Originally Posted by johnso29 (Post 1338436)

No, I don't think so. But TranStates airlines operated them out of STL for years after that accident. I guess it's still just the "scary turboprop" mentality that's keeping them away. I think they'll be coming back though.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1338465)

My bet, ATR 72 wasn't sexy enough for those willing to buy new props. But the ATR 72 is probably the better airplane on prop type flights and, all things considered more than just an ETE comparison, the CRJ900 bests the Q400 on jet routes.



The pic Bar posted doesn't show de-ice boots. I believe the P-3 didn't have any, right? The Piaggio below doesn't.

http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/fo...vanti_ii_a.jpg

The Citation does. :rolleyes:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ang_N416CM.jpg

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1338457)

Just for info icing had nothing to do with the Colgan accident. You can read the transcripts on the NTSB website. So many mistakes you can hardly count them all but the basics were they pulled the props to fine pitch and throttles to idle to slow down. Never pushed the power up and got the stick pusher. Captain over powered the pusher and the copilot decided to raise the flaps. The result we all know.

Originally Posted by johnso29 (Post 1338460)

When I heard the CVR, & CA Renslow said "Yeah....that's the most ice I've seen on the wing in a while...." I still wonder how the heck that didn't send up a huge red flag. One of the first links in the chain...... the accident could've easily been avoided. :(

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp (Post 1338469)

The Piaggio has a heated wing. Great airplane!

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1338480)

I know there are plenty of threads around here on this whole thing but I think it's a bit of a fallacy on some of the other threads to assume the pilots acted in unison and were on the same page the entire event. I think that's impossible to do at any time especially given the little verbal communication that existed in the heat of the moment.

So, when the FO pulled up the flaps it just makes me wonder if she thought it was a tail stall? I say this because a friend of mine that was at Great Lakes and said a good amount of time spent on that NOAA tail stall video and proper recovery techniques. From their training's POV he says, flying 1900Ds in ice meant tail stalls were a threat.

So when you watch that video it's pull back, flaps up... or die. Actual Tail Stall Event (NASA Research Flight)



I've always wondered if Colgan hammered that same video and thought process into its pillots? And given what the FO was seeing with the Captain pulling on the elevator the way he evidently was, maybe she wasn't acting out of ignorance but rather in her mind properly for the tail stall she might have thought they were in.

Just a thought.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1338480)

I know there are plenty of threads around here on this whole thing but I think it's a bit of a fallacy on some of the other threads to assume the pilots acted in unison and were on the same page the entire event. I think that's impossible to do at any time especially given the little verbal communication that existed in the heat of the moment.

So, when the FO pulled up the flaps it just makes me wonder if she thought it was a tail stall? I say this because a friend of mine that was at Great Lakes and said a good amount of time spent on that NOAA tail stall video and proper recovery techniques. From their training's POV he says, flying 1900Ds in ice meant tail stalls were a threat.

So when you watch that video it's pull back, flaps up... or die. Actual Tail Stall Event (NASA Research Flight)



I've always wondered if Colgan hammered that same video and thought process into its pillots? And given what the FO was seeing with the Captain pulling on the elevator the way he evidently was, maybe she wasn't acting out of ignorance but rather in her mind properly for the tail stall she might have thought they were in.

Just a thought.

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp (Post 1338535)

At Pinnacle it was never mentioned in training, but it was very much a part of the colloquial knowledge spread around. As soon as I saw the way they reacted, I immediately recognized that they thought they were in a tail stall.

Why they associated a shaker with a tail stall, I don't know. The CA did react similarly to others of his background profile (middle aged career changer that went to Gulfstream) that I saw in the sim and on the line... just jump and react and hoped they guessed right.

Originally Posted by NWA320pilot (Post 1338548)

I don't believe they thought they had a tail stall and neither did the NTSB..... This crew failed to use basic flying skills with regards to airspeed control. Then when they stalled the plane they totally screwed up the recovery! The crew didn't utilize proper power application, pitch control, aircraft configuration nor crew communication.

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp (Post 1338560)

Agreed on their skills.

Their reaction was exactly what was spread around for the recovery from a tail stall... it's too similar. I'll agree to disagree with you and the NTSB on that one. :)

I was particularly astounded at how the FO just sat there like a bump on a log and let the CA kill her. That's another main place where my suspicion that they both thought it was a tail stall comes from.

Originally Posted by NWA320pilot (Post 1338563)

Why did he add power if he was doing the recovery technique for a tail stall?