# Plane with 48 aboard crashes into house in suburban Buffalo



## seesul (Feb 13, 2009)

(CNN) -- A Continental Airlines plane crashed in suburban Buffalo, New York, late Thursday with 44 passengers and four crew members aboard, according to authorities. CNN is reporting all people aboard the plane were killed. There's been one confirmed death on the ground.
Continental Airlines Flight 3407 crashed into a house in suburban Buffalo, New York, late Thursday.

Flight 3407, operated by Colgan Air, was en route from Newark, New Jersey, when it went down in Clarence Center, said Bill Peat with New York State Emergency Management in Albany.

The plane crashed about 10:20 p.m., hitting a home and bursting into a fireball, according to New York State Trooper John Manthey.

The crash took place about seven miles from Buffalo Niagara International Airport. Video Watch video from CNN affiliate WGRZ »

Area resident Keith Burtis said he was driving to the store about a mile from the crash site when he heard the plane go down. "It was a high-pitched sound," Burtis said. "It felt like a mini-earthquake." Video Watch officials on the scene: 'This is not a rescue mission' »

Shortly after the crash, Burtis said he saw a steady stream of fire trucks rush by him as smoke billowed into the sky. Are you on the scene? Let us know at iReport

Other witnesses told CNN affiliate WGRZ they saw the plane nose-diving toward the ground.

Continental Airlines confirmed that the Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 was operating between Newark Liberty International Airport and Buffalo.

The National Transportation Safety Board said early Friday that it was preparing a "go team" to head to Buffalo to investigate the crash. The aircraft has seating capacity of 74, officials said.

There was a wintry mix at the time of the crash, officials said.

Officials said relatives of passengers aboard the flight should call 1-800-621-3263 for information.

At this time, officials said they are not concerned about a hazardous materials situation on the ground.

Plane with 48 aboard crashes into house in suburban Buffalo - CNN.com


----------



## v2 (Feb 13, 2009)

very sad...


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 13, 2009)

We had temps as high as 10c over past couple of days and all the snow melted mixed with rain and then the temp dropped to close freezing . I wager it was icing . The melt was very rapid


----------



## Njaco (Feb 13, 2009)

Its being reported that there was a widow of a victim from one of the 9/11 jets onboard....sad.


----------



## evangilder (Feb 13, 2009)

Terrible. Condolences go out to the families.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 13, 2009)

A little too early to speculate. The aircraft is FAR 25.1419 rated so it is able to operate in known icing conditions. The TAF was reporting light snow and mist 10 mile visibility with ceiling of 800' at the time of the accident. It obvious they were on an approach. All 3 ILS approaches into BUF has a 2300' ceiling at the LOM. I don't have time to look up approach minimums but I'm sure the crew knew if they were within minimums prior to the approach.

Time will tell.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 13, 2009)

Terrible Tragedy - as usual the media stupidity begins..

_"Witnesses heard the twin turboprop aircraft *sputtering *before it went down in light snow and fog around 10:20 p.m."_

Has anyone ever heard a turbine "sputter?"

Fiery plane crash in upstate NY kills 49 people


----------



## evangilder (Feb 13, 2009)

I thought they all "sputtered" when the pitch was changed on the prop. Damn non-aviation media...

Can you imagine the talk if it had been a Piaggio P-180? They always sound like something isn't right, even when they are fine.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Feb 13, 2009)

Sad. Condolences to the families.

TO


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 13, 2009)

Some observations...

I pulled up a website that shows the TFR for the crash site to the North East of the airport, in line with runway 23. The LOM for runway 23 is 4.4 miles from the runway threshold at 2300', missed approach altitude is 928', 200 feet above the ground, and that's for an ILS approach. The GPS approach shows FAF 4.7 miles from the threshold. It seems like that were on the approach when they went in, I don't know if its SOP for Continental to use GPS approaches or if the aircraft was equipped for GPS approaches. Again too early to speculate but prior to entering you're FAF you're doing you're final checklists and configuring the aircraft for landing. I would guess that the landing gear would probably be down and flap and power settings would be adjusted to fly the final portion of the approach.

To drop out of the sky like its being reported I would look at the engines/ propellers, but again way too early to speculate. There was icing reported 20 miles to the south of the airport but again this aircraft should of been able to handle icing.








Back in the mid 80s (86-87) I was flying into Buffalo constantly, this hit home to me. Condolences to the familes.


----------



## Bill G. (Feb 13, 2009)

This is sad news. And an end to a 2.5 year flight safety window of no fatalities.

Here is my best GUESS. You have a plane that is low and slow. I have thought about icing, but Flyboy, you bring up an excellent point about the aircraft SHOULD be able to handle icing, if the proper equiment is turned on. I will assume it was. It was windy, very windy. Again you are low and slow. You are heading into this strong wind to land. Now what if the wind quits for a moment and leaves the plane in a full stall. This would not be good!

Anyways, that is my GUESS!

Bill G.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 13, 2009)

Bill G. said:


> This is sad news. And an end to a 2.5 year flight safety window of no fatalities.
> 
> Here is my best GUESS. You have a plane that is low and slow. I have thought about icing, but Flyboy, you bring up an excellent point about the aircraft SHOULD be able to handle icing, if the proper equiment is turned on. I will assume it was. It was windy, very windy. Again you are low and slow. You are heading into this strong wind to land. Now what if the wind quits for a moment and leaves the plane in a full stall. This would not be good!
> 
> ...




Low - but not too slow, but way out of stll range providing there was no ice on the wings.

I looked up some data on this aircraft - they should of been carrying 120 knots, the Vmca for full flaps is 78 knots - I would guess depending on weight this aircraft would stall at around 75 knots.


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 13, 2009)

Very sad. My condolences to the families.


----------



## fly boy (Feb 13, 2009)

sad very sad


----------



## Bill G. (Feb 13, 2009)

Flyboyj: 

Thanks for the added info. And right now I am guessing at best.

I just saw one witness say that the plane was heading away from the airport. I know ground witnesses don't always get things right. 

If that is true, you are now flying with a tail wind. Better keep a tight watch on the airspeed. And a turn can be similar to a wind shear event. Possible, but who knows yet. 

We will just have to wait until the data recorders are found and analyzed before anyone will have much of a clue as to what went so very wrong.

All that we know for certain is the plane had a non-survivable encounter with the ground and 50 are now dead. And thinking what the families must be going through right now. Not a good day for any of them. And thinking of what the recovery teams will be going through recovering the dead. This will not be a good day for them either.

Bill G.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Feb 13, 2009)

Very sad, my condolences to the victim's families.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 13, 2009)

Very sad. My prayers go out to the families and the victims.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 13, 2009)

Bill G. said:


> Flyboyj:
> 
> 
> If that is true, you are now flying with a tail wind. Better keep a tight watch on the airspeed. And a turn can be similar to a wind shear event. Possible, but who knows yet.



That is actually what I was thinking as well. Oh well the FAA guys on the ground will let us know when they know something.

What I hate is the so called "experts" on the news that speculate about what exactly happened, when they have no clue. 

It is best to just wait...


----------



## timshatz (Feb 13, 2009)

More speculation.

Stall at 2300 ft should leave plenty of room to throttle up and get going again. Probably drop 1000ft at worst. But people (plural) saw it going in nose first, not flat or pulling up. 

Could be optical illusions at play here or "heard it from a friend of a friend".

Sad crash, not that I've heard of any that weren't. Well, maybe. Heard about a guy who hit a cow after he had landed. Wrecked the plane but he walked away without a scratch. 

Now the cow, on the other hand...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 13, 2009)

Something else for thought...

As they were pretty close to the outter marker, as stated, that would of been the time they would of been starting the approach. Be it GPS or ILS I would also think that the approach might of been coupled to the auto pilot.


----------



## timshatz (Feb 13, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Be it GPS or ILS I would also think that the approach might of been coupled to the auto pilot.



Now that's a good point. Low and slow, windy, toss in a little ice and things get squirrelly fast.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 13, 2009)

Just an obserrvation from 21 miles away. The air in the ground level was so warm and moist we had a persistant ground fog all day and at it cooled to about minus -2 c early evening . The air was soaked


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 13, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> Just an obserrvation from 21 miles away. The air in the ground level was so warm and moist we had a persistant ground fog all day and at it cooled to about minus -2 c early evening . The air was soaked



Did it get windy across the lake?


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 13, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Did it get windy across the lake?


It was breezy on and off . I wanted to take a picture of fog forming on my lawn I've never seen that before in Feb. I'm curious as to whether we had inversion


----------



## drgondog (Feb 13, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Some observations...
> 
> I pulled up a website that shows the TFR for the crash site to the North East of the airport, in line with runway 23. The LOM for runway 23 is 4.4 miles from the runway threshold at 2300', missed approach altitude is 928', 200 feet above the ground, and that's for an ILS approach. The GPS approach shows FAF 4.7 miles from the threshold. It seems like that were on the approach when they went in, I don't know if its SOP for Continental to use GPS approaches or if the aircraft was equipped for GPS approaches. Again too early to speculate but prior to entering you're FAF you're doing you're final checklists and configuring the aircraft for landing. I would guess that the landing gear would probably be down and flap and power settings would be adjusted to fly the final portion of the approach.
> 
> ...



Joe - I smell severe icing problem, airfoil/weight issue and immediate stall when he put his flaps down and reduced speed.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 13, 2009)

timshatz said:


> More speculation.
> 
> Stall at 2300 ft should leave plenty of room to throttle up and get going again. Probably drop 1000ft at worst. But people (plural) saw it going in nose first, not flat or pulling up.
> 
> ...



Tim - you are probably right for a normal stall due strictly to being too slow. 

A stall caused by being too heavy (severe ice) and coupled with lowering flaps and changing AoA of the already loaded wing may have been the issue - and that would not be necessarily solvable due to a violent departure.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 13, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Joe - I smell severe icing problem, airfoil/weight issue and immediate stall when he put his flaps down and reduced speed.


Yep - Right when he was approaching the outer marker.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 13, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Yep - Right when he was approaching the outer marker.


they talk about NTSB mentioned severe rolling I'm curious as to weather ice might have comprimised the operation of the flaps either by ice hunks or just build up to give it a split flap scenario


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 13, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> they talk about NTSB mentioned severe rolling I'm curious as to weather ice might have comprimised the operation of the flaps either by ice hunks or just build up to give it a split flap scenario


That might be - just by putting the flaps down would of jacked them up if they picked up an unusual amount of ice.

Also - I don't know if late model -8s had a flying tail. That usually moves in conjunction with the flaps.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Feb 13, 2009)

Sad. I heard about the 9/11 widow and it seemed strange the ways of fate.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 13, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> they talk about NTSB mentioned severe rolling I'm curious as to weather ice might have comprimised the operation of the flaps either by ice hunks or just build up to give it a split flap scenario



I just heard it described as severe roll and pitch departure when flaps reduced to 15 degrees. It is an interesting possibility if in fact you had an asymmetrical flap setting at relatively low speed and heavy (ice)

As Joe mentioned earlier this would also be a nice time for a prop or engine problem to surface. 

These guys clearly had no time to chat with Approach Control


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 15, 2009)

Split flaps were not the fault according to the NTSB briefing on TV today , Buffalo TV stations are covering it well. There seems to be a difference in language between NTSB and the FAA as to the description of icing . The aircraft had Pnuematic icing boots on all surfaces and all were indicating on. The manual from Bombardier suggests taking off autopilot in severe icing but at the time it was only reported as moderate icing. The NTSB called it substanial icing. There seemed to be no prop or engine problem they found all the blades for one engine and 4 from the other but it was very badly burned and the composite didn't fare well


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 15, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> Split flaps were not the fault according to the NTSB briefing on TV today , Buffalo TV stations are covering it well. There seems to be a difference in language between NTSB and the FAA as to the description of icing . The aircraft had Pnuematic icing boots on all surfaces and all were indicating on. The manual from Bombardier suggests taking off autopilot in severe icing but at the time it was only reported as moderate icing. The NTSB called it substanial icing. There seemed to be no prop or engine problem they found all the blades for one engine and 4 from the other but it was very badly burned and the composite didn't fare well


The last report I saw, the NTSB was stating that it seems the crew had the auto pilot engaged at the time of the accident. They also showed an attempt to increase power when the aircraft went into extreme attitudes. Considering where the aircraft went in, it seems they were attempting to fly a coupled approach with the autopilot on, contrary to what the flight manual says and also contrary to company operating procedures.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 20, 2009)

thought this was interesting
dated 19 feb 
Southwest Airlines Pilots' Association (SWAPA) is warning its members of a safety hazard on the same approach to Buffalo Airport used by the Colgan Air Bombardier Q400 that crashed fatally last week.

The union's safety committee says that a problem with the instrument landing system (ILS) for runway 23 could lead to an aircraft suddenly pitching as far as 30° nose-up with a risk of stalling.

A long-standing warning on Buffalo approach charts cautions pilots that the glideslope is unusable beyond 5° right of the localiser, and US Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) reports contain several incidents in which aircraft have encountered difficulties.

The Colgan Air Q400 approached the localiser from the left, rather than the right, and there is no evidence that the glideslope problem has manifested itself in that area.

The precise reason for SWAPA's issuing the new alert is not known, but it is understood that it may have been triggered as a result of a more recent incident to a Southwest aircraft.

In its message SWAPA states: "Information has been received indicating it is possible to obtain a significant nose pitch up, in some cases as much as 30°, if the glideslope is allowed to capture before established on centreline.

"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.

"When attempting to intercept the runway 23 ILS from right traffic, the ILS glideslope indication may read full-deflection down. Just prior to intercept it may then move up in such a manner as to enable approach mode to capture in such a way as to result in a nose-up pitch and loss of airspeed."

The danger arises if a crew simultaneously arms the glideslope and localiser before acquiring either and the aircraft then reacts to the glideslope before it is on the extended centreline.

Southwest has now instructed its pilots not to select "approach mode" until established on the localiser.

SWAPA explains that the phenomenon is due to the existence of "an earthen obstruction close enough to the ILS to affect the integrity of the glideslope signal".

In an ASRS report from June last year, a Boeing 737 first officer from an unknown airline reports that his aircraft descended from its cleared altitude of 2,300ft to 1,800ft before acquiring the localiser when the captain armed the approach mode.

In a December 2003 report an Airbus A319 captain also received an early glideslope signal and descended 500ft while uncleared, prompting air traffic control to query his action.

And in 2003 and 2002, two Bombardier CRJ crews reported spurious glideslope signals, although it is unclear whether they were caused by the same phenomenon.

A US FAA spokeswoman is quoted today as saying the agency does not believe the localiser issue played a role in the Colgan accident.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 20, 2009)

Great info - I heard the audio clip and heard all of the RT and can confim this.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 25, 2009)

The NTSB says the aircraft had icing but was responding to all control movements , when the stick shaker kicked in it looks like the pilot tried to pull up
The neighbour flies a earlier model and said the thing is like a truck in the ice and it doesn't bother the bird to much, she said it sheds ice really well but SOP in icing is to fly it manually



THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON – Flight data point to possible flight crew errors rather than ice accumulation as a key factor in last month's plane crash in upstate New York that killed 50 people, U.S. aviation safety experts said today.

The National Transportation Safety Board said information obtained from the craft's data recorder shows the stall warning system had activated before the accident and there was some ice accumulation, but no mechanical problems were found with the plane.

The data "shows that some ice accumulation was likely present on the airplane prior to the initial upset event, but that the airplane continued to respond as expected to flight control inputs throughout the accident flight," the board said in a statement.

Continental Connection Flight 3407 was about eight kilometres short of the Buffalo Niagara International Airport, flying in icing conditions the night of Feb. 12 when the plane tumbled out of control and plummeted onto a house. All 49 people aboard the plane and one man in the house died.

The board said data shows the speed of the Dash 8-Q400 Bombardier, a twin-engine turboprop, had slowed to 240 km/h when the aircraft's stick shaker activated. The device warns pilots of an impending stall by shaking the control yoke. When that happened, the board said, the plane continued to slow and "there was a 25-pound (11.3-kilogram) pull force on the control column," forcing the aircraft's nose up.

Aviation safety experts said pulling back increases a stall, and that pushing forward and increasing air speed would have been the correct response.

"Pulling up is the wrong thing to do when the airplane is giving you a stall warning," said William Waldock, a professor of safety science at Embry Riddle Aeronautical University who has investigated accidents for more than 30 years. "You increase the air speed by pushing the nose down. He's pulling up fairly abruptly. There's an old adage that air speed is life."

"It's sounding more and more like a human-factors accident," Waldock said.

Colgan Air Inc., which operated the flight, said in a statement: ``Nothing in today's announcement pinpoints a cause nor does it offer theories on a cause. ... We stand by our FAA-certified crew training programs, which meet or exceed the regulatory requirements for all major airlines and include training on emergency situations."

A key question from the beginning of the board's investigation has been whether the plane experienced an aerodynamic stall caused by icing and the pilot's reaction to the stall. Ice accumulation can change the shape of a plane's wings, causing it to lose lift.

Turboprops rely on deicing boots on the leading edge of the wings that inflate and deflate to break up ice. The decades-old technology isn't as effective as the deicing systems on jetliners, which direct engine heat to the wings to melt ice.

Former NTSB investigator Greg Phillips said it appears so far that the ice in the Buffalo crash "wasn't anything the plane shouldn't have been able to handle."

Investigators are continuing to examine aircraft's deicing system and to probe the flight crew's training, the board statement said.

"You still have to leave the possibility of the icing system operation open until those examinations are complete," Phillips said.

The NTSB has scheduled an unusual three-day public hearing in which all five board members will be present for May 12-14 on the crash. The hearing will cover a range of safety issues, including the icing effect on the airplane's performance, cold weather operations, sterile cockpit rules, crew experience, fatigue management, and stall recovery training, the statement said.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Mar 25, 2009)

Thanks for the info Pb.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 25, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> The NTSB has scheduled an unusual three-day public hearing in which all five board members will be present for May 12-14 on the crash. The hearing will cover a range of safety issues, including the icing effect on the airplane's performance, cold weather operations, sterile cockpit rules, crew experience, fatigue management, and stall recovery training, the statement said.



Good info - that meeting should bring the most probably cause to the table.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Mar 25, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Good info - that meeting should bring the most probably cause to the table.



Question Flyboy. I know from a link you sent me before, that a coupled landing is the SOP for landings. Is it the SOP for landing in inclement weather, or is it manual?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 25, 2009)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> Question Flyboy. I know from a link you sent me before, that a coupled landing is the SOP for landings. Is it the SOP for landing in inclement weather, or is it manual?


I believe it would vary between airlines and aircraft. Theoretically if the aircraft is equipped with the right equipment, the aircraft could flown coupled, however as we seen, you throw inclement weather into the situation and things may change rapidly, again depending on the aircraft. I'm not 100% sure but I think the larger airlines prohibit coupled approaches in known icing conditions.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Mar 25, 2009)

Thanks, I'm not familiar with airline SOP's.


----------



## mkloby (Mar 25, 2009)

I'm guessing that they can determine if there was engine inlet icing based on the power demand signal sent to the FADEC or throttle position and actual torque output - but I haven't heard that brought up as a possibility...


----------



## pbfoot (May 11, 2009)

from the Buffalo evening news
By Jerry Zremski
News Washington Bureau Chief
WASHINGTON — The crew of Continental Connection Flight 3407 violated federal regulations banning extraneous conversation or activities on approach to landing, prompting the airline that managed the doomed flight to later warn pilots against idle chatter and other inappropriate actions in the cockpit.

Sources with knowledge of the National Transportation Safety Board investigation said the probe will show that the pilot, Capt. Marvin D. Renslow, and co-pilot, Rebecca Lynn Shaw, violated federal rules that require a "sterile cockpit" when a plane is flying below 10,000 feet. Renslow piloted the plane that crashed in Clarence on Feb. 12, killing 50.

And about two weeks after the crash, Colgan Air — the Continental subcontractor that ran the doomed flight — sent its air crews a memo warning them against extraneous conversation and other inappropriate activities such as eating when flying below 10,000 feet, sources told The Buffalo News.

The revelation of the inappropriate conversation or activities of the Flight 3407 crew, which is expected to be detailed when the safety board begins three days of hearings on the crash on Tuesday, is part of an increasing focus on Renslow as the investigation continues.

Renslow, 47, failed three Federal Aviation Administration proficiency checks before joining Colgan in 2005, sources confirmed this morning.

While pilots often fail those tests once or twice, "it is fairly uncommon to fail three," said a source with knowledge of the safety board investigation of the crash. "That's a little high. But then, why did they hire him?"

Colgan's spokesman told The Wall Street Journal, which first reported that Renslow failed those tests, that the company believes Renslow, a former small business owner who changed careers to become a pilot, did not disclose those failed tests when he applied for a job.

Renslow also failed in his first attempt to qualify as a co-pilot on the Beech 1900 aircraft, and also had to try twice on tests to upgrade to captain on the Saab 340 turboprop.

After Flight 3407's stall warning system activated, Renslow pulled down on the plane's yoke — which is just the opposite of what he should have done, several aviation sources have said.

The NTSB hearings are expected to focus on why Renslow did that. And sources close to the investigation said the hearings are likely to point fingers not just at Renslow's abilities as a pilot, but also Colgan's training program.

The plane that crashed, the Bombardier Dash 8 Q400, includes an unusual feature that increases the speed at which the plane's stall warning system will activate when flying in icing conditions.

Colgan never provided pilots with any instruction in that unusual feature until the autumn before the crash, sources said.

In addition, Colgan's training program does not include simulator training into how pilots should react when the stall warning system activates, sources said.

Fatigue also may have played a role in the crash.

Sources told The Buffalo News that Renslow had been working an overnight shift only weeks before switching to the evening schedule that he was on the night the plane crashed.

As for the co-pilot, Shaw, the Feb. 12 flight came the evening after she had flown a red-eye flight to Newark from her home in Seattle, sources told The Buffalo News. Shaw had been with Colgan a little over a year.

The top two training officials at Colgan Air resigned in recent weeks.

Those officials, Darrell Mitchell and Ed Yarid, left the airline voluntarily, and their departures were unrelated to the crash, said Joe Williams, a spokesman for Colgan's parent, Pinnacle Airlines.

Mitchell is scheduled to testify at the safety board hearings.


----------



## RabidAlien (May 11, 2009)

> Sources told The Buffalo News that Renslow had been working an overnight shift only weeks before switching to the evening schedule that he was on the night the plane crashed.



Dunno how "weeks" would make a difference. You really only need a day or two to adjust from a night-schedule to a day-schedule, and that's if you're doing a 12-hour flip. If you're just going backwards one shift, there's really no lag to speak of. A matter of weeks is more than enough time for him to get used to that shift.


----------



## gumbyk (May 11, 2009)

Their sources are idiots...



> After Flight 3407's stall warning system activated, Renslow pulled down on the plane's yoke — which is just the opposite of what he should have done, several aviation sources have said.


Every aircraft that I have ever flown, the control column/yoke moves forward/back, and side to side. Not up/down, so where do they get this info from?
As to what he should have done, that depends on whether the main wing or tailplane was stalled (if it was icing as it seems to be suspected). Push forward if the wing is stalled, pull back if the tailplane is stalled.
avweb.com with NASA video clip



> In addition, Colgan's training program does not include simulator training into how pilots should react when the stall warning system activates, sources said.


Thats part of any Aviation Authority check-ride, no matter what country you're in. If he passed a proficiency check, he would have shown competence in his reactions. 
If it wasn't in their procedures for compentency checks, thenteh FAA needs to shoulder soem of the responsibility, as from my understanding, they have to approve all procedures manuals.



Stupid, over-hyped, sensationalist bullsh!t mainstream media....


----------



## RabidAlien (May 11, 2009)

Thanks! Glad to see I'm not the only one left scratching my noggin over this one. Seemed to be alot of grasping at straws and shooting scapegoats, if you ask me.


----------



## pbfoot (May 11, 2009)

gumbyk said:


> Their sources are idiots...
> 
> 
> Every aircraft that I have ever flown, the control column/yoke moves forward/back, and side to side. Not up/down, so where do they get this info from?
> ...


Your a pilot  I stand in awe.
here is a version that may meet with your approval
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/632585


----------



## pbfoot (May 11, 2009)

RabidAlien said:


> Thanks! Glad to see I'm not the only one left scratching my noggin over this one. Seemed to be alot of grasping at straws and shooting scapegoats, if you ask me.


seems pretty clear if the story is true and I've heard from people familiar with event it wasn't the aircraft so that doesn't leave alot of other choices
"Colgan may not have known about the previous check ride failures because of a loophole in FAA requirements about what pilots must tell prospective employers, sources said."


"The sources, who asked not to be named because the National Transportation Safety Board hasn't released the results of its investigation, told The Associated Press that the pilot training provided by the airline – Manassas, Va.-based Colgan – for the Dash 8-Q400 Bombardier, a twin-engine turboprop, didn't include a demonstration or simulation of the stick-pusher system.

The stick-pusher automatically kicks in when a plane is about to stall, pointing the aircraft's nose down into a dive so it can pick up enough speed to allow the pilot to guide it to a recovery.

However, when Flight 3407's stick-pusher kicked in on approach to Buffalo Niagara International Airport the night of Feb. 12, the pilot – Capt. Marvin Renslow – *pulled back on the plane's control column, apparently trying to bring the aircraft out of the sudden dive by bringing the aircraft's nose up. Pushing forward to gain speed is the proper procedure.*
The activation of a stick pusher can be a jarring experience for any pilot, especially if the pilot has never experienced it before, sources said.

Flight 3407 experienced an aerodynamic stall"


----------



## gumbyk (May 11, 2009)

> Your a pilot I stand in awe.
> here is a version that may meet with your approval


WTF??

Oh well.


I guess everyone has ruled out the possibility that the TAILPLANE had ice accumulation and stalled? If the stick-pusher checked forward(nose pitch down) and stalled the tailplane(Nose pitch up), there wasn't much he could do about it.


----------



## Matt308 (May 11, 2009)

Gents, first rule of armchair accident/incident investigators is to kick back and wait for the facts.


----------



## gumbyk (May 11, 2009)

Exactly,
Facts, not media musings.


----------



## pbfoot (May 12, 2009)

gumbyk said:


> WTF??
> 
> Oh well.
> 
> ...


read all the posts rather then the last and you might learn a bit rather then jump to conclusions. I have been following this thing because of its proximity , at the beginning if you had read all the posts. I *suggested* that because of the weather it might be icing. 
Now I know as a pilot that you find it hard to believe that all pilots might not walk on water. I don't guess in air incidents . I'll wager large amounts of money I've been involved in more then yourself.


----------



## gumbyk (May 12, 2009)

Sorry, PB, but one thing that really annoys me is the way that the mainstream media very rarely tries to get any correct terminology/research intheir reporting of aviation accidents/incidents. I have been involved in a number of incidents where the media latched on to one minor aspect, and attributed it as a "cause".

Now, as for pilots walking on water, well, I have spent more time working in the maintenance/engineering aspect of aviation than flying, so there's no risk of me thinking that. But, equally, I don't like it when the pilot is damned before the report comes out.


----------



## pbfoot (May 12, 2009)

gumbyk said:


> Sorry, PB, but one thing that really annoys me is the way that the mainstream media very rarely tries to get any correct terminology/research intheir reporting of aviation accidents/incidents. I have been involved in a number of incidents where the media latched on to one minor aspect, and attributed it as a "cause".
> 
> Now, as for pilots walking on water, well, I have spent more time working in the maintenance/engineering aspect of aviation than flying, so there's no risk of me thinking that. But, equally, I don't like it when the pilot is damned before the report comes out.


well here you go ,todays released stuff from the NTSB
http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/668993.html
all the relevant docs in PDF including all the graphs from the data recorder from the NTSB , one thing that perked my interest was the fact the co pilot had never encountered icing previously .


----------



## Matt308 (May 12, 2009)

Easy guys... let's not make this something personal.


----------

