New FACTS from NTSB on Colgan 3407
02-16-2009, 12:05 PM
#81
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Posts: 78
When approaching speeds in the 130s, we are usually already fully configured with flaps and gear.
02-16-2009, 12:20 PM
#82
Banned
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: A-320
Posts: 6,929
according to MSNBC they where apparently 5kts below REF
DISCLAIMER
NOT 100% accurate, but has been said on a few occasions, we will have to wait and see
Also the De-icing system, was either written up or worked on a few days prior, fixed and tested good as per mx
Is it true the CA had 110hrs in type?
DISCLAIMER
NOT 100% accurate, but has been said on a few occasions, we will have to wait and see
Also the De-icing system, was either written up or worked on a few days prior, fixed and tested good as per mx
Is it true the CA had 110hrs in type?
02-16-2009, 01:05 PM
#83
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
The definition of moderate icing is like you say The "rate of accumulation is such that even short encounters become potentially hazardous"
But goes on to read "and use of deicing/anti-icing equipment or diversion is necessary."
So we can conclude from this that in moderate ice one can either;
A] Turn on deicing/anti-icing equipment
B] Divert.
Their is nothing unsafe or illegal about flying an A/C certified for flight into known icing in moderate ice.
This is EXACTLY the philosophy that will get you into trouble one day and is a clear demonstration that some pilots STILL believe they can safely fly these aircraft continuosly in anything but icing conditions defined as "light".
If you want to hang your life on the antiquated certification requirements of FAR 25 Appendix C, I would ask you to please not fly over my house or with anyone I care about on board when in icing conditions. Prior to Roselawn, Appendix C (conceived in the 1940's) involved determining that aircraft of that time had to have the PERFORMANCE to fly in a fairly narrowly defined type of icing with rate of accretion the principle determiner of severity. Back then the thicker airfoils used were more forgiving and were able to tolerate more ice accretion.
Roselawn proved that these standards (the standard you seem willing to hang your life on), do not apply well to the modern high tech airfoils of these new type of aircraft that are under higher loads and are much more sensitive with ice induced airflow disruption. Additionally, these old standards for those older aircraft didn't have sophisticated automatic flight systems to mask the onset of increasing performance OR CONTROL degredation. In also must be noted, the old standard NEVER took into accout CONTROLLABILITY issues (in addition to performance) to insure that the airfoils performed as acceptably with residual ice as without. No boot system cleans the wing or tail perfectly and Roselawn brought more focus into the necessity of including controllability as well as performance in revising Part 25 standards to better reflect modern aircraft.
If only the FAA put more stock into the NTSB's suggestions, more pilots would have a better understanding of icing operations in these type of aircraft with high performance (but sensetive) airfoils, autopilots that can mask ice induced airflow separation right up until departure from controlled flight and the lack of any current meaningful data of just how any given airplanes controllability is impacted by ice formation and residual ice accretion.
Any philosophy of "there is nothing unsafe about flying an aircraft certified for known icing into moderate icing" continuously based on the FAA's antiquated standards, is placing you at risk to be the next aircraft icing headline. A LOT of regional turbprop pilots are motoring around with a false sense of safety because they've flown in ice any number of times, but most STILL don't understand the animal they've been playing with for so long. Just as with Roselawn, it's becoming more clear that this painful, but important lesson is being taught to a new generation of pilots.
Lets hope the FAA finally grows a pair and stops knuckling under to governments, manufacturers and airlines and gets the information and training out there so that we don't have to keep learning the same painful lesson over and over again.
Last edited by eaglefly; 02-16-2009 at 01:37 PM.
02-16-2009, 01:07 PM
#84
Banned
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: A-320
Posts: 6,929
This is EXACTLY the philosophy that will get you into trouble one day and is a clear demonstration that some pilots STILL believe they can safely fly these aircraft continuosly in anything but icing conditions defined as "light".
If you want to hang your life on the antiquated certification requirements of FAR 25 Appendix C, I would ask you to please not fly over my house or with anyone I care about on board when in icing conditions. Prior to Roselawn, Appendix C (conceived in the 1940's) involved determining that aircraft of that time had to have the PERFORMANCE to fly in a fairly narrowly defined type of icing with rate of accretion the principle determiner of severity. Back then the thicker airfoils used were more forgiving and were able to tolerate more ice accretion.
Roselawn proved that these standards (the standard you seem willing to hang your life on), do not apply well to the modern high tech airfoils of these new type of aircraft that are under higher loads and are much more sensitive with ice induced airflow disruption. Additionally, these old standards for those older aircraft didn't have sophisticated automatic flight systems to mask the onset of increasing performance degredation. In also must be noted, the old standard NEVER took into accout CONTROLLABILITY issues (in addition to performance) to insure that the airfoils performed as acceptably with residual ice as without. No boot system cleans the wing or tail perfectly and Roselawn brought more focus into the necessity of including controllability as well as performance.
If only the FAA put more stock into the NTSB's suggestions, more pilots would have a better understanding of icing operations in these type of aircraft with high performance (but sensetive) airfoils, autopilots that can mask ice induced airflow separation right up until departure from controlled flight and the lack of any current meaningful data of just how any given airplanes controllability is impacted by ice formation and residual ice accretion.
Any philosophy of "there is nothing unsafe about flying an aircraft certified for known icing into moderate icing" based on the FAA's antiquated standards is placing you at risk to be the next aircraft icing headline. A LOT of regional turbprop pilots are motoring around with a false sense of safety because they'ver flown in ice any number of times, but most STILL don't understand the animal they've been playing with for so long. Just as with Roselawn, it's becoming more clear that this painful, but importnat lesson is being taught.
Lets hope the FAA finally grows a pair and stops knuckling under to governments, manufacturers and airlines and get the information and training out there so that we don't have to keep learning the same painful lesson over and over again.
If you want to hang your life on the antiquated certification requirements of FAR 25 Appendix C, I would ask you to please not fly over my house or with anyone I care about on board when in icing conditions. Prior to Roselawn, Appendix C (conceived in the 1940's) involved determining that aircraft of that time had to have the PERFORMANCE to fly in a fairly narrowly defined type of icing with rate of accretion the principle determiner of severity. Back then the thicker airfoils used were more forgiving and were able to tolerate more ice accretion.
Roselawn proved that these standards (the standard you seem willing to hang your life on), do not apply well to the modern high tech airfoils of these new type of aircraft that are under higher loads and are much more sensitive with ice induced airflow disruption. Additionally, these old standards for those older aircraft didn't have sophisticated automatic flight systems to mask the onset of increasing performance degredation. In also must be noted, the old standard NEVER took into accout CONTROLLABILITY issues (in addition to performance) to insure that the airfoils performed as acceptably with residual ice as without. No boot system cleans the wing or tail perfectly and Roselawn brought more focus into the necessity of including controllability as well as performance.
If only the FAA put more stock into the NTSB's suggestions, more pilots would have a better understanding of icing operations in these type of aircraft with high performance (but sensetive) airfoils, autopilots that can mask ice induced airflow separation right up until departure from controlled flight and the lack of any current meaningful data of just how any given airplanes controllability is impacted by ice formation and residual ice accretion.
Any philosophy of "there is nothing unsafe about flying an aircraft certified for known icing into moderate icing" based on the FAA's antiquated standards is placing you at risk to be the next aircraft icing headline. A LOT of regional turbprop pilots are motoring around with a false sense of safety because they'ver flown in ice any number of times, but most STILL don't understand the animal they've been playing with for so long. Just as with Roselawn, it's becoming more clear that this painful, but importnat lesson is being taught.
Lets hope the FAA finally grows a pair and stops knuckling under to governments, manufacturers and airlines and get the information and training out there so that we don't have to keep learning the same painful lesson over and over again.
Great post
02-16-2009, 01:13 PM
#85
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 433
This is EXACTLY the philosophy that will get you into trouble one day and is a clear demonstration that some pilots STILL believe they can safely fly these aircraft continuosly in anything but icing conditions defined as "light".
If you want to hang your life on the antiquated certification requirements of FAR 25 Appendix C, I would ask you to please not fly over my house or with anyone I care about on board when in icing conditions. Prior to Roselawn, Appendix C (conceived in the 1940's) involved determining that aircraft of that time had to have the PERFORMANCE to fly in a fairly narrowly defined type of icing with rate of accretion the principle determiner of severity. Back then the thicker airfoils used were more forgiving and were able to tolerate more ice accretion.
Roselawn proved that these standards (the standard you seem willing to hang your life on), do not apply well to the modern high tech airfoils of these new type of aircraft that are under higher loads and are much more sensitive with ice induced airflow disruption. Additionally, these old standards for those older aircraft didn't have sophisticated automatic flight systems to mask the onset of increasing performance OR CONTROL degredation. In also must be noted, the old standard NEVER took into accout CONTROLLABILITY issues (in addition to performance) to insure that the airfoils performed as acceptably with residual ice as without. No boot system cleans the wing or tail perfectly and Roselawn brought more focus into the necessity of including controllability as well as performance in revising Part 25 standards to better reflect modern aircraft.
If only the FAA put more stock into the NTSB's suggestions, more pilots would have a better understanding of icing operations in these type of aircraft with high performance (but sensetive) airfoils, autopilots that can mask ice induced airflow separation right up until departure from controlled flight and the lack of any current meaningful data of just how any given airplanes controllability is impacted by ice formation and residual ice accretion.
Any philosophy of "there is nothing unsafe about flying an aircraft certified for known icing into moderate icing" continuously based on the FAA's antiquated standards, is placing you at risk to be the next aircraft icing headline. A LOT of regional turbprop pilots are motoring around with a false sense of safety because they'ver flown in ice any number of times, but most STILL don't understand the animal they've been playing with for so long. Just as with Roselawn, it's becoming more clear that this painful, but importnat lesson is being taught.
Lets hope the FAA finally grows a pair and stops knuckling under to governments, manufacturers and airlines and get the information and training out there so that we don't have to keep learning the same painful lesson over and over again.
If you want to hang your life on the antiquated certification requirements of FAR 25 Appendix C, I would ask you to please not fly over my house or with anyone I care about on board when in icing conditions. Prior to Roselawn, Appendix C (conceived in the 1940's) involved determining that aircraft of that time had to have the PERFORMANCE to fly in a fairly narrowly defined type of icing with rate of accretion the principle determiner of severity. Back then the thicker airfoils used were more forgiving and were able to tolerate more ice accretion.
Roselawn proved that these standards (the standard you seem willing to hang your life on), do not apply well to the modern high tech airfoils of these new type of aircraft that are under higher loads and are much more sensitive with ice induced airflow disruption. Additionally, these old standards for those older aircraft didn't have sophisticated automatic flight systems to mask the onset of increasing performance OR CONTROL degredation. In also must be noted, the old standard NEVER took into accout CONTROLLABILITY issues (in addition to performance) to insure that the airfoils performed as acceptably with residual ice as without. No boot system cleans the wing or tail perfectly and Roselawn brought more focus into the necessity of including controllability as well as performance in revising Part 25 standards to better reflect modern aircraft.
If only the FAA put more stock into the NTSB's suggestions, more pilots would have a better understanding of icing operations in these type of aircraft with high performance (but sensetive) airfoils, autopilots that can mask ice induced airflow separation right up until departure from controlled flight and the lack of any current meaningful data of just how any given airplanes controllability is impacted by ice formation and residual ice accretion.
Any philosophy of "there is nothing unsafe about flying an aircraft certified for known icing into moderate icing" continuously based on the FAA's antiquated standards, is placing you at risk to be the next aircraft icing headline. A LOT of regional turbprop pilots are motoring around with a false sense of safety because they'ver flown in ice any number of times, but most STILL don't understand the animal they've been playing with for so long. Just as with Roselawn, it's becoming more clear that this painful, but importnat lesson is being taught.
Lets hope the FAA finally grows a pair and stops knuckling under to governments, manufacturers and airlines and get the information and training out there so that we don't have to keep learning the same painful lesson over and over again.
02-16-2009, 01:15 PM
#86
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: ERJ 145 F/O
Posts: 154
No sure if this was posted yet or not, but we watched this back in school some five years or so ago. Great NASA video and I'm not making any assumptions yet, but sounds like it could at least be part of the cause.
Tailplane Icing
Tailplane Icing
02-16-2009, 04:04 PM
#88
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Position: CL-65 F/O
Posts: 265
Amen. At first I didn't really like eaglefly from some of the comments about Mesa - but he has really been a great poster, and I'm starting to warm up to him. Thanks a bunch Eagle for adding some great discussion here. It's very much appreciated as it is useful. 
02-16-2009, 04:33 PM
#89
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Posts: 51
This is EXACTLY the philosophy that will get you into trouble one day and is a clear demonstration that some pilots STILL believe they can safely fly these aircraft continuosly in anything but icing conditions defined as "light".
Any philosophy of "there is nothing unsafe about flying an aircraft certified for known icing into moderate icing"
Any philosophy of "there is nothing unsafe about flying an aircraft certified for known icing into moderate icing"
What would be a trace of ice for a 737 would be severe ice for a 152.
If the deicing/anti-icing system can't control or reduce the hazard than it is severe ice and no aircraft can continue flight in severe ice. If it could it would not be severe it would be moderate.
With that being said we should know that their is no future in loitering in conditions that would be considered moderate for our aircraft.
Last edited by Jetstream 823JS; 02-16-2009 at 05:14 PM.
02-16-2009, 04:37 PM
#90
Banned
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: A-320
Posts: 6,929
The severity of icing reports are based on the reporting aircraft type's ability to handle it.
What would be a trace of ice for a 737 would be severe ice for a 152.
If the deicing/anti-icing system can't control or reduce the hazard it than it is severe ice and no aircraft is certified for flight in severe ice.
With that being said we should know that their is no future in loitering in conditions that would be considered moderate for our aircraft.
What would be a trace of ice for a 737 would be severe ice for a 152.
If the deicing/anti-icing system can't control or reduce the hazard it than it is severe ice and no aircraft is certified for flight in severe ice.
With that being said we should know that their is no future in loitering in conditions that would be considered moderate for our aircraft.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
