Plane crash in Brazil with 62 people on board

a reply to: starvosan

First of all, Colgan 3407 was a Q400, not an ATR. Second, Colgan 3407 had nothing to do with engines and everything to do with pilot error. Both pilots did about everything wrong you can do in a stall situation.

And if by your reference to the 'Nepal crash' you are referring to US-Bangala 211 which crashed in Katmandu in 2018, then this was also a Q400 (not an ATR), and also had nothing to do with engines and everything to do with pilot error. The BS211 flight is one of the crazier ones I've seen; that pilot had lost his mind (about the best way I can describe it). I really feel sorry for the passengers on that flight. PIC was clearly having a complete mental meltdown on final.

So, not aware of what 'undiagnosed gremlin' you are referring to, but there were no engine gremlins in either of these two incidents you have cited. Also curious you would pick these two flights as examples (for anything).

edit - If you were referring to the Yeti 691 incident, there were no engine gremlins there either. Yeti 691 was apparently the result of prop condition levers being placed into feather prior to landing, when the intention was to set the flaps.

originally posted by: VariedcodeSole

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
I'm just surprised how many people suddenly looked up with their cellphones from all different angles. Doesn't seem to make sense...unless they heard something to make them look that way. I've seen no less than 15 different videos of the incident.

Granted, once the plane was in sight it would have been very unusual and scary, but before this why did they look?

If only UFOs weren't so silent, we could possibly get the same coverage, amirite? Sneaky basta....

Damn sneaky UFO’s causing crashes and taking no responsibility.

No wonder they are pretending not to exist.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
Second, Colgan 3407 had nothing to do with engines and everything to do with pilot error. Both pilots did about everything wrong you can do in a stall situation. .... Yeti 691 was apparently the result of prop condition levers being placed into feather prior to landing, when the intention was to set the flaps.

Both the ATR and Q400 use Pratt&Whitney engines. The problem is in the hydraulics, I suspect. Also, blaming dead pilots who can't defend themselves is very convenient, and a lot cheaper than blaming an equipment issue.

a reply to: starvosan

Nvm.

a reply to: starvosan

So even if you’re right, and there are these mysterious prop reversals going on (you’re not, but let’s say you are), if that were the cause of this accident you now have a grand total of three aircraft accidents caused by it. In 2019 there were 1900 Q400s(Colgan), and 1200 ATR 72s built. So out of all the aircraft in service you have three that crashed due to sudden prop reversal. There have been 31 hull losses of the Q400, and 40 ATR 72. Even if you were able to attribute every single one to prop reversal (which is kind of hard to do when you collide with something) that’s still a low percentage of occurrences.

Yes, it is easy to blame pilots, especially when they’re dead, but a huge percentage of accidents involve some form of pilot error. It’s not one single event that causes an accident, and stopping any one of them prevents the accident. Almost any crash you can examine has pilot error in it, and pilots that are the primary cause of the accident should be blamed.

Report today that the crew requested lower and were denied by ATC. With the reports of icing, that’s looking more like they did see icing before it started.

Reports that the crew noticed a drop in altitude, and the first officer wanted power added to stop the loss of altitude. One of the things with a flat spin is that increased power can keep you in the spin, and reducing power allows for recovery procedures. Getting into a flat spin is difficult, as is recovering from a flat spin.

The preliminary report was released. At 1512:40 propellor de-icing was activated, just after takeoff. At 1514:56 CCAS alerted the crew that the electronic ice detector detected icing, and the airframe de-icing was activated at 1515:03. At 1515:42, a single chime was recorded by the CVR, and the crew was heard discussing an airframe de-icing system fault. There were three additional electronic ice detector alarms from 1517-1612 lasting anywhere from one minute, to seven minutes each time. At 1617:41 the airframe de-icing was activated again, followed a minute later by a cruise speed low alarm. At 1619:28 a degraded performance alarm activated, followed at 1620:20 by the SIC making the comment "a lot of icing". At 1620:50, the aircraft entered a right turn, to fly to SANPA, with descent to begin two minutes later. At 1620:57, during the turn, their speed degraded to 169 knots, and "INCREASE SPEED" was displayed, followed almost immediately by vibration noise and the stall alert activating. At 1621:09, the aircraft departed controlled flight and entered the spin seen on video. The aircraft rolled left to 52 degrees, before rolling right to 94 degrees, and performing a 180 degree turn clockwise. The turn was reversed to a counterclockwise spin, and they completed five complete rotations before impact.

dedalo.sti.fab.mil.br...