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 Air crew experience.

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
In the original thread, someone said they were on duty since 13:00 or so. Super late leg yes. But apparently not that long of a day. Course, dealing with those insanely long ground sits are a trial in themselves.
 
In the original thread, someone said they were on duty since 13:00 or so. Super late leg yes. But apparently not that long of a day. Course, dealing with those insanely long ground sits are a trial in themselves.

Of course, there can be more to it than that. What sort of duty days did they have leading up to that day? What time did they get in the night before.....
Fatigue is cumulative.
 
NTSB now saying they wondering why the autopilot was flying if they knew they were in a severe icing situation.


Its going to come down to Pilot-Error, due to them flying with the AP on in icing conditions....FOM says No AP in icing conditions.

Factors will include icing conditions and crew experience.

Fatigue will not be a factor.
 
I also read that the autopilot was on the whole time. You would think it would have disengaged itself. Hmmm, don't know how the autopilot would have stayed on all the way till impact?
 
Its going to come down to Pilot-Error, due to them flying with the AP on in icing conditions....FOM says No AP in icing conditions.
Factors will include icing conditions and crew experience.

Fatigue will not be a factor.

The NTSB says Colgan policy is "no AP" on in severe icing. Why would Colgan override the FOM? Has that "No AP" in the FOM always been there or was it amended at a later time?
 
Last edited:
Where did the 'severe icing' thing come from? Listening to the ATC tapes nobody on there mentions 'severe' icing. The ice-related comments, even when the controller askes about ice seem more consistent with light, maybe moderate icing, but nothing anywhere close to severe.
 
Where did the 'severe icing' thing come from? Listening to the ATC tapes nobody on there mentions 'severe' icing. The ice-related comments, even when the controller askes about ice seem more consistent with light, maybe moderate icing, but nothing anywhere close to severe.

It's going to come down to what the crew was saying to each other and what they meant when they used the word "significant".
 
Where did the 'severe icing' thing come from? Listening to the ATC tapes nobody on there mentions 'severe' icing. The ice-related comments, even when the controller askes about ice seem more consistent with light, maybe moderate icing, but nothing anywhere close to severe.

I agree, however I think the CVR is gonna be the rope to hang this crew. They talked about all the ice on the window and wings.
 
I agree, however I think the CVR is gonna be the rope to hang this crew. They talked about all the ice on the window and wings.

I apologize for the wording with the rope comment. It wasn't in anyway meant as disrespect towards the crew.
 
Hmmm, don't know how the autopilot would have stayed on all the way till impact?

It could not have, at least as long as the stick shaker fired, which the NTSB has already said it did. It's a certification thing that the A/P disconnects when the shaker activates.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top