Posted on 02/03/2010 6:10:26 AM PST by pabianice
The probable cause of the Colgan Air crash that killed 50 people near Buffalo, N.Y., a year ago was the captain's inappropriate response, characterized as "startle and confusion," after the stick shaker was activated, pulling back when he should have pushed forward, the NTSB reported in a hearing on Tuesday. Contributing factors included the crew's failure to monitor airspeed and their violation of the sterile-cockpit rule. In the daylong hearing, which ran past 7 p.m., the board split over the issue of whether or not fatigue was a contributing factor in the accident. Board chairman Deborah Hersman argued that several factors, including the crew's sleep deficits and the time of day the accident took place, indicated that fatigue was present, and should be counted as a contributing factor to the crew's performance. But the view of board member Robert Sumwalt prevailed -- he said just because the crew was fatigued, that doesn't mean it was a factor in their performance.
(Excerpt) Read more at avweb.com ...
Wonder how much political and monetary pressure was applied for Sumwalt to issue this statement? Corporate board rooms at Regional Airlines across the country must be rejoicing at this misdirection.
As a career pilot, I can guarantee many more like this. People buy tickets online and only care about price. That has put huge pressure on the airlines to cut costs. Pilots are taking hits all around in salary and training. The best most talented pilots are leaving, or want to.
ATC can’t crash a plane. The pilot was responsible. If ATC gives a clearance that is unsafe, he pilot must/can/should refuse it and do whatever is required to maintain safety.
I have 20,000 hours and never unintentionally stalled a plane, but that said, stall recovery is always the same, max power and regain flying speed. They did neither.
Would either situation call for pulling back on the yoke with the stick shakers going off?
I pointed out the pilot’s responsibility to get out of the situation before it became dangerous. That was mistake number 1.
The response to the stall was stupid. Failing to monitor airspeed was stupid. Failing to monitor attitude was stupid. I had a buddy flying Caravans between Winnipeg and Thunder Bay. I warned him not to push the envelope. He listened and is now flying 727’s. His replacement died weeks later in a turnaround in icing. I’m senesitive.
I hear you BillM.
For the sake of this thread:
NO airplane is certified for sustained flight in moderate or greater icing. Flight in icing is always a challenge. The pilots should have been fully “engaged.” They weren’t.
Fatigue (payscale. . .commuting) could have affected their response, but they should never have needed a response.
I’ll throw a bomb out.
For the most part, women shouldn’t be pilots. They are fine when things are normal, but they tend to have a more emotional response to emergencies. That’s from my experience as a 20,000 B777 captain.
United lost a plane landing in Colo Springs. A female pilot lost the airplane for no reason (I say). There have been many similar weird accidents with female pilots.
Don’t believe me about the difference with women? Look at skydiving fatality stats. Women account for about 10% of jumps and 50% of fatalities.
ok. . .have at me.
In my limited airline experience, women pilots are treated more gently than men. Probably AA guidelines.
I'd be interested in a source for that...
>>>>Women account for about 10% of jumps and 50% of fatalities.
>>>>I’d be interested in a source for that...
I used to jump a lot. The stats were/are kept by the USPA (United States Parachute Assoc.).
Female jumper fatalities are very often related to obvious panic. . .eg and initial malfunction and then no response. Panicd. Found at impact site with ripcord in hand.
I flew with 4 of Kara’s instructors in the Navy. 3 of the 4 said she was a lousy pilot and unsafe, but the brass said pass her. 1 instructor said she was average.
>>>> In my limited airline experience, women pilots are treated more gently than men. Probably AA guidelines.
No question about that. In about 1989, the EEOC told United to hire women regardless of ability. United complied. But that is not why I say women shouldn’t be pilots.
When the airplane is broken (or iced up) and upside down in the middle of the night, the best pilots will have the least emotional response. There is NO room for panic. Generally that’s men. IMHO
The same applies to parachute failures. I’ve had ONE failure. It’s not a time to panic.
To be fair, that was a 737-300 and it happened in 1991. Fast Forward to the clear, sunny evening of September 8, 1994. USAir 427, a 737-300, crashes in Beaver County, PA, almost the same way as the United in 1991. Two male pilots.
Final determination on 427? A badly designed rudder actuator. Looks like Colorado Springs may have been the same.
I never said males don’t crash airplanes. There are good pilots and bad pilots. My comment was mainly regarding the difference in how males and females handle extreme emergencies. Women don’t handle it as well.
In the COS accident, there was no indication that there was a rudder reversal. My 40 years as a pilot says a good pilot could have flown that airplane (even with a reversal).
Nobody expects more of pilots than I. Eg I blame Sully Sullenberger for crashing his airplane in the Hudson. I’ve flown that same procedure countless times. Birds (we call em B1 R D’s) are well known there. A good pilot will have eyes outside and will miss most if not all.
The first real clues that Boeing's 737 might have a dangerous defect in its rudder-control system came from a 1991 crash near Colorado Springs, Colo.
The 737-200, built in Renton in 1982, started out as part of Frontier Airline's fleet. Four years later, Frontier sold the plane to United and it was assigned tail number N999UA.
On a Feb. 25, 1991, flight, N999UA's rudder deflected inexplicably to the right. The problem went away when the pilots switched off the yaw damper, a device that automatically commands small rudder adjustments during flight. Mechanics replaced a part called the yaw-damper coupler and returned the plane to service.
Two days later, a different flight crew reported N999UA's rudder again moving to the right. The new coupler evidently had made no difference. This time mechanics replaced a valve in the yaw damper and returned the plane to service.
Four days later, on the blustery morning of March 3, 1991, Captain Harold Green and First Officer Patricia Eidson were bringing N999UA down for a routine landing in Colorado Springs. At 1,000 feet, the jet suddenly flipped to the right and dived straight down, smashing into a city park and killing all 25 on board.
Thx for that, but like most things you read in the paper, it’s mostly wrong on the important details. The NTSB report tells a different story, and even that is limited by political correctness and the fact that NOTHING was left of that plane. I’m barely exaggerating.
They tried to make up all kinds of stuff to explain it including a previously unknown new weather phenomena. We’ll never know for sure.
I agree 100%.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.