Originally Posted by
Ottopilot
I flew ATR's in the NorthEast for years. I read the book; great science fiction. The icing that brought that ATR down was very severe and NO airplane has ever been certified to fly in it. They were not aware to their conditions. The CA was back talking to the FA. The FO was listening to rock on the ADF. They were too slow and used flaps in holding to keep the deck angle down (putting more ice behind the boots). Sure they made improvements to the ATR's ice ability after the accident- they could do that with any plane. Read the actual NTSB report and not some disgruntled pilot's book.
Your assertions are mostly incorrect. I have 7000 hours in the ATR and 12 winters in it and flew this aircraft shortly before the accident. I've read both and am intensly more familiar with this accident then you will ever be.
N401AM was only in icing conditions for 5 minutes out of the last 15 minutes of flight (primarily only in the outbound leg at LUCIT). Those conditions were indeed outside the certification of the aircraft, but NOT for accretion rate (common "severe ice" criteria), but for the type of icing that was occuring. This type of icing "super-cooled droplets" or SCD was insideous and not easily identified at the time. The deice boots were inadequate in size to prevent ice accretion aft of them, especially in their configuration (holding flaps 15). A configuration approved by the airline and manufacturer, by the way as it was the only way to stay below maximum holding speed for that aircraft. "Chatter" and "rock music" were not significant part of the accident, although the French (in typical fashion) attempted to find something else to blame instead of their design problems and highlighted these.
This aircraft had design issues with the wing and deice system that were the DIRECT and primary cause of this accident. Believe what you want, but those are the facts.