LiveATC Discussion Forums
Air Traffic Monitoring => Listener Forum => Topic started by: smoak on February 16, 2009, 09:17:50 PM
-
Can those members that wish to contribute their thoughts and ideas as more information becomes available please post here or in a new thread. I have been checking in and out of here every couple of hours and have found the information here (until a recent poster took this into tin foil hat land).
Please keep the info coming. This has been one of the most informative site I have seen on this and the US Air water landing.
-
Does anyone know why the Colgan Crash Thread was locked??? I too was reading it multiple times a day and even asked a question and had it answered quickly and very well written!
This site is the best... please don't lock threads on major news stories like this!
Explanation? Could you unlock it?
Thanks
-
Does anyone know why the Colgan Crash Thread was locked??? I too was reading it multiple times a day and even asked a question and had it answered quickly and very well written!
This site is the best... please don't lock threads on major news stories like this!
Explanation? Could you unlock it?
Thanks
Please read the last post. The last few pages also sum up why we locked it. This by no means restricts anyone from starting a new thread, like this one.
Jason
-
Does anyone know why the Colgan Crash Thread was locked???
moderator power trip?
i'm sure they have the ability to remove the offending posts in a thread, rather than locking it.
-
The only reason it was locked: certain posters were getting quite surly and rude. That is not the kind of environment I like to maintain - and other forum members like to frequent. Other aviation forums allow it - I have been very clear about not allowing it. There is a sticky posting on the Listener Forum about it, so this is not new.
I could ban certain members, but I am not sure that is always the right approach. Either way, none of this would be an issue if people would learn to be civil to each other, regardless of someone's lack of knowledge or apparent ignorance.
It's much easier to flame people than to be civil. Try to be civil to each other - life is too short to not be.
Dave
-
Just a thought that this thread should probably be moved to the "Listener Forum" board. For those who don't know, the ATC/Aviation Audio Clips board should be reserved for subjects with clips attached.
-
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=790_1234823658&p=1 (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=790_1234823658&p=1)
"Using the date from the black box, federal authorities released this animation of Continental airline's flight pattern 10 seconds before the crash in Buffalo,NY."
Source LiveLeak
(no responsibility is taken for the correctness - just found it at LL and thought i should share)
-
federal authorities released this animation
really? already?
i think it is a 3rd party animation based on information released.
-
Sorry, i just quoted their headline.
-
federal authorities released this animation
really? already?
i think it is a 3rd party animation based on information released.
LOL... the non-English language video narration might be the first tip-off. :)
-
yeah because stations in latin america or spain will transmit everything in english, rather than dubbing it into their own language :roll: :roll:
-
yeah because stations in latin america or spain will transmit everything in english, rather than dubbing it into their own language :roll: :roll:
Your sarcasm aside, my point was this: As this appears to be the first time this particular animation of a US-based accident has appeared, the fact that it has a non-English narration indicates pretty hilariously and obviously that this is not an OFFICIAL NTSB animation.
-
I have two thoughts on what may have happened.
First: Say the aircraft is laden with ice from the approach. Control extension (flaps) caused a section of ice to come off, upsetting the balance, sending the plane into a spin. On high-wing airplanes, ice will still build up behind the boots. The ATR was famous for it. Remember the Eagle ATR that crashed in Roselawn IN while on approach to ORD? Same style of airplane. And, oddly, the tail section was the only section left intact in that one as well. Eerily similar.
Second: The NTSB released a statment that they were "looking into the possibility of structural failure." Say the main wing spar failed, but the wing did not depart the aircraft. that would send it into a spin as well.
Lets keep in mind the airplane was facing away from the airport. I find thawt to be strangest of all. That tells me the airplane went into a spin and fell straight down onto her belly.
-
I am very new to this sight and find the information and topics to be very interesting. I don't understand why the Buffalo thread was locked. I work midnights and have been checking in regularly since the evening of the 3407 crash. Alot of the stuff is very technical, but I find myself drawn to the sight anyway. As far as posters being nasty or condescending, they should remember that most people are not experts on this subject and may make comments or ask questions that seem silly but the will never learn if they don't ask. I will make a donation at weeks end to help defray costs. Thanks for all the effort on the site.
-
Could it have been as simple as an incorrect reaction to a stall warning?
Remember, a stall warning warns of an imminent stall such that you should have time to take action to prevent it from happening.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123492905826906821.html?mod=djemalertNEWS
Pilot Action May Have Led to Crash
Investigators examining last week's Continental Connection plane crash have gathered evidence that pilot commands -- not a buildup of ice on the wings and tail -- likely initiated the fatal dive of the twin-engine Bombardier Q400 into a neighborhood six miles short of the Buffalo, N.Y., airport, according to people familiar with the situation.
The commuter plane slowed to an unsafe speed as it approached the airport, causing an automatic stall warning, these people said. The pilot pulled back sharply on the plane's controls and added power instead of following the proper procedure of pushing forward to lower the plane's nose to regain speed, they said. He held the controls there, locking the airplane into a deadly stall, they added.
........
According to people familiar with the investigation, Capt. Marvin Renslow, 47 years old, who lived outside Tampa, Fla., was at the controls of Flight 3407. The safety board said Mr. Renslow was relatively new to the Q400, which he began flying only in December, when he upgraded from another type of airplane. First Officer Rebecca Lynne Shaw, 24, of Seattle, had accumulated 774 hours in the 74-seat aircraft.
The recovered flight data described in detail how the crew of Continental Flight 3407 handled the emergency, the people said.
During the flight from Newark, Mr. Renslow and Ms. Shaw noticed ice building up on the windshield and wings of the airplane after they had already activated the craft's de-icing system, which inflates a series of rubber bladders on the leading edge of the wings and tail surfaces to break up accumulated ice.
According to the plane's flight recorders, Flight 3407's descent into Buffalo was routine until roughly a minute before impact, when the crew lowered the landing gear, followed by the command to extend the wing flaps, which enable the plane to fly at slower speeds.
Almost immediately, these people say, the plane's air speed slowed rapidly, causing a stall-warning device known as a "stick-shaker" to cause the pilots' control column to vibrate. This was followed by a "stick-pusher," which automatically forces the stick forward.
At this point, the captain appears to have pulled back with enough force to overpower the stick-pusher and shoved the throttles to full power, according to people familiar with the matter. Safety board officials said the nose pitched up to a 31-degree angle. Already at a dangerously low speed, the wings immediately stopped generating lift. The plane whipped to the left and then entered a steep right turn, losing 800 feet of altitude in less than five seconds. At one point the right wing was perpendicular to the ground, according to information taken from the flight data recorder.
The pilots continued to fight with the controls almost all the way to the ground, and in the final moments, "it appeared that they were beginning to make headway when they ran out of altitude," said one person who looked at the data.
-
Thanks for that post iflysky. very good information! Puts new light on the whole thing. Thanks agian!
-
my pleasure!
-
A lot of inbounds to KBUF reporting moderate ice this afternoon. Actually I have been hearing it most of the day.
-
A lot of inbounds to KBUF reporting moderate ice this afternoon. Actually I have been hearing it most of the day.
NOAA's icing threat (http://adds.aviationweather.noaa.gov/icing/icing_nav.php?icg_type=CIPSEVO&height=max&fcst_hr=00) is depicting a high volume of super-cooled liquid droplets present flanking Buffalo (as indicated by the red cross-hatching on this map). SLD is what makes clear ice, the nastier of the two:
(http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/8050/snag0047ka5.jpg)
Also, all those black "U" shaped icons with lines off the bottom are approximate positions of icing PIREPS as reported by many aircraft. The varying degrees of blue shading indicate trace up to moderate icing present at some altitude in those areas (I was looking at the MAX map, not a specific altitude).
-
Hey 8-)
Interesting news today regarding the pilots reaction to the stick pusher.
He was able to overpower it with the elevator.
btw. q400 has powered elevator with no trim tabs.
you can see it here last image of this vid I found
http://www.q400.com/q400/ssi/q400_video.jsp?video=q400_01&langue=en
cheers 8-)
Napper505
-
Hey 8-)
Interesting news today regarding the pilots reaction to the stick pusher.
He was able to overpower it with the elevator.
That's normal, as part of the design. It can be overpowered with enough force, as well as the autopilot. It can also be temporarily disconnected with a button that is on the yoke.
-
Hey 8-)
Here is another very informative news article with graphics
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/02/13/nyregion/Buffalo-Crash.html
p.s
At (cyyz) this evening there were several reports of light icing.. It is snowing here below the
flight approach to yyz
Cheers
napper505:)
-
Airline issued navigation alert to pilots before Buffalo crash
Southwest Airlines warned its pilots just weeks before the crash of a commuter flight in Buffalo about safety issues with so-called instrument approaches at the airport. The warning concerned runway 23, the same runway the crashed commuter plane was lined up to use.
The alert, reissued Wednesday by the airline's pilot association, warned Southwest pilots there was a "potentially significant hazard" concerning the instrument landing system's glide slope guidance signal for runway 23.
The airline advised, "Pilots who are preparing to configure and land have the potential to experience abrupt pitch up, slow airspeed, and approach to stall if conditions present themselves in a certain manner."
full article here:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/19/buffalo.crash.ils/index.html
-
That is some pretty stagering info kea001. I find that very interesting. Sounds exactly like what happened to 3407. Thanks for that post.
-
That is some pretty stagering info kea001. I find that very interesting. Sounds exactly like what happened to 3407. Thanks for that post.
Well if you read the article there seems to be a qualification, namely that the Southwest approach to that runway is usually from the north whereas the Colgan approach was from the south. Unfortunately, it fails to develop this thought.
I would think it prudent not to draw too many conclusions from any one development and remember that these accidents occur as a result of multiple factors, not just one thing.
-
Exactly right. Its still very good information. Somthing else to toss into the mix you know?
-
I can see how this would cause a stall thou. Im not familure with the -8 and its autopilot system. If the glideslope was deflected, and now the airplane thinks its "up there" and tries to go to it, and if the autothrottle (if equipped) is not engaged, the airplane pitches up, 31 deg, without power being added...stall.
But like you said, an accident is a series of smaller events. We just need to figure out what those are.
-
SInce I posted that, the following has been added to the article:
The National Transportation Safety Board told CNN the agency was "aware" of the Southwest Airlines alert, but would not comment further.
The issue is caused by a geographic feature at the airport, a valley, "something we can't do anything about," said FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown. She said the "altitude reading makes it look like you're a lot higher than you are, because there is a valley there."
The feature has been noted on FAA charts for years, she said.
"As far as we can tell, there is no way this had any role in the accident," Brown told CNN.
"It's not a navigation aid that would have applied to the approach."
The alert from Southwest Airlines advises pilots that the problem could cause the planes navigational system to interpret data "in such a way as to result in a nose-up pitch and loss of airspeed."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/19/buffalo.crash.ils/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/19/buffalo.crash.ils/index.html)
"It's not a navigation aid that would have applied to the approach."
I think what this means is the plane probably didn't even make it to the land formation (valley) where this might have been an issue.
This article explains it a bit further:
Southwest pilots union warns of Buffalo approach hazard
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/02/20/322868/southwest-pilots-union-warns-of-buffalo-approach-hazard.html
-
So they are thinking 3407 crashed outside the interfiered with are of the approach? Sound very similar to what was stated in the report.
"in such a way as to result in a nose-up pitch and loss of airspeed."
Colgan pitched to 31 deg nose up.
-
and if the autothrottle (if equipped)
It is not.
Here is a quote from a MD80 and 737 pilot;
http://www.airdisaster.info/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2054&start=150#p27072
Regarding the KBUF ILS 23 warning....this is not a new issue and has been known about. The problem comes when joining from the right (or west) side when the plane captures the G/S prior to the LOC. Colgan was joining from the left side and like many planes, the automation is such that the G/S cannot be captured prior to the LOC being captured. The 737, which SWA flies is one aircraft that I know can capture G/S prior to the LOC being captured.
While eye catching and eerily similar sounding, I think this is a red herring.
-
I didn't think the -8 had autothrottle. Most turbo prop aircraft do not. So that makes sense to me then. The airplane was on autopilot, with "approach" selected. The glideslope deviated, the airplane tried to go to it. The pilots never added power as the airplane pitched up 31 degreees and lost airspeed, and stalled the wings. Before the pilots realized what was happening, it was too late.
-
But it was the wrong side...
"The problem comes when joining from the right (or west) side when the plane captures the G/S prior to the LOC. Colgan was joining from the left side and like many planes,..."
This is bizzar. All the right symptoms, wrong side...very strange.
-
I didn't think the -8 had autothrottle. Most turbo prop aircraft do not. So that makes sense to me then. The airplane was on autopilot, with "approach" selected. The glideslope deviated, the airplane tried to go to it. The pilots never added power as the airplane pitched up 31 degreees and lost airspeed, and stalled the wings. Before the pilots realized what was happening, it was too late.
Well, you forgot this part;
Colgan was joining from the left side and like many planes, the automation is such that the G/S cannot be captured prior to the LOC being captured.
I don't think pursuing this "lead" will yield results.
It is time to wait for more facts.
-
The glideslope deviated, the airplane tried to go to it. The pilots never added power as the airplane pitched up 31 degreees and lost airspeed, and stalled the wings. Before the pilots realized what was happening, it was too late.
Only problem with this theroy is that according to the NTSB, the autopilot was off and the 31 degree up was pilot commanded. He overrode the stick pusher for some reason and pulled back when the stall warning came on. That ws before the up angle.
-
From what I understand, the captain had recently been flying Saab340's, which have the potential for tail stalls. In a tail stall, you need to pull UP (among other things).
Dash 8's are not susceptible to a tail stall, but this pilot might have been relying on his Saab 340 days. Instead, the stick shaker just indicated a run-of-the-mill wing stall, and his action of pulling up doomed the plane.
Does that seem reasonable?
-
You are correct in suspecting this is not the case. When in approach mode, the autopilot follows the glideslope as a secondary case. Pitch has greater control over the autopilot (it is more complicated than that, but let's just go with this as the baseline). If the glideslope goes full scale deflection high, the autopilot will pitch the aircraft up to correct only to a certain point. To use an extreme example: If the glideslope remains at full up, the autopilot will not perform a loop trying to get to it.
It is part of training that in an extreme ice encounter, the autopilot may hide what is truely going on with the aircraft. That is true to a certain extent. Along with a strong elevator force, there will also be a lot of trim indicated. So that will be the first hint that something is awry.
Also, another level of protection is a caution of such a condition. I'm not sure exactly what the Q400 has for an avionics/autopilot suite, but the CRJ has a Collins package. Something that we'd see on the older (let's use the phrase "well broken in" if you catch the hint) planes is, upon rotation at takeoff, the aircraft immediately wants to roll. This is considered normal (1 wing is twisted, normal wear/tear) and can be easily fixed with aileron trim. If this rolling tendency is not trimmed out (let's say the aircraft wants to roll right, so constant left input is required) and the autopilot is engaged, it will fly the aircraft just fine. But if the autopilot tries to make a left turn, it feels that it is using a larger than normal force so it will generate a Master Caution, the pilots hear "Ding", and in this case we'd get a yellow caution message that says "AP trim is LWD". This means the autopilot has sensed an out of trim position, and it is holding the left wing down.
The point I am making is in today's aircraft, there are protections to out of trim conditions by the autopilot. This is not to say that they are absolutely perfect (the CRJ autopilot likes to hold up elevator for some reason at slower airspeeds instead of trimming it out, so a technique pilots use to disengage the autopilot is not to use the disengage button, but to use the up trim button).
-
OK...I was not sure if the autopilot was engaged or not. I hadn't heard for sure...I know Colgans Company Policy is for the pilot to fly the airplane in icing conditions...that dosn't mean they always do. So it sounds more like pilot error then pretty much anything else.
-
OK...I was not sure if the autopilot was engaged or not. I hadn't heard for sure...I know Colgans Company Policy is for the pilot to fly the airplane in icing conditions...that dosn't mean they always do. So it sounds more like pilot error then pretty much anything else.
Dont confuse an autopilot in alt / hdg hold mode with an autopilot capturing and flying the G/S and loc. They very well could of had the autopilot on, holding altitude / heading.
-
[/quote]
Dont confuse an autopilot in alt / hdg hold mode with an autopilot capturing and flying the G/S and loc. They very well could of had the autopilot on, holding altitude / heading.
[/quote]
It's all technically "autopilot" if you will. HDG and ALT mode would be engaged with APPR selected. Once the airplane begins to capture the LOC and GLD the HDG and ALT holds will automatically turn off, and join the airplane on the glideslope/localizer.
But Colgan should have been all hand flying per company policy. They were in known icing conditions.
-
But Colgan should have been all hand flying per company policy. They were in known icing conditions.
Yeah yeah, and when you're driving you should never exceed the speed limit and always keep your hands at 10 and 2. :-D
-
But Colgan should have been all hand flying per company policy. They were in known icing conditions.
Do you know their policy first-hand or are you just restating what the media is reporting? Are you certain that this hand-flying policy covers all levels of icing, including light and moderate?
-
KSYR-prj: To answer your question:
Most airlines do require pilots to hand fly in icing. No I dont know their policy first hand. But i do know when i was a dispatcher with Zantop, that WAS a requirement. Hand fly the airplane in icing conditions. PERIOD. And further more, an friend of mine who is a Captain with Northwest on the A330 agrees with me. Hand flying in icing is a requirement.
-
Let me re-phrase that-It is required to hand fly the airplane on approach only in icing conditions. On climb-out, you can engage the autopilot when the aircraft is stable.
-
KSYR-prj: To answer your question:
Most airlines do require pilots to hand fly in icing. No I dont know their policy first hand. But i do know when i was a dispatcher with Zantop, that WAS a requirement. Hand fly the airplane in icing conditions. PERIOD.
Even ILS CAT III C? Hmmm.
edit: I still question this "policy" with regards to the level of icing it references. Cessna, did your company specify a level of icing where the AP must be disengaged on approach or was it any ice *period*?
-
I will have to check on the CAT III requirement. Thats a good point. :-)
Correct me if I'm wrong but I dont think KBUF has CAT III, does it? I think It's just simple ILS. 5/23 have ILS on each end, and 14/32 does not.
-
Regarding icing and autopilot;
http://www.airdisaster.info/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2054&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=50#p26750
Autopilot use in icing is not addressed for us in any of our manuals. I believe it was a recommendation that came from the Roselawn accident but was intended for smaller aicraft more susceptible to tail icing/stall. To be honest, tail stall is not even stressed on the big jets and I don't believe I've ever had any training on it. Boeing is apparently unconcerned enough about it that none of the Boeing products that you are familiar with (727/737/757/777) even have tail deicing. They are only equipped with wing anti-ice systems. My MD80 does have tail anti-ice as part of the airframe anti-ice system. I'm not sure if Airbus heats the tail or not. The only thing in our SOP that even touches on the possibility of tail icing/stall is a recommendation that when airframe anti-ice is required down to touchdown, you should select a tail cycle approximately 1 minute prior to selelction of land flaps (the anti ice cycle normally runs 15 mins on the wings followed by 2.5 mins on the tail. You have the ability to manually select a tail cycle and that is the recommendation prior to flap movement....this is only in our MD80 manuals as none of the other planes even have tail heat).
It sounds like Colgan's manuals 'recommended' hand flying in icing conditions. I can understand this as the autopilot will mask any strange control deflections or trim changes that you might otherwise feel when hand flying (the A/P will mask those changes and hold the desired attitude right up until it can't take it anymore and then will disconnect allowing those trim/control forces to do nasty things to the plane). However, it is still just a recommendation and the Captain could have felt that in IMC condtitions at night in adverse weather with a fairly new F/O (etc.) that it was better to keep the A/P on. No doubt that decision will be scrutinized. Their SOP requires handflying with severe icing and nobody is suggesting that severe icing conditions were present. The NTSB briefs keep mentioning 'significant icing', but inflight icing is rare enough that whenever you see a good amount cover the windshild bolts or the windscreen, pilots will always comment and say "wow, look at the ice building up'. That will go on the CVR, but taken out of context, it doesn't mean severe icing. You're not allowed to remain in severe icing....you are supposed to change altitudes/exit severe icing. You certainly wouldn't continue an approach if you felt you were in severe icing.
-
I still question this "policy" with regards to the level of icing it references. Cessna, did your company specify a level of icing where the AP must be disengaged on approach or was it any ice *period*?
Well, after searching 1500+ pages of "ice" (it's surprising how many times offICEr and servICE show up!), I may have your answer.
In the "Limitations" section of our flight manual, which describes all of the operating parameters (and unfortunately its the chapter that we have to have memorized for obvious reasons), I found absolutely nothing pertaining to the operation of the aircraft/autopilot in icing conditions. Only saw the obvious stuff dealing with when the anti-icing systems must be on. So, with that being said, it initially doesn't look like a hard ticketed item, to use the pun.
When looking through the Operating Policies, here is what I have found. It is worded in such a way to provide the pilot with the choice (I learned in an Aviation Law class that many FARs are also worded this way, to provide loopholes, options, etc).
For Cruise, it says "If there is a significant performance loss in icing conditions, CONSIDER disengaging the autopilot. Leave icing conditions as soon as possible." (emphasis added by me)
For Approach/Landing, autopilot disconnection is never mentioned, but it does say to consider adding up to 10 knots if visible ice is noticed.
Also in the recommendations it says to consider leaving the flaps up as long as possible to avoid additional aircraft icing, and if flaps are deployed in severe icing conditions for an extended time, airframe buffeting may start and is considered normal. If retracting the flaps reduces the buffet, a landing may be made at the discretion of the pilot, applying speed, performance, and runway penalties.
When it says to "consider" disconnecting the autopilot, that goes along with all of the icing training I have received throughout my career, not just with the CRJ. So, there are in fact no real limitations on how much ice we can fly through or when to use the autopilot. It merely gives the pilots the choice of what they want to do. That being said, the CRJ has excellent ice shedding abilities, especially the -700 and -900. There have been a few accidents with the 50 seat series in icing due to the nature of its critical hardwing, but these have only occurred during takeoff at time of rotation, nothing airborne.
-
Cessna, thank you for taking the time to look into the operations policy under which you flew (hint: search for " ice " should limit the results to just the relevant sentences. :) ). Iskyfly - thank you also for reposting that quote.
The reason I am questioning this black-or-white finality of the icing policy is exactly what the bolded point in iskyfly's repost stated. The risks of light-to-moderate icing to an aircraft certified for flight into known ice are indeed much lower than that of other hazards related to night, IMC flight. Therefore I do not believe there was an operational prohibition of AP use in known light to moderate icing.
Keep in mind that all other aircraft that night, including a similar model some 23 minutes behind the accident aircraft, reported only to a level of moderate icing on approach into Buffalo. More importantly, the NTSB has not officially determined the level of icing that night, despite the publicly released comments from the accident flight deck indicating "significant icing." As was stated elsewhere, caution should be exercised in taking this comment out of context since "significant icing" is not an official, defined level of ice. For example, the pilots could have been commenting on the ice build-up on the windshield wiper, a part nonessential to the aerodynamics of that aircraft.
Placing the FAA-worded but controversial definition of known ice aside for a moment, consider that just about every cloudy day in the Northeast US from October to March (and there are a lot - too many, actually, and we are all sun-deprived) has a light-to-moderate icing potential. Had there been such a prohibition of AP use in light-to-moderate ice, this would suggest that every air transport flight over the Northeast skies would be hand-flying approaches, most notably at night, the majority of the time. Are we really to believe that every air transport aircraft is hand-flying approaches the majority of the time during the six months that make up icing season in the Northeast US? Absolutely not.
-
Ok-I have some new information. After consulting a couple of different people, I have this information for you all.
First of all, I was misinformed, and shared incorrect info, and for that i apologize.
The correct info is this: There is no such "requirement" on not using autopilot on approach in icing conditions on any type of aircraft.
However, there are "recommendations". All are type-specific, and vary by model. These "recommendations" are aimed at turboprop aircraft that have deicing boots. Aircraft that use heated leading edge do not have any such "recommendations".
Mesaba has a recommendation on its Saab 340 fleet that the pilot hand-fly the airplane on approach in moderate and higher icing conditions. This is per a NWA Captain. I am not familiar with Mesabas' policies/recommendations or whatever you would like to call them.
American Eagle has a similar recommendation on its ATR fleet, its Jetstream 31 fleet, and its Saab 340 fleet.
The -8, or Q400, has leading edge boots. I'm guessing the recommendation follows those same lines.
I've been told these recommendations came about after the American Eagle ATR crash in Roselawn, IN.
But of course, these are just recommendations. It's pilots discretion when to use autopilot or not.
I hope this will help clear up some things. And again, I apologize for the wrong information. :-D
-
Hey
Was listening to Kbuf tonight
(mesaba?) was shown as DhD 400 Colgan was redirected to London, contact Toronto Center etc.. between 9:00 pm and 9:30 pm local time
Current weather mixed snow and now mixed freezing rain 30 miles West of YYZ.
Quote from pilot "where do you want us to go?" :?
There is a front moving thru . Now listening to both YYZ and kbuf whenever I can
Napper505
-
napper505:
You posted "(mesaba?)" in your last post. Im not sure if that was a question about who Mesaba is, but if it was, here is some info for you:
Mesaba is a regional carrier for Northwest under the Northwest Airlink banner. They operate CRJs and Saab 340s. Up until 2006 they opeated the Avro RJ85. (I liked that airplane, very unique looking, nice flying too!) Mesaba was founded in 1944 with one Piper Cub! They hub out of KMSP and KDTW. I beleive they serve KBUF from KDTW with the Saab 340. Not for sure on that...
Fleet:
As with all Northwest Airlink partners, the aircraft Mesaba operates are owned by Northwest Airlines. The Mesaba Airlines fleet consists of the following aircraft as of September 2008:
Aircraft Total Passengers
(First/Economy) Routes Notes
Bombardier CRJ-200LR 17
50 Northwest Airlink 15 transferred from Pinnacle Airlines
Bombardier CRJ-900 36
(36 options)
(7 from other Delta Connection carriers) 76 (12/64) Northwest Airlink
Delta Connection First Operator of the CRJ900 Next Gen
Saab 340B+ 49 (34 Northwest Airlink)
Retired
Aircraft Year Retired Replacement Notes
Avro RJ-85 2006 Bombardier CRJ-900 Transferred to Cityjet (Dublin, Ireland)
Fairchild Swearingen Metroliner 1997 Saab 340
De Havilland Canada Dash 8 1998 Saab 340
Fokker F27 ? Dash 8
Beechcraft Model 99 Metroliner ? ?
Saab 340A 2006 None
-
Hey!!
Thanx for the info on Mesaba. I know about them but I didn't know what the were flying..
My bad!! I got CJC1134 and Mesaba 1134 mixed up on the Flight aware page. :oops:
archive was on feb 26.2009 0200z.mp3 at around 20.20 minute remaining.
"Where do you want us to go?"
Napper505
I meant to add this link
read from page 30 on. q400 pilots comments
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/362055-continental-turboprop-crash-inbound-buffalo-29.html
-
Interesting stuff. Thanks napper505! :-D
-
Icing Didn’t Affect Plane in Buffalo Crash, NTSB Says
By John Hughes
March 25 (Bloomberg)
“The circumstances of the crash have raised several issues that go well beyond the widely discussed matter of airframe icing,” NTSB Acting Chairman Mark Rosenker said in the statement. He scheduled a three-day hearing for May 12-14 in Washington.
Also of interest:
"Investigators have found no connection between the accident and a ground obstruction that may affect equipment guiding planes to the Buffalo airport, the NTSB said. Southwest Airlines Co. warned pilots about the obstruction in an advisory issued 13 days before the crash."
more at bloomberg.com
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aZKSjzvjBPSQ&refer=us (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aZKSjzvjBPSQ&refer=us)
NTSB Advisory
UPDATE ON NTSB INVESTIGATION INTO CRASH OF COLGAN AIR DASH-8 NEAR BUFFALO, NEW YORK; PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED
http://ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2009/090325.html (http://ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2009/090325.html)
-
Ok, wait a minute! You guys are freaking me out here!
Are you guys telling me that when I start flying something that has an auto-pilot coupled to an FMS, that my aircraft will be subjected to control input influences that reside outside of my physical sphere of influence? Is this what the whole "CAT" system is all about [CAT I, CAT II and CAT II]?
The SJ30-2 has the Primus Epic CDS avionics package with the 615 integrated avionics computer bringing together a flight director, auto pilot and a flight management system. This is the aircraft that I will be logging anywhere from 260 to 520 hours per year as PIC. Are you guys telling me that some ILS equipment on the ground at some airport, or the geographical elements of the approach to a specific runway at said airport, could be causal for my aircraft doing something that I did not ask it to do while flying a precision approach? !!!!
Because, if that's what you guys are discussing here in this thread, you have OFFICIALLY scared the snot out of me, completely - 100% snot'less. :-o
What the........are you guys talking about here? Please tell me that "I'm just too green and have a very long way to go before I understand all this," or "I'm getting way too ahead of myself" on this, please. Somebody correct me because this is very scary stuff for a future twin jet pilot to hear.
Why?
Because! How many OTHER airports will somebody end-up being the Lab Rat on discovering a new "ILS" problem?
Man, I hate hearing stories like this... this does not build confidence - not at all. Somebody please tell me I've got it all wrong.
-
Please tell me that "I'm just too green and have a very long way to go before I understand all this," or "I'm getting way too ahead of myself" on this, please.
What he said.. er.. typed. :)
-
Well, I'm not a pilot and I appreciate that you've invested a lot of your time and money in very sophisticated equipment but it can be quite helpful to look out the window once in awhile, just to see if things are running, you know, smoothly.
You can never do enough cross-referencing and such. :evil:
Roger, that! I hear what you are saying, but what these guys seem to be discussing from a technical standpoint is quite different, indeed! :-o
From what I've been reading here, these guys are talking about an outside influence such as ILS equipment and geographical (read: terrain) features, determining the outcome of what would otherwise be a normal precision approach that was well under the control and authority of the PIC. That freaks me out, because it counters the very thing the pilot is trying to accomplish, namely, land the aircraft! :?
So, for now, I'm confused and a bit troubled by what I'm reading here. It would seem to me that once the FAA becomes aware of such ILS/Geographical/Terrain anomalies, that they and/or the airport officials would not merely throw up their hands, issue a "publication" and then tell pilots: "Hey, we told you there might be a problem." Such an anomaly seems at the very minimum to be a super critical SOF [safety of flight] issue and should shut down that particular ILS system on that particular runway until the problem could be studied and removed.
Is it just me, or am I misreading this?
BTW - for the record. I don't have the SJ30 yet. It is part of a long-range (1-3 yr) plan which includes the accumulation of at least 1,500 PIC IFR hours in something that is multi-engine and high-performance, before I make the move to the SJ30 as the certified single pilot operator. So, I've got some time to go yet. :-)
-
Are you guys telling me that some ILS equipment on the ground at some airport, or the geographical elements of the approach to a specific runway at said airport, could be causal for my aircraft doing something that I did not ask it to do while flying a precision approach? !!!!
Absolutely, the autopilot which is following the flight director, which is following the CDI will simply respond to any course deviation whether it is actually real or just a signal anomaly. It doesn't know what's real and what's not, that's why the PF has to continually monitor the approach when coupled to an autopilot. Thus the push for WAAS and LAAS (GPS) approaches that provide CAT I like minimums. At the moment, that's an LPV, but in the future LAAS will allow CAT I or lower mins published as GLS PA. If you've flown a WAAS approach, you can see how much smoother and precise the needles are. No wiggly CDI and GS needles like on many ILS approaches.
On the CJ3, we'll often load the ILS frequency on both NAV 1 and NAV 2, but will display FMS on the PNF's PFD so we can cross reference the lateral course indications between the ILS and FMS.
-
Absolutely, the autopilot which is following the flight director, which is following the CDI will simply respond to any course deviation whether it is actually real or just a signal anomaly.
Wow! Amazing!
Where I come from, this would be classified as completely unacceptable design theory/strategy. To systematically link [AP to FD to CDI] and thereby exceedingly increase the probability of negative anomalistic input leading to an undesired result/outcome - by design - is bizarre. I mean, if we know the CDI is pegged to the ground based ILS and we also know that the approach to landing is the most critical phase of flight [placing in to a high mission critical index] then how did anyone make the decision to proceed with such a auto-pilot driven design strategy?
I'm shaking in my boots. Why? Because this is not the first time I've heard of this happening. This happened sometime in late 2008, and for the exact same reason. Some problem with the ILS system causing external input into the aircraft which effectively took the aircraft out of the pilots control, at least temporarily. And, I read about it happening again, in early 2008 and I think again sometime in late 2007. These are just the times that I am aware of - I'm sure I don't know about all of them. Wow!
It doesn't know what's real and what's not, that's why the PF has to continually monitor the approach when coupled to an autopilot.
How about just dump ALL AP approaches? Just don't approve them. At least until the design flaws can be logically worked out of the system.
Thus the push for WAAS and LAAS (GPS) approaches that provide CAT I like minimums. At the moment, that's an LPV,...
And, ironically, this was being worked on back in 2008 by IS&S for the PC-12. Was is not a PC-12 that recently went down in Montana? I'm not suggesting that it went down for the auto-pilot/LPV reason, but I just find the timing a bit ironic - that's all.
http://www.aviationtoday.com/categories/bga/26721.html (http://www.aviationtoday.com/categories/bga/26721.html)
...but in the future LAAS will allow CAT I or lower mins published as GLS PA.
So, you are talking 200 ft minimums before the DA or the MAP? I get confused - I'm so green, still. I know I'm pushing things, but I want to take every opportunity to learn something I did not know before. The DA and the MAP have always caused me some slight confusion.
I guess with the GLS [GNSS/GPS technology based] you get the vertical guidance and that would be a huge support tool for PA's, yes/no?
If you've flown a WAAS approach, you can see how much smoother and precise the needles are. No wiggly CDI and GS needles like on many ILS approaches.
I've yet to begin my dual. That's why reading about this again is freaking me out. There is a ton of high-performance twin jet instrument flying [especially coming home at night] in my near future and learning that I could be an ILS guinea pig because of some anomaly that should have never been allowed to persist into the system, is rather an uncomfortable thought to take into my initial training with me, to say the least.
On the CJ3, we'll often load the ILS frequency on both NAV 1 and NAV 2, but will display FMS on the PNF's PFD so we can cross reference the lateral course indications between the ILS and FMS.
But, that does not yield any vertical references does it? The particular aircraft being discussed here was the victim of a vertical reference anomaly - is that correct? So, how does [correct when I am wrong please] having two lateral references on two different screens, help with the vertical reference problem that ultimately causes the auto-pilot to increase pitch attitude too much?
Do I understand the problem correctly? Again, I know that I'm still a babe in the woods here on this stuff.
-
I mean, if we know the CDI is pegged to the ground based ILS and we also know that the approach to landing is the most critical phase of flight [placing in to a high mission critical index] then how did anyone make the decision to proceed with such a auto-pilot driven design strategy?
Because we have pilots that monitor the autopilot and associated aircraft systems and avionics. If there was no one up front, I would also share some concern, but we have highly trained professionals up there doing their job. Reality is that autopilot issues, both system and navaid induced, are daily occurrences around the world. It is what it is.
How about just dump ALL AP approaches? Just don't approve them. At least until the design flaws can be logically worked out of the system.
What design flaws would those be? Pilots are responsible for monitoring the approach when coupled to the autopilot and also for recognizing potential issues where it may be best to disengage the autopilot and handfly (or reconfigure by hand and then re-engage). They don't exist everywhere, but they do exist at some airports. The NOTAM system is usually pretty good at publishing pertinent information that affects approaches, but it doesn't always work out nicely.
And, ironically, this was being worked on back in 2008 by IS&S for the PC-12. Was is not a PC-12 that recently went down in Montana? I'm not suggesting that it went down for the auto-pilot/LPV reason, but I just find the timing a bit ironic - that's all.
http://www.aviationtoday.com/categories/bga/26721.html (http://www.aviationtoday.com/categories/bga/26721.html)
To be completely honest with you I see absolutely no connection or irony whatsoever.
So, you are talking 200 ft minimums before the DA or the MAP? I get confused - I'm so green, still. I know I'm pushing things, but I want to take every opportunity to learn something I did not know before. The DA and the MAP have always caused me some slight confusion.
I guess with the GLS [GNSS/GPS technology based] you get the vertical guidance and that would be a huge support tool for PA's, yes/no?
I don't follow your question. On a precision approach, the DA is the MAP. LPV which is technically not considered a precision approach, even though it is in many respects more precise than an ILS, also has rock solid vertical guidance that is extremely useful. GLS PA's made possible by LAAS will only enhance the precision of both vertical and lateral approach course guidance.
I've yet to begin my dual. That's why reading about this again is freaking me out. There is a ton of high-performance twin jet instrument flying [especially coming home at night] in my near future and learning that I could be an ILS guinea pig because of some anomaly that should have never been allowed to persist into the system, is rather an uncomfortable thought to take into my initial training with me, to say the least.
Worst scenario possible, you execute a missed approach and request a different approach. No point in chasing a potential anomaly. It is a matter of correct identifying and responding to these errors in a timely manner that is of the essence.
But, that does not yield any vertical references does it? The particular aircraft being discussed here was the victim of a vertical reference anomaly - is that correct? So, how does [correct when I am wrong please] having two lateral references on two different screens, help with the vertical reference problem that ultimately causes the auto-pilot to increase pitch attitude too much?
It depends how it's loaded. The CJ3 is equipped with the Rockwell Collins Proline 21 avionic suite. You can load the ILS approach in the FMS, but you won't get any vertical guidance when FMS is selected on the PFD, but you can set VNAV to provide a synthetic glidepath that coincides with the actual glide slope angle which is found on the approach chart. We can also do this when shooting visual approaches.