Colgan Q400 Down near KBUF?

[RotorAndWing]

FWIW in the airline I fly for we have specific company policy not to discuss anything concerning the company, especially in the event of an accident or incident. Doing so violates the GOM as well as the Employee Handbook.

 

[Auburn_CFI]

Thanks for all of the replies. I certainly understand the fragility of the question, which is why I prefaced it with the statement that if he didn't want to answer it then I completely understood. Quite frankly, I am just starting to get frustrated with the medias very premature suggestions that the crew was at fault.

 

[Ted]

Quite frankly, I am just starting to get frustrated with the medias very premature suggestions that the crew was at fault.

I haven't been following what the media's had to say (partly to avoid frustration of this nature), but if they're saying that they're definitely doing so prematurely. That's irresponsible on their part, but since when have we known the media to be responsible? They're interested in ratings, not facts.

 

[AuntPeggy]

I've been reading this thread and not displaying my ignorance, but now there is a question for those who know so much more than I do.

Would it be normal procedure to deploy the flaps with the autopilot engaged in this sort of airplane? In my C-172 (all I know about) we always disengage prior to dropping flaps, but I know these autopilots are much more sophisticated than mine.

 

[TMetzinger]

Peggy,

Yes, it's normal to drop the flaps with the autopilot engaged. The more sophisticated the autopilot, the less you have to have to worry about configuration changes. In my old Mooney we could/would drop the flaps, or gear, or put out the brakes, while the autopilot was still maintaining the specified VS, glidepath, or pitch attitude. All that would happen would be that the autopilot would retrim the airplane as needed.

 

[ScottM]

I've been reading this thread and not displaying my ignorance, but now there is a question for those who know so much more than I do.

Would it be normal procedure to deploy the flaps with the autopilot engaged in this sort of airplane? In my C-172 (all I know about) we always disengage prior to dropping flaps, but I know these autopilots are much more sophisticated than mine.

Peggy,

Yes, it's normal to drop the flaps with the autopilot engaged. The more sophisticated the autopilot, the less you have to have to worry about configuration changes. In my old Mooney we could/would drop the flaps, or gear, or put out the brakes, while the autopilot was still maintaining the specified VS, glidepath, or pitch attitude. All that would happen would be that the autopilot would retrim the airplane as needed.

Peggy in my airplane the AP is a single axis. I often will drop flaps with the AP engaged. If I am flying an approach where I am using the AP for guidance and reduction of work load, reconfiging the airplane for reducing alititude is not a problem at all. The AP could care less if I am going up or down. It is only caring about left and right.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Would it be normal procedure to deploy the flaps with the autopilot engaged in this sort of airplane?

Peggy in my airplane the AP is a single axis. I often will drop flaps with the AP engaged. If I am flying an approach where I am using the AP for guidance and reduction of work load, reconfiging the airplane for reducing alititude is not a problem at all. The AP could care less if I am going up or down. It is only caring about left and right.

Scott,

What's your Warrior have in common with the Q400, except for having wings?

I bet the Q4 has a much more sophisticated autopilot.

 

[ScottM]

Scott,

What's your Warrior have in common with the Q400, except for having wings?

I bet the Q4 has a much more sophisticated autopilot.

Peggy made the statement that in her 172 they always disengage the autopilot. I am telling that is not a requirement in the 172 with a simple AP. Why would it be so on a more advanced AP? Your selective editing removed the part about the 172. Tim also mentioned how leaving AP on in Ga aircraft such as the Mooney is normal procedure. You also decided to edit that out as well.

Is there some reason that you make everyone justify their posts to you personally lately?

 

[TMetzinger]

Peggy, just for grins - what year C172 is it and what's the autopilot? In the new 172s with the KAP140s you can leave the autopilot engaged when making flap changes. The airplane balloons a bit with flap deployment but recovers quickly. With the GFC 700 the trim runs so fast that you don't notice much attitude change.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Peggy made the statement that in her 172 they always disengage the autopilot. I am telling that is not a requirement in the 172 with a simple AP. Why would it be so on a more advanced AP? Your selective editing removed the part about the 172. Tim also mentioned how leaving AP on in Ga aircraft such as the Mooney is normal procedure. You also decided to edit that out as well.

Wow Scott - I was jokingly making the point that you didn't seem to read Aunt Peggy's question, which was about the Q400's sophisticated autopilot, thus your reply about your Warrior's single-axis autopilot was fairly useless in answering that question. Emphasis on "jokingly." Take a pill, dude.

Is there some reason that you make everyone justify their posts to you personally lately?

You probably are getting that feeling from the private-forum thread, and I have been very defensive in there because you have repeatedly accused me of being elitist which is simply not the case nor the reason for me wanting that forum.

 

[ScottM]

Wow Scott - I was jokingly making the point that you didn't seem to read Aunt Peggy's question, which was about the Q400's sophisticated autopilot, thus your reply about your Warrior's single-axis autopilot was fairly useless in answering that question. Emphasis on "jokingly." Take a pill, dude.

ok I did take it that way, and

You probably are getting that feeling from the private-forum thread, and I have been very defensive in there because you have repeatedly accused me of being elitist which is simply not the case nor the reason for me wanting that forum.

that thread did annoy me. I still think the semi-private area to be a bad idea, smacking of elitism and would rather see Jesse figure out a way to hide most of PoA from the search engines. PoA is already somewhat cliquish to newcomers, putting a gate on the front porch to decide who is worthy of coming up and having a talk is nto very welcoming.

As for me taking a pill, can I buy you a beer instead at that scottish bar in Madison?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

As for me taking a pill, can I buy you a beer instead at that scottish bar in Madison?

That would probably work better for both of us!

 

[AuntPeggy]

Oops. Let's be nice.

I have an autopilot with altitude hold. If altitude hold is not disengaged, I imagine the buzzing in my ears would get real annoying when the flaps are dropped. By habit, autopilot goes off when maneuvering near the airport, before dropping the flaps on downwind. I just wondered whether the Q400 was smart enough to keep the autopilot online so to speak within a couple of minutes of landing.

Just seems to me that disengaging when in the airport vicinity is good safety. But what do I know?

 

[gismo]

Oops. Let's be nice.

I have an autopilot with altitude hold. If altitude hold is not disengaged, I imagine the buzzing in my ears would get real annoying when the flaps are dropped. By habit, autopilot goes off when maneuvering near the airport, before dropping the flaps on downwind. I just wondered whether the Q400 was smart enough to keep the autopilot online so to speak within a couple of minutes of landing.

Just seems to me that disengaging when in the airport vicinity is good safety. But what do I know?

IME, most any autopilot with automatic trim will handle configurations changes although sometimes a little help is needed. As to approaching an airport with the autopilot engaged, I don't think I've ever done this while flying a VFR pattern but certainly do on an instrument approach, sometimes even in VMC. The job of monitoring the autopilot is far less time consuming than hand flying in IMC letting me devote more of my attention to other important things.

More often than not when flying practice approaches I set the autopilot and other automation up and then once it's clearly doing the right thing, I'll hand fly to maintain that skill. Both need practice IME.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

The latest speculation du jour: That it wasn't ice, and the pilot stalled the plane on his own:

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.

Full article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123492905826906821.html?mod=djemalertNEWS

Now when I read this, I got to thinking - What if the captain misdiagnosed the problem? He appears to have applied the correct inputs to recover from a tailplane stall, but if it was a wing stall instead, he'd have aggravated it.

The other thing I was thinking of was - For those of you who fly birds with stick pushers, what would that system do in the event that the wing was approaching a stall, but the tailplane was closer to a full stall? It seems that in such a situation, the pusher may activate to break the impending wing stall, and in turn *cause* a tailplane stall and make it more difficult for the pilot to recover from the tailplane stall.

 

[Ted]

What Lance said. As part of my instrument training, I had the autopilot shoot a few ILSs for me. In the Cheyenne, we were having its autopilot shoot ILSs as well. Gear and flaps down.

Once the autopilot in the Aztec is working properly, I'll be sure to do some of that practice, too.

 

[TMetzinger]

The latest speculation du jour: That it wasn't ice, and the pilot stalled the plane on his own:

The other thing I was thinking of was - For those of you who fly birds with stick pushers, what would that system do in the event that the wing was approaching a stall, but the tailplane was closer to a full stall? It seems that in such a situation, the pusher may activate to break the impending wing stall, and in turn *cause* a tailplane stall and make it more difficult for the pilot to recover from the tailplane stall.

I don't THINK (but look forward to correction by those with more knowledge) that the stall systems have any input for tail angle of attack. All the AoA sensors I've seen on transport airplanes are on the nose, in line with the main wing.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I don't THINK (but look forward to correction by those with more knowledge) that the stall systems have any input for tail angle of attack. All the AoA sensors I've seen on transport airplanes are on the nose, in line with the main wing.

Right - So the plane, in trying to avoid a wing stall could cause a tail stall. Right?

 

[Dave Siciliano]

I thought the WSJ article was a bit premature and hated to see it published before more facts were in out of respect for the crew, passengers and their loved ones. BTW, this is what occurred years ago in the regional turbine that went down; the crew was cited for error--getting too low on the approach.

From my understanding of the plane's systems, the stall warning is on the nose and is an AOA driven warning devise. That wouldn't detect tail plane stall. The stick shaker normally pushes the nose down. If on AP up to the point the stick shaker came on, once the AP let loose at low altitude, it couldn't have given the pilot a real handful to handle at low altitude. That could account for over controlling. I don't know why he would add power and immediately raise the nose to stop the stall unless he was concerned about going below minimums on the approach.

I'd rather wait until more facts are in than to begin running strongly in one direction or another; it certainly could be a combination of factors we may never fully understand. I also understand there was a minimum speed that was to be maintained in that plane in icing conditions. Haven't seen that discussed.

Best,

Dave

 

[wsuffa]

I don't know why he would add power and immediately raise the nose to stop the stall unless he was concerned about going below minimums on the approach.

I'd rather wait until more facts are in than to begin running strongly in one direction or another; it certainly could be a combination of factors we may never fully understand. I also understand there was a minimum speed that was to be maintained in that plane in icing conditions. Haven't seen that discussed.

Agree, Dave. It's usually not just one thing that causes an accident.

Let's suppose, arguendo, that a sensor was iced over and the crew was getting conflicting information....

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Could happen, of course, Bill. That is heated, so, it would have to be a malfunction. Let's recall, he did get a stall warning. He had the AP on which isn't recommended, but I've done it where icing wasn't substantial. When the stick shaker came on (which certainly is indicative of a pending stall) it should have kicked the AP off. Now, if the AP put the plane in an adverse trim condition, then kicked off with the stick shaker pushing forward at approach altitude at the OM, that could be a handful. Icing could have make it more complex: tail plane stall or not.

Will they be able to scientifically determine the tail plane stalled after all the damage to the plane? I had several folks in fatal accidents in the military; the accident investigations weren't always definitive. In some cases, all one can do is put the facts from the flight recorder, radio communication, witnesses and other info together and come out with reasonable conclusions and recommendations. Many accidents were initially deemed pilot error when subsequent aircraft defects were found years later.

I hope the investigators can show direct cause. If not, there is some subjectivity and a lot of heart break. Still, there are lessons others can learn and I hope as much as anything that does happen.

Best,

Dave

 

[Dave Siciliano]

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=2b127bd1-9d6f-462a-bb7b-0198ef17ef8d&#dSome of the focus on potential pilot error was diverted Thursday, when reports surfaced Southwest Airlines issued an advisory to its pilots in the weeks before the Colgan crash that an earthen dam off the end of Runway 23 at Buffalo Niagara International Airport has been known to interfere with the ILS, in a way that could cause autopilots to command a sudden nose-up attitude... similar to what preliminary data suggests occurred onboard Flight 3407. "Pilots who are preparing to configure and land have the potential to experience abrupt pitch up, slow airspeed, and approach to stall if conditions present themselves in a certain manner," the advisory reads. CNN reports Southwest reissued the warning February 11, one day before the Colgan crash.



http://tinyurl.com/bjrh6s

Best,

Dave

 

[KennyFlys]

Some of the focus on potential pilot error was diverted Thursday, when reports surfaced Southwest Airlines issued an advisory to its pilots in the weeks before the Colgan crash that an earthen dam off the end of Runway 23 at Buffalo Niagara International Airport has been known to interfere with the ILS, in a way that could cause autopilots to command a sudden nose-up attitude... similar to what preliminary data suggests occurred onboard Flight 3407. "Pilots who are preparing to configure and land have the potential to experience abrupt pitch up, slow airspeed, and approach to stall if conditions present themselves in a certain manner," the advisory reads. CNN reports Southwest reissued the warning February 11, one day before the Colgan crash.

I would love to know how Southwest gained this information as well as who made the original determination and how. Either way, it's going to be fodder for some lawyers somewhere on the spectrum.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Interesting A/FD entry there, although it might not apply to this incident: "ILS 111.3 I–BUF Rwy 23. Class IE. LOM KLUMP NDB. Glideslope unusable byd 5° rgt of course."

Best,

Dave

 

[wsuffa]

Report I saw said the ILS GS problem was known for "years". Dave hit the correct note in the AF/D.

 

[KennyFlys]

I tried to find such a reservoir/lake going northeast of the airport but nothing stuck out in Google maps. That 5° is quite a ways off center but there's no indication how far out this interference is located.

A fellow instructor who was a controller and now a trainer, just told me about the 17L ILS when AUS was first put into business. It failed the flight check so they looked into the installation. It turned out a hangar on the other side of the runway from the GS antenna was deflecting the GS signal but only when the hangar doors were in a certain position. The city had to buy back a long-term lease from a new tenant and tear down the hangar.

 

[Teller1900]

Interesting A/FD entry there, although it might not apply to this incident: "ILS 111.3 I–BUF Rwy 23. Class IE. LOM KLUMP NDB. Glideslope unusable byd 5° rgt of course."

Best,

Dave

The ATIS has had the verbage "Runway 23 GS unusable 5* right of centerline" for as long as I've been flying there.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Thanks Matthew. In this case, the plane intercepted from the left side; so, this may not be an issue. Everything is being examined.

Here's another issue being discussed that is interesting:
The ATP PTS for "Approaches to Stalls" has as its only criteria, "Minimize loss of altitude". As a result, in training and in check rides, the drill is to add full power and "Minimize loss of altitude". What that requires in an aircraft with the thrust line above the center of gravity is to pull the nose up to counteract the initial nose-down movement that results from the addition of full power, often resulting in re-activation of the stall shaker and occasional activation of the stick pusher.

In this particular case, the Captain had just come out of training (in December) to transition from an airplane with the thrust line approximately at the CG, to one with the thrust line considerable above the CG. He may have put additional emphasis on minimizing loss of altitude.

"Train the way you fight, and fight the way you train"
================================

A couple folks have been trying to get this altered.

Best,

Dave

 

[Trapper John]

I tried to find such a reservoir/lake going northeast of the airport but nothing stuck out in Google maps. That 5° is quite a ways off center but there's no indication how far out this interference is located.

You can see the dam on the USGS topo here:

http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=42.94857...05135,-78.71881,N 42-56.918483 E-78-43.128333

How that affects the ILS is over my head.


Trapper John

 

[Trapper John]

The ATIS has had the verbage "Runway 23 GS unusable 5* right of centerline" for as long as I've been flying there.

I wonder if that's because of the locstion of the radio towers?:

http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=42.94857...05135,-78.71881,N 42-56.918483 E-78-43.128333


Trapper John

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1320-full.html#199823

Online speculation swarming around the Feb. 12 crash of Continental Connection (Colgan Air) Flight 3407 in Buffalo that killed all 49 aboard plus one on the ground has moved well beyond probable causes and now includes full-blown speculation on the deceased crew's thought processes.

 

[gprellwitz]

Oy. It's bad enough that we (and others) speculate, but when that speculation itself becomes news?

 

[TMetzinger]

wouldn't it be neat if.....

 

[Ted]

That is why I refuse to talk about what I think it is and keep on trying to beat others into the same mindset.

This just annoys me.

 

[Everskyward]

Oy. It's bad enough that we (and others) speculate, but when that speculation itself becomes news?

FWIW, we are really, really small potatoes in the realm of sites with speculation going on.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

While I don't like to speculate, I do like to find out what occurred and what can/could be done about it. It's not speculation when NTSB releases information and that is discussed. It's weighing different information based upon their released. I will say, I don't think I've ever seen them release so much information so soon after an accident. I learn a lot from discussions about what was released and how that would affect flying the plane. Discussions of the possible tail plane stall caused me to review how that occurs and what one should do about it again.

All that said, I don't like the: this is what they did wrong stuff. I am getting information from a lot of folks flying RJs; some are similar, and one fella on the accident team.

Best,

Dave

 

[ScottM]

That is why I refuse to talk about what I think it is and keep on trying to beat others into the same mindset.

This just annoys me.

Yep.
If you are writing something on PoA or any web board that you think needs to be semi-private so as to not potentially harm you if someone were to read it, then you probably should not be writing it at all on the Internet!

wouldn't it be neat if.....

Been there, done that....

 

[Ted]

FWIW, we are really, really small potatoes in the realm of sites with speculation going on.

I agree, but we should still be mindful of the fact that the additude of speculating and spreading it is ultimately what causes this sort of "news."

What it comes down to is that the media is a for-profit industry. As such, their job is not to report the news, it's to make money. If they can make money by reporting speculation and calling it news, that's what they'll do.

 

[Everskyward]

I agree, but we should still be mindful of the fact that the additude of speculating and spreading it is ultimately what causes this sort of "news."

I'm not someone who cares for speculating, even when its done in private. On the other hand, I guess I'm not so sensitive to what the media or the public thinks.

 

[Ted]

I'm not someone who cares for speculating, even when its done in private. On the other hand, I guess I'm not so sensitive to what the media or the public thinks.

I'm not one for speculating, either. The problem is most people are.