Re: Colgan 3407

How can you be trained to "use" a SPS?

It's automatic, not something in the pilot's 'tool kit' to employ as a stall evasion device, if you will. I understand training to recover after the activation of the SPS (if it gets that far), or an understanding about why the SPS is activating, and, if you have the ability to override it, whether or not you should do so (if you override, you better do something at least as effective as what the stick pusher was doing to address the immediate situation, if this is the case), but not how you'd "use" the SPS, other than as an alert that the AoA indicator tied to the slat/flap position indicator (as well as other systems tied to the SPS system, if applicable) is triggering b/c you've entered the 'SPS' activation parameters.

As a former check airman on an aircraft with a stick pusher and someone familiar with SPS, I'm filing this one under 'news media wording', but I just want to make sure. The Colgan investigation starts next week, so obviously, I'll figure out what the NTSB thinks of all this soon.

 

I think the translation is that they were taught to recover from a shaker by applying nose-up pitch inputs to maintain altitude. They were probably not taught by the airline to use a different technique in the even of pusher. 121 training basically seems to assumes that the pilot will react to shaker in a pre-programmed manner and thereby avoid pusher (and stall).

If you actually stall , you need to fall back on basic aviation skills.

 

I tend to agree. I don't know Colgan's training procedures (but will find out soon, I suppose), but when I went through training @ a carrier, the stall series was being judged to US ATP standards, the familiar +/- 100'. So, the accepted practice in the sim was to enter the maneuver @ X alt, and then gain approximately 50' just prior to stick shaker, so that, should you encounter the pusher, you'd have 150' to lose before you failed the maneuver (gaining too much altitude in a stall is usually not an issue, obviously). Overriding the pusher was not taught, though it was shown as something that could be done, with the understanding that you had to keep the aircraft below the SPS programed aoa as displayed on the PFD, or overriding the pusher was likely going to result in a worse outcome. As far as I saw, the pilot in training was thus being taught to avoid altitude loss as the primary goal, with stall recovery itself becoming almost secondary as a goal.

After some time teaching (and evaluating) using this procedure, it was pointed out that the FAR standards for stalls are "minimum altitude loss" in the recovery, not 100' or less from entry altitude. At that point, the performance of the stall was judged by the ability to recognize and recover with minimum loss of altitude, which is usually less than 100' anyway for most professional pilots, resulting in a reduction of the technique of overriding the pusher to maintain altitude in the stall.

On all 'glass' aircraft that I'm aware of, the programed 'stall' is displayed on the PFD, either all the time as a reference, or at least when anywhere near a stall. I would think the Q400 would be the same. Regardless of the training for a pusher recovery, the understanding of what the PFD is displaying may be a factor too, I suppose. It will be interesting to see the conclusions the NTSB has come to.

 

One of our originating checks in the Metro is the SAS (Stall Avoidance System) clutch system and stick pusher along with always making sure you can override the pusher when testing the system.

 

Used to do the same thing in the CRJ 200...but we never got trained to deal with (or overide) a pusher event during recurrent training. I'm sure I did it at one point during initial training...but that was a while ago.

 

The OEM, FAA and operators call them "stall" recoveries when in reality, they are recoveries from shaker (in accordance with the OEM, FAA and operators for such aircraft).

I know this subject has been approached in the regional section - it's just they seem to be more interested in the e190 regional airline pay.

 

Why are stalls considered a 'normal' maneuver? The focus seems to be on a specific altitude loss when conditions will vary and thus altitude loss will vary. Unless, of course, you always plan to screw up at the same weight, altitude and same conditions as used in the sim.

Funny too is the small 'fudge factor' allowed in that you get to climb 50' before getting into the shaker.

"Ned, we are slowing and will probably sit here until she stalls.. so I am going to horse this thang around a bit and climb 50ft before that happens."

"Good plan, Oscar. good plan."

 

climbing 50' prior to doing a stall on a stage check doesn't help any. In fact, to me it would just show that the candidate does not know the PTS. The ATP PTS is minimum altitude loss. Not +/- 100' as many believe. The argument has come up at my airline that the minimum altitude loss for stall recovery is 0'!

 

I agree with the minimum alt. loss but zero sounds a little extreme. Correct me if I'm wrong but the aircraft has lost its lift and in return will descend.

 

You're suppose to begin the recovery procedure at the first indication of the stall. (buffet, horn, shaker...or whatever) That's the reason the maneuver is called "approach to stall..." The aircraft's wings are still generating plenty of lift.