6th anniversary of Colgan 3407
02-20-2015 | 05:35 AM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 781
Likes: 0
From: 737-Right
That in and of itself ends the conversation. If he would have fire-walled it, they would have been fine. I suppose anyhow, but(the more I think about it) the captain had no business being in command of that plane. First action of a stall encounter is as natural as it is to jump out of the way of a mack truck. I'm thinking since he lacked the competancy of basic stall recovery, it was just a matter of time before something else would've gotten him. If I were a surviving family member, I am not sure I would want his name on the memorial.
Last edited by Loon; 02-20-2015 at 05:49 AM.
02-20-2015 | 05:47 AM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,214
Likes: 0
From: Seat 0B
I've never understood why everyone talks about poor stall recovery in this crash. People should be talking about the fact that he stalled the airplane. Stall recovery should never have been an issue. How bout don't stall.
And yes his name should be on the memorial. His family lost someone just the same as other families did.
And yes his name should be on the memorial. His family lost someone just the same as other families did.
02-20-2015 | 06:15 AM
#34
On Reserve
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 148
Likes: 2
From: Q400 FO
My ground school instructor at Colgan was supposed to be the captain on that flight. He was involved in the simulation of the accident scenario during the investigation. The power was never advanced beyond about 73% torque if I recall, the captain held the yoke all the way back and the FO retracted the flaps. The simulations concluded that the retraction of flaps made the event unrecoverable... Even with the power in the low 70% range and the yoke all the way back, the aircraft would recover in the available altitude. Unfortunately the FO's uncommanded configuration change was the final link in the accident chain.
The Q400 bleeds energy like crazy below 200 knots... Above, not so much, fatigue combined with weak skills could cause it to creep up on you.
The Q400 bleeds energy like crazy below 200 knots... Above, not so much, fatigue combined with weak skills could cause it to creep up on you.
02-20-2015 | 06:34 AM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 880
Likes: 0
From: Airbus 319/320 Captain
Wait... so you're an airline pilot flying an airbus and actually think 9/11 was some conspiracy? Yikes... I blew off your first post as a joke/thick sarcasm because I gave you benefit of the doubt.
You sure you're ok being up in the flight levels with all of us working for the NWO spraying chemtrails?
You sure you're ok being up in the flight levels with all of us working for the NWO spraying chemtrails?
02-20-2015 | 07:08 AM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,842
Likes: 93
You heard wrong. Read the NTSB report and watch the FDR. The airplane was already rolling over before the flaps were retracted. Once your are 40 knots below the stall speed, 10* of flaps won't matter (especially if you are fighting a stick pusher).
02-20-2015 | 07:13 AM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,842
Likes: 93
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.
02-20-2015 | 08:22 AM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 923
Likes: 0
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?
02-20-2015 | 08:43 AM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,842
Likes: 93
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?
02-20-2015 | 08:45 AM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,576
Likes: 75
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?
Aviation Accident Report AAR-10-01
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
