Continental Flt 3407 Crash at Buffalo/Niagra Intr'nal

[CP]

Interesting. If your that close to the ground and contact is a concern why not leave the gear down until pos rate. At least then you wouldnt prang the props. Thats the procedure Im familliar with. Landing stall.

[invertedattitude]

The following is parsed from a FedEx MD-11 Captain on another forum.

An airline doesn't hire First Officres. They hire Captains. There have been several occasions where as a F/O I overrode a Capt. and the truth is it's an important operational crosscheck to have the ability to discern when this action is required and critical. In this case it was imperative.

Sadly-instead of properly evaluating teh situation the Capt. continued throughout to overpitch the airplane while the F/O made uncommanded configuation changes which in conjunction with the Capt. control inputs made a recoverable situation fatal.

So where was all this crap airmanship learned? The Puppy Mills.

What allows it to happen? The regional airlines paying low rates.

If the pay were what it should be there would be a more experienced level of Capt. and F/O who were not using the job as a disposeable tissue stepping stone. The pay level offers at $20 level should be things like banner towing and instructing. By bringing Regional airline pay to the level it ought to be you restore the stepping stone of experince that these pilots lacked and willingly skipped.

[raven54]

I'm sure if you looked at the stall recovery procedure for this aircraft it would be something along the lines of..
* stall max pwr
* positive rate, gear up
* flaps up on schedule, aka retract the flaps upon reaching the applicable flap retraction speeds.

So just throwing the flaps up (and other configuration changes=gear)sure didn't help things, don't know if it would have saved the day though with the skippers inputs the way they were. Certainly was scary to watch the animation and read the transcripts. This is where training and clear thinking has to override instinct and panic. Scary shit.

[Snagmaster E]

I don't think pay has anything to do with it. Were they underpaid? We all are to some extent. If they were paid $500,000, would it have made a difference?

Yes it would have. With the sub-industry pays at colgan, you're not going to attract the best and brightest. Just shows no matter what the pay: pilots will line up like ducks to "live the dream..."

Not sure if you read all of the post...... I said that Pay alone has nothing to do with it. The best pilots can be low paid. The worst pilots can be high paid. When you don't pay, you lose experienced guys at the next offer that comes across the table. Last time I checked, when I flew during training, you pushed foward to recover from a stall. Don't tell me that if he was paid $200 k that he would have done the right thing.

As for the whole flaps up thread:

"Max power, flaps 7°/15°, positive rate, gear up"

We always bring flaps up a bit to help with the speed. If you remember from Flight school, full flaps only really increase drag. When you go past the magic angle, they're a disadvantage when you need to speed up and climb.

[CP]

full flaps only really increase drag. When you go past the magic angle, they're a disadvantage when you need to speed up and climb.

Yes if you want to climb they are a drag. But they also lower the stall speed and we are talking about getting back above the stall speed asap not climbing. I say leave em where they were unless the afm says otherwise. She most certainly did the wrong thing at the wrong time.

[Hedley]

Don't tell me that if he was paid $200 k that he would have done the right thing

No, if the job paid half that, a different guy would
have been sitting in the seat - probably one that
hadn't flunked five rides.

As Sully pointed out quite prophetically beforehand,
the job surely does not attract the best and brightest.

[2R]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/15/new.yo ... ref=rss_us


Sounds like the wheels are coming off this airline

[BTD]

Interesting. If your that close to the ground and contact is a concern why not leave the gear down until pos rate. At least then you wouldnt prang the props. Thats the procedure Im familliar with. Landing stall.

Perhaps the runway isn't what is below you? With a two crew airplane the pilot not flying could be retracting the gear etc instead of sitting on his/her hands. As I said above that is the procedure in our SOP's, it is how we are taught, and how we train. And it works quite well.

STALL RECOVERY
The first indication of an impending stall is high angle of attack and slow airspeed. If the stall is
detected at this point, prior to the actual buffet, if may be corrected by increasing the airspeed
and reducing the angle of attack.

Clean Stall – at the first indication of the stall, the FP will call “stall, set max power”, verify
gear and flaps are up. Maintain heading while simultaneously reducing pitch attitude to increase
airspeed.

Landing Configuration – (gear down, full flap) – at the first indication of the stall, the FP will
call “stall, set max power, gear up, flaps ¼”. The PNF will select gear up and flaps ¼. As the
aircraft accelerates through V2 +5, the PNF will call V2 +5. The FP will call flaps up. PNF will
select flaps up.

As to Colgan Air I did not say the action she took was correct. Just said maybe it was a case of "undo what I just did"

BTD

[CP]

Just said maybe it was a case of "undo what I just did"

BTD

Agreed.

[Jastapilot]

Just said maybe it was a case of "undo what I just did"

BTD

Agreed.

Then shouldn't she have selected flaps 5 instead of flaps up? On every plane I've ever flown, the gear wasn't touched until 'positive rate', and the flaps weren't cleaned up until the stall was recovered. I could understand that she was thinking tailplane stall, since they had just finished a big, scary discussion on the icing conditions, but in the case of the tailplane stall, aren't you supposed to go back to the previous flap setting, not set the flaps up?
My take is the FO DID recognize they were in a stall, but she never announced it. I think the captain figured it out, but too late. His 'recovery' technique, if you want to call it that, sucked. Let's see, stall an airplane, yank the stick back and step on a rudder? I'm pretty sure that's what my instructor taught me to do to spin a C150.

[xsbank]

My airplane, landing stall: "Stall recovery, check thrust, flaps 20, positive rate gear up" is the correct recovery drill. Like somebody said, flaps beyond take-off flap just adds drag.

Whether or not this crew deserved to be flying a Q400 is debatable, what is not is that the fundamental CRM requires somebody to be flying the A/C at all times. This would never have happened if this were the case here. Their panicked response to this situation was probably reasonable as their situational awareness was so out to lunch this stall was a total surprise.

Have you ever configured fully for a non-precision approach and levelled at MDA? Same thing.

Seems to me there is a lot of gum-flapping here from people who are not very experienced......

[2.5milefinal]

http://www.newsmax.com/us/us_airline_pi ... 14968.html


Roger Cohen, president of the Regional Airline Association, said lower salaries are an industrywide problem. He predicted airlines generally will suffer a shortage of pilots once the economy improves. He denied, however, that safety has been affected.

Does anyone else not like this Roger Cohen as much as me?

[grimey]

I don't think lower salaries are necessarily a problem (as far as safety goes), provided that the per diems (which shouldn't be thought of as pay) are there and at a level where they can prevent ridiculous commutes and allow people to get the sleep they need when they need it. But paying someone $20 an hour and expecting them to be able to afford an apartment in a major US city, while also getting hotel rooms and meals on the road half the time is idiotic. If you're away from where you're based, you should either be put up in a crew house, or a hotel room at company expense, not just told "show up here tomorrow at 6".

[jjj]

CP are you typed on the Q400?

[bankers]

Sick time policy at my company here in canada is just as bad if not worse then most of the USA for pilots.
Under 2 year = 0 days
Over 2 and under 6 = 1 day
Over 6 and under 16 = 2 days
Over 16 = 3 days

This is a company that does government contract work, and international work.

This is the type of stuff that is going on here in Canada. Is this a safe system?

[Pratt X 3]

Sick time policy at my company here in canada is just as bad if not worse then most of the USA for pilots.
Under 2 year = 0 days
Over 2 and under 6 = 1 day
Over 6 and under 16 = 2 days
Over 16 = 3 days

That might be paid sick days. Under the Canadian Labour Code, the employer is not required to pay wages for any time off sick; however, they are required to pay for any benefits as long as the employee continues to pay their share.

Sick Leave
239. (1) Subject to subsection (1.1), no employer shall dismiss, suspend, lay off, demote or discipline an employee because of absence due to illness or injury if
(a) the employee has completed three consecutive months of continuous employment by the employer prior to the absence;
(b) the period of absence does not exceed twelve weeks; and
(c) the employee, if requested in writing by the employer within fifteen days after his return to work, provides the employer with a certificate of a qualified medical practitioner certifying that the employee was incapable of working due to illness or injury for a specified period of time, and that that period of time coincides with the absence of the employee from work.

(1.1) An employer may assign to a different position, with different terms and conditions of employment, any employee who, after an absence due to illness or injury, is unable to perform the work performed by the employee prior to the absence.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs ... -gb:l_XIII

[BTD]

Then shouldn't she have selected flaps 5 instead of flaps up?

Yes, if that was her thought process she should have. I didn't say it was the correct thing to do though.

On every plane I've ever flown, the gear wasn't touched until 'positive rate', and the flaps weren't cleaned up until the stall was recovered.

Interesting. I have already quoted above our procedure on the metro so I won't repeat it.

When I used to fly a PC-12 for another company it was.

8.4.2 LANDING CONFIGURATION (Gear Down, Flaps 40)
1. PCL.............................................................Max Power
2. Angle of attack ............................................Decrease by releasing back pressure
(Simultaneous with step 1)
3. Flaps ...........................................................15
4. Gear ............................................................UP
5. Positive Rate >100knts……………………...Flaps UP
6. Aircraft........................................................Climb to regain any lost altitude.
8.4.3 APPROACH

Most general aviation aircraft I have flown (if I remember correctly, and I may not) the procedure was to raise flaps to the next detent if full flap was extended. Prior to a positive rate.

Asked a friend who flies a DHC-8 (not Q400) what their procedure is for landing config stall. He said after max power they reduce flap to a lower setting prior to positive rate as well. I could see it being different on a Jet with a swept wing.

Interesting stuff.

BTD

[rigpiggy]

The last 4 AC i flew

Stall Max power, flap 17 pos rate gear up
Stall Max power , flaps 1 pos rate gear up
Stall Max power, flaps 15, pos rate gear up
Stall Max Power Flaps 10, pos rate gear up

see a pattern

[Valhalla]

On the Q400, it's max power, and "relax back pressure" at the first sign of stall. "Gear up" comes with positive rate. The f/o selecting flaps up, uncommanded by the PF, likely worsened the situation.

The other thing I noticed from the NTSB simulation video was the fact that the power levers never quite got to "detent" power. This means that the engines were producing slightly less than max contiuous, probably somewhere around 80-90%ish, and they could have "firewalled" the throttles for 125-130% torque. Having said that, the Q400 has so much power in those engines that 80% and a little bit of level attitude would have easily and quickly silenced the stick shaker.

[hawker driver]

It looks like the Pilots in the US are giving the media an ear full

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser ... ewser.html

[CP]

Stop Faulting the Flight Crew for the Crash of Colgan 3407!
By Arthur Alan Wolk
The flight crew was blameless for this crash and everyone investigating the crash knows it. It’s just easier to blame the dead crew than to blame the manufacturer who failed to equip this airliner with modern anti-ice equipment. The airplane suffered a tail stall as soon as the flaps 15 setting was selected and the crew did what they were taught – they reversed the procedure and retracted the flaps.

The captain, in spite of the hideous criticism for having nonessential conversations below 10,000 feet, was otherwise professional and all required briefings were carried out.

The aircraft pitch up and airspeed loss has occurred dozens of times in Cessna Caravans just before control is lost in ice. It is a pitch up when the tail loses its ability to provide required down force due to ice contamination. The airspeed bleeds off rapidly and the stick shaker and pusher react. The crew knows that the standard recovery of lowering the nose won’t work so they pull back like they were taught. Lateral control is then lost, followed by pitch control as well.

This aircraft was never certified to fly in freezing drizzle or rain and the crew, like every other airline crew, was misled into believing it was. No one is told that if the conditions are anything other than moderate – clear or rime – the airplane cannot fly. The use of outdated rubber boots, which allow the ice to accumulate before activation, aggravates the situation and just leads to trouble.

It is true that the captain was not the world’s best pilot and the first officer was a kid. Their training stunk and their non-pertinent discussions below 10,000 feet demonstrated poor judgment. However, the transcript from the cockpit voice recorder, read in context, reveals that nothing in their past or their conduct on that flight caused this accident.

No one should confuse legal liability for a crash with blame placed by investigating authorities. Legal responsibility belongs to Continental, Colgan, Pinnacle, and Bombardier and they will pay for all the losses. Blaming this crew is a hideous attempt to hide the truth. Airplanes with deicing boots no longer have a place in commercial aviation.

[chancellor]

Wow! Had moderate ice on an ATR the other day boots worked great.

[Pratt X 3]

Stop Faulting the Flight Crew for the Crash of Colgan 3407! By Arthur Alan Wolk

Found here: http://www.airlaw.com/commentaries.htm

The Wolk Law Firm
1710-12 Locust Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
215-545-4220 (phone)
215-545-5252 (fax)
airlaw@airlaw.com

[chancellor]

frickin lawyers!

[Four1oh]

Stop Faulting the Flight Crew for the Crash of Colgan 3407!
By Arthur Alan Wolk
The flight crew was blameless for this crash and everyone investigating the crash knows it. It’s just easier to blame the dead crew than to blame the manufacturer who failed to equip this airliner with modern anti-ice equipment. The airplane suffered a tail stall as soon as the flaps 15 setting was selected and the crew did what they were taught – they reversed the procedure and retracted the flaps.

wrong. The crew did not attempt a proper recovery. If you look at the video of the FDR, you see the pilot flying did kick the rudders and actually caused an incipient spin. The FO retracted the flaps to 'up', uncommanded. My next question is, what exactly were the pilots trained in reference to recovering from a stall?

The captain, in spite of the hideous criticism for having nonessential conversations below 10,000 feet, was otherwise professional and all required briefings were carried out.

Agreed, for the most part.

The aircraft pitch up and airspeed loss has occurred dozens of times in Cessna Caravans just before control is lost in ice. It is a pitch up when the tail loses its ability to provide required down force due to ice contamination. The airspeed bleeds off rapidly and the stick shaker and pusher react. The crew knows that the standard recovery of lowering the nose won’t work so they pull back like they were taught. Lateral control is then lost, followed by pitch control as well.

Please tell me the guy that wrote this is just a reporter? I'd understand then. If a pilot wrote this, he needs more groundschool.

This aircraft was never certified to fly in freezing drizzle or rain and the crew, like every other airline crew, was misled into believing it was. No one is told that if the conditions are anything other than moderate – clear or rime – the airplane cannot fly. The use of outdated rubber boots, which allow the ice to accumulate before activation, aggravates the situation and just leads to trouble.

riight... and all other airplanes are certified in freezing rain or severe icing?

It is true that the captain was not the world’s best pilot and the first officer was a kid. Their training stunk and their non-pertinent discussions below 10,000 feet demonstrated poor judgment. However, the transcript from the cockpit voice recorder, read in context, reveals that nothing in their past or their conduct on that flight caused this accident.

so first they had the proper training, and now they don't? What's the dealio here?

No one should confuse legal liability for a crash with blame placed by investigating authorities. Legal responsibility belongs to Continental, Colgan, Pinnacle, and Bombardier and they will pay for all the losses. Blaming this crew is a hideous attempt to hide the truth. Airplanes with deicing boots no longer have a place in commercial aviation.

I blame Colgan, AND the pilots, AND the FAA here.