Colgan Flight 3407 Continued.

Re: Plane Down in Buffalo - Colgan Continental Flight 3407

OK... again. I highly doubt that Icing was a direct cause to this accident. Maybe a contributing factor.

Aloft, I very much know what tail plane stalls are like, and none that I have seen involve a pitch up attitude, With the wings "flying" they normally don't tend to snap back and forth like that. I think i said it before somewhere, but a tail stall in the Q400 would mirror in scary closeness, an extraneous stick pusher activation.

This is not speculation. If an event were to happen causing a sudden HUGE pitch up movement at low airspeeds, the shaker/pusher activation are almost instantaneous. When I saw that in the Sim, my initial reaction was that something "broke" It does not help having a yellow Disengage light on the stick pusher come on. Combine that with Icing, night time, long delays, late day etc, and I'm not sure myself how i would have dealt with that situation.

From what it sounds like from the NTSB, flaps 15 were called for, at or around flaps 10, a very large pitch deviation occurred, the shaker/pusher activated, kicked off the auto pilot, and nosed the airplane over. Thats a LOT of noise, light and stuff going on very quickly. You have the red light/tone for auto pilot, yellow pusher light, yoke vibrating, nose falling etc. I don't know what caused this, but I do know what it looks like in the cockpit. In my Sim situation, it was a stuck elevator actuator, on AP that caused everything to happen in close similarity.

I truly have the deepest sympathy for all involved. We all hope that never happens to us, and I hope we all learn from this. It was a horrid event. This makes me reevaluate my self as a pilot, and determine my reactions, but it has not shaken my confidence in this airplane in the winter operations. I may be wrong, but until then I will continue to do my job to the best of my abilities.
 
Re: Plane Down in Buffalo - Colgan Continental Flight 3407

Well, let NTSB tell us what happened. :(

For my fellow dash drivers and crews, enjoy your last flight west. RIP.
for others who were on the flight, RIP
 
Re: Plane Down in Buffalo - Colgan Continental Flight 3407

I guess I would love to see the NTSB or perhaps an ALPA rep, when talking to the press, explain that the investigation process is not about assigning blame. It isn't a trial, and even a pilot-error finding doesn't mean negligence or that people were bad pilots. To me, lot's of pilot error findings can be boiled down to being put in a really crappy position, making a series of decisions, and only one wrong choice can lead to that verdict. I would love to have the entire phrase "pilot error" replaced with "human factors" or something like that - just to tamp down the press a little bit. I feel that the press could benefit from an understanding that the process is about finding the cause and making sure it never happens again. I wonder how many "pilot error" rulings are the result of something that has never happened before and hasn't been trained for? The ruling may be "pilot error" but is it truly? The pilot may have made a decision when faced with an unprecedented series of obstacles and they may have been incorrect...but the next guy will have that in their training.

Not speaking about the Colgan flight, just in general. I guess what is irritating is that the media is desperate to assign blame and they seem to think the investigation process is for that purpose as well.
 
Re: Plane Down in Buffalo - Colgan Continental Flight 3407

It's possible that icing was not the cause, maybe a contributing factor as TruckNTuck pointed out...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123492905826906821.html?mod=djemalertNEWS

Flight Data Show Response to Loss of Speed Resulted in Deadly Stall That Downed Plane

By J. LYNN LUNSFORD and ANDY PASZTOR

Investigators examining last week's Continental Connection plane crash have gathered evidence that pilot commands -- not a buildup of ice on the wings and tail -- likely initiated the fatal dive of the twin-engine Bombardier Q400 into a neighborhood six miles short of the Buffalo, N.Y., airport, according to people familiar with the situation...
 
Re: Plane Down in Buffalo - Colgan Continental Flight 3407

Forgot to mention, but apparently the FDR shows they were at 134 CAS when the flaps were extended. I dont fly the Q, so I cant really comment on whether or not this is slow or not for Colgan SOPs.
 
Re: Plane Down in Buffalo - Colgan Continental Flight 3407

I am a firm believer, that it is always pilot error. Sure there are a few cases where absolutely nothing could have been done, But odds are, at some point in the chain of event, the CA or crew "could have" done something differently, and ended up with much different outcomes. If I were ever involved, as the CA, IT would be my fault.

Sure we can fault training, mechanics, manufacturers, policy etc... But it really boils down to us, the pilots, doing our job. Maybe I feel that way because I hate the notion of fate being out of my hands, or maybe It's because when 74 people get on my plane, they are blindly putting their faith in my ability to do what I am paid to do. Any outcome other than arrived safely is unacceptable, and I am responsible for that outcome. If it is anything other than that, I failed.

I think that Pilot error should not be taken negatively though. Maybe different terms; Pilot Negligence, and Pilot Error. Pilot Error, for times when maybe the pilot could have done differently, been trained better, or been more experienced. Pilot Negligence when they willingly act contrary to safety, SOP's, FAR's, and hurt somebody.

Sure it's not a popular thought, But if we are going to be paid(well) to take and handle the responsibilities. Then we have to accept the consequences when it goes badly.

Until we can accept that we have faults, we are not perfect, and we will make mistakes, we will not be able to learn from them.
 
Re: Plane Down in Buffalo - Colgan Continental Flight 3407

The FAA had a pretty good article about icing in the Jan/Feb issue of their safety magazine. It was a good read, especially the discussion that in some situations, the supercooled liquid would freeze to the bottom of the wing, but not the top. This is NOT speculation of this accident, but it really makes me think about how the science of icing is still not very clear. As Velo mentioned, the weather conditions can change SO fast, that you could be in a supercooled environment and by the time you realize it, it could be too late. Or worse...you could have a buildup on the bottom of your wing and not even know it!!!

At any rate, if anything good has come of this unfortunate accident, there are COUNTLESS pilots out there that have done some recurrent on icing and that IS a good thing.
 
Re: Plane Down in Buffalo - Colgan Continental Flight 3407

The NASA tailplane stall video and my Convair experience are pretty clear that in a tail stall, the nose pitches DOWN not up. In my incident there was no tendency for the Convair to enter a spin. It was straight down nose attitude. Same thing happened to the Twin Otter in the NASA video.
 
Re: Plane Down in Buffalo - Colgan Continental Flight 3407

MQAAord said:
I think the things that have been said here would be valuable information to a journalist looking to further understand aviation issues & people.

We trash on the media every time there's an accident/incident and we go off about how they "know nothing", they "have no clue" and "they should learning something about what they're talking about". So if one is actually here (and I have had WAY more going on my life lately than to delve into the occupations of new registrants) then I say cool, I hope they learn something. I hope they gain a better understanding of us, how we think, how things in our industry work.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

From observations in the other "real world," you see internal affairs playing devil's advocate during police shootings and car chases; you see lawyers behind ambulances and at funeral homes trying to ascertain possible malpractice; surgeons have internal review boards; the military investigates friendly fire instances, etc, etc. The list goes on . . .

During space accidents, review boards perform fault tree analysis to determine errors that may have developed. . .which includes the human factor/experience as well. It's part of drawing the best possible summary of what happened and why. Many scenarios mentioned are ruled out as "non-factors," but they should be considered.

In time, the FINAL results will be released.
 
Re: Plane Down in Buffalo - Colgan Continental Flight 3407

Just for observation sake and in light of the recent WSJ article. The NASA video says two indications of tailplane icing are control buffeting and the stick forward/nose down movement. Given that regional turboprops (such as the dash 8?) have been involved in icing incidents before and assuming that (some) regional captains in icing conditions have tailplane icing accidents in the forefront of their minds, what about the following? Aircraft slows toward stall speed for whatever reason, stick shaker activates, distressed captain interprets as control buffeting, stall becomes immenent stick pusher activates, captain interprets as stick forward/nose down motion and initiates tailplane (icing) stall recovery procedures (Nose up, increase power) which only makes the actual stall worse resulting in some bad attitudes and the eventual crash.

The part that doesn't make sense to me is that there must be audio/visual notifcation to go along with the stick shaker/pusher...never having flown anything bigger than a 4-place Cessna I realize I don't have any room to speculate just felt like getting my idea out there...
 
Re: Plane Down in Buffalo - Colgan Continental Flight 3407

I dont think there would be confusion over someone thinking that what is actually the stick shaker, thinking it is control buffeting.

Is the stick shaker part of the FFOD check? If so, exactly what the shaker does would be well ingrained into their heads.
 
Re: Plane Down in Buffalo - Colgan Continental Flight 3407

TUCKnTRUCK said:
I am a firm believer, that it is always pilot error. Sure there are a few cases where absolutely nothing could have been done, But odds are, at some point in the chain of event, the CA or crew "could have" done something differently, and ended up with much different outcomes. If I were ever involved, as the CA, IT would be my fault.
Click to expand...

You are way off. Maybe in the case studies that you read about but in most cases, any "much different outcome" is due to luck, both good and bad. If your idea were correct, victims of drunk driving are responsible for their deaths since they weren't driving tanks. War refugees are responsible for not leaving a country that's not peaceful. You imply that in almost every case, you have ultimate control and this is simply incorrect and you know it "Maybe I feel that way because I hate the notion of fate being out of my hands"

"Then we have to accept the consequences when it goes badly." If that's the case then Sulley has to accept responsibility for the injuries on the flight. He did the best he could given the situation and those injuries were consequential and he's not responsible for those injuries. Those injuries were due to bad luck because in this case the overall condition was that most people were OK. No matter his actions, he couldn't have done better unless he caught a thermal and glided back to LGA.
 
Re: Plane Down in Buffalo - Colgan Continental Flight 3407

OldTownPilot said:
I dont think there would be confusion over someone thinking that what is actually the stick shaker, thinking it is control buffeting.

Is the stick shaker part of the FFOD check? If so, exactly what the shaker does would be well ingrained into their heads.
Click to expand...

I understand the theory behind the stick shaker/pusher but if the WSJ article is correct and the pilot pulled hard enough to break the stick pusher that would seem to require a huge tug.

Now is there any other light/indications when the 'pusher' is activated?
 
Re: Plane Down in Buffalo - Colgan Continental Flight 3407

I agree with you OTP, but as I said I am thinking in light of the WSJ article. The article seems to imply that the pilot allowed the aircraft to stall and then recovered by pulling the nose up and adding power. I would expect that most any pilot beyond his initial certification has the indications of a stall and the proper recovery procedures ingrained into their heads.

I can also see just from this how getting into the speculation business is a super slippery slope...WSJ, I think, probably should have sat on their information until an informed member of the NTSB saw fit to release more information...I'll certainly not speculate further...
 
Re: Plane Down in Buffalo - Colgan Continental Flight 3407

Fiziks said:
Just for observation sake and in light of the recent WSJ article. The NASA video says two indications of tailplane icing are control buffeting and the stick forward/nose down movement. Given that regional turboprops (such as the dash 8?) have been involved in icing incidents before and assuming that (some) regional captains in icing conditions have tailplane icing accidents in the forefront of their minds, what about the following? Aircraft slows toward stall speed for whatever reason, stick shaker activates, distressed captain interprets as control buffeting, stall becomes immenent stick pusher activates, captain interprets as stick forward/nose down motion and initiates tailplane (icing) stall recovery procedures (Nose up, increase power) which only makes the actual stall worse resulting in some bad attitudes and the eventual crash.

The part that doesn't make sense to me is that there must be audio/visual notifcation to go along with the stick shaker/pusher...never having flown anything bigger than a 4-place Cessna I realize I don't have any room to speculate just felt like getting my idea out there...
Click to expand...

A thought that has crossed my mind, is the idea that the ice (extra weight - if there is enough of it), increases the stall speed of an airplane. Thus, is it safer to fly approaches, when in icing conditions, at, lets say, +10 on the speed? If this were to happen, I can see where a pilot, thinking s/he is on speed, has the stick pusher kick in, with the airplane sensing a stall, the pilot thinks the autopilot has gone haywire - not realizing there is a potential stall, as s/he thinks they are on speed, grabs the controls, pulls up, and worsens the situation. I'm not saying that is what happend, but it makes me wonder if, when flying approaches, in icing conditions, extra speed should be used.
 
Re: Plane Down in Buffalo - Colgan Continental Flight 3407

There is a function on the Q, which the crew had turned on, that factors +20 to the Vref speed. Someone who is familiar with the aircraft can probably elaborate more about it.

Does it work in all configurations?
 
Re: Plane Down in Buffalo - Colgan Continental Flight 3407

ChrisH said:
A thought that has crossed my mind, is the idea that the ice (extra weight - if there is enough of it), increases the stall speed of an airplane. Thus, is it safer to fly approaches, when in icing conditions, at, lets say, +10 on the speed?....
... the pilot thinks the AUTOPILOT has gone haywire - not realizing there is a potential stall, as s/he thinks they are on speed, grabs the controls, pulls up, and worsens the situation. I'm not saying that is what happend, but it makes me wonder if, when flying approaches, in icing conditions, extra speed should be used.
Click to expand...

Considering that so much ice was collecting that it was reported to ATC I think it is logical to assume extra speed was added.

In your comments, while explaining why speed should be added, you mention the autopilot but don't mention that when it is engaged it is masking the ice-induced trim changes, making the pilot unaware of the situation unfolding which requires immediate attention for it to be prevented, as in the AEagle ATR.
Which is why the NTSB and Colgan both... well, you've seen what they've said on the news.
I think I'll not say anything else in this thread that someone will try to call speculation, out of respect for any Colgan people here, but I sure hope (and expect) they've stopped reading all the speculation in this thread many pages ago.

But you can't learn from something you don't discuss.
 
Re: Plane Down in Buffalo - Colgan Continental Flight 3407

Matt777 said:
In your comments, while explaining why speed should be added, you mention the autopilot but don't mention that when it is engaged it is masking the ice-induced trim changes, making the pilot unaware of the situation unfolding which requires immediate attention for it to be prevented, as in the AEagle ATR.
Click to expand...

Just to reply to this comment, the NTSB media guy the other day during one of the news conferences said that there was no indication from the FDR that the trim was being altered by the autopilot to indicate icing problems. He mentioned this in reply to a question about whether or not the autopilot should have been used in the presence of icing conditions.
 
Re: Plane Down in Buffalo - Colgan Continental Flight 3407

I'm watching NBC Nightly News and they are going pretty hard at the fact that these pilots didn't have many flying hours and that Scully had about 20,000 when he landed that US Air flight last month. Sucks all the way around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top