Flight 3407 | What happend?

reply to post by PersonalChoice

If there is a conspiracy there it is that it appears Colgan is run by a bunch of slave driving, profit whores. It seems that Colgan is perfectly happy putting guys in the captain seat with less hours than Hani...think about that for a second.

Well they had more experience than the pilots that crashed into 3 buildings on 9/11 and look at the skills them trainee pilots had to hit their targets..

Seems you don't need much training at all to fly like an ace..

reply to post by weedwhacker

M. Atta's passport was NOT one of the (very many, and not just form the hijackers' possessions) that were recovered from the various crash sites.

Out of pure curiosity, exactly how many other passports were recovered from the 4 plane crashes on 9/11??
Especially fully readable...Interesting question..

reply to post by backinblack


Because they were a domestic flights and almost all the passengers were American citizens few would be carrying passports

But found lots of drivers licenses and other forms of ID /persoanal paperwork

Originally posted by kaya82

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by starviego

 

Oh, Brother!!!!!!

Shades of 9/11's Muhammed Atta and his miraculously surviving passport!!

Not this nonsense, yet again?!?

M. Atta's passport was NOT one of the (very many, and not just form the hijackers' possessions) that were recovered from the various crash sites.

Yet another of the (many, many) "truther" lies that abound.....sad, really. When people merely parrot what they read, without doing any real research......

wheres your source for such claim? You cant shout truther lie with out some evidence of your own yet another os believer lie

Mohammed Atta's passport was not recovered. One belonging to Satam al-Suqami was.

I am not going to give you a link because I really think truthers should check out this sort of elementary information themselves and not just uncritically go along with what some conspiracy site has said.

reply to post by backinblack


I guess you didn't read the link, above. READ it. I can help, if parts aren't understood, by assisting with interpretations of some technical terms.

He was a trained pilot with full qualifications..

Doesn't matter, there are plenty of instances of "fully qualified and trained" pilots making a lot of boneheaded decisions, and often resulting in fatal (or non-fatal) crashes and accidents. LOOK up the statistics..

I did part training to commercial standards but one thing I learned early on..

As a CFI, early on, and an airline pilot since....that terminology used there isn't the way pilots normally talk about flight training. IF you are in the USA ('cause I know it best) then I assume you have your Private? (Or equivalent, depending on your country). SO, you began working towards your Commercial?

....If a plane is stalling, it's nose down to gain airspeed as fast as possible.. If low, full throttle and nose down as much as safe..

Yes, you DO learn that early on...as a student pilot, well before ever even being allowed to solo!!! Yes, power (if you aren't already at full thrust...unless you're in a sailplane). And, "nose down" is easy to remember, but technically you strive to reduce angle of attack...BUT, a proper situational awareness is important to recognize an impending stall condition, before you get all butts and elbows in deep poo-poo...

Nose up would be the LAST thing you'd consider...

Are you REALLY trying to say a trained pilot would do the opposite??

That puzzled me, too. WHY did the Captain (he was PF) raise the nose? Especially at that airspeed. Counter-intuitive, yet, there it is. On the FDR.

THEN, I read the report I linked, there. Having never flown the Dash-8, I don't have the experience in it...but, I can compare, as I read about it and its systems, to other airplanes I've flown. I understand it had a "stick pusher" as part of the stall warning system, in addition to a "stick shaker", as on all large jets. The "shaker" is programmed to activate first, based on computed AoA and airspeed data....it is a warning, of impending stall condition. Usually has a bit of pad, or safety margin. The "pusher" is there only (in most cases) for those occasions when a stall is imminent, or has occurred. Of course, a human is strong enough to over-power the servos that do the "pushing"....

....so, reading the report (and mostly, seeing the levels of experience they both had. Captain about 3,300 hours...but, he had a spotty record of checkride failures and successes. I have NEVER failed any checkride, in my entire career. He had multiple failures. This indicates to me that he was marginal, at best. It is an unfortunate fact that those types exist, in the industry...everywhere. Procedures, like CRM (crew resource management) and checklist discipline, adherence to SOPs, constant re-training (re-currency) all help to mitigate these "weak sisters" (as we sometimes call them) and, hopefully, allow them to continue on, with a successful and accident-free career. Doesn't always work out, though....hence, we continue to have accidents. World wide. It will always be this way, because we are human. Doctors aren't "perfect", and neither are pilots.

Back to his raising the nose? (AND, he did NOT add power!!! I have a few choice words for him, in disgust....).

When I read the report, there was a bit about the airline's winter weather training curriculum, and the subject of "tail stalls". Although the Dash-8 was NOT prone to this, it was included int he airline's overall course topic.

The procedure for recovery from a "tail stall" (this may occur due to excessive ice accumulation, on the horizontal stabilizer that is NOT de-iced, or anti-iced inflight) is the opposite of a stall situation involving the wing.
I can only surmise, based on the Captain's actions (and the F/O's...when she raised the flaps!!....on her own initiative, with no request by the PF....wrong, wrong thing to do, and made it worse!!)...they both must have thought, in their minds, "tail stall"...since the training was recently fresh.

BETTER pilots wouldn't have jumped to that (incorrect) conclusion....and should have recognized that a "stick shaker" activation, combined with a speed below Ref (reference, or "bug speed") AND decreasing, is a strong indication of impending wing stall....they had NO "tail stall" symptoms. Yet, reacted to that....they misidentified the situation. Tragically.

I think another factor may have been autopilot use....transitioning from auto- to hand-flying, when the A/P has disconnected by itself, might have not given him enough time, with his limited experience in type (just over 100 hours) to get a good "feel". It was night, IMC also. Still, there is NO EXCUSE for letting the airspeed get that low, and not taking immediate action!!!

Still, I think back to 1982, and the Air Florida crash here in Washington, on departure from National Airport. Went into the Potomac. Boeing 737-200. Perfectly normal airplane, perfectly capable of having flown out of the situation....BUT, the crew forgot to turn on the engine anti-ice. This should have been done immediately after engine start, as it was cold, and snowing. With the anti-ice off, some sensors that help calculate engine thrust settings iced over, and gave false readings. (The "EPR", specifically. Engine Pressure Ratio). EPR is the primary guide for setting thrust levels....with the iced-up sensors, it read wrong, and when the instruments showed the EPR they wished, the engines were still at only about 60-65% of the thrust they should have been at. Not enough thrust to accelerate, on takeoff, and sustain a climb out....ALL THEY had to do, was to have firewalled the thrust levers, and they would not have crashed!!! Stupid, stupid.....airline pilots, "trained and qualified" on a JET!! Yet, basic airmanship skills, that day? Where were they?? Sometimes, it boggles my mind.....


From the report I linked, above, about icing and "tail stalls", a description of the video that all Colgan Air pilots were shown, as part of their winter weather training:

One subject the video also discusses is the possibility of horizontal stabilizer icing and associated tail stall. It explains differences between conventional wing stall and tail stall.

The video states, in part, that in the event of a wing stall, recovery requires reduction of the angle of attack, which is accomplished by lowering the nose, adding power, and lowering flaps one notch.

THAT, of course, is what occurred. Was misrecognized. Despite the "stick shaker" activation, AND low airspeed!!!

It also states that pilots should be alert to the warning signs of a tail stall. These include:
 Lightening of the controls
 Pitch excursions
 Difficulty in trimming pitch
 Buffeting of the controls
 Sudden nose down pitch

Since he was not hand-flying, he may have misdiagnosed, after autopilot disconnect? Don't know, not sure, wasn't there.....

The video states that to recover from a tail stall, a pilot must:
 Pull back on the yoke
 Reduce flaps
 Reduce power (some aircraft)
The video states that the pilot must first properly diagnose the problem....

This is found on the PDF page 61, document page labelled 58.

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by kaya82

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by starviego

 

Oh, Brother!!!!!!

Shades of 9/11's Muhammed Atta and his miraculously surviving passport!!

Not this nonsense, yet again?!?

M. Atta's passport was NOT one of the (very many, and not just form the hijackers' possessions) that were recovered from the various crash sites.

Yet another of the (many, many) "truther" lies that abound.....sad, really. When people merely parrot what they read, without doing any real research......

wheres your source for such claim? You cant shout truther lie with out some evidence of your own yet another os believer lie

Mohammed Atta's passport was not recovered. One belonging to Satam al-Suqami was.

I am not going to give you a link because I really think truthers should check out this sort of elementary information themselves and not just uncritically go along with what some conspiracy site has said.

how do you know this is true? Because the government told you? Wow really? I think you need to go back to school. Just because you say something was recovered doesnt mean it actually was einstien

Does it not occur to conspiracy theorists that to bring down a passenger plane and kill everyone on board to silence one individual is absurdly extravagant and risky ? Apparently not and this is what makes you CTers I suppose.

The crash was bound to be investigated to a far greater degree than a fall off a subway platform, a motor accident, a heart attack provoked by gas inhalation etc.

And why are the perps so apparently inconsistent in their approach ? Didn't April Gallop not only refuse the compensation payment but go to court until she made an utter fool of herself. But no-one touched a hair of her head; why ?

I find it unlikely it was brought down for the above reason but i couldnt help comment on yu thinkg your opinions were actual facts

Originally posted by kaya82

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by kaya82

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by starviego

 

Oh, Brother!!!!!!

Shades of 9/11's Muhammed Atta and his miraculously surviving passport!!

Not this nonsense, yet again?!?

M. Atta's passport was NOT one of the (very many, and not just form the hijackers' possessions) that were recovered from the various crash sites.

Yet another of the (many, many) "truther" lies that abound.....sad, really. When people merely parrot what they read, without doing any real research......

wheres your source for such claim? You cant shout truther lie with out some evidence of your own yet another os believer lie

Mohammed Atta's passport was not recovered. One belonging to Satam al-Suqami was.

I am not going to give you a link because I really think truthers should check out this sort of elementary information themselves and not just uncritically go along with what some conspiracy site has said.

how do you know this is true? Because the government told you? Wow really? I think you need to go back to school. Just because you say something was recovered doesnt mean it actually was einstien

Satam al-Suqami's passport ended up as an exhibit in the trial US v Zacarias Moussaoui and was examined by defence and the jury :-

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

And your evidence for Mohammed Atta's passport being recovered in New York is what exactly ?

I dont believe any passports where recovered i dont believe anything the corupt gorvernment tells me. Why do u bother coming on these sites? You believe the os conspiracy so theres nothing more for u to learn. Oh i forgot u have no life

One version is that at least one of "terorist" air plane's passagers are kidnapped before plane crash. And they may be are given to reptilians to make experiments on them.
And i dont trust to official version, may be some day government servants will face trial about this managed "terorist acts" .

Originally posted by kaya82
I dont believe any passports where recovered i dont believe anything the corupt gorvernment tells me. Why do u bother coming on these sites? You believe the os conspiracy so theres nothing more for u to learn. Oh i forgot u have no life

A couple of posts ago you were expressing incredulity that Mohammed Atta's passport was not recovered in New York and accusing anyone who believed otherwise of being a government dupe,

Now you are saying you don't believe any passports were recovered, despite one being put in evidence in the Moussaoui trial.

Don't you think that, before you get too deep into this, you actually research some facts before coming to conclusions,

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Searching for any parts "IF" there were in-flight break ups. That is standard, as part of the investigation as to cause.

So why didn't they search the entire route of the Newark to Buffalo flight? It sounds to me like they had good info that parts of the plane were breaking off right before impact. Based upon what the witnesses saw or even unreleased cockpit transmissions.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
All pertinent parts need to be recovered...

But missing engine parts(three prop counterweights) were NEVER recovered, according to the NTSB's own report. So they are either buried underground at the crash site or they were thrown off while the plane was still in the air.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Any pilot seen on a walk around, prior to departure, "checking" things? Done before EVERY flight!!!

Is an engine 'run-up' on one engine always part of this 'walk around,' as you call it? Was what that crew was doing prior to departure in Albany routine(as part of the pre-flight checklist) or was it not routine? Remember the initial reports said the plane took off two hours late from Newark due to mechanical problems.


/

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Instead of attacking posters, why not give information that disproves this conspiracy theory? I am not saying they are right, but attacking them provides nothing of value to the thread or the board.

reply to post by starviego


This is not surprising, since Israelis were on board.

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by kaya82
I dont believe any passports where recovered i dont believe anything the corupt gorvernment tells me. Why do u bother coming on these sites? You believe the os conspiracy so theres nothing more for u to learn. Oh i forgot u have no life

A couple of posts ago you were expressing incredulity that Mohammed Atta's passport was not recovered in New York and accusing anyone who believed otherwise of being a government dupe,

Now you are saying you don't believe any passports were recovered, despite one being put in evidence in the Moussaoui trial.

Don't you think that, before you get too deep into this, you actually research some facts before coming to conclusions,

i didnt say anythin about attas passport. As i told you i was simply pointing out that you need to take your mouth the toilet. Dont care wat trial it was in the government is curupt therefor i dont believe what they present to me. U didnt answer my question as to why you bother with this site? As you seem to think you already know it all

reply to post by weedwhacker


Damn long reply that didn't really say much..

As a CFI, early on, and an airline pilot since....that terminology used there isn't the way pilots normally talk about flight training. IF you are in the USA ('cause I know it best) then I assume you have your Private? (Or equivalent, depending on your country). SO, you began working towards your Commercial?

The problem is you ASSUMING.....
I had never flown before when I started training for a commercial licence.
I trained at NASA..and no, it's not THE nasa and I don't know why they named it that..
It's a flight training company associated with a past major airline here in Australia..
They operate out of Cessnock airport in northern NSW...

But I have passes in all subject, simulator time, lessons and some solo..
I left due to a family tragedy..

But, with my limited experience I still don't see any pilot ever doing what they say these pilots did..
Even you seem to agree with that WW....It is very strange..

reply to post by backinblack


Well....it really isn't THAT long a post, if you bothered to read it....the answer is IN IT, to this question:

I still don't see any pilot ever doing what they say these pilots did...

Misdiagnosed the stall, because of recent Winter Ops training video that somehow had the idea of "tail icing" (horizontal stab ice build-up) in their heads. Or at least in the Captain's feather-brained head....based on his actions. The F/O seemed to be a hazard to aviation, also....clueless, more of a hindrance than help...in fact, raising the flaps from 15 to 10 degrees?? On her own initiative?? WTF? Intimidated, apparently, by the Captain?? She didn't question, nor offer opinion as to the situation, she didn't mention the slow airspeed....so, either she was clueless, or just over her head and out of the loop.....

Like I said....sometimes, tragically, two very weak pilots get paired together.

I have experience with a few like that....one in particular FROZE when we had to go-around, due to a traffic conflict on the runway ahead of us. A conflict that was OBVIOUS as it developed, and should have been anticipated. I certainly saw it coming, and assumed she did, too.....I even mentioned it. Was her leg....( I often offer the first leg of a trip pairing, to a newer F/O, even if I haven't flown with them before. They appreciate it, because they get to land somewhere else than most of the time at the crewbase airport...and, I get a feel for their abilities, judge them that way). Anyway, this instance, I became an instant Flight Instructor, and had to talk her through the entire go-around procedure, prompting her at each point....like I said, she had the "deer in the headlights" expression.

Not meaning to dump on female pilots, here....just happened that my experience, this instance, was with one...and, she had a similar reaction in a previous REAL emergency situation!! Yet, as long as she can pass checkrides, and appear "competent", then nothing can be done, but to mentor, and hopefully teach and season them....until they get paired with an equally weak Captain, who slipped through the cracks somehow.....

reply to post by weedwhacker


I did read all your post WW but this is all just assumption and opinion on your part..

Misdiagnosed the stall, because of recent Winter Ops training video that somehow had the idea of "tail icing" (horizontal stab ice build-up) in their heads. Or at least in the Captain's feather-brained head....based on his actions. The F/O seemed to be a hazard to aviation, also....clueless, more of a hindrance than help...in fact, raising the flaps from 15 to 10 degrees?? On her own initiative?? WTF? Intimidated, apparently, by the Captain?? She didn't question, nor offer opinion as to the situation, she didn't mention the slow airspeed....so, either she was clueless, or just over her head and out of the loop....

It's easy to blame dead people......

reply to post by starviego

So why didn't they search the entire route of the Newark to Buffalo flight?

Don't be ridiculous!!! First...well, I hope that was rhetorical...else....???

Second....there was NO mechanical difficulty indicated....the "search" for all relevant pieces is conducted in the vicinity of the impact area. Stuff can be flung great distances, in the chaos of a crash.

It sounds to me like they had good info that parts of the plane were breaking off right before impact.

Where? Where is that "good info"? There is a possibility, AFTER the stall was progressing, and during the upset sequence, on the way down to impact...the stresses involved might have caused some parts to separate. Did you watch the video???

.... even unreleased cockpit transmissions.

What "unreleased" transmissions??? Are you just making stuff up, now?

But missing engine parts(three prop counterweights) were NEVER recovered, according to the NTSB's own report. So they are either buried underground at the crash site or they were thrown off while the plane was still in the air.

Read above. The C/Ws could have been flung off, during the extreme pitch and roll gyrations.....propellers act like gyroscopes, and when subjected to extreme motions that are at acute angles to their axis of rotation, tremendous forces can be developed and exerted, resulting in physical failures, in some cases.

Is an engine 'run-up' on one engine always part of this 'walk around,' as you call it?

No. As I said, and I don't have the info on the APU....but, IF the APU was inop when what was observed in Albany, then the right engine may have been started, early....prior to passenger boarding, for electrics and air conditioning (heat...it WAS winter). This, if they didn't have ground sources, like most major airlines do. Many commuter-type airlines don't...or won't pay for the extra services of those niceties.

Turbine engines aren't "run-up", prior to take-offs...not like you see with piston engines. And, in any case, it would NEVER be a pilot conducting some sort of maintenance evaluation...that's what mechanics are for!! Pilots pre-flight (and YES, we refer to it as a "walk-around". Don't believe me? Tough)...but, really just looking for obvious, MAJOR things.

Whatever that person wrote at airliners.net, he either misinterpreted it (or, you are misinterpreting his comments).

Remember the initial reports said the plane took off two hours late from Newark due to mechanical problems.

NO, source it. Of course, IF the APU was inop, and Newark being a crew and maintenance base...THAT could have been the "mechanical" item that was repaired!!! You see, when you have worked in the airline industry, you tend to know, and understand things a whole lot better than the layperson.

When items, like an APU for instance, are placarded "INOP"...it is called a "deferred" item, to be repaired later. There is, for every airplane, a specific "MEL" (Minimum Equipment List) that is the guideline for what can be deferred (if not a vital piece of equipment), and for how long....how many days. Each item has different levels of time limits, before the deferral expires, and it MUST be repaired, when the airplane transits a defined "Maintenance Base".

The MEL is there to allow an airline operator to continue revenue flights, without unduly being penalized for minor mechanical failures. BUT, the ability to defer had been over-used (and abused) so much (decades ago) that the FAA clamped down, around the late 1990s, and is much more stringent. And passes out fines, for infractions.

BTW...may wish to check on the actual reason for the departure delay (if any) from EWR. High winds had already resulted in some earlier cancellations for that crew...they were supposed to do a round-trip somewhere....their report time was 1330 that day. SO, the first two legs got cancelled (this is quite common, BTW) and they had to sit around until time came to fly that leg, as it was originally scheduled.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I looked more into that "delay". Remember, I mentioned that EWR (Newark) airport operations were affected, by winds that day? It is quite common....I've flown in and out of there enough to know. ATC imposes restrictions (this is related to La Guardia and Kennedy, nearby, and traffic flow complications, during windy or inclement weather). Sometimes, flights get cancelled, to "clear" the schedule a bit. Also, LONG taxi delays can occur.

Here, from the report issued by Colgan AIrlines:

The company dispatch release for Flight 3407, which was issued at 1800, showed an estimated time of departure of 1910 and an estimated time enroute of 53 minutes. A Departure Clearance Request was made at 1930 and an OUT (pushback from the gate) report was made at 1945. The aircraft for Flight 3407 was a Colgan Air Bombardier Dash 8-Q400, N200WQ. EWR Ground Control gave the flight taxi instructions at 2030, and EWR Tower cleared the flight for takeoff at 2118.
See Operations Group Chairman Factual Report, p.3. The ACARS report showed the flight OFF (airborne) at 2119.

So, you see, the Dispatch Release (prepared by the airlines dispatching department, usually in a central location, at their headquarters) came out at 1800....this is normal, about one hour prior to scheduled departure time. This case, schedule was 1910.

They probably had an "EDC time" (Expect Departure Clearance) issued by ATC. Because they called, and got, their IFR clearance confirmation at 1930. THEN pushed at 1945. Taxied. Taxied. Waited. Finally, took off at 2119. That is a total on the ground, after gate departure, and taxi-out time of 94 minutes...one hour, 34 minutes. Sitting there, in line, either in a long line on the taxiway, or in the "pad" (holding area) near the departure end of the runway. ALSO, very typical of Newark! (Unfortunately, and frustratingly, many times....).