Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 17, 2014, 09:39:22 PM
Home Help Login Register      
News: LiveATC.net Flyers Released!  Please click here to download & print a copy and be sure to post at an airport near you!


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Air Traffic Monitoring
| |-+  Aviation Audio Clips (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  Colgan 3268 - May 12, 2009 - KEWR-KBUF - Lost Wheel on Landing - Dash 8-400
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Colgan 3268 - May 12, 2009 - KEWR-KBUF - Lost Wheel on Landing - Dash 8-400  (Read 34281 times)
joeyb747
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1583


Nothing Like A 747!


« Reply #15 on: May 17, 2009, 08:52:52 PM »

Since we are back on 3407 again...I found the NTSB...at least it says it is...Animation of the crash. It also has the CVR transcript synced on the screen...no audio thou...



I haven't seen it personally, but I heard the report was out on 3407...cause of crash blamed on crew error and fatigue. But that's just what I heard...I have not read the report, nor had time to look for it!   wink
All I could find on the NTSB website was the preliminary report.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2009, 08:57:19 PM by joeyb747 » Logged

Aircraft Mechanic
dska22
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 35


« Reply #16 on: May 17, 2009, 11:58:25 PM »

Since we are back on 3407 again...I found the NTSB...at least it says it is...Animation of the crash. It also has the CVR transcript synced on the screen...no audio thou...



I haven't seen it personally, but I heard the report was out on 3407...cause of crash blamed on crew error and fatigue. But that's just what I heard...I have not read the report, nor had time to look for it!   wink
All I could find on the NTSB website was the preliminary report.

I actually wasn't aware that the report was out yet.  I know the past few days they had hearings on the matter, but I think it still may be several more months until we here the last word about this one.
Logged
cessna157
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 708



WWW
« Reply #17 on: May 18, 2009, 12:04:58 AM »

That's a nice animation.  Pretty much sums up what happened.  There was 1 thing missing from it though....a stall recovery.
Logged

CRJ7/CRJ9 F/O, Travel Agent
joeyb747
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1583


Nothing Like A 747!


« Reply #18 on: May 18, 2009, 08:44:03 PM »

Since we are back on 3407 again...I found the NTSB...at least it says it is...Animation of the crash. It also has the CVR transcript synced on the screen...no audio thou...



I haven't seen it personally, but I heard the report was out on 3407...cause of crash blamed on crew error and fatigue. But that's just what I heard...I have not read the report, nor had time to look for it!   wink
All I could find on the NTSB website was the preliminary report.


I actually wasn't aware that the report was out yet.  I know the past few days they had hearings on the matter, but I think it still may be several more months until we here the last word about this one.

That's what I thought. The source I heard it from is not a reputable one as far as aviation goes! Just thought I'd throw it out there and see if anyone else heard the same thing.  wink
Logged

Aircraft Mechanic
joeyb747
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1583


Nothing Like A 747!


« Reply #19 on: May 18, 2009, 08:46:19 PM »

That's a nice animation.  Pretty much sums up what happened.  There was 1 thing missing from it though....a stall recovery.

Agreed.  cry

It really does help explain what happened...when this first happened, the first thing that stuck out to me was that the airplane was facing 180 degrees to the runway, heading away from the airport, when it crashed. That struck me as odd. The animation helps fill in the gaps.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2009, 08:51:04 PM by joeyb747 » Logged

Aircraft Mechanic
flygirltammy
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 73



« Reply #20 on: May 18, 2009, 11:26:20 PM »

Since we are back on 3407 again...I found the NTSB...at least it says it is...Animation of the crash. It also has the CVR transcript synced on the screen...no audio thou...



I haven't seen it personally, but I heard the report was out on 3407...cause of crash blamed on crew error and fatigue. But that's just what I heard...I have not read the report, nor had time to look for it!   wink
All I could find on the NTSB website was the preliminary report.

That was some extreme pitch and roll.......

I haven't flown in icing either. I am trying to use this as at least something to learn from.

Kinda sick that some people are posting theories like the captain crashed on purpose.
 
Logged

kea001
Guest
« Reply #21 on: May 18, 2009, 11:34:47 PM »

Since we are back on 3407 again...I found the NTSB...at least it says it is...Animation of the crash. It also has the CVR transcript synced on the screen...no audio thou...



I haven't seen it personally, but I heard the report was out on 3407...cause of crash blamed on crew error and fatigue. But that's just what I heard...I have not read the report, nor had time to look for it!   wink
All I could find on the NTSB website was the preliminary report.

That was some extreme pitch and roll.......

I haven't flown in icing either. I am trying to use this as at least something to learn from.

Kinda sick that some people are posting theories like the captain crashed on purpose.
 

Certification of the Bombardier DHC-8-400 (Dash 8 Q400) For Flight In Icing Conditions National Transportation Safety Board Public HearingWashington, DC12-14 May 2009
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2009/Buffalo-NY/Jim_Martin_presentation.pdf
Logged
joeyb747
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1583


Nothing Like A 747!


« Reply #22 on: May 19, 2009, 06:25:11 PM »

Good find kea001! Good info! Thanks for posting that!  cool
Logged

Aircraft Mechanic
kea001
Guest
« Reply #23 on: May 19, 2009, 08:35:37 PM »

Greg Feith, Former NTSB Lead Investigator, Weighs in on Buffalo Crash

  • There is a piece of equipment that should have been installed on that airplane that probably would have prevented this accident—the slow-speed alerter. It was not required, but the NTSB has been recommending it.
  • ...these two crew members were not plugged in to the dynamic situation they were flying in, which was this icing condition. — they were off on their speeds by almost forty knots. They should have stayed focused on what they are doing because they were flying in ice. 
  • Pilot fatigue has been an issue for a very long time.
  • A lot of pilots have a “disqual.” There are so many aspects that they have to worry about and perform, if you miss one part of it, they send you back for retraining and then you come back and get recertified. So that isn’t necessarily a good evaluator of a pilot’s skills and knowledge.


http://www.petergreenberg.com/2009/05/19/greg-feith-former-ntsb-lead-investigator-weighs-in-on-buffalo-crash/
« Last Edit: May 19, 2009, 08:38:41 PM by kea001 » Logged
flygirltammy
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 73



« Reply #24 on: May 19, 2009, 08:40:50 PM »

Greg Feith, Former NTSB Lead Investigator, Weighs in on Buffalo Crash

  • There is a piece of equipment that should have been installed on that airplane that probably would have prevented this accident—the slow-speed alerter. It was not required, but the NTSB has been recommending it.
  • these two crew members were not plugged in to the dynamic situation they were flying in, which was this icing condition. — they were off on their speeds by almost forty knot
  • Pilot fatigue has been an issue for a very long time.
  • A lot of pilots have a “disqual.” There are so many aspects that they have to worry about and perform, if you miss one part of it, they send you back for retraining and then you come back and get recertified. So that isn’t necessarily a good evaluator of a pilot’s skills and knowledge.


http://www.petergreenberg.com/2009/05/19/greg-feith-former-ntsb-lead-investigator-weighs-in-on-buffalo-crash/


I was just about to post a question with the disclaimer "Pardon me if this is a stupid question", but you already answered it.

I was about to ask if my understanding of the report was that the aircraft should have been able to safely operate under the weather conditions they were in. The answer is yes???
Logged

kea001
Guest
« Reply #25 on: May 19, 2009, 09:32:18 PM »

Not a stupid question. It was the $1,000,000 question. Even the expert quoted here had expressed the opinion that icing was the cause of the crash.

The Crash of Flight 3407: Interview with Greg Feith, Former NTSB Investigator

http://www.petergreenberg.com/2009/02/17/the-crash-of-flight-3407-interview-with-greg-feith-former-ntsb-investigator

But as Jason had mentioned in a previous thread, these investigations always take an unexpected turn. Unfortunately, I would say that the media saturation of the erroneous conclusion that Q-400's are terrible in ice has probably been etched into the subconscious of many fliers; if not for the engineering then for the fact that it's hit or miss that you get a pilot who knows how to fly the darn thing in ice.  evil
« Last Edit: May 19, 2009, 09:51:07 PM by kea001 » Logged
otto_pilot
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64



« Reply #26 on: May 26, 2009, 10:49:43 PM »

just a quick question........would it be an OK idea in a dash to try and hold the right side off? (the wheel that broke off was on the right?). I would assume (knowing nothing about a dash or how it would handle this type of landing) that by touching down on the left mains and killing some airspeed would have made a safer landing. I'm not saying this was unsafe, but I'm saying the problem was not the strut but the tire so why put in on the ground until as slow as possible. You would not be risking a collapse because the strut is in good working order. What that idea is an idea if it falls off you have a lot less distance to roll on it until the plane stops. I know a skyhawk you can land in a similar manner in a cross wind..... a left cross wind you could touch the left mains 1st and then set in on the ground so your wing is into the wind. 100% different though. just a dumb idea.

Anthony
Logged

tower: right delta ground point niner
pilot: Uh tower did you mean to say ground point 8 or do you want us to try them on point 9.
tower: Oh yea point 8 would work better, wouldnt it
cessna157
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 708



WWW
« Reply #27 on: May 27, 2009, 02:54:20 PM »

just a quick question........would it be an OK idea in a dash to try and hold the right side off? (the wheel that broke off was on the right?). I would assume (knowing nothing about a dash or how it would handle this type of landing) that by touching down on the left mains and killing some airspeed would have made a safer landing. I'm not saying this was unsafe, but I'm saying the problem was not the strut but the tire so why put in on the ground until as slow as possible. You would not be risking a collapse because the strut is in good working order. What that idea is an idea if it falls off you have a lot less distance to roll on it until the plane stops. 

No, slower does not equal safer.  More on that in a second.

I checked our QRH (CRJ) and it does not give guidance on single tire failure.  It only provides information about: 1) One main landing gear up/unsafe; 2) nose landing gear up/unsafe; 3) both main landing gear up/unsafe; 4) all landing gear up/unsafe.

Back to your recommendation.  A slower airspeed at touchdown would most likely produce a higher vertical rate.  In the QRH for landing gear malfunctions, it says to touchdown with minimum vertical speed and a forward speed not less than stick shaker speed.  Basically, it is saying to fly gently down, but not too slow.

Holding a little weight off of the strut is an option, but not necessarily important.  These transport category aircraft are built with this failure in mind (one of the reasons of having 2 wheels on each strut).  If it were a smaller aircraft with only 1 wheel per strut, then by all means, hold it off as long as possible.

Your best bet is to make a normal landing, as smoothely as possible, with as little crosswind as possible, and try not to put too much stress on the remaining parts.
Logged

CRJ7/CRJ9 F/O, Travel Agent
otto_pilot
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64



« Reply #28 on: May 27, 2009, 10:54:32 PM »

OK thanks. that dose make sense i didn't take the vertical speed into account really.
Logged

tower: right delta ground point niner
pilot: Uh tower did you mean to say ground point 8 or do you want us to try them on point 9.
tower: Oh yea point 8 would work better, wouldnt it
kea001
Guest
« Reply #29 on: June 18, 2009, 11:18:27 AM »

"The FAA document states that a passenger noted smoke coming from the #3 wheel when the aircraft took off from Newark, New Jersey. The passenger notified a Colgan Air Flight Attendant who told the passenger that...

he could tell the Captain exactly what he saw after the plane landed in Buffalo."

Isn't that useful. LOL!

http://www.wivb.com/dpp/news/local/FAA_report_sheds_light_on_May_incident_20090616
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!