Plane with 48 aboard crashes into house in suburban Buffalo

FLYBOYJ said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

Click to expand...

Did it get windy across the lake?

FLYBOYJ said:

Did it get windy across the lake?

Click to expand...

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

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

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...

Click to expand...

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.

drgondog said:

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

Click to expand...

Yep - Right when he was approaching the outer marker.

FLYBOYJ said:

Yep - Right when he was approaching the outer marker.

Click to expand...

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

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

Click to expand...

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.

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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

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.

Thanks for the info Pb.

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.

Click to expand...

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

FLYBOYJ said:

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

Click to expand...

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?

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?

Click to expand...

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.