Originally Posted by 2StgTurbine (Post 1828700)

No. The Q tail was designed to prevent a tail stalls. That is why there is a large bulge on the top of the tail that the smaller Dash-8s do not have. Because of this, there was no tail stall training given in training then. After the crash, they did incorporate it into the training only because the NTSB thought of that was the cause early in the investigation, so Colgan rushed to include that into training. Then the NTSB figured icing was not a cause, but Colgan left it in the training. I find it very unlikely that two pilots concluded they were in a tail stall without any discussion and executed a recovery procedure they didn't teach in training.

Originally Posted by 2StgTurbine (Post 1828645)

Pilots generally over report ice and turbulence. Just because a pilot says there is a lot of ice doesn't mean it was beyond the capabilities of the aircraft. A nice feature on the Q was an ice spigot. It is designed to collect ice and not remove it in order to let the crew now now much cumulative ice they have flown in. That thing will pick up a lot of ice, but when you look at the wings, they are clean because the boots can remove it. When a Q pilot talks about ice, they are usually looking at the spigot. And as said before, the power was never brought all the way up.

Originally Posted by Flightcap (Post 1828684)

I've always wondered whether they thought they had a tailplane stall....... for which correct recovery is aft elevator, retract the flaps, power to a specified (not necessarily full) setting. Given the fact that tailplane stalls occur more readily with flaps extended, and that the stall occurred at the moment of flap extension, the "recovery" they tried to perform would have made sense. Obviously, it would have sense EXCEPT for the super low airspeed and stick shaker. There is no excuse for missing these cues. But I'm still curious what any Q drivers would think. Could the conditions of flight have suggested a tailplane stall?

Originally Posted by rickair7777 (Post 1828755)

They reacted like chimpanzees...flaps make bad thing happen, retract flaps. Nose drops suddenly, pull back on stick.

Originally Posted by JungleBus (Post 1827158)

Flew with a 9/11 truther a couple times, and not just a politically-bent "Bush knew ahead of time" truther, but a full-on "controlled demolitions took down the towers and a missile hit the Pentagon" moron. Part 121 captain...chew on that one for a while....

As far as the legacy of Colgan 3407 goes, think of all the changes in the last six years that were a direct result of the dirty laundry aired during the NTSB hearings...Part 117, new ATP rule, universal adoption of ASAP and FOQA, increased oversight of regional training. Meanwhile, consider Colgan's journey since the crash: gobbled up by Pinnacle, went bankrupt, bought by Delta, sold off the Q400s, forced concessions on the pilots, renamed Endeavor, became RA's bragging trophy for regional cost resets - oh, and now paying every pilot $20k/year extra to avoid shutting down prematurely due to lack of pilots! The 1500 hour rule plus 117 has the regional airlines sliding towards obsolescence, as planned, and multiple pilot groups take concessions to forestall the process even as their airlines offer huge hiring bonuses. What an industry. :o

Originally Posted by Saabs (Post 1828787)

Not that it matters but pinnacle had owned us for almost 2 years at the time of the crash.

Sad day.

Originally Posted by Saabs (Post 1828787)

Not that it matters but pinnacle had owned us for almost 2 years at the time of the crash.

Sad day.

Originally Posted by JungleBus (Post 1829559)

Nah doesn't matter, just meant that the two (ahem, three) ops were folded together after the crash. From the outside looking it, it seemed like they wanted to get rid of the Colgan name because of the notoriety of the crash. Do you know if the plan all along was to combine the operations, or were they originally going to keep them separate a la TSA/GoJet/CPS?

Originally Posted by JungleBus (Post 1829559)

Nah doesn't matter, just meant that the two (ahem, three) ops were folded together after the crash. From the outside looking it, it seemed like they wanted to get rid of the Colgan name because of the notoriety of the crash. Do you know if the plan all along was to combine the operations, or were they originally going to keep them separate a la TSA/GoJet/CPS?

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp (Post 1829562)

They were trying to keep it separate until ALPA was voted in at Colgan (which was a handful of weeks before the 3407 accident) and the issue was eventually forced.