CO Crash
- Thread starter flytchick
- Start date
I have always been an operational guy, with zero flying time....but I do try to keep up and learn what I can when something catches my interest......and I am puzzled with the short time frame that this could have happened.....
According to the ATC feed posted on page one-
15:23- CO 3407 Cleared for Runway 23
16:04- CO 3407 was told to contact Tower on 120.5- (FO responded)
17:03- BUF Approach attempted to contact CO 3407- CO3407 did not respond.
17:22- BUF Approach attempted contact again
17:35- BUF Approach made the request for DL 1998 to see if they could spot the -8
So the piece that simply has me stumped is there was 59 seconds from the last recorded response from CO 3407, to the next attempt to contact which they did not respond.......Prior to this there was not any report of trouble reported........
I just find it difficult to accept that in less than a minute, the ice progressively worsened to the extent of bringing the plane down......so rapidly that neither of the pilots were able to make any contact.( I realize that is not on the top of priorities during a rapidly desending aircraft)..... but can the icing really get that bad, that quickly, and was not previously identified by the crew as a potential fatal issue.....on a brand new aircraft......
Now- I am not questioning the response time of the crew, or abilities at all......I have just been in this industry for 14 years, and have never seen something happen in such a short time......I am just looking for someone to explain this.............
In closing- my thoughts and prayers go out to everyone onboard, and the Colgan and Continental family.
According to the ATC feed posted on page one-
15:23- CO 3407 Cleared for Runway 23
16:04- CO 3407 was told to contact Tower on 120.5- (FO responded)
17:03- BUF Approach attempted to contact CO 3407- CO3407 did not respond.
17:22- BUF Approach attempted contact again
17:35- BUF Approach made the request for DL 1998 to see if they could spot the -8
So the piece that simply has me stumped is there was 59 seconds from the last recorded response from CO 3407, to the next attempt to contact which they did not respond.......Prior to this there was not any report of trouble reported........
I just find it difficult to accept that in less than a minute, the ice progressively worsened to the extent of bringing the plane down......so rapidly that neither of the pilots were able to make any contact.( I realize that is not on the top of priorities during a rapidly desending aircraft)..... but can the icing really get that bad, that quickly, and was not previously identified by the crew as a potential fatal issue.....on a brand new aircraft......
Now- I am not questioning the response time of the crew, or abilities at all......I have just been in this industry for 14 years, and have never seen something happen in such a short time......I am just looking for someone to explain this.............
In closing- my thoughts and prayers go out to everyone onboard, and the Colgan and Continental family.
My thoughts and prayers are with all of the families as well. I have been been directly involved in the aftermath of 2 crashes.
Its too early to speculate but heres my opinion. Ice build up yes. On approach so low and slow and not getting the lift they need due to the ice. They drop the gear and flaps per procedure and then you have much more additional drag on the aircraft. That may have taken them to stall speed.....we will know that in a few weeks. Its been reported that the aircraft yawed which could lead one to think about asymetrical flap settings or both engines not operating at the same level of performance.
In listening to the tapes Cactus 1452 was not far behind and was reporting icing as well. Delta 1998 was ahead of 1452 and didnt see anything but Cactus reported the crash scene near the outer marker.
Its too early to speculate but heres my opinion. Ice build up yes. On approach so low and slow and not getting the lift they need due to the ice. They drop the gear and flaps per procedure and then you have much more additional drag on the aircraft. That may have taken them to stall speed.....we will know that in a few weeks. Its been reported that the aircraft yawed which could lead one to think about asymetrical flap settings or both engines not operating at the same level of performance.
In listening to the tapes Cactus 1452 was not far behind and was reporting icing as well. Delta 1998 was ahead of 1452 and didnt see anything but Cactus reported the crash scene near the outer marker.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 16,512
- Reaction score
- 5,865
IF icing played a role, it probably wasn't because it accreted from none to enough to make the airplane unflyable in such a short time, but rather that the line between flyable and unflyable was crossed at that time.
It appears like the control problems occurred with extension of the flaps, which would have been done as the speed decreased. With the flaps up and more speed, any ice buildup may not have caused any problems, but slowing up and lowering the flaps could have resulted in any control issues due to the ice becoming apparent.
Jim
robbedagain
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2003
- Messages
- 11,125
- Reaction score
- 2,676
My thoughts and Prayers go out to the entire Colgan, Continental and all aboard the plane as well as the victims in the home and neighborhood. May they Rest In Peace.
Trip Confirmed
Advanced
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2002
- Messages
- 225
- Reaction score
- 0
I'm a bit stymied by something.
Considering this
'Steve Chealander of the National Transportation Safety Board says Colgan Air recommends pilots fly manually in icy conditions. Pilots are required to do so in severe ice. Pilots of the doomed plane discussed "significant" ice buildup on their wings and windshield '
Then why would that plane be on autopilot when it went down?
Can anyone explain?
Considering this
'Steve Chealander of the National Transportation Safety Board says Colgan Air recommends pilots fly manually in icy conditions. Pilots are required to do so in severe ice. Pilots of the doomed plane discussed "significant" ice buildup on their wings and windshield '
Then why would that plane be on autopilot when it went down?
Can anyone explain?
robbedagain
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2003
- Messages
- 11,125
- Reaction score
- 2,676
late breaking news accrdin to cnn they said the plane was not on autopilot but there will be an NTSB live news conference at 4p
We need more evidence, but I wonder if the aircraft's air data probe was working. Would this have accounted for the aircraft's uncontrolled pitching and rolling? Did the probe freeze over? Was it's heater turned on?
This happened to an aircraft during my time working at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center. An X-31, on a research flight, under good weather conditions, was lost because the pitot tube heater was not turned on. Flying at an altitude where the air was cold with humidity allowed the probe intake to freeze over. This caused the aircraft's flight control system to essentially be "blinded". The aircraft went into out of control gyrations. The pilot was able to eject. This was on the beginning of approach back to base and like the Dash 8 also it landed in a flat spin.
This happened to an aircraft during my time working at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center. An X-31, on a research flight, under good weather conditions, was lost because the pitot tube heater was not turned on. Flying at an altitude where the air was cold with humidity allowed the probe intake to freeze over. This caused the aircraft's flight control system to essentially be "blinded". The aircraft went into out of control gyrations. The pilot was able to eject. This was on the beginning of approach back to base and like the Dash 8 also it landed in a flat spin.
Check out this interesting NASA video on tailplane icing/stall.
It is very scary how they talk about what happens in their research and what is coming out in this investigation with FLT 3407.
Tug McGroin
Senior
The information in the video is well presented and easily understood by experienced airmen. For those that have mechanical experience but limited flying experience with aircraft, it may be easier to interpret the vast amount of information presented in the video by reading and reviewing the technical / aerodynamic data associated with the NASA/FAA Tailplane Icing Program.
The NTSB has provided limited information obtained from the DFDR in 5 second snapshots. The digital data stream recorded in the NVM of the DFDR can be represented in milliseconds. Presenting flight profile data in 5 second snapshots can be deceiving and lead to a false perception of actual events.
In my opinion and by the limited information provided by the NTSB, on the surface it appears that the initial upset (pitch up 31 degrees) does not fit the known characteristics of a tailplane stall. I’m not stating that it wasn’t a tailplane stall.
I’m interested in knowing the role the autopilot played in trimming the horizontal stabilizer and as a result, masking the pitch down characteristics of an impending tailplane stall. Anyone who has experienced an aerodynamic wing stall understands that the airframe buffet can be felt in the “seat of the pantsâ€. Tailplane stalls can only be felt in the control column. As I understand it, the autopilot was engaged during the approach and landing gear extension didn’t appear to initialize the upset. The upset began when the flaps were positioned to 10 degrees. It’s unclear to me exactly when the autopilot disengaged but appears to have disengaged during flap extension. It’s plausible that the autopilot disengaged when it could no longer compensate from the excessive amount of nose up trim required to counteract the pitch down characteristics of am impending tailplane stall. Could this have resulted in a massive pitch up event? Could PIO have started at this point? I seem to think so.
I have no experience in the Dash 8 and welcome comments from anyone who has.
U
UAL_TECH
Guest
If the autopilot was the PIC, then all bets are off. It could be a software glitch that took known parameters into account and over rode commanded input from the 'human PIC' and refused to be turned off.
IIRC, when the 777 was under development, the pilots did not agree to computer overrides so changes were made (such as a yolk, override of engine controls and the shaker stick). These newer aircraft gives a feel of a computer game with no (or little) force feedback. When the Avionics take control, the (Human) PIC is just another passenger.
I don't know, just 'hypothesizing' like the rest of us.
B) xUT
Excellent analysis Tug.
The autopilot/stickpusher could have played a role in this.
That may be why a COM would say to disengage the AP during icing.
I am talking from a tech standpoint...not an experienced Dash 8 driver...
FrugalFlyerv2.0
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2003
- Messages
- 2,931
- Reaction score
- 3,341
NEW YORK -- Investigators of last week's plane crash near Buffalo found evidence that pilot error -- and not ice build-up -- may have led to the accident that killed 50 people, The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday.
Citing people familiar with the situation, the daily said the commuter plane slowed to an unsafe speed as it neared the airport, which prompted an automatic stall warning, and that the pilot pulled back on the Bombardier plane's controls and added power instead of pushing the plane's nose down and forward to regain speed.
The pilot's actions, they said, locked the plane in a stall which caused it to plunge to earth, killing all 49 people aboard and one person on the ground.
link to story
Citing people familiar with the situation, the daily said the commuter plane slowed to an unsafe speed as it neared the airport, which prompted an automatic stall warning, and that the pilot pulled back on the Bombardier plane's controls and added power instead of pushing the plane's nose down and forward to regain speed.
The pilot's actions, they said, locked the plane in a stall which caused it to plunge to earth, killing all 49 people aboard and one person on the ground.
link to story
nostradamus
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,038
- Reaction score
- 0
"A study for the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) - the organization that investigates air accidents in the United States - says that its efforts may be hampered by manufacturers, contractors and other third parties who may have a vested interest in avoiding any finding of fault with their aircraft or equipment. The study, by the Rand Institute, observed that the NTSB, the world's largest air accident investigation unit, may be "no match for the opposition of large commercial firms facing large potential losses".
"Rand found that in some complex accidents, participants in the investigation "may be acting to further various interests beyond prevention of a similar accident."
Same shift, differnt day.
This blame the pilots scenario was "leaked" out at the earliest stage in an investigation in recent memory, by the NTSB. This is a very disturbing trend of todays NTSB investigators. The intestinal fortitude of the NTSB is matching the trend of the economy, heading south.
In my humble opinion the design of the ATR 72 and Q400 are very similar, the flight characteristics are the breeding grounds of a tail stall.
Please, someone stand up for those that no longer have the luxury.
Tug McGroin
Senior
The American Eagle ATR 72 crash wasn't a result of a tailplane stall. I seriously doubt the Q400 crashed as a result of a tailplane stall either.
