Originally Posted by NWA320pilot

I don't believe they thought they had a tail stall and neither did the NTSB..... This crew failed to use basic flying skills with regards to airspeed control. Then when they stalled the plane they totally screwed up the recovery! The crew didn't utilize proper power application, pitch control, aircraft configuration nor crew communication.

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp

Agreed on their skills.

Their reaction was exactly what was spread around for the recovery from a tail stall... it's too similar. I'll agree to disagree with you and the NTSB on that one.

I was particularly astounded at how the FO just sat there like a bump on a log and let the CA kill her. That's another main place where my suspicion that they both thought it was a tail stall comes from.

Originally Posted by NWA320pilot

Why did he add power if he was doing the recovery technique for a tail stall?

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

I know there are plenty of threads around here on this whole thing but I think it's a bit of a fallacy on some of the other threads to assume the pilots acted in unison and were on the same page the entire event. I think that's impossible to do at any time especially given the little verbal communication that existed in the heat of the moment.

So, when the FO pulled up the flaps it just makes me wonder if she thought it was a tail stall? I say this because a friend of mine that was at Great Lakes and said a good amount of time spent on that NOAA tail stall video and proper recovery techniques. From their training's POV he says, flying 1900Ds in ice meant tail stalls were a threat.

So when you watch that video it's pull back, flaps up... or die. Actual Tail Stall Event (NASA Research Flight)



I've always wondered if Colgan hammered that same video and thought process into its pillots? And given what the FO was seeing with the Captain pulling on the elevator the way he evidently was, maybe she wasn't acting out of ignorance but rather in her mind properly for the tail stall she might have thought they were in.

Just a thought.

Originally Posted by MrBojangles

I thought the same thing. I had seen the icing video when I flew part 135 and again when I flew at the regionals. If I recall correctly they brought this up at the NTSB hearing and pointed out that the Q400 and CRJ weren't even susceptible to tail stalls in icing. I'd be surprised if they still show that video.

Originally Posted by NWA320pilot

Why did he add power if he was doing the recovery technique for a tail stall?

Originally Posted by Timbo

Did they ever really solve the icing issues with that thing? I remember when that one went down after holding in a snow storm going into ORD, they sent them to San Juan.

Originally Posted by cni187

Hey 80 I have a mini person coming in Aug, how do you request some family leave?

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp

Like I said about the CA, he fits the "middle aged career changer who went to Gulfstream" profile. Just jump and react and hope he did it right.

If you'll notice though, he didn't bump the power near what you should for a stall recovery.

As far as tail stall recovery that was passed around, it was mostly centered around getting the flaps up... little was spoken about power for the most part. We're talking about cultural things here and not official training, so things are going to have variance.

Now, how he reacted to the pusher: that was standard Pinnacle/Colgan training. Getting the pusher in the sim was a fail event if it dropped your altitude more than 100 feet or so, so whenever someone would trigger it they would override it to try to maintain altitude and thus not fail the maneuver. Brilliant, isn't it?