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 3047 NEW

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

Actually you are wrong; I am speculating(not too wildly) based on the following facts as presented by the NTSB in their briefings. The gear was selected down and 20 seconds later the flaps were selected to 15. When they reached 10 the autopilot disconnected, the shaker, then the pusher activated. Then the pitch and roll gyrations began. The aircraft lost 800 feet in 5 seconds(9600 fpm) and had an airspeed of 100 knots. They did not say what the speed and power setting was before the gear was selected down.

Now here is my wild and crazy speculation based on the fact that the stick shaker and pusher activated:

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

If you lower the flaps and have an insufficient power setting, the airplane will slow and stall. In case you have forgotten, the flaps also increase drag. If the airplane is already slowing, the rate of deceleration will increase.
 
Damn, you're an ass. Three pilots, two flight attendants, all of their passengers, and a person on the ground are all dead. Show some fu--ing respect and let the investigators do their job before you drag the names of the crew through the mud some more.
 
Actually you are wrong; I am speculating(not too wildly) based on the following facts as presented by the NTSB in their briefings. The gear was selected down and 20 seconds later the flaps were selected to 15. When they reached 10 the autopilot disconnected, the shaker, then the pusher activated. Then the pitch and roll gyrations began. The aircraft lost 800 feet in 5 seconds(9600 fpm) and had an airspeed of 100 knots. They did not say what the speed and power setting was before the gear was selected down.

Now here is my wild and crazy speculation based on the fact that the stick shaker and pusher activated:

The aircraft stalled.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/15/buffalo.plane.crash/index.html

"Offering more details, Chealander said Sunday that the plane's nose pitched up 31 degrees, then down 45 degrees. The aircraft rolled left 46 degrees then right 105 degrees, or past the 90-degree vertical point, he said."


While I agree the aircraft stalled, planes turning onto final simply just don't pitch up 31 degrees though. I'd be willing to bet most people who fly 121 ops have never seen 31 degrees pitch up on their airplanes. Something else happened other than just getting slow.
 
Damn, you're an ass. Three pilots, two flight attendants, all of their passengers, and a person on the ground are all dead. Show some fu--ing respect and let the investigators do their job before you drag the names of the crew through the mud some more.

You better hurry up and tell the people posting in the other 2 threads the same thing.
 
WRT icing and the autopilot. It seems as though the media (and info from the FAA press conf.) are saying that the AP needs to be off ALL the time while in icing. From what I remember the PH for the Dash I had said to "periodically" disengage the AP to check for control masking due to icing.

Also (and I think T8 may have said this in another tread) there was a note in the Dash 8 manual that said to land flaps zero or 5 in heavy icing of freezing rain. I'd ref. the exact procedure but my Dash stuff is stored at my parents house back in PA.

can any current dash guys back this up?
 
Last edited:
If you lower the flaps and have an insufficient power setting, the airplane will slow and stall. In case you have forgotten, the flaps also increase drag. If the airplane is already slowing, the rate of deceleration will increase.
I haven't forgotten, but the accident sequence happened so fast it doesn't seem like the aircraft would have had time to slow down...I would think the increase in lift and decrease in stall speed would have offset the increase in drag. I don't know what the cause was but you act like you know the cause beyond any doubt: simple wing stall, case closed. I think that is absurd and disrespectful to the crew and to the real investigators.

By the way the people in the other 2 threads haven't claimed to know the cause like you have, but have only given possible hypothetical scenarios and prefaced them as such.
 
NOT backed up.

Colgan Q400 CFM only prohibits autopilot when in severe icing.

Colgan Q400 CFM makes no mention of occasional A/P disengagements.

No recommendation for flaps 0 or 5 when anding in icing conditions in Colgan CFM

Colgan CFM = Colgan Air Q400 Company Flight Manual, Rev1, 5/20/08

FAA Approved by Douglas Lundgren (POI)
 
Also (and I think T8 may have said this in another tread) there was a note in the Dash 8 manual that said to land flaps zero or 5 in heavy icing of freezing rain. I'd ref. the exact procedure but my Dash stuff is stored at my parents house back in PA.

can any current dash guys back this up?

Negative. No such recommendation that I am aware of unless it is really, really small print.
 
Negative. No such recommendation that I am aware of unless it is really, really small print.

Mind you some of that really small print varies from outfit to outfit...

I am surprised no one I have read yet has listed airframe icing additives to the various flap position ref speeds.
 
NTSB statistics indicate that about 75% of all aircraft accidents are attributed to pilot error.

FlightInfo's expert idiots seem to imply that 100% of these accidents are pilot error, and they themselves could have done better.

While I feel that many crash causes given by the NTSB are somewhat politicized and influenced by those with deep pockets, I think at very least we should wait until CVR and FDR transcripts are released before we being to assign blame, ESPECIALLY against our fellow aviators. Please stop trying to impress the rest of us with your expert analysis. There is more to this story, and only the facts will decide whether the crew was deficient in their reactions, or a victim of circumstance.
 
How could this crew be a victm of circumstance with two engines that produce ESHP of over 2000 each? is that correct?

I think that needs to be rephrased. is a pilot ever a victim of circumstance? maybe if he flies at Mmo in to a level 6.
 
The media gets an "F" on this story.

What I have read indicates the AP was on leading up to the incident and disengaged during the event and subsequent loss of altitude. The NTSB has also stated the power was advanced to full.

Speculation temps fate, thats why I dont engage in it. God rest their souls and comfort their families.
 
is a pilot ever a victim of circumstance?


A pilot who operates his aircraft within every known limitation, and in the best possible manner consistent with the training he recieved, yet still ends up in an accident, is in my eyes a victim of circumstance.

Perhaps there was simply too much ice for the airframe, even when the icing never approached severe. perhaps there was an unforeseen design flaw in the Q400 in terms of ice removal or ice accretion. Perhaps two fully trained pilots never were taught how to recognize icing beyond their aircraft's capabilities. Perhaps the FAA that approved the pilot's training since day 1, approved of the airline, approved of the airframe, approved of the airline training curriculum, approved of the dispatch methods, approved of the dispatchers, and approved of the weather into which this plane was dispatched.....maybe everyone thought they were doing things 100% right. To die while knowingly adhering to all rules, regulations, taught decision making processes, and ingrained common sense- that is how a pilot can become a victim of circumstance.

Time will tell who and/or what failed to protect these 50 lives. But sometimes, things called accidents do happen.
 
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.


Once again, there are NO airplanes designed or approved to fly in severe icing. Severe ice is to be avoided at all costs, no matter what the airplane.
 
Also (and I think T8 may have said this in another tread) there was a note in the Dash 8 manual that said to land flaps zero or 5 in heavy icing of freezing rain.

Never flown the Dash 8 but I was wondering about this and expecting this to be the case. A better question is IF this is the case are Colgan pilots trained accordingly or has this been overlooked by their airline?
 
Mind you some of that really small print varies from outfit to outfit...

I am surprised no one I have read yet has listed airframe icing additives to the various flap position ref speeds.

yeah not arguing but I should add that it may have been in ALG's book and not others. The reason I remember it is the one time I had to use it I was going into BUF. I remember it was winter 2002 just before I upgraded and I was flying with Davey M. We were on the ILS 5 and had the typical lakes light to mod. mix ice on the way in. about a mile from the marker we got rain but you could see it hit my (FO's) side windshield (unheated) and roll back a few inches and freeze. At that point we were flaps 5 and gear down. We noted the FZRA and decided to keep the speed up and stay in the current config to land. Not long after we landed the rest of the day was cx's due to everything on the airport being encased in a sheet of ice.

Anyway - not sure if it was in the PH or FOM or it was a ops notice but that is how I remember procedure.
 
I flew at Colgan for 5 years, the Q400 for my final year there. First off with the flaps, landing flaps are selected 15 or 35. A no flap landing is actually a non-normal procedure in the Quick Refernece Handbook. With a 0 flap landing, you must fly the approach and touchdown no less than 150 kias. The 400 is quite a bit longer than the previous 3 models. The reason for the flaps is the deck angle of the nose. With a 0 flap landing your touching down around 5-6 degrees nose up, you tail strike at 7 degrees. Also the Q400 has 5071 SHP per side(someone mentioned 2000).

Second, as for Icing, when in Icing conditions, there is a ice detect message that appears on the engine display. It blinks yellow until the increase ref speed switch is flipped on. This raises the floor on your airspeed so the landing bugs must be reset. In Icing, ref speed increase on, your bumping your bugged speed up 20 kias.

These are operational facts, I'm not going to theorize on the cause. I lost friends, the fo and I were based together and flew a lot with eachother. She was the copilot for my last flight at Colgan. The one thing I will say is that she was a hell of a pilot, good stick and rudder skills. It bothers me how they talk about lack of experience. She was one of our higher time FO's getting hired on to the Q400(1500+). And if I hear another media outlet hypothosize, "what if sully was on board," I'll throw my shoe through the TV.

And on the subject of experience, they want more, pay us what we're worth. I, and anybody who has flown in the North East corrider in thunderstorm or winter season definitly earn their pay and a whole lot more. In my opinion the company is getting a bargain for how much they pay crews. I am not taking anything away from Sully, but you want to see damned good pilots, sit on the jumpseat with some, Colgan, Commute Air, or Peidmont crews flying 4-6 legs a day in the junk with the mighty turboprops and you'll see some of the best, natural stick and rudder guys out there. Guys who have gone to fly jets after props will tell you their skills were never better than when flying the props.

I can already sense what direction this investigation is going. You bet the Company and Bombardier are championing whichever eliviates them of any responsibility. Always remember, "fate is the hunter."
 
>> Guys who have gone to fly jets after props will tell you their skills were never better than when flying the props. <<

Thurman, I agree. When I was at Comair I flew the "Bandit" and the Metroliner; no autopilot, and my flying skills were never better.
 
I flew at Colgan for 5 years, the Q400 for my final year there. First off with the flaps, landing flaps are selected 15 or 35. A no flap landing is actually a non-normal procedure in the Quick Refernece Handbook. With a 0 flap landing, you must fly the approach and touchdown no less than 150 kias. The 400 is quite a bit longer than the previous 3 models. The reason for the flaps is the deck angle of the nose. With a 0 flap landing your touching down around 5-6 degrees nose up, you tail strike at 7 degrees. Also the Q400 has 5071 SHP per side(someone mentioned 2000).

Second, as for Icing, when in Icing conditions, there is a ice detect message that appears on the engine display. It blinks yellow until the increase ref speed switch is flipped on. This raises the floor on your airspeed so the landing bugs must be reset. In Icing, ref speed increase on, your bumping your bugged speed up 20 kias.

These are operational facts, I'm not going to theorize on the cause. I lost friends, the fo and I were based together and flew a lot with eachother. She was the copilot for my last flight at Colgan. The one thing I will say is that she was a hell of a pilot, good stick and rudder skills. It bothers me how they talk about lack of experience. She was one of our higher time FO's getting hired on to the Q400(1500+). And if I hear another media outlet hypothosize, "what if sully was on board," I'll throw my shoe through the TV.

And on the subject of experience, they want more, pay us what we're worth. I, and anybody who has flown in the North East corrider in thunderstorm or winter season definitly earn their pay and a whole lot more. In my opinion the company is getting a bargain for how much they pay crews. I am not taking anything away from Sully, but you want to see damned good pilots, sit on the jumpseat with some, Colgan, Commute Air, or Peidmont crews flying 4-6 legs a day in the junk with the mighty turboprops and you'll see some of the best, natural stick and rudder guys out there. Guys who have gone to fly jets after props will tell you their skills were never better than when flying the props.

I can already sense what direction this investigation is going. You bet the Company and Bombardier are championing whichever eliviates them of any responsibility. Always remember, "fate is the hunter."

Thurman:

Please accept my heartfelt condolences on the loss of your former coworkers. Indeed, I think I can go out on a limb here and say that every pilot at Piedmont is feeling the sting of this tragedy and will do anything possible to help and provide comfort to the pilots at Colgan (both current and former!).

One very small comfort is that, for all of the theorizing and speculating, something of no small importance has already been born from this horrible event. Every pilot I have talked to has gone back to the books and read up on icing and winter operations. The "hanger flying" being done here is not at all without value and may just save someones life one of these days.

Again, please know that all of us at Piedmont are keeping Colganites everywhere in our thoughts and prayers.
 
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).

Exactly.

Boxcutters had been around for 60 years before 9/11.

Lots of unrecognized dangers lurk and close-calls are common.
 
And on the subject of experience, they want more, pay us what we're worth. I, and anybody who has flown in the North East corrider in thunderstorm or winter season definitly earn their pay and a whole lot more. In my opinion the company is getting a bargain for how much they pay crews. I am not taking anything away from Sully, but you want to see damned good pilots, sit on the jumpseat with some, Colgan, Commute Air, or Peidmont crews flying 4-6 legs a day in the junk with the mighty turboprops and you'll see some of the best, natural stick and rudder guys out there. Guys who have gone to fly jets after props will tell you their skills were never better than when flying the props.

I can already sense what direction this investigation is going. You bet the Company and Bombardier are championing whichever eliviates them of any responsibility. Always remember, "fate is the hunter."
Amen to this!! As an ex Colganite myself I can attest to this.
 
http://www.flightglobal.com/article...-3407-pitched-up-despite-anti-stall-push.html
NTSB: Colgan 3407 pitched up despite anti-stall push
By John Croft
"Flight data recorder information shows the Colgan Air Q400 that crashed in Buffalo Thursday night pitched 31 degrees nose-up after stick shaker and stick pusher systems activated at the start of the instrument approach.

The events occurred as the crew began configuring the twin-engine turboprop for landing in light to moderate icing and snow conditions.

According to National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) member Steven Chealander, data shows that the stick shaker and stick pusher activated roughly 34 seconds after the landing gear was deployed and as the wing flaps transitioned between 5 and 10 degrees down. The pilots had commanded the flaps to the 15 degree down position.

A “reference speed increase” switch that increases by 20kt the speed at which the stall warning system activates had been set to the ON position by the pilots as called for in icing conditions, says Chealander. The crew turned on the aircraft’s automatic de-icing system shortly after departure from Newark. Flight 3407, flying as Continental Connection, crashed into a house about 5mi from the airport, killing all 49 on board and one person in the house.

Chealander says aircraft had been flying in autopilot mode until the stick shaker activated, an action that automatically disengaged the system. The stick pusher follows the stick shaker if the aircraft continues to approach an aerodynamic stall, driving the control column forward to decrease the angle-of-attach and wing loading. The stick pusher is designed so that pilots can overpower it however.

While the NTSB has recommended that pilots hand flying their aircraft in icing conditions to get a better sense for trim changes, Chealander says the US Federal Aviation Administration has not mandated the practice, in part due considerations over pilot workload in such conditions without the use of autopilot.

Further, he says that Bombardier, the manufacturer of the Q400, recommends hand flying only if icing conditions are severe. “From what we’ve seen so far, we haven’t determined there was severe icing,” he says.

Investigators are still in the process of determining what the aircraft’s stall speed would have been for its weight and configuration, says Chealander. Flight data recorder (FDR) information shows the aircraft was flying at a calibrated airspeed of 134kt just before the landing gear was deployed.

Following the initial pitch upset to 31 degrees nose up, Chealander says the aircraft experienced a nose-down pitch of 45 degrees with a roll to the left of 46 degrees. The Q400 then rolled right to 105 degrees. Engine power was increased to full-power about 6 seconds after the upset. The pilots had commanded the flaps and landing gear to retract after the upset.
The last data point from the FDR, captured when the aircraft was approximately 250ft above the ground, showed a heading of 53 degrees (magnetic), a 26-degree right roll, 30 degree nose-down attitude and a speed of 100kt, says Chealander.

Radar data from air traffic control showed a descent rate of 9,600fpm between approximately 1,150ft and 350ft above the ground.

Chealander says the G-forces during the final minute of the flight ranged from 0.75G to 2G."

Stalling speed decreases with an increase in flap setting, but the wing angle of attack increases. The facts indicate that the wing stalled.

For the aircraft's weight with fuel and pax, considering icing conditions present, and that the reference speed increase switch was selected ON, was 134 kts an appropriate speed? Q400 pilots only.

I'm not a member of the media.
 
...Investigators are still in the process of determining what the aircraft’s stall speed would have been for its weight and configuration, says Chealander. Flight data recorder (FDR) information shows the aircraft was flying at a calibrated airspeed of 134kt just before the landing gear was deployed...

Stalling speed decreases with an increase in flap setting, but the wing angle of attack increases. The facts indicate that the wing stalled.

For the aircraft's weight with fuel and pax, considering icing conditions present, and that the reference speed increase switch was selected ON, was 134 kts an appropriate speed? Q400 pilots only.

I'm not a member of the media.

Also not having flown any of the dash series that sentence struck me as well-134 at gear down? I fly a slower saab now and that would be an unusually low speed even for us.
 
my lowly 8 pax turboprop, the King Air 350, gear down at the market/GS intercept usually occurs typically at 150 KTS mas or menos

We fly 140 KTS until about 2 mile final, inside 2 mile is 130-120-110 with Vref (105 at max gross) ideally occuring over the fence or near the fence (!)

if the FDR indicates 134 KIAS BEFORE gear extension, I wonder what the speed settled down to when gear extended fully, if it even did
 
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.

I know no such thing! I've seen ice forming on the wings and not on the wipers/windshield edges, ice forming on the wipers/windshield edges without accumulating on the wings and all kinds of variations. Icing is strange stuff and the only thing that be said for certain about it is that it can be very hazardous.

As for your "hot wing jets"...I don't know what types the AA and USAir flights were but when the flaps are extended on every piece of Boeing Equipment I'm familiar with it is no longer a hot wing. The leading edge flaps open up areas on the bottom of the wing and any bleed air would just rush out into the airstream. If the Cactus flight was a 737 with the wing dirty you can bet your arse they wanted out of those conditions!
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom