Colgan Flight 3407 Continued.

A little on Chealander: Buffalo crash investigator once held nuclear codes.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090220/ap_on_re_us/plane_into_home_investigator

Not sure what good that does, but kind of interesting.

Steve Chealander is also a true gentleman, you would be hard pressed to find a better person. Between his knowledge, ACTUAL experience and personality type, he is the kind of person we need on the NTSB. It is very sad that he will not be continuing. Who Obama chooses will be very telling. In the past, far too many of the Board Members have been political types, with no true understanding of any of the modes of transportation they are tasked to investigate. It is unlikely they could find someone more qualified than Steve Chealander.
 
qoute from the wall street journal-"The crash last week could renew a debate about how much authority the crew should have over an airplane. In fly-by-wire aircraft — in which the crew’s control is through a computer rather than a direct mechanical link to flight control surfaces — one manufacturer, Airbus, interposes computer logic between the human and the machine. If the pilot’s manipulation of the controls is too severe, the computer will specify a more moderate path."

yea only difference is with closed loop fly by wire it would have crashed with the nose further down

these people are idiots!!!
 
qoute from the wall street journal-"The crash last week could renew a debate about how much authority the crew should have over an airplane. In fly-by-wire aircraft — in which the crew’s control is through a computer rather than a direct mechanical link to flight control surfaces..."

A bit late for the powers of the press to start that debate, isn't it ? The airplanes in question are here and will continue to be here because a lot of money has been spent...which is all that matter in the final analysis.

The airplanes are what they are.
 
On the subject of hours, I read all these EAA magazines with these retired airline captains who got hired at PanAm, American, Northwest-Orient (Thank you) and where ever at 22 was a 727 CA at 25, and retiring with 20k hours.

I'm just saying.

Well, unfortunately, the sharks are at it. God Help Us:


<TABLE width=649 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=7><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=649 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>Nolan Law Group: Q400 Turboprops Operated by Colgan Air Need to Be Grounded
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR id=ucContent_imageRow style="DISPLAY: none"><TD colSpan=7>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=649 border=0><TBODY></TBODY></TABLE>​
</TD></TR><TR><TD><!-- #BeginEditable "release" --><!-- Render Story Content --><TABLE width=649 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>CHICAGO</LOCATION>, <CHRON>Feb. 20</CHRON> /PRNewswire/ -- Colgan Air Dash 8-Q400 airplanes like the one that crashed from in-flight icing need to be barred from operating on routes where icing is possible.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) cannot assure the public that the airplane has been thoroughly tested before approval for airline service, that Colgan Air has the training procedures in place to assure that crews can safely fly in icing conditions, or that a crew of average ability (the FAA standard) can handle meteorological conditions of less-than-severe icing.
Until answers about the cause of the <CHRON>12 February 2009</CHRON> crash can be definitively provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), prudence would dictate not flying these aircraft in icing conditions.

"The FAA cannot tell us that this aircraft is safe," said
Don Nolan</PERSON>, who has successfully represented many clients injured, killed or widowed by icing related mishaps. "The crash of Continental Connection flight 3407 (operated by Colgan Air) is yet another where the air carrier, the industry, and the FAA resort to comforting blandishments about safety and subsequent revelations reveal deep concerns."
</P>The concerns about this latest icing crash are many:
-- One factor common to all turboprop icing events is sudden wing drop. The uneven build-up of ice on areas of the wing unprotected by de-ice boots may be a factor. Contributing to the danger may be the differential activation of the de-ice boots. Further, the propwash from two engines rotating in the same direction can cause ice to accrete unevenly.
-- All of which adds up to an airplane vulnerable to stall prior to reaching published stall speeds or the speed at which lift-producing airflow over the wings is disrupted.
-- Further, the control yoke is equipped with a stick shaker to warn the flight crew of approach to stall. This critical safety feature likely did not activate in a timely manner in the Colgan Air crash. If the stick shaker did not activate soon enough to give the crew an opportunity to prevent a stall, the warning was therefore untimely and represents a design defect.
-- The crew's correct reaction to stick pusher activation is critical. Reportedly, stick pusher training was not provided to Colgan Air pilots. If this is so, the crews are not adequately trained to handle imminent stalls in icing conditions. Aircraft and crew deficiencies may combine with fatal effect.
-- Colgan Air is a new operator of the Dash 8-Q400, which means this is the first winter operating this model for most of the Colgan crews. The amount and type of simulator training and periodic updates on operations in icing conditions is unknown. Other global investigative bodies investigating icing- related mishaps have documented shortcomings in crew training and awareness. Until the NTSB investigation is complete, Colgan crews ought not be permitted to operate this aircraft in icing conditions.
-- Most icing-related crashes occur within the conditions prescribed by the FAA for aircraft certification. This being the case, aircraft are regularly dispatched to fly in conditions of less-than-severe icing where they are vulnerable to crashing. For example, the 2005 icing related crash of a Cessna Citation V business jet on approach to <LOCATION>Pueblo, Colo.</LOCATION>, was not in severe icing.
-- For purposes of insuring the safety of the flying public, and until proven otherwise, we need to assume, as is likely the case, that the conditions on 12 February were not "severe" icing. Since airplanes have crashed in icing less than severe, an immediate precautionary halt to operations by Colgan Air of Dash 8-Q400s airplanes in icing conditions is necessary to forestall further tragedy.

Jim Hall</PERSON>, an attorney with Nolan Law Group and former Chairman of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board added, "The FAA cannot demonstrate the Dash 8-Q400 can be safely operated by Colgan Air within the airplane's certification requirements. For the safety of the flying public, the Q400 turboprops operated by Colgan Air should be barred from operating in icing conditions. Declaring an operation to be safe, in the absence of conclusive proof, is not sufficient."</P>Nolan Law Group has represented dozens of victims of icing-related crashes in recent years and has pre-eminent experience in the hazards associated with inadequate aircraft design and substandard crew training and awareness of ice- contaminated airplanes.
</STORYCONTENT><?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='RichStoryContent.xsl'?>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- Render Story Content ends here --></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD>SOURCE Nolan Law Group
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
 
No need to guess why Jim Hall is no longer the "acting" chairman. It's good to see that he already knows the cause, and that he is ready to profit from it.
 
Serious question, albeit basically off-topic. If it's too off-topic, feel free to move or delete. And let me append that I don't mean any disrespect to the departed by talking tech here. Whatever they did right or wrong, there but for the grace of God go us all, etc.

Boilerplate aside, how is it that a turboprop of any type has trouble slowing down? The mu-2 (for personal example) is generally regarded as slick as baby poop, but when you hit flight idle, it slows down like speed is going out of style. I can hit the marker at 250 and be jockeying the power levers by a mile final to stay in the air. The question, then, is what are the particulars of the Q such that it requires jet-like descent planning? Simple slickness? Idle power is set high? Blade angle control isn't sufficient to allow "hitting-the-wall" deceleration? Again, don't pile on here, it's a serious question: I'm the last person to cast even hypothetical stones at the departed because I know how close I've come myself. Just looking for info.
 
Serious question, albeit basically off-topic. If it's too off-topic, feel free to move or delete. And let me append that I don't mean any disrespect to the departed by talking tech here. Whatever they did right or wrong, there but for the grace of God go us all, etc.

Boilerplate aside, how is it that a turboprop of any type has trouble slowing down? The mu-2 (for personal example) is generally regarded as slick as baby poop, but when you hit flight idle, it slows down like speed is going out of style. I can hit the marker at 250 and be jockeying the power levers by a mile final to stay in the air. The question, then, is what are the particulars of the Q such that it requires jet-like descent planning? Simple slickness? Idle power is set high? Blade angle control isn't sufficient to allow "hitting-the-wall" deceleration? Again, don't pile on here, it's a serious question: I'm the last person to cast even hypothetical stones at the departed because I know how close I've come myself. Just looking for info.


No, the flight idle stop doesn't really seem to do much - the prop is only spinning at 750 rpm, so windmilling it at that speed doesn't take much. It also has a very long, narrow wing. It's not like flying most T.props out there... at all. It will overspeed in the climb, overspeed in the descent. If we are doing 280 at 15,000 ft, and given a tight descent, say, requires 2200fpm, we will run into speed issues (250 at 10,000, and then Vmo around 8000 ft) It also balloons like you wouldn't believe in guests, and floats without mercy when light. With the increased ref speeds, and an empty plane, it really will not want to touch down at all. It really hits ground effect, like you woulnd't believe.

One of the most frustrating parts though, is the speed creep. Most T.props, when you set the power, the speed tops out and stays put. This thing will slowly continue to accelerate or decelerate if you are not carefull. - there have been a lot of overspeeds in it. It really is an airplane thats stuck in the middle. It wants to be flown like a jet, but it isn't one. It has all the jet toys, but spins blades. Landing flaps 15 at first is a trip... just try NOT to flare it...

I really can't believe it's a common type... there is no way I would be safe flying another version of the Dash.. and I assume the same is true coming up to the Q.
 
I really can't believe it's a common type... there is no way I would be safe flying another version of the Dash.. and I assume the same is true coming up to the Q.

Well, I am wondering why it is common type rating? Any good guess? :confused:
 
The metro is similar. It's a bit of a slick airframe. There is no set it and forget it in decents due the speed slowing creeping up until all of a sudden you're going through VMO(the good thing is that VMO is mainly factored by the center windshield being made of a cheap material and really has very little to do with any other type of structural damage). It floats in ground effect a bit and only requires about 2 degrees nose pitch up with power for good landings. If you pull it to idle thel anding won't be pretty!
 
Well, I am wondering why it is common type rating? Any good guess? :confused:

I just jumpseated on a Commutair 200 (thanks CLE crew) and I was thinking the same thing. I suppose with a few hours in the thing I could get it figured out but as far as how the crews flew it, it was nothing like the 400. Looked very much different technique wise.

Why is it a common type though, we all know that one...its money. Saves companies like Piedmont and Horizon lots of it.
 
I don't fly 300 that much. However, 300 seem has hard time to slow down unless bring Prop rpm. Power lever is not set and forget either. just my experiences. :p
 
It's just a technique thing with the 300, which i fly about 30-40hrs a month in. just like a 172, pull the power and keep your altitude and it will slow right down. Though nothing will stop on a dime like a 100...
 
ALSO, the 100-200-300 have a heck of a lot more in common than the 400. A common type for those 3 is simple, it is the same airplane just different engines. (300 obviously is just a little longer) It is not a financial thing it is a logical thing. Now having a common type for the 400...? I would say that is financial.
 
One of our instructors emailed the following to all of us:

Can anyone who has flown into BUF confirm this?

"There is a potentially significant hazard concerning the ILS to runway 23 in BUF.

Information has been received indicating it is possible to obtain a significant nose pitch up, in some cases as much as 30 degrees, if the glide slope is allowed to capture before established on centerline. Pilots who are preparing to configure and land have the potential to experience abrupt pitch up, slow airspeed, and approach to stall if conditions present themselves in a certain manner.

This effect is the result of an earthen obstruction close enough to the ILS to affect the integrity of the glide slope signal. This has resulted in the issuance of an advisory given on ATIS which states that "the ILS Glide Slope for runway 23 is unusable beyond 5 degrees right of course."

When attempting to intercept the runway 23 ILS from right traffic, the ILS glide slope indication may read full deflection down. Just prior to intercept it may then move up in such as manner as to enable approach mode to capture in such a way as to result in a nose up pitch and loss of airspeed.

One airline has issued a notice reading: "Until further notice, when executing the KBUF ILS/LOC Runway 23, DO NOT select Approach Mode until established on the localizer inbound."
 
One of our instructors emailed the following to all of us:

Can anyone who has flown into BUF confirm this?

"There is a potentially significant hazard concerning the ILS to runway 23 in BUF.

Information has been received indicating it is possible to obtain a significant nose pitch up, in some cases as much as 30 degrees, if the glide slope is allowed to capture before established on centerline. Pilots who are preparing to configure and land have the potential to experience abrupt pitch up, slow airspeed, and approach to stall if conditions present themselves in a certain manner.

This effect is the result of an earthen obstruction close enough to the ILS to affect the integrity of the glide slope signal. This has resulted in the issuance of an advisory given on ATIS which states that "the ILS Glide Slope for runway 23 is unusable beyond 5 degrees right of course."

When attempting to intercept the runway 23 ILS from right traffic, the ILS glide slope indication may read full deflection down. Just prior to intercept it may then move up in such as manner as to enable approach mode to capture in such a way as to result in a nose up pitch and loss of airspeed.

One airline has issued a notice reading: "Until further notice, when executing the KBUF ILS/LOC Runway 23, DO NOT select Approach Mode until established on the localizer inbound."


Someone had started a thread topic about this last week. Im not sure if it was established that it was a NOTAM prior to the accident.
 
Back
Top