Continental TurboProp crash inbound for Buffalo
PLECTRON
Careful with the PAA accident rundown--3 were hijackings and 1 was KLM's fault. So only 5 out of 9 were traceable back to PAA--still a record that would bring howls nowadays.
GF
Careful with the PAA accident rundown--3 were hijackings and 1 was KLM's fault. So only 5 out of 9 were traceable back to PAA--still a record that would bring howls nowadays.
GF
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting thread.
There are also relevant comments on "Pilot handling skills under threat, says Airbus". For example, Post 337 by John Farley.
Apologies - I haven't worked out how to put a direct link in!
There are also relevant comments on "Pilot handling skills under threat, says Airbus". For example, Post 337 by John Farley.
Apologies - I haven't worked out how to put a direct link in!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,125
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes
on
7 Posts
While I have not read this particular accident report yet, I have read much about it in various locations.
One of the biggest issues is the question of how could the captain have been so foolish in pulling the control column in response to the stall warning. In this case, he was pulling hard against the stick pusher.
It seems so obvious that one should not do this and one does wonder how it can possibly happen but reading a couple of articles makes me wonder if there some sort of an instinctive reaction that at least some people have to the stick pusher being activated?
A couple of recent articles in Flying Magazine have made me wonder. The first one said "Strangely, however, the captain was not the only one who had ever responded to a stick pusher or shaker by pulling back. In 2004, an empty Bombardier regional jet was on a repositioning flight when its crew decided to let the autopilot take it up to 41,000 feet. While the two pilots joked around, the airplane got slower and slower as the autopilot attempted to maintain the programmed climb rate. Finally, the airplane stalled, and the crew reacted to five stick-shaker and four stick-pusher activations by pulling harder on the control column each time.
In 1996, a DC-8 with an inoperative stall-protection system crashed when it stalled at 14,000 feet during an evaluation flight and the crew applied power but did not lower the nose. But what may be the most egregious case on record involved an MD-82 in Venezuela. It stalled, for reasons that the NTSB does not make clear, at 31,000 feet, and the crew held nose-up elevator, in spite of a “Stall! Stall!” aural warning and continuous stick shaker, for a minute and 46 seconds before impact.
Ultimately, the NTSB concluded simply that what happened on the Colgan Air flight just happened"
Aftermath: The Mystery of Colgan 3407 | Flying Magazine | The World?s Most Widely Read Aviation Magazine
With the exception of the DC-8 which I believe was stalled in a nose-down attitude, all these aircraft have pushers and all seem to have pilots fighting them. Perhaps it is a natural instinct to hang on and pull back when the control column is being forcibly moved forward.
Another article in the July issue of the same magazine says "It is astounding to me that before this accident, Colgan Air did not include shaker and pusher activation in the training curriculum for the DHC-8-400. This is especially surprising because at least one check airman stated that 'most pilots who were shown the pusher in the simulator would try to recover by overriding the pusher' just as the captain did when the pusher activated in the airplane."
One of the biggest issues is the question of how could the captain have been so foolish in pulling the control column in response to the stall warning. In this case, he was pulling hard against the stick pusher.
It seems so obvious that one should not do this and one does wonder how it can possibly happen but reading a couple of articles makes me wonder if there some sort of an instinctive reaction that at least some people have to the stick pusher being activated?
A couple of recent articles in Flying Magazine have made me wonder. The first one said "Strangely, however, the captain was not the only one who had ever responded to a stick pusher or shaker by pulling back. In 2004, an empty Bombardier regional jet was on a repositioning flight when its crew decided to let the autopilot take it up to 41,000 feet. While the two pilots joked around, the airplane got slower and slower as the autopilot attempted to maintain the programmed climb rate. Finally, the airplane stalled, and the crew reacted to five stick-shaker and four stick-pusher activations by pulling harder on the control column each time.
In 1996, a DC-8 with an inoperative stall-protection system crashed when it stalled at 14,000 feet during an evaluation flight and the crew applied power but did not lower the nose. But what may be the most egregious case on record involved an MD-82 in Venezuela. It stalled, for reasons that the NTSB does not make clear, at 31,000 feet, and the crew held nose-up elevator, in spite of a “Stall! Stall!” aural warning and continuous stick shaker, for a minute and 46 seconds before impact.
Ultimately, the NTSB concluded simply that what happened on the Colgan Air flight just happened"
Aftermath: The Mystery of Colgan 3407 | Flying Magazine | The World?s Most Widely Read Aviation Magazine
With the exception of the DC-8 which I believe was stalled in a nose-down attitude, all these aircraft have pushers and all seem to have pilots fighting them. Perhaps it is a natural instinct to hang on and pull back when the control column is being forcibly moved forward.
Another article in the July issue of the same magazine says "It is astounding to me that before this accident, Colgan Air did not include shaker and pusher activation in the training curriculum for the DHC-8-400. This is especially surprising because at least one check airman stated that 'most pilots who were shown the pusher in the simulator would try to recover by overriding the pusher' just as the captain did when the pusher activated in the airplane."
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
punka lover
yours is a fine post...but I am 99.9 percent sure that the MD82 does not have a stick pusher.
There are two kinds of pilots. One kind has read, "Stick and Rudder" in which the author makes a case for changing the name of the elevator to the flipper...because some pilots think the elevator ELEVATES you.
If you have read stick and rudder you know to push forward on the stick in a stall.
if you haven't, you might just make the classic, subconscious mistake of trying to ELEVATE the plane by pulling back...which we should know doesn't work.
yours is a fine post...but I am 99.9 percent sure that the MD82 does not have a stick pusher.
There are two kinds of pilots. One kind has read, "Stick and Rudder" in which the author makes a case for changing the name of the elevator to the flipper...because some pilots think the elevator ELEVATES you.
If you have read stick and rudder you know to push forward on the stick in a stall.
if you haven't, you might just make the classic, subconscious mistake of trying to ELEVATE the plane by pulling back...which we should know doesn't work.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MI
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
protectthehornet
.....subconscious mistake of trying to ELEVATE the plane by pulling back...which we should know doesn't work.
.....subconscious mistake of trying to ELEVATE the plane by pulling back...which we should know doesn't work.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: US
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That extra bit of up can really ruin your day. Why do some pilots or airplane manufacturers not understand that when you throw in a fistfull of thrust maybe someone should mind the pitch attitude too. Maybe not go full throttle if it makes the plane pitch into an uncontrollable attitude? I think full automation is the wave of the future but I'm glad to be done.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: US
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The MD80's we had didn't have stick pushers but if you pushed forward on the yoke you energized a hydraulic system that pushed the elevator down. The elevator control system was kind of a joke. If you didn't have the plane trimmed properly you probably couldn't flare.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MI
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There isn't enough space here to relate the whole story, but suffice it to say the only way I could recover form a deep stall in a 737-200 [actual aircraft...(in training)...NOT the sim] was by pulling back on the throttles about half way.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dc8 and p51
isn't it funny...are we just old geezers or what? do modern pilots really not know how to fly? dc8...that's why I like the dc9/md80's...no real pitch change with power change...but I sure understand what you mean about the 737 stall
oh well, I give up. every time I see someone use a modern cash register and not be able to handle something ''non standard'' I just laugh and think about modern planes.
isn't it funny...are we just old geezers or what? do modern pilots really not know how to fly? dc8...that's why I like the dc9/md80's...no real pitch change with power change...but I sure understand what you mean about the 737 stall
oh well, I give up. every time I see someone use a modern cash register and not be able to handle something ''non standard'' I just laugh and think about modern planes.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There isn't enough space here to relate the whole story
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Opinions please. I teach B737 conversion courses. The Boeing stall (stick shaker) recovery says apply power and reduce attitude. Personally I have always emphasised the opposite, i.e. reduce attitude first then increase power. As has been noted with under-slung engines, slaming full power on can throw you back into a worse situation. I believe my method will be even more important in the actual stall, and even more so at high altitude.
Further, when I wrote a TQ syllabus I included a demo of the psuedo 'sticker pusher' in the NG. At my latest TRTO they do not do this, resulting in pilots not knowing it even exists. For a TQ course this seems a lack of systems training, IMHO.
Further, when I wrote a TQ syllabus I included a demo of the psuedo 'sticker pusher' in the NG. At my latest TRTO they do not do this, resulting in pilots not knowing it even exists. For a TQ course this seems a lack of systems training, IMHO.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rat - I'd be very interested to know where you get this "psuedo 'sticker pusher' in the NG" from? Is it a new Boeing modification? I know only of STS and EFS, neither of which 'push' the stick.
the only way I could recover form a deep stall......
Hadn't noticed economy of space being a big issue here.......perhaps there is no broadband in Paradise. You make it sound like falling of your bike, particularly interested in what happened after you hit the ground !
. You make it sound like falling of your bike, particularly interested in what happened after you hit the ground !
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MI
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC -
- no, but a clue as to why/how you managed to get into a 'deep stall' (whatever that is) with throttles 'open' would suffice? What on EARTH were you doing?
RAT 5 -
Opinions please. I teach B737 conversion courses.
Mr Optimistic -
You make it sound like falling of your bike, particularly interested in what happened after you hit the ground !
- no, but a clue as to why/how you managed to get into a 'deep stall' (whatever that is) with throttles 'open' would suffice? What on EARTH were you doing?
RAT 5 -
Opinions please. I teach B737 conversion courses.
Mr Optimistic -
You make it sound like falling of your bike, particularly interested in what happened after you hit the ground !
To the above and others interested, I thought I did post the 'whole' incident a long time ago on here. But.....here's a somewhat condensed version.
I was in a 'transition' course going from the DC-6 to the 737 [200] as a Co-Pilot. There were two of us and an instructor. While we did have simulators back then, flight training took place in the actual aircraft. We were doing approaches to stalls in the Colorado Springs area, at night, and in and out of a broken cloud deck. We were at 15,000 feet and it was in January. I did the 'Clean' and 'Approach' stalls with no problem.
Procedure back then for all configurations was: Take-off Power [Thrust], Flaps 15. As I was doing the first 'Landing' configuration one, I felt the elevator shake a little PRIOR to the Stick Shaker. So, I called for "Take-off Power, Flaps 15". The instructor got all over me for recovering BEFORE the Stick Shaker went off. I told him I thought the purpose of this whole thing was RECOGNITION of a stall. He just said, "Take it to the Stick Shaker." Well, feeling confident that we had enough altitude [about 8000 feet above ground], I did the proceedure again. And, once again the elevator started shaking long before the stick shaker went off. I showed the instructor, and again, he said to take it to the shaker. When the shaker finally went off, I called for Take-off Power, Flaps 15. The aircraft simply started settling DOWN, but not 'recovering'. I looked over at the instructor to see what he had to say. He did NOT know what to make of it or what to do. After we lost nearly 2000 feet, I merely pulled back on the throttles; the nose came down; and we flew out of it.
The other F/O suggested maybe we had a little ice. While the Engine Anit-ice had been on the whole time, no wing heat was on. We turned on the wing ice light and sure enough, there was a few inches of ice on the wing. The instructor turned on the wing heat and said, "There, that ought to take care of it." I reminded him that the 737 does NOT have any tail heat and thought we should head for the barn. After some 'disscusion', he finally agreed.
So much for an "instructor" "teaching" us anything.
I wrote up this whole incedent, and another where we had ice on the tail even after landing, and turned it into ALPA. The info was used during the KMDW accident, but the NTSB ignored it.
So, like others have said, one must be a little cautious applying too much power with aircraft having underslung, wing-mounted engines. The only jet aircraft I have flown as a pilot are the 737-200, 737-300, DC-8-51, DC-8-61, DC-8-62, and the DC-8-71. Seems like the worst "offender" was the 737-200. Really didn't notice it on the others, but never got into the same situation again in the real aircraft. The sim simply did NOT react like the real aircraft in that regard.
Y'all be careful out there. Glad I'm retired !!
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did the 'Clean' and 'Approach' stalls with no problem.
Procedure back then for all configurations was: Take-off Power [Thrust], Flaps 15.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MI
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC -
- so which stalling exercise was it that went wrong?
- so which stalling exercise was it that went wrong?
- it defeats me how anyone can think that the concept of unstalling the wing is a bad one! I think it had worked well for over 50 years at that time?
I cannot see how ice could possibly have caused that - faulty technique, yes, but ice anywhere, no.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I assumed 'approach' and 'landing configuration' were the same.
My point was why not unstall the wing? Raising flap and maintaining attitude is one good way to worsen the situation.
Would a tailplane 'stall' not cause the nose to drop, thereby unstalling the wing? You make no mention of the nose dropping. My comment on the ice is because on most of the airtest stalls I have done there is always light buffet before the stick shaker.
My point was why not unstall the wing? Raising flap and maintaining attitude is one good way to worsen the situation.
Would a tailplane 'stall' not cause the nose to drop, thereby unstalling the wing? You make no mention of the nose dropping. My comment on the ice is because on most of the airtest stalls I have done there is always light buffet before the stick shaker.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MI
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC -
I assumed 'approach' and 'landing configuration' were the same.
I assumed 'approach' and 'landing configuration' were the same.
My point was why not unstall the wing? Raising flap and maintaining attitude is one good way to worsen the situation.
Would a tailplane 'stall' not cause the nose to drop, thereby unstalling the wing? You make no mention of the nose dropping. My comment on the ice is because on most of the airtest stalls I have done there is always light buffet before the stick shaker.
As I stated, had we not had what I thought to be sufficient altitude, I would never have let this happen. I guess I was trying to prove something.....which I did.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Canada
Age: 82
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm a little surprised at BOAC's questions and comments. I think of him as one of the brighter lights here.
As one with substantial DC-9 experience I think DC-ATE was involved with tailplane ice blanking the airflow to the elevators on his 737. Pitchup with power application and limited or no elevator control just aggravated the stall, then when thrust was reduced the nose dropped and the wing became unstalled.
As one with substantial DC-9 experience I think DC-ATE was involved with tailplane ice blanking the airflow to the elevators on his 737. Pitchup with power application and limited or no elevator control just aggravated the stall, then when thrust was reduced the nose dropped and the wing became unstalled.