Is The Crash Which “Changed” Aviation Really Having An Impact? | Colgan 3407
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 04. 2021
- View the Accident Report here - www.ntsb.gov/investigations/A...
Full NTSB Animation - commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
/ 3greens
CREDITS
Voice Actors
Captain and ATC - Michael Neeb
First Officer - Katte Noel
Music
Music: www.purple-planet.com
Sim Footage
Colgan footage - Microsoft Simulator 10
Majestic Software Dash 8 Q400 PILOT Edition
Cessna footage - Flight Simulator 2020
#aircrashinvestigation #Dash8 #Colgan3407
![Stalling in the Sky and Crashing Just Before Landing | Dead Tired [Real Audio]](/img/n.gif)
Flew freight with a notorious outfit in the 80s/90s. Every night I ended up in Atlanta and slept on conveyor belts feet to head with other pilots. The sound of caged dogs howling in the background was the cherry on top. My healthy diet was delicious vending machine food and coffee as dark as motor oil with 20 thousand miles on it.
That's because you're a loser
Cigarettes would have helped you to relax.
@@sludge4125 And given him cancer.
@@ellisjames7192 He could fly an Apache gunship... they run on cancer, as well as heavy metal dust. Gunners that stayed in long enough were exposed to enough to cause various cancers or nervous system problems from the heavy metal exposure. Cigarettes seem relatively safe by comparison. However, nicotine is my last vice [coffee has antioxidants dammit] and hard as hell to get rid of so I don't recommend it. Whomever said this guy is a loser is an asshole. Regionals don't have the perks and amenities of the majors and while pilot salary has gotten better, it's at many places still being underpaid for the job of not killing people and destroying cargo on a daily basis.
Those that call pilots losers and liars should be considered I'll mannered and crude. or. A holes!
I naively used to think 'how is this even possible' until my PPL checkride when my examiner decided to cut power at only 500AGL on climb out and caught me completely off gaurd and it took a moment to apply the procedure as opposed to having expectancy during my training. Lucky I had slept well, revised procedures etc. and responded appropriately, but it opened up my eyes to the fact that someone who isn't sharp, has a less than perfect checkride history and didn't revise procedures routinely could make such an error
You are lucky have had an instructor like that, the learning experience you take with you forever. Mine was like that even during IFR training. This stuck with me to the point where even now, when I can no longer fly RL but am stuck with sims, when others play at being jet-jocks, I practise stalls, engine failures, single-engine flight (in a multi). Recently I got back in touch with the CFI/CFII after nearly 20 years. He'd just retired from the majors - and had stopped flying altogether because he bemoaned that stick-and-rudder skills were gone and he didn't want some student to kill them both. 😭
@@michaelhoffmann2891 ouch that's tough to hear from both you and the instructor! I don't take it for granted, I've had 2 instructors and both of them excellent (I have nothing but praise for the training department and culture, I'm located in Western Australia btw). We still focussed heavily on stick and rudder during lessons and only use the autopilot briefly to confirm it works as intended. I've seen enough written online to know I'm in the minority in saying this but I wouldn't have it any other way
@@andrewgkorol I learned to fly in the US and converted my license when I moved to Vic. It's interesting how things diverge in Australia - though many things made sense when you considered that there's hardly any VORs and I really had to brush up on NDB navigation again! That was before GPS, of course. But then I couldn't continue. Oh well, such is life.
@Ken Fullman Pilot over-rode the stick pusher with 160 lbs of force.
@Ken Fullman yes that’s always demonstrated in the very first lesson, same way with me
Remember this VIVIDLY. Not many people realize that commuter pilots don’t get paid very much at all and work like dogs in order to “move up” in the company and eventually apply to mainline carriers. My condolences to all the families of the passengers and those on the ground.
@bart solari a fatigued (and a sick co-pilot) crew who are forced to sleep in chairs and on connecting flights kinda makes Colgan just as liable. This is the norm for commuter crews. Was it their fault? YES. Was their training adequate? Far from. You can’t hate the pilots for piss poor training by cost cutting airlines. My sympathies go out to all.
@@rixxroxxk1620 Well said. She I think was being paid less than 20k a year with forced air commutes. They treated pilots like shit.
@@dryan8377 yes sir. You are correct.
Thanks for watching! If you're reading this, you've stumbled upon one of my more popular videos. I make "Air Crash Investigation" style content and release monthly videos, so remember to SUBSCRIBE!
Awesome episode! Love that you put much effort in sounds, evironment etc. feels like I am there in the cockpit experiencing the horror, that is why I love these kind of shows
This accident was one of the first accidents where the aftermath was broadcast live on the internet. I stayed up about half the night watching this one. Beck Eckert who became an advocate for Widows of the World Trade Center tragedy died in this crash. Also two musicians who were members of Chuck Mangione's Band and who were expected to play in a concert on Feb 14, 2009 died in this plane crash too. As bad as this plane crash was there was one significant positive thing that probably saved a lot of surrounding structures from potential fire damage. There was a fire station that was just down the street from where the airplane crashed. So they were able to get on the scene in a very short time.
That 1500 hours flying experience time is kind of biting the airlines in the ass right now. With Pilot Shortages and Pilot retirements.
I forgot that I subbed to your channel after seeing it on Reddit but then I saw your comment on Mini Air Crash and now I am watching your latest video. You are really hustling man. Being seen at all costs. Keep up the good work, hopefully the will be some kind of greater future catalyst that brings your channel more into the spotlight.
Was just rewatching your videos today! So happy this dropped.
Love the video for the audio. Thank you.
I am amazed that the US is close to 13 years without a major commercial airline crash. I wish the country where I live, Indonesia could have such a safety record
We're pretty serious about preventing airplane parts from falling out of the sky.
@@MrFg1980 We've become that way in the last decade or so. Bc prior to that, we were cutting corners and killing people.
I saw this crash with my own eyes. I can still hear the sound of that crash vividly to this day.
Rest in Peace Doug and his kitty. Who would ever expect to have an aircraft come through the roof. I watched the news break into programming and was able to quickly identify his house from Google Street View that night from the neighbor's basketball hoop. This crash still bothers me even though I'm on the West Coast.
From North Tonawanda
The crash site has become hallowed ground for all of WNY
So was the aircraft on fire before it hit the ground?
@@samsmith7585 No. It iced up, stalled, fell out of the sky, then ignited.
@@kimmer6 Just asking because lots of witnesses claimed the plane was on fire before it hit the ground.
Wow! I learned a lot here. Thanks!
The Crew of Air France flight that crashed into the Atlantic had a similar issue. Except they had way more time to react properly.
Putting the flaps up played a huge role, how ever it amazes me how some of these pilots have no idea how to recover from a stall. There is another video on the you tubes on how a first officer held a stall all the way to the ground from 30 thousand feet... took like 15 minutes, and no one knew they were stalling.
Was that the Air France flight from South America somewhere? Couldn't understand how a trained pilot could be so unaware of what is happening to his aircraft? Wasn't it something to do with an iced up Pitot tube and incorrect airspeed readings? Gonna have to revisit that one.
he could be talking about that one. jus seen the episode on another channel. i remember that accident in real life that year. the pitot sensors iced up but they resolved themselves minutes later but the pilots didn't know that. the accident could've been avoided easily.
I'm talking about Air France Flight 447
czcams.com/video/LA-WeacusP4/video.html
or
czcams.com/video/r5LUGaW6TyE/video.html
@@nickmaclachlan5178 Yep. Air France flight 447. Copilot's flight controls were not duplicated on left seat side, his joystick was neutral and the autopilot was off. He had no idea why the plane was stalling until finally the FO blurted out he was holding aft joystick. By this time not enough altitude existed to correct the situation and arrest the descent. :-(
@@MrFg1980 That’s why the Left seat and Right seat yokes used to be Mechanically joined. There is no confusion about what the other guy is doing. Not entirely sure why Airbus went with a joystick control. There have been so many cases of subtle incapacitation over the years, where one pilot gets mentally overwhelmed and starts making nonsensical inputs. It’s helpful to know what the other guy is doing.
Ok! Im gonna screw us up more, i put the flaps up!
Great job on your videos, you just got a new subscriber
Having an entire flight on auto pilot to jave small talk it's amazing they were so casually engrossed in conversation at such a late time in the flight
This video seems to take the position that the airplane was in fact in a stall or close to one when the stick shaker activated. That is not what happened.
This model of airplane has a switch which enables a pilot to set the speed at which the stick shaker will activate to a higher level. It's designed to be an extra safety feature in icing conditions. However, if the switch is put to this position, the pilots must remember this and thus fly at a higher speed during their approach, so the shaker will not activate when a stall is actually not imminent.
In this case, the pilots did not remember that the switch had been set to a higher speed, and thus did not make the approach at a higher speed. So the stick shaker activated when the plane was not in a stall and not even close to a stall. It was still going 20 knots above the speed which would cause a stall. Although the pilots had forgotten that they had set the switch to that position, they still at that point could have just turned the switch away from that setting, and proceeded as usual, or done the standard operating procedure of lowering the nose and the speed. But they did neither, and instead the captain reacted in a completely opposite way. He actually put the plane into a stall when previously it had not been in a stall or close to a stall.
So yes, the cause of the accident was the captain's inappropriate response to the stick shaker warning, but what's often overlooked or missing is the fact that, before his actions, the plane was not in a stall or close to one.
My question was always, "But why did the plane slow down too much to begin with?" and I never got a satisfactory answer. Finally I learned this, that the plane had never slowed down too much.
Is the stick shaker activated by airspeed..? I always thought it was connected to the stall warning sensor.
@@PRH123 I am hardly an expert. I've read that most of the time, it's activated by angle of attack. It might vary according to model of airplane. At any rate, I always had a bit more of an interest in this particular airplane crash than in others, because a friend of both of my sisters was killed in it. and I never really understood it until I watched the "Mayday" episode on it. It's the only video I've seen which addresses the role of the reference speed switch in this crash, so I'd advise you to watch it if you'd like to fully understand the crash of Colgan Flight 3407.
@@jn8ive60 Excellent!
great content please make more
One wing stalled first causing that side to drop so the pilot applied opposite aileron which is intuitive but actually increases the effective angle of attack of that stalled wing AND the drag on that stalled wing.
Ailerons work when there is laminar flow at faster than stall speed. Therefore as frightening as it may seem when the plane is dropping due to a stall the stick must be pushed forward HARD and PROMPTLY to recover that laminar flow URGENTLY by increasing airspeed by reducing angle of attack on both wings and thus reducing drag on both wings. To do this you need to be supremely confident you know you are in a stall risk in the first place. If disoriented or doubtful your prospects are poor.
When you PUSH the stick forward you are effectively allowing the plane to PUSH forward by (a) lifting the tail so GRAVITY-assist thrusts you forward (b) also massively reduces drag by temporarily zeroing the normally positive angle of attack of the wings. If you fly gliders this is your ONLY option. Having an engine to give more thrust is a luxury😉
Being a glider pilot myself, I also was bewildered by the amount of aileron input they pilot applied, and the fact he was actually pulling back on the yoke in a (near-)stall situation... in my first flying lessons I was told over and over again not to use the ailerons during the first moments of stall recovery, only the rudder, and NEVER pull back on the stick until a safe airspeed is reached. I am really astonished thet the Captain reacted the way he did.
I was also bewildered by the fact that the FO retracted the flaps in that situation, thus creating a configuration with an even higher stall speed... why would you do that in such a situation? Retracting the gear was an understandable decision, but the flaps?
This is great.
4:29 the captain has (a) largest amount of ice on the wings he has seen in a long time (b) engines to idle (c) gear extended (d) flaps down. The plane is maintaining 2300, therefore it is not in descent and not gaining speed that way. The immediate question is, what is the captain's mental speed target at that point? 160? 150? Why did he pull back on the throttle since he is not descending and since he does not have a lot of knots to bleed off? What speed was he trying to reach? He calls gear down with 175 knots. Stick shaker at 130 knots. What was his plan? It makes no sense why he pulled back on the throttle and what was his idea of when he would have to increase throttle again. So it seems to me that either the throttle to idle was a very bad move, or that both he and she completely ignored their airspeed, which is fundamental when flying the plane. The fact there is ice on the wings and that stall speed is so close to their current speed should make both very, very alert. It is not as if they have hundreds of knots to spare. Please let me know if I am missing something.
"Ahhhhhh autopilot on: relaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaax!" And yet this isn't the whole explanation, due to the fact that this moron pulled back on the stick with immense force, opposing the automatic stick-forward action. Pilots should routinely go up in all sorts of planes, with no passengers, over sea, to practise stalls of different types at various heights. That would give all of them a healthy respect for the extreme danger inherent in all approaches, and the imperative need to monitor speed at all times during them, and avoid stalling, but also how to react if it happens. All of them need to be acutely aware they are just seconds from disaster for long minutes during the approach. My understanding is that they NEVER practise stalls (in large planes) outside the simulator.
3 Greens, I disagree with a few statements you made here...
The 1500 hour rule is not kneejerk reaction. As a captain in the US, I can tell you firsthand that flying with a 500 hour newhire is basically flying single-pilot... The extra skills they gain from 1500 hours is a huge leap. There is no comparison. Someone with 300 hours should not be flying an airliner.
Second, the regional pay in the US is unrecognizable compared to 2009 when the 3407 happened... Our newhire copilots at my airline make 60k per year. In 2011 as a newhire I made 19k. Big jump.
Otherwise excellent video. I know many people who knew Captain Renslow... Basically, the q400 has so much power, if he would have simply firewalled the engines the plane most likely would have powered out of the stalled condition... You did not mention that he only ever applied 50% thrust.
Thanks for the info and explanation mate. And condolences to you and your friends.
Agreed. Interns who were given jobs as reward for their year of servitude in Tech Pubs. Only thing worse was flying with a Captain from the CPO.
I somewhat agree, but I also have to add something VERY important. That 1500 hours is PIC time, not just manipulating the controls. I know several people that are today ATP holders who quickly went through a school and got their CFI/CFII ratings and just became instructors getting hours. About 10 years ago the CFII who gave me my then bi-annual was such a person. She told me she had about 300 hours in a Cessna 152, and about 20 hours in a complex aircraft. Think VERY clearly what you are saying! Having 1500 hours DOES NOT mean you have time in airliners! How can you get experience in an airliner if you can't actually fly one as you get said experience? What good are those 1500 hours if 700- 900 of them are in a Cessna 152? This to me is a serious conundrum with no easy answer! In a way reminds me of that old saw about getting a bank loan. You can't get one until you can prove you don't need it! I'm not an ATP holder. I am an instrument-rated Private Pilot SEL, my aircraft of choice is a Cessna 182. As such I can only imagine the workload's flying those Airliners. Still, I don't think total hours are 100% a measure of a pilot's ability to sit in that right seat. I think it's more about the types of aircraft used to gain those hours!
@thefactorypilot145 The irony here is that both pilots on Colgan 3407 had an ATP so what Congress did was knee jerk and didn't address the pilot fatigue issue. We need to be adding to the supply of new pilots which will enable adequate crew rest periods and avoid crazy commutes like the Colgan 3407 FO had. There's a training and mentoring gap between 300 hours and 1500 hours. European 121 operations are just as safe as the US if not safer and they have 300 hour FOs in the A320s and 737s. The current airline pilots in the US like the pilot shortage because it's much higher pay for them but that's short sighted. The market will be brutally unforgiving in the long run to these conditions.
Nonsense. Europe has being running in approved courses with 200 high quality hours of instruction for a frozen ATPL. It works fine and most if the current band of British and German pilots were brought in this way.
Don't forget Sterile Cockpit Procedures where conversation during critical phases of flight must pertain ONLY to operations, not bidding schedules, promotions, or company politics.
How tragic, that's so sad that a lack of sleep, lack of training, lack of experience and a lapse of concentration affects how pilots react to events like this which should've been second nature.
Im surprised that the "minor flirting" by the pilot and his bragging was not addressed either. This was a contrbution as well and issues of professionalism and human nature also need to be included in training.
the issue was the female pilots low skill.
Tail plane stall is a possible explanation for the Capt actions. Tail plane stall as I understand is when the elevator stalls and the nose drops because of too much speed. Hell with that. When I flew in icing I only worried about keeping my airspeed up.
I have a vague recollection of a report which stated that the Captain had set the speed bugs for landing but overlooked the (icy) weather conditions - there should have been an extra 15-20 kts factored in. We all - ALL - make mistakes!
As a twenty thousand hour airline pilot, there is no way even if you were tired and to sleep that you would react in this fashion.
The air pressure differential between the upper and lower wing doesn't result in the wing being"sucked up" as you describe
Lift is not soley due to the lower air pressure above the wing caused by its shape - but it helps. Aerobatic wings are symetrical in section. Supersonic wings are sharp. Toy aeroplane wings are rectangular. As boring as it may seem the lift is caused by the positive angle of attack of the wings in relation to the tailplane. I am amazed that the earthy basics are so misunderstood.
Seems a stick-shaker warning on approach should automatically abort the landing, making control of the aircraft the crew's only priority.
Based on this video it seems like (after stick shaker activated) they were trying their dardest to gain control of the aircraft and ignoring other issues. However the steps they took on pursuit of that goal were the wrong ones.
I've watched Mentour Pilot's video (or videos) that mention a terrain avoidance maneuver. He said it's _mandatory_ when the appropriate terrain warning goes off and that the the pilots are supposed to go to full (TOGA) power & pull up. Sort of mirrors what happened here but it is NOT the correct response to a stall or near-stall.
Super scary to watch, even now..
Major detail completely overlooked was the FO engaged in conversations with cabin crew ignoring sterile cockpit rules.
Thanks for the video, but I think it's missing some important points.
I read the NTSB Accident Report (209 pages).
In my eyes, the best parts of the report, after getting up to speed with the main details, are the "Board Member Statements" from page 161 from the three Board Members:
- Hersman
- Hert
- Sumwalt.
The Statements are a bit like the Opinions from the Supreme Court Justices after their Rulings: VERY useful to read.
Root cause/contributing factors for the crash: they had some pretty fundamental disagrements about this wrt the efects of Fatigue, and of Professionalism (Pilot Error).
(1) Fatigue: they did not agree about this at all.
Hersman, the Chairman, felt quite strongly that fatigue was a 5th contributing factor.
And she discusses this in quite some detail.
Personally, I agree with her about its importance.
Hart did not agree, and laid the bulk of the blame on, to be blunt, incompetent pilots (see below).
Sumwalt, quite frankly, waffled, or perhaps "sat on the fence".
He said to be really confident that fatigue was indeed a major factor, that you needed to show, in fact to PROVE, two things:
Firstly, you need to prove that the crew WAS fatigued, and secondly, that this fatigue had a (major) and DIRECT effect on the Accident.
He agrees the Crew was fatigued, but claims there's no proof that this was significant.
And he said it was in fact hard to assess the effect of fatigue....(eh?? I disagree with him).
I'll discuss this below in more detail.
(2) Professionalism (or Pilot Error):
Hart felt that the commercial certification system was (and still is?) too weak, and does not weed out the incompetents.
In particular, that with the declining percentage of airline pilots (with the benefit of) prior military background (which "has a long history of effectively weeding out those who simply lack 'the right stuff' "), that pilots who have only gone through commercial training, have nothing that makes this cut.
That is, to "keep out those who should not begin or continue flying passengers for hire".
He feels VERY strongly about this (see below).
Fatigue Discussion:
I found it very strange that fatigue was NOT listed as a Major Contributing Factor in the Report.
And after reading the Board Member's statements, I can now see why: in effect they decided to VOTE on what SHOULD be an objective analysis:
1 vote FOR (Hersman)
1 vote that in effect ABSTAINED (Sumwalt: who wasn't able to find a correlation between fatigue and to pilots who failed to react to a stall)
1 vote in effect for "Not Present" (Hert) who said nothing about fatigue, and basically said "Good Pilots don't screw-up".
Note that Hart, who feels VERY strongly that the acceptance criteria for commercial pilots is not stringent enough, doesn't actually mention his views on fatigue.
And perhaps by not discussing it, he's in fact implying that a COMPETENT and PROFESSIONAL pilot would not allow themselves to be affected by fatigue.
Not so much to be superhuman, but to ensure they did get sufficient rest.
But I don't buy that: in the Military you have a different perspective on risk, and accidents, and also have a very rigid command structure.
With stringent penalties for violating policy.
As in, sentries who fall asleep on duty are either shot, or sent to Leavenworth....:-}
OK, slight exaggeration, but I agree with Hersman's argument that fatigue is a major issue in aviation safety.
I don't like the concept of VOTING in what SHOULD be an objective analysis.
But this sort of investigation has some politics/policy attached to it.
So then what? SHOULD fatigue be emphasized more in the Report?
Yes.
If we give Sumwalt an overall 50% for his VOTE, then with Hersman as a 1 full Vote, that makes 1.5 out of 3 of the Board Members who believe that Fatigue IS a Major Contributing Factor.
Which gives us 1.5 out of 3 Votes.
And since Hersman is the Chairman, he should have the deciding vote.
And thus Fatigue SHOULD have been added as a Major Contributing Factor.
Or at least qualified that work is needed on DETEMINING what sort of Fatigue can be Critical.
And how to assess it (which Sumwalt DID in fact agree on).
Reading Part 3 Conclusions, is (to me) very unsatisfactory.
Why?
Well, you've got a plane that had ZERO mechanical issues, was being handled by a competent ATC, at a completely functional airport, and whilst was not in perfect flying conditions, was not a factor in the crash.
And yet, after going into a stall, both pilots did EXACTLY the wrong things: pulled BACK on the stick...etc etc.
And then they stalled, and fell out of the sky.
Killing all passengers, as well as an unfortunate person in the house they crashed into.
Why did the screw up so badly?
Despite the fact that ALL pilots, both military, private and commercial, for the past 100(?!) years have explicit training on how to deal with stalls.
I think the Report missed the fundamental reason on why it occurred.
Professionalism Discussion:
I think that this was the most important Contributing Factor.
As in, the crash was due primarily to Pilot Error: partly from the wrong guy (& gal) being up front, and flying (paying) passengers, and partly due to a poor System that should weed both out the "wrong people", as well as provide a better environment to train as well as RETAIN the right people.
The Captain was seen to struggle to pass his acreditation at various stages of the process.
And in fact he was not truthful about his struggles to so so when he was hired.
As Hart says, it's pretty clear he did not have the "right stuff".
And even without an on-the-ball First Officer, who appears to have had her own issues, he did EXACTLY the wrong thing in response to a stall.
And did multiple things leading up that which contributed to its occurrence.
This System should:
- Weed out pilots who are not able to function effectively when things go WRONG, and also to ensure that the CREATE an atmosphere that ENCOURAGES things to go RIGHT
- SUPPORT Pilots who are willing and able to do this. Both by training, control of certification and compensation.
After all, "if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys".
If you want to reduce fatigue, then you need to provide the right environment for it.
And to reward those who truly ARE "the right stuff".
And to TRAIN them to be the right stuff.
And RETAIN them.
I think the Investigation should have done more to emphasize the root causes for the accident.
Pilot Error, and a poor System that contributes to it.
I live right near and saw the aftermath of this crash I was driving down main Street in Clarence right when it crashed I live in lancaster craziness of this whole thing for me is I've flown on that same flight from nyc to Buffalo on a Colgan flight one month before this crash
I was living in Clarence at the time and talked to several residents who were evacuated from Long Street. The person who lived across the street said he thought a tree had fallen and hit the house. It wasn't until he looked outside and saw the fire with the tail of a plane sticking out that he realized what must have happened.
The brinuly affect of this valcum over the wing by design and different surfaces would mean flying upside down impossible, valcum plus gravity, really displacement is how we fly.
This may be the best analysis of a plane crash I’ve ever seen - and I’ve seen plenty.
This guy should have a million subscribers. There’s none better.
Centrifugal force causes the speed of the air passing over the curve of the top of the wing maintains that boundary layer. That requires enough speed to cause the inertia of the air to cause a slight separation from the top of the wing creating the vaccum that provides lift. Greater curve on the top of the wing the slower the airspeed needed to create lift. The thinner the Air the higher the stall speed related to the density or lack there of .
Centrifugal????
@@peteconrad2077 Yes think about it . Just as much air flows in close contact beneath the wing in a straight line it does not create negative lift . But the necessary velocity of air where the flow can not closely adhere to the top of the wing creates a absence of pressure or a vacuum. The centrifugal force is created when the air is quickly being forced to change direction and follow the top curve of the wing. When the necessary velocity is reached a vacuum is created that acts to lift the wing. Bernollis principle didn't satisfy my questions. Higher speed air across the top of the wing just doesn't cut it. He totally ignored that air has weight and air can experience centrifugal force which would cause a reduced air pressure on the top of the wing. I flew a KR2 which actually created lift on the curvature of the fuselage side. At a 60 degree Bank the stall was delayed and didn't require the 4 g pull to maintain altitude. That was a surprise. I was probably not totally coordinated though.
@@charleswesley3642 it’s Bernoulli’s law. The air speeds up and it’s pressure reduces. It’s not centrifugal force causing a vacuum.
@@peteconrad2077 You can quote Bernoulli and it doesn't explain anything except you read it. Everything that is caused to change direction exerts a measurable force . Air has weight and at enough velocity that force is extreme. Bernoulli's law stops short of actually explaining lift. When you start building and looking at wing lift coefficients you will see high aspect wings has a lower stall speed as opposed to the stubby wide chord wing. The greater top curvature the slower you can get before stall. As a safety feature that's one reason a wing tapers near the end so as to delay stall spin.
Similar to the crash of Air France's A330 over the South Atlantic. The primitive fear response by inexperienced pilots to grasp for altitude by jerking the yoke back....then stalling out.
Experience doesn’t necessarily solve it.
I grew up in WNY, now work as an airfield vehicle mechanic for the BNIA, and I am a volly firefighter. This event changed a lot, how we respond, and the preparations that go into winter here. The pilots who fly in and out of these conditions are a different breed. from my experience, all pilots should go through more specialty training when it comes to cold weather climate, you’d be surprised at the amount of pilots who cry when they first fly into buffalo in the winter
New England has a lot of icing conditions in winter usually all the way up into the teens.
It took this crash to save so many lives
I'm a grammar nitpicker, but it's "The Crssh THAT Changed..." rather than WHICH. Look it up for reasons why. THAT/WHICH can be a tricky one. 😊
"restrictive"/"non-restrictive" subclause, right? But I don't agree (I'm English), and the narrator, who sounds Australian, may not either. I believe the grammar rule you're talking about is mandatory (if yous is gonna talk real good) in *American* English but not in other varieties. I personally am a stickler the other way: I always prefer to use "which" wherever possible in serious documentation, e.g. legal stuff. Not in speech, though: "which" in speech as a relative pronoun often sounds silly, sometimes very silly.
Ground fatities Is Douglas welinsky.
14:44 lol you think the pilot put both those landings in the log book?
So I'm still not clear why the pilots didn't think to activate the de-icing mechanism. Regardless of the storm, they clearly noticed the heavy icing, and still did nothing in that respect. What the heck?
Ice had nothing to do with this crash.
@@lbowsk you're making an assertion with every little evidence. The mere fact that the wings were caked in ice suggests the possibility this could have led to the crash. Hasn't been demonstrated either way as far as I can tell.
Googe it. Find the NTSB animation of the ham-fisted way they flew a perfectly good airplane into a stall, and then made it even worse. It's all over and has been since the crash. Ice had nothing to do with it. That plane will carry a TON of ice without issue. And it was flying JUST FINE till Orville neglected to add thrust following the Props being pushed to max and the plane being reconfigured into a VERY HIGH DRAG situation. When the props go forward on a Dash, the power levers also go forward to offset the huge increase in drag and resultant loss of airspeed. @@jdtown6585
I welcome all aviation safety content but next time please have the voice actors read numbers as pilots would. For example, an altimeter setting would be read “two niner eight zero” instead of “twenty nine eighty.” Same applies to headings (three three zero instead of three thirty). Altitudes are more complicated but if you’re making this kind of content you’ll be able to figure it out.
I thought you were going somewhere else with this. Your examples are bad phraseology but we hear it all the time. It's the horrible voice acting, not the script, that makes this video sound dumb.
@@michaelglasier7282 Yeah, we hear bad phraseology all the time but occasionally you hear pilots get chastised for it by ATC. For someone making content for such a specific audience I’m just hoping it can be more realistic in the future.
It's amazing that the captain only had 3379hrs, and was 47 years old. What the hell you been up to ?
That airplane weighs the better part of 70,000lbs and they both let it get too slow.
Probably just got started in aviation later in life. His age is irrelevant in my opinion.
He became a pilot later in life. He had another career that he left to start becoming a pilot.
I feel worse for the person on the ground😩
Sounds like Archer is the cpt
Your ATC voicework could use some work for accuracy sake
Such as, numbers said in groups of two
3407 said “34” “07”
Not 3-4-0-7
Zero not "oh"
So not real audio. Have the readers ever heard real transmissions? I think not.
Airspeed is life.. Always.. Especially with ice. Failed check rides... Not good
jesus it’s as if they never practiced stall recovery in there private training
They spent the night together?
👍💯✌️
Omg a flying potato! 15:36
Simple explanation; Marvin messed up.
A simpletons explanation more like.
@@peteconrad2077 Wrong. It went right over your head, sweet cheeks.
@@peteconrad2077 I need to know what schools you attended. They must have produced a lot of English majors.
The plane was on autopilot. It knew the stall speed. It nevertheless allowed the plane to go below this speed and then turned itself off, thereby transferring a life-and-death situation to tired pilots. To me this is the essence of the crash. No video has covered this angle, including this one..
As far as I'm aware, the autopilot turned off when the stick shaker activated, which was *before* the stall. Had the captain done nothing the stick pusher would've prevented the stall from developing.
No grounds for blaming the automation here, it gave the humans a flyable plane (admittedly at the edge of the envelope), they crashed it.
No, actually the plane never stalled before the captain put it into a stall. See above.
@@jn8ive60 I don't understand the thinking here or in the previous reply. The plane's software knew of the IMPENDING stall, but did nothing to maintain a safe speed. Why rely on a human being to do something, or nothing, when a simple command from the autopilot could have averted disaster?
The same thing applies to a plane taking off without flaps and slats set, typically resulting in a quick crash. Why wouldn't the software, knowing the plane is on the ground and misconfigured, stop a takeoff roll at a certain speed? Why just sound an alarm (which can fail, be ignored, etc.) when the software can idle the engines?
That's just it. The autopilot did *not* allow the plane to go below stall speed. When the reference speed switch is turned on, it sets the stall warning at a higher speed. These pilots had set the reference speed switch to the On position.
This switch is unique to the Bombardier Q 400. When the stick shaker went off, the plane was traveling at 130 knots. Its stall speed was 111 knots. When the sticker shaker went off, the plane was not in a stall and not anywhere near a stall. There was no life or death situation at that point. There was no impending stall for the software to be aware of, and since the plane was traveling 20 knots above the speed at which it would stall, no need to adjust the speed.
It's up to the pilots to remember that they have the reference speed switch turned on, and to make their approach at a higher speed to avoid it going off when there is no stall threat. These pilots did not remember it was on and made the approach at the usual speed.
So even having forgotten that they had turned the reference speed switch on, and not having adjusted their speed, once it went off, the pilots could either have 1. Remembered at that point, and simply turned the switch off and proceeded as usual or 2. Performed the standard procedure when the stick shaker goes off by dropping the nose and the speed.
Instead, the captain reacted with startle and confusion, and did exactly the opposite, putting the nose up and increasing the speed, which then did indeed put the plane into a stall, whereas before he did that, it was not in one and in no danger of going into one.
What no video except the "Mayday" episode about this crash has ever covered is why the plane went into a stall in the first place. The reason no other video ever covered that is that the plane never did go into a stall "in the first place" to use my own words.
I was always so frustrated by that. Yes, I get that that the pilot did the wrong thing when the sticker shaker went off. "But why did the plane lose so much speed that it was in danger of stalling before the stick shaker went off?" I'd think. Sure, it slowed down when the landing gear went down, but that happens on every flight. Then I learned about the reference speed switch. So the answer to my question is "It never did."
So actually, this was completely pilot error. It wasn't ice and it wasn't the plane malfunctioning.
@@jn8ive60 In brief: 1. Stall warning at 130 not 111 due to ref. switch; 2. Hence stick shaker at this speed; 3. Then panicked and incorrect response by pilot. Correct?
Do you have a similar analysis for flaps/slats on takeoff?
16:10 Not true. Check your data.
Short version: the captain had no idea how to handle a stall. The first officer was focused on nonsense and young woman claptrap about her feelings and how tough she was
Two people who shouldn’t have been in the job
Ignorant version.
@@jul2027 it isn’t how it happened.
ATC don’t say three thirty or twenty three hundred
The conclusion is simple, imo.
Either the captain had a brain incident or deliberately crashed the plane.
☮
you get what you pay for. airline/corporate pilots have the toughest job, they shouldnt be allowed to be an FO until they have 2500 hours flying and a ATP.
Nonsense. How are they going to get those hours, on a PC?
@@peteconrad2077 the highest quality time is actually flying night freight. Pplenty of those jobs around. Id gladly hire a FO for jet who's flown a few years in a baron or caravan doing the night freight stuff. Excellent pilots
@@tomdick693 there aren’t enough jobs like that to supply the market with airline pilots. That’s why the FAA are looking to do something like the European approved course model. It’s a proven system.
The captain was too busy talking and trying to flirt with the female co-pilot and killed those folks.
Your dubbed in radio/ATC is reenactments are factually incorrect and add an amateurish element to what you put out. The ILS for example is not "twenty three" it would be spoken and read back as "ILS two - three approach". The same thing applies to assigned headings. For example the assigned heading would be "two-three-zero" never "two hundred thirty". Only assigned altitudes would be spoken by ATC and read back by the crew as "three thousand".
I scrolled down exactly for that, great video otherwise, but that really threw me off.
Having heard the real audio. This is bullshit. i could not listen to it.
This aircraft crashed because of ice. It would’ve been impossible to fly the plane the way they wanted/needed. I don’t know why you didn’t play the original cockpit voice recording by the way…..
That is not what the NTSB report said. Major pilot error.
@@MichaelGa from what I remember, they didn’t use the de-icing boots as the manual stated.
I remember pundits talking about rime ice the day after the crash trying to speculate what may have happened to cause the plane to crash. After further study and NTSB we know other factors caused this plane to crash.
No, it did not crash because of ice, and it was perfectly possible to land the plane safely. Who is "they" anyway?
@@jn8ive60 they? We’ll, who flies planes? I might be getting mixed up with a different crash, anyway.
So called captain
The recreation voices of the crew are absolutely terrible. Really ruins the video despite all the terrific information and insight.
Don't believe the hype. A sudden uncommanded prop pitch reversal caused the crash, not pilot error.
Don't fly in rubber band powered planes by amateur pilots.
Says a know nothing.
Did you not hear their voices?The conversation?Her saying being in a hotel room,not at home.HUM.Have you seen a female pilot who was not gorgeous?He was 47, she was 24.
If his stick had not come up, might have made it.You want to push it straight down.Not just talking about flight.LOL.
Excellent video content, but what a horrible voiceover!
So the pilot believes the way to get out of a stall is to pull back on the yoke and slow the plane down more. Both pilots chatted enjoyably about the icing they were observing but neither thought it was a condition that demanded any action. The co-pilot is pressing buttons but doesn't know what they do. Gear up or gear down, flaps, no flaps. So the very idea that a nap would turn these two into competent pilots is, I would hope by this point, quite absurd. If a plane lands safely 3 times with an Orangutan in the pilot seat you say those people are lucky to be alive; you don't say the Orangutan landed the plane safely 3 times before that proves he knows what he's doing. No it doesn't it means people were lucky.