Colgan 3047 NEW

[IamGumbyDammit]

Deleted

 

[patq1]

If you increase power and airspeed on approach in the ice you also increase downwash, which is a leading cause of tailplane stalls.

That is true and would be relevant if this were a tailplane stall. However, do you actually believe that this crew was unlucky enough to be the first, out of thousands of flights in this aircraft type, to encounter conditions conducive to a tail stall in an airplane that has never had one before? It's going to turn out that this airplane simply stalled. The reason why is another matter which will become known in time.

In 2001 there was a Comair Brasilia in FL that was flying along with the autopilot on and the pilots weren't paying attention to the airspeed. They encountered some ice at 17000 feet, the airspeed decayed, the autopilot disconnected when it couldn't compensate anymore and the airplane departed controlled flight with wild pitch and roll gyrations just like the accident we are currently discussing. That crew was lucky enough to recover at 10,000 feet with serious structural damage.

As I said, watch your airspeed, follow the manufacturer's, and your training provider's, recommendations and you will be fine barring any major mechanical malfunction.

 

[Erlanger]

That is true and would be relevant if this were a tailplane stall. However, do you actually believe that this crew was unlucky enough to be the first, out of thousands of flights in this aircraft type, to encounter conditions conducive to a tail stall in an airplane that has never had one before? It's going to turn out that this airplane simply stalled. The reason why is another matter which will become known in time.

In 2001 there was a Comair Brasilia in FL that was flying along with the autopilot on and the pilots weren't paying attention to the airspeed. They encountered some ice at 17000 feet, the airspeed decayed, the autopilot disconnected when it couldn't compensate anymore and the airplane departed controlled flight with wild pitch and roll gyrations just like the accident we are currently discussing. That crew was lucky enough to recover at 10,000 feet with serious structural damage.

As I said, watch your airspeed, follow the manufacturer's, and your training provider's, recommendations and you will be fine barring any major mechanical malfunction.

Are you serious? You can't make that assumption based on your crazy logic.

 

[patq1]

Are you serious? You can't make that assumption based on your crazy logic.

Why not?

 

[Erlanger]

Why not?

Almost every crash is a first of it's kind. If you applyed your logic to these below and many others then these accidents wouldn't of happened the way they actually did. Anyone else care to add other flights?

US Air flight 1549: Dual engine failure by birds.
American flight 587: Rudder comes off.
United flight 232: Catastrophic hydraulic failures.
Alaska Air flight 261: Jackscrew in tail.

 

[patq1]

Almost every crash is a first of it's kind. If you applyed your logic to these below and many others then these accidents wouldn't of happened the way they actually did. Anyone else care to add other flights?

US Air flight 1549: Dual engine failure by birds.
American flight 587: Rudder comes off.
United flight 232: Catastrophic hydraulic failures.
Alaska Air flight 261: Jackscrew in tail.

No, almost every crash is something that has already happened many times previously. The accidents that you cited are the exceptions. There is a proven scientific principle that the simplest explanation is most often the correct one. In this case, no one was reporting any unusual icing, the airplane departed controlled flight with pitch and roll excursions, and impacted the ground in such a way as to indicate a possible spin. People want to believe that this was something unusual because they find it difficult to believe that a 2 man crew could let the airplane stall. It has happened before. I am also not saying that icing had no part in this.

And with a tail stall you don't have the roll gyrations because the wing is still flying so you still have roll control. At least that is my understanding.

 

[LowlyPropCapt]

No, almost every crash is something that has already happened many times previously. The accidents that you cited are the exceptions. There is a proven scientific principle that the simplest explanation is most often the correct one. In this case, no one was reporting any unusual icing, the airplane departed controlled flight with pitch and roll excursions, and impacted the ground in such a way as to indicate a possible spin. People want to believe that this was something unusual because they find it difficult to believe that a 2 man crew could let the airplane stall. It has happened before. I am also not saying that icing had no part in this.

And with a tail stall you don't have the roll gyrations because the wing is still flying so you still have roll control. At least that is my understanding.

That would be Occam's Razor... A philosophical principle but usually correct nonetheless.

 

[dmspilot00]

Wikipedia says the Dash 8 Q400 entered service in 2000, and there are currently 140 in service. That's far from a proven design. The 737 was the most popular airliner in the world and was in service for 30 years before it was discovered it had a fatal problem (rudder jamming). Just because the -100, -200, and -300 can handle ice doesn't mean the -400 can. Considering NASA says the the aircraft most susceptible to tails stalls is high-wing T-tails, and considering that Lake Ontario produces some of the worst winter weather in the country (and definitely the worst in the Northeast), and considering Q400 pilots on this forum say they've experienced elevator buffeting in normal, non-icing conditions, it makes me concerned that the Q400 might have a design problem.

 

[PCL_128]

That is true and would be relevant if this were a tailplane stall. However, do you actually believe that this crew was unlucky enough to be the first, out of thousands of flights in this aircraft type, to encounter conditions conducive to a tail stall in an airplane that has never had one before? It's going to turn out that this airplane simply stalled. The reason why is another matter which will become known in time.

In 2001 there was a Comair Brasilia in FL that was flying along with the autopilot on and the pilots weren't paying attention to the airspeed. They encountered some ice at 17000 feet, the airspeed decayed, the autopilot disconnected when it couldn't compensate anymore and the airplane departed controlled flight with wild pitch and roll gyrations just like the accident we are currently discussing. That crew was lucky enough to recover at 10,000 feet with serious structural damage.

As I said, watch your airspeed, follow the manufacturer's, and your training provider's, recommendations and you will be fine barring any major mechanical malfunction.

What a fu--ing dooshbag. How 'bout you keep your libelous speculation to yourself.

 

[patq1]

What a fu--ing dooshbag. How 'bout you keep your libelous speculation to yourself.

I guess you don't like the facts as they are currently known, huh?