New FACTS from NTSB on Colgan 3407
02-15-2009, 04:55 PM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: 777, sofa
Posts: 1,183
... the category of icing doesn't just depend on the amount you are seeing or accumulating, it also depends on how well your aircraft is getting rid of the ice. In other words, an aircraft having difficulties shedding light icing over a period of time (1 hour according to my OpSpec) is potentially going to experience a problem.
The takeaway. The more I read, the more I learn that flying in any icing condition is hazardous. Perhaps the Colgan 3407 pilots didn't realize how bad the ice buildup had become. Other aircraft (jets) may have had no difficulty shedding the ice; therefore, they only reported light or occasional moderate. Therefore, leading the Colgan pilots down the path of an unrecoverable situation?
The takeaway. The more I read, the more I learn that flying in any icing condition is hazardous. Perhaps the Colgan 3407 pilots didn't realize how bad the ice buildup had become. Other aircraft (jets) may have had no difficulty shedding the ice; therefore, they only reported light or occasional moderate. Therefore, leading the Colgan pilots down the path of an unrecoverable situation?
02-15-2009, 04:57 PM
#22
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 91
The media again is utterly and completly worthless. I find more and more reasons not be proud of this country anymore. I did email the Associated Press and let them know what their errors were, but I feel that in doing that I just wasted a few minutes my life. They report what they want to report and what pulls the best headlines.
A headline stating that "Pilots did Everything They Could" ends the story and makes them need to find another story.
A headline stating that "Pilots Screwed Up" allows them to keep the headlines juicy(like a soap opera) and strech the story out.
Just sickening.
A headline stating that "Pilots did Everything They Could" ends the story and makes them need to find another story.
A headline stating that "Pilots Screwed Up" allows them to keep the headlines juicy(like a soap opera) and strech the story out.
Just sickening.
The folks in the media that armchair quaterback, sensationalize, and distort the facts just for ratings should be frozen and used as test birds for engine ingestions. Then if there is anything left of them, they can report on that!
02-15-2009, 04:59 PM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Legacy FO
Posts: 4,105
Great point. I fly 402s out of HYA. Our winter ops recurrent presentation empahasizes that reported icing intensities are relative to your aircraft's ability to shed ice. The point being that the same conditions reported as light by a 737 or 320 may well be moderate to severe when I get into it. Likewise, conditions can rapidly change. Light ice over the marker 5 minutes ago could be severe when I get there, and be light again when the next guy begins his approach. By the way, your OpSpec definitions sound identical to ours.
And, kudos to you for sayng exactly what I was trying to say in a more concise and coherent paragraph. That' what happens when you watch Nascar and have beers on a layover.
-Fatty
02-15-2009, 05:14 PM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: 777, sofa
Posts: 1,183
People,
Try not to get too down on the media. They are Subject Matter Experts at being the media. And that's it. They don't even know enough to see that their "experts" don't know what they're talking about. But I'll bet you a beer that any given reporter is doing his or her best to tell the story as fully and honestly as he can. But they have to condense to fit the allotted space, especially on TV where they try to fit a couple hours of information (most of which they don't really understand) into a 15 second clip.
I get as ticked off as everyone else when they say something stupid. Maybe more so - I turned off the TV a couple days ago 'cause it infuriated me so much. There's an old saw which goes "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
I think it is appropriate to keep this in mind at all times.
Try not to get too down on the media. They are Subject Matter Experts at being the media. And that's it. They don't even know enough to see that their "experts" don't know what they're talking about. But I'll bet you a beer that any given reporter is doing his or her best to tell the story as fully and honestly as he can. But they have to condense to fit the allotted space, especially on TV where they try to fit a couple hours of information (most of which they don't really understand) into a 15 second clip.
I get as ticked off as everyone else when they say something stupid. Maybe more so - I turned off the TV a couple days ago 'cause it infuriated me so much. There's an old saw which goes "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
I think it is appropriate to keep this in mind at all times.
02-15-2009, 05:21 PM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 119
The problem with this is that it would destroy perfectly good engines. I say cover them in gravy and lock them in a cage with a hungry wolverine that's high on angel dust!
02-15-2009, 05:29 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,258
I'm glad someone read my post ... I wa beginning to think it got lost in all the speculation.
And, kudos to you for sayng exactly what I was trying to say in a more concise and coherent paragraph. That' what happens when you watch Nascar and have beers on a layover.
-Fatty
And, kudos to you for sayng exactly what I was trying to say in a more concise and coherent paragraph. That' what happens when you watch Nascar and have beers on a layover.
-Fatty
I think robthree did an excellent job
02-15-2009, 05:33 PM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Legacy FO
Posts: 4,105
People,
Try not to get too down on the media. They are Subject Matter Experts at being the media. And that's it. They don't even know enough to see that their "experts" don't know what they're talking about. But I'll bet you a beer that any given reporter is doing his or her best to tell the story as fully and honestly as he can. But they have to condense to fit the allotted space, especially on TV where they try to fit a couple hours of information (most of which they don't really understand) into a 15 second clip.
I get as ticked off as everyone else when they say something stupid. Maybe more so - I turned off the TV a couple days ago 'cause it infuriated me so much. There's an old saw which goes "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
I think it is appropriate to keep this in mind at all times.
Try not to get too down on the media. They are Subject Matter Experts at being the media. And that's it. They don't even know enough to see that their "experts" don't know what they're talking about. But I'll bet you a beer that any given reporter is doing his or her best to tell the story as fully and honestly as he can. But they have to condense to fit the allotted space, especially on TV where they try to fit a couple hours of information (most of which they don't really understand) into a 15 second clip.
I get as ticked off as everyone else when they say something stupid. Maybe more so - I turned off the TV a couple days ago 'cause it infuriated me so much. There's an old saw which goes "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
I think it is appropriate to keep this in mind at all times.
-Fatty
02-15-2009, 05:47 PM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 396
I watched the NTSB's briefing and here are my thoughts. Flame away if you think I am off base.
I think the problem the NTSB has is that they must find out what category of icing 3407 flew through, were the de/anti-icing systems working properly, and whether there is a phenomenon that makes this aircraft more susceptible to icing (perhaps flying in moderate icing is a big problem).
While thinking about what category of icing 3407 perhaps flew into, I stopped and asked myself, do I know what constitutes the different categories of icing??? Remarkably, I became honest with myself and said, "no I don't."
To me, icing was ...
Trace - you barely notice it, but its disippates right away from melting or sublimation (no systems required)
Light - you notice the build up, turn on the ice systems, and the aircraft sheds the ice almst immediately
Moderate - the ice definitely gets your attention, the ice systems work, but it takes much longer
Severe - the ice rate of buildup scares you, the ice systems seem to have no effect, and you must take immediate action (getting yourself out of icing)
Well, I checked my companies OpSpecs, and this is what I learned ...
Trace - Ice is perceptible, rate of accumulation is slightly greater than rate of sublimation
Light - rate of accumulation may create a problem if the flight is flown more than one hour in this condition
Modertate - rate of accumulation is such that even short encounters become potentially hazardous
Severe - rate of accumulation is such that de/anti-ice equipment fails to reduce or control the hazard. Immediate diversion or level change is required.
So where am I going with this? I don't know if my company's definitions are out of whack with those generally accepted by the FAA and the manufacturer's, but, everything greater than trace *can* cause problems (something I didn't know about until now). I never would have thought twice about flying into an area of moderate icing, but after reading the definition, the words potentially hazardous are alarming as I thought my aircraft would be fine to fly into moderate.
What I fail to realize is, the category of icing doesn't just depend on the amount you are seeing or accumulating, it also depends on how well your aircraft is getting rid of the ice. In other words, an aircraft having difficulties shedding light icing over a period of time (1 hour according to my OpSpec) is potentially going to experience a problem.
The takeaway. The more I read, the more I learn that flying in any icing condition is hazardous. Perhaps the Colgan 3407 pilots didn't realize how bad the ice buildup had become. Other aircraft (jets) may have had no difficulty shedding the ice; therefore, they only reported light or occasional moderate. Therefore, leading the Colgan pilots down the path of an unrecoverable situation?
Thoughts? Flames?
-Fatty
I think the problem the NTSB has is that they must find out what category of icing 3407 flew through, were the de/anti-icing systems working properly, and whether there is a phenomenon that makes this aircraft more susceptible to icing (perhaps flying in moderate icing is a big problem).
While thinking about what category of icing 3407 perhaps flew into, I stopped and asked myself, do I know what constitutes the different categories of icing??? Remarkably, I became honest with myself and said, "no I don't."
To me, icing was ...
Trace - you barely notice it, but its disippates right away from melting or sublimation (no systems required)
Light - you notice the build up, turn on the ice systems, and the aircraft sheds the ice almst immediately
Moderate - the ice definitely gets your attention, the ice systems work, but it takes much longer
Severe - the ice rate of buildup scares you, the ice systems seem to have no effect, and you must take immediate action (getting yourself out of icing)
Well, I checked my companies OpSpecs, and this is what I learned ...
Trace - Ice is perceptible, rate of accumulation is slightly greater than rate of sublimation
Light - rate of accumulation may create a problem if the flight is flown more than one hour in this condition
Modertate - rate of accumulation is such that even short encounters become potentially hazardous
Severe - rate of accumulation is such that de/anti-ice equipment fails to reduce or control the hazard. Immediate diversion or level change is required.
So where am I going with this? I don't know if my company's definitions are out of whack with those generally accepted by the FAA and the manufacturer's, but, everything greater than trace *can* cause problems (something I didn't know about until now). I never would have thought twice about flying into an area of moderate icing, but after reading the definition, the words potentially hazardous are alarming as I thought my aircraft would be fine to fly into moderate.
What I fail to realize is, the category of icing doesn't just depend on the amount you are seeing or accumulating, it also depends on how well your aircraft is getting rid of the ice. In other words, an aircraft having difficulties shedding light icing over a period of time (1 hour according to my OpSpec) is potentially going to experience a problem.
The takeaway. The more I read, the more I learn that flying in any icing condition is hazardous. Perhaps the Colgan 3407 pilots didn't realize how bad the ice buildup had become. Other aircraft (jets) may have had no difficulty shedding the ice; therefore, they only reported light or occasional moderate. Therefore, leading the Colgan pilots down the path of an unrecoverable situation?
Thoughts? Flames?
-Fatty
With that said, something is just not adding up w/ all of this. I mean, Horizon has operated this plane now for quite some time, they take it into the ice all the time, they've never had an incident that I'm aware of that is remotely close to what happened to 3407. In fact, all I've ever heard from Dash Trash is that the plane does quite well in the ice. I can vouch for the 200, but the 400 is a "whole different animal" so to speak, quite different all around. As others have mentioned, the tail assembly is definitely different than the Q200. The 200 has elevator "horns" that have elevator horn heat applied via heavy AC in flight. I don't know about the Q400. We know, based on what the NTSB has reported, that the crew had the de-ice equipment on 11 minutes after departure and it stayed on...I can only assume that this means the AirFrame Auto de-ice was selected to either slow or fast, most likely fast judging from the intensity of the ice.
If the boots on the 200 are inflating properly you'll get a green advisory light for the 6 seconds that they inflate, indicating 15 psi or greater. The only way you'll know if a boot is not inflating properly is by looking at the pneumatic airframe display over the captain's head. No master caution/etc. If the boots in the tail somehow failed and it was a high workload scenario, it would be difficult to notice their failure. You could get a De-ice press. caution light indicating less than 5 psi of de-ice pressure, but that was not the case w/ the 3407. There is also a Boot/Iso switch that will isolate one side of the aircraft's airframe de-ice in the event of a ruptured boot. I suspect the Q400's systems are similar.
All of this underscores the importance of first flight checks in the Dash and making sure all of the de-ice/anti-ice equip. is working correctly. I know the only concerns regarding de-icing that Bombardier might have had about the Dash 8 centered around the main wing's flare and approach lights, which are located outboard of the nacelles built into the leading edge of the wings. These lights take up a bit of room and allow ice to occasionally form on them, sometimes aft of the lights or just above them towards the top of the leading edge of the wing.
The data re: pitch/roll angles after flap extension made me sick to my stomach, seemed to mirror what others have said about a possible tail stall.
Last edited by The Duke; 02-15-2009 at 09:32 PM.
02-15-2009, 06:02 PM
#29
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 91
Your right, your idea is even better, no use in wasting a good engine. The only downside would the animal rights activist claiming wolverines are being fed food unfit for comsumption.
02-15-2009, 06:04 PM
#30
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,107
Any thoughts on that?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
