Colgan DHC-8 crashed in Buffalo

[Alessandro]

Relevance ? Didn't know the Dash 8 was single-pilot. She was the first officer, in fact.

As a reply to AAs concern about a male pilot he knew.

[BoeingKing77]

RIP to every1 who died.Sad that it crashed into a home.

[a78jumper]

It was a nasty day for flying in that part of the world yesterday. When I landed at Pearson in the morning at approx 0645 it was after the worst turbulence on approach I ever experienced on a commercial jet(the pilot told us they were gusting to more than 80 km/hr)- we pulled over the runway and then seem to hang there for about 2000 feet, then the right wing dipped and I thought this is going to be rough, but the pilot pulled it off admirably. (AC 1196-ERJ 190).

It rained much of the day at Pearson and I have no doubt ice was an issue at altitude at times.

[N-ONE]

Most modern big jets have an ice detection system to warn the crew (in one method or another) of ice formation. The Q400 has lots of the latest bells and whistles and I would be surprised if it was not equipped with such a system.

My heart goes out to those whose loved ones were lost in this tragedy.
RIP

[atco]

Well first of all this accident has had quite a personal impact for me.

For those that don't know, I am an ATC at Toronto Center, we handle traffic in and out of YYZ to the South, and West.
We also have a shared boundary with Buffalo Approach.

So forigve me if I start with a few personal thoughts.

First thing is that as Colgan have been operating in and out of YYZ for almost a year, multiple times daily I am sure I must have spoken to Captain Renslow and First Officer Shaw previously. My deepest sympathies to their families left behind and to Colgan Airlines which I am sure is devastated by the loss of their collegues.
We usually focus, rightly, on the passengers and their families, so I would like to spare a thought for the 5 crew members who were lost last night.

Secondly, I want to comment on the magnificent job of the Buffalo ATC team who displayed the highest standards of professionalism during circumstances that I could not imagine being in.
Their communications to other aircraft, disseminating of information and controlling were of the highest order - A display of complete professionalism and an absolute credit to the job.

OK, onto my thoughts on the accident.
Whilst of course we should all say wait for the final report, and that is of course the only definative response to this tragedy, it is human nature to want to know and to comment about these things. It's why we have discussion forums to talk about things.
My belief is that based on what we have established as fact already and what the NTSB have provided us, is that this crew were overcome by a tailplane stall caused by severe icing.

What we know:
1. Icing conditions were prevelant at the time, all aircraft reported some kind of icing, and it appears the worst band was between 6500 and 3500ft.
2. The aircraft had been operating normally and the crew had not discussed or reported any problems.
3. The fact that the crew promptly read back ATC instructions, and did so correctly would support the fact that there was no previous problem or that they were in any difficulty.
4. The aircraft was descended from 11000ft to I believe 2300ft and given a series of radar vectors towards the 23 localiser at KBUF.
5. The aircraft was turned onto a 260 heading to join the localiser and cleared for the approach. The aircraft was then transferred to Tower, and never checked on.
6. Whatever overcame the crew did so without warning and suddenly. In most cases even in a certain death situation one of the crew usually blurts out some kind of transmission on frequency, even if its to say they are going in. This crew could not even do that, which almost certainly implies the above situation.

What the NTSB have told us:
1. The aircraft de-icing system was on - this confirmed by the DFDR
2. The crew were discussing icing and were aware of a significant build up of ice on the windshield and wing leading edges.
3. sixty seconds before impact the landing gear was lowered
4. forty seconds before impact the flaps were selected to 15
5. "Within seconds of flap selection" the aircraft experienced "A series of severe pitch and roll excursions"
6. The crew attempted to retract the flaps and landing gear just prior to the end of the recording.

Many of these events are huge red flags to a tailplane stall caused by icing.
A tailplane stall is a highly dangerous condition and extremely insidious as there is very little warning of it happening, and the recovery procedure is the exact oppposite of a wing stall.
Most of us are familiar with a wing stall, the airframe starts to buffet, and recovery involves nose down and increasing power.
A tailplane stall is almost impossible to notice while flying with autopilot on. The first indications are the controls become light, especially in the foreward axis. If the pilot is not hand flying though, this becomes impossible to notice. Then it introduces control buffet - note not the airframe, just the controls.
The stall itself can only be recovered by doing the opposite of a wing stall recovery. That is to pull the control column back and pitch up, reduce power and retract flaps and gear.
The onset of tailplane stall is severe and sudden. The aircraft will violently pitch down and rapid altitude loss occurs.

This DH8D was likely being flown on autopilot coupled to the ILS on 23 at KBUF. In the event it was a tailplane stall the deplying of flaps 15 would have caused a sudden nose down movement and the disconnect of the autopilot. At this point the crew were put in an impossible situation, handed control of an out of control aircraft at low altitude pointing straight at the ground and then beginning to roll severly. The incredible sequence of events would have made diagnosing a tailplane stall almost impossible, although it appears that shortly before impact the crew had recognised the situation and were cleaning up the aircraft. The fact the aircraft appears to have rolled so severely may indicate only one tailplane was iced or possibly a wing had accumulated some ice too, and in the unusual nose down pitch a wing stall happened too asymetrically.

Given the altitude, low approach speed, the fact it was night and the end of the day, this crew were in a situation where they did not have a chance in all likliehood. The crew throughout demonstrated that they were planning for and aware of icing conditions, they had the airplane anti icing on and were ahead of all situations as best they could be. It appears the crew were operating perfectly in the conditions.

The most significant questions I have are how effective Dash 8 anti icing is, if as is confirmed the anti ice is on, and yet it appears that ice may have been the first hole in the swiss cheese that downed this aircraft. It is possible for aircraft equipped with boot de-icing on the tailplane to get tailplane icing still.

For anyone interested in further information, NASA has produced an outstanding video covering tailplane stalling and icing available right here:

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

From 7:30 onwards is particularly interesting, especially the video of the test flights.
Also when you see the Twin Otter encounter the tailplane stall, you will see the incredible nose down pitch, and the loss of 300ft, despite the crew reacting within 2 tenths of a second to begin the recovery procedure.
Imagine a crew in that position, not prepared for it, carrying out a normal ILS approach and picture what the situation must have been like in that cockpit.

Apologies for such a long post, its purely my thoughts, based on what I believe to be the most logical explanation for the series of facts we are aware of at the moment.

May all those lost on CJC3704 RIP.

[Airbus_A320]

It was a nasty day for flying in that part of the world yesterday. When I landed at Pearson in the morning at approx 0645 it was after the worst turbulence I ever experienced on a commercial jet- we pulled over the runway and then seem to hang there for about 2000 feet, then the right wing dipped and I thought this is going to be rough, but the pilot pulled it off admirably. (AC 1196-ERJ 190).

It rained much of the day at Pearson and I have no doubt ice was an issue at altitude at times.

There was a low pressure system centered right over the New Hampshire/Vermont area which is what brought the high winds/rain/ice/snow to the Northeast/Great Lakes region. I can't wait till it starts getting warmer, this entire winter has been especially bad

[Alessandro]

Well first of all this accident has had quite a personal impact for me.


Secondly, I want to comment on the magnificent job of the Buffalo ATC team who displayed the highest standards of professionalism during circumstances that I could not imagine being in.
Their communications to other aircraft, disseminating of information and controlling were of the highest order - A display of complete professionalism and an absolute credit to the job.

OK, onto my thoughts on the accident.
Whilst of course we should all say wait for the final report, and that is of course the only definative response to this tragedy, it is human nature to want to know and to comment about these things. It's why we have discussion forums to talk about things.
My belief is that based on what we have established as fact already and what the NTSB have provided us, is that this crew were overcome by a tailplane stall caused by severe icing.

What we know:
1. Icing conditions were prevelant at the time, all aircraft reported some kind of icing, and it appears the worst band was between 6500 and 3500ft.
2. The aircraft had been operating normally and the crew had not discussed or reported any problems.
3. The fact that the crew promptly read back ATC instructions, and did so correctly would support the fact that there was no previous problem or that they were in any difficulty.
4. The aircraft was descended from 11000ft to I believe 2300ft and given a series of radar vectors towards the 23 localiser at KBUF.
5. The aircraft was turned onto a 260 heading to join the localiser and cleared for the approach. The aircraft was then transferred to Tower, and never checked on.
6. Whatever overcame the crew did so without warning and suddenly. In most cases even in a certain death situation one of the crew usually blurts out some kind of transmission on frequency, even if its to say they are going in. This crew could not even do that, which almost certainly implies the above situation.

What the NTSB have told us:
1. The aircraft de-icing system was on - this confirmed by the DFDR
2. The crew were discussing icing and were aware of a significant build up of ice on the windshield and wing leading edges.
3. sixty seconds before impact the landing gear was lowered
4. forty seconds before impact the flaps were selected to 15
5. "Within seconds of flap selection" the aircraft experienced "A series of severe pitch and roll excursions"
6. The crew attempted to retract the flaps and landing gear just prior to the end of the recording.

Many of these events are huge red flags to a tailplane stall caused by icing.
A tailplane stall is a highly dangerous condition and extremely insidious as there is very little warning of it happening, and the recovery procedure is the exact oppposite of a wing stall.
Most of us are familiar with a wing stall, the airframe starts to buffet, and recovery involves nose down and increasing power.
A tailplane stall is almost impossible to notice while flying with autopilot on. The first indications are the controls become light, especially in the foreward axis. If the pilot is not hand flying though, this becomes impossible to notice. Then it introduces control buffet - note not the airframe, just the controls.
The stall itself can only be recovered by doing the opposite of a wing stall recovery. That is to pull the control column back and pitch up, reduce power and retract flaps and gear.
The onset of tailplane stall is severe and sudden. The aircraft will violently pitch down and rapid altitude loss occurs.

This DH8D was likely being flown on autopilot coupled to the ILS on 23 at KBUF. In the event it was a tailplane stall the deplying of flaps 15 would have caused a sudden nose down movement and the disconnect of the autopilot. At this point the crew were put in an impossible situation, handed control of an out of control aircraft at low altitude pointing straight at the ground and then beginning to roll severly. The incredible sequence of events would have made diagnosing a tailplane stall almost impossible, although it appears that shortly before impact the crew had recognised the situation and were cleaning up the aircraft. The fact the aircraft appears to have rolled so severely may indicate only one tailplane was iced or possibly a wing had accumulated some ice too, and in the unusual nose down pitch a wing stall happened too asymetrically.

Given the altitude, low approach speed, the fact it was night and the end of the day, this crew were in a situation where they did not have a chance in all likliehood. The crew throughout demonstrated that they were planning for and aware of icing conditions, they had the airplane anti icing on and were ahead of all situations as best they could be. It appears the crew were operating perfectly in the conditions.

The most significant questions I have are how effective Dash 8 anti icing is, if as is confirmed the anti ice is on, and yet it appears that ice may have been the first hole in the swiss cheese that downed this aircraft. It is possible for aircraft equipped with boot de-icing on the tailplane to get tailplane icing still.

For anyone interested in further information, NASA has produced an outstanding video covering tailplane stalling and icing available right here:

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

From 7:30 onwards is particularly interesting, especially the video of the test flights.
Also when you see the Twin Otter encounter the tailplane stall, you will see the incredible nose down pitch, and the loss of 300ft, despite the crew reacting within 2 tenths of a second to begin the recovery procedure.
Imagine a crew in that position, not prepared for it, carrying out a normal ILS approach and picture what the situation must have been like in that cockpit.

Apologies for such a long post, its purely my thoughts, based on what I believe to be the most logical explanation for the series of facts we are aware of at the moment.

May all those lost on CJC3704 RIP.

Yes, Buffalo ATC should get credit for their actions, well done.
I read on another forum that they had technical problems before the start, one person really
annoyed because not taking photos (despite lacking this DHC-8 livery in the collection).

[atco]

I don't think the earlier report of a problem was ever confirmed.
As far as I can tell I think that came from some of the intial confusion and speculation late last night, and to the best of my knowledge has been discounted.

I stand to be corrected on that though if anyone has better information.

[MirandaQuo]

Thanks ATCO for the detailed description of what goes on with a tailstall. It really helped me to understand the concept.

[screaming_emu]

For those that don't know, I am an ATC at Toronto Center, we handle traffic in and out of YYZ to the South, and West.
We also have a shared boundary with Buffalo Approach.

Then we've probably spoken before I'll have to give you a heads up next time I'm on my way up there (Acey)

[screaming_emu]

There was a low pressure system centered right over the New Hampshire/Vermont area which is what brought the high winds/rain/ice/snow to the Northeast/Great Lakes region. I can't wait till it starts getting warmer, this entire winter has been especially bad

Yeah, we had almost 40 kt winds going into CLE yesterday. Good times.

[ATCBob]

Good summary, atco. I'm an ATC too (although now in management), but my worst incident was in '95, a twin cessna flying IFR at 160 that iced up and went in an uncontrollable dive, and I remember him keying up saying he had icing and hearing his family (? I heard kids) screaming the background, and the surreality of looking up toward my supe to come over, yet everybody around me as normal were just joking around, not knowing what was going on in my headset. And I remember my supe just sort of sauntering on over while this guy and his family were panicked and screaming on freq. I didn't know what to tell him because I wasn't a pilot at the time and nobody else on my crew was a pilot either.

They crashed and died and that's when I decided to get into management... very sad.

[AVION1]

"The crew discussed significant ice buildup, ice on the windshield and leading edge of the wings," Chealander said.
"The crew attempted to raise the gear and [reset] flaps shortly before the recordings ended," he said.
=======
Sorry folks..but as per the above comment, the pilot "killed" the airplane.
I would never retract flaps and gears unless I am going around again, and have full power on both engines!!!!

[screaming_emu]

[QUOTE=AVION1;503222]"The crew discussed significant ice buildup, ice on the windshield and leading edge of the wings," Chealander said.
"The crew attempted to raise the gear and [reset] flaps shortly before the recordings ended," he said.
=======
Sorry folks..but as per the above comment, the pilot "killed" the airplane.
I would never retract flaps and gears unless I am going around again, and have full power on both engines!!!![/QUOTE

maybe that's just what they were trying to do.

[JordanD]

"The crew discussed significant ice buildup, ice on the windshield and leading edge of the wings," Chealander said.
"The crew attempted to raise the gear and [reset] flaps shortly before the recordings ended," he said.
=======
Sorry folks..but as per the above comment, the pilot "killed" the airplane.
I would never retract flaps and gears unless I am going around again, and have full power on both engines!!!!

You did see the whole post about tailplane icing right?