Colgan DHC-8 crashed in Buffalo

[starviego]

Where is the article that indicated Collins said mechanical issues were reported by the crew?

The origonal citations seems to have disappeared, but it was widely quoted at the time, for example here:

http://www.mid-day.com/news/2009/feb/130209-plane.htm

Let's say they did have a mechanical failure that led to an overspeed condition how and why would there be a conspiracy .. to do what?

To protect the carrier and manufacturers from liability, for starters.

... which engine ... that would be critical in your proposal so which one failed?

The inspection of the wreckage at the site revealed the no.1 engine lost the prop counterweights, so that's a likely suspect. Interestingly, the NTSB documents stated that no further disassembly of either engine was performed.

----------------

A pilot experienced on this type posted this(about problems with the Q400), before the Colgan3407 crash:

http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-291392.html

There has been, and contiue to be, problems with just about any system on this A/C....More interesting, we have had more than a few prop overspeeds in the last year - This results in shutting the engine down (in the case where you are able to regain some control with the propspeed) which is obviously not always a desirable thing to do in the Scandinavian winters !
Very, very interesting aircraft indeed, and we are way beyond the "infant illness" period ....


Other cites:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/11/08/219260/inquiry-into-destabilised-sas-q400-approach-finds-checklists-not-followed.html

SHK found SAS Q400 pilots had experienced six propeller overspeed incidents in the preceding two years...

The Kalmar Incident
4-6-06
The crew of a SAS Dash 8 Q400 nearly lost control of their aircraft on approach to Kalmar's runway 16, when the right hand engine suffered a propeller overspeed. The commander decided to leave the engine in flight idle instead of shutting the engine off and feathering the prop. This caused the prop to still remain perpendicular to the airflow and produce a lot of drag, so that the left hand engine had to compensate producing power beyond the maximum permitted. The approach was unstable and very low.


Anyway for such a mysterious accident, it appears the investigators were in a hurry to make it go away:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colgan_Air_Flight_3407

On February 2, 2010, the NTSB adopted its final report into the accident. This was the first time in 15 years that a report had been adopted by the NTSB in less than a year from the date of the accident. It concluded that the cause of the accident was pilot error.



/

[Evan]

And there's your evidence for mechanical problems.

So, let me see if I have this right... what you are suggesting is that the prop hub PCU mechanism failed, threw off some counterweight assemblies and somehow, despite the presence of an overspeed governor, this resulted in low blade pitch and prop overspeed? Furthermore, the resulting asymmetry of thrust, drag and lift caused the aircraft to roll violently into a spiraling dive, yet somehow also caused it to impact in a fairly flat attitude (indicative of stall) where half the fuselage remained intact? And in the wake of the accident, the NTSB conspired with the parts manufacturer (GE, I believe) to construct an elaborate cover-up that placed blame on pilot error and lax FAA hiring and training requirements?

Have you considered that the prop overspeed indications could also have been the result of a steep, prolonged dive at a high-power setting in the latter stages of a stall recovery attempt, or that the over-stress condition of the dive may have caused the prop mechanism to structurally fail, and that the small counterweight assemblies might have then been thrown off in flight at a high rpm and not been recovered for this reason?

Moreover, if this was indeed a cover-up of a PCU issue, why would the report mention that the counterweights were not present in the wreckage? Wouldn't that sort of give the game away? If you were going to fabricate a report to conceal a PCU issue, I would certainly not expect that to show up. Or was the Powerplant Group not in on it?

[MCM]

To protect the carrier and manufacturers from liability, for starters

Erm, how does it protect the carrier from liability?

An airline is responsible for the actions of its pilots - this is a well established legal concept throughout the world. The airline would be the first one to want to prove that it was mechanical failure, not pilot mistakes.

Don't you think the airline would be jumping up and down about this?

I reiterate - none of your "evidence" cannot be explained by what would happen to the engine in the later stages of an uncontrolled dive.

A prop overspeed would result in significant ROLL, and subsequent rolling dive - not a wings level or relatively flat impact.

[Fear_of_Flying]

Feeding time!

In case anyone has forgotten, starviego's first post on this thread was a lengthy onslaught called "The Hijack Scenario", explaining how it was that three Indian Muslims were attempting to crash the plane into Niagra Falls. The "theory" was based partially on the plots of two "action adventure films". Even he doesn't believe a word he is saying in his ever-changing accounts of what happened, but for some reason is now being given the time of day by forum members. Engaging the lunatic fringe gives it credibility, allows it to consume the thread, and is probably not all that respectful of those who were lost in the accident. JMHO.

[MCM]

FoF - Its a quiet news week

No-one has crashed this week, so there's little else to do I fear

[Evan]

In case anyone has forgotten, starviego's first post on this thread was a lengthy onslaught called "The Hijack Scenario", explaining how it was that three Indian Muslims were attempting to crash the plane into Niagra Falls. The "theory" was based partially on the plots of two "action adventure films". Even he doesn't believe a word he is saying in his ever-changing accounts of what happened, but for some reason is now being given the time of day by forum members. Engaging the lunatic fringe gives it credibility, allows it to consume the thread, and is probably not all that respectful of those who were lost in the accident. JMHO.

The trouble is, unlike his terrorist theory, which was entirely based on fantasy, this theory has some evidential support. If Starviego's citations are genuine, then there is precedent for overspeed and there are missing components, both of which provide a certain legitimacy to the theory. These are the kind of alternative theories that tend to spread like wildfire. To the conspiratorial mindset, any hard evidence to support one's theory will overwhelm all the evidence that might rule it out.

Now of course, there are obvious problems with the theory, most notably in the way the aircraft crashed and the DFR/CVR evidence. Since Starviego won't seem to consider the lack of sufficient motive or logistical impossibility of an elaborate NSTB fabrication of evidence, we must instead point out the technical inconsistencies in the selective evidence accepted by the alternative theory, i.e. a plane will not crash in this way as the result of prop overspeed; that the evidence supporting the theory can be accounted for in other ways, etc.

It is important to respond to these types of apparently supported theories, because it will help prevent them from spreading to more rational-minded people. You've noticed that Starviego has since given up on the terrorist theory he once so staunchly supported. This tells me that he may listen to rationale and see the error in his thinking.

I agree with you that these alternative theories dishonor the victims, and I can't tell you how sick and offended I am of the 9/11 "Inside Job" crap that simply will not go away (especially in Europe), so I tend to make the effort to disprove them with real facts as they arise. Disinformation spreads virally, whereas you have to hammer reality into people's heads (conspiracy theorists tend to believe that the scientific analysis of hard evidence results in an "opinion" instead of a reality, which is no more valid than their own opinion based upon deductive reasoning). It is a frustrating and never ending fight, but I think it is one worthy of making a noble effort.

(On a side note, if Starviego's posts about prop overspeed issues on the Q400 are real, I find that alarming considering the Dowty R408 propeller is designed to prevent this from happening. It did not cause this crash, but it could lead to one, so I would like to know that AD's have been issued to address it.)

[guamainiac]

The current "climate" in government is exactly the opposite.

In order to maintain the organized chaos and spend money on urban employment initiatives and such they would max out the publicity of an event.

Each "event" is an opportunity for even our local department of transportation to declare a simple salt dome as a security issue. I have personally watched every office try to cut and snip and tailor their "mission" to include buzz words on national security after 9/11 and the anthrax incidents. 90% is pure baloney and just a part of the stampede to get additional funding or not be cut off at the knees.

I am also pretty sure that if I was going to stuff an airliner into Niagara Falls to make a political point, I would try to do it in front of horrified tourists on a sunny weekend. The political animal wants to be seen and make itself known. I don't see any signs of that.

Lets try one last time now. The government is covering up a flawed mechanical condition or the long tentacles of Bin Laden?

[AirRabbit]

In case anyone has forgotten, starviego's first post on this thread was a lengthy onslaught called "The Hijack Scenario", explaining how it was that three Indian Muslims were attempting to crash the plane into Niagra Falls. The "theory" was based partially on the plots of two "action adventure films". Even he doesn't believe a word he is saying in his ever-changing accounts of what happened, but for some reason is now being given the time of day by forum members. Engaging the lunatic fringe gives it credibility, allows it to consume the thread, and is probably not all that respectful of those who were lost in the accident. JMHO.

Well said, sir! I still believe this goof goes to bed wearing an aluminum hat! Although, I don’t understand why … as I am sure that when he rolls over, that aluminum is going to crunch and would echo a lot in all that empty space between his ears.

[starviego]

Erm, how does it protect the carrier from liability?
An airline is responsible for the actions of its pilots - this is a well established legal concept throughout the world. The airline would be the first one to want to prove that it was mechanical failure, not pilot mistakes.
Don't you think the airline would be jumping up and down about this?

Well maybe the airline knew about the problems with the Propellor Control Unit and ignored them, or otherwise feels it has some culpability.

A prop overspeed would result in significant ROLL, and subsequent rolling dive - not a wings level or relatively flat impact.

Well there was initially rolling. Possibly the pilot had regained some control before impact.

[Evan]

Well there was initially rolling.

According to the report, they initially pitched up, way up, which would not occur in a prop overspeed scenario, and then rolled due to a subsequent wing stall.

But you don't believe the report, so what are you basing this on?

[guamainiac]

The report in the Buffalo Times that disappeared along with the stolen prop governors.

Air America, and all that but it was part of a plan to penetrate Canadian air defenses using planes built there so no one would suspect.

Hey, star, what do you think about KLM?

[Gabriel]

Let me see if I understand:

1- The airplane was flying straight and level at some altitude during the approach.

2- The governol of the propeller lost 3 counterweights.

3- The prop entered in a very high RPM - very flat pitch condition that acted more like an air-brake than a propeller.

4- The airplane fell rolling.

5- Not only that, but the bad engine (or maybe the other one?) caught fire (a failure unrelated with prop overspeed), which explains why the plane was seen falling with an engine in fire.

6- Somehow the pilot managed to regain control before hitting the ground.

7- And managed to keep the airplane flying very low (that's how the plane was heard flying low many miles away from the crash site)

8- For some obscure reason, while the pilot was able to recover from that terrible situation he was not able to keep it controlled (after it was controlled for several miles).

9- And despite the fact that, before loosing control for the second time, he had flown several miles at low altitude, suddenly the airplane stops in the air and falls in a flat attitude and in a vertical trajectory.

10- Then the NTSB, no wait, the several NTSB employees that analyzed the FDR, and the several NTSB employees that analyzed the CVR, and the several NTSB employees that analyzed the radar plots, and the several NTSB employees that analyzed the ATC recordings, and the several NTSB employees that made the airplane performance study, and the several NTSB employees that made the final report, and the directors of the NTSB that signed the report, and a few Bombardier employees involved in the investigation, and the Bombardier top management, and a few employees from the engine manufacturer involved in the investigation, and the top management of the engine manufacturer, and the Colgan's employees involved in the investigation, and Colgan's top management, and a couple of persons of the Canadian TSB involved in the investigation, and the TSB directors, and several persons at the FAA and the DOT, all conspired to make a fake FDR report, a fake CVR report, a fake radar record, a fake ATC recording, a fake performance study and a fake final report.

Makes a lot of sense uh?

[guamainiac]

It sounds like it entered an air pocket. The LLL reports for that time period indicate that the region was ripe for ATMO during that period. ATMO is atmospheric phenomena and the LLL's (Lawrence Livermore Lab), denizens ain't half bad with those forecasts so don't take it too lightly.