Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Regional
Q400 ADC or SPS Failure? >

Q400 ADC or SPS Failure?

Search
Notices
Regional Regional Airlines

Q400 ADC or SPS Failure?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 02-18-2009, 06:19 AM
  #1  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
SmoothOnTop's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: retired
Posts: 645
Default Q400 ADC or SPS Failure?

Speculation:

Possible contributing factor - Air Data Computer failure.

or

Stall Protection System failure

I don't believe any pilot with proper indications would intentionally pitch to 31 ANU to recover from a stall.

To override the pusher and reach 31 ANU, one would think the aircraft had more momentum (speed) than shaker/pusher (AOA) conditions.

...
SmoothOnTop is offline  
Old 02-18-2009, 07:02 AM
  #2  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,275
Default

Assuming the glass in the Q400 is similar to other airplanes...

An ADC failure on one side should have triggered a comparator message...that should have given the crew time to figure out which was the good side. Although that could get pretty confusing in a busy phase of flight.

For very obvious reasons SPS will NOT trigger unless BOTH sides of the air data system agree. You would need dual failures, both producing identical data indicating a stall, but without setting a failure bit...the odds are astronomical against this.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 02-18-2009, 08:19 AM
  #3  
Day puke
 
FlyJSH's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: Out.
Posts: 3,865
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post

For very obvious reasons SPS will NOT trigger unless BOTH sides of the air data system agree. You would need dual failures, both producing identical data indicating a stall, but without setting a failure bit...the odds are astronomical against this.

Probably better to say it SHOULD NOT than it WILL NOT. Stranger things have happened.

ever watch Fate is the Hunter?
FlyJSH is offline  
Old 02-18-2009, 09:20 AM
  #4  
Gets Weekends Off
 
DAL4EVER's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Position: 88B - Loud Pipes Save Lives
Posts: 1,597
Default

Originally Posted by SmoothOnTop View Post
Speculation:



I don't believe any pilot with proper indications would intentionally pitch to 31 ANU to recover from a stall.

...
If true, it most likely wasn't intentional. I can tell you from thousands of hours of sim instructing that I've seen countless pilots fight the pusher when activated and you in essence create an extreme PIO with pitch attitudes ranging from plus 40 to minus 30. Unless they push forward on the control wheel and unload the wing this continues to the ground or when the sim instructor/check airman freezes the sim.

Not faulting the crew, but if you're in the comfy world of flying an approach and suddenly the pusher goes off and throws the yolk forward, what would be your first instinct? Most likely to pull back and protect altitude. Its also what airlines train for. Most airlines don't have you lose altitude in a stall situation, they want you to maintain altitude and use power and proper pitch to accelerate. See a problem with flying how you train?
DAL4EVER is offline  
Old 02-18-2009, 09:26 AM
  #5  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,803
Default

Fly the airplane first. Back to day one of flight training, listen to what your rear-end is saying (when your instruments are no good to you, of course)...and DAL has a very good point -- they expect you in the sim to hold altitude above all else, picking up the airspeed in the recovery. Also, the only time we ever see the pusher is if the approach to stall goes bad; we never actually see exactly how the aircraft behaves.
ExperimentalAB is offline  
Old 02-18-2009, 10:54 AM
  #6  
Line Holder
 
Flyboy060's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: Bus Driver
Posts: 32
Default

Well, perhaps the crew recognized the tail stall and had to fight against the stick shaker. This could have triggered the oscillation and aggravated the tail stall further (if indeed this is the ultimate cause). Just my .02.
Flyboy060 is offline  
Old 02-18-2009, 11:17 AM
  #7  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Killer51883's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: E-170
Posts: 842
Default

any stall is to be recovered according to 99% of any 121 procedure by maintaining the altitude as best as possible and using power to muscle out of the condition. with extra ice both on the airframe, props and wings the extra drag along with the resultant decrease in performance I wonder how the recovery will actually work. I also highly doubt that any flight crew would let the airspeed get that dangerously slow in those conditions.
Killer51883 is offline  
Old 02-18-2009, 11:17 AM
  #8  
ULTP-Ultra Low Tier Pilot
 
The Juice's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,228
Default

Originally Posted by DAL4EVER View Post
Most airlines don't have you lose altitude in a stall situation, they want you to maintain altitude and use power and proper pitch to accelerate. See a problem with flying how you train?
This is a very good point. All of our training from day one as a student pilot has been to maintain altitude. In fact if we lost altitude we most likely failed that portion of the test.

Even today with my 121 PC checks, we do 3 diferent stalls and all require holding altitude, which we all know means we have to pitch back a lot to maintain as we lose airspeed.

My first reaction with a stick pusher would probably be to pull back. Your first thoughts would most likely be "why is the plane diving me into the ground, I need to hold altitude."
The Juice is offline  
Old 02-18-2009, 11:24 AM
  #9  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: SLC ERB
Posts: 467
Default

Originally Posted by Killer51883 View Post
I also highly doubt that any flight crew would let the airspeed get that dangerously slow in those conditions.
Sadly, this might have actually been the case. From the Seattle PI:

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that a fundamental pilot mistake -- what to do in a stall -- and not icing may have triggered the fatal dive of the Continental Connection plane that crashed near Buffalo, killing 49 on board and one in the house it hit.
Citing sources who have thoroughly examined information from the plane's flight data recorder, the paper said the commuter plane was flying at an unsafe speed as it approached the airport, and experienced an automatic stall warning.
According to the plane's flight recorders, Flight 3407's descent into Buffalo was routine until roughly a minute before impact, when the crew lowered the landing gear, followed by the command to extend the wing flaps, which enable the plane to fly at slower speeds.
Almost immediately, these people say, the plane's air speed slowed rapidly, causing a stall-warning device known as a "stick-shaker" to cause the pilots' control column to vibrate. This was followed by a "stick-pusher," which automatically forces the stick forward.
At this point, the captain appears to have pulled back with enough force to overpower the stick-pusher and shoved the throttles to full power, according to people familiar with the matter. Safety board officials said the nose pitched up to a 31-degree angle. Already at a dangerously low speed, the wings immediately stopped generating lift. The plane whipped to the left and then entered a steep right turn, losing 800 feet of altitude in less than five seconds. At one point the right wing was perpendicular to the ground, according to information taken from the flight data recorder.
The pilots continued to fight with the controls almost all the way to the ground, and in the final moments, "it appeared that they were beginning to make headway when they ran out of altitude," said one person who looked at the data.

Still speculation of course. This crew was new to the airplane and probably did not have much time in airplanes with a vertical tape airspeed display. This could have lead to a loss of situational awareness. The crew was slowing and configuring the airplane and did not notice just how slow they were going until it was too late. I could see the captain pulling hard on the yoke in response the the pusher - especially since the stall caught them by surprise.
Dash8widget is offline  
Old 02-18-2009, 01:11 PM
  #10  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Dec 2008
Position: CRJ-700 Captain
Posts: 53
Default Getting carried away

I think we are getting carried away with trying to investigate this accident in an information vacuum. While I initially suspected an ICTS event, because the upset began as flaps were selected and the aircraft was reported to have crashed in an extreme nose down attitude, I now must say I do not know. I could speculate but it would be pointless so I won't. I do have ideas that I will keep to myself. But to see all the theories floating around disturbs me. We speculated on here about tail stalls and then the media asked about tail stalls. I think we need to quit giving the media and the lawyers ammunition with which to attack these pilots and our industry.

Lets quit specualting publicly and let the NTSB do its job.
fboehm is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Ryan274
Regional
400
02-13-2009 09:13 AM
EmbraerFlyer
Regional
38
10-11-2008 07:08 PM
aa73
Major
25
08-06-2008 02:40 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices