LiveATC Discussion Forums
Air Traffic Monitoring => Aviation Audio Clips => Topic started by: mhawke on February 12, 2009, 11:53:38 PM
-
Archive attached, I'll edit later. 20 minutes in lost contact.
I pray for the crew and passengers.
edit: Added flight number
-
Thank you for posting quickly. Doesn't look like a good scene on CNN
FYI start listening around 17 mins
-
Here is the flightaware:
(http://i43.tinypic.com/33lpb1e.jpg)
-
Freezing rain is nasty stuff
(Edited to smack myself on the hand for speculating: I now see this indication that weather may not have been a factor-
"County Executive Chris Collins said that there may have been as many as 50 people aboard the plane and crew members had reported mechanical problems as they approached Buffalo Niagara International Airport". http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/577959.html (http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/577959.html)
...although correct me if I'm wrong, there's nothing in the audio posted indicating mechanical issue)
-
Very sad. Other pilots also reporting icing conditions on the approach and around the airport and an aircraft landing after 3407 reported a "blip" in the ILS at about 1300 ft.
-
14 min they are given a heading
-
...although correct me if I'm wrong, there's nothing in the audio posted indicating mechanical issue)
I wondered when I heard that on local news here too. I hear nothing in the audio. It pretty much sounds like business as ussual and then nothing.
-
...although correct me if I'm wrong, there's nothing in the audio posted indicating mechanical issue)
I wondered when I heard that on local news here too. I hear nothing in the audio. It pretty much sounds like business as ussual and then nothing.
After listening to the rest of the (excellent) audio, I'm going back to the icing theory. Very sad - after the relief of the Hudson River ditching, this one looks like no survivors.
-
Fox news is reporting 49 dead. Now I hate to speculate but since FAA says there was 48 on board, I would assume 1 on the ground was killed (EDIT: Now confirmed by Fox). Very sad news here, especially after the whole Sully "miracle".
Condolences to all the families affected.
-
15:22 - Last contact with 3407
17:22 - Another plane is asked to keep an eye out for the plane.
20:30 - Fire/police notified.
21:50 - Emergency declared.
24:00 - Dash 8 didn't make the airport.
-
From what I heard, definitely sounds like icing since other a/c reported up to 1/2 inch of rime.
-
Here is my edited clip of the events
-
Aircraft De Havilland Canada Dash 8-400 (twin-turboprop)
Are turbo props more likely to ice over, then a jet?
-
Why at the end do they keep talking about the localiser?
-
Why at the end do they keep talking about the localiser?
To make sure that everything was operating correctly, if not it could have easily been the cause of the crash and the airport would have then been closed in those bad conditions.
-
(http://i44.tinypic.com/2zdok6h.jpg)
-
Here is my edited clip of the events
not to nit pick but you missed two communications
1. Clearance to the ILS
2. Handoff to tower
-
the jist i'm getting is that there was an inconsistency in their ILS for runway 23, something like that, if the frequency dropped randomly may cause the computer to 'disconnect' in a way, much like removing a cord from your modem, and may just fall as the aircraft is relying on instruments. Who's to even say that that 'blip' may have overloaded the computer, kind of like a short.
but in the end, icing may be the culprit, even though the most reported was 1/4 inch.
.. what i dont get is according to the news it flew in an opposite direction before it crashed.. none of that hypothetical transmissions are on the audio.
..ive edited the entire orig archive file, not specific to colgan, but to remove the long pauses in comms.
watching news now..
Colgan 3407
44 passengers, 4 crew
another news conference at 4am
one home with one person inside
12 homes evacuated
..
flying NORTHBOUND on a South-SW glide path, engines "didn't sound normal", impact with ground at 10:17.. flat landing in a low left turn, aircraft's nose pitch steep angle down.
-
Wow... absolutely terrible. Very interesting audio ... I'd definately agree with the icing theory based on the total lack of emergency comms.
Although, damn, if only I was currently in Buffalo, instead of out in Rochester here. Would have liked to go see the scene. Never thought I'd see the day that Buffalo of all places has a major plane crash.
-
She sounded a little shaky on her last comm... but nothing that is "abnormal".
They were saying the localizer at 1500ft had a "blip" in it. But it was only deflecting left right 1 notch. This is significant, but not significant enough to put a dash 8 into a house with no communications? Even still, this "blip" was reported at 1500ft and the crash occurred at KLUMP which is the Outer Marker. If they intercepted appropriately, their altitude would be 2206 (or greater if they glided to the crash site). So I doubt the localizer would've played any part in this by itself.
Either way... thoughts and prayers to the necessary places.
-
the jist i'm getting is that there was an inconsistency in their ILS for runway 23, something like that, if the frequency dropped randomly may cause the computer to 'disconnect' in a way, much like removing a cord from your modem, and may just fall as the aircraft is relying on instruments. Who's to even say that that 'blip' may have overloaded the computer, kind of like a short.
but in the end, icing may be the culprit, even though the most reported was 1/4 inch.
.. what i dont get is according to the news it flew in an opposite direction before it crashed.. none of that hypothetical transmissions are on the audio.
flying NORTHBOUND on a South-SW glide path, engines "didn't sound normal", impact with ground at 10:17.. flat landing in a low left turn, aircraft's nose pitch steep angle down.
Just to help ease some of the theories. From a commercial pilots perspective.
Losing the Localiser wouldn't cause any autopilot I know of to "fall". Not to mention that a localiser provides LATERAL guidance, not vertical. Also, losing the ILS signal during the approach should be followed by a missed approach procedure if it was anything more than a minor "bump". But like someone else said a one dot deflection on the localiser is not enough to cause a crash like this.
As far as icing goes Turboprops have sufficient anti-icing capabilities to combat icing conditions. But whose to say they were working properly. Weather is always one of the first things people think of because in a situation like this it's the only thing we know for sure as of yet. And it isn't immediately ruled out since it wasn't a beautiful night with no weather in the area.
I also agree, after reviewing the tape, that a few of the transmissions do sound a little shaky...maybe nerves from a situation onboard... or just turbulent conditions while transmitting.
There are a lot of things that happen in that last 5 or so miles. The aircraft configuration changes, possibly an assymetric flap extension causing the aircraft to roll uncontrollably. Or a sudden power change caused the engine stress that caused a failure. LOTS of possibilities. The point is, unfortunately we'll have to wait for the investigators to do their jobs and everyone in the industry learns from it, if it was a preventable accident.
None of this is meant to disprove anyone or offend. Just trying to clarify from my experience, and add another few possibilities.
-
Ice. The Dash 8 is bad in Ice.
-
Here's the edit, from first contact with approach...through to the tower, and then approach talking to the next Colgan Dash 8 warning him of the company crash.
-
15:22 - Last contact with 3407
17:22 - Another plane is asked to keep an eye out for the plane.
20:30 - Fire/police notified.
21:50 - Emergency declared.
24:00 - Dash 8 didn't make the airport.
first time here so forgive me... but at 1608 you hear the woman pilot just say 3407... or am i wrong?
-
Isn't this the first major crash since the AA jet bound from JFK to Puerto Rico in 2001?
-
Good job OP, your recording is being covered on CNN.
-
MSNBC just used the liveatc clip and there was no recognition WTF??? :x
-
Ice. The Dash 8 is bad in Ice.
Please elaborate. I know of the ATR in Roselawn, but it seems like Dash 8s operate incident free in some pretty icy places. (I'm not trying to pick a fight, just trying to understand).
-
MSNBC just used the liveatc clip and there was no recognition WTF??? :x
The inaccuracies in news reporting amaze me, they reported that the recording was Cleveland Center.
-
Isn't this the first major crash since the AA jet bound from JFK to Puerto Rico in 2001?
I think the last was Comair #191 in Lexington back in August 2006. 49 lost, co-pilot survived.
-
the jist i'm getting is that there was an inconsistency in their ILS for runway 23, something like that, if the frequency dropped randomly may cause the computer to 'disconnect' in a way, much like removing a cord from your modem, and may just fall as the aircraft is relying on instruments. Who's to even say that that 'blip' may have overloaded the computer, kind of like a short.
but in the end, icing may be the culprit, even though the most reported was 1/4 inch.
.. what i dont get is according to the news it flew in an opposite direction before it crashed.. none of that hypothetical transmissions are on the audio.
flying NORTHBOUND on a South-SW glide path, engines "didn't sound normal", impact with ground at 10:17.. flat landing in a low left turn, aircraft's nose pitch steep angle down.
As far as icing goes Turboprops have sufficient anti-icing capabilities to combat icing conditions. But whose to say they were working properly. Weather is always one of the first things people think of because in a situation like this it's the only thing we know for sure as of yet. And it isn't immediately ruled out since it wasn't a beautiful night with no weather in the area.
I also agree, after reviewing the tape, that a few of the transmissions do sound a little shaky...maybe nerves from a situation onboard... or just turbulent conditions while transmitting.
There are a lot of things that happen in that last 5 or so miles. The aircraft configuration changes, possibly an assymetric flap extension causing the aircraft to roll uncontrollably. Or a sudden power change caused the engine stress that caused a failure. LOTS of possibilities. The point is, unfortunately we'll have to wait for the investigators to do their jobs and everyone in the industry learns from it, if it was a preventable accident.
None of this is meant to disprove anyone or offend. Just trying to clarify from my experience, and add another few possibilities.
All excellent points, especially about the 5 mile final config changes. Though the Roselawn ATR icing crash showed even a turboprop can be overwhelmed in SLD conditions (although that airplane was holding, and this one was not). I guess we'll have to wait for more info...
-
MSNBC just used the liveatc clip and there was no recognition WTF??? :x
The inaccuracies in news reporting amaze me, they reported that the recording was Cleveland Center.
The media has gotta be on these forums. Give the credit! Get the facts right!
-
CNN just started playing an edited recording of ATC. A previous interviewee said that he got the audio from LiveATC, but I don't see any mention of the site on the screen. Boo CNN.
My condolences to the family of the crew and passengers. :(
-
Isn't this the first major crash since the AA jet bound from JFK to Puerto Rico in 2001?
You forget the Comair crash in Kentucky in 2006.
EDIT- which was mentioned since.
Great job on getting the recording so quick.
-
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/CJC3407
Here is the flightaware track
-
Further information on the Colgan 3407 aircraft....Bombardier Q-400 not the older version Dash-8. Here is a link http://www.q400.com/q400/en/home.jsp
-
I have a hard time agreeing with the second Dash-8 shooting the approach.
Similar aircraft goes down and he does not appear to give it a second though. Better safe than sorry... Get out of that ice.
-
Just saw the weather at http://www.nws.noaa.gov/radar_tab.php
If you can find the historical take a look at the base and storm relative velocity loops. Looks like a perfect windshear setup and the crash site was right at the edge of a transition from ~50kt NW winds to opposite winds. Add to that the icing.
Also when I first saw this about a half our after the crash to now about 2 hours after the crash, the winds. Why rnwy 23 and not 32? The winds in the entire area were N, NW and NE favoring 32. I noticed that the winds at KBUF ATIS were reporting W and SW sometimes then swinging back to N for the past 2 hours. Especially for the flight coming up from the S with 50kt headwinds 32 was a better choice even with W-SW winds. The planes turn to rnwy 23 with a possible wind shift to N-NE and above spotted windshear plus the ice was a bad setup.
I did a similar analysis of the Cory Lidle NYC crash with the weather within hours of that event and called it correctly that the wind drifted him into the city.
-
Just another helpful note when listening to the ATC of the Colgan 3407 flight. As with all Commercial air travel, there is a flight crew of 2, a Captain and a First Officer. During each leg of the shift one of the 2 pilots flies and the other handles all radio communication. So in this instance the Female pilot in the Colgan ATC transmissions would not be flying the aircraft.
Most shifts on short-haul domestic flights involve one aircraft and crew flying to several locations during the shift. For example I rode in the jump seat of a Nordair flight a while back and their shift that night was Quebec City - Montreal - Ottawa - Montreal - Quebec City - Montreal. So on each leg of that shift 1 pilot was at the controls and the other handled all radio comm. On each leg they swapped jobs.
-
damn weird stuff
MY hearts go out to the familys
-----
Sig http://anime-media.com
-
liveatc made it to the NY Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/nyregion/13crash.html?_r=1&hp
-
16:03 he hands 3407 off
And by experience the only thing mentioned here that rings a bell is the wind shear and direction changes present at the time. When the aircraft is in flaps transition, power settings require change, if the wind shear shifts during this phase it can cause the aircraft to fall or become unstable on the longitudinal axis. the dash has exceptional roll stability, but less than desired pitch stability.
This should have been a go around.
-
Aircraft De Havilland Canada Dash 8-400 (twin-turboprop)
Are turbo props more likely to ice over, than a jet?
I think icing happens, but it's the prevention/elimination of build-up that the a/c combat. A lot of turboprops use deicing boots whereas most jets use heated bleed air. MANY aircraft use deicing boots so I don't know that really makes a difference.
-
Attached is a link to a map identifying waypoint TRAVA, after which they are cleared to 6000.
-
Link to map with TRAVA:
http://www.fallingrain.com/waypoint/US/TRAVA.html
-
I learned of liveatc.net overnight as I followed coverage on WIVB-Buffalo tv channel 4, but they spoke the address so quickly and only once! I can't believe they're not crediting the source on any of the local stations. Thankfully I was able to find you again from this msnbc E-news story, but it's ridiculous that the tv version isn't giving credit. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29173163/?gt1=43001
Hopefully it will attract knowledgable people with something for the rest of us to read and learn from. I plan for this to be my last posting, except for asking questions. I wish I had found you under happier circumstances. I used to live in Clarence, not far from the crash site. The town supervisor gave the population as 20,000, but the village of Clarence Center only has a few hundred souls, all located within a mile of the site (maybe 2 miles). It's a close-knit community, but I was never treated like an outsider.
-
FWIW, the wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Airlines_Flight_3407) cites the LiveATC feed archive for BUF
-
Someone said the Dash 8 is bad in Ice, as a dash 8 pilot and other turbo - props, the Dash 8 is probably one of the best airplanes in Icing. It was built for it!- One speculation from this perspective is that as good as it is in icing, must use the anti and de-ice equipment properly. Possibly engine ice b/c Engine Inlet anti-icing was not being used correctly. Ice can get on the turbine fins and cause hectic problems.
-
I just listened to the controller recordings. My heart goes out to the victims families and the controllers involved. It's a pit of the stomach, sickening feeling listening to the lead up to lost communications. I, too, felt the pilot's voice was a bit shaky/unnerved with the last couple of transmissions.
What I am curious about is the fifteen minutes leading up to the loss of comm. There was no mention of icing by the pilots of several aircraft which made the approach to rwy23. And yet, after loss of comm, some pilots did state icing conditioins between 6000 and 3500 (not exact, my recollection)on the decent.
What a terrible, terrible tragedy. I strongly suspect icing. Where I used to work (retired, now), icing info, when encountered, was spread around to everyone. But then again, I worked in a region where icing was the norm, 9 months out of the year.
I am shaken.
Tom
-
CNN is playing the audio feed again. No credit to LiveATC again! In fact, no credit to anyone!
God Bless those who lost their lives and their families.
-
Ice. The Dash 8 is bad in Ice.
Correction: Any aircraft is bad in ice if anti-icing procedures aren't followed to the "T". The Dash-8 is actually one of the better aircraft in icing conditions, as someone else noted in this forum.
The only known "problem" with the Dash 8 400 was the landing gear problem of 2007. That was addressed and wouldn't have been a problem in this crash anyway.
-
AOL news this morning mentioned liveATC.net in their article:
"Prior to the crash, the voice of a female pilot on Continental Flight 3407 could be heard communicating with air traffic controllers, according to a recording of the Buffalo air traffic control's radio messages shortly before the crash captured by the Web site LiveATC.net. Neither the controller nor the pilot showed any concerns that anything was out of the ordinary as the airplane was asked to fly at 2,300 feet."
-
To me it sounds like she repeated back the turn to 310 as 210.
-
Crash site - 6050 Long St., Clarence Center, New York
CORRECTION: Address of impact is 6038 Long St., Clarence Center, New York
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=6038+long+st.,+clarence+center&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=45.822921,90.615234&ie=UTF8&ll=43.011606,-78.638868&spn=0.001298,0.002765&t=h&z=19&iwloc=addr (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=6038+long+st.,+clarence+center&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=45.822921,90.615234&ie=UTF8&ll=43.011606,-78.638868&spn=0.001298,0.002765&t=h&z=19&iwloc=addr)
as reported by Buffalo News:
http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/577959.html (http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/577959.html)
More info at Aviation Herald:
http://avherald.com/h?article=414f3dbd&opt=1 (http://avherald.com/h?article=414f3dbd&opt=1)
Local live coverage can be found at WGRZ-Buffalo
http://www.wgrz.com/ (http://www.wgrz.com/)
-
Thanks for this website. The ATC recording has an exchanges between other flight crews and a controller looking for the wreckage and that they were detected a 1 degree variation in the localizer. Its hard to see how that sort of heading deviation (no altitude information as in a glideslope) could have caused this crash since the area is flat, no obstacles other than terra firma. There were reports of icing, winds had been extreme earlier in the evening but appeared to be letting up and the precip was not great. Witnesses said that they heard sputtering prior to impact but those reports are usually unreliable. No professional flight crew would abandon ILS and transition to visual clues 5 miles out. So, that leaves a sudden equipment failure, dropping below the needed airspeed under unexpected flight conditions such as icing and shear, or as gear or flap position were being configured.
-
Without pre-judgement, a Delta flight on approach reported 1/4 to 1/2 inch Rhime Ice starting to disipate at just around 2300 feet. Cogan 1507 possibly experienced this at 5 miles out over the marker. She did not report ice or other problems on final communication.
-
Hey all this is a horrible crash. Pretty clear with my experience with the Canadian Crash Investigation team what a probable cause for this one is. I think we all have a sneaking suspicion that icing on the wings was the problem. Temps at BNIA were falling last night after a day of rain. We up here in Canada are all to familiar with the Dash 8 ( Q400 ) and have had problems with them in the past what with our terrible winters up here in certain regions
ttp://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/commerce/circulars/AC0147.htm
http://www.aviation.ca/content/view/3231/118/
With my knowledge of the Dash 8s if your not trained properly in their internal deicing functions it can drop out of the sky under the right conditions. Unfortunately I don't have access the NTSB site this is just my guess from what I've gathered so far. These pilots may not have been trained properly. (* see above links )
-
about 9 mins into the original unedited clip, they never readback the descent BUF issues. That was 6 mins from lost contact. Probably something distracting attention at that point.
-
16:03 he hands 3407 off
And by experience the only thing mentioned here that rings a bell is the wind shear and direction changes present at the time. When the aircraft is in flaps transition, power settings require change, if the wind shear shifts during this phase it can cause the aircraft to fall or become unstable on the longitudinal axis. the dash has exceptional roll stability, but less than desired pitch stability.
This should have been a go around.
The nearest I can see by looking at historical data shows the wind direction did not change at the surface until 2 hours after the accident, and then only by 80 degrees or so. No mention on any of the METARs show a varying wind speed within the approach segment. Usually you will see a note of WS020/32030 or something like that to indicate potential shear on or near the airport. And most likely you would have had a PIREP if a preceeding a/c had encountered such conditions.
I know nothing about the Q400 but if it were unstable about the longitudinal axis, it would mean that it laterally unstable and affects the rolling properties of the a/c. Now if it had poor longitudinal stability, that would be around the lateral axis and affect pitch.
And as for icing as a cause, I'm not going to speculate. When the NTSB publishes their findings we will know what happened with a certainty and hopefully learn some lessons.
"This should have been a go around" --------Were you there? Were you experiencing anything they were dealing with? Should DAL and AWE gone around too? Are you implying they shouldn't have landed under those circumstances? Everyday, we as pilots are thrown challenging circumstances such as ice, shear, TS, etc. Yet with the professionalism of these guys and gals, we make the best decision based on sound experience and quality training. DO NOT drag their name through the mud with your "speculation" and monday morning quarterbacking!
-
I listened to the full ATC communications and I too, did not detect anything out of the ordinary. However, "claver" mentioned earlier a concern about the runway in use at the time and questioned that aspect of the facts. I tend to have similar concerns after listening to the ATC calls from the various a/c in the air at the time and the conditions they were all dealing with.
(I know there are also eyewitness reports that indicate the plane was traveling in the "wrong direction" for a landing at the airport. There is no way for us to verify that fact so for now ... we'll ignore that.)
My concerns are with the relative wind direction and potential wind sheer conditions, combined with the IFR/icing conditions ... why send planes through those conditions into a left turn for rnwy 23 and not into the wind for a landing on rnwy 32? 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.
-
15:22 - Last contact with 3407
17:22 - Another plane is asked to keep an eye out for the plane.
20:30 - Fire/police notified.
21:50 - Emergency declared.
24:00 - Dash 8 didn't make the airport.
...And at 16:02 they were handed over to tower.
-
Hope this works. It is an overlay that should open in Google Earth.
-
CNN needs to give credit where it's due, to LiveATC.net. Their "transcript" is a joke; where every other word is "unintelligible" even though they are spoken clearly. :roll:
-
thowing this out there, but the UPS heavy on approach while the tower was still in confusion has a windsheer alert audible in his missed approach comm. he also told tower about strong windsheer.
they're saying now it may have been rhyme(sp) ice, much like sandpaper can reduce lift by 20%.
i'll try to keep us all posted
just hear something else, autopilot.
the FAA made it madatory to disconnect the AP every 5 min in bad weather or under ice conditions, to see how the aircraft is handling.
there was an incident (insert year here) where the pilots had disconnected AP and the plane went into a side-roll and lost 20,000 ft of alt.
maybe in the normal disconnection of AP, the control of the aircraft was lost.
every pilot has a different time on apprach that they disc. AP.
im assuming the Q400 is a CAT II, not CAT III w/ autoland.
-
... 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.
-
+1
-
they're saying now it may have been rhyme(sp) ice, much like sandpaper can reduce lift by 20%.
i'll try to keep us all posted
Actually, you are confusing rime ice with frost on the wings. When an aircraft sits on the airport tarmac and frost develops on the wings, it is like sandpaper and can reduce lift by a large percentage.
Rime ice, on the other hand, looks like this:
(http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/7215/snag0043iu3.jpg)
edit: Of course rime ice also affects lift, but it additionally adds weight and drag, and much more so affects the airfoil than simple frost.
edit2: There is also another type of airframe icing called clear ice, which tends to form from large, super-cooled liquid droplets, like those found in freezing rain or near the tops of cumulus clouds. This ice is even more insidious due to its ability to flow back away from the leading edges before completely freezing.
-
... which wasnt the ice i was talking about, considering the aircraft had been airborne for a good time.
Rime ice [thanks for the spelling] was the type of ice that had built on aircraft that were landing at kbuf at the same time frame.
edit- they mentioned clear ice as a possibility, but pilots flying at that time said it was no factor.
-
Hey guys, check out WROC's coverage and post your comments on the live blog/ WROC is a station out of Rochester, NY. http://rochesterhomepage.net
-
Everything is speculation at this point. Icing is at the top of most everyone's "guess", including my own. However, there could be, and I'm "guessing" here, even more twists and turns before the NTSB finally has the answers.
The recording is more disturbing for what is not heard, than what is heard.
Tom
-
Hope this works. It is an overlay that should open in Google Earth.
What was this supposed to be? All I am seeing is a marker located over Binghamton, NY, some 100 miles southeast from the Buffalo area.
-
well they have the voice recorder now, so i'm assuming we'll hear the cause or positive speculation from the NTSB by sometime next week or so.
i heard a story of a woman who is always on the Newark-Buffalo flight at about that time every thursday, but there was a hold up with her luggage and she missed 3407.
bizarre how some minor events can turn to life-changing ones.
-
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-212790
Even I don't know if CNN should have posted this online. A very raw, incredible video of the first few minutes after the crash. Hearing the mother scream to solicit help for her daughter, then reply that her husband was in the house. wow. Very tragic. As someone who lives a few minutes away, this hits home.
-
i heard a story of a woman who is always on the Newark-Buffalo flight at about that time every thursday, but there was a hold up with her luggage and she missed 3407.
bizarre how some minor events can turn to life-changing ones.
There was another story of a woman who was held up leaving Newark for Buffalo earlier because the flight was canceled due to weather. When she asked the gate agent to put her on standby of the the later flight that turned out to be the accident flight, the gate agent told her to make that request with the customer service desk. The woman took a look at the long line nearby and said, "forget it, I am not standing in that line," so she was not placed on the flight.
-
First of all, I'd like to offer my condolences to the passengers and crew of the flight as well as the first responders and others involved in the accident. I've been to Clarence before and it's a great little town. I've downloaded all the clips to go through and I have my initial guess as to the cause (Icing!) but now that the FAA
has the CVR and the FDR, I'm very curious as to what they find on the CVR.
ChristopherT
-
It's always tough hearing about a crash. If you have a second please pray for the Crew and passengers of the flight.
-
... 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
I thought 2000 ft/s is the maximum standard descent rate. Any opinions out there that count (not mine)?
-
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.
-
Note the leading adges are all 100% booted.
-
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.
-
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?
-
According to the ATC audio, I'd say Fox is closer to right than CNN.
-
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
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/29186499#29186499)
-
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?
-
The NTSB rep specifically said that anti-ice was on _prior_ to the crew conversation about ice.
-
The NTSB rep specifically said that anti-ice was on _prior_ to the crew conversation about ice.
I heard that as well. Whether it was working or not is another matter.
###
Bloomberg News credits liveatc.net for atc communications recording.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aZz1THkGNt0U&refer=home (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aZz1THkGNt0U&refer=home)
-
All of the discussion on tailplane stall in icing conditions made me think of this NASA research presentation: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2238323060735779946
Definitely worth watching.
My sincerest condolences go out to the family and friends of the victims involved in this tragic accident.
Best,
Jason
-
"Series of severe pitch and roll 'excursions' occurred within seconds of flaps being extended"
Having no experience is icing conditions like this, only having read about it, could this be the airflow/aerodynamic change being that off when the flaps 15 is engaged? Like an "uncommanded pitch down of the nose or other severe control problems during flaps extension."
WOW THAT VIDEO ABOVE MIGHT BE SPOT ON!
Recovery from tail stall:
1. Immediate stick full back
2. immediate retract flaps
3. retard power
Lost 300 feet of altitude in 2/10 of a second... No wonder why this is so dangerous. Scary stuff.
Also, sure sounds a lot like the de-ice system was inop?
-
"Series of severe pitch and roll 'excursions' occurred within seconds of flaps being extended"
Having no experience is icing conditions like this, only having read about it, could this be the airflow/aerodynamic change being that off when the flaps 15 is engaged? Like an "uncommanded pitch down of the nose or other severe control problems during flaps extension."
WOW THAT VIDEO ABOVE MIGHT BE SPOT ON!
Also, sure sounds a lot like the de-ice system was inop?
The test flight data recorded and presented in the video above certainly points to many of the symptoms that have been speculated by industry experts and the facts released by the NTSB involving this case.
-
It sure does Jason. Thank you so much for posting.
Also, that recovery sure is different than the wing stall. If you are thinking about it you are in the ground already. Scary. And, those force pressures could be too much for the crew.
-
Sorry one more folks:
That warning at 21:40 of the video is just about as eerie as it gets!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That could be this accident for sure.
-
I'm watching the video as well. Obviously until the NTSB releases their report we won't know, but it sure sounds like NASA was talking about 3407 in that video.
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29173163/
haha. This map is completely wrong: It shows the plane crashing in Lancaster, NY which is about 5 miles south of Clarence Center. They used Flight Tracker's path and assumed the last data point for 3407 is where it crashed. In fact, 3407 continued North then turned left to become established on the localizer for 23. THEN, the plane crashed. The media is aggravating me way too much today.
-
..., but it sure sounds like NASA was talking about 3407 in that video.
Well I'm not convinced. Rime ice problem, probably, but specifically tailplane icing stall?
I see the severe pitch but what accounts for the severe rolling?
Having said that, the discussion on
http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/regional/36891-colgan-q400-crash-outside-buf-22.html (http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/regional/36891-colgan-q400-crash-outside-buf-22.html)
is interesting, to say the least.
>>>
Quote:
Originally Posted by undflyboy06
Slow speed, configured, inclement weather......does anyone think that it might be a tail stall? I know that I shouldn't guess, but for some reason my gut is telling me of a possible tail stall scenario.
Thinking the same. A tail stall is almost unrecoverable, especially at such low altitudes. Plus, we don't train well how to recover from such. Completely opposite to a wing stall.<<<<
>>>
I would like to add my experience flying the 400 in ice. I have experienced MANY different icing conditions in this type of A/C including "roll upset" due SEVERE icing while in a climb to altitude. I do not believe that the icing reported in the pireps would have caused this aircraft to come down on approach. Moderate clear ice in freezing rain on approach and amazingly this airplane still handles normally (aside from the shotgun blast noise of ice coming off the props.) I will add though, that it was VERY VERY VERY (can i make it any clearer) EXTREMELY common to have deicing malfunctions on this a/c. I am talking about two to three write up's a trip in the winter. If you heard DING on desent 98% of the time it was a DEICE PRESSUE caution.<<<<
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29173163/
This map is completely wrong:
Don't sweat the small stuff.
The map is probably one of 200 tasks that artist had to do to get paid for his/her 8 hours of hard labor today.
plus MSNBC, from my experience, is very adept at holding your attention by YELLING with very little solid information behind it.
That is their mode of operating.
-
tutorial on aviation icing
http://virtualskies.arc.nasa.gov/weather/tutorial/tutorial4.html
-
UGH
im so sick of the news. Watching this just proves how bad they are at delivering the news.
half of the transcripts of the ATC communications were wrong...sometimes WAY off.
maybe im just used to hearing the radio's and understanding, but holy CNN, get your stuff right before you broadcast
godspeed to all souls lost
-
I'm watching the video as well. Obviously until the NTSB releases their report we won't know, but it sure sounds like NASA was talking about 3407 in that video.
This is really interesting stuff. Sure does sound like the incident at BUF
My prayers to the souls lost on 3407
-
Sad day
Dash 8 Q400 has hydraulic powered elevators plus redundant backup. De-ice boots on wing, V-stab & H-stab.
Lets just wait and see what the Black box(Orange) has to say. a/c 4200 was equipped with an 88 parameter " FDAU" all pilot input and corresponding control surface movement and forces will have been recorded for scrutiny. I find the Co-pilots last transmission Chilling compared to the previous one where she sounds like the A/C is being buffeted.
Scary stuff :x
Napper505
Were can i find the the warning tape for the second 400 on approach to Buffalo
-
The more I read on other forums and the more I think about this, it really has to be a tailplane icing situation that simply was not recovered from in enough time.
The link to http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/regional is insightful and another poster there is really thinking the same thing. I think Jason here is really onto something with this folks.
I am just really shaking my head thinking how this happened. So scary, so possible!
-
As a long-time member of the media...and one who has been saddened for years by the dumbing-down of our business, especially in the news end, I wanted to thank the folks on this forum for their insights, links and information on this issue.
It's sad to say that I have learned far more from following the conversations and related materials here than listening to CNN and Fox News put together, which is a very sad commentary on the state of the news business in the U.S. A post over on CNN's iReport from a 19-year old teen describes what were likely a couple of reporters from the Buffalo ABC affiliate last night talking a kid into taking his home video camera into the crash scene at close range as their primary interest, which ended up getting him arrested and directly exposed to that toxic inferno. Getting an "exclusive" is what matters, rather than getting it right, and CNN in particular this morning was just horrible in the accuracy and detail of their reporting and entire approach, down to being concerned with getting a "tease" in for what they were about to report...as if the tease was either needed, or important.
I want to thank the folks here for their many insights and information...I'm not a pilot but learned about ATC over the years due to being involved in tower construction proposals, and had the opportunity to work with a very fine FAA consultant and former controller who could answer nearly any question immediately and with depth. When I fly United, etc., I listen to the ATC channel when available the entire flight.
I heard a lawyer many years ago, who had had his own media problems, say "You can believe everything you read in the newspaper (or hear on TV) expect those stories of which you have first-hand knowledge."
I have taken that credo to heart as a challenge ever since in my own work...I only wish there was some tiny semblance of same left in our business as a whole. The Cronkites, Huntleys, Murrows, McNeills, Jennings and Rathers of the world are ashamed at what passes for credible reporting in the present day, where TV should be at its very best.
Keep up the good work here...in times like these, forums like this take on ever greater importance.
-
Look at the weather history for KBUF. Check out the winds aloft, temps and rainfall rates. Look a the WX radar history. Look at the coldfront passing over KBUF. Once you look at the weather and the windshear and icing you realize that this airport should have been closed until the front had passed. Conditions at the airport even if acceptable are deceptive since you must fly through the ice and wind shears to get there. Every plane that went though this was also taking on unacceptable risk. Another case of get-there-itis.
-
Once you look at the weather and the windshear and icing you realize that this airport should have been closed until the front had passed. Conditions at the airport even if acceptable are deceptive since you must fly through the ice and wind shears to get there. Every plane that went though this was also taking on unacceptable risk. Another case of get-there-itis.
Huh? From those comments I'll take it you are neither an experienced nor a professional pilot and have no idea of the weather these aircraft fly through on a daily basis here in the Northeast US throughout the six months that make up icing season. Intelligence and logic suggest waiting until the final NTSB conclusion comes out before passing critical judgment publicly rather than standing on one's soapbox spewing ignorance as the wreckage still smolders.
Do you know what asymmetrical flaps deployment is? Could you personally vouch for the operating health of the anti-ice/deice system of that aircraft? Do you know for certain that crew responded in a timely and appropriate manner to the threat of the building ice well before it became critical? I am betting a paycheck that you could not answer in the affirmative to at least two of those three questions so I perceive your comments here as nothing more than an emotional, knee jerk response so typical of the ill-informed.
-
All of the discussion on tailplane stall in icing conditions made me think of this NASA research presentation: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2238323060735779946
Definitely worth watching.
My sincerest condolences go out to the family and friends of the victims involved in this tragic accident.
Best,
Jason
I haven't posted anything on this yet, so 1st I would like to express my condolences for every single soul on board Flight 3407 and their families. It's always very disturbing and saddening when fellow "brothers and sisters in arms" have had their last flight. It's almost like losing a friend. After listening to the audio, I just had to sit quietly and think for a while.
That NASA video does seem to hit this possible cause right on. I can honestly say that not once in all of my training was this particular icing condition even off-handedly mentioned. That is not good. I want to try to learn all I can about this. Thanks for the link.
-
My Gut feeling keeps me thinking it very well could have been a Tail stall, At the low Altitude, Possibly Icing enhanced this problem (Who's to say the De-Ice / Boots were or were not operational). And please correct me if I'm wrong but at that approximate 5mile marker would they not have been starting to get into there landing configuration? As Stated above, Possibly asymmetrical flaps... I really think all of the above played a roll in this accident.
-added: Just watched that NASA Video myself, Scary how it does seem to hit this one on the nose as a possible explanation.
-
Look at the weather history for KBUF. Check out the winds aloft, temps and rainfall rates. Look a the WX radar history. Look at the coldfront passing over KBUF. Once you look at the weather and the windshear and icing you realize that this airport should have been closed until the front had passed. Conditions at the airport even if acceptable are deceptive since you must fly through the ice and wind shears to get there. Every plane that went though this was also taking on unacceptable risk. Another case of get-there-itis.
Is that supposed to be a joke? Airports don't close for weather. Occasionally an airport will close after a large snowstorm so trucks may clear the runways without interruption. Or a hurricane may force the evacuation of all facilities.
What are your credentials to say that "Every plane that went though this was also taking on unacceptable risk"? It is the crew's discretion as to what weather they may fly in to. Part 121 aircraft are certified into known icing. My aircraft has excellent ice shedding capibilities. We wouldn't even think twice before flying into this weather. Who are you to say that EVERY aircraft of all types should have crashed after flying here? It has been shown that deice boots are not as effective as bleed air fed hot wings.
I'd like to think that all of the training that I have gone through, from my first private pilot flight, all the way up to my recurrent sims that I have to go through every year, have prepared me for what is out there. And it is my choice as to whether I deem it safe to fly through. Just because there is windshear reported (which I don't believe there was in this case) doesn't mean an aircraft shouldn't fly through it. We take appropriate steps to protect ourselves from it, whether it be to carry 10 extra knots, or to put the ignition on in the engines.
These guys were professional pilots flying a new, very advanced aircraft. Lets not jump to any conclusions as to what happened, from pilot error, to aircraft system failure, to abnormally high ice rates. Let the NTSB do their job, and please don't help.
-
I refuse to believe that this crew did not have the boots turned on at this time.
Let's take in the facts:
The Q400 is a new aircraft with vairous protection systems. It is not some 1970s diesel burning puddle jumper. That being the case, there are many levels of protection in anti-ice systems. While I am not familiar with this specific model, I do fly aircraft from this manufacturer, and therefore some basic systems will be similiar.
To prevent any speculation at all, let me use my aircraft as an example (which is of the same age and manufacturer as the Q400). Anytime the engines are running and everything is set for flight, if I were to turn the left cowl anti-ce on (heats the leading edge of the engine cowl to prevent ice from forming and breaking off into the fan blades, we'll just call it cowl), I get a green advisory message that says "L COWL ANTIICE ON." If I were to then turn on the other engine's cowl, the system recognizes that fact and the previous message changes to "COWL ANTIICE ON". If I were to then turn the wing anti ice on (heats the leading edge of the wing, we'll just call it wing), the previous message would then be replaced with "WING/COWL ANTIICE ON". These are all green messages, green meaning good. If, with all of this icing equipment on, we were to fly into icing conditions, and the ice detectors on the sides of the aircraft detect an ice buildup, another geen advisory message pops up: "ICE". That is all that happens.
Now let's take an example of what happens if we don't have everything on. If, for example, we have the cowls on but not the wings (as would be the case when flying into an expected icing area), and the ice detectors find ice, the following things happen:
1) We get an aural "ding" in our headsets and over the speakers
2) The master caution lights start flashing brightly in our face
3) A yellow caution message appears on the EICAS that says "ICE"
4) A yellow light appears on the overhead panel next to the antiice switches.
Pretty hard to ignore, right? If we were to then turn on all of the anti ice (wings and cowls), all of the yellow lights go out, the caution message goes away, and the green "ICE" advisory message comes on.
Sounds simple? Not really. Let's briefly examine everything that just happened. This is to prevent any speculation that there was a system failure that the crew wouldn't know about.
Here is a partial list of all systems/parts that just came into play:
Ice detectors
PRSOVs (modulate bleed air from the engines)
Left and Right cowl anti ice valves
Left and Right wing anti ice valves
Wing overheat detection
Cowl overheat detection
Wing low pressure detection
Cowl low pressure detection
Bleed air duct leak detection
Wing duct leak detection
Have I made my point yet? No, that's not all of the systems/peice that just came into play. There's a lot more that just happened, al behind the scenes. The point I'm tyring to get acrossed is if just one of any of these systems and valves and sensors, etc, were to fail, the crew would know about it. I'd get a "ding" or a "ding ding ding, ANTI ICE DUCT" or "ding ding ding, BLEED AIR DUCT" aural warning plus the EICAS would show exactly what was broke. Then I'd run the QRH procedure fixing the problem, or finding out how we were then limited.
Sorry for rambling. Let's not speculate as to what happened. These pilots were professionals. They weren't just out flying around in ice willy-nilly without a care in the world not knowing what they were doing.
-
Cessna, thanks for the explanation. Strictly for discussion purposes, one question I have about the cockpit voice recording bullet point relating to the crew's discussion of the ice buildup is this:
From the media reports of the NTSB CVR findings there was mention by the crew of ice buildup on the windshield (and airframe) of the aircraft. I would assume that this aircraft had heated windshields as its defense against ice build-up. Thus, would there still be a noticeable build-up of ice somewhere on the windshield with the heated anti-ice system on?
-
Excellent question. Thats something that I asked when I learned to fly the jet. "How do we know how much icing we're getting if we never let any build up".
Our windshields and side windows 3 panes of glass and are heated by an internal/invisible element. The windows actually get quite warm to the touch in flight. But just ahead of the windows are the windshield wipers. When they are parked in their normal position, the are on the center post between the windshields, vertical and parallel to the airflow. Ice usually builds up on these pretty fast. That is our primary means of telling how much ice there is. Another way is to look at the leading edge of the winglets(that is only possible on the 100/200 and 700 series, the -900 is too long to really see the wings at all). Only once did I see ice actually form on the heated windshield. When that happens, we turn the windshields to their high setting (usually they're kept on low). When ice builds up on the windshields, that is usually a moderate or greater icing encounter. It is not necessarily dangerous, but it does indicate a very heavy icing potential.
-
One more comment. This is an email I just rec'd from a retired engineering test pilot:
...
That was a tragic aircraft accident last night in Buffalo.
Icing,I am sure was the major cause factor especially the freezing rain element.
I suspect that as they were approaching the outer marker beacon they were slowing down and configuring the aircraft for landing by lowering the landing gear and extending the flaps.
I suspect that not only were they getting too slow while they were exercising the inflatable wing leading-edge de-ice boots,the horizontal tail stalled as the flaps were going down resulting in a rapid nose down pitching moment.
Normal icing they could have handled with the de-ice system,however,when one has runback ice forming behind the de-ice boots from the freezing rain that is a more serious situation.
As the flaps extend the airflow aft of the wings creates a greater downwash(angle of attack) on the horizontal tail that may stall if the tail surface is contaminated with ice.
That type high wing aircraft with the high T-tail is similar to the smaller Canadian Twin Otter aircraft that was prone to pitch down rapidly in icing when the flaps were lowered and many accidents occurred. Otter pilots was later instructed to only use partial flaps while in icing conditions and to use faster airspeeds for approaches. Much training was done using the Otter experience for pilots expected to operate in adverse wx parts of the country. Also pilots were taught to rapidly undo any configuration changes that gave unexpected results.
The NTSB will come out with more findings as the tapes are reviewed further. My initial conclusion is "Tail stall"
Take care.
...
-
As the flaps extend the airflow aft of the wings creates a greater downwash(angle of attack) on the horizontal tail that may stall if the tail surface is contaminated with ice.
I have a hard time envisioning how the disturbed air from lowered flaps would affect the horizontal stab of this particular aircraft, given how much higher the horizontal stab is above the main wings. I am not an engineer so clearly I must be missing something but it seems to me that the horizontal stab is well above the downwash of the main wings, flaps or no flaps. Explanations welcome.
-
As the flaps extend the airflow aft of the wings creates a greater downwash(angle of attack) on the horizontal tail that may stall if the tail surface is contaminated with ice.
I have a hard time envisioning how the disturbed air from lowered flaps would affect the horizontal stab of this particular aircraft, given how much higher the horizontal stab is above the main wings. I am not an engineer so clearly I must be missing something but it seems to me that the horizontal stab is well above the downwash of the main wings, flaps or no flaps. Explanations welcome.
I wouldn't think it would be downwash, but extending flaps would change the pitch of the plane, and thus the angle of attack for the horizontal stabilizer. Deformed with ice, it might be barely creating lift in a clean configuration, and then lose all its lift in the dirty configuration.
-
As the flaps extend the airflow aft of the wings creates a greater downwash(angle of attack) on the horizontal tail that may stall if the tail surface is contaminated with ice.
I have a hard time envisioning how the disturbed air from lowered flaps would affect the horizontal stab of this particular aircraft, given how much higher the horizontal stab is above the main wings. I am not an engineer so clearly I must be missing something but it seems to me that the horizontal stab is well above the downwash of the main wings, flaps or no flaps. Explanations welcome.
in any effect, it would at the very least increase the Angle of attack on the tail. If there is already Icing, this could increase the chance of a Tail Stall.
-
http://www.airdisaster.info/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2054&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=25#p26656
According to the NTSB briefing, shortly after flap movement, the plane experienced large and rapid pitch excursions.....onset of pitch instabilty in conjunction with flap movement is a classic tail stall symptom.
-
I wouldn't think it would be downwash, but extending flaps would change the pitch of the plane, and thus the angle of attack for the horizontal stabilizer. Deformed with ice, it might be barely creating lift in a clean configuration, and then lose all its lift in the dirty configuration.
Ah, makes sense now.
-
(http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/2/9/2/1128292.jpg)
q400 anti ice panel
http://www.airliners.net/photo/QantasLink/De-Havilland-Canada/1128292/L/
-
Hello everyone. I am an aircraft mx. Turbo-props are more suseptable to icing, as they only use pneumatic boots insted of heated bleed air. The engine inlets are very prone to ice as they are much smaller then a jet engine intake. It is a sad situation. I wonder if the crew knew about the ice, and if there anti-ice system was activated. Other airplanes made the airport, why not Colgan? Mt guess is a combo of Icing and Crew Error. Ice on the wings will make an airplane, particularly a high wing like the dash 8, or ATR 42 or 72, or a Fokker series, rapidly become uncontrolable. Ive listened to the audio several times and no indication of mechanical issue is evident. What ever it was happened fast, there was no stress in the co-pilots voice as she worked the radio.
-
a prior poster alluded to carb icing. please enlighten me. what kind of carburators are used on a jet engine ? HUH?
-
Its not "Carb Ice" in a turbo prop. You get carb ice in a light single or light twin. Its similar. Ice or water vapor gets inside the powerplant and shuts the engine down, basically puts out the fire. Aircraft are equipped with two ignition systems. ground ignition, witch is used for starting, and flight ignition, witch is used in flight in rain, snow, sleet, or any "wet air" condition. After starting, the ignition system is usually in the "OFF" position. The flight ignition system acts like a sparkplug in your car and keeps re-lighting the fire. If the air is dry, the engine will continue to burn without additional spark. If you listen to any jet fuel powered aircraft star you will hear the compressor spin up and once the fuel valve opens you will hear a seried of "clicks". Thats the ignition system firing. Once the fuel lights, you will hear a "wosh" sound as the engine spools up. When the flight ignition system is activated, the "clicking" will continue until the system is turned off. The flight ignition system will also attempt to re-start the engine if a flame-out occurs. I hope that answers your question.
-
Turbo prop or jet engines dont have a "carb" per say. mostly its your lighter airplanes. Cessna 180s', Pipers, Mooneys, and light twins, such as a Baron, or a Navajo have a carb very similar to one on you typical classic car.
-
Just listening to the NTSB briefing. A couple of interesting things that may throw a little doubt into the tailstall theory (apologies for speculation but it seems we're all doing it to some extent).
1) Appears as though the de-ice [boot-system inlcuding tail] was on auto and properly working--no indication though as to when it was turned on.
2) The orientation of the A/C revealed a couple of intereting things a) pointing AWAY from runway B) reasonably flat [i.e. not nose first].
3) Flaps did not make it down to 15, made it as far as 10. <--this actually may support tailstall though since any change of aa can amplfy tail iciing.
Maybe some of us where too quick (myself included to jump on the tailstall being the only culprit).
Looks like we'll find out more as the analysis continues.
Thanks for all the good comments and learned responses. My heart goes out to the crew and passengers.
-
What an awful tragedy. It almost seems disrespectful discussing the causes of this crash while families are grieving. If any of you are reading this, my condolences.
The reason we do discuss the causes of any crash so dispassionately is to prevent the same thing from happening again. These same planes are flying through these same conditions every day.
What I haven't seen mentioned as a contributing factore is the location of the CG. While having a CG too far rearward is a known cause of accidents, if the tail loses effectiveness, having the CG too far forward could make the difference between recovery and disaster. Remember that the tail pushes down and keeps the nose from flipping forward.
What is very important to find out is what the current safety margin is in aircraft flying through ice. Are airplanes flying right on the verge of crashing, or are they well within the margin of safety for the conditions they are in?
If an airplane is lightly loaded and collecting ice, should the crew move the passengers rearward? I think that CG location will be found to play a part in such crashes.
Scott
-
2) The orientation of the A/C revealed a couple of intereting things a) pointing AWAY from runway B) reasonably flat [i.e. not nose first].
I attributed this to a stall and partial recovery. If indeed the eyewitness reports are true (and we all know how inaccurate they tend to be), then most likely an aircraft that rolled, lost a thousand feet, and partially recovered could very easily be on another, even opposite heading.
-
Hey
I looked at the video and then at google earth. A/C 4200 (3407)appeared to come down facing perpindicular to the runway that it was approaching.
It came down with flight controls intact. In the videos/images I can see the Inboard flaps. Outboard flaps are visible on the ground beside the burned our hull. MLG, tires intact are prominent in one image.
Initial vertical fire was in fact port side wing burning raised in the air.
you can see the orientation by looking at this video
http://watch.ctv.ca/news/latest/chopper-footage/#clip139735
Compare this to the original video and notice the elevators in the climb position. As Hydraulic fluid is lost the Elevators have gone to neutral. in previous vid.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/14/plane.crash.newyork/index.html#cnnSTCVideo
Is that ice I see on the boot? No it is damage . The bullet fairing where H-stab and v-stab meet is damaged as well.
Looks like she rolled pitched, applied power and didn't make it.. (controller left her too long at 4000 ft asl)
It is a very powerful A/C hard to believe. 4500 Hp. per engine.
Napper505
-
(controller left her too long at 4000 ft asl)
huh? ultimately the PIC determines course / altitude if in a dangerours situation. not the controller.
-
NTSB says that all "4 corners" of the plane were found in a matter indicating that the plane impacted the ground flat. not a nose dive.
-
Here is the full story from my service provider. The most isteresting part to me is in the first line. The airplane was pointed away from the airport.
CLARENCE, N.Y. — A commuter plane that smashed into a house was pointed away from the airport it was trying to reach, investigators said Saturday, noting that it apparently fell flat.
Flight data showed the plane's safety systems warned the pilot that the aircraft was perilously close to losing lift and plummeting from the sky. The ensuing crash killed 49 people on the plane and one in the house.
Continental Connection Flight 3407 didn't nose-dive into the house, as initially reported by some witnesses, said Steve Chealander, a National Transportation Safety Board member.
The Newark, N.J.,-to-Buffalo flight was cleared to land on a runway pointing to the southwest, but it crashed with its nose pointed northeast, Chealander said. It will take as many as four days to remove human remains from the site, which he called an "excavation."
"Keep in mind, there's an airplane that fell on top of a house, and they're now intermingled," he said.
The plane — on its descent to Buffalo Niagara International Airport in a light snow and mist — plunged suddenly about six miles shy of the runway and exploded.
A "stick shaker" and "stick pusher" mechanism had activated to warn Capt. Marvin Renslow that the plane was about to lose aerodynamic lift, a condition called a stall that means there's not enough air under the wings to keep the plane elevated.
When the "stick pusher" engaged, it would have pointed the nose of the plane toward the ground to try to keep air under the wings, the last moments before it stalled and plunged to the ground.
Crash investigators picked through incinerated wreckage Saturday, gathering evidence to determine what brought down the plane. Icing on the aircraft is suspected to have played a role, but officials have stopped short of calling that the cause.
Experts were analyzing data from the black boxes, including statements by crew members about a buildup of ice on the wings and windshield of the plane, Chealander said.
Other aircraft in the area Thursday night told air traffic controllers they also experienced icing around the time that the plane went down.
Icing is one of several elements being examined by investigators, Chealander said, adding that a full report will probably take a year.
DNA and dental records will be used to identify the bodies, he said.
One aspect of the investigation will focus on the crew, how they were trained and whether they had enough time to rest between flights. Other investigators focused on the weather, the mechanics of the plane and whether the engine, wings and various mechanics of the plane operated as they were designed to.
Initial visual inspection of the engines indicates they were working properly, Chealander said.
-
Hey..
3407 X'd out and then and only then did the controller ask about icing.
wouldn't it be prudent to to declare "icing conditions" on any approach or any Departure.
Not blaming the Controller!!.. Not 1 a/c even mentioned it to the controller until after the incident.
between Altitude 500 and say 230 asl. I am pretty sure most modern A/C have weather radar.
So Whats the problem if your flying on Auto.. Was there someone in the jump seat distracting them?
Napper505
-
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.
Never in turbo-props more than 1500-2000ft unless necessary..4000fpm is not safe or necessary. Norm in Dash8 pax service would be +/- 1000 to 1500 for enroute descents
-
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.
There are Elevator Boots, flaps usually go to first setting while on LoC, below GS. Gear and ldg flaps are extended when GS indicator is 1 dot above, so when the autopilot or pilot flying begins flying the GS in the descent...the airplane is configured for smooth appch. Every company can set thier own SOP's,
but all would be similar. I in my experience...with all de-ice equipment on/or off...have never encountered a tail stall. The icing reported is really no cause for concern, but it all depends on how a crew decides to handle it or how well the equipment is working. As always, there is no such thing as a little iCE!
-
Never in turbo-props more than 1500-2000ft unless necessary..4000fpm is not safe or necessary. Norm in Dash8 pax service would be +/- 1000 to 1500 for enroute descents
I was considering jet transport aircraft in that as well. In NY airspace I overheard ATC ask a pilot of a regional jet what rate at which he was descending, and after replying the pilot offered up 3,500 fpm to expedite the descent.
-
I was considering jet transport aircraft in that as well. In NY airspace I overheard ATC ask a pilot of a regional jet what rate at which he was descending, and after replying the pilot offered up 3,500 fpm to expedite the descent.
If we're light (and don't have pax), we can do as great as 6,000 fpm on a cold day in the CJ3. On live legs, any more than 3,000 or 3,500 fpm is uncomfortable for most pax in the back.
-
On live legs, any more than 3,000 or 3,500 fpm is uncomfortable for most pax in the back.
In what way, Jason? I thought the pressurized cabin neutralized the pressure differences caused by dropping that fast?
-
In the -700s I flew, idle descent with the brakes out would usually give a descent rate between 3500-4500 fpm above 10000, and about 2000-2500 below 10000. The -900 would usually be a little less since it is much heavier and sleaner aircraft (very hard to slow down). It's not very fun for the passengers though, as the pitch angle is so low (sometimes would be almost 15 degrees nose down). Remember, don't spill the folks' drinks!
-
In what way, Jason? I thought the pressurized cabin neutralized the pressure differences caused by dropping that fast?
That high a rate of climb or descent is uncomfortable in the sense that the pitch angle is rather pronounced, not necessarily having to do with the pressurization system.
-
>Latest on the Colgan crash is that they were on autopilot when control was lost.<
* * * * * * * * * * *
OK, so we may have more to think about than just a tail stall. This was posted on another forum by a very experienced airline pilot that I know:
They also have said the stall warning/stick shaker sounded. This should have kicked the A/P off. Some inconsistencies here I think. I think that it is sounding more and more like less of a weather event and more of a pilot issue. I bet they leveled off and never added power, and stalled, and that the very inexperienced FO was flying, and the Capt. was dealing with other issues, and lost track of what was happening until it was too late. That’s my speculation as of right now, as I have seen this happen many times to much less of a catastrophic end. Sad.
-
>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
-
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.
-
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 :-)
-
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
-
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 (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 (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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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'.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
"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.
-
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
-
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.
-
you sir are the most uninformed aviation ignorant person ive ever had the displeaser of reading about, dont go away mad just go away
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
you sir...are a waste of space.
-
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
1) To put it incredibly simply, imagine a straightline narrow radio beam that points down the centerline of the runway. The radio in the airplane can tell which side of this beam it is on, and tells the pilot how far left and right he is.
2) The altimeter in the airplane measures the outside air pressure. The higher you go, the less air pressure there is, lower you go, greater air pressure. This wold be very simple, except mother nature changes the baseline outside air pressure with weather (high pressure systems and low pressure systems). The altimeter setting that ATC and ATIS and ASOS gives is what the outside baseline air pressure is. In North America we use a unit of an inch of mercury in a barometer. Standard is 29.92 inches of mercury. The average high pressure system would raise that to around 30.30" and the average low would bring it down to around 29.60", but it goes higher and lower. The pilot just dials in what the controller tells him the air pressure is, and the instrument reads correctly.
-
This is a respectful and knowledgeable community, please don't ruin it for those that wish to positively contribute, as many have in just this thread.
Personal attacks and trolling is not allowed and will not be tolerated. Any further behavior in this manner in other threads will result in the suspension or ban of your forum account.
Jason