Not so good news about flight 3407

[belchfire]

If the stall speed was 90 and they saw 2 g's in a pull up, the stall speed jumps to 127 on a clean wing. SInce the flaps were in transit and the airspeed was slowing rapidly with the gear and flap extension, that was surely met.

I think that we need the real timeline for events-my impression was the the stick shaker was before the pitch excursion.

 

[Oakum_Boy]

There are flight directors that will drive to a 30 degree pitch up?!?!?

I've witnessed something similar in atlanta when they're taxiing airplanes through the ILS critial area.

The glideslope will shoot down from above just enough to trigger at GS capture and then it heads right back up just as quickly. If you're not on top of it, the airplane will pitch up quickly with resulting airspeed decay. Even disconnecting in a timely manner you can lose 15 knots in a matter of a couple seconds.

Remember on these cheaper FCC's without a SPD REF (or autothrottle mode) when you're in APPR mode it is a purely reactive mode, although I don't think it's programmed to command more that 27 degrees of bank, one might assume that there is a pitch limit at some point. Who knows.

 

[deadstick]

FWIW, it could be any of us, and if you think you are above it, you have not been aviation long enough.

I understand what you meant, but your statement should read:

......and if you think you are above it, you have been in aviation too long already.

Good point, but the problem gets people at both ends and in the middle too.

Joe, sums it up well. As professionals, we should strive to always improve our skills. That requires an open mind and a willingness to learn. When you want to quit learning, it's time to retire.

I found this WSJ article interesting, particularly this paragraph:

"The safety board, among other issues, is looking into why Colgan’s training programs apparently stop short of allowing pilots in simulators to feel the stick-pusher activate, according to people familiar with the issue."

Considering the source (the media), I have to question the validity of the claim.

http://blogs.wsj.com/middleseat/200...-focus-on-stick-pusher-training/?mod=yahoo_hs

 

[WSurf]

Just wanna add a problem I had on a flight in a Dash 8 300 series. Note, this has never ever in my 8 years on the plane happened before.
CLT had me slowed to 150kts about 15 miles out. Thats pretty slow clean in a 300 series and usually has about a 5 Degree pitch up with zero flaps put in with a heavy load in straight and level flight.
We were cleared for the approach and the autopilot was on with the weather near mins. I would much rather 'george' flying it and I watch. Approach mode was selected.

As we got closer to the Airport I looked down at my approach plate to verify the mins. for the approach.
When I looked up the Airspeed started bleeding off fast and I added power, and more more power. Finally I disengaged the autopilot and at that time and noticed the plane had started a climb.
FO and I were dumbfounded on what happened. As we continued the approach with no problems I figured it out.
Once the Glideslope was started to come down, the damn plane for some reason or another flew up to Capture it. Being in smooth IMC and if we had not been playing attention this coulda lead to a worse problem.
Like I said just something to consider and it has never ever happen to me again or before.

Computers, u just never know. So be careful out there.

 

[DiverDriver]

Which is why I'm adiment about having someone shadow the controls getting low to the ground and completely dumbfounded why I even have to say "please shadow the controls we're close to the ground"....several times to the same pilots. The AP may be on but we don't let the airplane fly us. WE fly the plane. Right?

Birds, transient aircraft, wake turbulence encounters, mechanical problems, navigation annomilies, ice, unknowns all can happen fast and require immediate action by taking over from the auto pilot. So why do so few pilots shadow the controls when low to the ground even if AP is on? You think the AP is that good? I don't. And sh!t can happen too fast.

 

[WSurf]

Which is why I'm adiment about having someone shadow the controls getting low to the ground and completely dumbfounded why I even have to say "please shadow the controls we're close to the ground"....several times to the same pilots. The AP may be on but we don't let the airplane fly us. WE fly the plane. Right?

Birds, transient aircraft, wake turbulence encounters, mechanical problems, navigation annomilies, ice, unknowns all can happen fast and require immediate action by taking over from the auto pilot. So why do so few pilots shadow the controls when low to the ground even if AP is on? You think the AP is that good? I don't. And sh!t can happen too fast.

The autopilot is there to decrease your workload, and thats it. It gives you the opportunity to watch and scan things much better. Like I said, this happened in a spilt second of me just glancing down to verify the Mins for the approach again.

I couldn't imagine this happening while both pilots were outside looking at the ice on the wings. But if it did, it could add up getting into something serious.

 

[WSurf]

You think the AP is that good? I don't. And sh!t can happen too fast.

Of course I think the autopilot is that good. You can't come close to flying an approach or in that case the plane at all as good as it. I laugh when I hear people say they can.
But just like your partner flying it, you have to monitor it at all times.

 

[surplus1]

I gotta agree with your last WSurf. Just try hand flying a CATIII B. It ain't gonna happen.

Caveat: It depends on what kind of autopilot you have. They're not all the same.

 

[DiverDriver]

The autopilot is there to decrease your workload, and thats it. It gives you the opportunity to watch and scan things much better. Like I said, this happened in a spilt second of me just glancing down to verify the Mins for the approach again.

I couldn't imagine this happening while both pilots were outside looking at the ice on the wings. But if it did, it could add up getting into something serious.

Sorry Surf, in no way was I directing my comments at you. Your post was good for all to read and see how fast it can happen. Which goes along with why I wish more pilots I see would shadow the controls and be ready.

 

[ReverseSensing]

The Q400 autopilot/FD is weird, especially compared to the 200. It has trouble capturing LOC well, it will often initially turn the wrong way, for example, when proceeding DTO a fix in LNAV, especially if it is a fairly large angle turn. It corrects itself after a second or two. We call it the AP clearing turn.

On an ILS once, fully captured, passing through a windshear, I witnessed the FD command a 15 degree nosedown pitch to maintain the GS. The autopilot attempted to dutifully comply, until I intervened.

And don't even get me started on capturing a VNAV. Talk about having to guard against putting the FAs on the ceiling of the cabin.

 

[WSurf]

Sorry Surf, in no way was I directing my comments at you. Your post was good for all to read and see how fast it can happen. Which goes along with why I wish more pilots I see would shadow the controls and be ready.

Yea, no problem. I agree with you, and the worst thing I hate to see is a pilot using the autopilot flying the plane to mins. and having neither hand on the yoke and throttles. Being at Two Hundred feet above the ground and sitting on your hands is in no way a smart thing to do.

 

[surplus1]

?????

Just curious - Who makes the avionics in the Q-400?

Is it all 'standard' or do operators have options?

 

[Captzaahlie]

?????

Just curious - Who makes the avionics in the Q-400?

Is it all 'standard' or do operators have options?

Mattel?

OK I was just kidding! I LOVED flying the 100,200,&300 vs and prob would have wet my pants driving the 400....

Advanced Avionics

The Q400 cockpit, the most modern of any turboprop, is fitted with a state-of-the-art avionics suite from Thales. With less weight and fewer parts, the Thales suite offers higher reliability than comparable older technology avionics.

The Q400 avionics suite also features a centralized diagnostic system to help pilots and mechanics quickly resolve problems. Its modular design also makes the system easy to upgrade or to add optional equipment.

An optional Head Up Guidance System (HGS®) displays actual aircraft approach flight path and projected touch down point. The system is allowing Horizon Air to fly single-engine approaches to Category III (Cat. III) weather minima - a first for a commercial regional airline aircraft.

source:

http://www.q400.com/q400/en/technology.jsp

I'm sure the operator or leasing company gets some say so in how many bells and whistles they want , depending on the size of the order.

 

[asayankee]

I once had the seal on the CRJ 200 radome fail. The compartment filled up with roughly 6 inches of water totally submerging the glideslope antenna....which is shared by all three GS receivers. All three of them were telling us something erratic and different. Needless to say the autopilot was attempting to perform some pretty drastic maneuvers trying to keep up. I had to quickly regain control manually.

Moral of the story...use it as a tool, but never trust it!!! Equipment failures happen.

 

[surplus1]

OK Thales Group avionics, thank you. Would you know if its the Top Deck system?

Mattel Never a dull moment, eh?.

 

[Captzaahlie]

OK Thales Group avionics, thank you. Would you know if its the Top Deck system?

Mattel Never a dull moment, eh?.

http://www.q400.com/q400/ssi/q400_video.jsp?video=enhanced_naviagation_en&langue=en

 

[airplane wizard]

Holy Crap Batman!

don't you mean "holy deflected glideslope Batman"

 

[flyboyike]

Not true, Columbia was not equipped to dock at the station. It was the only shuttle not set up with a docking port. Nasa also declined the airforce's offer to view the shuttles belly form orbit with a high powered telescope which would have revealed the damage to the leading edge of the left wing. Columbia was not in the right orbit and did not have enough fuel to reach the station.

I also understand that the idea of sending up another Shuttle to remove the crew off the Columbia was considered, but scrapped due to the concept of potentially ending up with two ships and two crews in trouble, especially with a hurried launch of the "rescue ship".

OT, of course.

 

[Lilah]

So, does the airspeed tape on the Q-400 have a "trend vector" on it? Also, are those cute red bars also there as a warning cue with respect to flying too slow?

A friend of mine has had this signature line for years...

"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Fly Safe,

Lilah

 

[rickair7777]

I also understand that the idea of sending up another Shuttle to remove the crew off the Columbia was considered, but scrapped due to the concept of potentially ending up with two ships and two crews in trouble, especially with a hurried launch of the "rescue ship".

OT, of course.

I don't think anyone at nasa thought there was a significant risk before the re-entry. There was no consideration for a rescue, or any other risk reduction measures.