Colgan 3407 Down in Buffalo

[imadumbpilot]

Also, have any of us driven an airliner, either for real or in the sim, into a stick shaker with the autopilot on? I can't remember doing so. I would imagine that having the a/p kick off as the stick shaker fires could lead to some interesting reactions!

This is a maneuver that they used to train at ACA, the reason is because they had an accident in 1994 on a J41 in CMH, where the crew stalled the airplane on approach with the autopilot on. It was quite a different stall from what you normally saw. It has been a long time, but I think that the autopilot warning was inhibited because the stall warning took precedence. There was some question about weather or not that crew realized the autopilot had disconnected. Anyway, it is an interesting question and good to train that way.

 

[surplus1]

Maybe there's just something wrong with me.

I understand the concept of approach to stall recovery with minimum loss of altitude. Shaker is an approach to a stall.

I do not understand a concept of zero loss of altitude at any cost, and difinetely do not believe that is possible in the real world of line flying - especially in IMC. Maybe you can do that neat trick in simulators - but it's still a trick.

Nobody intentionaly activates a shaker in the real world. Simulators are wonderful tools but they are not real airplanes. You don't ever practice stalls in a real airliner full of people.

I just can't imagine a training program that would tell you to put the yoke in your stomach at the sound of the shacker because you might lose 100 ft of altitude, or even 200 ft.

Also, I do not understand how a pilot looking at an ADI that shows the nose rising rapidly would continue to apply back pressure in hopes that would change. Maybe someone studying for an instrument ticket - but an ATP with several thousand hours and assisted by a compentent F/O?

Putting the nose at the level-flight deck angle and powering out of the approach to stall makes sense to me.

Sucking the yoke into my stomach in an effort to avoid losing some altitude, just dosen't make sense in my head.

I've been driving airplanes since I was 20 years old. 20 years of that was in airiplanes much larger than a Q-400 - some with popellers and some without, followed by another 12 years in airplanes of similar size. I don't remember anyone ever telling me to do that and if they had I'm real sure of what I would have told them to do with that idea.

If that is what were teaching pilots to do we'd better revise that program in one hell of a hurry.

Training needs to fit the real world. If you near stall at 200 ft AGL in anything but a toy airplane the ground will come up and smite you 99/100 no matter what you do. 121 has nothing to do with that.

If you lose 100 ft anywhere above 500 ft, chances are it wont - again regardless of 121.

I just have a hard time understanding that people would intentionally teach this Captain how to kill himself and his passengers.

Of course none of us has heard the CVR - hopefully it will provide the AI's a better understanding of what took place - if they said anyting relevant after the shaker went off.

At this point I'm a lot more worried about what happened after the shaker than how they got there in the first instance.

Apologies for the rant - it just doesn't compute.

 

[172driver]

Surplus,

Spot on as usual, but I'm afraid that is how it's trained. It's the FAA, not the airlines. We do it the same in our 135 training. I've thought it was stupid and dangerous since the first time I did it. In a clean CRJ, they want you to hold the pitch at 12-15 degrees as I remember, don't let it drop at all. Very standardized and neato, but dangerous as hell in the real world. Even in the sim, I have seen secondary stalls and pushers activated due to this wonderful technique.

 

[Raskal]

Here is an unfortunately fair and well-written article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/19/nyregion/19crash.html?_r=1

My guess is because there isn't a tv journalist involved there isn't the usual amount of sensationalism and bullsh!t.

 

[climbhappy]

i know on the boeing, the trick is to watch the angel wings come down and you maintain pitch to about 5 degrees and ram it up.

like you said, sims tricks...

 

[Donsa320]

I think most of you folks are on to it now. Also, consider that the spread between shaker and pusher could have been very narrow with a little ice contamination on the airplane.
Many really good comments.

 

[belchfire]

In a transport with all engines operating there is tremendous excess thrust at landing weights. There's no reason to lower the nose because of that excess power. Start thrashing around with the yoke and you're going to induce pitch osolations. Radar power and roll wings level and hold what you have in pitch...if it is a normal flight attitude.

Unless it is an upset of course and that's a different situation

 

[surplus1]

In a transport with all engines operating there is tremendous excess thrust at landing weights. There's no reason to lower the nose because of that excess power. Start thrashing around with the yoke and you're going to induce pitch osolations. Radar power and roll wings level and hold what you have in pitch...if it is a normal flight attitude.

Unless it is an upset of course and that's a different situation

Belchfire, I agree with you. In a normal level flight attitude, at any altitude below 10K (and that's very conservative), whether turning or not, add max power, hold the pitch you have and roll wings level. You'll power right out of the shaker or buffett. If you yank on the yoke you virtually guarantee pusher activation and things are likely to go TU in a big hurry.

If you upset at low altitudes its guaranteed the ground will come up and smite you.

If you do it at higher altitudes it is highly probable that you will cause structural damage or simply tear the airplane apart in the effort to recover.

If its a jet with rear engine placement (and you do recover from the upset), the probability of a flame-out on 1 or both is very high. Better hope you're not over the Andies, the Alps, the Caucauses, the Rockies or those giants in Asia. Many would require drift-down before you can even attempt to re-light.

Unless you're very close to the ground, and I mean two hundred feet or less, it doesn't matter one iota if you lose 100 or 200 feet in the process. The objective is to keep the wing flying and avoid stalling it.

There's one 4-eng proppeller transport that I once flew (Not a C-130), which at low landing weight had so much excess power that you could literraly nurse a go-around with 3 inop. Not something that was recommended or probable but something that was possible under ideal conditions. With 2 out on the same side it was not extremely difficult.

There was another (twin), with so much power that the 1st immediate action after engine failure on TO was to reduce power on the good engine - to relieve/reduce too high rudder pressure. I always felt (personally) that the fin/rudder was too small on that type. They modified the tail but the aircraft wasn't really designed for those engines.

According to the manufacturer, the engines on the Q-400 ea produce 5071 shp. That's a whole lot of power for a 55,000 lb landing weight. I would imagine it would have no trouble at all powering out of a shaker on final approach.

This is a very sad story and if what it now looks like proves to be true, the training for this type will require some major revisions.

If this captain pulled hard on the yoke when the shaker went off - it probably follows he was trained to do just that.

If true, I don't see it as pilot error - although I think they will call it that. I see it as being trained how to induce an upset and lose your airplane.

 

[JAKEFAC]

I think the technique taught now for stall recovery - with a flight director - is at the first indication of a shaker is to hold what you have with regards to pitch attitude - this will indicate level flight at the time of approach to stall and to power out of it using all available thrust. Depending on the thrust vector of the engines and the type of airplane, this might require slight back pressure (or slight push over) to maintain desired pitch - but nothing as aggressive as has been suggested might have occurred. The elevator trim as positionned by the autopilot trying to maintain a set altitude with reduced power would also come into play and would have to be countered with - for a rapid increase in thrust.

 

[Oakum_Boy]

Yeah, diving the nose to negative 10-20 degrees isn't appropriate. You're gonna be in a heck of a descent at that point. But pulling against a stick pusher just seems so counter intuitive, but being that close to the ground at night, in IMC...