Continental (Colgan)-3407 -8 Crash in Buffalo

[aviator_06]

It's always tough hearing about a crash. If you have a second please pray for the Crew and passengers of the flight.

[styx_phoenix]

... Additionally, I don't want to drag anyone's name in the mud here but the controller seemed to be quite distracted himself even before any indication of problems with Colgan 3407. He even took a good 2½ minutes to actually focus on the lack of radio chatter from 3407 and begin treating as an emergency.

We really need to stop spouting nonsense.  The audio you listened to was from the approach controller.  He'd handed over the plane to the control tower, and that handoff was acknowledged by the plane.  So, from the approach controller's perspective, he was done with the plane.  "Lack of radio chatter" would not be a concern.  He was more than likely notified by tower that the plane did not contact the tower, which is why the approach controller started asking on his frequency.

Incorrect. While 3407 did acknowledge the initial handoff to tower, the approach controller came back with a radio call to 3407 (as you noted) ... 3407 did not respond. He went on to comm nomally with other a/c and took a little over 2 minutes to begin the more frequent calls to 3407 and discussion with the other a/c in the area, including Delta 1998 whom he asked to look to the right to see if they saw the Dash 8.

I'm talking the full (not spliced/edited) version of the atc comm.

[mhawke]

Incorrect. While 3407 did acknowledge the initial handoff to tower, the approach controller came back with a radio call to 3407 (as you noted) ... 3407 did not respond. He went on to comm nomally with other a/c and took a little over 2 minutes to begin the more frequent calls to 3407 and discussion with the other a/c in the area, including Delta 1998 whom he asked to look to the right to see if they saw the Dash 8.

I'm talking the full (not spliced/edited) version of the atc comm.

You also have to remember that you listening the the comm's from a scanner, not a full time recording.  It's very likely that there may have been another call to the plane not caught by the scanner.

In the end, what difference would it make.  If the plane wanted to talk to ATC (and could) they would just talk, nothing ATC could do to help at that moment.

The crash happened within eyesight of the local firehall, so emergency reponse was on the scene probably before or very near when ATC even realized that something had happened.

[styx_phoenix]

Incorrect. While 3407 did acknowledge the initial handoff to tower, the approach controller came back with a radio call to 3407 (as you noted) ... 3407 did not respond. He went on to comm nomally with other a/c and took a little over 2 minutes to begin the more frequent calls to 3407 and discussion with the other a/c in the area, including Delta 1998 whom he asked to look to the right to see if they saw the Dash 8.

I'm talking the full (not spliced/edited) version of the atc comm.

You also have to remember that you listening the the comm's from a scanner, not a full time recording.  It's very likely that there may have been another call to the plane not caught by the scanner.

In the end, what difference would it make.  If the plane wanted to talk to ATC (and could) they would just talk, nothing ATC could do to help at that moment.

The crash happened within eyesight of the local firehall, so emergency reponse was on the scene probably before or very near when ATC even realized that something had happened.

Yeah, I know it wouldn't have made any difference in saving any lives or even preventing the crash -- just posting the question, I guess, more related to the orientation they were sending all a/c through to the airport and not so much the aftermath. I agree, had 3407 wanted or been able to respond they would have.

I also agree with Tom's comment that what isn't heard is probably more disturbing. I didn't really think about the recording being from scanner. That does make sense, so I apologize. I guess I just would have expected a tad more urgency on the part of the approach controller than was initially picked up by the scanner.

[dawgxray]

Food for thought.  If they were in left traffic for 23 and overshot the localizer to the west of course, or anytime in right traffic,  the glide slope is unusable beyond 5 degrees west of the localizer, due to terrain out there.  (its on the BUF Jepp chart comments) You get some false glide slope indications.  At best you are ready for it and wait patiently to get within 5 degrees, at worst it is confusing, distracting, and if you take the bait on the false glide slope, could cause problems.  If I remember correctly, in that zone of "confusion" outside 5 degrees, the instruments will show you high on the glide slope.

[KSYR-pjr]

Food for thought.  If they were in left traffic for 23 and overshot the localizer to the west of course, or anytime in right traffic,  the glide slope is unusable beyond 5 degrees west of the localizer, due to terrain out there.  

Very doubtful that ATC would have allowed any aircraft to go that far off the glideslope localizer without some type of "heads up" call to the aircraft.  Radar coverage on that part of the approach at BUF is excellent.

edit:  not taking the time to proofread my own posts.  Just now spotted my error above. 

[delta092b]

Toronto Star gave credit to liveatc.net

"A user of LiveATC.net captured part of the air traffic control conversation. The voice of a female pilot on the flight can be heard communicating with traffic control minutes before the crash, no urgent concerns apparent."

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/587009

[onetwenty]

plus there are reports of sputtering engine sounds..
carb icing?
im sure the end result will be weather and not pilot error..
as was said before, it could even come down to flaps not lowering in unison due to ice build up, who knows.

[Sachem]

Here's the Flightaware log showing decent of ~1000 ft/min after 9:58pm

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/CJC3407/history/20090213/0220Z/KEWR/KBUF/tracklog

[Shabadoo]

CNN is so off. I love the questions and speculation.  In their transcript, they say "Nothing on the TK's"  ITS TCAS!! Come on, get this stuff right.

[laylow]

Talking heads on the news never get things right.  I'm watching WGRZ buffalo live on wgrz.com.  They are talking about the two blackboxes.

[dska22]

Dawg & Pjr...  if you look at any satellite image of the area, and extend a line from runway 23 out to Clarence Center, you'll notice that the path of the localizer goes directly through the town.  As a matter of fact, it seems to go directly over the very street where the plane crashed.  Knowing this, it seems highly unlikely that the plane experienced some lateral deviation, either due to pilot error, equipment failure, or a malfunctioning localizer.

[styx_phoenix]

Dawg & Pjr...  if you look at any satellite image of the area, and extend a line from runway 23 out to Clarence Center, you'll notice that the path of the localizer goes directly through the town.  As a matter of fact, it seems to go directly over the very street where the plane crashed.  Knowing this, it seems highly unlikely that the plane experienced some lateral deviation, either due to pilot error, equipment failure, or a malfunctioning localizer.

That's what amazes me about the eyewitness accounts of the plane "going the wrong direction" for the runway. I looked at the satellite images on Google and it would appear they were definitely headed in the right direction for rnwy 23. I suppose there is a chance they did a complete 180 turn on the way down but there wasn't all that much altitude to work with for executing something like that in GOOD conditions let alone what they were flying through.

But, I think the person who mentioned getting outside the marker also mentioned the distractions. Since other a/c in the comm reported temporary issues with the localizer, it could have certainly become a distraction -- in addition to the potential icing they could have been experiencing.

[iskyfly]

Here's the Flightaware log showing decent of ~1000 ft/min after 9:58pm

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/CJC3407/history/20090213/0220Z/KEWR/KBUF/tracklog

is that unusual?

[dska22]

I thought 2000 ft/s is the maximum standard descent rate.  Any opinions out there that count (not mine)?

[KSYR-pjr]

Here's the Flightaware log showing decent of ~1000 ft/min after 9:58pm

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/CJC3407/history/20090213/0220Z/KEWR/KBUF/tracklog

is that unusual?

Not even close.  I routinely descend in my Bonanza at 1,000 fpm when there are no passengers on board (non-pressurized aircraft tends to blow out eardrums of passengers at rates greater than 600fpm).   Pressurized airline transport aircraft will routinely descend between 2,000 and 4,000 fpm, depending on ATC's instructions.

[Hollis]

Note the leading adges are all 100% booted.

[727driver]

If there are any dash-8 drivers out there here are a couple of questions regarding your ils profile.  When do you start confirguring? Does the tail have boots aswell? I ask because if there was alot of ice on the tail once you start putting out flaps you can stall the tail which can lead to a departure from pitch control. Usually causes an abrupt pitch down movement. The recovery is to return to the last config before the stall occurred, apply max power and pull the nose up.

My prayers go out to crew and passengers of 3407. God Speed.

[glencar]

CNN is so off. I love the questions and speculation.  In their transcript, they say "Nothing on the TK's"  ITS TCAS!! Come on, get this stuff right.

I watched CNN this morning & they said the plane lost comm at 5300'. But then FOX said it was at 2300'. That's a huge difference. Who is right?

[laylow]

According to the ATC audio, I'd say Fox is closer to right than CNN.

[wadegamm]

It looks like it is all ice related.  That is the exact point where everything would have been deploying out and the power is being slightly reduced.  The crash site is not even a half mile from the LOM( KLUMP).   It may be the result of a partial or un-equal deployment of any one of the flaps, slats, or gear or just a total ice function effecting lift.  The -8s only have leading edge boots and don’t have heated or bleeding wings.      As for the slight LOC fluctuation, that is normal when another aircraft crosses the LOC runway and that is what had happened as the aircraft that made that particular report was inbound.  No one was crossing the active when 3407 was on the approach. 

I am trying to figure out which it is.  There are supposed to be sensors that prevent differential deployment of flaps, slats, and speed brakes, but I don’t know the exact details of the -8 400s

[laylow]

Listening to NTSB now, crew discussed significant icing on wing leading edge and cockpit windshield, airframe anti-ice set for ON prior to that conversation.  One minute before the end of the cockpit recording, crew lowered gear.  20 seconds later, flaps set for 15.  Within seconds of flaps to 15, significant pitch and roll deviations.  Crew attempted to raise gear and flaps, recording ends.

[kea001]

Preliminary points uncovered so far from black box that were made at NTSB press conference, 4 p.m.

    Weather discussed between crew was snow with mist, 3 miles visibility.

1. Crew discussed considerable ice build up on windshield and leading edges of the wings.
2. Air frame de-ice selected in the 'on' position
3. Landing gear placed down 1 minute before end of recording
4. Flaps selected at 15 degrees
5. Series of severe pitch and roll 'excursions' occurred within seconds of flaps being extended.
6. Crew tried to retract gear and flaps just prior (seconds) to crash.

video here: MSNBC
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/29186499#29186499

[KSYR-pjr]

1. Crew discussed considerable ice build up on windshield and leading edges of the wings.
2. Air frame de-ice selected in the 'on' position

So, this begs the question:   Does the chronology of this CVR imply that airframe deice/anti-ice (assuming there are different settings) protection was not enabled prior to the discovery mentioned in item 1?

[laylow]

The NTSB rep specifically said that anti-ice was on _prior_ to the crew conversation about ice.