zow2 Posted February 17, 2009 Posted February 17, 2009 I thought that was a rule for coming into Buffalo. Nah, they can fly on Auto pilot all the way until they hit the outer marker and start final approach. I think there is even an "Auto Land" on planes- but I have no idea how often that is used?. The Delta MD-88 coming in after 3407 even discussed that with the tower. I wanted to clarify something. What i meant by the pilots not having the "vast experience" is that more expereinced pilots might have turned the Auto pilot off 30 minutes before landing in Buffalo and never been in that situation. All the weather reports did suggest at least some icing in the area. You didn't need to be in it to know it was coming. I wonder how the pilots flew the sister ship into Buffalo 30 mins after 3407 crashed? I'd be curious if they experienced similar icing and if they flew on auto or not?
truth on hold Posted February 17, 2009 Posted February 17, 2009 Nah, they can fly on Auto pilot all the way until they hit the outer marker and start final approach. I think there is even an "Auto Land" on planes- but I have no idea how often that is used?. The Delta MD-88 coming in after 3407 even discussed that with the tower. I wanted to clarify something. What i meant by the pilots not having the "vast experience" is that more expereinced pilots might have turned the Auto pilot off 30 minutes before landing in Buffalo and never been in that situation. All the weather reports did suggest at least some icing in the area. You didn't need to be in it to know it was coming. I wonder how the pilots flew the sister ship into Buffalo 30 mins after 3407 crashed? I'd be curious if they experienced similar icing and if they flew on auto or not? good question
Wacka Posted February 18, 2009 Posted February 18, 2009 My brother works for the Erie County Highway Department. He's out on medical leave right now, but his boss was called in to do some work in Clarence Center at the crash site (moving debris with a CAT). The boss told him that there were still body parts everyplace. All this talk about rebuilding the house, etc, should wait a while. There is still a lot of work to do at the site.
zow2 Posted February 18, 2009 Posted February 18, 2009 I heard somewhere else that the crash site is considered hallowed ground now. That's a good way to put it. I have no doubt that this family will be taken care of but probably in some other part of Clarence or WNY. You can't build a house on a tiny site where 50 people died. That space has to be left as a memorial or something. Just my opinion of course.
zow2 Posted February 18, 2009 Posted February 18, 2009 Sounds like someone is leaking info on the investigation to the Wall Street Journal. They have quite the article today. If you believe the article, it sounds more and more like pilot error instead of icing being the major casue. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1234929058...d=djemalertNEWS "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." "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." That last part is chilling- they almost made it.
duey Posted February 18, 2009 Posted February 18, 2009 My God...what would cause a pilot to pull BACK on the stick when in a stall? One would have to believe that this is one of the more basic and important reactions that a pilot is taught. While not understanding how seniority and such things work in the airline field...one has to wonder why the second officer, with 774 hours on this type of craft, was the second officer, while the pilot, who only upgraded to this type of craft, was the pilot. Is this some kind of on-the-job training?
Steely Dan Posted February 18, 2009 Posted February 18, 2009 Sounds like someone is leaking info on the investigation to the Wall Street Journal. They have quite the article today. If you believe the article, it sounds more and more like pilot error instead of icing being the major casue. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1234929058...d=djemalertNEWS "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." "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." That last part is chilling- they almost made it. That must have been scary as for those on that plane. seconds probably seemed like minutes.
dfluker Posted February 19, 2009 Posted February 19, 2009 CNN is now reporting that Southwest Airlines issued a warning a couple of weeks ago about instrument landings on that particular runway (23) in certain weather conditions being potentially hazardous. Apparently there is some earth dam blocking the signal to the south and it can cause aircraft to suddenly pitch up and go into stall (where have we heard that one recently). Perhaps it was neither ice nor pilot error? http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/19/buffalo.c....ils/index.html
Tcali Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 Sounds like someone is leaking info on the investigation to the Wall Street Journal. They have quite the article today. If you believe the article, it sounds more and more like pilot error instead of icing being the major casue. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1234929058...d=djemalertNEWS "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." "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." That last part is chilling- they almost made it. well its far too early to say...lets hold off on the rumors
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 My God...what would cause a pilot to pull BACK on the stick when in a stall? One would have to believe that this is one of the more basic and important reactions that a pilot is taught. While not understanding how seniority and such things work in the airline field...one has to wonder why the second officer, with 774 hours on this type of craft, was the second officer, while the pilot, who only upgraded to this type of craft, was the pilot. Is this some kind of on-the-job training? Cutbacks and layoffs must surely be playing a role in a lot of things...??? And this flight wasn't directly Continental, it was sub-carrier for Continental, I wonder how that plays out legally in a mess like this? And to think the captain and co-pilot on the plane that had to ditch in the Hudson were BOTH capable of being the captain... Capt. Sully said (on Larry King): "Because of all of the cutbacks and layoffs, Jeff (co-piolt) was just as qualified as me to command the aircraft."
zow2 Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 CNN is now reporting that Southwest Airlines issued a warning a couple of weeks ago about instrument landings on that particular runway (23) in certain weather conditions being potentially hazardous. Apparently there is some earth dam blocking the signal to the south and it can cause aircraft to suddenly pitch up and go into stall (where have we heard that one recently). Perhaps it was neither ice nor pilot error? http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/19/buffalo.c....ils/index.html That was interesting reading. Seems like that theory is being pushed aside though as a non-factor. The Buffalo News had a pretty good article today. They point out that some aviation experts suggest that “supercooled large droplet icing” that is extremly dangerous to aircraft could have been a major factor. Buffalo in the winter is smack dab in the center of the bull's eye for it. Apparently it can build up heavily behind the de-icing boots and really disrupt the airflow over the wings. I don;t know about you guys, but I doubt I'll ever get on a Turboprop plane in Northeast winter weather again. I'll rely on the good 'ol wing-heated jet to get me in and out of BUF.
Tcali Posted February 22, 2009 Posted February 22, 2009 An amazing obituary for an amazing woman. a unique woman....gutsy...
DC Tom Posted February 22, 2009 Posted February 22, 2009 My God...what would cause a pilot to pull BACK on the stick when in a stall? One would have to believe that this is one of the more basic and important reactions that a pilot is taught. While not understanding how seniority and such things work in the airline field...one has to wonder why the second officer, with 774 hours on this type of craft, was the second officer, while the pilot, who only upgraded to this type of craft, was the pilot. Is this some kind of on-the-job training? They were low. It sounds like the stick pusher kicked in, put the plane's nose down, and someone decided to fight the aircraft, which made the situation go from "loss of altitude" (bad) to "loss of control" (much worse). Which is to say that I can understand how it could happen. It still amounts to intentionally putting a plane into a full stall at low altitude, which is completely mind-boggling to me.
truth on hold Posted February 22, 2009 Posted February 22, 2009 They were low. It sounds like the stick pusher kicked in, put the plane's nose down, and someone decided to fight the aircraft, which made the situation go from "loss of altitude" (bad) to "loss of control" (much worse). Which is to say that I can understand how it could happen. It still amounts to intentionally putting a plane into a full stall at low altitude, which is completely mind-boggling to me. So I understand, when a plane stalls it's because it lacks enough speed to maintain altitude. And the prescribed thing to do is lower the nose to orient the plane downward as a means to increase speed to the point where altitude can be maintained. Is that part correct? But what may have happened in this case is when auto-pilot oriented the nose down to counter the stall the pilot reacted by yanking the nose back up. And this may have set off the unfortunate sequence that followed. Is that correct? If so I'm concerned with how delicate a procedure this is. Seems like others could have an instinct to do what that pilot may have done.
DC Tom Posted February 22, 2009 Posted February 22, 2009 So I understand, when a plane stalls it's because it lacks enough speed to maintain altitude. And the prescribed thing to do is lower the nose to orient the plane downward as a means to increase speed to the point where altitude can be maintained. Is that part correct? But what may have happened in this case is when auto-pilot oriented the nose down to counter the stall the pilot reacted by yanking the nose back up. And this may have set off the unfortunate sequence that followed. Is that correct? If so I'm concerned with how delicate a procedure this is. Seems like others could have an instinct to do what that pilot may have done. "Stall" is actually the name for the entire process by which wings lose lift. There's a few ways it could happen; in this case, it's probably a combination of low speed and wing ice. Stalls are also common. Pilots are trained to recognize them early and recover from them. For this crash to happen as it seems to have now, the pilot would have had to not be paying attention and ignore what they were trained to do. But in this case, the autopilot apparently put the nose down at an altitude of something like 3000 feet...which itself isn't entirely safe. So I wouldn't assume the pilot reacted instinctively, either. It could have been a reasoned, but bad, decision.
Recommended Posts