Get your facts straight first. There are no applicable procedures/regulations/prohibitions/ADs/stone tablets/sticky notes/memos/voicemails/text messages/whatever from the manufacturer or airline that would preclude the use of A/P in the conditions encountered in this incident. NONE!

 

This discussion of Autopilot use in icing conditions is absurd, and is being propagated by people that are ignorant of FAR Part 25 certification criteria, Aircraft Flight Manuals, SOPs, etc...The airplane is designed to be flown in known icing (Moderate) with the AP-ON. When you are in icing greater than moderate you are now exceeding the limitations for operation of the aircraft, and MUST exit the icing conditions as soon as practiable. We have a variety of criteria for the operation of aircraft under Part 121, so that the airplane can be safely operated within it's limitations and the company's operations specifications. All this ranting and raving thats going on merely demonstrates a complete ignorance of the topic.
Perhaps icing may be shown as a contributing factor, but I think that many people are going to be surprised that it has nothing to do with aircraft capability, operation or limitations. It MAY come down to just one very simple and common cause of accidents...LOSS OF SITUATIONAL AWARENESS... A very abstract skill to teach, and only gained thru experience, seasoning coupled with good training and knowledge.

Note: SOP **recommendation** is to hand-fly if icing encountered is greater than moderate and/or tailplane icing is suspected. In other words you get into a nasty dose of SLD icing during descent/approach when statistics show SLD makes aircraft the most vulnerable to ice accretion (slow/configured). Again, let's analyze with facts and use logic and not this ad hominem nonsense thats going on here now.

 

Let's see the mishap rate for the "Q" compared to other transport category aircraft per 10,000 flight hours. I think that the "Q" is a
very safe aircraft. And, if you are going to cite the aircraft being
unsafe, is that an engineering/design problem? Maintenance? Crew
Procedures. Blanket statements that the aircraft is "unsafe" doesn't
make the grade.

 

Call me crazy, but I don't think this was ice.

Ice would not bring down that airplane. There is underlying facts that the NTSB has...I'm just speculating.

 

oh yeah and crusie
.......................spew this!!

THE ICEMAN COMMETH!!

 

I stand by my opinion!! flamers beware

 

Our local radio show had on Pat Smith, from Salon.com's 'Ask the Pilot' and had him debunk most of what the lawyers are suing for. Although it's just a local radio show, I thought they did a good job explaining that there is no known cause yet and how terrible this lawyer really is for trying to bring a suit so early on in the case. The clip can be downloaded here and starts at 24:00 into the show:WEDG-FM

 

How exactly can you build a case on that? There is no issue with the use of autopilot by the crew. None. To try and build a case otherwise is just nonsense. They did nothing wrong or contrary to any piece of guidance or regulation available to us as crewmembers!

 

Continue to remain ignorant of the specifics at hand. That's a great thing for you to be proud of. I will give you one thing, at least you're a man of conviction.....regardless of how uninformed you are to the specifics!

 

You are clearly ignorant of airline operating procedures, the operation of the Q400 in particular, and the legal system.

1. Procedures are not "stated in the Ops Specs" and the relevant procedures for the operation of the DHC-8 Q400 would, in this case, be the Colgan General Operations Manual and the Colgan Bombardier DHC-8 Q400 Flight Manual (or whatever Colgan's title is for the aircraft operating manual).

2. You state that "there are and were KNOWN FREQUENT issues,with, warning lights going on ...which can be legally interpreted negatively..." I'm not really sure what this means, but the point is, you don't either. There have been no reports that I am aware of that there were "warning lights [sic] going on..." aboard the CO3407 aircraft, but in any event, the annunciator lights and/or CAS (Crew Alerting System) messages on the Q400 are not designed to "interpreted" legally, negatively, or otherwise. The aircraft's warning and caution lights (if indeed that's what you were referring to) are designed to present a clear and unambiguous statement of condition of the particular component or system. I could go on about the design philosophy and functionality of these systems, but I won't bother--you obviously don't fly the airplane and wouldn't be likely to understand how the systems work.

3. It is quite unlikely that the "plaintiffs" will assert any claim or complaint predicated upon the use of the autopilot unless it ensues that the autopilot use played some causative role in the accident. At this point, there is no indication that the autopilot use played any role other than possibly enabling the decay of airspeed to a critical point where the stickshaker was activated. Again, there is no prohibition against "flight into known icing" using the autopilot. In fact the aircraft is certificated for flight into known icing, based upon an assumption that the autopilot will be used the majority of the time while in known icing.

You might try acquiring some information and some facts about the subject you're writing about, before holding forth about commercial aircraft and pilot procedures--not to mention the law and the legal system--on a professional pilot's forum.