Continental Flt 3407 Crash at Buffalo/Niagra Intr'nal

[orbit]

Boobie Toucher I
also am a great fan of D 8's and find it hard to believe what happened
...and you being a seasoned pilot on them you may have something there on why it went down
,,I still find all the speculation is early even with NSTB but nevertheless good for us all to think of it after all helps us all in the process; call it problem solving?

[bmc]

"An airplane starts to get a certain feel. Kind of like a fat white chick with no rhythm at the prom."

"You get that feeling, that maybe you should be on the ground watching the Leafs get the crap kicked out of them."

"Now, your ass starts to munch on your seat. "

I am so going to use those lines from now on. Those are just brilliant.

[bob sacamano]

first off _dwj_ click your heels 3 times and go f__k your self you are an idiot!!
Second where does it say in the limitations of either a Dash 8-300 or the new Dash 9Q400 that use of the Auto Pilot is prohibited in icing conditions. A reference please. I am typed on these airplanesand I am not aware of such a limitation. I am not saying that hand flying isn't the right thing to do ro that it shouldn't be done. Just show me a limitation that says not to use the autopilot. If it should be a limitation then Transport Canada and the FAA and JAA should be held accountable as they certified the aircraft. Flame away !

Autopilot must be disengaged in severe icing. Want a reference or you know this?

[Canoehead]

Probally one of the most ignorant and disgusting comments about this crash. I want to find this guy and slice his throat.

http://www.michael-crook.com/2009/02/13 ... mment-1925

I wouldn't even bother looking at this website, let alone leaving him any type of comment. He's not worth the bandwidth, and is simply looking for attention. Even if you tell him he's a knob, he gets excited just from having a response. Sadly, he was likely abused as a child.

[rightseatwonder]

Wow. this Michael crook guy better watch his ass... jesus!


p.s seriously one of the weirdest looking dudes ever ... as a side note

[ScudRunner]

. asked:

There is a switch on the Ice Protection sub panel that says "REF SPEEDS" I'm curious as to how much this would alter the speeds in this setting's and hypothetically left in the normal or off position could this have been a factor in this accident.
I'm sure the good people down at the NTSB will be looking into this eventually but are there any Q400 Drivers on here that could shed some light?

There's a good discussion of this on page 8 of the topic by big dog, who obviously has some knowledge of the subject.

Thanks I missed that between all the I know more about icing than you, nu uh my balls are bigger talk.

[Doc]

This Michael Crook would look good face down in Rikki Lake!!

[airbournesailor]

If u caught him on a hook, you'd beat him off rather than touch him!!! Seriously though, It's amazing how little respect some people have. I guess until tradgedy touches them personally!!

[Q400 Driver]

Looking forward to the final report on this accident ... but still enjoy reading everyones remarks ...

** The Q4 performs amazing in icing conditions ** so i guess we just wait and see the out come

[TopperHarley]

If an error does occur, we now recognize that there was a failure (or more frequently multiple failures) in the system or process. Those failures are what let the pilot down!

What warm and fuzzy, politically correct crap, that statement is!

In a way, I think I see where Prairie Chicken is coming from, or maybe Im just misinterpreting his statement. *If* icing turns out to be the cause of the accident, then either there was a malfunction of the deice system on that particular plane (we already know it was turned on), or, the pilots were not using the system properly (ex. they waited too late to turn it on, and there eventually reached a point where the ice accumulation could not be controlled by the use of the boots). Now if they were not using this system properly, then it's possible there is a flaw in the SOP for this particular a/c.

Id imagine the crew was following their SOPs. I dont know what Colgan uses for their SOP in icing conditions, but at Jazz (Im speaking for the RJ, not the D8), in our AOM, it specifically tells us when we have to have our cowls/wing anti-ice on. Im sure Colgan has the same thing. Our SOP at Jazz has already changed numerous times over the years to reflect accidents/incidents at other airlines. It's even gone through a few revisions in my 1 year here. Ex) We have to put the wing a/i on for taxi whenver the OAT is below +5C, regardless of environmental conditions (cowls are on for +10 and below, with contamination). We then turn it off if we don't need it for t/o. By the way, the tail on the RJ has NO anti-icing system whatsoever. Only the wings and cowls do.

So I think it's completely possible that the crew was following their SOPs when they were operating this a/c. Let's remember that Colgan only introduced their Q400 fairly recently. So instead of trying to blame the pilots, let's at least consider the fact that maybe they were operating the a/c as Colgan wanted them too, and perhaps there is a flaw in their SOPs. I don't know what their SOP is for the Q, but Im just trying to point out to those people who are quick to blame the pilots that there is far more to the issue of "pilot error" than we think.

[flyinthebug]

Probally one of the most ignorant and disgusting comments about this crash. I want to find this guy and slice his throat.

http://www.michael-crook.com/2009/02/13 ... mment-1925

This guy is beyond words! Slicing his throat would be too quick and easy for him! Calling this crew "murderers" is insanity at its finest. This goof needs more then an ass kicking!

Fly safe all!

[officejet]

edited by Doc

[flight attendant]

Ha! Looks like I started a shitstorm. I am a private pilot and I own my own plane. I am very interested in flight safety, both for myself and my passengers, and frankly it makes me very angry when I see a fatal accident which was caused by pilot error (as is the case in 83% of accidents, according to the Nall report). So in this accident, as in all other fatal accidents, pilot error is by far the most likely cause.

I might only be a flight attendant... but I know one thing dear is that you don't seem to know what you are talking about. You cannot say things like "I see a fatal accident which was caused by pilot error". Even if it was 99% of the time, we don't know yet. Unless you are a little angel (I would say devil) and that you were actually in the plane that night... and even then...

In the Flight Deck, there was the pilot and the co-pilot... obviously, they handle the situation. They do the best they can, as per what is going on, what they see and what they know. They've been trainned and they do the best things according to the info and to the situation.

Remember, you can do whatever you want with statistics... you make them talk like you want to... if you want to think what you said above, go ahead, but it's wrong and I'm not the first one to tell you so !

When the report will be out... How small are you gonna be when we'll find out it wasn't a pilot error...

Fly safe,

[invertedattitude]

Ha! Looks like I started a shitstorm. I am a private pilot and I own my own plane. I am very interested in flight safety, both for myself and my passengers, and frankly it makes me very angry when I see a fatal accident which was caused by pilot error (as is the case in 83% of accidents, according to the Nall report). So in this accident, as in all other fatal accidents, pilot error is by far the most likely cause.

If you had any understanding of aircraft accident investigation, the reason that pilot error is listed so often is due to the nature of accident investigation itself.

There are countless times pilots are included when even they had almost zero chance of doing anything at all.

Aircraft loses critical control surfaces, but in theory could have been safely brought down if the pilots did everything perfect, and were able to see into the future.

Don't take the stat of 83% and assume all of those pilots fu*ked up. Something just didn't go right for them in the end.

for example if I am not mistaken the prelim reports of all those 737 Rudder hardovers years back included "Pilot Error" because yes the pilots "Could" have saved the plane, but had no proper training on how to do so, since no-one had ever experienced it before.

Now they're saying this accident started with a 25 Deg Nose up deviation... which completely makes no sense at first glance, but how do you know their horiz/vert stab boots had not failed for example. (Which would have resulted in a nose down, but anyway) Maybe the airplane wing stalled, and because of heavy ice accretion on the tail, the CofG was too far aft for recovery.

Speculation is one thing in a mature manner, but blaming the pilots outright is idiotic... and by the way, owning your own plane doesn't mean anything towards your flying skill or knowledge.

[officejet]

Don't take the stat of 83% and assume all of those pilots fu*ked up. Something just didn't go right for them in the end.

One of my first thoughts as I watched the Hudson incident unfold....and CNN was reporting a miracle on the Hudson and Captain Sully was an instant national hero and invited to the White House...

One of my first thoughts was...what would the headlines be if a wingtip had caught and the divers were searching for bodies?

This is what really pisses me off about guys like you _dwj_

I am not taking anything away from the Hudson crew...They did an outstanding job of turning a potential disaster into a positive result.

But they were close to being on the other end of the spectrum...and I wonder if _dwj_ would be quick to jump on the pilot error bandwagon then.

Same applies here...if they had managed to recover from the stall..they might be touted as heroes who did a good job by turning a potential disaster into a positive result....

or more likely the story would be a small blurb after the latest gossip on some hollywood scandal...

Maybe comparing the two different situations isn't appropriate....waiting for the rebuttal...

But point is that i agree with what inverted said....accident investigations are what they are....and just because we haven't been at the brunt end of an investigation doesn't mean we're infalliable or invincible...a note you might want to pay attention to dwj.

a positive result doesn't necessarily mean good flying. just as a negative result doesn't mean bad flying.

[TopperHarley]

"Pilot error" can sometimes be applied in the wrong way. The point I was trying to make in my post above is that there are even some accidents where the pilots were following the SOPs, crashed, and were still blamed for the accident. What about "SOP error" or "aircraft manufacturer' error" etc. You dont hear these terms too much.

Im not saying that the pilots are or are not to blame here, I have no idea. In the olden days (when Cat and Doc were new commercial pilots ), "pilot error" was very common because it completely relieved the company or a/c manufacturer of any liability or potential lawsuits.

[Donald]

Taken from avherald.com:

Crash: Colgan DH8D at Buffalo on Feb 12th 2009, impacted home while on approach
By Simon Hradecky, created Sunday, Feb 15th 2009 23:02Z, last updated Monday, Feb 16th 2009 08:04Z

The NTSB reported in their press conference today, that the de-icing system (de-icing boots) had been activated 11 minutes after departure from Newark and was operating throughout the rest of the flight. The crew had commented about "significant" ice buildups while descending from 16000 to 12000 and further on to 11000 feet as cleared by air traffic control. "Signficant" is not a FAA term, which only knows light, moderate and severe icing. According to testimonies by other pilots there is no indication of severe icing, the icing is currently assumed to have been between light and moderate.

The NTSB recommends to fly manually in icing conditions to get a better feel of the airplane, however, the FAA takes a different attitude due to workload issues. No regulation exists therefore requiring pilots to fly manually in icing conditions.

The Dash 8-400 flight crew operating manual released by Bombardier, owner of de Havilland, requires flight crews to disengage the autopilot in severe icing conditions.

The use of the autopilot was therefore appropriate - other than what almost all media reported today.

The crew had not only activated the de-icing system, but had also activated their reference speed increase switch, a feature of the Dash 8, which increases all reference speeds by 20 knots to protect against stall in icing conditions.

One minute prior to the end of the recording the airplane was travelling at a calibrated airspeed of 134 knots, the gear was selected down, 20 seconds later the flaps were selected to 15 degrees. The flaps reached 10 degrees 20 seconds later (and 20 seconds prior to the end of the recording), at which point the upset started. The stick shaker and stick pusher activated (at which point the autopilot would be disconnect at the very latest), then the airplane pitched up to 31 degrees nose up, then pitched down to 45 degrees nose down and rolled left to a bank angle of 46 degrees, then right to a bank angle of 105 degrees (already 15 degrees upside down). The airplane experienced G-forces between 0.75 and 2G. The crew applied full thrust with the begin of the upset 20 seconds prior to the end of recording. The flaps never went beyond 10 degrees.

The flight data recorder data indicate, that the airplane went down very rapidly and descended from 1800 to 1000 feet MSL in 5 seconds (which equates to an average sink rate of 9600fpm). The flight data recorder recorded the last set of data at 900 feet MSL (ground at around 633 feet MSL) showing the airplane at a heading of 053 degrees, right bank of 26 degrees, 30 degrees nose down and an airspeed of 100 knots.

There is no evidence of split flaps according to the flight data recorder.

There was a weather change in progress. The NTSB is looking into what that weather change did to the incoming aircraft.

All 6 propeller blades of the right hand engine #2 have been recovered, 4 blades of the left hand engine #1 were found, the remaining 2 are supposed to have burned down.

The captain had been occupying the left hand seat of Saab aircraft and had converted to Dashs last December. The first officer had 775 hours on the type.

[JayVee]

-dwj-'s cake-hole has written far too many cheques that his/her knowledge/experience and common sense are able to cash.
If he/she ever gets a 2-crew flying job that cocky punk know-it-all attitude will be quickly crushed.
There's a time to shut your yapper and listen. You might learn something; the best thing being that you're an idiot.
Feel free to respond if you think you need to further prove my point.

[Rubberbiscuit]

Very sad indeed. Thoughts and prayers go out to all family and friends affected by this tragedy.

Is 134kts normal speed to be selecting gear down and flaps 15 on the Q400? The more I read, the more it seems the crew did everything right up until the airplane lost control. Many other aircraft were landing around the same time having encountered the same or very similar conditions without any apparent difficulty. This is what strikes me as strange. So the crew discussed icing conditions, who doesn't in a two crew environment when encountering icing conditions? This shows situational awareness. So does the fact that the boots where on and that the "increased Vref switch" was selected on. Does selecting this feature increase the shaker pusher activation speed? The shaker and pusher went off when flaps 15 was selected. Have to take it with a grain of salt I suppose, but it says flaps only travelled to 10? Will the flaps stop travelling if shaker/pusher is set off? can't help but wonder if this activation was premature. Don't know what the stick pusher is like on the Q400, but I am guessing it is fairly aggressive. This would put the crew in quite the predicament being relatively close to the ground. Residual ice on the wings/tail would certainly make recovery from a preamture shaker/pusher activationat this altitude/configuration a challenging proposition.

[Prairie Chicken]

Donald, your quote above is what I heard last night from the Mr. Chealander of the NTSB. My notes from that press statement also indicated that it “looks to have come down intact” and that there were no reports, including PIREPS, of severe icing. He also said the PIC had 33?? hours TT and the 2IC had 2200 or 2400 hours TT (I didn’t write it down). I heard a question about tail plane stall from the media but the NTSB only said they weren’t ruling anything out at this time. I for one am listening to the NTSB releases as the only reliable source of information.

Today the media seems more targeted toward the memorial services although James Hall, well respected x-NTSB, is now calling for the Q400 to be grounded until further investigation. WTF??? The media also seems to have seized on the NTSB`s recommendation of not using the autopilot in ice as a failure on the part of the crew.

C-HRIS, you and I are thinking along the same lines. We as pilots don’t operate in isolation. Our safe operation of an a/c depends on a great deal more than just our own skills as a pilot. From a/c design & certification to the AFM to pilot training & certification to company certification & manuals to ATC to wx ... the list goes on & on. We all work together, but unfortunately ``pilot error`` is still way too easy.

[Kosiw]

Just out of curiosity, what if any are the major differences between a D8 100/300 wing and a D8 400 wing design? Are they the same or is it a completely different wing on the 400?

[Buzz Lightyear]

Whatever the type of stall or cause of this tragic accident here is a very interesting video produced by NASA about tail stalls :

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 0735779946

[mcconnell14]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/16/buffal ... index.html

[HighBypass]

Just out of curiosity, what if any are the major differences between a D8 100/300 wing and a D8 400 wing design? Are they the same or is it a completely different wing on the 400?

I believe the 100/300 is controlled manually by cables and mass balanced. The Q400 is hydraulically powered. Maybe someone who knows for sure can confirm this, since its been a few years since my tour of the bombardier plant in downsview.

crazy how fast things went downhill. I wonder if a flap retraction was attempted when the pwr levers were firewalled?

[canwhitewolf]

another report by AVWEB

http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AvWe ... 779-1.html