Continental Flt 3407 Crash at Buffalo/Niagra Intr'nal

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, I WAS Birddog

Post Reply
User avatar
BTD
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1576
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 8:53 pm

Re: Continental Flt 3407 Crash at Buffalo/Niagra Intr'nal

Post by BTD »

But if there is significant ice on the leading edges, that would by definition be severe.
Wrong. That is not the definition of severe ice.

I'll repost the Canadian definition.
Severe Ice- The rate of accumulation is such that de-icing or anti-icing equipment fails to reduce or control the hazard. Immediate diversion is necessary.
Note between cycles of the boots ice will build again.

The word significant is subjective. A 1/4 inch of ice is significant compared to no ice, but not to 1/2 an inch. We don't know what this crew meant by significant ice. Perhaps they meant severe, but perhaps they didn't. It is too early to tell. See my previous post.
officejet wrote:
You don't know anything about the effects of icing because you don't operate in it.
Sorry, but that comment is just complete and utter bullshit. Every pilot, whether private or commercial, must know about icing even if they have never flown in it. Ice affects my cessna 172 much more than your jet because I don't have deicing boots, heated windshield, etc. Therefore if I encounter significant icing I will be in a lot deeper shit than you will be.
I'm no expert on ice but I have done a few winters in northern ontario for both 703/704 operators. The book knowledge about icing is a great tool, but there is no substitute for the actual experience.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Doc
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 9241
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 6:28 am

Re: Continental Flt 3407 Crash at Buffalo/Niagra Intr'nal

Post by Doc »

Cat Driver wrote:
Severe on the other hand, refers to the rate of accumulation. A significant amount of ice building rapidly.
Generally encountered in freezing rain which can be quite localized and builds up faster than the airplanes anti / de-icing equipment can handle.
,

Requiring immediate action. Find warm air NOW,or do a one eighty.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
BTD
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1576
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 8:53 pm

Re: Continental Flt 3407 Crash at Buffalo/Niagra Intr'nal

Post by BTD »

Cat Driver wrote:Contrite, I really have not seen anyone try and suggest that the two pilots on that flight did anything that could be taken as putting them down for their actions.
The fact is, putting the flaps down when they knew they had severe icing most likely caused this fatal crash.
Hey Cat,

I think the word "knew" in this sentence implies that the crew willfully committed the error, even if that wasn't the original poster's intention.
---------- ADS -----------
 
contrite
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 2:02 am

Re: Continental Flt 3407 Crash at Buffalo/Niagra Intr'nal

Post by contrite »

My dear Cat,

Call it providence, call it luck, call it the hand of God, one is saved from injury or death in every moment that one survives. We have come to an age that is overly dramatic, where we only attribute significance to events that can get us on TV. Our lives are so ordinary and routine, while our minds crave for change and entertainment; we forget that the very thing that allows us to be bored is in itself a scientific, biological and evolutionary wonder.

Two hundred years ago, if you had shown up in Vancouver harbour in a float plane, you’d have been burned at the stake for being an instrument of the devil. Today, you’re probably complaining that you can only afford 800 square feet and a night out once a week.

My God is not the religious God; religion is simply oppression by other means. What I think of as God is what I am not; that is, I am not the highest form of life, nor can I control even a small portion of what goes on in the world. Sometimes things happen beyond my ken, but because I do not know does not mean that there is not an explanation; every mystery is not a miracle.

Why did you walk away from that wreck? Who knows? Maybe God sent that set of circumstances to save you so that you might appreciate your life a bit more. Maybe he was busy elsewhere and had no interest in whether you lived or died. I don’t know the nature of God any more than you do, but I have come to understand that just because I don’t know doesn’t mean that there is not purpose, or randomness, at play. I am simply not important enough to have the knowledge that might answer your question.
---------- ADS -----------
 
ditar
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 407
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 1:09 pm
Location: This pale blue dot

Re: Continental Flt 3407 Crash at Buffalo/Niagra Intr'nal

Post by ditar »

_dwj_ wrote: Ice affects my cessna 172 much more than your jet because I don't have deicing boots, heated windshield, etc. Therefore if I encounter significant icing I will be in a lot deeper shit than you will be.
What are you doing flying your 172 in icing conditions? Or are you speaking hypothetically?
---------- ADS -----------
 
mcconnell14
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 83
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 9:55 pm

Re: Continental Flt 3407 Crash at Buffalo/Niagra Intr'nal

Post by mcconnell14 »

sorry to start a bad topic...but i hate when threads like these turn into people trying to be smarter then one another...thats my pet peeve about internet forums...
---------- ADS -----------
 
Intentional Left Bank
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 319
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 12:31 am

Re: Continental Flt 3407 Crash at Buffalo/Niagra Intr'nal

Post by Intentional Left Bank »

Those who fly 704/705 all know about the theoretical possibility of tailplane icing. They also CANNOT do a FLAPLESS landing (as dwj suggests) every time they encounter ice. They CAN fly with the autopilot off. But never before having had a tailplane icing encounter, and having successfully completed many flights before in icing conditions without incident, how many would elect to fly an approach in those conditions without using the autopilot? Particularly if they have seen similar levels of icing before in their career to that point, but ending with a positive outcome.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
BTD
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1576
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 8:53 pm

Re: Continental Flt 3407 Crash at Buffalo/Niagra Intr'nal

Post by BTD »

mcconnell14 wrote:sorry to start a bad topic...but i hate when threads like these turn into people trying to be smarter then one another...thats my pet peeve about internet forums...

Thats neat!
---------- ADS -----------
 
officejet
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 9:26 am

Re: Continental Flt 3407 Crash at Buffalo/Niagra Intr'nal

Post by officejet »

_dwj_ wrote:
officejet wrote: You don't know anything about the effects of icing because you don't operate in it.
Sorry, but that comment is just complete and utter bullshit. Every pilot, whether private or commercial, must know about icing even if they have never flown in it. Ice affects my cessna 172 much more than your jet because I don't have deicing boots, heated windshield, etc. Therefore if I encounter significant icing I will be in a lot deeper shit than you will be.
officejet wrote: Ice builds up on airplanes. It happens. We operate in a cold climate. Airlines are in the business of transportating people as safely as they can on schedule. Bluebird days summer or winter are thankfully the majority of days, but shitty days will occur and the world does not stop as a result.
Even with decing boots you can still encounter icing that is beyond the capability of the plane. If you get a significant build-up of icing on the leading edges you are in serious trouble no matter what plane you are in. If you don't understand this simple fact, you should not be flying a plane.

**sigh**

I'll try a different approach because this thread is deteriorating beyond recovery and that's a shame.

Because there is a lot to learn.

I take my bit of responsiblity by chastising you dwj. I apologize if I offended you regarding your knowledge of operating in icing conditions. I appreciate that you've read lots on the subject.

What I meant is that you don't have real world experience in it....and I really hope that you are not putting your 172 into situations where you would be faced with "significant" icing.

Like I said, bluebird days are the majority of our days...especially in the west. Keep flying in them.

It's good that you've educated yourself on icing to the point where you realize that it can overwhelm an aircraft's de-icing capabilities.

I kind of think that that's the whole central point of this thread..... :roll:

I'm still disappointed that you have not realized your blatant lack of respect towards the crew. :evil:

Think before you type my friend.
---------- ADS -----------
 
officejet
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 9:26 am

Re: Continental Flt 3407 Crash at Buffalo/Niagra Intr'nal

Post by officejet »

Intentional Left Bank wrote:Those who fly 704/705 all know about the theoretical possibility of tailplane icing. They also CANNOT do a FLAPLESS landing (as dwj suggests) every time they encounter ice. They CAN fly with the autopilot off. But never before having had a tailplane icing encounter, and having successfully completed many flights before in icing conditions without incident, how many would elect to fly an approach in those conditions without using the autopilot? Particularly if they have seen similar levels of icing before in their career to that point, but ending with a positive outcome.

Very valid point...and worth discussing......

I think that instead of actually turning off the autopilot...we should be more aware of what it's doing...meaning its job is to fly the loc/slope and maintain speed at any cost...it's our job to monitor that it's doing so without stressing itself out...

correct me if i'm wrong....but if the plane was in such an unstable point that as soon as the autopilot was disengaged all hell broke loose...the trim would have been running to compensate no???

now...have i ever monitored it?? not really...but maybe might start thinking about it now if i find myself in a similar spot...

Good point too regarding positive outcomes.....complacency is a proven killer.....
---------- ADS -----------
 
CP
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 2:20 pm

Re: Continental Flt 3407 Crash at Buffalo/Niagra Intr'nal

Post by CP »

contrite wrote
As officejet wrote, read this thread and learn. But not about flying, since until the NTSB releases the final report none of us have any idea of how this accident happened.
:rolleyes:

Um. What have I been reading and watching on tv for the last 48 hours? They sound like ideas to me. :roll:
---------- ADS -----------
 
Tim
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1026
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 6:16 pm

Re: Continental Flt 3407 Crash at Buffalo/Niagra Intr'nal

Post by Tim »

_dwj_, i started off leaning towards your side on this one, but you really talked me out of it. youre trying to use what youve learned from ppl groundschool to explain the icing to people that get paid to fly in it. i know cpr, im not gonna go to a paramedic and tell him what to do.

mcconell whether or not peoples opinions make sense, at least they contribute to the forum,
mcconnell14 wrote:sorry to start a bad topic...but i hate when threads like these turn into people trying to be smarter then one
another...thats my pet peeve about internet forums...
mcconnell14 wrote:are you kidding me?
nobody is impressed by the number of posts you make if they have nothing of value to say.


cat, you post about time vs ability is dead on, as is the education question.

doc, your advice about severe icing is sound.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Lost in Saigon
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 852
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 9:35 pm

Re: Continental Flt 3407 Crash at Buffalo/Niagra Intr'nal

Post by Lost in Saigon »

CP wrote:contrite wrote
As officejet wrote, read this thread and learn. But not about flying, since until the NTSB releases the final report none of us have any idea of how this accident happened.
:rolleyes:

Um. What have I been reading and watching on tv for the last 48 hours? They sound like ideas to me. :roll:

Totally WRONG ideas. Most of the information from TV is ridiculous and misleading. The latest report from the NTSB said the Stick Shaker and Stick Pusher were activated. That doesn't happen with a tailplane stall. The NTSB has never mentioned tailplane stall. So where is it coming from?

You guys would all make very poor accident investigators. Stick to the facts for a change.
---------- ADS -----------
 
CP
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 2:20 pm

Re: Continental Flt 3407 Crash at Buffalo/Niagra Intr'nal

Post by CP »

There's an idea! :D
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
bob sacamano
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1680
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 6:26 am
Location: I'm not in Kansas anymore

Re: Continental Flt 3407 Crash at Buffalo/Niagra Intr'nal

Post by bob sacamano »

officejet wrote: Very valid point...and worth discussing......

I think that instead of actually turning off the autopilot...we should be more aware of what it's doing...meaning its job is to fly the loc/slope and maintain speed at any cost...it's our job to monitor that it's doing so without stressing itself out...

correct me if i'm wrong....but if the plane was in such an unstable point that as soon as the autopilot was disengaged all hell broke loose...the trim would have been running to compensate no???

now...have i ever monitored it?? not really...but maybe might start thinking about it now if i find myself in a similar spot...

Good point too regarding positive outcomes.....complacency is a proven killer.....
:shock:

Dude, what's wrong with you?

Not to give your theory any credit, but if I roll with it, you're still not applying what you're saying (even though it's wrong).
---------- ADS -----------
 
:smt109
CP
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 2:20 pm

Re: Continental Flt 3407 Crash at Buffalo/Niagra Intr'nal

Post by CP »

Lost in Saigon wrote
Totally WRONG ideas. Most of the information from TV is ridiculous and misleading. The latest report from the NTSB said the Stick Shaker and Stick Pusher were activated. That doesn't happen with a tailplane stall. The NTSB has never mentioned tailplane stall. So where is it coming from?
You guys would all make very poor accident investigators. Stick to the facts for a change
Probably from this...

Colgan 3407 Initial CVR And FDR Data
By Glenn Pew, Contributing Editor, Video Editor

The NTSB Friday announced that information retrieved from the Colgan Air Bombardier Q400 Dash 8.
Initial details of the crash's timeline show that one minute before impact, while flying at about 2,000 feet, the crew lowered the landing gear. That was followed 20 seconds later with flap extension. It was then that the aircraft experienced "severe pitch and roll" movements. The crew attempted to raise the landing gear and that action was followed almost immediately by impact.
---------- ADS -----------
 
CP
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 2:20 pm

Re: Continental Flt 3407 Crash at Buffalo/Niagra Intr'nal

Post by CP »

Watch the video.
---------- ADS -----------
 
CP
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 2:20 pm

Re: Continental Flt 3407 Crash at Buffalo/Niagra Intr'nal

Post by CP »

Can a tail stall and a classic stall happen simultaneously :?:
---------- ADS -----------
 
Tim
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1026
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 6:16 pm

Re: Continental Flt 3407 Crash at Buffalo/Niagra Intr'nal

Post by Tim »

to add to that, does/can an upset from a tail stall lead to a classic stall through the rapid pitch changes - possibly even a negitive AoA stall? (CP, not sure if this is what you meant, or if you meant both happen at the same time but on their own)

also could the tail stall unevenly (similar to one wing stalling from slightly different ice config) and if so what kinds of forces are being produced?

are stick shakers designed to distinguish between tail/wing stall?

perhaps this is over analyzing it?? but, is it possible something happened that we dont already know about?
---------- ADS -----------
 
CP
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 2:20 pm

Re: Continental Flt 3407 Crash at Buffalo/Niagra Intr'nal

Post by CP »

Well after watching that excellent video it seems a tail stall is exactly that a tail stall. But the wing is still ok where as in a classic stall the reverse seems to occur.There must be some theory of flight experts here that can explain this better than me.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Lost in Saigon
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 852
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 9:35 pm

Re: Continental Flt 3407 Crash at Buffalo/Niagra Intr'nal

Post by Lost in Saigon »

CP wrote:Lost in Saigon wrote
Totally WRONG ideas. Most of the information from TV is ridiculous and misleading. The latest report from the NTSB said the Stick Shaker and Stick Pusher were activated. That doesn't happen with a tailplane stall. The NTSB has never mentioned tailplane stall. So where is it coming from?
You guys would all make very poor accident investigators. Stick to the facts for a change
Probably from this...

Colgan 3407 Initial CVR And FDR Data
By Glenn Pew, Contributing Editor, Video Editor

The NTSB Friday announced that information retrieved from the Colgan Air Bombardier Q400 Dash 8.
Initial details of the crash's timeline show that one minute before impact, while flying at about 2,000 feet, the crew lowered the landing gear. That was followed 20 seconds later with flap extension. It was then that the aircraft experienced "severe pitch and roll" movements. The crew attempted to raise the landing gear and that action was followed almost immediately by impact.
The NTSB never says tail stall. They don't even imply tail stall.

At first glance, yes, it would appear that it could have been a tail plane stall. But the rest of the facts don't fit. Namely stick shaker and stick pusher activation and the fact that it crashed in a flat attitude.

I don't think they had a tail plane stall, recovered, experienced a secondary stall, and then crashed in a flat attitude. There just wasn't enough time and altitude to do all that.

The aircraft was in a descent and had just leveled off at 2300 ASL. That is less than 1600 above the ground.

That is a fact.

The aircraft crashed in a flat attitude.

That is a fact.

The stick shaker and the stick pusher where activated.

That is a fact.

Now for some speculation....

They may have been preoccupied with the icing and did not increase the power when they leveled off at 2300'. They may have experienced some type of pre stall warning. Because they were preoccupied with potential tail stall, they may have instinctively applied a tail stall recovery when there was no tail stall. This would explain the retraction of the gear and flaps.
---------- ADS -----------
 
ScudRunner
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3239
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:58 am

Re: Continental Flt 3407 Crash at Buffalo/Niagra Intr'nal

Post by ScudRunner »

Their has been some comparison to the Roselawn, Indiana ATR-72 crash on other forums, Ill post a link to the accident report in the hopes that some who may have never heard of it might gain some insight into accidents involving Icing.

http://aviation-safety.net/database/rec ... 19941031-1
Narrative:
American Eagle Flight 4184 was scheduled to depart the gate in Indianapolis at 14:10; however, due to a change in the traffic flow because of deteriorating weather conditions at destination Chicago-O'Hare, the flight left the gate at 14:14 and was held on the ground for 42 minutes before receiving an IFR clearance to O'Hare. At 14:55, the controller cleared flight 4184 for takeoff. The aircraft climbed to an enroute altitude of 16,300 feet. At 15:13, flight 4184 began the descent to 10,000 feet. During the descent, the FDR recorded the activation of the Level III airframe deicing system. At 15:18, shortly after flight 4184 leveled off at 10,000 feet, the crew received a clearance to enter a holding pattern near the LUCIT intersection and they were told to expect further clearance at 15:45, which was revised to 16:00 at 15:38. Three minutes later the Level III airframe deicing system activated again. At 15:56, the controller contacted flight 4184 and instructed the flight crew to descend to 8,000 feet. The engine power was reduced to the flight idle position, the propeller speed was 86 percent, and the autopilot remained engaged in the vertical speed (VS) and heading select (HDG SEL) modes. At 15:57:21, as the airplane was descending in a 15-degree right-wing-down attitude at 186 KIAS, the sound of the flap overspeed warning was recorded on the CVR. The crew selected flaps from 15 to zero degrees and the AOA and pitch attitude began to increase. At 15:57:33, as the airplane was descending through 9,130 feet, the AOA increased through 5 degrees, and the ailerons began deflecting to a right-wing-down position. About 1/2 second later, the ailerons rapidly deflected to 13:43 degrees right-wing-down, the autopilot disconnected. The airplane rolled rapidly to the right, and the pitch attitude and AOA began to decrease. Within several seconds of the initial aileron and roll excursion, the AOA decreased through 3.5 degrees, the ailerons moved to a nearly neutral position, and the airplane stopped rolling at 77 degrees right-wing-down. The airplane then began to roll to the left toward a wings-level attitude, the elevator began moving in a nose-up direction, the AOA began increasing, and the pitch attitude stopped at approximately 15 degrees nose down. At 15:57:38, as the airplane rolled back to the left through 59 degrees right-wing-down (towards wings level), the AOA increased again through 5 degrees and the ailerons again deflected rapidly to a right-wing-down position. The captain's nose-up control column force exceeded 22 pounds, and the airplane rolled rapidly to the right, at a rate in excess of 50 degrees per second. The captain's nose-up control column force decreased below 22 pounds as the airplane rolled through 120 degrees, and the first officer's nose-up control column force exceeded 22 pounds just after the airplane rolled through the inverted position (180 degrees). Nose-up elevator inputs were indicated on the FDR throughout the roll, and the AOA increased when nose-up elevator increased. At 15:57:45 the airplane rolled through the wings-level attitude (completion of first full roll). The nose-up elevator and AOA then decreased rapidly, the ailerons immediately deflected to 6 degrees left-wing-down and then stabilized at about 1 degree right-wing-down, and the airplane stopped rolling at 144 degrees right wing down. At 15:57:48, as the airplane began rolling left, back towards wings level, the airspeed increased through 260 knots, the pitch attitude decreased through 60 degrees nose down, normal acceleration fluctuated between 2.0 and 2.5 G, and the altitude decreased through 6,000 feet. At 15:57:51, as the roll attitude passed through 90 degrees, continuing towards wings level, the captain applied more than 22 pounds of nose-up control column force, the elevator position increased to about 3 degrees nose up, pitch attitude stopped decreasing at 73 degrees nose down, the airspeed increased through 300 KIAS, normal acceleration remained above 2 G, and the altitude decreased through 4,900 feet. At 15:57:53, as the captain's nose-up control column force decreased below 22 pounds, the first officer's nose-up control column force again exceeded 22 pounds and the captain made the statement "nice and easy." At 15:57:55, the normal acceleration increased to over 3.0 G. Approximately 1.7 seconds later, as the altitude decreased through 1,700 feet, the elevator position and vertical acceleration began to increase rapidly. The last recorded data on the FDR occurred at an altitude of 1,682 feet (vertical speed of approximately 500 feet per second), and indicated that the airplane was at an airspeed of 375 KIAS, a pitch attitude of 38 degrees nose down with 5 degrees of nose-up elevator, and was experiencing a vertical acceleration of 3.6 G. The airplane impacted a wet soybean field partially inverted, in a nose down, left-wing-low attitude.
Based on petitions filed for reconsideration of the probable cause, the NTSB on September 2002 updated it's findings.

PROBABLE CAUSE: "The loss of control, attributed to a sudden and unexpected aileron hinge moment reversal, that occurred after a ridge of ice accreted beyond the deice boots while the airplane was in a holding pattern during which it intermittently encountered supercooled cloud and drizzle/rain drops, the size and water content of which exceeded those described in the icing certification envelope. The airplane was susceptible to this loss of control, and the crew was unable to recover. Contributing to the accident were 1) the French Directorate General for Civil Aviation’s (DGAC’s) inadequate oversight of the ATR 42 and 72, and its failure to take the necessary corrective action to ensure continued airworthiness in icing conditions; 2) the DGAC’s failure to provide the FAA with timely airworthiness information developed from previous ATR incidents and accidents in icing conditions, 3) the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) failure to ensure that aircraft icing certification requirements, operational requirements for flight into icing conditions, and FAA published aircraft icing information adequately accounted for the hazards that can result from flight in freezing rain, 4) the FAA’s inadequate oversight of the ATR 42 and 72 to ensure continued airworthiness in icing conditions; and 5) ATR’s inadequate response to the continued occurrence of ATR 42 icing/roll upsets which, in conjunction with information learned about aileron control difficulties during the certification and development of the ATR 42 and 72, should have prompted additional research, and the creation of updated airplane flight manuals, flightcrew operating manuals and training programs related to operation of the ATR 42 and 72 in such icing conditions. "

Sources:
» NTSB/AAR-96/01
---------- ADS -----------
 
Four1oh
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2448
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 9:24 pm

Re: Continental Flt 3407 Crash at Buffalo/Niagra Intr'nal

Post by Four1oh »

Saigon, the article says they only attempted to raise the gear. No mention of them trying to raise the flaps.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Drinking outside the box.
CP
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 2:20 pm

Re: Continental Flt 3407 Crash at Buffalo/Niagra Intr'nal

Post by CP »

contradiciton alert!

Saigon wrote
The NTSB never says tail stall. They don't even imply tail stall.

At first glance, yes, it would appear that it could have been a tail plane stall. But the rest of the facts don't fit. Namely stick shaker and stick pusher activation and the fact that it crashed in a flat attitude.
Then how did you come to the conclusion that it could have been a tail stall? Seems to me there was on implication there somewhere. :roll:
---------- ADS -----------
 
Lost in Saigon
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 852
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 9:35 pm

Re: Continental Flt 3407 Crash at Buffalo/Niagra Intr'nal

Post by Lost in Saigon »

Four1oh wrote:Saigon, the article says they only attempted to raise the gear. No mention of them trying to raise the flaps.
No, they also attempted to raise the flaps.... http://aircrewbuzz.com/2009/02/ntsb-bri ... light.html

Speaking at a press briefing, NTSB Member Steven Chealander said.....

One minute before the recordings ended, the crew extended the landing gear, and 20 seconds after that, 'flaps 15' was selected. Within 15 seconds of the flaps command, the flight director indicated a "series of severe pitch and roll excursions." Shortly thereafter -- and just before the end of the recording -- the crew "attempted to raise the landing gear and the flaps," said Chealander.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”