ExiledInIllinois Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Let me guess? The name "Colgan" will cease to exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 You know when the stall indicator goes off, they were supposed to nose down to pick up speed. Instead Renslow nosed up increasing the stall. But at their really low altitude, how could they dive to pick up speed? Not enough altitude IMO. All this means was once they started to stall, nothing was going to save the plane, they're screwed A stall is less an event than a process (culminating in the stall indicator going off, with a loss of lift and control). They should have been more than enough time and altitude to correct any non-mechanical situation they were in. Either they weren't paying attention to the stall warnings, or they didn't get any warnings because the aerodynamics of the plane changed (i.e. icing) - and they weren't paying attention to that. Or, it seems both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkyMannn Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 A stall is less an event than a process (culminating in the stall indicator going off, with a loss of lift and control). They should have been more than enough time and altitude to correct any non-mechanical situation they were in. Either they weren't paying attention to the stall warnings, or they didn't get any warnings because the aerodynamics of the plane changed (i.e. icing) - and they weren't paying attention to that. Or, it seems both. I would wager they were probably no more than 1,000 feet off the ground. I doubt they had enough altitude to correct, that is to nose down and pick up speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Let me guess? The name "Colgan" will cease to exist. You mean like ValuJet? Gee....I wonder whatever happened to them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In space no one can hear Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 If anyone wants to check out a very informative thread on this topic go here: Airliners.net many experience pilots and airline personnel weighing in on the topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 You mean like ValuJet? Gee....I wonder whatever happened to them? I had to look that one up KD... Air Tran, right? Like when a boat phucks up on the river or hits a bridge... They used to run away and re-register under a new name. Now, I think if they get caught, they have to post money... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Let me guess? The name "Colgan" will cease to exist. I thought they might start an ad campaign to counteract the negative image. I even have a slogan they can use: Colgan, Take Me Away! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marv's Neighbor Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 You mean like ValuJet? Gee....I wonder whatever happened to them? They're AirTran now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 I had to look that one up KD... Air Tran, right? Yep. I agree with the earlier comments about the regional carriers. I used to fly Mohawk up to 'Cuse back in the day and we'd joke that these were the guys that got 'D's in pilot school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 I thought they might start an ad campaign to counteract the negative image. I even have a slogan they can use: Colgan, Take Me Away! Sorry no offense to the departed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Yep. I agree with the earlier comments about the regional carriers. I used to fly Mohawk up to 'Cuse back in the day and we'd joke that these were the guys that got 'D's in pilot school. Who was the comedian that would use the bit about how doctors should post their grades on their diplomas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marv's Neighbor Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 I don't really see how the fact that they're carrying on a conversation is that big of a deal. Yes, it's a rule, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen all the time. It's the comments pointing out their lack of any experience that is the huge issue here. It doesn't getting any more damning for the Colgan Air than that. I've always assumed these pilots have a good idea of exactly what they're doing, but I'm sure I'll think twice next winter when I fly home for Christmas. I'm sure I'll be dishing out the extra cash for a flight without a layover where there tends to be less of these regional carriers. As with most procedures, Sterile Cockpit was adapted due to previous crash(s). United lost a 737 on approach to Midway in the mid 70's and Eastern lost an L-1011 on approach to Miami because nobody was paying enough attention to flying the plane. United stalled and crashed into a 2+ story wood frame house and Eastern pancaked into the Everglades. Both were experienced crews but preoccupied with mechanical issues that diverted their attention from what/where the plane was in relation to the ground. In the Buffalo crash the inexperience of the crew, with respect to operation in icing conditions, was such that had they been observing Sterile Cockpit procedures they may have had enough time to recognize the situation for what it was and recover. They likely wouldn't have had to lower the nose a whole lot to recover, but pulling the nose up made the situatiuon many times worse, and likely unrecoverable. As for Colgan Air, they've been around for 30-35 years but sold their name/airline to Pinnacle Airlines shortly before the crash. Pinnacle still operates Regional Jets for other airlines including Delta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 As with most procedures, Sterile Cockpit was adapted due to previous crash(s). United lost a 737 on approach to Midway in the mid 70's and Eastern lost an L-1011 on approach to Miami because nobody was paying enough attention to flying the plane. United stalled and crashed into a 2+ story wood frame house and Eastern pancaked into the Everglades. Both were experienced crews but preoccupied with mechanical issues that diverted their attention from what/where the plane was in relation to the ground. In the Buffalo crash the inexperience of the crew, with respect to operation in icing conditions, was such that had they been observing Sterile Cockpit procedures they may have had enough time to recognize the situation for what it was and recover. They likely wouldn't have had to lower the nose a whole lot to recover, but pulling the nose up made the situatiuon many times worse, and likely unrecoverable. As for Colgan Air, they've been around for 30-35 years but sold their name/airline to Pinnacle Airlines shortly before the crash. Pinnacle still operates Regional Jets for other airlines including Delta. That is fascinating, thanks for the great explanation. What I would like to know is: Could the pilot's reaction been just a natural (obviously the wrong one because it made matters worse) reaction? Maybe a bad analogy, but kind like when your car (with anti-lock brakes) starts to skid... The worst possible thing to do is "pump" the brakes as one would do in car with conventional brakes. ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 I would wager they were probably no more than 1,000 feet off the ground. I doubt they had enough altitude to correct, that is to nose down and pick up speed. You'd be wrong. A plane on a normal approach to Buffalo Airport is at about 2500-3000 feet at that point (10 miles out on a 3 degree glide slope. Do the math). In fact, if they were at 1000 feet, they may have survived, as the icing would have been much less severe. But even 2500 is more than enough to detect a stall, increase power and lower the nose, and declare a missed approach and try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In space no one can hear Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 That is fascinating, thanks for the great explanation. What I would like to know is: Could the pilot's reaction been just a natural (obviously the wrong one because it made matters worse) reaction? Maybe a bad analogy, but kind like when your car (with anti-lock brakes) starts to skid... The worst possible thing to do is "pump" the brakes as one would do in car with conventional brakes. ?? Of course his reaction was a "normal one" but it wasn't what his training said he was supposed to do/or the right thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 You'd be wrong. A plane on a normal approach to Buffalo Airport is at about 2500-3000 feet at that point (10 miles out on a 3 degree glide slope. Do the math). In fact, if they were at 1000 feet, they may have survived, as the icing would have been much less severe. But even 2500 is more than enough to detect a stall, increase power and lower the nose, and declare a missed approach and try again. Did the the two panic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In space no one can hear Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Did the the two panic? From the AP: "I believe Capt. Renslow did have intentions of landing safely at Buffalo, as well as first officer Shaw, but obviously in those last few moments ... the flight instruments were not being monitored, and that's an indication of a lack of situational awareness," said John Barrett, Colgan's director of flight standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 As with most procedures, Sterile Cockpit was adapted due to previous crash(s). United lost a 737 on approach to Midway in the mid 70's and Eastern lost an L-1011 on approach to Miami because nobody was paying enough attention to flying the plane. United stalled and crashed into a 2+ story wood frame house and Eastern pancaked into the Everglades. Both were experienced crews but preoccupied with mechanical issues that diverted their attention from what/where the plane was in relation to the ground. In the Buffalo crash the inexperience of the crew, with respect to operation in icing conditions, was such that had they been observing Sterile Cockpit procedures they may have had enough time to recognize the situation for what it was and recover. They likely wouldn't have had to lower the nose a whole lot to recover, but pulling the nose up made the situatiuon many times worse, and likely unrecoverable. As for Colgan Air, they've been around for 30-35 years but sold their name/airline to Pinnacle Airlines shortly before the crash. Pinnacle still operates Regional Jets for other airlines including Delta. Granted, we haven't heard every detail of this conversation, but everything I've seen so far in the moments leading up to the crash, they were talking about events on that plane. The comment about the ice build up seems relevant to me. I can understand either point of view on the rest of the comments about their experience, but to me, it seems relevant to the flight. I guess it all comes down to whether or not they could've done things in advance to avoid that stick shaker stall warning. The big thing that sticks out more than anything is that these two had no clue what to do in the icing conditions. With or without the conversation, that doesn't change. Yes, I can understand the potential problems of random conversations in the cockpit, but here, this whole issue seems like it is trying to distract us from the fact that not enough is being done to train certain pilots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 From the AP: "I believe Capt. Renslow did have intentions of landing safely at Buffalo" Really? They mean that Renslow didn't have intentions to land unsafely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts