Position: The School House
I am in the Belly of the Training Beast for the next few days, but did see the report of this Dash 8-400 crash. Initial reports are saying the weather was atrocious at the time of the accident, as in icing conditions. I flew an earlier version of this aircraft. That would be the Dash 8-100 and I remember it as being very capable in bad weather, especially icing conditions.
I am in the Belly of the Training Beast for the next few days, but did see the report of this Dash 8-400 crash. Initial reports are saying the weather was atrocious at the time of the accident, as in icing conditions. I flew an earlier version of this aircraft. That would be the Dash 8-100 and I remember it as being very capable in bad weather, especially icing conditions.
This is a nasty crash on many fronts. I will take a closer look at it in a few days.
Life on the Line continues...
36 comments:
I live in Farnborough. I watched the Dash (whatever number it was back then) when it debuted.
Absolutely stunning!
I have also flown a bit, including a few minutes at the helm of a Vulcan bomber. Whatever went wrong, I sincerely doubt that it was the airframe.
My sympathies to all involved.
Afterthought:
Icing.
Slowing down.
Tail stall?
Just a guess.
I will be interested to see what conclusions they draw.
The Dash 8 is a very durable and stable aircraft, and has a very decent safety record. I have spent many, many hours in the cabin of them. I really enjoy them for short hauls, not many fellow passengers felt the same though...
Aaron
I'm not a pilot, so I don't know much about these things. ATC was asking the inbound flights if they were experiencing ice after 3047 fell off the screen. Would normal protocol be to report ice to ATC? I ask because ATC mentioned that the Colgan hadn't reported ice...
I fly Colgan (Continental Connection) all the time from EWR to those upstate (and usually snowy) airports. I get nervous because I'm a nervous flyer, but I assume that they fly into this stuff all the time. Also, some speculations have been made about the autopilots disengaging (again due to ice conditions). It was VERY windy last night as well, but I don't know how much of a role that plays in these things. I can't wait to hear what you professionals have to say.
Thoughts and prayers to the victims...
Nice to hear you flew the "8" at some point in your career.
Contrary to the -100/-200/-300 the -400 really is a completely "new" and different aircraft. It has FADEC controlled engines with power lever detents and roughly double the shaft horsepower compared to the -300.
Some companies operate the -300/-400 under a common typerating though there are many thousands of differences between the earlier versions of the Dash and the Q400 so the older Dash's have (from an operational and procedure wise standpoint) about as much in common with the Q400 as an Airbus 320 with a Boeing 737.
I don't want to speculate at all. One little hint though is that Vref speeds for Flaps 15 (standard landing config) in icing conditions are in the 140+ kts range if you're on the heavy side, which is quite fast compared to similar airplanes (Saab, ATR etc..).
It is a fantastic/"fast"antic airplane (TAS cruise 360kts) though and the wing has no problems with ice. The tail maybe a little. It is just a faster, highpowered and therefore a little more complex airplane in comparison to e.g. the "gentle" Q300.
I am truly sorry for all involved that this happened.
FE
I am a Dash-8 Captain, and have flown all variants except the Q400. For the past three days, I've been in and out of Erie, Buffalo, Syracuse and the like during the nasty storm.
I was quite nearby when Colgan went down.
I can tell you this with absolute certainty: where I was, and having been through all PIREPed altitudes in the vicinity, the icing conditions were very easily handled by a DeHavilland Dash-8. The turbulent conditions and windshear aren't anything new to a regional pilot in the northeast US.
What tragically ended 48 some-odd lives last night is going to be a mystery for at least a while.
There are a lot of clues, some of them patently obvious. But until a prelim comes out, the most important aspect is a lot of good people lost someone they love.
JACE
As a fellow controller normal protocal would include pilot reports (pireps) about iceing. I don't know what the weather was but it sounds like low ceilings and instrument approachs. These kind of conditions require the controller to solicit PIREPS. I am positive the NTSB and the FAA will see if that was done and if the information was disseminated by the controller. I also listened to the audio and felt the controller should have been relieved from his control position. The confidence in his voice was certainly gone after the reality of the situation became apparent. Prayers to everyone involved.
My initial thoughts were ice accumulation, I heard it was only 32 and light snow, so probably clear icing from cooled droplets. But would the boot system not do an effective job at clearing the icing?
I'm probably stating the obvious though.
Thoughts and prayers for the pax and crew...
I am not qualified to speculate anything - but for those of you who are more knowledgeable, here is what just came from the NTSB press conference:
CVR:
Crew briefed an ILS approach to runway 2-3 at Buffalo
Crew briefed weather to themselves in cockpit and reported visibility 3 miles with snow and mist
Crew Commented at 16000 that it was rather hazy and requested ATC to descend to 12,000 feet
Cleared to 11,000 feet
Discussed significant ice build-up on windshield and leading edge of wings
FDR:
Airframe de-ice was selected in on position before those comments were made.
Landing gear placed down one minute before end of recording.
20 sec later flaps selected to 15.
Series of severe pitch and roll excursions within seconds of flaps at 15.
Crew attempted to raise gear and flaps just before end of recording.
Dave
Look forward to your insight on this one, have listened to the ATC tape. This must have happened very quickly - outer marker in IMC at night in icing conditions.
My sympathies to all involved.
Ross
3 in a row...again
this rule is so accurate,that it is downright unbelievable.
every aviator knows it...
after the Hudson incident,I hoped that there won`t be a Nr.3
here it is..
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29186052/
London emergency landing
I think that's 4 in a row since December...
Excellent NASA video, recommended for all pilots.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2238323060735779946
I wondered if you had ever flown this aircraft. My deepest sympathies to the family members of those lost...
@130 driver:
I was not aware of this video, but it fits exactly with my earlier suggestion of a possible tail stall being the cause.
Ice was not involved in the BEA Trident crash at LHR, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staines_air_disaster
but I am certain that this was put down to a tail stall. It was, I believe, also stated that the configuration of tailplane / stabiliser on top of the tail fin exacerbated the problem.
130driver beat me to it with the NASA video regarding tail icing and tailplane stalls. All pilots--this is a must-watch video, esp. because the recovery procedures for a tailplane stall and a wing stall are completely different. Its obvious from the video that the NASA test pilot had a deep respect for tail stalls and wouldn't want to get anywhere near one in anything other than very controlled conditions.
I'm not making any suggestions or guesses about this crash, which could have been any number of things. But it never hurts to learn something new, and that NASA video was an eye-opener for me.
I know about things like lift, thrust, and aerodynamics, but jeez, that thing has teeny tiny wings that don't look like they should hold it up to begin with.
@Flying Europe-
You're kidding, right? With the mega-robust training regimen European carriers have, why is differences training between the "gentle" 300 and the "much more automated, therefore much easier to fly" 400 only 3 sim sessions?
A320 - 737? Not even remotely accurate.
Just pulled up a cockpit photo. I know exactly what every single switch and light does. That barber pole looks to sit at 250Kt, so I won't mess that up below 10. That's pretty handy.
The UNS-1E looks tremendously similar to the UNS-1B/C I fly.
The HUD? Whiz-bang tech that I can read about and get a CATII cert with a short sim ride.
It's a common type rating for a reason: It is the same plane, more nifty stuff. Sounds a bit like STpS- Shiny Turboprop Syndrome, and little more like self-enhancing puffery.
We and our friends flew on a Dash-8 from Baltimore to Buffalo in 2000. We had a 'bench seat' for 5 in a row at the very back. It brought back memories of riding in the back of the bus on school excursions. Strange experience!
HA!
The story of why that center seat is there on the -100s is legendary.
The first US operator of the Dash-8 was Henson Airlines, which became Piedmont (in name only). Mr. Henson was a test pilot for Fairchild, started the US's first codeshare agreement, and was a brilliant businessman.
A few mods on the DHC8 type came directly from him. The middle seat is one of them- one more paying pax.
There are others, but they are boring.
JACE
This is another interesting piece of information.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7891770.stm
A tail plane stall with autopilot on would be a source of major confusion for those in command if they had no feedback from the flight controls.
That NASA video is one of the most interesting and terrifying films I have seen.
My understanding is that the Q400 has a fully hydraulic tail with artificial feel.
In this case, no feedback would be provided though the controls of the impending tail stall (if this is indeed the case). Equally, we've received no indication that the autopilot returned the aeroplane out of trim.
There seems to have been a trend in recent years for a break-by-break approach to accident investigation. Anything at this stage is pretty much pure speculation, and it's a shame that the NTSB feel pressured into dribbling information out like this.
Unfortunate indeed that so many people can't resist the opportunity to hear the sound of their own voice.
Just to address what Biggles stated, the BEA accident at Staines -according to the AIB, was not caused by a tail stall. The droops (flaps on the leading edge of the wings) were retracted approx. 60 knots too soon causing a wing stall.
Mark
The first thing that came into my mind when I saw the first pictures from Buffalo was the accident in Sweden, January 15 1977, when a Vickers Viscount litterally fell out of the sky and crasched on a parking lot killing 22 upon approach to Bromma airport in Stockholm.
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19770115-1
I've blogged a piece on de-icing boots for the layman, Dave. See
http://www.savory.de/blog_feb_09.htm#20090216
Uh-Oh. Here comes the pilot error times. Media is now reporting, or hinting at least, that the pilot caused the crash by using autopilot on approach.
Nobody has come out and said pilot error...yet. However, as a Buffalo resident, this news obviously hasn't left the airwaves. And, as a frequent flyer in and out of Buffalo, it had better not until they find why this plane crashed. As one of the earlier posts said, the weather wasn't that bad that evening...at least by Western New York standards. I hope that it isn't pilot error...however...I hope the truth comes out...soon!
I'm with the other guy.That NASA video scares me too!!!
It seems that even when there are mechanical problems/failures involved, the media always brings it down to pilot error. I just don't think it's that cut and dry.
Hello,
Your blog has been recommended to us as a interviewee's favorite blog!
We would like to do an interview with you about your blog for
www.BlogInterviewer.com . We'd like to give you the opportunity to
give us some insight on the "person behind the blog."
It would just take a few minutes of your time. The interview form can
be submitted online at http://bloginterviewer.com/submit-an-interview
Best regards,
Mike Thomas
It was reported this morning that an identical plane left Newark 27 minutes after Flight # 3407 and landed safely in Buffalo. Just and FYI! There are families and friends of 50 people waiting to hear the why this plane crashed.
Come on guys - you just DO NOT use an autopilot when in icing conditions. You also do not change your wing configuration(flaps. This is flying 101
@JIMH
I was not kidding. More automation does not "automatically" mean easier to fly. You might exactly know what goes on behind the scenes in a Q300, and the Q400 will superficially do the same, while behind the scenes a different pump or valve or motor or processor operates.
About differences training: Differences training is time limited to comply with common type regulations. But sure, you can teach a 2 week course in 3 days..or a 3 day course in 2 weeks. It's all relative...
If you go through the list of changes concerning Q300 vs. Q400 you will see that it does not have much in common. It is an airplane, like all airplanes.
I didn't manetion the HGS or FMS...I am talking about engines, gear, electrical and hydraulic power supply etc..
Off course you will have no problems selecting a navaid frequency via the ARCDU instead of a "conventianal" panel but if you fly 4 sectors and between Q3/Q4 multiple times you will be amazed how often your hand moves to the switch location of the Q3 when you're in the Q4 and vice versa. A small detail and no problem..unles
"Shiny Turboprop Syndrome" -> didn't even know this existed. Never the less I consider your assumption as an insult.
FE
Look, I'm not inviting a micturation match, but I've beheld the training regimen for an airline's transition course to the Q400. Said airline has operated the Dash 8 for millions of flight hours.
Said airline has the highest time pilots in the world on the Dash 8.
Said transition course is a piece of cake. As far as switchology, even going from a 200 with the bugs attached to the ECU rating selector to a 300 with the same switch disabled, back to a 100 where none of this applies but a NORM setting cancels TOP for a non-crit failure on takeoff- that can be confusing, too.
But we handle it, easily. And proficiently, as well.
You make lofty claims, but none preclude my type rating from driving the Q400 without training.
The A320 to 737 does, though.
Post a Comment