Colgan 3407 Down in Buffalo

[LJ45]

Seems like pretty significant NOTAM...maybe they should have taken that ILS out of service until the "earthen" obstruction was dealt with....or at least brought aircraft in from the appropriate side.

maybe you should read more

 

[100-1/2]

Winds were howling out of the WNW. The aircraft orientation at the crash site was nearly centered on the Localizer/RWY Centerline but pointing outbound. A 31+ degree pitch-up, Right roll and subsequent inversion and followed by an attempted recovery to a "Flat" collision with the ground would lead logical evidence that the aircraft was NW of the Localizer just prior to the loss of control and then carried southward back over the LOC by the winds. If the aircraft was SW and intercepting the LOC/GS in the midst of the loss of control, it would seem that the prevailing gales would have pushed the nearly stationary zenith of the aircraft further South and East of the LOC?

Look up the youtube video of the Caribou crash at the airshow in the 1990's when a STOL Take-off with a jammed elevator went very bad. In little or no wind that aircraft crashed within 500 feet of the runway after rolling inverted and then vertical after gaining less than 400 feet of altitude. Throw in some 40knot winds and a couple of thousand feet AGL and the Q400 crash site should be further south of the LOC/RWY centerline than it was?

Also, We all know, when intercepting the ILS from the 30 degree intercept vector from ATC, if you haven't already started the turn when the controller begins to issue the anticipated instruction, you will inevitably fly through the LOC and have to correct from the opposite side. These guys were getting a really good push out of the west which would have required a greater angle/rate of turn to final due to the faster closure to final with the standard 30 degree intercept from ATC not accounting for the wind. Punching the Approach button on the A/P would have only rolled the Standard or (1/2 bank) rate that would have 3407 rejoining the LOC from the North just as the GS was coming in and subject to the suspect issue covered in the local NOTAM? At a minimum, the Q400 would have needed a mile or two for stabilizing on the LOC with the stiff winds from the west and inducing a similar scenario?

It is curious there has been little or no info from the potential defendants from a class action or wrongful death defense from 50 claims since the bombshell inadvertently discharged by the SWA Memo?

100-1/2

 

[WSurf]

Also, We all know, when intercepting the ILS from the 30 degree intercept vector from ATC, if you haven't already started the turn when the controller begins to issue the anticipated instruction, you will inevitably fly through the LOC and have to correct from the opposite side.

??? 30 degree intercepts are standard. There are a bunch of factors that will cause you to fly threw the loc. Speed of Plane at the time (if you flying at 230kts of course you might fly threw it, How late the turn is , How close you are to the FAF/GS while being vectored. But I have always found that 30 degree intercepts work fine on ILS's.

Bottom line is that you have to have situational awarness were you are on the approach(That means watching the planes speed, and in many cases factoring in the winds aloft). And if its bad vectors by approach you may need to adjust your plane to meet the needs, or simply tell them that this vector isn't gonna work and bring you back around.

 

[q100]

Winds were howling out of the WNW. The aircraft orientation at the crash site was nearly centered on the Localizer/RWY Centerline but pointing outbound. A 31+ degree pitch-up, Right roll and subsequent inversion and followed by an attempted recovery to a "Flat" collision with the ground would lead logical evidence that the aircraft was NW of the Localizer just prior to the loss of control and then carried southward back over the LOC by the winds. If the aircraft was SW and intercepting the LOC/GS in the midst of the loss of control, it would seem that the prevailing gales would have pushed the nearly stationary zenith of the aircraft further South and East of the LOC?

Look up the youtube video of the Caribou crash at the airshow in the 1990's when a STOL Take-off with a jammed elevator went very bad. In little or no wind that aircraft crashed within 500 feet of the runway after rolling inverted and then vertical after gaining less than 400 feet of altitude. Throw in some 40knot winds and a couple of thousand feet AGL and the Q400 crash site should be further south of the LOC/RWY centerline than it was?

Also, We all know, when intercepting the ILS from the 30 degree intercept vector from ATC, if you haven't already started the turn when the controller begins to issue the anticipated instruction, you will inevitably fly through the LOC and have to correct from the opposite side. These guys were getting a really good push out of the west which would have required a greater angle/rate of turn to final due to the faster closure to final with the standard 30 degree intercept from ATC not accounting for the wind. Punching the Approach button on the A/P would have only rolled the Standard or (1/2 bank) rate that would have 3407 rejoining the LOC from the North just as the GS was coming in and subject to the suspect issue covered in the local NOTAM? At a minimum, the Q400 would have needed a mile or two for stabilizing on the LOC with the stiff winds from the west and inducing a similar scenario?

It is curious there has been little or no info from the potential defendants from a class action or wrongful death defense from 50 claims since the bombshell inadvertently discharged by the SWA Memo?

100-1/2

Tinfoil hat time?

 

[DiverDriver]

Winds were howling out of the WNW. The aircraft orientation at the crash site was nearly centered on the Localizer/RWY Centerline but pointing outbound. A 31+ degree pitch-up, Right roll and subsequent inversion and followed by an attempted recovery to a "Flat" collision with the ground would lead logical evidence that the aircraft was NW of the Localizer just prior to the loss of control and then carried southward back over the LOC by the winds. If the aircraft was SW and intercepting the LOC/GS in the midst of the loss of control, it would seem that the prevailing gales would have pushed the nearly stationary zenith of the aircraft further South and East of the LOC?

Look up the youtube video of the Caribou crash at the airshow in the 1990's when a STOL Take-off with a jammed elevator went very bad. In little or no wind that aircraft crashed within 500 feet of the runway after rolling inverted and then vertical after gaining less than 400 feet of altitude. Throw in some 40knot winds and a couple of thousand feet AGL and the Q400 crash site should be further south of the LOC/RWY centerline than it was?

Also, We all know, when intercepting the ILS from the 30 degree intercept vector from ATC, if you haven't already started the turn when the controller begins to issue the anticipated instruction, you will inevitably fly through the LOC and have to correct from the opposite side. These guys were getting a really good push out of the west which would have required a greater angle/rate of turn to final due to the faster closure to final with the standard 30 degree intercept from ATC not accounting for the wind. Punching the Approach button on the A/P would have only rolled the Standard or (1/2 bank) rate that would have 3407 rejoining the LOC from the North just as the GS was coming in and subject to the suspect issue covered in the local NOTAM? At a minimum, the Q400 would have needed a mile or two for stabilizing on the LOC with the stiff winds from the west and inducing a similar scenario?

It is curious there has been little or no info from the potential defendants from a class action or wrongful death defense from 50 claims since the bombshell inadvertently discharged by the SWA Memo?

100-1/2

You have several missing facts in your post. First, the plane did pitch up 30 degrees but it rolled LEFT first then right to an inverted position. So, that definitely would have given it room to come back to the localizer centerline. Not that that really matters. Did you take a surveyed position on the crash site compared to the localizer position? You seem to imply there is some point here but there is not. The plane did capture the localizer from the east side not the west. You seem to be making a big deal about this NOTAM that did not apply to the side they were coming from.

Second, the caribou crash was casuse by a control lock still being in place. Ok, the elevator was locked, not jammed. That crash had nothing to do with this Q400 crash. It proves nothing.

 

[Sig]

Second, the caribou crash was casuse by a control lock still being in place. Ok, the elevator was locked, not jammed. That crash had nothing to do with this Q400 crash. It proves nothing.

+1. It wasn't an airshow.

The airshow crash of a DeHavilland Buffalo was a STOL demo of a LANDING- he pulled them into ground beta... and one didn't come back out. Everyone on board survived (there was a jumpseater and some folks in the back). Essentially, a low-level Vmc demo gone horribly wrong (if you read the PIC's report). He said they had zero directional control just prior to impact.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmYpP-6r7Lo

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

+1. It wasn't an airshow.

The airshow crash of a DeHavilland Buffalo was a STOL demo of a LANDING- he pulled them into ground beta... and one didn't come back out. Everyone on board survived (there was a jumpseater and some folks in the back). Essentially, a low-level Vmc demo gone horribly wrong (if you read the PIC's report). He said they had zero directional control just prior to impact.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmYpP-6r7Lo

Two different accidents.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oH5hs0B5Oks

 

[Minnesotan]

A little birdie just told me that the FAA has listened the CVR and the FO and CA were fighting...

 

[flyboyike]

A little birdie just told me that the FAA has listened the CVR and the FO and CA were fighting...

Over what?

 

[joe_pilot]

A little birdie just told me that the FAA has listened the CVR and the FO and CA were fighting...

I'm not gonna rant and rave and call you a POS or anything. I'm just not sure these details are appropriate to discuss on a public board like this, especially by fellow pilots. The crew's families could easily read it. How would you feel if your widowed wife or orphaned kids were reading speculation about you and the other guy's discussions on the CVR, especially alleged less than professional discussions.

Again, I understand wanting to get information out, I want to know this stuff after all, I really do. It's just that it doesn't seem quite right in public, ya know? Maybe tell your buds over a beer.

Fly Safe

-JP

 

[Andy Neill]

A great deal of the CRM training that I saw involved examples of accidents, the human factors involved and the lessons learned. The benefit derived from such discussions would far outweight the offense that could be taken by family members perusing these boards. If I lost a family member in such an accident, this would be the last place I would be spending my time.

 

[joe_pilot]

Andy,

I'm willing to bet those examples you saw were based on fact, followed by some discussion and speculation. Of course we learn from mishaps, and it is OK to discuss to some degree before having all the facts.

I'm not saying he absolutely crossed a line, but discussions that involve potentially damning, though nonetheless useful information, should probably be delayed until a more credible source than "A little birdie just told me" is found.

Would you agree?

 

[Andy Neill]

No, I don't. Think how many T-Tail turboprop pilots brushed up on tail plane icing during that discussion even though it will not likely be a cause. If the discussion were put in terms like "We need to ensure our emotions take back seat to job #1 on the flight deck" would be helpful using the possibility of an intra-crew dispute as the basis for the discussion.

 

[Sig]

Two different accidents.

I wasn't very clear, was I?

 

[joe_pilot]

No, I don't. Think how many T-Tail turboprop pilots brushed up on tail plane icing during that discussion even though it will not likely be a cause. If the discussion were put in terms like "We need to ensure our emotions take back seat to job #1 on the flight deck" would be helpful using the possibility of an intra-crew dispute as the basis for the discussion.

The fact it is, there were icing conditions. That is established. Some of the scenarios discussed here and elsewhere, though speculative in nature, revolve around that fact: That there were icing conditions. Even before the real or final cause is known (if ever) we can benefit by trying to understand what caused the accident.

An unsubstantiated report of an argument between crew members serves no such purpose other than to tarnish the memory of those crew members.

Let's wait for the CVR or word from the NTSB on this one, ok?

 

[Amish RakeFight]

??? 30 degree intercepts are standard. There are a bunch of factors that will cause you to fly threw the loc. Speed of Plane at the time (if you flying at 230kts of course you might fly threw it, How late the turn is , How close you are to the FAF/GS while being vectored. But I have always found that 30 degree intercepts work fine on ILS's.

Bottom line is that you have to have situational awarness were you are on the approach(That means watching the planes speed, and in many cases factoring in the winds aloft). And if its bad vectors by approach you may need to adjust your plane to meet the needs, or simply tell them that this vector isn't gonna work and bring you back around.

Re: the 30 degree cut, you guys should read (refresh ) up on the "approach gate" and vectors in a radar environment.

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/ATPubs/ATC/Chp5/atc0509.html

 

[WSurf]

Re: the 30 degree cut, you guys should read (refresh ) up on the "approach gate" and vectors in a radar environment.

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/ATPubs/ATC/Chp5/atc0509.html

Nerd Alert!

 

[LowlyPropCapt]

A little birdie just told me that the FAA has listened the CVR and the FO and CA were fighting...

That is a pretty strong statement for someone who is not party to the investigation. If the person who told you is a party to the investigation, then he or she is placing his or her organization's "party status" with the NTSB at risk.

I will not even speculate whether this rumor is true or false. I will say that reporting it here in that manner, without evidence, is indicative of an extreme lack of judgement an professionalism on your part. I pray that this is a temporary lapse on your part.

 

[30West]

A little birdie just told me that the FAA has listened the CVR and the FO and CA were fighting...

Forget your meds today?