Guest rattler Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Latest Update: NTSB identifies crashed Colgan Q400 as investigation begins By Mary Kirby US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) officials have formally identified the Colgan Air Bombardier Q400 that crashed last night on approach to Buffalo. The agency says the twin-engine turboprop was registered as N200WQ. According to Flight's ACAS database, the Pratt & Whitney Canada PW150-powered aircraft is a nine-month old example owned by Colgan, a subsidiary of Pinnacle Airlines. There are no indications of survivors from the 48 passengers and crew on board the aircraft, which was operated by Colgan as Continental Connection flight 3407 from Newark. "It appears all aboard the aircraft lost their lives and there is a report of at least one ground fatality," says the NTSB, which has dispatched a team to investigate the crash. NTSB senior air safety investigator Lorenda Ward will serve as investigator-in-charge of the team comprising approximately a dozen NTSB staffers. The FAA, Colgan, and the Air Line Pilots Association will be parties to the NTSB's investigation, adds the agency. Additionally, the Transportation Safety Board (TSB) of Canada has appointed a representative who will arrive on scene today along with technical advisors from TSB, P&WC, and Bombardier. Air traffic transmissions with the Colgan Q400 give no immediate indications of any problems before controllers suddenly lost contact with the flight. The audio record also reveals that, as controllers searched for the missing aircraft, they queried whether a following flight was experiencing icing conditions. Weather information at the time of the accident, about 22:20 yesterday, points to light snow, a temperature of 1°C, and gusting winds of up to 22kt. P&WC says it is too soon to tell if the engines were involved in the incident, but stands ready to assist the NTSB. Bombardier has extended its sympathies to the families of those who perished in the accident. However, until such time as the investigators release any information or findings, the Canadian manufacturer says it cannot comment further or speculate on the cause of the crash. Continental Airlines chairman and CEO Larry Kellner says: "Continental extends its deepest sympathy to the family members and loved ones of those involved in this accident. We are providing our full assistance to Colgan Air so that together we can provide as much support as possible for all concerned." http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/...estigation.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Judy; No, I have no thoughts on cause at all. Too early - we can examine the obvious like weather but not enough is known yet. Like many here, I've flown that corrider many times and from what I could see in the standard reports, there was nothing unusual about the weather for this time of year. Icing changes the way air flows over the wing and can, if it builds up sufficiently, destroy lift, so yes, academically-speaking icing can bring down any airplane regardless of size but I very hastily add such is extremely rare. I can't recall a single accident where a large transport was brought down by ice alone. The fifties and sixties were about the last time such a cause was primary. A few aircraft designs have proven more susceptible to in-flight icing (as opposed to frost on the wings before departure such as the early RJ's), but they are known, like the ATR-42, (since fixed, I believe) - this aircraft isn't among those "known". Large transport aircraft spend so little time at those altitudes where icing can be a significant problem that icing for them is relatively rare - it happens but because of effective anti-ice/de-ice systems, removal of ice isn't a problem. Also, standard operating procedures to handle ice-build up are in place for known problems such as flying an extended period in icing conditions with the slats extended. Hope this is of some help. Moon - I think you're right - the recorders should be in good shape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Evidently a very new aircraft. Bombardier says plane that crashed in Buffalo only a few months old -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- at 11:59 on February 13, 2009, EDT. By THE CANADIAN PRESS MONTREAL - A Bombardier Aerospace official says the Dash-8 Q400 aircraft involved in a fatal crash in Buffalo was a relatively new plane. Company spokesman Marc Duchesne says the twin turbo-prop aircraft was put into service very recently and is only a few months old. The Montreal-based aircraft manufacturer has sent a product safety and technical team to the crash site to help the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board with its investigation. Witnesses heard the aircraft sputtering before it went down in light snow and fog, about eight kilometres from Buffalo Niagara International Airport. Duchesne says there were incidents related to the plane's landing gear more than a year ago in northern Europe. But he adds that it is highly inappropriate to link any of the previous incidents with the latest accident, which killed 50 people in all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudder Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Roselawn...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Apparently the recorders have been recovered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thebean Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Q400, again. These aircraft seem to have issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super 80 Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 and what would those issues be? Other than SAS mechanics being lazy? And why is it that the largest Q400 operators (Horizon and FlyBe) claim total ignorance of these issues? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thebean Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Can we not wait for the investigation before pointing fingers, have some respect Bean. I have lots of respect, but that doesn't change my opinion that the Q400 seems to have issues. There is at least one airline CEO I know of stateside that will not fly in turbo props, period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
60N30W Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Maybe now is not the right time to share your thoughts on the Dash 8-400 with others. Save it for an economics thread. Regards, 60N30W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super 80 Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 There is at least one airline CEO I know of stateside that will not fly in turbo props, period. and I know a pilot who while flying in Africa had a church group refuse to board a substitute Fokker 28 because jet engines are powered by black magic. Their called stupid people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 There is at least one airline CEO I know of stateside that will not fly in turbo props, period. This is an interesting and revealing statement on a number of fronts. If I might ask, upon what basis was such a decision made? Unless it's based upon data, the decision is irrational and is mere opinion. But if it's based upon data, the industry should know. What does the data have to say? You state that the airplane "seems to have issues". What are they? Does the same apply to the Airbus or the 737NG? Sorry, I don't mean to be or sound rude, but the statement is made and it is quite a statement I think. One must assume this same CEO would not put his/her family on these airplanes so what about other passengers? If I may offer some thoughts on this not as mere opinion but as a result of conversations, more a lament than anything, I had with a large aircraft manufacturer - CEOs and other airline executives are increasingly unable to discuss aircraft technical and safety matters with any depth or experience. That has been my experience as well and isn't merely an opinion. I see such comments from non-flight safety people here all the time - some interesting and engaging ones but others which seem entirely off the wall and which raise concerns about how the work of flight safety is actually understood within executive ranks. I have expressed these views in a number of ways here and elsewhere, not as a criticism because heaven knows I could not run an airline but as a "critiquing" observation for the consideration of those in such positions - a reminder from the lower ranks that such stuff can bite hard and even put one out of business if not attended to and if not thoroughly understood at least to the point of being able to talk with some depth to one's flight safety people. The observation I refer to was both familiar yet astonishing, coming from the source it did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost In Saigon Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 There is at least one airline CEO I know of stateside that will not fly in turbo props, period. Are you suggesting that this CEO is smarter than the rest of us? I am sure if you look hard enough, you will find some CEO's who won't travel by air at all. Just like the "Rain Man". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thebean Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/ It's obvious from the extensive ATC audio that icing was an issue for all. This particular CEO is a pretty bright guy with an astounding track record. I know for a fact he studiously avoids turbo props. Rational or not, that's his decision, not mine. I don't have a problem with turboprops, indeed any aircraft, provided it was manufactured somewhere in the western world. I was in a private turbo-beaver at about 300 feet agl abeam YVR last Saturday morning. Now THAT's flying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Bean; This particular CEO is a pretty bright guy with an astounding track record. I know for a fact he studiously avoids turbo props. Rational or not, that's his decision, not mine. No doubt, but, with respect, intelligence has very little to do with this, and I have no idea what you mean by an "astounding track record." In marketing? In profit-making? None of this has to do with flight safety work nor does a decision to go have fun, counter someone else's decision to not fly in turbos, (great decision btw, it IS fun), but, again respectfully... I think my point has been illustrated sufficiently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thebean Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Bean; No doubt, but, with respect, intelligence has very little to do with this, and I have no idea what you mean by an "astounding track record." In marketing? In profit-making? None of this has to do with flight safety work nor does a decision to go have fun, counter someone else's decision to not fly in turbos, (great decision btw, it IS fun), but, again respectfully... I think my point has been illustrated sufficiently. The track record is in job creation, no layoffs, profitability, creation of shareholder wealth, growth and never having a fatality or hull loss. Like I said, he's a pretty bright guy who is not prone to irrational decisions. Let's not forget that there are hundreds of families impacted by yesterday's events near Buffalo. That's the larger issue here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 The track record is in job creation, profitability, growth and never having a fatality. Absolutely agree - and that is the business of a fully-functioning, independant, autonomous flight safety department which isn't run, led or budgeted by flight operations - it's the check and balance on an operation designed solely to make money - great goal, which needs, just like this economy did before it crashed, someone with the knowledge, experience and authority to say, "no" once in a while when really needed. Here's to never having a fatality. So long as the leadership comprehends what is required to accomplish this, it is a reasonable, achievable goal. Too bad the auto industry in the US, unlike both European and Japanese industries, had to be forced into thinking "safety". Now if only the hospitals and their "captains of industry", the doctors, could shift their profit-driven thinking just a bit. Let's not forget that there are hundreds of families impacted by yesterday's events near Buffalo. That's the larger issue here. Precisely my concern as it is with all aviation people. What didn't prevent this? What failed? Airplane? Crew? System? Combination? Weather alone? It is important to determine this of course, but kicking tin is no longer an acceptable way to deal with accidents - surely this is understood in the higher echelons of management, is it not? SMS is a prevention approach. Data analysis has the potential, if used aggressively, properly, to determine where the risks are but as long as such programs are staffed poorly and are closeted away from operations, they are hobbled in their ability to provide guidance for the enterprise. Why is it such a tough sell for executives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southshore Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Hmm. Just throwin' this out there. A CEO won't get on a T-prop. You have to ask 'why?' I fly props, again, after many years on jets, to keep my lifestyle (not the money, that's for sure). I could have gone mainline a looongtime ago on a walkthru but, that's me. I fly with many FO's that are immensely experienced (making my life even easier, if that's possible). Now, what's the situation with the 'You'alls'? Maybe buddy's reluctance to fly props has to do with the experience level of the crews. Can they afford to pay for my experience level? Don't think so. From what I've heard the US regional payscales are - well, to say the least, embarrassing. This is NOT to say they are bad pilots, just not seasoned. Now this is all coming before there is any resolution to the Buffalo crash but the issue was raised - why would a CEO not get on a machine? Maybe it's not the machine. A sad day, non the less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
60N30W Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 and never having a fatality or hull loss. Bean, News for you, the responsibility for never having a hull loss or fatality is not the responsibility of the CEO alone. No CEO has ever told me when I should take-off, when I should go to my alternate, or how much more fuel to take. The responsibility for the safe operation of aircraft rests with all those involved in its operation, from Dispatchers, To F/A, to fuellers and bag handlers to mechanics, and finally to the pilots in the flight deck. (And some I have not mentioned). I will never give a CEO credit for the safe operation of an aircraft, I will however give my CEO credit for providing us with the tools to do our jobs, the support we need and most of all the trust to do it right, and the fact that he backs up our decisions on how to operate the aircraft safely and efficiently. (I can only speak about my CEO) On another note I think it is shows very poor judgement on the part of your CEO friend to publicly state he will not travel on a turbo prop, might come back to haunt him one day when his carrier starts operating them, or signs a code share with a carrier that does. Regards, 60N30W PS. I'll get on a Dash 8 any day, great aircraft from a great line of aircraft, also nothing better than having no middle seat to get stuck in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thebean Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Bean, News for you, the responsibility for never having a hull loss or fatality is not the responsibility of the CEO alone. No CEO has ever told me when I should take-off, when I should go to my alternate, or how much more fuel to take. The responsibility for the safe operation of aircraft rests with all those involved in its operation, from Dispatchers, To F/A, to fuellers and bag handlers to mechanics, and finally to the pilots in the flight deck. (And some I have not mentioned). I will never give a CEO credit for the safe operation of an aircraft, I will however give my CEO credit for providing us with the tools to do our jobs, the support we need and most of all the trust to do it right, and the fact that he backs up our decisions on how to operate the aircraft safely and efficiently. (I can only speak about my CEO) On another note I think it is shows very poor judgement on the part of your CEO friend to publicly state he will not travel on a turbo prop, might come back to haunt him one day when his carrier starts operating them, or signs a code share with a carrier that does. Regards, 60N30W PS. I'll get on a Dash 8 any day, great aircraft from a great line of aircraft, also nothing better than having no middle seat to get stuck in. The statement was not made to the general public. It was made in a private conversation. The guy is a big picture guy who has probably forgotten more about the business than you, or I , will ever know. It's his opinion. He's entitled to it. I fly Dash 8's all the time. I have no issues with them at all. If a problem is uncovered in this, or any aircraft, I trust the DoT / Transport Canada will take measures to ensure it does not repeat itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canus Chinookus Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 The only legitimate problem someone could have with T-props is what was already mentioned, and that's the experience level of the crew. While not always the case, it tends to be more the trend in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTFA Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 If a problem is uncovered in this, or any aircraft, I trust the DoT / Transport Canada will take measures to ensure it does not repeat itself. Dear Mr. Bean. This statement that you have made illustrates the lack of understanding of SMS which feeds frustration that people like Capt. Hudson are feeling. The responsibility to prevent a reoccurance is not the Governments. The governments role is to enforce a process that industry abide by in order to come up with real and realistic measures of avoidance. This is what SMS is al about, operators taking responsibility real time and in time. Something happened on this flight that could have been prevented. What was it? The only thing government can do is tell people: "be safe" and set the limits on how safe. The onus, and rightfully so, is on the operators on how to acheive the safety that the travelliing public seeks. This of course leads to the paradox of cost vs safety or. if you will, risk vs reward. I think that you will find that pilots in general take an accident, regardless of who what, when or where, personally. SMS is not an enforcement issue. GTFA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thebean Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Dear Mr. Bean. This statement that you have made illustrates the lack of understanding of SMS which feeds frustration that people like Capt. Hudson are feeling. The responsibility to prevent a reoccurance is not the Governments. The governments role is to enforce a process that industry abide by in order to come up with real and realistic measures of avoidance. This is what SMS is al about, operators taking responsibility real time and in time. Something happened on this flight that could have been prevented. What was it? The only thing government can do is tell people: "be safe" and set the limits on how safe. The onus, and rightfully so, is on the operators on how to acheive the safety that the travelliing public seeks. This of course leads to the paradox of cost vs safety or. if you will, risk vs reward. I think that you will find that pilots in general take an accident, regardless of who what, when or where, personally. SMS is not an enforcement issue. GTFA You can be assured that no one wants to wake up in the morning and read about any incidents of any kind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 I have to ask, how does someone become the CEO of a successful airline if they have opinions about the industry that are clearly so uninformed? It's almost as stupid as me saying that I won't fly with his airline because his airplanes are painted blue (or whatever colour they are)! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AME Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 The only legitimate problem someone could have with T-props is what was already mentioned, and that's the experience level of the crew. While not always the case, it tends to be more the trend in the US. I have seen F/O's show up here (PH reg aircraft) with no actually line time, they got their licence did their type rating and showed up here to fly the line TAT 250 flt hrs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
60N30W Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 The statement was not made to the general public. It was made in a private conversation. Bean, So now you are sharing information that people share with you in private and one would think in confidence, don't be surprised if the CEO in questions stops talking to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.