New FACTS from NTSB on Colgan 3407
02-15-2009, 07:43 PM
#51
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,351
I finally had enough media coverage when one network started talking to some reporter "who also happens to be a pilot" (PPL or what? they don't specify)--as they're talking about the Q400, they're displaying images of a ATR taxiing off a runway...I just couldn't take it anymore!!!
And I've had FEDs in the cockpit "tisk-tisking" us for handflying/cancelling the FD..even VISUAL approaches...I'm not joking...THAT needs to be on the GD TELEVISION NETWORKS.
Sorry...just venting...9L and 9E are brothers/sisters anyways, so we're all taking it personally over here as well...
And I've had FEDs in the cockpit "tisk-tisking" us for handflying/cancelling the FD..even VISUAL approaches...I'm not joking...THAT needs to be on the GD TELEVISION NETWORKS.
Sorry...just venting...9L and 9E are brothers/sisters anyways, so we're all taking it personally over here as well...
02-15-2009, 08:37 PM
#53
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: SF340 CA
Posts: 59
Sorry I put this on another thread but I think it fits better with this one.
I really do not post much on this site but after going through several emotions over the past days since the crash I have come to the pure anger phase.
I am utterly disgusted with the media in the country and their need to come up with a story even if it means slandering some damn fine pilots. I know we have been beating a dead horse with this today but I am not going to sit back and let them get away with it. I plan on spending my entire day tomorrow blasting them with calls and emails until they get the story straight on the entire "autopilot" issue. They will not dishonor Marvin and Rebecca by trying to suggest that they did ANYTHING wrong.
Although I am not a CNN guy I must admit that the following cnn.com article was well written and did a good job explaing the facts that were given from the NTSB briefing today. The author did not make any assumptions and did not try to bait the readers with a catchy by line suggesting that the pilots may be at fault. This is the type of reporting we need after a disaster like this. Just the facts. They for sure will get an email from me. I wish the rest of the media would take note.
NTSB: Plane rolled violently before crash - CNN.com
The comments posted from all of you since the crash have made me proud to be part of this industry again. Rest in peace 3407.
I really do not post much on this site but after going through several emotions over the past days since the crash I have come to the pure anger phase.
I am utterly disgusted with the media in the country and their need to come up with a story even if it means slandering some damn fine pilots. I know we have been beating a dead horse with this today but I am not going to sit back and let them get away with it. I plan on spending my entire day tomorrow blasting them with calls and emails until they get the story straight on the entire "autopilot" issue. They will not dishonor Marvin and Rebecca by trying to suggest that they did ANYTHING wrong.
Although I am not a CNN guy I must admit that the following cnn.com article was well written and did a good job explaing the facts that were given from the NTSB briefing today. The author did not make any assumptions and did not try to bait the readers with a catchy by line suggesting that the pilots may be at fault. This is the type of reporting we need after a disaster like this. Just the facts. They for sure will get an email from me. I wish the rest of the media would take note.
NTSB: Plane rolled violently before crash - CNN.com
The comments posted from all of you since the crash have made me proud to be part of this industry again. Rest in peace 3407.
02-15-2009, 09:00 PM
#54
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,351
I am utterly disgusted with the media in the country and their need to come up with a story even if it means slandering some damn fine pilots. I know we have been beating a dead horse with this today but I am not going to sit back and let them get away with it. I plan on spending my entire day tomorrow blasting them with calls and emails until they get the story straight on the entire "autopilot" issue. They will not dishonor Marvin and Rebecca by trying to suggest that they did ANYTHING wrong.
It is only thanks to my fellow pilots on websites like this that I can get a better idea of the facts. Thanks everyone for being respectful of those who were lost, and thanks for all the educated/educational posts in light of this tragedy.
02-15-2009, 09:11 PM
#56
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Position: Livin' the dream
Posts: 626
Not trying to flame, but also don't want anyone unfamiliar with the real world of commercial aviation lurking here (ie the media) to think that all of the NTSB's recs are good ones. Not all of them are.
02-16-2009, 04:51 AM
#57
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
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
After Roselawn, a new TYPE of icing was considered severe as it had the ability to "roll-back" and form behind the wing/tail ice protected areas. This ice was a result of super-cooled water droplets of varying sizes. The rate of accretion of this type of ice may not even reach moderate and the boots on such equipped aircraft will even appear to be dealing with the problem well. It's what's happening BEHIND those boots (out of sight) that is the problem.
Many of the more senior Eagle pilots who flew the ATR many years ago and went through the 4184 crash and especially its aftermath (watching the aircraft grounded, re-tested and re-certified) learned about this. Many pilots now weren't around to learn (or remember) first-hand about what Roselawn taught.
I believe an old forgotten lesson from 15 years ago has once again come home to educate a new generation of pilots who aren't fully aware of the seriousness in operating in THIS TYPE of icing and the importance of the autopilots complicity in allowing the demon to show himself as well as the clues as to the possible exposure to this type of icing (side window accretion).
Last edited by eaglefly; 02-16-2009 at 05:43 AM.
02-16-2009, 05:00 AM
#58
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
It was not continuous either and the boots appeared to be knocking it off very well, but it was a type of accretion (super-cooled droplets - SCD) that were rolling back BEHIND the boots and creating a ridge. That VERY experienced crew was unaware of the significance that the formation of side-window ice was telling them they were flying outside certification abilities of the aircraft and the autopilot and a configuration change were the final ingredients needed to produce an upset............. does this sound familiar with this accident ?
That ATR was operating intermittantly in light-moderate (from an accretion RATE standpoint) ice for a fairly short period of time. Tradional moderate icing that stays within the confines of the ice protection system components are not half as much of a problem as light icing of this type which even with a slow accretion rate is forming dangerously degrading shapes behind the boots.
We MUST understand this and not be fooled into a false sense of security.
Last edited by eaglefly; 02-16-2009 at 05:45 AM.
02-16-2009, 05:10 AM
#59
Banned
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: A-320
Posts: 6,929
We are going to drive ourselves nuts, like most accidents it will probably be a culmination of little things that adds up the crash, we will just have to wait and see. I am not saying it is pilot error at all, but there may have been one or two things that along with the ice accretion, created the crash only time will tell.
02-16-2009, 06:28 AM
#60
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,258
We are going to drive ourselves nuts, like most accidents it will probably be a culmination of little things that adds up the crash, we will just have to wait and see. I am not saying it is pilot error at all, but there may have been one or two things that along with the ice accretion, created the crash only time will tell.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
