A Continental plane has crashed into a house in Buffalo, New York.

[KarlK]

i would never get on one of those turboprops .. i hear theyre very bumpy. i panic enough over minor turbulence!

I have flown on the Dash-8 many times and found it quite pleasant. This is not a small turboprop: it's a large, very modern aircraft with smooth engines that propel it at near-jet speed and it's very comfortable and quiet, with a nice view out the windows. Statistically it is the safest airliner in the world: of nearly 900 built over 26 years (a huge commercial success) and over 700 still in service there has only been two fatal accidents including yesterday's crash. No other commercial airliner enjoys such a stellar safety record, not even the ubiquitous CRJ which comes in second place for safety.

Smaller turboprops such as the Beechcraft 1900 and Embraer Brasilia are those you want to avoid: they are slow, noisy, bumpy and cramped. There used to be a lot of so-so turboprops around (the F27 Bozo comes to mind) but noise abatement and safety regulations have caused their numbers to decline rapidly. Today's turboprops are space-age technology.

 

[KarlK]

I cannot believe the odds of this. It is beyond my comprehension.

9/11 Victims' wife killed in plane crash. Apparently she was a great lobbyist for change in some laws. Unbelievable.

Not as unbelievable as a 911 survivor dying in the crash of AA Flight 587, but it happened.

As for the odds regarding this woman, if she flew often -as one would expect a lobbyist to be doing- then the odds were higher for her than they are for the general population. We have to keep things in perspective: there were a lot of 911 victims and they left behind tens of thousands of relatives. Some of those are bound to perish in accidents.

 

[chicagofa13]

That is quite an irony. Did she have children, I wonder? I don't see mention of any.

Oh my, wasn't it a Continental flight that went off the runway in Denver? In the snow and ice?

We have a Continental flight to Asheville booked in April; I'm not feeling too good about it.

Terrible tragedy for all involved, for New York, and the country. I am so sad for the families.

I'm a flight attendant for a major airline (not Continental) and I'm here to tell you that you are still safe. The CO crash in DEN was survived 100 percent. A miracle considering the plane broke apart and a fire started. Then we saw Sully save all the people on US Airways in the Hudson. This is just a reminder that in life accidents happen.

One of my friends dads was on the flight.

RIP Clay Yarber.


Prayers for his young son, and my friend, Chris. <333

Condolences to you and your friend's family at this difficult time.

so sorry to hear about your friends dad RIP clay. ill light a candle in his memory, and in the memory of all the folks involved.
...snip...

even after all this, flying is still the safest form of travel. and continental has an excellent safety record (ftr, the flight wasnt even operated by continental, it was operated by a smaller airline that is owned by continental. not that the airline itself matters, they all have the same standards).

Colgan isn't owned by Continental. They just operate flights as Continental Connection. Some airlines own their express/connection operations (American is one), others use non-owned regional airlines to carry their passengers, some a combination of owned/unowned. I can see how it is very confusing. Colgan operates flights for a few major airlines. And you are correct, airlines operation under Part 121 have the same rules whether big or small operations. In fact, I sometimes think the FAA is more involved with the small guys!

 

[chicagofa13]

I find it troubling that airline seniority rules often results in the less experienced pilots having to fly the most challenging aircraft before they can graduate to more sedate equipment. While the Dash-8 is ultramodern and holds an enviable safety record it is nonetheless a very complex aircraft to operate that keeps both pilots extremely busy during takeoff and approach phases, especially in adverse weather conditions. Like all high-wing designs it is more prone to wing icing than other types but is also equipped with advanced de-icing systems, however during approach in bad weather there are so many systems to monitor that the crew may have overlooked the de-icing situation until it was too late. The crash in Illinois involving an ATR-72 (a plane similar to the Dash 8 but less advanced) was due to the failure of the crew to keep track of the icing situation.

I imagine the ATC recordings will soon be available, maybe that'll shed some light on what happened. If not we'll have to wait for the NTSB report.

Yes, you have to start at the "minors" to get to the "majors" (unless you were military), but I think it's a testament to how safe air travel is today when you see the sheer number of takeoff and landings completed without incident every year. Unfortunately they don't let you start in the 747 and move to the Dash-8.

 

[KarlK]

Yes, you have to start at the "minors" to get to the "majors" (unless you were military), but I think it's a testament to how safe air travel is today when you see the sheer number of takeoff and landings completed without incident every year. Unfortunately they don't let you start in the 747 and move to the Dash-8.

No, they usually don't. But some airlines have been dealing with the issue by requiring that captains on commuter aircraft serve X number of years on the type instead of accumulating X number of hours before they can apply for FO positions on larger aircraft, so that at least one crew member is reasonably experienced. As the largest modern turboprop, the Dash 8 is usually the last step leading to flying jets such as the CRJ, MD80 and 737. However with some airlines now flying only one type (for example Comair's large fleet consists solely of CRJ's) the presence of experienced pilots even on small airliners is much more likely.

With salary based on seniority rather than type there is less pressure to step up to larger planes as fast as possible like it used to be the case, and there were situations where airliners were being flown by pimpled pilots barely in their 20's who knew how to fly the plane, obviously, but had limited experience in dealing with in-flight emergencies. The Air Florida crash in '83 is a good example of this even though pure stupidity stemming from youthful cockiness appears to have played a role in that specific accident as well.

Even more blatant was the crash of a Pinnacle Airlines CRJ during a repositioning flight (which means that fortunately the plane was not carrying any passengers) where the two young pilots, freshly graduated to jets after flying turboprops for a few years, simply decided to rocket the plane up to 41,000 feet (its maximum ceiling) just to see how fast it could get there. Disregarding all manufacturer directives on rate of climb and breaking several FAA rules in the process they climbed at a vertiginous rate and reached the lofty altitude within a few minutes, where they proceeded to congratulate each other, after which both engines quit because they were oxygen-starved by the way too steep climb. Not surprisingly, the crew was unable to restart them and after gliding more than 100 miles the jet crashed short of the runway they were attempting to reach (missing a house by a few feet), killing them both. Most pilots and other aviation experts were apalled to learn during the investigation that these guys had even thought of attempting to climb at such a rate, knowing that any high-bypass turbojet engine (the type of engine used by all commercial airliners) cannot sustain such a drop in available air oxygen in such a short time without starving. Yet these were licensed airline pilots. Licensed, but not experienced. Had one of the two been flying jets for a little while he would have known better.

Also the Beech 1900 crash in Charlotte a few years ago is said by some pilots familiar with the type to have been recoverable but those who say that weren't there so it's difficult to tell. What seems likely is that if the crew had lowered the flaps and extended the gear when the nose went up the ensuing dive *may* have been recoverable *in theory*.

Even when a crash is not directly caused by pilot error an experienced individual has a better chance at identifying the problem and attempting recovery than someone who's never had to deal with even a minor emergency. Hopefully the FAA will eventually enact directives to mandate that at least one pilot on each airline crew be fairly experienced and paid accordingly.

Note: this post consists of general considerations and does not specifically concern the Dash 8 crash for which not enough info is currently available to comment on.

 

[KarlK]

Colgan isn't owned by Continental. They just operate flights as Continental Connection.

Colgan belongs to Pinnacle Airlines. Pinnacle itself has strong links with Northwest Airlines and flies all the CRJ's painted in Northwest livery which is almost 100 units, with about 50 more to be delivered. This is the second largest CRJ fleet in the world after Delta and makes Pinnacle a much larger airline than it appears to be, as those planes are painted in their client's livery instead of their own. Pinnacle also operate aircraft for Delta Connection, not to be confused with Comair which belongs to Delta proper.

Some airlines own their express/connection operations (American is one)

And Delta is another with Comair, not to be confused with Delta Connection which does not belong to Delta. Also US Airways owns Piedmont Airlines which operates under the name US Airways Express. Or rather both US Airways and Piedmont belong to the same parent holding called US Airways Group. Some others prefer to deal with "courtesy" contractors such as Pinnacle which flies its own regional aircraft under their clients' livery, which is good for corporate image while relieving the client from the overhead involved in operating their own regional airline.

In fact, I sometimes think the FAA is more involved with the small guys!

They are since the Alaska Airlines crash near L.A. which exposed negligent maintenance practices at smaller airlines to cut costs. Since then the FAA has been keeping a closer eye on those airlines and issued many air worthiness directives aimed specifically at them. Larger airlines have embedded FAA watchdogs so they weren't as prone to cut corners.

As for Continental, fatal accidents in its long history can be counted on the fingers of a single hand, which is an outstanding safety record for a large airline. Its corporate history is a little less stellar though, it has had its share of executive shenanigans. One rather amusing incident is when one VP was fired for questioning certain practices by the CEO shortly before Continental was acquired by Air Canada in the 1990's. A few months later the fired VP was hired as CEO by Air Canada and promptly ordered Continental's Board of Directors to fire the offending CEO. Sweet is the revenge...

 

[KarlK]

It appears the plane flew right into a freak ice storm. Apart from flying into a hurricane or tornado an ice storm is the last thing pilots want to deal with. Unfortunately in order to avoid it you have to know it's there but weather radars can't tell if it's snow, rain or ice you're heading for. An ice storm will deposit ice on control surfaces much faster than regular airborne ice would and once detected it may already be too late if the pilots aren't trained to react to a sudden tail stall. Fortunately, such freak ice storms are rare.

 

[scandi]

This is eerie - a NASA video about tailplane icing. Describes one symptom being sudden loss of control leading to a severe pitch down upon application of flaps:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2238323060735779946

It's long but very interesting - and 10 years old. We don't know what happened on this flight, but I do find this interesting.

So in hindsight Adnoid, and with the pilot/crew having mentioned noticing ice buildup on the windshield and wing edge, that lowering the flaps is the thing that shouldn't have been done.

With all the fuel they had would the thing to do have been to circle around or fly to another area where it was not so cold or icy?

 

[KarlK]

So in hindsight Adnoid, and with the pilot/crew having mentioned noticing ice buildup on the windshield and wing edge, that lowering the flaps is the thing that shouldn't have been done.

With all the fuel they had would the thing to do have been to circle around or fly to another area where it was not so cold or icy?

This time of year they would be looking for colder air, during winter warm air pockets is where icing occurs. As per the NASA video they should have raised flaps and go around instead of landing but it's easy to be perfect in hindsight. One important factor that's still unknown is their altitude when -and if- a tail stall occurred. If it's only a few hundred feet it doesn't leave much time for recovery: you have to know exactly what the problem is and know exactly what to do, which is a lot to ask from crew members who are not trained NASA test pilots.

Interestingly the aircraft used in the NASA video is a DHC-6 "Twin Otter", the design from which the larger Dash 8 evolved. The actual name of the Dash 8 is DHC-8. DHC stands for DeHavilland Canada, a division of Bombardier.

 

[blue_the_puppy]

I have flown on the Dash-8 many times and found it quite pleasant. This is not a small turboprop: it's a large, very modern aircraft with smooth engines that propel it at near-jet speed and it's very comfortable and quiet, with a nice view out the windows. Statistically it is the safest airliner in the world: of nearly 900 built over 26 years (a huge commercial success) and over 700 still in service there has only been two fatal accidents including yesterday's crash. No other commercial airliner enjoys such a stellar safety record, not even the ubiquitous CRJ which comes in second place for safety.

Smaller turboprops such as the Beechcraft 1900 and Embraer Brasilia are those you want to avoid: they are slow, noisy, bumpy and cramped. There used to be a lot of so-so turboprops around (the F27 Bozo comes to mind) but noise abatement and safety regulations have caused their numbers to decline rapidly. Today's turboprops are space-age technology.

thanks for the info -- i guess i'm lumping all turboprops together. my boyfreind rode on one of the little ones (maybe a beechcraft 1900)? and he said it was like riding a weed-wacker :crazy:

chicagofa13, thanks for the clarification re: who owns what.

 

[RR0004]

These flights to upstate NY on smaller planes are very often the ones that get cancelled. If there is even a hint of bad weather, they don't take-off. They are VERY careful at Newark. What was most surprising to me was that the flight was able to depart at all. We had high speed (ground) winds all through the day and night here in NJ. There must have been a window of opportunity because (IMO) if there was any question about weather they would have never let the plane out of the gate. What a terrible "freak of nature"! I feel so for the families involved. After the "Miracle on the Hudson" there was a sense that all was right in the world. Now this.

 

[blue_the_puppy]

After the "Miracle on the Hudson" there was a sense that all was right in the world. Now this.

thats how i felt too!

 

[KarlK]

The deicing system on the DHC8 has been described as very effective and the reports are that it was operating.

Yes, and the NTSB also reported (or leaked?) that upon preliminary inspection of the FDR the engines were also functioning properly and that there is no indication of an aircraft malfunction. Also investigators now believe that contrary to what some witnesses reported, the plane wasn't nose-diving but crashed on its belly which if true sounds like a low altitude stall, an almost unrecoverable situation (see American Airlines Flight 191).

KarlK mention heavy icing - there is no plane made certified to fly through such conditions, the only thing you can do is get out of them and you don't always know where that is.

I get the impression that this flight encountered unusually severe ice rain but it's too soon to tell if the crew made the wrong decision by not aborting the approach. The Dash 8 has a long wingspan and can land without flaps extended at a safe speed (it's one of a handful of airliners than can do so) but afaik it's not a procedure airline crews are routinely trained for, and it would require re-initiating the ILS approach which is always a last resort. There may be a serious training issue the FAA will have to address following this investigation. Also perhaps the avionics should include a system that would detect unusually heavy icing and prevent the crew from extending the flaps, effectively forcing a go-around or zero-flap landing, for which crews would be trained. The zero-flap landing could mean a flight may have to be re-routed to a longer runway but it's better than losing control.

 

[KarlK]

You caught that too. The scene where they actually stalled the horizontal tail had quite the pucker factor for me. Clearly those test pilots know what they are doing and reacted very calmly, but even though they were doing it on purpose and immediately began recovery, with the PNF starting flap retraction as soon as the nose went over, they still lost 300 feet! They were doing this at altitude, not at 1500 AGL like this plane.

Yeah the induced stall was freaky. But they used the right aircraft to do it, that plane will survive almost any maneuver. I have seen a pilot barrel-roll a Twin Otter at an airshow, held my breath on that one. That plane is incredibly sturdy and powerful.

 

[KarlK]

These flights to upstate NY on smaller planes are very often the ones that get cancelled. If there is even a hint of bad weather, they don't take-off. They are VERY careful at Newark. What was most surprising to me was that the flight was able to depart at all.

Unless the runways are closed -as in a blizzard- it's the airline who decides to cancel a flight on account of bad weather. Feeder airlines have tremendous pressure from their big-airline clients to keep planes in the air. Unfortunately this can result in tragedy

 

[RR0004]

Unless the runways are closed -as in a blizzard- it's the airline who decides to cancel a flight on account of bad weather. Feeder airlines have tremendous pressure from their big-airline clients to keep planes in the air. Unfortunately this can result in tragedy

CO basically "rules" at Newark. Being a TA, I can't begin to tell you how many times I've dealt with clients who faced cancellations on these short hop flights regardless of the destination. It's one of the reasons why- to certain destinations- I choose bigger aircraft. If there is even something amiss weather-wise they use that age old excuse for not flying...hence no compensation. Yes, it screws up scheduling, but from my own experience I can say CO is extrememly cautious. I'm convinced they had a total green light to go. No one could have expected the freak weather conditions that brought the flight down. G-d awful! Bless all involved.

 

[KarlK]

Well, it looks more and more like the crash was the result of pilot error aggravated by adverse weather. According to the NTSB the autopilot was still enabled when the flight went down. AP is a big no-no in icing conditions at low altitude (such as during final approach) because it interferes with stall recovery. So far the NTSB has been unable to find anything wrong with the aircraft and are focusing the inquiry on crew actions.

Just a personal comment: the Dash 8 can be intimidating to fly, it has a very complex instrument panel and keeps its 2-person crew extremely busy during approach even with ILS, having to land it manually would increase the workload even further so it's not routinely done. If the crew suddenly found themselves in an extreme critical situation with alarms buzzing and stick shaker* activated it is conceivable that they would have overlooked the autopilot settings. Hopefully CVR analysis will shed some light on what happened.

*the stick shaker is a warning system that physically vibrates the yokes of an aircraft to alert pilots of an imminent stall situation. It's one of the most serious cockpit warnings and is impossible to ignore, it requires immediate action.

 

[KarlK]

Don't know if you caught this from the press conference about the aircraft's motions:

---

After flap adjustment, the sequence of pitch and rolls:

Pitch up 31 deg
Then 45 degrees nose down and left roll of 46
Then right roll of 105

AC experienced 0.75 to 2 G's

Last plot on data recorder: 900 MSL, with right roll of 26, pitch 30 nose-down at 100 knots

Accident site is about 650 MSL

Last radar hit was at 1000 (MSL?), 2nd to last radar hit was at 1800 MSL and the time between radar hits was 5 seconds...

Well it does sound like a tail stall followed by wing stall and dive. Considering that the plane crashed on its belly and that AP was still engaged -likely in ILS mode- it would seem that the AP moved the elevator (I don't think the Dash 8 has autothrottle) as soon as the plane dropped below glide slope and the aircraft had begun to right itself before impact as it had picked up speed, but ran out of altitude. My guess is the stick shaker may have initially caused the startled flying pilot to remove his/her hands from the yoke which would explain why AP was still on. AFAIK moving the yoke disengages the AP, but there may be a time delay.

It's possible the crew maxed the throttles in response to the stall, which would explain the noise heard by witnesses. To someone living near the approach path of a runway but not right next to the airport the sound of an aircraft suddenly applying max power would not be familiar and could be reported as "odd" I imagine. The only time when a Dash 8 is not quiet is when high power is applied, this would be in sharp contrast with the plane's typical approach drone witnesses would be used to.

Update: now the NTSB says the autopilot disengaged when the stall prevention system took over but was somehow reactivated shortly afterwards. If I understand correctly the Dash 8 Q400 is equipped with a system that combines stick shaker and a sort of "auto-dive" designed to increase airspeed asap. Apparently the auto-dive can be overridden by pilot intervention, which may be what caused the sharp pitch-up after which control was lost. Perhaps the re-engaging of the AP was a desperate attempt to regain control.

 

[RR0004]

Thanks, KarlK, for all the updates. I had heard that the ap was engaged (big non-no) then disengaged shortly before the crash (?). Does all of this still lend itself to pilot error INYO?

 

[KarlK]

Thanks, KarlK, for all the updates. I had heard that the ap was engaged (big non-no) then disengaged shortly before the crash (?). Does all of this still lend itself to pilot error INYO?

It's too early to say with any certainty, but analyzing pilot inputs will undoubtedly be a crucial part of the investigation since there does not appear to have been any obvious aircraft malfunction.

However one has to understand that "pilot error" is not always synonymous with a gross mistake on the part of the crew, especially when sudden adverse weather occurs. More often than not when an accident is deemed pilot error it's because the crew took a course of action that ultimately put the flight at risk because of an unforeseen event external to the aircraft (such as weather). Whether that unforeseen event was foreseeable or not determines the level of human responsibility.

Sometimes it is not humanly possible to recover from a situation that leads to an accident in which case failure to recover is not deemed pilot error but "act of God". However if a dubious decision made by the crew earlier in the flight has lead to a situation where the aircraft became highly exposed to bad weather during a crucial phase of the flight when going around for a second approach or diverting the flight were safer alternatives then an accident will be deemed "pilot error". Delta Airlines Flight 191 is a classic example of this.

There is also a situation where a crash will be deemed "pilot error" when the accident is due to improper training, in which case responsibility falls mostly on the airline. I believe it is a possibility in this case. The Dash 8 Q400 is a complex aircraft to fly that keeps its crew very busy during approach, if the pilots aren't trained in maneuvering it "by the seat of their pants" (that means manual flying without the benefit of going through a checklist) should a sudden emergency occur then that's a training failure. Contrary to large jets, the Dash 8 can be pulled out of trouble manually, at least in theory, but that requires specific training.

The Dash 8 is slated to replace the problematic ERJ (not to be confused with the better quality CRJ) at Continental and feeder airlines that use ERJ's, it is therefore extremely important that crews be thoroughly trained in all aspects of flying this impressive but somewhat intimidating plane. Hopefully valuable lessons can be learned from this tragedy.