Continental Flt 3407 Crash at Buffalo/Niagra Intr'nal

[_dwj_]

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.

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

No, I have never flown in any icing, even in the commercial flights where I have been a passenger (as far as I am aware).

Fair enough, I will lay off laying blame. I just tend to automatically blame the pilot when there is any hint that it could be pilot error, as that is the most likely cause of most fatal accidents. I take responsibility for my actions, and I expect other people to. I don't like the attitude here that many people have that the pilot is never to blame, or that it's ok to fly with significant icing, because obviously it isn't based on the number of icing accidents there have been over the years.

[Lost in Saigon]

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.

The aircraft was in icing conditions. Reports seem to imply that the aircraft lost control when the flaps were extended. THAT would imply that the flap extension caused a tail plane stall.

BUT, the NTSB report now says the problems happened 15 seconds after the flap extension. That no longer implies a tail stall, but seems to point to a conventional stall in my mind.

With the gear and flaps hanging down, in level flight, you need to remember to add lots of power.

We should wait for the complete FDR analysys to further speculate.

[_dwj_]

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.

Why is that? Would it not be better to risk a blown tire than a fatal stall? Large jets do flapless landings all the time with no problems (I've been in one). I'm not suggesting that this is done whenever there is 1mm of ice, but if there is enough ice to cause a risk of stall.

[Four1oh]

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.

The aircraft was in icing conditions. Reports seem to imply that the aircraft lost control when the flaps were extended. THAT would imply that the flap extension caused a tail plane stall.

BUT, the NTSB report now says the problems happened 15 seconds after the flap extension. That no longer implies a tail stall, but seems to point to a conventional stall in my mind.

With the gear and flaps hanging down, in level flight, you need to remember to add lots of power.

We should wait for the complete FDR analysys to further speculate.

I'm not trying to start a fight here, but you have been speculating your ass off in this thread. Take your own advice and wait for more information. There are too many possibilities right now with what little facts we have right now.

[big dog]

Enough already on the lack of pilot experience. Granted with the accumulation of flight time one gains invaluable experience/insight that may or may not help when shit hits the fan. I know for a fact that Colgan does their flight training at Flight Safety Downsview. Bottomline, if the candidate covers all the material outlined in the training syllabus and passes the ride, there good to go, regardless of flightime. When I did the initial Q400 sim we did 9, 4 hour sim sessions. I am not sure whether all Flight Safety clients follow the same flight training syllabus. For any matter, the onus is then on the company to iron out the kinks and bring their employees up to proficient standards in line indoc before they are cut loose.

As for the ice protection system on the Q 400 here is a brief overview-There are 2 heated ice spiggots mounted just under the windshield which subsequently send a message in reverse video to the MFD when there is an accumulation of ice.(0.5 cm if memory serves me correctly) There is a REF increase switch that can than subsequently be turned on, increasing the sensitivity of the stall protection/shaker system. As a result, a 20 knot buffer is added to the Vref speed with FL 15 and a 15 knot buffer for FL35. This switch is to remain on until the crew can assure that the control surfaces are free of ice accumulation. The pneumatic system works on 2 speeds, FAST and SLOW. The fast cycle is the one typically used and takes 1 minute total (6 seconds per inflation) with a 24 second dwell period. Slow is 3 minutes with a 144 second dwell period. Obviously the windshield and props are acitivated with the advent of any visible moisture.

A sad day for all involved. Fly safe everyone!

[_dwj_]

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.

If you have significant ice buildup on the leading edges, that would mean that the deicing equipment is failing to control the hazard, therefore it meets the definition of "severe".

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.

The point I am making is that the important factor is how much ice is on the leading edge of the wings (and other critical surfaces) at any point in time. That, and that alone, determines whether you are in danger. Even if you have deice boots and they completely remove the ice, if it builds up to a "significant" amount between cycles (and by that I mean an amount that significantly changes the aerodynamic properties of the critical surface) then you are in trouble.

I have no idea how much ice buildup would cause problems on my plane, but my plane isn't certified for FIKI. So the question is: do you know how much ice your plane can handle safely, or would it just be an educated guess?

[officejet]

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.....

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).

I didn't mean I don't monitor the autopilot....I meant monitoring the trim....if there isn't a clacker or a wheel to indicate that there is an out of trim situation....there should be some other indicator that shows trim position....but its not part of my regular scan admittedly....

But now that i think about it...it really doesn't make much sense as it all went to hell after configuration change....i guess i should take my own advice and think before typing

That was the only theory I was rollin with Bob....I know it came across a bit sketch....

I was just referring to the other quote that reliance on automation...you're not going to stop turning off the autopilot everytime there's ice....or maybe you do....

Or maybe we just monitor more carefully what's going on with the plane when you're in the clag...it is part of the job to monitor the autopilot's performance to make sure it's actually doing what you want it to do....

that's all man

[officejet]

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.

Why is that? Would it not be better to risk a blown tire than a fatal stall? Large jets do flapless landings all the time with no problems (I've been in one). I'm not suggesting that this is done whenever there is 1mm of ice, but if there is enough ice to cause a risk of stall.

You have a good point...

But large jets don't do flapless landings all the time with no problems...it is a big deal...there become some real concerns. If the runway is in anyway slippery....it's really not fun.

Risk management can sometimes come down to choosing the less of two evils. I realize that. But you're taking it a little too far....

[officejet]

Ok, sorry I used the wrong terminology. The point I am making is that the important factor is how much ice is on the leading edge of the wings (and other critical surfaces) at any point in time. That, and that alone, determines whether you are in danger. Even if you have deice boots and they completely remove the ice, if it builds up to a "significant" amount between cycles (and by that I mean an amount that significantly changes the aerodynamic properties of the critical surface) then you are in trouble.

I have no idea how much ice buildup would cause problems on my plane, but my plane isn't certified for FIKI. So the question is: do you know how much ice your plane can handle safely, or would it just be an educated guess?

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.

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.

It's not an educated guess.

It's experience together with training and education. If you want to call it an educated guess, go ahead. But following that line of thought every time you take off it's an educated guess. You're "guessing" that the flap setting you used that you were taught during your training and education will result in liftoff...

I know it's stretching the comparison...just trying to make a point...

why are you so intent on making it sound like it's a pilot error this early in?

[double-j]

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.

Why is that? Would it not be better to risk a blown tire than a fatal stall? Large jets do flapless landings all the time with no problems (I've been in one). I'm not suggesting that this is done whenever there is 1mm of ice, but if there is enough ice to cause a risk of stall.

Careful, your ignorance is showing again.. I would guarantee you have not been in a large turbojet and did a flapless landing. That is a definite non-normal landing in any swept wing aircraft increasing the landing distance by twofold. Your target speed (landing) would bee approx 200 knots plus depending on the weight. NO turbojet pilot would land flapless on purpose.

For example, in our ops the B737NG is not allowed to land with less than flaps 30 under normal ops.

[Tim]

But large jets don't do flapless landings all the time with no problems...it is a big deal...there become some real concerns. If the runway is in anyway slippery....it's really not fun.

and you certainly would expect it to be the majority of the time when were talking about the worst icing conditions during an appch

[ODA]

First of all the guys talking about monitoring your auto-pilot in icing conditions I have a serious problem with that. First of all you should be able to fly your aircraft no matter what the weather and the conditions without the auto-pilot unless it is a no go item on your aircraft. The reason it should be off is that you can feel your aircraft and be aware if you are starting to pick up ice. If your tail boots aren't working you'll be able to feel some of the effect before you go into a tail plane stall etc etc etc. Not to mention if the worst case ever happened (which we are supposed to train for) and your aircraft stalled due to ice build up in straight and level flight what would the auto-pilot do????? It would check back to maintain you altitude and use aileron to level the wings. Not exactly stall recovery procedures. The only reason I say all of this is becuase of a guy who was too lazy to disengage the auto-pilot one night in icing and ended up with the plane in a spin. Not something I ever want to hear about again.

On another note after watching that Tail plane stall video what would happen if as you reach a tail plane stall the stick pusher went off????????? Pretty much the exact wrong recovery. Just wondered if anyones heard of that possible scenario.

[bob sacamano]

I didn't mean I don't monitor the autopilot....I meant monitoring the trim....if there isn't a clacker or a wheel to indicate that there is an out of trim situation....there should be some other indicator that shows trim position....but its not part of my regular scan admittedly....

But now that i think about it...it really doesn't make much sense as it all went to hell after configuration change....i guess i should take my own advice and think before typing

That was the only theory I was rollin with Bob....I know it came across a bit sketch....

I was just referring to the other quote that reliance on automation...you're not going to stop turning off the autopilot everytime there's ice....or maybe you do....

Or maybe we just monitor more carefully what's going on with the plane when you're in the clag...it is part of the job to monitor the autopilot's performance to make sure it's actually doing what you want it to do....

that's all man

Dude, go over proper operations of auto-pilot in icing. You don't sit and monitor the trim, hand fly the fucking thing and listen to what it's telling you.

Where the hell did you learn this monitor the trim thing? and you keep on saying that you don't include that in your scan. It's not a tad sketch dude, it's more like someone smoking crack and talking about this shit.

Consider yourself lucky and review the operations NOW!

[double-j]

I didn't mean I don't monitor the autopilot....I meant monitoring the trim....if there isn't a clacker or a wheel to indicate that there is an out of trim situation....there should be some other indicator that shows trim position....but its not part of my regular scan admittedly....

But now that i think about it...it really doesn't make much sense as it all went to hell after configuration change....i guess i should take my own advice and think before typing

That was the only theory I was rollin with Bob....I know it came across a bit sketch....

I was just referring to the other quote that reliance on automation...you're not going to stop turning off the autopilot everytime there's ice....or maybe you do....

Or maybe we just monitor more carefully what's going on with the plane when you're in the clag...it is part of the job to monitor the autopilot's performance to make sure it's actually doing what you want it to do....

that's all man

Dude, go over proper operations of auto-pilot in icing. You don't sit and monitor the trim, hand fly the fucking thing and listen to what it's telling you.

Where the hell did you learn this monitor the trim thing? and you keep on saying that you don't include that in your scan. It's not a tad sketch dude, it's more like someone smoking crack and talking about this shit.

Consider yourself lucky and review the operations NOW!

What aircraft in particular are you talking about? In large turbojets you don not have to disengage the autopilot if you are in icing. As a matter of fact Autolands must be completed with autopilots on.

Just another pov.

[bob sacamano]

What aircraft in particular are you talking about? In large turbojets you don not have to disengage the autopilot if you are in icing. As a matter of fact Autolands must be completed with autopilots on.

Just another pov.

I'm not talking about large turbojets.

Most props up to heavy turboprop, including the q400, are required to be hand flown in severe icing.

[ditar]

Why is that? Would it not be better to risk a blown tire than a fatal stall? Large jets do flapless landings all the time with no problems (I've been in one). I'm not suggesting that this is done whenever there is 1mm of ice, but if there is enough ice to cause a risk of stall.

Flapless landings require a significantly higher landing speed and consequently a longer runway. It's not like in a light aircraft where the difference is a few knots. Unfortunately, in the winter time, when we have icing problems, the runway is often contaminated. This means that a flapless landing is just not an option a lot of the time.

[officejet]

I didn't mean I don't monitor the autopilot....I meant monitoring the trim....if there isn't a clacker or a wheel to indicate that there is an out of trim situation....there should be some other indicator that shows trim position....but its not part of my regular scan admittedly....

But now that i think about it...it really doesn't make much sense as it all went to hell after configuration change....i guess i should take my own advice and think before typing

That was the only theory I was rollin with Bob....I know it came across a bit sketch....

I was just referring to the other quote that reliance on automation...you're not going to stop turning off the autopilot everytime there's ice....or maybe you do....

Or maybe we just monitor more carefully what's going on with the plane when you're in the clag...it is part of the job to monitor the autopilot's performance to make sure it's actually doing what you want it to do....

that's all man

Dude, go over proper operations of auto-pilot in icing. You don't sit and monitor the trim, hand fly the fucking thing and listen to what it's telling you.

Where the hell did you learn this monitor the trim thing? and you keep on saying that you don't include that in your scan. It's not a tad sketch dude, it's more like someone smoking crack and talking about this shit.

Consider yourself lucky and review the operations NOW!

Ease up man....


I think you're missing my point...

Easy to happen here...

I'm trying to visualize the situation...you're letting the autopilot fly the approach...you remove autopilot and now it's all over the place...

So I was asking...would you be able to identify that the autopilot is working (stressing out...i used laymans terms) harder than it should be in a normal situation by the trim running...do you know what trim setting your plane is at on a normal approach? I admittedly can't spit that info out...That's what i meant by not including it in my scan...

You're saying that you have to hand fly the airplane in icing conditions...reason being so that you're are more cognizant of what's going on....right?

Because with autopilot on...it's might be working a lot harder than it should be if a situation is detiorating and you would be not aware of it...

all i was trying to ask was....would an out of normal trim be an indicator...trying to see if i could identify a similar situation myself....how else would you identify that there's something not right? abnormal thrust settings, abnormal pitch for current speed/configuration...there's lots out there...i was just askin about one dude...

but then maybe it was stable and it was only with flap selection that it started the rollarcoaster...

time and investigation will tell.

thanks for the lecture though.

i will review my operations...you sounded seriously concerned...so i'll reassure you that i do make a habit of doing so on a regular basis.

i've obviously missed reading the section that instructs me to turn off my autopilot in icing conditions...when i find it you'll be the first to know.

i do consider myself lucky. but you know as well as i do that for every bit of luck there's been some good decisions made too.

[officejet]

What aircraft in particular are you talking about? In large turbojets you don not have to disengage the autopilot if you are in icing. As a matter of fact Autolands must be completed with autopilots on.

Just another pov.

I'm not talking about large turbojets.

Most props up to heavy turboprop, including the q400, are required to be hand flown in severe icing.

There's already been some good discussion regarding the defintion of severe icing.

And there's not too many planes that i know of that are actually certified to operate into severe icing.

You don't knowingly put your plane/crew/pax into a hazardous situation.

You wouldn't flightplan into areas of known/reported severe icing and you would avoid it enroute.

If you happen to find yourself in it...by all means "handfly the fucking thing" as you so eloquently put it.

But lets think about this for minute...

If the book says (as i'm quoting you) that handflying is required in severe icing...

And you don't knowingly operate in severe icing...there are other aircraft in your immediate area....

Now you're picking up ice...but it's just another day....

Why would you be handflying?

[_dwj_]

Careful, your ignorance is showing again.. I would guarantee you have not been in a large turbojet and did a flapless landing. That is a definite non-normal landing in any swept wing aircraft increasing the landing distance by twofold. Your target speed (landing) would bee approx 200 knots plus depending on the weight. NO turbojet pilot would land flapless on purpose.

For example, in our ops the B737NG is not allowed to land with less than flaps 30 under normal ops.

Ignorance? We were in a 737 or A310 or similar medium-to-large jet. The pilot told us the flaps would not come down, so they were going to do a flapless landing (as far as I remember, although perhaps it was partial flap). The fire trucks were out, but it all went well. So I understand that it is not "normal", but as long as you have sufficient runway it may be a safer alternative. However I understand your point that it is not normal procedure to land flapless even when icing is present. But that presents a dilemma, because it is a known fact that extending the flaps can cause a fatal stall when significant icing is present, even on jets.

[jjj]

_dwj_,

why don't you stop posting in a thread you are not qualified to have an opinion on.

You are either young and inexperienced or old and stupid.

Either way your concept of "pilot error" is antiquated. There are so many factors that need to be explored - everything from experience to training to minimum hiring practices and so on.

I'm just glad that _dwj_ won't be my Captain on my trip to Mexico in May,.

[Doc]

_dwj_,

why don't you stop posting in a thread you are not qualified to have an opinion on.

Are you for real? He's not "qualified" to have an opinion? I have seen some pretty stupid remarks....this one goes down as a new low! Congrats! You should be proud!

[pic777]

Some of these replies are so funny that I almost forgot about the sadness of the topic. Thanks!

[BE99]

I would have to agree with 777 ...

[double-j]

Careful, your ignorance is showing again.. I would guarantee you have not been in a large turbojet and did a flapless landing. That is a definite non-normal landing in any swept wing aircraft increasing the landing distance by twofold. Your target speed (landing) would bee approx 200 knots plus depending on the weight. NO turbojet pilot would land flapless on purpose.

For example, in our ops the B737NG is not allowed to land with less than flaps 30 under normal ops.

Ignorance? We were in a 737 or A310 or similar medium-to-large jet. The pilot told us the flaps would not come down, so they were going to do a flapless landing (as far as I remember, although perhaps it was partial flap). The fire trucks were out, but it all went well. So I understand that it is not "normal", but as long as you have sufficient runway it may be a safer alternative. However I understand your point that it is not normal procedure to land flapless even when icing is present. But that presents a dilemma, because it is a known fact that extending the flaps can cause a fatal stall when significant icing is present, even on jets.

No it would not be a safer alternative, going to your legal alternate would be safer.

There is a huge difference in "large jets do it all the time" to a non-normal landing where a PA was made and the fire trucks were following? Does that sound like something that is done all the time??

Doc,

Perhaps severe, but what I think jjj is saying it is ok to have an opinion, but if you have limited knowledge in it and present it as fact it comes out like total nonsense.

I tend to agree.

[_dwj_]

There is a huge difference in "large jets do it all the time" to a non-normal landing where a PA was made and the fire trucks were following? Does that sound like something that is done all the time??

Perhaps the 737 isn't a good example because we are talking about turboprops like the Q400 here which presumably have a shorter landing distance than a 737 when using zero flap.