Update on 3407

[SpiceWeasel]

As crazy as it is, our training calls for full power and to pull back on the stick to minimize altitude loss.

Same here. Training is to minimize altitude loss. "Max Thrust, Spoilers In". Maintain pitch attitude to prevent altitude loss.

Climb aggressively to the original altitude, respecting the stick shaker

I think we're getting rid of stall profiles from our training though.

 

[SoCalAprch]

Sounds like the got startled and yanked back on the yoke when they heard the shaker. Whats an average Target speed for the Q400 on approach. Would there be a reason to get the plane slow enough for the shaker to be going off? Even with the ice speeds?

 

[Baronpilot244]

The report says there was a pull force on the column just after the shaker and that the airplane had a load factor of 1.42G (trying to climb?).

How does the A/P in the Q react to a shaker event - does it disconnect or does the pilot have to do that? Presumably if it sank below G/S it would attempt to recapture just like many other A/Ps by adjusting pitch attitude but the report doesn't detail the airplane's profile at the time of the event i.e whether it was above or below the glidepath.

It also seems it was allowed to get pretty slow on the approach, any idea what a ball park Vref would have been on that approach?

BP244

 

[Murdoughnut]

I know airline training can sometimes "cloud" basic airmanship with all of the procedures and flows. I know my training at PDT became somewhat overwhelming and I had to constantly remind myself of basic airmanship, especially when it came to flying with the autopilot so much.

I can't for the life of me understand why a pilot, when confronted with stick shaker and stall warning would pull up on the controls. As a CFI I tought and had it drilled into me, to push to recover from a stall. You must reduce the AOA.

Maybe the pilot mistook the stall warning for ground prox warning and he thought he was too low? Possible when the pilot had such low time in the aircraft?

When I flew the Dash-8-100/200/300 I had to remind myself all the time to not rely on the automation 100%, but to be ready to hand fly, and to remember the fundamentals, as a new FO on the airplane.

I'm sad to see this accident looks as though it was pilot error, and an error that goes back to the basics of flying an airplane.

Which brings to mind the question of whether or not we can bring Gulfstream back up into the discussion. I know, I know, everyone here knows someone from GIA who is a perfect stick, but 3 regional accidents in a row all including former streamers ... am I totally out in left field here?

 

[TUCKnTRUCK]

The A/P disconnects with shaker/pusher activation.

Training untill this point at FS seemed to only include stall series to shaker activation, and a hinted pitch attitude of 10 deg. while applying Rating power... if more power was needed, full overtravel was reccomended before lowering the nose for airspeed.

Pretty much they wanted a go around manuver, which is similar to the training at many airlines. Most people need to realize that dropping the nose in a 65,000 lb aircraft is going to result in a large alitude loss. In the Sim I have seen people lose in excess of 500 ft by "lowering" the nose in combination with application of power.

Not, in the Q, but in the 1900 stalls, when people got too close to the actual stall in this type of recovery, it became a wild ride, large pitch and bank deviations, airpseed swings and pretty much a scarry manuver.

________________________________________________________________

I am hoping that there are changes to the way stalls and recovery are taught, It never felt like every base had been covered. I also hope we find out why the aircraft was slowed to that airspeed. My beef with the "nobody watching" theory, was that they were configuring the aircraft, which means speed limitations need to be observed. Unless they were just throwing flaps out in the blind, I would assume that "some" attention was beign paid to the state of the aircraft.

 

[TheFlyingTurkey]

As crazy as it is, our training calls for full power and to pull back on the stick to minimize altitude loss.

No it's not crazy. I was tought a few stall recovery techniques. I prefer the full power and maintain level attitude, which would minimize altitude loss. A good technique especially when on an instrument approach.

 

[TheFlyingTurkey]

How does one confuse "CAUTION, TERRAIN", "TOO LOW, TERRAIN" or "TERRAIN TERAIN, PULL UP" with the shaker..... =(

I sure hope not. I think pilot-error is a cop-out though. The industry won't get any safer that way.

I'm just thowing ideas out there.

But I don't see how pilot error is a cop-out when there was nothing mechanically wrong with the airplane (so far). Every accident, when discussed and studied contributes to safety.

 

[TheFlyingTurkey]

The A/P disconnects with shaker/pusher activation.

Training untill this point at FS seemed to only include stall series to shaker activation, and a hinted pitch attitude of 10 deg. while applying Rating power... if more power was needed, full overtravel was reccomended before lowering the nose for airspeed.

Pretty much they wanted a go around manuver, which is similar to the training at many airlines. Most people need to realize that dropping the nose in a 65,000 lb aircraft is going to result in a large alitude loss. In the Sim I have seen people lose in excess of 500 ft by "lowering" the nose in combination with application of power.

I can see not lowering the nose below level pitch, but you must reduce the AOA, is that not why there is a stick pusher?

 

[wheelsup]

Why was it stalling/stick shaker activating at 130 knots is the question. It was that which led to the pull on the yoke it seems.

 

[wheelsup]

I can see not lowering the nose below level pitch, but you must reduce the AOA, is that not why there is a stick pusher?

The shaker goes off before the pusher, the pusher is there as a last ditch "push it over idiot" vs. the shaker is just like the warning horn on cessnas, it doesn't mean you're stalled but getting close.

 

[TUCKnTRUCK]

I can see not lowering the nose below level pitch, but you must reduce the AOA, is that not why there is a stick pusher?

If you lower the nose to level, you will lose altitude, Trending up or down in the recovery has a large say in the outcome of the manuver. You decrease the AOA by increasing the airspeed... with full power.

The pusher is a last ditch, save the Titanic measure

 

[jynxyjoe]

Once you get the power back in there and you start speeding up (assuming same pitch and all other things being equal) your angle of attack will decrease.

 

[Boris Badenov]

As far as I can tell, what's being suggested is that the Captain (FP, I think?) reacted to the shaker by pulling back hard enough to induce an accelerated stall. In this scenario, the wing wasn't stalled till the hard pull (presumably without pushing forward the go-levers?) Again, speaking from ignorance of the plane and its systems, but that's what I read from the comments. The mitsi has a shaker, no pusher. I like to think that I'd have the good sense to lower the nose and put in "radar power" were I to get the shaker, but since I've never had it go off outside of training, who can say? There but for the grace of God, etc (again.)

 

[SpiceWeasel]

I can see not lowering the nose below level pitch, but you must reduce the AOA, is that not why there is a stick pusher?

I know that this wasn't a "jet" per se, but in other types of jets, you pretty much power out of the stall.

I was given the following demo in a Citation X. Pulled the stall protection breaker. Aircraft put into a nose up stall, approximately what one might call "space shuttle attitude", but obviously not that steep. As airspeed go to the stall-side of the tape, full power was applied and the AE3007s pulled us right up at the same pitch and increased our airspeed dramatically.

 

[tgrayson]

Once you get the power back in there and you start speeding up (assuming same pitch and all other things being equal) your angle of attack will decrease.

Power/thrust alone will not decrease AoA; however, if there is a nose down pitching moment upon power/thrust application, then that will reduce AoA, and the above mentioned pull force on the yoke makes sense in order to control an excessive reduction in AoA.

If you add power/thrust and keep the same pitch attitude, that IS an AoA decrease, because the power/thrust will have the effect of increasing the pitch attitude and the only way to keep the same attitude is to reduce the AoA.

 

[jynxyjoe]

Power/thrust alone will not decrease AoA; however, if there is a nose down pitching moment upon power/thrust application, then that will reduce AoA, and the above mentioned pull force on the yoke makes sense in order to control an excessive reduction in AoA.

If you add power/thrust and keep the same pitch attitude, that IS an AoA decrease, because the power/thrust will have the effect of increasing the pitch attitude and the only way to keep the same attitude is to reduce the AoA.

Negative. Once your speed comes back up your angle of attack decreases. Relative wind.

 

[Baronpilot244]

Thanks for the input on the shaker/pusher A/P stuff. As for stall recovery we do almost the same thing in the Baron - that is use power (all of it) and maintain a level pitch attitude. There is a lot of power available and it comes in quickly (not the same as a jet or turboprop where the engines need time to spool up), but the principle is the same as - minimize loss of altitude. (Which in this case you would want to do being close to the ground).

The NTSB doesn't clarify application of power in this case - or at least it hasn't so far. If the levers weren't shoved forward at the same time it makes sense that the airplane would stall as it bled off airspeed and then exceeded critical AOA. The initial report said the nose pitched up 31 degrees which is a steep angle by any standards.

I don't know what it would be like in a Q or any other big airplane, but the Baron can be quite badly behaved in a deep stall - only done it the once with a highly qualified instructor, but it made the point and got my attention.

BP244

 

[Boris Badenov]

Flying a Baron out of a stall with power and no pitch change strikes me as uhm, "unwise". "A lot of power" is a relative proposition, and it's basically a bonanza with a couple of engines bolted on to the wings. No shame in flying a GA airplane like a GA airplane. Sorry for the digression.

Re: Stall recovery through power application, anyone else remember the ABX DC-8 that dug a big smoking hole in the ground in the mid 90s?

 

[jynxyjoe]

Flying a Baron out of a stall with power and no pitch change strikes me as uhm, "unwise". "A lot of power" is a relative proposition, and it's basically a bonanza with a couple of engines bolted on to the wings. No shame in flying a GA airplane like a GA airplane. Sorry for the digression.

Re: Stall recovery through power application, anyone else remember the ABX DC-8 that dug a big smoking hole in the ground in the mid 90s?

Again, all things being equal

 

[adreamer]

I am wondering about this question. What is your typical approach speed for Q400? Flap and gear extension speed?