Where the Real Blame Lies...

[Jet41]

The real blame...the crew failed at basic airmanship.

 

[MJ42]

The real blame...the crew failed at basic airmanship.

Correct, and as stated in many posts, pilot error happens to the experienced and inexperienced aviator.

There is a book, "Redefining Airmanship" by Tony Kern, that should be REQUIRED reading for ALL airline pilots. To quote from the book's cover: "know yourself, know your team, know your aircraft, know your environment, know your risk". In most crashes, I'd think one(or more) of these statements are not followed.

Boiler Up, your post #12 concerns me. As stated in post #32, there were no signs of a tail stall. Hopefully, your post was not implying that it may have been a tail stall, albeit the crew may have reacted as if it was.

"Know yourself", were they fit to fly? "Know your team", was proper TEM(threat and error management...the NEW version of CRM) used? "Know your aircraft", did they know Q400 systems adequately(stall system, recovery procedures...)? "Know your environment", did they have enough winter flying experience to recognize signs of a tail stall? "Know your risk", again, TEM. Did they recognize the threats, correct the errors and manage the situation?

Again, this model can be applied to most crashes. My intent is not to criticize or blame the Colgan pilots, however, it is intended to show how we are all vulnerable to these threats. Learning from accidents is crucial to the safety of our industry.

 

[BoilerUP]

Boiler Up, your post #12 concerns me. As stated in post #32, there were no signs of a tail stall. Hopefully, your post was not implying that it may have been a tail stall, albeit the crew may have reacted as if it was.

Why would you be concerned by a statement of fact?

Given the crew's actions, its not unreasonable to deduce that the crew was distracted and as such might have mistakenly believed they were in a tail stall situation once the shaker went off (even though shakers don't account for tail stalls) and they responded accordingly to the wrong diagnosis.

Obviously they were not in a tail stall and their reactions didn't save the aircraft...

 

[MJ42]

Why would you be concerned by a statement of fact?

Given the crew's actions, its not unreasonable to deduce that the crew was distracted and as such might have mistakenly believed they were in a tail stall situation once the shaker went off (even though shakers don't account for tail stalls) and they responded accordingly to the wrong diagnosis.

Obviously they were not in a tail stall and their reactions didn't save the aircraft...

I may have misread your post, but it sounded as if you were implying they were in a tail stall...sorry for reading too much into your statement.

 

[ackattacker]

Proper recovery from a tail stall calls for reducing power. They (he) added power. So if he was trying to recover from a tail stall he was fraking that up too. Just sayin.

IMHO he was reacting instinctively, without thought and his instinct was about what you'd expect from a pre-solo student pilot. Yoke back in his lap, cross controlled. Unforgivable.

There's a reason they don't teach this stuff at the 121 level. You're supposed to know it already, to have spend years teaching it to student pilots. It would be akin spending time teaching you how to plot a course using a VFR chart and an E-6B and doing ground-reference maneuvers.

 

[BoilerUP]

I may have misread your post, but it sounded as if you were implying they were in a tail stall...sorry for reading too much into your statement.

No worries!

At first, I think many people thought this was a tailplane stall...if only because that being the case would make us feel better about the crash, as opposed to the cause being a gross lack of airmanship...

 

[30West]

The real blame...the crew failed at basic airmanship.

Thank you Captain Obvious. The rest of us moved on to the "why" a long time ago. Try and keep up.