulator". It all depends upon what the passengers themselves are willing to live with and, through one means or another, pay for.
. . . all well and good.
But don't be surprised, and don't complain, . . .
But don't be surprised, and don't complain, . . .
It is the industry itself which must come to terms with itself and its unfolding, just as passengers must of necessity come to terms with the conditions under which air travel has devolved and the means and illusions by which "cheap seats" are made, if temporarily, possible. I don't believe in "Economics 101 laws" as viable lenses which make complex relationships and factors clear. "Supply and Demand" fails to explain and address (in terms of solutions) many economic realities, the present crisis included.
GHOTI;
I recall the Electra's problems well and know the smoke and smell of castor oil.
We can't go back to 1958 without the great and obvious dangers of cherrypicking our social and economic milieux. The industry is a far better one today than then and we are all far better off now than then. What has been achieved, as Will so eloquently states, is nothing short of unimaginable by yesteryear's standards, and at relatively little cost.
What has happened however, is, the vision which created the safest transportation system in the world has, since the early '70's, been appropriated by a neoliberal vision of unbridled de-regulated profit-making regardless of the cost to others. If we telescope the intervening "if-then's", we may see a direct, though perhaps not a "mechanical" relationship between the loss of standards in aviation on the one hand and the "will to profit at all cost" on the other. It is that "turn" which I think is important to focus on and which may now be showing itself.
Aviation CAN be done cheaply and successfully as has been proven, but not by amateurs and MBAs or lawmakers who cater to popularity. That is the key here but, as was proven in Canada with "Jetsgo", anyone with enough money and no ethics can start an airline (and does), and come close to killing people before corrective interventions are undertaken "by the regulator". It all depends upon what the passengers themselves are willing to live with and, through one means or another, pay for.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: sfo
Age: 70
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cheap travel
Now I see jetBlue advertising a "fly anywhere on their system for a month 8 Sep to 8 Oct, I believe, for $599 JetBlue offers one month of unlimited jetting | Markets | Markets News | Reuters. Maybe they think loads are going south after the summer, but that's 
ridiculous!
ridiculous!
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Petaluma
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sb sfo
Sounds like JetBlue is breaking into the fractional jet market. Call it 'dues' and make it year round, plus a hefty 'membership' knock, and it's a mobile Country Club.
Sounds like JetBlue is breaking into the fractional jet market. Call it 'dues' and make it year round, plus a hefty 'membership' knock, and it's a mobile Country Club.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots only partly to blame for Buffalo crash: report
CBC News - World - Pilots only partly to blame for Buffalo crash: report
"A U.S. regional airline is critical of both aircraft manufacturer Bombardier and the cockpit crew in a report on the deadly plane crash near Buffalo, N.Y., last February.
Flight 3407 from Newark, N.J., went down in the community of Clarence Center shortly before it was due to arrive in Buffalo. All 49 people on board died, as well as a man in his house, which was destroyed when the Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 plane stalled and plunged to the ground on Feb. 12.
The operator of the twin-engine turboprop detailed what it believes happened in a report submitted last week to the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board.
Colgan Air said the cockpit warning system failed to adequately advise pilots when the plane's speed was set below the calculated stall warning speed.
It also pointed to the lack of an adequate warning in the turboprop's flight and operating manual regarding the effect of setting a non-ice reference speed during approach and landing.
Two other contributing factors, according to Colgan, included pilot inattention and failure to follow safety rules.
The report said the probable cause of the crash was the pilots' "loss of situational awareness" and failure to follow training and procedures.
System 'reliable,' aircraft maker says
Montreal-based Bombardier declined to comment on Colgan's submission, but its experts appeared at a hearing last May to answer questions.
"We are precluded from any such comment until such time as the NTSB has completed its investigation of the matter," spokesman John Arnone said in an interview.
He noted that the aircraft's avionics system "as it exists, is reliable and certified."
The Air Line Pilots Association agreed that the plane didn't have, nor was required to have, systems that would have alerted the pilots that "the air speed was abnormally low."
But in its submission, also on Dec. 7, the association disagreed with the airline that the accident was caused either by pilot error or any of the many other factors cited by Colgan.
The association blamed the airline for failing to train the pilots for the conditions they faced, which included ice buildup on the wings.
"
"A U.S. regional airline is critical of both aircraft manufacturer Bombardier and the cockpit crew in a report on the deadly plane crash near Buffalo, N.Y., last February.
Flight 3407 from Newark, N.J., went down in the community of Clarence Center shortly before it was due to arrive in Buffalo. All 49 people on board died, as well as a man in his house, which was destroyed when the Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 plane stalled and plunged to the ground on Feb. 12.
The operator of the twin-engine turboprop detailed what it believes happened in a report submitted last week to the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board.
Colgan Air said the cockpit warning system failed to adequately advise pilots when the plane's speed was set below the calculated stall warning speed.
It also pointed to the lack of an adequate warning in the turboprop's flight and operating manual regarding the effect of setting a non-ice reference speed during approach and landing.
Two other contributing factors, according to Colgan, included pilot inattention and failure to follow safety rules.
The report said the probable cause of the crash was the pilots' "loss of situational awareness" and failure to follow training and procedures.
System 'reliable,' aircraft maker says
Montreal-based Bombardier declined to comment on Colgan's submission, but its experts appeared at a hearing last May to answer questions.
"We are precluded from any such comment until such time as the NTSB has completed its investigation of the matter," spokesman John Arnone said in an interview.
He noted that the aircraft's avionics system "as it exists, is reliable and certified."
The Air Line Pilots Association agreed that the plane didn't have, nor was required to have, systems that would have alerted the pilots that "the air speed was abnormally low."
But in its submission, also on Dec. 7, the association disagreed with the airline that the accident was caused either by pilot error or any of the many other factors cited by Colgan.
The association blamed the airline for failing to train the pilots for the conditions they faced, which included ice buildup on the wings.
"
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The operator of the twin-engine turboprop detailed what it believes happened in a report submitted last week to the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board.
I hope this was journalistic misinterpretation, caused by ignorance of the things aeronautical and that neither Colgan nor ALPA actually reached the level of idiocy at which they would be able to claim that "cockpit warning system failed to adequately advise pilots when the plane's speed was set below the calculated stall warning speed" or "the plane didn't have, nor was required to have, systems that would have alerted the pilots that "the air speed was abnormally low.""
As if Q400 doesn't have speed tape with low speed cue. Or shaker. Or pusher.
As if Q400 doesn't have speed tape with low speed cue. Or shaker. Or pusher.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Feriton
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obviously a self-serving "report" by Colgan. But... might they have a point? The pilot was able to set the bugs below the stall speed, isn't that so? It would seem to be a good idea that there be some safeguard against that.