Plane down in BUF

[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

 

[aewanabe]

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

Where does this urban legend keep coming from? The expanded CVR transcript is available from the NTSB and doesn't even remotely suggest this.

 

[jonjuan]

Where does this urban legend keep coming from? The expanded CVR transcript is available from the NTSB and doesn't even remotely suggest this.

Are you really this dense? No, really???

 

[aewanabe]

Yes, obviously. You have proof otherwise?

 

[Lear70]

Let's keep the sexism to ourselves, boys... Thanks.

 

[igneousy2]

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.

That's what I missed...thanks.

 

[Lear70]

Originally Posted by SuperFLUF

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.

OK, I missed that post, and have to disagree with it.

Yes, they were intentionally slowing to a ref speed that they did not know would set off the shaker IN THEIR CURRENT CONFIGURATION.

However, the aircraft WAS, INDEED approaching the stall when the shaker went off. That's WHY the shaker went off. As in, "hey dummy, you're about to stall the airplane". It didn't go off for some mysterious, unknown reason.

That's why they pinned it completely on pilot error, although I believe strongly that the REASONS they MADE so many errors are more of a systemic problem underlying the actual error chain of the accident.

I think we're saying the same thing, just want to be clear that the shaker didn't malfunction, it did exactly what it was supposed to do, indicated the approaching stall if the speed continued to deteriorate...

The rest of your post I agree with 100%

 

[SuperFLUF]

[/I]
OK, I missed that post, and have to disagree with it.

Yes, they were intentionally slowing to a ref speed that they did not know would set off the shaker IN THEIR CURRENT CONFIGURATION.

However, the aircraft WAS, INDEED approaching the stall when the shaker went off. That's WHY the shaker went off. As in, "hey dummy, you're about to stall the airplane". It didn't go off for some mysterious, unknown reason.

That's why they pinned it completely on pilot error, although I believe strongly that the REASONS they MADE so many errors are more of a systemic problem underlying the actual error chain of the accident.

I think we're saying the same thing, just want to be clear that the shaker didn't malfunction, it did exactly what it was supposed to do, indicated the approaching stall if the speed continued to deteriorate...

The rest of your post I agree with 100%

Yes it was completely pilot error. But why did they make that error?
A weak pilot who is fatigued is an even weaker pilot. He turned on that icing switch without verbalizing it to the FO. She didn't set the ref speeds for icing.
Poor communication between the two of them = pilot error.
Less than poor reaction to the stick shaker = pilot error.

The testimony that I recall from the hearing was that they were not stalling when the shaker went off.
The "icing switch" was on with little or no ice on the lifting surfaces. This caused the shaker speed to increase. They were slowing to a non-ice ref speed. Somewhere in the report I recall that the ref speed they were using was 13kts slower than the shaker onset.

The shaker goes off at a predetermined AOA not by measuring the exact lift of the wing at that time.
They were not stalling when they got the shaker, however; the bone headed moves by the captain induced an accelerated stall and the FO compounded it by retracting the flaps.

It is entirely possible that had not the "icing switch" been turned on or if they had flown the proper (increased) "icing" target speed that the approach & landing would have been uneventful.

 

[EWR_FO]

It is entirely possible that had not the "icing switch" been turned on or if they had flown the proper (increased) "icing" target speed that the approach & landing would have been uneventful.

Regardless of the speeds they were using, when they brought the props up, without the throttles, they may have just as well put out a drag chute. There was absolutely NO attempt to add power until it was too late.

 

[Whine Lover]

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

Apparently, my original post was removed (?).


YKW

 

[Lear70]

Apparently, my original post was removed (?).


YKW

Yes, by me. You should have received a PM about it.

Got several complaints from people about the subject matter. Want to say it happened because she was a girl? Fine. Not saying I agree with you, just saying to leave the sexual organ references out of it so it's not a violation of the TOS.

Thanks,