Colgan-Buffalo crash...

[ultrarunner]

It will be interesting to see what the emails actually say.

A lawyer for families suing over the deadly 2009 plane crash into a house near Buffalo, N.Y., says newly released emails show the flight's operator, Colgan Air, doubted its pilot's ability to fly the plane six months before it crashed.

Attorney Hugh Russ says that despite the misgivings, Capt. Marvin Renslow was allowed to fly the Q400 plane one month after Colgan managers exchanged emails showing he failed to make a list of pilots promoted from a smaller Saab plane.

All 49 people aboard Flight 3407 and a man on the ground died when it crashed into a house in February 2009. Passengers' families are suing the airlines in U.S. District Court in Buffalo.

Colgan parent Pinnacle Airlines says Renslow passed Colgan's FAA-approved training program before being promoted.

 

[Abernathy]

The emails were interesting and not good for Colgan. They showed the highlights on nightly news.

No one seems to ever bring up how there was still hope until the FO took it upon herself to raise the flaps.

 

[CA1900]

No one seems to ever bring up how there was still hope until the FO took it upon herself to raise the flaps.

It's amazing what fatigue can do to a person's judgment.

I'm very disappointed that the mental state of the pilots was not included in the probable cause by the NTSB, or even listed as a contributing factor.

Yeah, she did the wrong thing, but the report doesn't really answer why. It's kinda like saying the cause of a car crash was that they hit a brick wall. Yeah, that's true, but doesn't really help.

 

[Abernathy]

It's amazing what fatigue can do to a person's judgment.

I'm very disappointed that the mental state of the pilots was not included in the probable cause by the NTSB, or even listed as a contributing factor.

Yeah, she did the wrong thing, but the report doesn't really answer why. It's kinda like saying the cause of a car crash was that they hit a brick wall. Yeah, that's true, but doesn't really help.

Well at least fatigue got enough attention from the accident that they're trying to get the rules changed.

However, every report I've read is completely understating the effect of raising the flaps on an aircraft on the edge of a stall.

 

[CA1900]

Agreed. Whatever little bit of lift they had left at that point, it evaporated once those flaps started coming up.

 

[Flying Illini]

I can't really blame her actions. If you do something and don't like the result, undo it immediately. That's what I would have done. It was just an unfortunate coincidence that the a/c stalled just after she selected those flaps so she just undid what she perceived as putting the a/c in peril. Their fate was sealed long before she retracted the flaps.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[surveypilot]

Is it possible that she believed that they had a tail plane stall? If so, then raising the flaps would have been correct. Obviously, the stall was conventional, but if she believed otherwise, it could explain her actions.

 

[JA PILOT]

If Pilots really respected their profession, they would call all the news stations around the country. The real reason behind the Colgan crash was lack of rest. If they could have returned to EWR and guaranteed a hotel room at their base. These senseless death would never had occurred. We are all guilty of get-home-itis!
Carriers do not care 2 cents about pilots. It was protecting their margins of profit.
When all else fail...blame it on a dead man.
I feel sorry for the Renslow family name being dragged through the mud!

 

[dustrpilot]

I can't really blame her actions. If you do something and don't like the result, undo it immediately. That's what I would have done. It was just an unfortunate coincidence that the a/c stalled just after she selected those flaps so she just undid what she perceived as putting the a/c in peril. Their fate was sealed long before she retracted the flaps.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your first instinct during a stall pusher event would be to raise the flaps, just because you had just put them down? Or did I misunderstand, because I would think a first reaction would be to go to max power.

 

[CptMurf]

Is it possible that she believed that they had a tail plane stall? If so, then raising the flaps would have been correct. Obviously, the stall was conventional, but if she believed otherwise, it could explain her actions.

You'll never get a stick shaker, or pusher for that matter, with a tail plane stall. Those are associated with a positive angle of attack.

 

[Flying Illini]

Your first instinct during a stall pusher event would be to raise the flaps, just because you had just put them down? Or did I misunderstand, because I would think a first reaction would be to go to max power.

The CA was the PF, I would have hoped that he had initiated the proper response. However, I say that from my armchair and I'm fully rested. Had I been there that night with the fog of fatigue clouding my judgement...who knows?

 

[BoilerUP]

The "fault" in this doesn't lie with the FO retracting the flaps, it lies on 1. both pilots for not minding the store and letting the plane get too slow and 2. the captain inexplicably pulling on a shaking yoke.

Think about it from the FO: you change the flap setting, the yoke starts shaking, and the captain hauls the yoke back into his chest. Somewhere in the back of your head you remember a short video in basic indoc about tail plane stalls and how recovery is opposite a normal stall...IE you pull instead of push. You also remember something about tail stalls occurring immediately following a configuration change. You happen to forget the part where a tail stall doesn't follow a shaker/pusher, and results in a sharp nose-down attitude with the yoke snapping forward.

You're tired, its late, and suddenly all hell is breaking loose around you...right after you changed flap settings.

What would YOU do?

Bottom line is it wouldn't have gotten to the point where flaps were a saving or damning thing if the captain had firewalled the power levers and pushed the nose forward, OR if either pilot had been paying attention to their rapidly decaying airspeed.

If you're honestly too tired to safely accomplish a flight, CALL FATIGUED - end of story. Same if you are too sick to fly. Doing so is your professional responsibility...regardless of hotel situation or pilot pushing chief pilots or loss of pay or whatever.

 

[RJLoser]

I can't really blame her actions. If you do something and don't like the result, undo it immediately. That's what I would have done. It was just an unfortunate coincidence that the a/c stalled just after she selected those flaps so she just undid what she perceived as putting the a/c in peril. Their fate was sealed long before she retracted the flaps.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree. It's extremely natural to reverse something you've done because you perceive it's causing the problem. Not correct but understandable.

 

[dustrpilot]

The CA was the PF, I would have hoped that he had initiated the proper response. However, I say that from my armchair and I'm fully rested. Had I been there that night with the fog of fatigue clouding my judgement...who knows?

I'm well aware of who was doing what and when. Having several years experience teaching with Colgan's partner airline I still can not believe the crew did what they did. I never agreed with the PTS standard of stall recovery and min altitude loss and I felt like some altitude loss should be expected in a stall recovery, but all an instructor can do is teach it like the company says teach it, but one thing I believe is taught industry wide, and I know is taught from primary training is at the the first recognition of a stall, set max power/thrust first.
Rest rules and fatigue need to be addressed. Schedules need to be built with realistic human factor considerations and not just with budget and bottom lines in mind, but as pilots, if the stall warning and stick pusher won't wake you up from a dead sleep and automatically kick in primary survival skills, please find another profession.

 

[COOPERVANE]

If you're honestly too tired to safely accomplish a flight, CALL FATIGUED - end of story. Same if you are too sick to fly. Doing so is your professional responsibility...regardless of hotel situation or pilot pushing chief pilots or loss of pay or whatever.

I fully agree

However. At ASA, the CP would call you a "wussy" and question your professionalism for calling fatigued. Then tell you that you will be docked min day (almost 4 hours) for that 1.3 credit trip your calling out for. Hey it's legal!!!!!! That means it's safe right?

But remember Kate M says safety is NUMBER ONE!!!