Plane down in BUF

[Mike man]

There's the checkride way to recover from a stall and then there is the real way to recover from a stall >> which involves lowering the nose to reduce aoa.

Which is not right...we all know there is a line way and a sim way of doing stuff. Now we should all do the sim way when we are on line...however, recovering from stall should not look pretty on the sim plot, it should be abrupt and aggressive to save lives. If we responded to RA's with the goal of making it feel nice for our passengers we would hit other airplanes...if some people are not taught how to recover from a stall in a sim the correct way, they will do it the sim way and try to make it look pretty. We have all flown with people who can't think out of the box and get zoned in too much and fail to see the big picture (CA's and FO's). I guess my point is, they need to train recovery different...they need to teach people how to recover from a low altitude stall, quickly and without making it feel nice for the passengers.

 

[TxPilot0878]

As a SIM instructor and from my experience w/the POI's the "minimal altitude lost " statement is correct. But the continuation of the statement and the gray area for companies(121/135) as wells as the FEDS is "safety of flight not in question!"

Having instructed on multiple jets all in the same family none of them share the same characteristics in the stall...of course lots of free time may have gone a little outside the ENVELOPE.
I hope to not ever see it in the actual aircraft...but there are some a/c I would rather stall in than others if you know what I mean!

Regardless no a/c stalls the same and no monday morning quarterback ever agrees, as neither do any instructor(TRE/TRI/IP/CA/TCE/DPE...etc), or POI!

Thoughts and prayers for the families and crew.

 

[jonjuan]

I have to agree that the real factor is why did they even get into the stall? Why did they get so slow?

Because of his constant flirting with the fo the entire flight.

 

[SuperFLUF]

The NTSB has said the same thing about the switch...however, I don't seem to understand how an early stall warning could have caused this accident. Regardless if the stall warning fired on-time or early...the recovery was jacked up, After watching the animation it seems to me that if the stall warning did go off early, it gave the Captain a "head-start" on the failed recovery.

There's several different ways to look at it.

You can say that this accident was caused by hiring a weak pilot and allowing him to continue flying when his deficiencies were noted.
OR
If you acknowledge that weak pilots exist,
the fact that he was slowing to a target speed that was below the stick shaker speed is certainly a causal factor. (along with fatigue, poor stall recovery training, misleading tailplane stall info for the Q400, poor training on the icing speed switch....etc)

I wasn't able to watch all of the hearing, but what I did see led me to understand that they didn't "let their speed get slow" they were intentionally slowing to a ref speed that they (through fatigue or incompetence or both) did not know would set off the shaker.
The aircraft was not actually stalling or approaching a stall when the shaker went off. (unless you know for certain that the capt would not have added power when target speed was reached and the fo wouldn't have said anything if he didn't)
The shaker went off at an unanticipated speed and he freaked out, pulled 1.4 g's and pulled the plane in to an accelerated stall. The FO then freaked out and retracted the flaps (perhaps a pre-briefed item by the captain who had recently seen the tailplane icing video?) and the rest is sad history.

The solution? Don't hire or continue to employ weak pilots. Don't pass the "gouge" around. Skilled pilots don't really need it and it just allows the weak ones to perform mediocre enough to train to proficiency and continue flying.
The over-supply of pilots is one of the main reasons the entire airline piloting profession is in the state its in right now. Even more so at the regional airlines.

 

[SuperFLUF]

If for some reason they thought they were in a Tail Stall... going flaps zero may have been the right choice >> although they screwed up their analysis of what actually happened >> a normal wing stall

OK, thanks. Still wonder why.

When I was an EMB120 FO many moons ago, I had a few captains who were concerned with tail stalls brief me that if we had a tail stall or unknown upset occour just after moving the flaps to a new position; put them back to the previous position immediately.

Something similar could be an explanation as to why the FO did what she did?

 

[rajflyboy]

When I was an EMB120 FO many moons ago, I had a few captains who were concerned with tail stalls brief me that if we had a tail stall or unknown upset occour just after moving the flaps to a new position; put them back to the previous position immediately.

Something similar could be an explanation as to why the FO did what she did?

Could be true!!

 

[Mike man]

...FEDS is "safety of flight not in question!"

Exactly. If you happen to have a stall during an actual flight and you recover, good for you...if you crash, that was not safe and they will go after you.

If you drop loose 250 feet in the sim with an FAA guy observing or even a sim check airman, you are still going to bust.

 

[densoo]

When I was an EMB120 FO many moons ago, I had a few captains who were concerned with tail stalls brief me that if we had a tail stall or unknown upset occour just after moving the flaps to a new position; put them back to the previous position immediately.

Something similar could be an explanation as to why the FO did what she did?

Interesting point. They were under control at flaps 5. The stickshaker/stall occurred just after captain called for flaps 10. Shortly after, the flaps went from 10 all the way to up.

 

[Whine Lover]

( Sound of Buzzer ) Referee:

" Ten Points! Unfair question. Incorrect conclusion. Improper Use of Quote. Incomplete Quote. "

-------------------------------------------------------------------------


Even if the Quote were submitted in proper context, and not altered as in the above, if a minor point of humor ( such as it were ) takes explaining....It is not worth the explanation.

Next.


YKMKR

 

[slaquer5]

( Sound of Buzzer ) Referee:

" Ten Points! Unfair question. Incorrect conclusion. Improper Use of Quote. Incomplete Quote. "

-------------------------------------------------------------------------


Even if the Quote were submitted in proper context, and not altered as in the above, if a minor point of humor ( such as it were ) takes explaining....It is not worth the explanation.

Next.


YKMKR

I will figure it out for myself, just give a hint or make it multiply choice