Continental TurboProp crash inbound for Buffalo
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Somewhere In The South China Sea
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old Lizzy
I love your ignorance. For your information before you chastise more, on the Q400 you will not capture the Glideslope before the Localiser, so even if you are "established" on the glide so to speak the a/p will not capture it.
I love your ignorance. For your information before you chastise more, on the Q400 you will not capture the Glideslope before the Localiser, so even if you are "established" on the glide so to speak the a/p will not capture it.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: In the upper parishes
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deano 777
I in turn love your inattention to what I wrote...
I was referring to the questionable wisdom on a Boeing 737 of arming APP prior to being on the LOC, due to the risk of leaving a cleared intercept altitude prematurely. Arming G/S capture prior to being on the LOC makes no sense.
At no point was I commenting on anything to do with the Colgan accident or aircraft.
Try to keep up would you....
I in turn love your inattention to what I wrote...
I was referring to the questionable wisdom on a Boeing 737 of arming APP prior to being on the LOC, due to the risk of leaving a cleared intercept altitude prematurely. Arming G/S capture prior to being on the LOC makes no sense.
At no point was I commenting on anything to do with the Colgan accident or aircraft.
Try to keep up would you....
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's another scenario, considering the possibility that the PF caused the 31 degree pitch up. I still think this scenario unlikely but I'm considering it anyway. I've read every post in this thread over a number of days, so apologies if someone else mentioned this.
Again from Chealander's briefings, aircraft is on approach level at 2300ft, flaps at 5 degrees, anti-ice on, +20kt switch on, speed somewhere around 134kts, vref 119kts. Then one minute prior to impact, landing gear is selected, and speed either falls somewhat or pilot adjusts speed for the gear (I don't think we know this detail). Then flap 15 is selected 26 seconds after gear is selected. Then as the flaps transition to 10 degrees, the stick shaker begins, followed almost immediately by the stick pusher. For all we know, the shaker and pusher may have been triggered by a reduced speed within the additional +20kt margin, as the flaps moved towards 15 degrees.
As we know, the pilot recently transitioned from the Saab 340 to the Q400. The 340 had a tail plane stall problem, but I recall someone posted this had been corrected on the 340. Anyway, if the pilot had a ready vigilance about tail plane stall from his time on the 340, then this might explain what happened next.
If somehow, the stick shaker and pusher triggered thoughts of an icing induced tail plane stall in the pilot's mind, he may have responded to what he thought was a tail plane stall. We know the flaps were raised immediately, as they never got to 15 degrees. We know a flap deployment can cause a tail plane stall in aircraft susceptible to it, so raising the flaps would be a normal response for a tail plane stall.
When the stick pusher activated, the yoke pressures may have mimicked a tail plane stall as well. We know the low pressure area on the bottom of a stalling tail plane pulls the elevator down, resulting in a pitch down moment. This also creates light yoke forces pushing forward, and heavy stick forces pulling aft. With the stick pusher activated, this is exactly how the yoke may have felt to a pilot thinking about tail plane stall. During a tail plane stall, recovery includes pulling back against the heavy yoke force (in this case against the stick pusher) to recover the tail plane stall.
I still think the great mystery of this accident is what caused the initial 31 degree pitch up, and this scenario might explain it, if it was caused by the pilot.
Again from Chealander's briefings, aircraft is on approach level at 2300ft, flaps at 5 degrees, anti-ice on, +20kt switch on, speed somewhere around 134kts, vref 119kts. Then one minute prior to impact, landing gear is selected, and speed either falls somewhat or pilot adjusts speed for the gear (I don't think we know this detail). Then flap 15 is selected 26 seconds after gear is selected. Then as the flaps transition to 10 degrees, the stick shaker begins, followed almost immediately by the stick pusher. For all we know, the shaker and pusher may have been triggered by a reduced speed within the additional +20kt margin, as the flaps moved towards 15 degrees.
As we know, the pilot recently transitioned from the Saab 340 to the Q400. The 340 had a tail plane stall problem, but I recall someone posted this had been corrected on the 340. Anyway, if the pilot had a ready vigilance about tail plane stall from his time on the 340, then this might explain what happened next.
If somehow, the stick shaker and pusher triggered thoughts of an icing induced tail plane stall in the pilot's mind, he may have responded to what he thought was a tail plane stall. We know the flaps were raised immediately, as they never got to 15 degrees. We know a flap deployment can cause a tail plane stall in aircraft susceptible to it, so raising the flaps would be a normal response for a tail plane stall.
When the stick pusher activated, the yoke pressures may have mimicked a tail plane stall as well. We know the low pressure area on the bottom of a stalling tail plane pulls the elevator down, resulting in a pitch down moment. This also creates light yoke forces pushing forward, and heavy stick forces pulling aft. With the stick pusher activated, this is exactly how the yoke may have felt to a pilot thinking about tail plane stall. During a tail plane stall, recovery includes pulling back against the heavy yoke force (in this case against the stick pusher) to recover the tail plane stall.
I still think the great mystery of this accident is what caused the initial 31 degree pitch up, and this scenario might explain it, if it was caused by the pilot.
Last edited by Flight Safety; 24th Feb 2009 at 12:51. Reason: To make the language more clear.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Obvious
Age: 77
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cause of the 31 degree pitch-up?
I still think the great mystery of this accident is what caused the initial 31 degree pitch up, and this scenario might explain it, if it was caused by the pilot.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Bristol, England
Age: 65
Posts: 1,804
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Belgique, I read your link. Modern autopilots leave you in a trimmed state as they disconnect. I'd be surprised if this wasn't the case with the Q400.
If, as you suggest, the autopilot disconnected because it reached the pitch trim limits firstly I'd be worried that the autopilot had insufficient trim authority to hold the aircraft in level flight at 134KT, which seems unlikely. Secondly, if that was the case, the aircraft would be trimmed nose down at disconnect, having failed to trim nose up sufficiently for the speed/thrust combination. Am I missing something?
If, as you suggest, the autopilot disconnected because it reached the pitch trim limits firstly I'd be worried that the autopilot had insufficient trim authority to hold the aircraft in level flight at 134KT, which seems unlikely. Secondly, if that was the case, the aircraft would be trimmed nose down at disconnect, having failed to trim nose up sufficiently for the speed/thrust combination. Am I missing something?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Belgique, I read you link (again) and wonder about the go-around scenario. It makes more sense to me to recover from an upset first (get the airplaning flying again), BEFORE intiating a go-around. I find it hard to believe that a pilot would go straight to a go-around procedure, either at the beginning or in the middle of an upset, especially a stall related upset.
Gender Faculty Specialist
Old Lizzy, I also like your attention to detail.
I think you have failed to note the title of the thread.
At no point was I commenting on anything to do with the Colgan accident or aircraft.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
autopilot, stalls and the like
have we gotten so far out of the hand flying world that an autopilot can be relied upon to save a plane?
I hope not.
I recall driving by KSFO and seeing what was left of the horizontal stabilizer of the 747 that went nuts over the pacific. I'm sure you all remember the one where the plane was on autopilot, altitude hold, and an engine quit...it didn't have enough oomph from the rest of the engines and the plane stalled, and did all sorts of things ending in a near supersonic dive....THEY had enough altitude to recover.
Ihave one question...whenever I call for the "gear down" I also add, LANDING CHECKLIST
I'd like to know if those words were on the CVR.
I hope not.
I recall driving by KSFO and seeing what was left of the horizontal stabilizer of the 747 that went nuts over the pacific. I'm sure you all remember the one where the plane was on autopilot, altitude hold, and an engine quit...it didn't have enough oomph from the rest of the engines and the plane stalled, and did all sorts of things ending in a near supersonic dive....THEY had enough altitude to recover.
Ihave one question...whenever I call for the "gear down" I also add, LANDING CHECKLIST
I'd like to know if those words were on the CVR.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dangrey said:
Yes, but if the pilot was experiencing a Saab 340 flashback of sorts (regarding tail plane stall), an important question might be, does the Saab 340 have aerodynamic feel in the column?
I believe it's been said that the Q400 has a powered elevator so there's no aerodynamic feel in the column.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The Shire
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alex
Agreed, I also think it highly implausible the disconnect was due to reaching trim limits.
It is clear though that flying level at 134kt would result in a very nose trimmed up condition. When the a/p disconnected (for whatever reason), if the immediate reaction was to apply full power (without first lowering the nose) then a stall could easily have resulted. Couple the pitch effect of applying power with the sudden short term increase in airspeed when already at such high alpha....
Agreed, I also think it highly implausible the disconnect was due to reaching trim limits.
It is clear though that flying level at 134kt would result in a very nose trimmed up condition. When the a/p disconnected (for whatever reason), if the immediate reaction was to apply full power (without first lowering the nose) then a stall could easily have resulted. Couple the pitch effect of applying power with the sudden short term increase in airspeed when already at such high alpha....
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Modern autopilots leave you in a trimmed state as they disconnect. I'd be surprised if this wasn't the case with the Q400
I've already mentioned earlier in this thread that the Q400 a/p is prone to leaving the a/c out of trim to varying degrees. Whilst it doesn't happen to the point where the a/c is in any way uncontrollable, it is nonetheless a pain in the backside. Disconnecting on approach often leads to a 'jerk' of the controls, usually forward, causing the pilot to have to retrim the a/c. The out of trim condition is made even worse by lazy pilots engaging the a/p in the first instance without correctly trimming the a/c beforehand.
The 400 is a perfectly adequate and capable a/c in many respects, but it does have its foibles and annoyances. The a/p is one of them.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Vancouver Island
Age: 56
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAA Sued For Ignoring Safety Recommendations
Updated: 02/25/09 08:04 AM
FAA sued for ignoring safety recommendations on airplane icing
By Michael Beebe
NEWS STAFF REPORTER
A group advocating airline safety has sued the federal government for failing to take action on suggested runway improvements and airplane icing — one of the suspected causes of Flight 3407’s crash in Clarence Center on Feb. 12.
It said the Federal Aviation Administration is too close to the airline industry and airplane manufacturers and has ignored years of recommendations by the National Transportation Safety Board.
The group of safety experts, victims’ families and former government officials announced its lawsuit in Newark on Tuesday and will discuss its concerns in Buffalo this afternoon after a morning news conference in Washington, D. C.
Mary Schiavo, a former inspector general of the U. S. Department of Transportation and aviation expert who wrote the book “Flying Blind, Flying Safe,” is among those who will be in Buffalo.
She said the FAA is obligated to act on recommendations, not study them forever.
“Look, 10 years in some cases is too long,” Schiavo said in a phone interview from Washington after she filed the lawsuit.
The lawsuit cites the NTSB’s recommendations following previous turboprop crashes and the FAA’s 15 years of not responding to the safety board’s recommendations.
“Statutory duty says you shall act on the recommendations,” she said of the FAA. “It doesn’t say you have to adopt them, but you have to act on them.”
Schiavo, an attorney and aviator who represented families of those aboard the planes that crashed on Sept. 11, 2001, criticized the FAA for being too close to the industry it’s designed to oversee.
“They take their cues from industry and manufacturers,” she said.
In her book, Schiavo dubbed the FAA the “Tombstone Agency” because she said it only makes changes after victims’ tombstones stack up.
The NTSB’s recent edition of its most-wanted safety recommendations, before Continental Connection Flight 3407 crashed and claimed 50 lives, stated: “Before another accident or serious incident occurs, the FAA should evaluate all existing turbo propeller-driven airplanes in service using the new information available” about freezing rain.
The NTSB labeled the FAA’s inaction as “unacceptable.”
During the 15 years the FAA has studied icing, Schiavo’s group said, there have been three turboprop air crashes and more than 100 casualties, including the crash in Clarence.
Schiavo, on the day after the Clarence crash, was quoted on WCSC-TV in Charleston, S. C., that she suspected icing and said the signs indicated either a wing stall or a tail stall.
She said Tuesday that she still holds to that suspicion after more information was developed by the NTSB investigators.
The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in federal court, was brought on behalf of Gail Dunham, executive director of the National Air Disaster Alliance, a group formed to safeguard the flying public and force action on safety issues.
Included in the group coming to Buffalo are Matt Ziemkiewicz, president of the alliance; Bob Monetti, whose daughter died in the December 1988 crash of PanAm Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland; Jack and Alice Murphy, whose pilot son died in a turboprop crash; and Donald McCune, a retired commercial airline pilot.
An FAA spokeswoman, responding to a story in Monday’s Buffalo News citing the same concerns about the FAA’s failure to act, said the agency had issued more than 100 airworthiness directives on icing issues since 1994.
“That’s apples and oranges,” Schiavo said. She said the FAA has an obligation to act on the NTSB’s recommendations and those by the General Accounting Office on runway safety.
She said the FAA studies the proposals but takes years to act.
Schiavo also said that her group is calling for a thorough investigation into Flight 3407 and said that too often in the past, air crashes have initially been falsely blamed on pilot error.
Schiavo said her group would fly to Buffalo from Washington on a private plane.
“We aren’t getting on a Q400 to Buffalo,” she said of the turboprop plane that went down in Clarence Center.
FAA sued for ignoring safety recommendations on airplane icing
By Michael Beebe
NEWS STAFF REPORTER
A group advocating airline safety has sued the federal government for failing to take action on suggested runway improvements and airplane icing — one of the suspected causes of Flight 3407’s crash in Clarence Center on Feb. 12.
It said the Federal Aviation Administration is too close to the airline industry and airplane manufacturers and has ignored years of recommendations by the National Transportation Safety Board.
The group of safety experts, victims’ families and former government officials announced its lawsuit in Newark on Tuesday and will discuss its concerns in Buffalo this afternoon after a morning news conference in Washington, D. C.
Mary Schiavo, a former inspector general of the U. S. Department of Transportation and aviation expert who wrote the book “Flying Blind, Flying Safe,” is among those who will be in Buffalo.
She said the FAA is obligated to act on recommendations, not study them forever.
“Look, 10 years in some cases is too long,” Schiavo said in a phone interview from Washington after she filed the lawsuit.
The lawsuit cites the NTSB’s recommendations following previous turboprop crashes and the FAA’s 15 years of not responding to the safety board’s recommendations.
“Statutory duty says you shall act on the recommendations,” she said of the FAA. “It doesn’t say you have to adopt them, but you have to act on them.”
Schiavo, an attorney and aviator who represented families of those aboard the planes that crashed on Sept. 11, 2001, criticized the FAA for being too close to the industry it’s designed to oversee.
“They take their cues from industry and manufacturers,” she said.
In her book, Schiavo dubbed the FAA the “Tombstone Agency” because she said it only makes changes after victims’ tombstones stack up.
The NTSB’s recent edition of its most-wanted safety recommendations, before Continental Connection Flight 3407 crashed and claimed 50 lives, stated: “Before another accident or serious incident occurs, the FAA should evaluate all existing turbo propeller-driven airplanes in service using the new information available” about freezing rain.
The NTSB labeled the FAA’s inaction as “unacceptable.”
During the 15 years the FAA has studied icing, Schiavo’s group said, there have been three turboprop air crashes and more than 100 casualties, including the crash in Clarence.
Schiavo, on the day after the Clarence crash, was quoted on WCSC-TV in Charleston, S. C., that she suspected icing and said the signs indicated either a wing stall or a tail stall.
She said Tuesday that she still holds to that suspicion after more information was developed by the NTSB investigators.
The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in federal court, was brought on behalf of Gail Dunham, executive director of the National Air Disaster Alliance, a group formed to safeguard the flying public and force action on safety issues.
Included in the group coming to Buffalo are Matt Ziemkiewicz, president of the alliance; Bob Monetti, whose daughter died in the December 1988 crash of PanAm Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland; Jack and Alice Murphy, whose pilot son died in a turboprop crash; and Donald McCune, a retired commercial airline pilot.
An FAA spokeswoman, responding to a story in Monday’s Buffalo News citing the same concerns about the FAA’s failure to act, said the agency had issued more than 100 airworthiness directives on icing issues since 1994.
“That’s apples and oranges,” Schiavo said. She said the FAA has an obligation to act on the NTSB’s recommendations and those by the General Accounting Office on runway safety.
She said the FAA studies the proposals but takes years to act.
Schiavo also said that her group is calling for a thorough investigation into Flight 3407 and said that too often in the past, air crashes have initially been falsely blamed on pilot error.
Schiavo said her group would fly to Buffalo from Washington on a private plane.
“We aren’t getting on a Q400 to Buffalo,” she said of the turboprop plane that went down in Clarence Center.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: North of the border
Age: 61
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, this is ridiculous.
"the December 1988 crash of PanAm Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland;"
Clipper Maid of the Seas did not "crash", it was blown out of the sky by terrorists.
Soon, the media and Ms. Schiavo will be describing the events of 9/11 as something caused by United and American Airlines through their negligence.
That none of these events have anything at all to do with Buffalo is illuminating as to where people are going with laying blame.
I was going to go on, but I'm too steamed.
PB
"the December 1988 crash of PanAm Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland;"
Clipper Maid of the Seas did not "crash", it was blown out of the sky by terrorists.
Soon, the media and Ms. Schiavo will be describing the events of 9/11 as something caused by United and American Airlines through their negligence.
That none of these events have anything at all to do with Buffalo is illuminating as to where people are going with laying blame.
I was going to go on, but I'm too steamed.
PB
So, these people are suing the FAA for "failure to act". Exactly what do they want the court to make the FAA do?
Is there an element of punishment involved? Like jail time or a fine for FAA bosses? Or, are they making any specific demands? Like "the FAA must declare all turboprops illegal in any reported icing conditions"?
If there´s no punishment angle nor any demands being made, this lawsuit is not worth the paper it´s printed on
Is there an element of punishment involved? Like jail time or a fine for FAA bosses? Or, are they making any specific demands? Like "the FAA must declare all turboprops illegal in any reported icing conditions"?
If there´s no punishment angle nor any demands being made, this lawsuit is not worth the paper it´s printed on
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Soon, the media and Ms. Schiavo will be describing the events of 9/11 as something caused by United and American Airlines through their negligence.
'Scary Mary' Schiavo got caught trying to smuggle a fake bomb through security at CMH for the Live at Five news. She lost her professorship but copped a walk on the felony charges because she claimed to be a 'journalist':
Trouble for a Troublemaker?(air-safety advocate Mary Schiavo under investigation by FAA and FBI)
From: Newsweek | Date: March 29, 1999
The federal aviation Administration has frequently drawn fire from outspoken air-safety advocate Mary Schiavo. Now the FAA has Schiavo in its sights. The FAA has been joined by the FBI in investigating whether the former Transportation Department inspector general violated any laws or regulations when she checked luggage containing mock bomb parts at the Columbus, Ohio, airport on March 12 to test security procedures. Airport officials closed one runway for four hours after security personnel called the local bomb squad to examine a suitcase Schiavo had packed with simulated bomb parts...
From: Newsweek | Date: March 29, 1999
The federal aviation Administration has frequently drawn fire from outspoken air-safety advocate Mary Schiavo. Now the FAA has Schiavo in its sights. The FAA has been joined by the FBI in investigating whether the former Transportation Department inspector general violated any laws or regulations when she checked luggage containing mock bomb parts at the Columbus, Ohio, airport on March 12 to test security procedures. Airport officials closed one runway for four hours after security personnel called the local bomb squad to examine a suitcase Schiavo had packed with simulated bomb parts...