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 3407 Update

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
I don't know man even in the metro we had to maintain pitch, and power through the stall. For sure don't lower the nose in a swept wing jet. I'm no engineer but I believe it is because of the high lift wing. Even a couple of degrees of pitch down is an extream loss lift. comparing a cessna wing which produces less then a 100 lbs per square foot to a jet which which does around 1500 lbs/sf.

Not disagreeing. Check the "and/or" in my next to last paragraph.

The first point is that the emphasis should first be on stall recovery/avoidance by reducing AofA (which can be done by adding power to increase speed and maintaining pitch, so long as care is taken not to increase pitch), and secondarily on avoiding altitude loss. Gotta remember - stalls are a function of AofA, not speed.

Secondly, the way training seems to be done is a maneuver, rather than as a recovery from a potentially dangerous situation. In the maneuver, an untrimmed aircraft is hand flown to stick shaker, which then requires much back pressure to maintain attitude/altitude. Perhaps training should include recoveries (no autothrottles or autothrottles off/failed) where speed is allowed to decay in altitude hold mode to stick shaker & then autopilot kicks off.

Food for thought.
 
Last edited:
I don't know man even in the metro we had to maintain pitch, and power through the stall. For sure don't lower the nose in a swept wing jet. I'm no engineer but I believe it is because of the high lift wing. Even a couple of degrees of pitch down is an extream loss lift. comparing a cessna wing which produces less then a 100 lbs per square foot to a jet which which does around 1500 lbs/sf.

If you are at in a true stall (as in you pulled through the pusher, not just a shaker recovery) you ARE going to have to lower the nose in a swept wing jet to recover, especially at high altitude. (And you may have to give up a hell of a lot of altitude to get it flying again)

Obviously if you are just in the shaker you probably don't need to pitch at the ground full tilt.
 
Stalls in training are usually hand flown, and not trimmed all the way to stick shaker speed. So the trainee is used to having to hold back pressure to maintain pitch. What would the natural, trained, instinctive reaction be then when the autopilot is kicked off by the stick shaker, trimmed more or less to that speed? I suspect they'd be pulling back, as they are used to doing in training, when in fact the full power being applied is now driving the nose UP to try and maintain the AofA the autopilot had trimmed to when it kicked off. Potentially bad, no?

At the place I work the the approach to landing stall is done with the autopilot engaged at first, the onset of the shaker is followed by the A/P disconnecting. When you slam the power forward the aircraft want to pitch down (tail mounted engines, not like the Q400). So you still need to hold back pressure.

The issue I see:

1. In training you know it is coming, not that you shouldn't see it coming in real life, but if you don't it will probably come as a shock to you regardless.

2. I haven't done one of these or any stall other than the high altitude stall demo since initial training in the plane (It jsut isn't part of our AQP apparently).

I'm going to guess that will be changing and be part of our regular AQP evaluation in the near future.
 
It sounds like a training problem somewhere along the line... This kind of stuff happens when crews are thrown on to the line with minimum training which, incidentally, is what regionals do...
 
so 8 sim sessions and 25 hours of OE is a training problem? usually most checkrides consist of doing one stall and if the CA likes it, that's it. I don't buy a regional slam or God forbid someone bring up windshear recovery training problems at major airlines....
 
If you are at in a true stall (as in you pulled through the pusher, not just a shaker recovery) you ARE going to have to lower the nose in a swept wing jet to recover, especially at high altitude. (And you may have to give up a hell of a lot of altitude to get it flying again)

Obviously if you are just in the shaker you probably don't need to pitch at the ground full tilt.

And thats exactly why you dont push down on a larger aircraft. It is certified to be able to power through the stall with minimum loss. Even so, at 1500 feet, you really dont have any altitude to lose, regardless of what plane you are in. The situation should not have made it as far as it did, by then is seems as though it has proven to be too late
 
And thats exactly why you dont push down on a larger aircraft. It is certified to be able to power through the stall with minimum loss. Even so, at 1500 feet, you really dont have any altitude to lose, regardless of what plane you are in. The situation should not have made it as far as it did, by then is seems as though it has proven to be too late

When the shaker goes off, it is only approaching the critical AOA. Your not stalled and and thus you are not really powering out of a stall. You could concievably get the shaker to go off with full power already in (high altitude and/or slow flight), then your not pwoering through anything and you must lower the nose to make the shaker stop.
 
When the shaker goes off, it is only approaching the critical AOA. Your not stalled and and thus you are not really powering out of a stall. You could concievably get the shaker to go off with full power already in (high altitude and/or slow flight), then your not pwoering through anything and you must lower the nose to make the shaker stop.

Ding! Ding! Ding!... and so the stick pusher was born.
 
I've followed this tragedy with interest like most other aviators and am NOT here to start a fight. With today's preliminary findings I am left scratching my head though. As I understand it, the two pilots were engaged in extraneous conversation below 10k (18k per my employer) and were distracted. Understood... not correct, but we've probably all been there.

They allow the aircraft to slow well below bug speed and faced with a stick shaker he/she abruptly pulls back and changes pitch +30 degrees?

If I have the basics correct (and I may be mistaken?)... I'm left scratching my head with the big, "What were they thinking?" Stalls and approach to stalls AND THEIR RECOVERIES!... (trying to be polite here)... are two of the MOST BASIC of all aviation concepts and maneuvers to fly.

49 people lost their lives because two pilots were incapable of recognizing and recovering from one of the most basic of all aviation scenarios? Someone please tell me BBB has this all wrong. :mad: I have NOT paid close attention to all the facts/findings of this accident and may be out to lunch. If so, I'd SINCERELY appreciate a kind response to my lack of knowledge. As of now, when friends ask what happened in this accident, I'm left with the above explanation and I would very much regret maligning the crew (in a generic "pilot error" sense) if another explanation exists. I truly just want to know what happened and figured this forum would probably have the most up to date information.

As with the other recent unfortunate accidents, my sincere condolences to all the families and colleagues of those involved. In the end, we all share the same love for this profession or we wouldn't be here.

Thanks for any info...


BBB
 

Latest resources

Back
Top