Colgan 3047 NEW

[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?

 

[-FlyAuburn-]

In this case, no one was reporting any unusual icing,

Not true. Delta 1988 said they had 1/4" on their windscreen, which we all know means much more ice would be building on the tail and wings if this were a plane with boots instead of heated leading edges. Also, Cactus 1442? repeatedly mentioned that they were picking up moderate rime ice and needed to get out of it. These were hot wing jets. Now imagine the Q400 with cold surfaces and imagine the ice buildup possibilities. At the surface there was sleet and freezing rain, not good and conducive to rapid ice buildup. Unless they were cycling the boots often and doing everything they could to shed ice then it was going to be much more of a factor for them than the jets in the area.

 

[contrail67]

It's also what a bunch of Caravan pilots used to say before that thing started dropping out of the sky regularly due to ice.

Guys, the bottom line is that straight wing turboprop aircraft with "deice" boots as the method of ice removal/prevention will never be "good" icing airplanes. They are scraping the barrel of icing protection. If you think about it a system designed at trying to take care of the problem after it has already started is behind the curve from the get go. Anti ice systems designed around prevention will always be the best systems, even TKS is better.

Ultimately turboprops will only be safe in ice if they can figure out a way to efficiently and cost effectively get some hot bleed air to the wing and tail surfaces. Also, if you watch the NASA video, the use of a fixed horizontal stab that has an elevator with a movable trim tab and a straight wing with large flaps that produce lots of downwash and increase the angle of attack on the stab, are design characteristics that will always be conducive to tail stalls.

If the industry is going to continue to use these types of airplanes in icing conditions they need to be honest with the pilots they train about the capabilities and limitations of said aircraft and the pilots need to be honest with themselves about them as well. The pilots that fly these airplanes and claim they are "great" in ice say so because they are reassuring themselves and protecting their egos. They are NOT great in ice, they are just barely adequate and meet the minimum requirements.

In the Caravan we were told NEVER to lower flaps if tail plane icing was suspected and to hold an approach speed of 120 kts (15 kts above the published minimum speed in ice of 105kts) until the flare if possible. It makes me really curious as to the training practices used at Colgan on this subject.

There are only two possibilities IF this was indeed a tail stall. Either the training at Colgan was not adequate and did not adress the subject like it should have, or it was adequate and these pilots forgot/disregarded their training for whatever reason, i.e. fatigue etc.

I was always taught that the boots on a turboprop help you get out of the ice.....not stay in it and fight the ice.

 

[-FlyAuburn-]

I was always taught that the boots on a turboprop help you get out of the ice.....not stay in it and fight the ice.

And you were taught correctly.

 

[PCL_128]

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

You don't have any facts, you just have wild speculation.

 

[flyinloki]

Chealander says the preliminary investigation indicates the autopilot was still on when the plane crashed.


Interesting.

Not on WHEN the plane crashed but up until the stick shaker activated. At which point control was returned to the flight crew because it disengages when the shaker activates. Unfortunately by that time it was too late to do much about the situation as the plane was probably already really slow. Just pointing out the facts.

 

[dmspilot00]

It's going to turn out that this airplane simply stalled.

Looks like the investigation is over. NTSB can go home.

"Twenty seconds later, pilots engaged the wings' flaps — a normal landing procedure. It was then that they apparently lost control of the aircraft."

Please tell us how lowering the flaps causes a stall. Funny, I thought flaps reduced stall speed.

No, almost every crash is something that has already happened many times previously.

There's a first time for everything. Inane logic.

 

[Erlanger]

Looks like the investigation is over. NTSB can go home.

"Twenty seconds later, pilots engaged the wings' flaps — a normal landing procedure. It was then that they apparently lost control of the aircraft."

Please tell us how lowering the flaps causes a stall. Funny, I thought flaps reduced stall speed.

Are you serious? You're a pilot? You need to go do some research. Start with this video; http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2238323060735779946

 

[dmspilot00]

Are you serious? You're a pilot? You need to go do some research. Start with this video; http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2238323060735779946

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasm

Look at what I was responding to.

 

[TOOL CRIB]

Another interesting note: I believe a Colgan Q400 from EWR landed at BUF about 30 min after the crash.

 

[TOOL CRIB]

I think I remember in L-188 GS, the instructor said the L-188 was certified for flight in severe icing. But I never saw it in writing.

Haha not quite. The very definition of severe icing is that which cannot be shed with the equipment on the plane. And by that logic any icing on say, a C172, is technically severe icing