Author Topic: Continental (Colgan)-3407 -8 Crash in Buffalo  (Read 307305 times)

Offline iskyfly

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 179
Re: Continental (Colgan)-3407 -8 Crash in Buffalo
« Reply #150 on: February 15, 2009, 04:01:09 PM »
>Latest on the Colgan crash is that they were on autopilot when control was lost.<
* * * * * * * * * * *

They also have said the stall warning/stick shaker sounded.  This should have kicked the A/P off.  Some inconsistencies here I think. 
how so? the reports have not said that the AP was on until impact.

AP on
stick shaker / upset
AP off
crash


Offline Saabeba

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 71
Re: Continental (Colgan)-3407 -8 Crash in Buffalo
« Reply #151 on: February 15, 2009, 06:17:07 PM »
My condolences and prayers with the families involved.

The press conference mentioned both 31 degrees pitch up and 46 degress pitch down in final minutes.  as well as I believe 46 degree and 105 degree left right turns, and G forces of .75 to 2Gs.

The auto-pilot did not indicate a lot of trim work to fly the plane before the difficulties.

I am also interested that other pilots did not report problems.

Not sure what to conclude as not a pilot.

Offline danmand

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Continental (Colgan)-3407 -8 Crash in Buffalo
« Reply #152 on: February 15, 2009, 06:25:01 PM »
On the news I'm now seeing a report that the NTSB has said that pilots should turn autopilot "off" during icy conditions.  Is this correct? 

In really bad weather, I'd think it would be better to have it on, but then again, I'm only a pilot enthusiast and not a real one  :-)

Offline iskyfly

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 179
Re: Continental (Colgan)-3407 -8 Crash in Buffalo
« Reply #153 on: February 15, 2009, 06:35:44 PM »
On the news I'm now seeing a report that the NTSB has said that pilots should turn autopilot "off" during icy conditions.  Is this correct? 

In really bad weather, I'd think it would be better to have it on, but then again, I'm only a pilot enthusiast and not a real one  :-)
As far as the FAA / NTSB are concerned, it is just a recommendation.
Airline SOP might be a different story though.
http://www.airdisaster.info/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2054&start=50#p26750

kea001

  • Guest
Re: Continental (Colgan)-3407 -8 Crash in Buffalo
« Reply #154 on: February 15, 2009, 07:52:22 PM »
Astounding, but not unexpected, that two news outlets have two widely divergent views of the NTSB press conference:

Crash Pilot 'Broke Airline Rules'
8:04pm UK, Sunday February 15, 2009 -  SKYNEWS

A plane that crashed into a house killing 50 people was in autopilot when it went down - violating airline policy, an aviation official has said. 

Pilots are recommended to fly planes manually in icy conditions and required to do so in severe ice, said US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigator Steven Chealander.

The pilot of the doomed plane reported "significant" ice on his wings and windshield just before the crash-landing outside the northern US city of Buffalo.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Buffalo-Plane-Crash-Aircraft-In-Autopilot-When-Landing-Violating-Airline-Policy-Rules/Article/200902315223240?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_1&lid=ARTICLE_15223240_Buffalo_Plane_Crash:_Aircr


Crash plane 'dropped in seconds'
updated at 00:28 GMT, Monday, 16 February 2009 -  BBC.CO.UK

Air safety official Steve Chealander said the plane fell from 1,800ft to 1,000ft shortly before impact.
He also said investigators had not found that there were "severe icing" conditions, which would have required pilots to fly the plane manually.

The plane's autopilot was on until just before the crash, Mr Chealander said.


But in a press briefing on Sunday he said there was no evidence that the Continental Airlines pilot had done anything wrong.

"The only restriction that they see - the manufacturer of this airplane - and that they write about is that disengage the autopilot in severe icing conditions," Mr Chealander said.

"Thus far we haven't determined that it's severe icing so, so far we see that everything seemed to be normal in using the autopilot."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7891770.stm


The lesson here is that it is fairly easy to libel a dead pilot without the worry of any repercussions.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2009, 08:05:20 PM by kea001 »

Offline wrongway3

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Continental (Colgan)-3407 -8 Crash in Buffalo
« Reply #155 on: February 15, 2009, 07:56:18 PM »
Danmand, as Iskyfly said, this is a recommendation and individual airlines may have different Standard Operating Procedures.  the reason for recommending flying without an autopilot in icing conditions is because the autopilot may camouflage the effects of icing in its early stages. 
« Last Edit: February 15, 2009, 07:59:56 PM by wrongway3 »

Offline dispatchguy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: Continental (Colgan)-3407 -8 Crash in Buffalo
« Reply #156 on: February 15, 2009, 07:57:38 PM »
and stalled, and that the very inexperienced FO was flying

No,. if it was her voice on the radio, she was the pilot not flying - handling the radios, checklists, etc. Never once in the recording did I hear the captains voice, so there was never a change in position; the captain was the flying pilot, and the F/O was the nonflying pilot. Never once in her voice did I get any real stress - hell, in one comm she sounds extremely upbeat.

How about this, an ice bridge?  I remember Earnest K Gann's description of an Ice Bridge in Fate is the Hunter - where the boots can pump away all day, BUT the ice has formed outside the max inflation size of the boot. The tail gets an ice bridge form, boots can pump till hell freezes over and not accomplish a thing, then the tail stalls out once the flaps get extended and, well, unfortunately the rest is history and at such a low altitude, there would be nothing the crew couldve done. That's why I hate boots - gimme a warm leading edge anyday...

The reason to kill the A/P, especially when the aircraft has unpowered (read direct) flight controls is so that the crew can feel thru the control forces as to if the aircraft is unbalanced, untrimmed, and possibly be picking up ice. If you require max trim in a direction, that would be an indication that something is amiss.

With the A/P engaged, the trim is feeling that offbalance feel and dialing in the required trim to counterbalance it. Unless the crew (and I dont know the DH8 trim system) was watching the trim system very closely, they may not notice that the trim would be way outside the normal range.


Offline anewsted

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Continental (Colgan)-3407 -8 Crash in Buffalo
« Reply #157 on: February 15, 2009, 07:58:59 PM »
Quote
On the news I'm now seeing a report that the NTSB has said that pilots should turn autopilot "off" during icy conditions.  Is this correct?

In really bad weather, I'd think it would be better to have it on, but then again, I'm only a pilot enthusiast and not a real one  smiley

The reason why the pilots are supposed to fly with the auto pilot off is because they can feel what is going on. There has been a number of crashes where the pilot trusted the auto pilot, and while they trusted the auto pilot it was compensating for icing or any other form until the auto pilot hits its limits and then the plane is way out of trim.

Basically if you hand fly in bad weather your since of reality is much greater than if you left auto pilot on. You just dont notice the changes because it is constantly correcting for them... Hope thats clear enough.

Offline Hollis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 403
Re: Continental (Colgan)-3407 -8 Crash in Buffalo
« Reply #158 on: February 15, 2009, 08:08:50 PM »
I think we're all over-speculating here, including myself. I suggest we might wait until the NTSB has all the info and data available to make a decision as to 'probable cause'.

Offline danmand

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Continental (Colgan)-3407 -8 Crash in Buffalo
« Reply #159 on: February 15, 2009, 08:10:58 PM »
Yes, that does make sense.  Thanks to you all.  I guess I always thought that autopilot was there to make sure your senses didn't get confused.  I guess it's there more to relieve workload.

Offline Saabeba

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 71
Re: Continental (Colgan)-3407 -8 Crash in Buffalo
« Reply #160 on: February 15, 2009, 08:40:09 PM »
and stalled, and that the very inexperienced FO was flying

No,. if it was her voice on the radio, she was the pilot not flying - handling the radios, checklists, etc. Never once in the recording did I hear the captains voice, so there was never a change in position; the captain was the flying pilot, and the F/O was the nonflying pilot. Never once in her voice did I get any real stress - hell, in one comm she sounds extremely upbeat.

How about this, an ice bridge?  I remember Earnest K Gann's description of an Ice Bridge in Fate is the Hunter - where the boots can pump away all day, BUT the ice has formed outside the max inflation size of the boot. The tail gets an ice bridge form, boots can pump till hell freezes over and not accomplish a thing, then the tail stalls out once the flaps get extended and, well, unfortunately the rest is history and at such a low altitude, there would be nothing the crew couldve done. That's why I hate boots - gimme a warm leading edge anyday...

The reason to kill the A/P, especially when the aircraft has unpowered (read direct) flight controls is so that the crew can feel thru the control forces as to if the aircraft is unbalanced, untrimmed, and possibly be picking up ice. If you require max trim in a direction, that would be an indication that something is amiss.

With the A/P engaged, the trim is feeling that offbalance feel and dialing in the required trim to counterbalance it. Unless the crew (and I dont know the DH8 trim system) was watching the trim system very closely, they may not notice that the trim would be way outside the normal range.



Note that in the press conference this afternoon, the NTSB representative noted that the black box indicated that the auto-pilot was NOT making many trim adjustments for ice conditions or for any other reason pre-the final moments, so he appeared to suggest that ice build-up may not have been a major factor.

Offline joeyb747

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1745
  • Nothing Like A 747!
Re: Continental (Colgan)-3407 -8 Crash in Buffalo
« Reply #161 on: February 15, 2009, 08:53:02 PM »
To answer Tripps post: 99% of the time in airline operations, the pilot not in command of the airplane works the radios. Clearly the co-pilot was working the radios. Not to say it's not possible, it's just not probable. And usually, in poor weather, on autopilot or not, the sr pilot is in command of the aricraft. I think its possible they did get distracted. I'd like to hear the CVR, then we'll know for sure.

I also find it strange that the airplane was 180 degrees to the runway. the only thing that makes sense to me is full flap deployment on one wing, and partial or no flap deployment on the other wing. In effect, sending the airplane into a flat spin. If enough ice builds up on the tops of the wings, it can hinder control movements. Just how much is the question.

Guess we'll know more when they release the FDR and CVR tapes.

Offline Jason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1260
  • CFI/CFII
Re: Continental (Colgan)-3407 -8 Crash in Buffalo
« Reply #162 on: February 15, 2009, 09:51:36 PM »
I think we're all over-speculating here, including myself. I suggest we might wait until the NTSB has all the info and data available to make a decision as to 'probable cause'.

This is clearly the best stance to take after any major accident or incident.  Until the NTSB releases official information, all that can be done is to speculate.  You can do this until the cows come home, but we really won't know for sure until the NTSB makes their findings, so we mind as well wait.

Offline rvg19

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Continental (Colgan)-3407 -8 Crash in Buffalo
« Reply #163 on: February 15, 2009, 10:35:54 PM »
I'm a local firefighter and I was at the scene of the crash until 2am . What a horrific site!! My prayers go out to all the familes involved.God Bless.

Offline theweave

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Continental (Colgan)-3407 -8 Crash in Buffalo
« Reply #164 on: February 16, 2009, 02:26:39 AM »
First of all, I would like to say how sad this story is. 50 people, good people were killed in this tradgedy. Also I think there was nothing that the co-pilot nor pilot could have done to prevent this, simply based on what I have heard about the violent turn of events in the air that started only 26 seconds before impact. That is not much time to save it.

I can not even imagine the terror the passengers and flight crew experienced as they sat in the dark (I am assuming they turn the lights off for landing) and the plane pitched and rolled so much!

Now I have heard so much stuff listening to various airports here on Live ATC (love this site by the way!), but I have never understood what these 2 things are:

1. Localizer
2. Altimeter

Can someone in the know, explain these to me in laymens terms so I will have a better understanding.

Thank you all for the great work!

Offline thejackal37

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: Continental (Colgan)-3407 -8 Crash in Buffalo
« Reply #165 on: February 16, 2009, 04:20:01 AM »
First and foremost my thoughts and prayers are with all the families that lost a loved one in this tragedy. I knew one of the passengers in general terms (our daughters played soccer against each other) and I cannot imagine what these families are going through. That being said, why is everyone (the news media in particular) in such a hurry to blame the pilots. I know absolutely zero about flying, but the NTSB reports seem to blame the weather.  The media is hammering on the pilots lack of hours (3300 and 2500 seem like alot of hours to me) qas well as their "failure to react" to the pending stall. 900 feet of of the ground doesn't seem like alot of room to correct a problem. Like I said, I'm not a piloting expert, I guess I just want people to remember that the pilots have families that are suffering too. Let's not blame anyone until the evidence proves that to be vtrue...there will be plenty of time to pile on then....just a thought.
P.S. thanks for the great site.

Offline KSYR-pjr

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1722
Re: Continental (Colgan)-3407 -8 Crash in Buffalo
« Reply #166 on: February 16, 2009, 07:55:00 AM »
1. Localizer
2. Altimeter

A localizer is a radio signal that originates just off the approach end of the runway and is transmitted directly out from the airport in the opposite direction as the runway centerline heading.  This allows aircraft, who tune this radio signal into their navigation radios, to align with the runway and remain on the exact lateral course needed to fly directly to it.  Normally a localizer is good for navigating to the runway from about 20 nautical miles out from the runway.  Inside the cockpit, instruments tell the pilot how close the aircraft is to this localizer centerline.  By keeping this needle centered, the pilot is able to keep the aircraft perfectly aligned with the runway during the approach to land phase.

A localizer is often coupled (but not always) with a glideslope signal, also projected in the same direction as the localizer.  A glideslope is also a radio signal and provides the descent path to the runway.  Again, by keeping these needles centered, the aircraft remains on the correct descent path needed to touch down at the correct point of the runway.  

Aircraft measure altitude (how high they are) using an altimeter, which is another instrument inside the cockpit.  An altimeter determines height above mean sea level based on the fact that air pressure decreases at (more or less) a standard rate as altitude increases.  Thus, an altimeter detects changes in air pressure as changes in altitude   As long as the altimeter has the current barometric pressure dialed into it (something that pilots have to often), the changes in altitude that it displays are for all intents accurate changes.

Since having all aircraft at the same reference point is essential to keeping them separated and away from obstructions, ATC often provides the barometric pressure in their communications.  Instead of using the term, barometric pressure, they instead preface barometric pressure as "altimeter," for example "United 456, altimeter three-zero point one-two."    The pilot will then dial in 30.12 (the barometric pressure) into the aircraft's altimeter and from that point this aircraft is now referencing the same altitude changes as other aircraft inside that controller's sector.

Offline michaelcrook

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Continental (Colgan)-3407 -8 Crash in Buffalo
« Reply #167 on: February 16, 2009, 09:27:14 AM »
I just wanted to share my blog, and coverage of this story:

http://www.michael-crook.com/flight_3407/

Although some have called it harsh, I prefer to look at all angles.

I am glad you had tape rolling on Buffalo when this happened.  Although I get the frustration of some pilots that don't want the tape to be released, it's important to know what happened.

Offline Biff

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 376
    • Biff's Hangar
Re: Continental (Colgan)-3407 -8 Crash in Buffalo
« Reply #168 on: February 16, 2009, 09:56:33 AM »
"Harsh" isn't the adjective I'd choose.  I stopped reading after, "satellite images showed two fields. Small fields..yards, really..but certainly preferable to someone’s home."

And that was your second sentence.  Thanks for writing that nonsense early in your harangue so I didn't waste any more time reading the rest of it.


Offline ogogog

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 120
Re: Continental (Colgan)-3407 -8 Crash in Buffalo
« Reply #169 on: February 16, 2009, 09:59:32 AM »
i wasted 3 minutes of my life on this guys blog that i wish i could get back,oh and id like to see you say what you wrote about the FO to her husbands face. i bet if there was a crowd of 100 people no one would see anything
« Last Edit: February 16, 2009, 10:03:18 AM by ogogog »

Offline michaelcrook

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Continental (Colgan)-3407 -8 Crash in Buffalo
« Reply #170 on: February 16, 2009, 10:02:35 AM »
i wasted 3 minutes of my life on this guys blog that i wish i could get back

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way, but as I said, ALL angles need to be looked at, and satellite photos of the crash site clearly show at least two areas that would be preferable for landing.  Would there still be damage to property on the ground?  Sure, but at least no one on the ground would have died, and maybe that family wouldn't have lost their home.

Offline ogogog

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 120
Re: Continental (Colgan)-3407 -8 Crash in Buffalo
« Reply #171 on: February 16, 2009, 10:07:25 AM »
you sir are the most uninformed aviation ignorant person ive ever had the displeaser of reading about, dont go away mad just go away

Offline iskyfly

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 179
Re: Continental (Colgan)-3407 -8 Crash in Buffalo
« Reply #172 on: February 16, 2009, 10:09:10 AM »
i wasted 3 minutes of my life on this guys blog that i wish i could get back,oh and id like to see you say what you wrote about the FO to her husbands face.
especially considering that the FO was the PNF.

Offline Biff

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 376
    • Biff's Hangar
Re: Continental (Colgan)-3407 -8 Crash in Buffalo
« Reply #173 on: February 16, 2009, 10:25:01 AM »
as I said, ALL angles need to be looked at, and satellite photos of the crash site clearly show at least two areas that would be preferable for landing.

You think that was a landing???  Seriously?

Here's another angle for you to look at:  Why was the homeowner home?  Doesn't he have a job?  What was he doing there?  Satellite photos clearly showed businesses in the area where he could have applied for work.  Why did the house burn so fiercely?   Was he running a meth lab out of his house?   

Attention whores dancing on other peoples' graves.  Congratulations, you've gotten 4 minutes out of me.

kea001

  • Guest
Re: Continental (Colgan)-3407 -8 Crash in Buffalo
« Reply #174 on: February 16, 2009, 10:29:11 AM »
Please disregard Michael Crook posts. Serial troll.

The Internet's Most Hated Man, The Strange Story of Michael Crook
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/334035/the_internets_most_hated_man_the_strange.html