Citation down North of Kelowna
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore
-
- Rank 1
- Posts: 40
- Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 11:11 am
Re: Citation down North of Kelowna
ex cop don't mean nothing 50 percent of the working public carries the rest TFLs
-
- Rank 8
- Posts: 775
- Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:19 pm
Re: Citation down North of Kelowna
If you want to get an idea of the thought process of PDW when it comes to accident analysis, I suggest that you read this thread....AuxBatOn wrote:You are concluding using very low resolution, not very reliable data since you started posting in this thread! Please stop, you just discredit yourself.pdw wrote:From rotation to accident-site is four and a half minutes according to flightaware data.
Reading the Gfa s (previous page link) shows convergence of two systems into southern BC during that evening.
The 13/10/2016-1200Z Gfa shows a 983mb Lo
viewtopic.php?f=118&t=109761
Re: Citation down North of Kelowna
I believe some volks here were patiently waiting for Mick G to work us through the stall discussion (flying 101) a bit more ...
2nd Qcncpc wrote:I'm wondering what scenario you envision where power had to be applied to get out of the stall. How would power have ever gotten back in the first place?
It's surely an easy enough topic for all of us to relate to. Why not give the answer a try when you get a chance ..cncpc wrote:Mick. How does this stall happen ?
- Old fella
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2400
- Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:04 am
- Location: I'm retired. I don't want to'I don't have to and you can't make me.
Re: Citation down North of Kelowna
Plenty of speculation/conjecture from the various site posters, fair enough. TSB indicated it will be a challenging investigation so I guess it will be awhile before we know which speculator nailed it.
Re: Citation down North of Kelowna
I read:
I value the opportunity of pilots to have a timely and thought provoking discussion, which hopefully increases awareness, and helps to prevent future accidents. However, during those discussions, I find it un-nerving when less good techniques are advanced as good practice.
We fly aircraft with primary flight controls. Engine controls are not primary flight controls. That's not to say that that they cannot and should not be used while flying the aircraft, but in my opinion, the use of a secondary control in an aircraft should not by presented as the first action to take to correct an impending aerodynamic event which is undesirable. Pilots should be thinking AoA reduction first, with all other actions being secondary to that for stall avoidance and recovery. Having engine power applied does not return control of an aircraft, and in some cases may further reduce control - in the case of an approach to stall, the pilot must maintain/regain control, for which the primary flying controls are to be used.
I have only ever flown two production aircraft types which did not give adequate tactile warning, to an aware pilot, of an impending stall, and those two types were not CAR 3 nor Part 23 certified in Canada. Other certified types with iffy approach to stall feel will have stall barrier systems designed in, so the pilot does not have to search for the information. We installed an excellent AoA system in the 182 amphibian. I paid great attention to it when I was calibrating it. Once it was working as designed, I have no recollection of actually using it as an aid to flying. It works very well, I just don't bother to look inside the cockpit to gather information it is presenting when flying the 182.
We need pilots whose instinct is to reduce AoA at the approach to unintended stall. Thereafter, if necessary, power may be used to prolong the flight.
Which is why:If a stall has happened, the first step to recovering and regaining controlled flight with positive lift, is to apply power and push the nose down to help regain airspeed over the wing.
Also:PilotDAR wrote:
It alarms me terribly that application of power would precede reduction of AoA as a stall recovery technique.
Nobody said that...Mick was talking about simultaneous application of power and reducing AoA (I assume).
Probably, which is why I qualified my statement with:When you are close to the ground, isn't it better to do that than to reduce AoA and then apply power?
I have no idea if a stall is a factor in the sad accident of the Citation, I know nothing of the cause. So this could be thread drift, please excuse that.The only time that could ever be a good idea would be if you've got the plane hanging on power too high to allow it to safely touch the surface but too low to allow for a reduction of AoA.
I value the opportunity of pilots to have a timely and thought provoking discussion, which hopefully increases awareness, and helps to prevent future accidents. However, during those discussions, I find it un-nerving when less good techniques are advanced as good practice.
We fly aircraft with primary flight controls. Engine controls are not primary flight controls. That's not to say that that they cannot and should not be used while flying the aircraft, but in my opinion, the use of a secondary control in an aircraft should not by presented as the first action to take to correct an impending aerodynamic event which is undesirable. Pilots should be thinking AoA reduction first, with all other actions being secondary to that for stall avoidance and recovery. Having engine power applied does not return control of an aircraft, and in some cases may further reduce control - in the case of an approach to stall, the pilot must maintain/regain control, for which the primary flying controls are to be used.
Though I respect Cat's experience, and opinions, I do not go out of my way to support the idea of AoA indicators in light GA training aircraft. To me, the result of AoA information in these aircraft would be a student looking around the cockpit for one more gadget to further bury them in information, which must then be intellectually processed for the brain to add it to the sum of available information to then determine the next action (yes, I intended that long sentence). Rather, better to have less cockpit clutter, less information saturation, and simply train pilots to fly planes by feel and instinct.I can not believe that training airplanes do not have AOA indicators in them considering how little it would add to the cost of the airplane.
I have only ever flown two production aircraft types which did not give adequate tactile warning, to an aware pilot, of an impending stall, and those two types were not CAR 3 nor Part 23 certified in Canada. Other certified types with iffy approach to stall feel will have stall barrier systems designed in, so the pilot does not have to search for the information. We installed an excellent AoA system in the 182 amphibian. I paid great attention to it when I was calibrating it. Once it was working as designed, I have no recollection of actually using it as an aid to flying. It works very well, I just don't bother to look inside the cockpit to gather information it is presenting when flying the 182.
We need pilots whose instinct is to reduce AoA at the approach to unintended stall. Thereafter, if necessary, power may be used to prolong the flight.
Re: Citation down North of Kelowna
Precisely, and that is exactly why all major aircraft manufacturers have changed their stall recovery procedure to first reduce the angle of attack and get the wing flying again. Then power can be increased as necessary, which in reality can also be done simultaneously - but carefully. Your first reaction though is always to reduce the angle of attack.PilotDAR wrote:We fly aircraft with primary flight controls. Engine controls are not primary flight controls. That's not to say that that they cannot and should not be used while flying the aircraft, but in my opinion, the use of a secondary control in an aircraft should not by presented as the first action to take to correct an impending aerodynamic event which is undesirable. Pilots should be thinking AoA reduction first, with all other actions being secondary to that for stall avoidance and recovery. Having engine power applied does not return control of an aircraft, and in some cases may further reduce control - in the case of an approach to stall, the pilot must maintain/regain control, for which the primary flying controls are to be used.
All the power you have available will be of little use if the wing is still stalled, and may even exacerbate the situation depending on engine placement on the wing (underslung) and/or VMCA in the case of an engine failure. You might even already be at full power.
Re: Citation down North of Kelowna
pdw, of course we are all speculating.....Icing would be my first thought, but Pitot heat would also seem a possible scenario (Remember AF447) Did pilot become incapacitated, maybe? was autopilot actually being used?pdw wrote:I believe some volks here were patiently waiting for Mick G to work us through the stall discussion (flying 101) a bit more ...
2nd Qcncpc wrote:I'm wondering what scenario you envision where power had to be applied to get out of the stall. How would power have ever gotten back in the first place?It's surely an easy enough topic for all of us to relate to. Why not give the answer a try when you get a chance ..cncpc wrote:Mick. How does this stall happen ?
Re: Citation down North of Kelowna
I'll put $5 on gravity bringing the plane down, and heart failure causing the deaths of all on board.Old fella wrote:Plenty of speculation/conjecture from the various site posters, fair enough. TSB indicated it will be a challenging investigation so I guess it will be awhile before we know which speculator nailed it.
-
- Rank 4
- Posts: 284
- Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:10 pm
Re: Citation down North of Kelowna
My word, power up , nose down, power up , nose down?????
What if the wing did not stall but the tail stalled? Pushing forward wouldn't do much, IMHO.
Normal reaction should be push nose down "and" apply power. You have to do this in all circumstances regardless of how it stalls there is no time to analyze the situation. The pushing might not help at that split second but it certainly will become alive fast.
What if the wing did not stall but the tail stalled? Pushing forward wouldn't do much, IMHO.
Normal reaction should be push nose down "and" apply power. You have to do this in all circumstances regardless of how it stalls there is no time to analyze the situation. The pushing might not help at that split second but it certainly will become alive fast.
- Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Re: Citation down North of Kelowna
This company sells an AOA indicator that has a bright led light trend indicator that can be mounted in a position where it can be seen without looking at it.
Though I respect Cat's experience, and opinions, I do not go out of my way to support the idea of AoA indicators in light GA training aircraft. To me, the result of AoA information in these aircraft would be a student looking around the cockpit for one more gadget to further bury them in information,
Green is good, but when you see yellow you know you are reaching critical angle of attack.
These devices in my opinion would enforce the importance of AOA in the students mind without having them looking inside at the airspeed indicator which has lag anyhow.
When not needed or wanted the instructor can just turn it off.
Note:::
Every pilot should read this link because it will reinforce just how a wing fly's
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Re: Citation down North of Kelowna
That device appears to remedy where the earlier tip-off to add power becomes a necessity .. if i got that right
-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 671
- Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 7:52 pm
- Location: Ontario
Re: Citation down North of Kelowna
If close to ground in a small GA aircraft ( like a C-185 ) Applying power or full power whilst maintaining altitude ( not reducing aoa ) in an impending aerodynamic event may be a life saver instead of what we are "taught" EACH and every condition is different and requires different responses,, simply be prepared for the right response!!We fly aircraft with primary flight controls. Engine controls are not primary flight controls. That's not to say that that they cannot and should not be used while flying the aircraft, but in my opinion, the use of a secondary control in an aircraft should not by presented as the first action to take to correct an impending aerodynamic event which is undesirable. Pilots should be thinking AoA reduction first, with all other actions being secondary to that for stall avoidance and recovery. Having engine power applied does not return control of an aircraft, and in some cases may further reduce control - in the case of an approach to stall, the pilot must maintain/regain control, for which the primary flying controls are to be used.
-
- Rank 2
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 9:04 am
Re: Citation down North of Kelowna
Even a GoPro or similar pointing at the panel with cockpit audio feed would probably provide a lot of information. Limited in amount of srtorage, though.fish4life wrote:The lack of CVR in general is really frustrating but the overall FDR / CVR abilities are terrible. In a world with super light and condensed flash storage it's really too bad every commercial aircraft doesn't have one. Most CVR's only have 2 hours of storage... cmon there is no reason it can't have 50hours on it.
An iPhone sized / weight device could be a little mini CVR / FDR, even if it just records gps position and used a little internal gyro similar to what an iPhone has at least all these aircraft that aren't currently required to have one will have some sort of data to go off of. It doesn't even have to be certified to the same high standards of an FDR currently so it could be made cheap like under $1000 cheap.
Re: Citation down North of Kelowna
Yes, I agree. The first effect of applying power or full power is to change the relative wind, hence the AoA, by increasing thrust along the thrust line.crazyaviator wrote:If close to ground in a small GA aircraft ( like a C-185 ) Applying power or full power whilst maintaining altitude ( not reducing aoa ) in an impending aerodynamic event may be a life saver instead of what we are "taught" EACH and every condition is different and requires different responses,, simply be prepared for the right response!!We fly aircraft with primary flight controls. Engine controls are not primary flight controls. That's not to say that that they cannot and should not be used while flying the aircraft, but in my opinion, the use of a secondary control in an aircraft should not by presented as the first action to take to correct an impending aerodynamic event which is undesirable. Pilots should be thinking AoA reduction first, with all other actions being secondary to that for stall avoidance and recovery. Having engine power applied does not return control of an aircraft, and in some cases may further reduce control - in the case of an approach to stall, the pilot must maintain/regain control, for which the primary flying controls are to be used.
There is risk in a prop plane from torque causing a wing to drop and a spin to start. In probably a good many prop planes, like the P51, I'd think you'd have to break the stall before adding any significant power.
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.
-
- Rank 5
- Posts: 369
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:29 am
Re: Citation down North of Kelowna
You pick an interesting example in the P-51. In a nose high attitude at the point of stall, adding power suddenly can cause the left wing to stall. The slipstream spirals around the fuselage and increases the angle of attack at the left wing root. There is a folklore legend that the P-51 has insufficient rudder and aileron at low speed and will "torque roll." Not true, in training we held the airplane in the stall buffet with full military (61" MP) power. It took about 1/2 of the available rudder and 3/4 of the available aileron, but the airplane was controllable. My instructor pointed out that the so often witnessed "torque roll" was usually the stalling of the left inboard wing root. This is the reason adding lots of power to correct a badly bounced 3 point landing is so hazardous.
Cat Driver has it right. Adding power during stall recovery can minimise the altitude loss. The resulting vectored thrust can reduce the weight that the wing has to lift and this will cause a reduction in angle of attack that will help alleviate the stall. But at the end of the day, wings unstall simply because their angle of attack is reduced - period. I make a point of flying any airplane I am learning on in the buffet/stick shaker for an extended period of time in all configurations until I am very familiar with what "too slow" looks, feels, and sounds like. Hopefully I will remember this when I need to.
Interesting as this discussion is, I want to re-iterate that at this point, we have no idea what caused this accident, and may very well never know. I don't want to leave anybody with the impression that I think the airplane was stalled.
Fly safe, fly the wing,
sportingrifle.
"You can always tell when a man has lost his soul to flying." Ernest Gann.
Cat Driver has it right. Adding power during stall recovery can minimise the altitude loss. The resulting vectored thrust can reduce the weight that the wing has to lift and this will cause a reduction in angle of attack that will help alleviate the stall. But at the end of the day, wings unstall simply because their angle of attack is reduced - period. I make a point of flying any airplane I am learning on in the buffet/stick shaker for an extended period of time in all configurations until I am very familiar with what "too slow" looks, feels, and sounds like. Hopefully I will remember this when I need to.
Interesting as this discussion is, I want to re-iterate that at this point, we have no idea what caused this accident, and may very well never know. I don't want to leave anybody with the impression that I think the airplane was stalled.
Fly safe, fly the wing,
sportingrifle.
"You can always tell when a man has lost his soul to flying." Ernest Gann.
Re: Citation down North of Kelowna
Most likely, autopilot disconnect not picked up till too late.sportingrifle wrote:Interesting as this discussion is, I want to re-iterate that at this point, we have no idea what caused this accident, and may very well never know. I don't want to leave anybody with the impression that I think the airplane was stalled.
sportingrifle.
"You can always tell when a man has lost his soul to flying." Ernest Gann.
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.
Re: Citation down North of Kelowna
How is that possible? Isn't there always some kind of very obvious and loud warning noise?cncpc wrote:
Most likely, autopilot disconnect not picked up till too late.
Re: Citation down North of Kelowna
I believe that's true. Didn't an autopilot disconnect or set to wrong mode play a role in the Resolute accident?CpnCrunch wrote:How is that possible? Isn't there always some kind of very obvious and loud warning noise?cncpc wrote:
Most likely, autopilot disconnect not picked up till too late.
From my recollection I wouldn't describe it as very obvious and loud.
I think you mostly notice it as a sign that what you intended took place. You hear it if you are waiting for it. Maybe not so much when its by accident, happens at the same time as an ATC transmission, etc. The push to talk, trim, and autopilot disconnect buttons are kind of close together and its not unheard of to push the wrong one.
It's a hazard of having a passenger in the right seat as well, if that was the setup that night.
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.
Re: Citation down North of Kelowna
How did you arrive at this as the most likely cause?cncpc wrote: Most likely, autopilot disconnect not picked up till too late.