Phenom 100 crash in MD

From what I have been told, this airplane does not handle ice well at all. There is a reason that ref jumps up 16 knots for ice speed. Flying the 300, looking at ref on a normal, no ice protection landing, and looking at the red tape, then thinking about what 16 knots would easily put you in the stall regime.
 
How come they were using a different tail number for the two different flights?
November 24, 2014, was using N820JT.
December 8, 2014, was using N100EQ.
 
Aren't news releases getting it wrong? Nowhere am I reading in the docket that the ice caused the plane to crash. The lack of ice protection being "ON" left the stall buffer at a lower value. With the ice protection on, the low speed cue moves up (and stall margin) by about ~15 knots.

But how does one conclude ice caused the plane to crash? IMO, the media is grabbing the lack of ice protection being "ON" to mean that well, then since that wasn't on, then ice caused this plane to crash.

But from what it looks like, ice wasn't really a factor in an approach-to-stall and then an improper / late recovery. This sounds a lot more like the Colgan crash. You can't really say that ice caused the plane to crash there, however with the ice protect Vref speed switch on, low speed cue and stall buffer increased and they weren't expecting that. Regardless, there were stall warnings and it was improperly handled.


For this Marylamd crash, Look at the CVR again. A full 10 seconds elapsed from the first "Stall, Stall!" Aural alert until the pilot says "oh no." In those 10 seconds the aural "stall stall" goes off 4 times without acknowledgement or action. Can't really say that ice brought this airplane down.
 
The guy who did the CVR analysis was my IR instructor. If I can talk him into it, I'm going to sit down with him and ask some questions about this crash in a couple weeks when we're both available.

One of the things that I find interesting was the seeming lack of understanding between the two pilots. Frequently, one or the other was repeating things 3-4 times that should have been easily conveyed once. Also the continual and repeated discussion of the winds at IGX and RDU....dunno....wouldn't they have just decided on one at some point and run with it? Seems like a lot of back and forth.

At least, that's just my impression. I've never operated a jet as a crew person, so maybe my ideas are off. The crew dynamics seemed....messy. To my decidedly uneducated ears.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
Aren't news releases getting it wrong? Nowhere am I reading in the docket that the ice caused the plane to crash. The lack of ice protection being "ON" left the stall buffer at a lower value. With the ice protection on, the low speed cue moves up (and stall margin) by about ~15 knots.

But how does one conclude ice caused the plane to crash? IMO, the media is grabbing the lack of ice protection being "ON" to mean that well, then since that wasn't on, then ice caused this plane to crash.

But from what it looks like, ice wasn't really a factor in an approach-to-stall and then an improper / late recovery. This sounds a lot more like the Colgan crash. You can't really say that ice caused the plane to crash there, however with the ice protect Vref speed switch on, low speed cue and stall buffer increased and they weren't expecting that. Regardless, there were stall warnings and it was improperly handled.


For this Marylamd crash, Look at the CVR again. A full 10 seconds elapsed from the first "Stall, Stall!" Aural alert until the pilot says "oh no." In those 10 seconds the aural "stall stall" goes off 4 times without acknowledgement or action. Can't really say that ice brought this airplane down.
Click to expand...

I don't think its possible to definitively conclude icing was a factor. The best you can say is "probably." The weather discussion brings up icing PIREPs that were in the area. Though I didn't see it, it's possible to compare FDR data to fight test data to see if an aircraft stalled at a significantly lower AOA.
 
A few lines into the CVR:
14:33:30.2 RDO-1 and eight two zero juliet tango ah you know we're we're looking for higher and I noticed there is some traffic behind us that's very slowly gaining on us. is that good for you? or we can go to the side to get up or we can give you a fairly quick up rate another three thousand.
14:33:42.9 CTR-JAX and whoever was talkin' you just blocked my clearance here [controller continues talking to another aircraft]
Click to expand...
Too busy calculating their own enroute spacing off the fish finder to monitor the freq I see. From this point on, the rest was predictable. Just sad people had to die.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top