New FACTS from NTSB on Colgan 3407
02-16-2009, 06:00 PM
#101
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Posts: 51
Let's suppose that on Thursday night Captain Renslow received the following transmission:
Colgan 3404 moderate ice reported over klump outer marker at 2300 feet by a Q400 five miles ahead.
Would the aircraft certified to fly in those conditions? Yes.
Would he be required to disconnect the autopilot? No. The aircraft flight manual says that you should hand fly in severe ice.
Would it be unsafe to continue? No. Though the risk would obviously increase.
Some people on this forum have implied that flying in moderate ice is unsafe. Granted, a captain who is a good risk manager will not loiter in moderate ice but their would be no other option on descent into Buf.
My point is Captain Renslow was doing his job exactly as he was supposed to.
Over the past few days I have heard the terms severe ice, moderate ice, significant ice [Whatever that is] and light ice.
These terms are all subjective.
The fact of the matter is that using rubber boots to remove ice from aircraft is a very crude 80 year old technology.
We should all be outraged if they try and hang this one on a dead pilot who is not here to defend himself.
Colgan 3404 moderate ice reported over klump outer marker at 2300 feet by a Q400 five miles ahead.
Would the aircraft certified to fly in those conditions? Yes.
Would he be required to disconnect the autopilot? No. The aircraft flight manual says that you should hand fly in severe ice.
Would it be unsafe to continue? No. Though the risk would obviously increase.
Some people on this forum have implied that flying in moderate ice is unsafe. Granted, a captain who is a good risk manager will not loiter in moderate ice but their would be no other option on descent into Buf.
My point is Captain Renslow was doing his job exactly as he was supposed to.
Over the past few days I have heard the terms severe ice, moderate ice, significant ice [Whatever that is] and light ice.
These terms are all subjective.
The fact of the matter is that using rubber boots to remove ice from aircraft is a very crude 80 year old technology.
We should all be outraged if they try and hang this one on a dead pilot who is not here to defend himself.
Last edited by Jetstream 823JS; 02-17-2009 at 02:02 PM.
02-16-2009, 06:03 PM
#102
Banned
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: A-320
Posts: 6,929
If they can blame the pilots, they will, its cheaper
02-16-2009, 06:07 PM
#103
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Position: CL-65 F/O
Posts: 265
I agree, but there are LARGER things at play here, BOMBARDIER, the company that claimes TAIL stalls are impossible, Continental who chose to operate an aircraft that crashed three times while in service to SAS etc.............that type of publicity is not good for THE SHAREHOLDERS and thats who is important in this country...............
If they can blame the pilots, they will, its cheaper
If they can blame the pilots, they will, its cheaper
Yeah, I've noticed that. We're either damned if we do or damned if we don't.
02-16-2009, 06:07 PM
#104
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 867
I flew the Q400 as Captain at Horizon Air and know it to be a safe, efficient and wonderful airplane when operated properly by an experienced crew.
The Flight Data recorder recovered from the wreckage of Continental Connection flight 3407 recorded a series of "severe" pitch and roll oscillations that occurred seconds after the flight crew extended 15 degrees of flaps to configure their Bombardier Q400 turboprop for landing. The stall warning and the stick pusher engaged but the aircraft continued to pitch upward to a maximum of 31 degrees followed by a 45-degree dive with a 106-degree right bank. The aircraft turned almost 180 degrees in heading before dropping onto a house in the Buffalo suburb which is near the outer marker for Buffalo Niagara International Airport. The airplane impacted the ground in a near flat attitude, facing in the opposite direction of the runway at Buffalo Niagara International Airport that it was supposed to be approaching.This aircraft attitude upon impact suggests that the aircraft was in a flat spin .
The apparent total loss of aircraft control may have begun with the aerodynamic stalling of horizontal stabilizer tailplanewhich was likely contaminated with ice. An aerodynamic stall of the horizontal stabilizer tailplanecould have been precipitated by a change in airflowover the horizontal stabilizer tailplane when the flaps were extended. This is commonly called Ice Induced Tailplane Stall. Stalling of the horizontal stabilizer tailplane would have likely produced the recorded extreme nose-down pitch change and immediate pitch up may have resulted in a wing stall which would have resulted in extreme rolling. Recovery from this situation would have been unlikely at the low altitude Continental Connection flight 3407 was at when the control upset began.
The Q400's position of the engines high on the wing puts the center of thrust above the center of gravity. This is significant in that increased thrust tends to pitch the nose down which increases the negative angle of attack on the horizontal stabilizer tailplane and could further aggravate a tailplane stall.
The Flight Data recorder recovered from the wreckage of Continental Connection flight 3407 recorded a series of "severe" pitch and roll oscillations that occurred seconds after the flight crew extended 15 degrees of flaps to configure their Bombardier Q400 turboprop for landing. The stall warning and the stick pusher engaged but the aircraft continued to pitch upward to a maximum of 31 degrees followed by a 45-degree dive with a 106-degree right bank. The aircraft turned almost 180 degrees in heading before dropping onto a house in the Buffalo suburb which is near the outer marker for Buffalo Niagara International Airport. The airplane impacted the ground in a near flat attitude, facing in the opposite direction of the runway at Buffalo Niagara International Airport that it was supposed to be approaching.This aircraft attitude upon impact suggests that the aircraft was in a flat spin .
The apparent total loss of aircraft control may have begun with the aerodynamic stalling of horizontal stabilizer tailplanewhich was likely contaminated with ice. An aerodynamic stall of the horizontal stabilizer tailplanecould have been precipitated by a change in airflowover the horizontal stabilizer tailplane when the flaps were extended. This is commonly called Ice Induced Tailplane Stall. Stalling of the horizontal stabilizer tailplane would have likely produced the recorded extreme nose-down pitch change and immediate pitch up may have resulted in a wing stall which would have resulted in extreme rolling. Recovery from this situation would have been unlikely at the low altitude Continental Connection flight 3407 was at when the control upset began.
The Q400's position of the engines high on the wing puts the center of thrust above the center of gravity. This is significant in that increased thrust tends to pitch the nose down which increases the negative angle of attack on the horizontal stabilizer tailplane and could further aggravate a tailplane stall.
Didn't the NTSB report it pitched up first?
02-16-2009, 06:15 PM
#105
Banned
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: A-320
Posts: 6,929
Yup you are right. That is why I am trying to focus on it. Yet, I get remarks like yours calling me Geraldo. Just adds to the problem. If you mean it and really want to fix this then help me.
I have been told by a few people that this airplane has a deice malfunction problem at low rpm. The media won't investigate this without some info and I can't get them the info without people willing to talk about their Q400 issues. Bombardier is not about to tell us they have a problem. Only you can! you want your voice heard, SPEAK UP to me. PM it or something. I can't reply cause they disabled that on my account. I wonder if Bombardier is a sponsor here. Just kidding!
I have been told by a few people that this airplane has a deice malfunction problem at low rpm. The media won't investigate this without some info and I can't get them the info without people willing to talk about their Q400 issues. Bombardier is not about to tell us they have a problem. Only you can! you want your voice heard, SPEAK UP to me. PM it or something. I can't reply cause they disabled that on my account. I wonder if Bombardier is a sponsor here. Just kidding!
you claim to be a PILOT, you should know this.............
now go look up the meaning "OWNED"
02-16-2009, 06:28 PM
#107
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Posts: 147
Yup you are right. That is why I am trying to focus on it. Yet, I get remarks like yours calling me Geraldo. Just adds to the problem. If you mean it and really want to fix this then help me.
I have been told by a few people that this airplane has a deice malfunction problem at low rpm. The media won't investigate this without some info and I can't get them the info without people willing to talk about their Q400 issues. Bombardier is not about to tell us they have a problem. Only you can! you want your voice heard, SPEAK UP to me. PM it or something. I can't reply cause they disabled that on my account. I wonder if Bombardier is a sponsor here. Just kidding!
I have been told by a few people that this airplane has a deice malfunction problem at low rpm. The media won't investigate this without some info and I can't get them the info without people willing to talk about their Q400 issues. Bombardier is not about to tell us they have a problem. Only you can! you want your voice heard, SPEAK UP to me. PM it or something. I can't reply cause they disabled that on my account. I wonder if Bombardier is a sponsor here. Just kidding!
02-16-2009, 06:29 PM
#108
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Position: Livin' the dream
Posts: 626
02-16-2009, 06:41 PM
#110
Banned
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 152
Premature ejaculation!!
As the NASA guys point out, modern boot operation susceptibility to bridging, is nil.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
