Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Colgan 3407 Down in Buffalo

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
I've had two days worth of discussions, and a few instructional videos to help me think about this crash. These poor pilots had seconds. Fly safe guys!
 
I don't know about the pusher on a Q-400, but on the ATR the pusher is not tied in with the radio altimeter and is never inhibited in flight except for 10 seconds after takeoff.

Pusher in the Q400 is inhibited below 500' AGL.

The Q400 has the squirreliest airspeed tape you've ever seen. Even in non-upset conditions, the tape swings wildly up and down (for example in windshear and/or turbulence). This makes for some fairly sporty times when you're recovering (in the sim) from upsets, etc.

Without ice, in the sim, I always thought the stall and recovery characteristics were pretty docile. But I never saw a tail stall in the sim. Not part of the curriculum.
 
Tail stall occurs when the angle of attack goes excessively negative.

Main wing stall occurs when the angle of attack goes excessively positive.

The pusher only fires at high angles of attack. The pusher should not fire during a tail stall... however if a tail stall leads to an upset it is understandable at some point during the attempted recovery the angle of attack could exceed the amount required to fire the pusher.

I think you may be oversimplifying things a bit there.
Tail stall occurs when the horizontal stabilizer's critical angle of attack (negative angle of attack) is exceeded or there is airflow separation about the horizontal stabilizer due to ice on the leading edge. The horizontal stabilizer (tail) experiences the highest demand for negative lift (tail down force) and the most negative angle of attack when the wing's center of pressure (lift) is furthest aft of the center of gravity. This occurs at higher airpeeds and when the flaps are extended. If you think about it, when you accelerate or when you add flaps you need to push on the yoke, or add more tail down force to keep the nose from rising. This act of pushing is what increases the angle of attack on the tail (in the negative direction if you will) and can lead to a tail stall.
 
As someone of a friend who works for the NTSB this is what REALLY happened.....
autopilot was engages, one of the wing's de-icing system was working, the other did not work (due to a mechanical failure that is still under investigation at this moment....). The crew lost control of the aircraft as it spiraled to the ground in a nose dive from loss of lift on one of the wings.
A lift imbalance due to one wing unable to melt the ice off caused this crash!
Godspeed to all!
 
As someone of a friend who works for the NTSB this is what REALLY happened.....
autopilot was engages, one of the wing's de-icing system was working, the other did not work (due to a mechanical failure that is still under investigation at this moment....). The crew lost control of the aircraft as it spiraled to the ground in a nose dive from loss of lift on one of the wings.
A lift imbalance due to one wing unable to melt the ice off caused this crash!
Godspeed to all!

So, boots melt ice? Damn. I have thinking wrong for the past 11 years...

Your "buddy" at the NTSB already has it figured out and released the information to you? Then you post your neat tidbit on a public internet forum? Uh huh.

I don't know what your adgenda is here, but this smells like bull$hit. The NTSB is normally tighter than that.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top