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 26th Jul 2010, 11:56
  #1961 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MI
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
protectthehornet
heck with stall recovery, you shouldn't even get close to a stall while airborne...
Could not be said/written any simpler than that !!
DC-ATE is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2010, 13:31
  #1962 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 64
Posts: 7,042
Received 250 Likes on 162 Posts
PTH, in summary: shouldn't be near stall in the first place.

This brings the conversation back to scan and proficiency with instrument scan/crosscheck, and what pilots are taught the first time ever in the landing pattern by the gray haired instructor: how important airpseed awareness is.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2010, 14:20
  #1963 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Whilst fully supporting this obvious mantra, it has to be pointed out that the word 'Stall' is figuring quite a lot in accidents at the moment, so we cannot just brush this off with a simple 'golden rule', can we?
BOAC is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2010, 14:36
  #1964 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
BOAC makes a fair point...does the stall actually occur as a symptom of a bigger, more insidious, problem?

Perhaps.

And, we have mentioned fatigue. Have you ever just driven (auto) by the highway exit you wanted? microsleep?

Is there some odd sort of mental challenge, like epilepsy or something? Should the airspeed indicator be BIGGER?

These are areas of exploration to be sure. AS are fundamentals at the earliest part of flight training. Sometimes we just forget the relationships between AOA and the ''stick'' and just sorta drive the thing around.
protectthehornet is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2010, 15:07
  #1965 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
With a glass cockpit, it should be easy to make IAS get progressively bigger below 1.3 Vs.
barit1 is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2010, 16:17
  #1966 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
barit1:
With a glass cockpit, it should be easy to make IAS get progressively bigger below 1.3 Vs.
That gets into graphic mapping issues. It is far easier to have the airspeed change color, have a flashing warning such as "MIN AIRSPEED" in a space reserved for that and, if deemed necessary, an aural warning as well.
aterpster is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2010, 16:54
  #1967 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 861
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by aterpster
barit1:


That gets into graphic mapping issues. It is far easier to have the airspeed change color, have a flashing warning such as "MIN AIRSPEED" in a space reserved for that and, if deemed necessary, an aural warning as well.
All well and good, but will make no difference in the event that the response to the warning (whether it is valid or not) is to pull back really hard on the stick. Unless I've got my threads mixed up, that is the big problem here, not the lack of warning.
infrequentflyer789 is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2010, 19:00
  #1968 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
But at e.g. 1.25 Vs the conditioned response OUGHT to be SOME power and/or SOME nose-down stick. You ain't in trouble yet, but measured correction is called for. That seems to be the issue at BUF & AMS (and perchance Lethbridge.)
barit1 is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2010, 22:03
  #1969 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: US
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I've never experienced an unintentional stall in any of the 72 different types of airplanes I've flown. Thousands of them teaching or learning them but not one in normal flight. Getting to the point where you have to recover from a stall in an airliner should not occur in your lifetime. Spending a lot of time learning tail stall recovery should be for pilots that fly planes with that problem. I learned about tail stall in icing after I retired.
p51guy is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2010, 22:47
  #1970 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
p51 guy is right...just normal flying, you should never stall a plane especially an airliner.

remember folks, we FLY THE WING and not just drive the thing around.
protectthehornet is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2010, 23:27
  #1971 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: US
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The Colgan pilots with 300 hrs when hired had the basic training to get through the instrument and multiengine training and commercial.

Teaching stall recovery and botched landing recovery for a couple thousand hours instructing students sure sharpens up your basic flying skills. That alone will make the 1500 hr requirement make the commuters safer. 300 hr pilots are the most dangerous because they have all of the licenses but don't really know how to fly yet. I was crop dusting then and had a bunch of close calls flying under wires and landing with leaves on my struts and gear but I could only kill myself. Also the Super Cub was barely fast enough to kill you. CFIT in a jet is a lot worse.
p51guy is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2010, 02:19
  #1972 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
p51guy
Teaching stall recovery and botched landing recovery for a couple thousand hours instructing students sure sharpens up your basic flying skills. That alone will make the 1500 hr requirement make the commuters safer. 300 hr pilots are the most dangerous because they have all of the licenses but don't really know how to fly yet. I was crop dusting then and had a bunch of close calls flying under wires and landing with leaves on my struts and gear but I could only kill myself. Also the Super Cub was barely fast enough to kill you. CFIT in a jet is a lot worse.
Agree with most of what you say, except I don't believe you meant to imply that Colgan at BUF was CFIT.
aterpster is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2010, 02:48
  #1973 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: US
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No, I meant cropdusting meant hitting the ground in a Super Cub was survivable. Screwing up and hitting the ground in a jet was going to hurt a lot worse. Had nothing to do with Buffalo.
p51guy is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2010, 07:18
  #1974 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I learned about tail stall in icing after I retired.
I wonder if it's one of those things that has fallen through the cracks, similar to the general understanding of Va and its application to use of rudder until the loss of the A300 in NY. I first heard of tail plane stall following the widely publicized findings of the loss of a Viscount in Sweden Jan 1977 (page 30).

http://flightsafety.org/fsd/fsd_jun-sep97.pdf
Brian Abraham is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2010, 13:59
  #1975 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Vermont
Age: 67
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In the US dataset beginning in 1982, I have documented about 200 cases of stall due to ice contamination on aircraft which are ice protected. Some of those are during the takeoff phase; many are during the approach phase. In this particular dataset, the average total flight time is 4636 hours, with an average of 774 hours in type. This is not broken out by class or operating rule, (since I have other things to do today) and thus includes Part 91, 135 and 121 operators, as well as Part 23 and Part 25 aircraft. The only constraint is that these aircraft were all ice protected (not necessarily certificated).

So there is one set of data that might suggest that the notion that you shouldn't be anywhere near a stall while in flight may be a bit too general...indeed, as a profession, we are almost irresponsibly prone to generalizing our own experience into that of the entire industry. This particular habit of ours may actually be a major source of hot air used to create the bubbles in the Swiss cheese, which is then sliced into raw material for one of Reason's diagrams.
Mansfield is offline  
Old 31st Jul 2010, 05:31
  #1976 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: above it all
Posts: 367
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
1500 hour minimum rule approaching fast, it seems, passed by both houses now:

The new safety provisions passed by Congress include several recommendations issued by the National Transportation Safety Board, including raising to 1,500 from 250 the minimum hours required for pilots to obtain their certification.
Congress approves 3407 air safety rules Today's Top Stories Tonawanda News
Finn47 is offline  
Old 31st Jul 2010, 10:27
  #1977 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home
Posts: 1,018
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Minimum hours

What a load of tosh, typical kneejerk reaction!
It is good training and subsequent supervision that keeps low houred co-pilots safe, not 1500hrs experience.
In BA we put Flying College trained pilots onto the B757/767 with around 250hours total experience with no problems. They had restrictions for sometime that meant they only flew with experienced Capts.
These pilots now make up a large proportion of the Capts in BA.
cessnapete is offline  
Old 31st Jul 2010, 10:51
  #1978 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Москва/Ташкент
Age: 54
Posts: 921
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
I absolutely agree. Somewhat disturbing that some are equating Total Time with competency.

I have seen better youngster 4K TT Captains than some of our 20K TT old fogeys.

Total Time is a completely meaningless metric.

Training is the key. And look how those standards have slipped over the years!
flash8 is offline  
Old 31st Jul 2010, 13:27
  #1979 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
total time, meaningless?

HA!

with every hour I flew, I learned more and had more knowledge for handling unusual and untrainable situations.

I wonder where these ab initio wonders have fallen short in their wealth of knowledge and judgement.

And gee whiz...in the cockpit of a 767 at 250 hours. And I'll bet they use the autopilot so very much that they never really have a deft touch for ''hand flying''.
protectthehornet is offline  
Old 31st Jul 2010, 13:29
  #1980 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FNQ ... It's Permanent!
Posts: 4,255
Received 153 Likes on 76 Posts
It is good training and subsequent supervision that keeps low houred co-pilots safe
We are focusing on passenger safety, not co-pilot safety!
Capt Fathom is online now  

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.