Moon The Loon Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 I remember seeing a video from the NRC that used frozen chickens and fired them at the a/c engines as well as windscreens etc. The chickens were frozen when they were taken out of the freezer, but thawed out before they were put in the cannon. Or turkeys...what-evvv-errrrr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 I remember seeing a video from the NRC that used frozen chickens and fired them at the a/c engines as well as windscreens etc. Here is the goto to the NRC information part of which states About the birds "We use deceased domestic egg-laying chickens or capons for bird strike tests, and smaller birds for engine ingestion tests," says Ron Gould. "But for calibration work, we use mock chickens made of gelatin and some fibrous material." "Our birds are fully feathered for the bird strike tests," he adds. "We store them frozen and then thaw them before firing them – we measure their core temperature to prove to our clients that they're completely thawed." http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/highlights/2008/0805bird_e.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 Another update: Colgan 3407 update: Aircraft appears to have landed in flat attitude By John Croft Federal investigators say the Colgan Air Bombardier Q400 that crashed on approach to the Buffalo Niagara International Airport Thursday night landed in a relatively flat attitude, despite eyewitness accounts that suggested a nose-dive. The aircraft was also oriented in the opposite direction of the instrument approach to Runway 23 at the airport. Colgan 3407, enroute to Buffalo from Newark as a Continental Express flight, crashed into a house in a neighborhood about 5mi from the airport after the crew experienced violent pitch and roll excursions after deploying the first increment of flaps (15 degrees) in preparation for landing, information gained from the flight data recorder. NTSB board member Steven Chealander, speaking to reporters today from Buffalo, says further review of the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) also shows that stick shaker and stick pusher, devices that attempt to prevent pilots from entering an aerodynamic stall, had activated after the upset. Chealander yesterday reported that intial review of the CVR showed pilots discussing "significant" ice build-up on the wings and windshied. That evidence, combined with the aircraft attitude, may suggest the aircraft remained in a stalled state from upset at approximately 701m (2,300ft) altitude to the crash, a result that is not uncommon in fatal turboprop accidents. An April 2006 report by the Flight Safety Foundation of stall recovery events in turboprops reveals that in three accidents that killed 134, pilots did not initially reduce the angle-of-attack on the aircraft by moving the control column to the nose-down position early in the upset sequence. The pilots of Colgan 3407 had extended the landing gear 20 seconds before deploying the flaps, and had attempted to retract both during the upset that followed the flap extension. All 49 onboard perished in the accident as well as one person in the house. The picture below, taken by the Buffalo News, shows the relative orientation of the aircraft at the crash site. (use the goto to view the picture) Chealander says investigators are reviewing maintenance records at Colgan’s base in Virginia and that earlier reports that the aircraft was delayed out of Newark because of a mechanical problem were false. High winds at Newark had delayed the flight however. The aircraft’s Pratt & Whitney Canada PW150 engines appear to have been generating torque at the time of the accident, investigators say. The crew did not discuss any caution lights related to the pneumatic deicing boots on the wing leading edges as well as horizontal and vertical stabilizer leading edges, says Chealander, indicating that the system, as well as systems for the engine inlet cowlings and propellers, appears to have been operating properly. A cursory look at the US Federal Aviation Administration’s service difficulty report (SDR) database for the Q400 model reveals at least three instances, all in 2002, where Q400 wing leading edge pneumatic deicing systems failed to work properly due to a faulty dual distributing valve built by Aerazur, a subsidiary of Zodiac. In each case the caution lights were illuminated however. All Nippon airways had earlier reported a high removal rate for the distributing valves, in most cases because the caution light had illuminated. Aerazur in 2007 switched parts to address the problem. Colgan, a subsidiary of Pinnacle Airlines, purchased N200WQ nine months ago. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/...ed-in-flat.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 These are classic deep-stall characteristics which were first seen in T-tail jet transports in the sixties - the Heathrow BAC111 accident comes to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest woxof Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 An aircraft can impact in a flat attitude without being in a deep stall. For example, after stalling and pitching down either from the stall or the recovery from the stall....the aircraft could be pitching toward nose up(through the level attitude) after stall recovery yet still sinking thus impacting in a level or even nose-up attitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted February 14, 2009 Author Share Posted February 14, 2009 Very sad...they had no way out...not enough altitude to do much. Very curious to know if the deicing boots were working as advertised. I don't think lowering the gear and the flaps was a good thing to do...until they confirmed the wings were ice free... But I think (speculate) that they were going into the approach mode and were very busy and never really thought about angle of attack etc, and the changes in aerodynamics ..........if they had a lot of ice attached to the bird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Kip - yes, terribly sad. I wonder if any of what was learned by NASA ever made it into training curriculae? I wonder if the airplane was light on the elevator as per the video? Ice on the windshield either suggests very rapid, heavy accumulation or a heating system that couldn't keep up. Given that nothing like this has been reported with the type, I suspect the former. woxof - yes, many scenario's present themselves at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest woxof Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 It is not uncommon to have residual ice on these boots after inflation(s), my experience with de-ice boots is that you will have to lower gear and flaps with ice still on the aircraft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super 80 Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 So I understand CityTV showed up at YZD and got in the faces of Bombardier employees in the parking lot and then went over to YTZ and got in the faces of Porter pax and employees asking them in they felt safe flying on the deadly Q400. I hate the media, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UpperDeck Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Very sad...they had no way out...not enough altitude to do much. Very curious to know if the deicing boots were working as advertised. I don't think lowering the gear and the flaps was a good thing to do...until they confirmed the wings were ice free... But I think (speculate) that they were going into the approach mode and were very busy and never really thought about angle of attack etc, and the changes in aerodynamics ..........if they had a lot of ice attached to the bird. On the news this evening, they reported that the auto-pilot was still engaged and that as a consequence, the PIC would not have "felt" the deterioration in flight characteristics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Another example of "Extreme Press" Note the first Paragraph: $26-million Bombardier aircraft in service for less than a year Dash 8 Q400 has become backbone of commerical division Scott Deveau, National Post Published: Saturday, February 14, 2009 Gary Wiepert, ReutersThe aircraft involved in the fatal crash near Buffalo on Thursday night was one of the most popular, and notorious, planes built by Montreal's Bombardier Inc. The aircraft involved in the crash near Buffalo was one of the most popular -- and notorious -- planes built by Montreal's Bombardier Inc. While the cause of the crash is still unknown, the Dash 8 Q400 in question had been in service for less than a year after being delivered to Colgan Air, a regional affiliate of Continental Airlines, in April, 2008, according to John Arnone, Bombardier spokesman. Until now, the $26-million plane has been a tremendous success for Bombardier. While new aircraft orders have dried up in recent months after record-high fuel prices and waning demand eroded the financial health of airlines, the 74-seat Q400 has become the backbone of Bombardier's commercial aircraft division. Colgan is one of the largest Q400 customers in the world with 14 of the popular turboprops already in its fleet, in addition to the one that crashed on Thursday. The Virginia-based airline placed a firm order for 15 more of the planes in January, and placed another 15 on option just this week. However, in the fall of 2007, three older versions of the aircraft operated by Scandinavian Airlines (SAS) were involved in minor crashes within two months of each other after corrosion caused their landing gear to collapse on landing. Those crashes followed two others at Japan's All Nippon Airways and Amakusa Airlines Co. in 2007 when the front landing gear on their Q400s failed to drop. While SAS grounded its entire fleet of Q400s following the incidents, it eventually replaced them with an order consisting of a mix of Bombardier regional jets and Q400NexGen aircraft. Still, the consequences of the crashes were nowhere near as dire as Thursday's incident. No one was injured in the previous crashes, while 50 perished in the one near Buffalo on Thursday. While the event is unlikely to impact Q400 sales in the near term, it is another black eye on the aircraft program, acknowledged Benoit Poirier, an industry analyst with Desjardins Securities. "We believe Bombardier does not need another round of negative news," he said yesterday in a note to clients. Until recently, turboprops had fallen out of favor with U. S. carriers after one built by European manufacturer ATR and operated by American Airlines crashed in Indiana in 1994,Mr. Poirier said. But with fuel bills rising, the 30% fuel savings turboprops offer over similar sized jets has brought them back into popularity in recent years. Bombardier has already had 322 Q400 orders since the plane entered service in 2000, with 219 already delivered to carriers around the globe. Toronto's Porter Airlines operates a fleet of eight Q400s, and has another 10 on order it expects to take on in the coming years. Demand has been so strong for Bombardier's turboprop, the manufacturer said earlier this month it was being forced to ramp up production at its Toronto plant to accommodate its ballooning order book. Bombardier has sent a product safety and technical team to the scene in Buffalo to assist in the investigation. "Until such time as the investigators release any information or findings, Bombardier cannot comment further or speculate on the cause of this accident," Bombardier said in a statement. scdeveau@nationalpost.com Close Presented by http://www.financialpost.com/news/story.html?id=1288908 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobcaygeon Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 On the Dash 8 icing isn't really considered significant until it starts to accumulate on the cockpit side windows (the capt.'s is actually heated) Most operators have different speeds (usually just flip the card) for when the icing system is activate / or residual ice is present that adds speed (7-10 kts) to approach and ref speeds. At Canada's largest dash 8 operator I was taught to select "SLOW " cycle upon entering icing and then judging whether FAST was needed. The exception was when we needed it on approach where we automatically selected "FAST" just in case we became busy with the approach and ice acc. increased After all the education / paranoia on the Dash 8 it was sure a shocker to find the CRJ stab unprotected. Not to mention a PITA to have to deice only because the tail & stab were the only things iced up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 The horizontal stab also has a higher rate of catch. Even though the wings might look clean, if the wings AREN'T clean, there's a really good chance of ice on the horizontal stab. Typical deHavilland product: with ice on the stab, approach with flap selected at too high an airspeed can produce uncontrollable nose-down pitching. I wonder if the Q400 is susceptible to this ancient deHavilland demon. With regards icing in cruise flight, regardless of the current recommendations denying the existence of ice-bridging, I don't think the proponents of this policy have spent much time in 2-3 hour cruise flight in light to moderate icing. Like it or not, it happens. [insert topic for new thread] While on approach, if rime or mixed icing is anticipated all the way down, sure: leave the boots in auto-fast, especially during config changes. Sounds like the unfortunates in this tragedy had their butts covered in this regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost In Saigon Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Why is everyone so fixated on tailplane stall? The facts don't support it. Most of the information from TV is ridiculous and misleading. The latest report from the NTSB said the Stick Shaker and Stick Pusher were activated. That doesn't happen with a tailplane stall. The NTSB has never mentioned tailplane stall. So where is it coming from? You guys would all make very poor accident investigators. Stick to the facts for a change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest woxof Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 With regards icing in cruise flight, regardless of the current recommendations denying the existence of ice-bridging, I don't think the proponents of this policy have spent much time in 2-3 hour cruise flight in light to moderate icing. Like it or not, it happens. You just thought it was ice bridging. Time for the myth to pass away. http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/commerce...lars/AC0147.htm "Despite the widespread belief in this phenomenon within the pilot community and its coverage in numerous technical publications, its existence cannot be substantiated, either technically or anecdotally. At a recent conference held in Cleveland to investigate ice bridging, the major manufacturers of pneumatic de-icing boots reported that they had been UNABLE TO REPRODUCE ICE BRIDGING UNDER ANY LABORATORY/WIND TUNNEL CONDITIONS, and that any operational report of ice bridging investigated by them had been determined to be a report of residual ice." "If, however, the boots are inflated with a thin layer of ice on the boot surface, as little as 40% of the ice may be removed during the inflation cycle. This is not ice bridging, but residual ice." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest woxof Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 On the news this evening, they reported that the auto-pilot was still engaged and that as a consequence, the PIC would not have "felt" the deterioration in flight characteristics. http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/commerce...lars/AC0147.htm MONITORING THE AUTOPILOT IN ICING CONDITIONS When the autopilot is utilized in icing conditions, it can mask changes in performance due to the aerodynamic effects of icing that would otherwise be detected by the pilot if the aeroplane were being hand flown. It is highly recommended that pilots disengage the autopilot and hand fly the aircraft when operating in icing conditions. If this is not desirable for safety reasons, such as high cockpit workload or single-pilot operations, pilots should monitor the autopilot closely. This can be accomplished by frequently disengaging the autopilot while holding the control wheel firmly. The pilot should then be able to feel any trim changes and be better able to assess the effect of any ice accumulation on the performance of the aeroplane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RGT Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 My theory is if I am in cruise in ice, I cycle the boots manually. When I start the approach (or get busy) The boots get turned on to auto. Have 'they' determined when the deice system was turned on, if at all?? edit: I just fond the answer in another forum. The system was ON. It will be interesting to hear when it was turned on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 You just thought it was ice bridging. Time for the myth to pass away. http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/commerce...lars/AC0147.htm "Despite the widespread belief in this phenomenon within the pilot community and its coverage in numerous technical publications, its existence cannot be substantiated, either technically or anecdotally. At a recent conference held in Cleveland to investigate ice bridging, the major manufacturers of pneumatic de-icing boots reported that they had been UNABLE TO REPRODUCE ICE BRIDGING UNDER ANY LABORATORY/WIND TUNNEL CONDITIONS, and that any operational report of ice bridging investigated by them had been determined to be a report of residual ice." "If, however, the boots are inflated with a thin layer of ice on the boot surface, as little as 40% of the ice may be removed during the inflation cycle. This is not ice bridging, but residual ice." Ah yes, the wind tunnel experts. "...must be residual ice..." From people who sit behind a desk and design scientific experiments which, by definition can never fully duplicate real life phenomena. The quantum leap made from wind tunnel observations to observing, first hand the ice that forms while the boots are inflated, between the blocks of residual ice is illogical. By the way, the "recent conference" was more than 10 years ago if you look at the date of the CBAAC. Read what the FAA says "today": "Ice bridging: Classic pneumatic deicing boot ice bridging occurs when a thin layer of ice is sufficiently plastic to deform to the shape of the inflated deicing boot. This occurs without the thin ice breaking or shedding during ensuing cycling of the deicing boot. As the deformed ice hardens and accretes more ice, the deicing boot becomes ineffective. Ice bridging may occur when enough supercooled water freezes during the inflated deicing boot dwell period. It will keep that shape after the deicing boot deflates and will form a deformed surface that continues to accrete ice and is unaffected by ensuing cycling of the deicing boot. A deicing boot ice bridge may also form when flying into increasingly colder ambient temperature conditions following a mixed-phase icing encounter at near-freezing temperatures. Ice bridging also refers to the ice “caps” or “bridges” between adjacent component surfaces. For example, unprotected leading edge surfaces of an elevator horn and the horizontal stabilizer." http://forum.aeforum.net/index.php?act=ST&...=0#entry1531494 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 So I understand CityTV showed up at YZD and got in the faces of Bombardier employees in the parking lot and then went over to YTZ and got in the faces of Porter pax and employees asking them in they felt safe flying on the deadly Q400. I hate the media, I wonder if after CO parked a 737NG in a field in DEN, did Toronto's CityTV talk to Westjet guests boarding at T3? Probably not. Whether some airline CEOs like them or not, turbo-prop aircraft have been around for over 50 years. The Dash 8 product is an excellent aircraft which was designed in the early 80's with assistance from Boeing and no other aircraft manufacturer has developed anything close to this series of aircraft since. This is a terrible loss of lives and I would like to know what kind duty day this crew had prior to the accident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canus Chinookus Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Why is everyone so fixated on tailplane stall? The facts don't support it. Most of the information from TV is ridiculous and misleading. The latest report from the NTSB said the Stick Shaker and Stick Pusher were activated. That doesn't happen with a tailplane stall. The NTSB has never mentioned tailplane stall. So where is it coming from? You guys would all make very poor accident investigators. Stick to the facts for a change. As soon as approach flap was extended, they lost control. I would suggest that the tail stalled, and then caused the main wings to stall, hence the stick pusher and shaker. Hopefully the NTSB will have enough data on the recorders to figure it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RGT Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Lost In Saigon if it was not a Tailplane Stall at the very least, pretty much everyone is reviewing the video/subject. Which is a good thing that has already come out of a bad thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ModerateChop Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 FYI - NTSB press conference at 16:00 EST today http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2009/090215.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pivot Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Why is everyone so fixated on tailplane stall? The facts don't support it. Most of the information from TV is ridiculous and misleading. The latest report from the NTSB said the Stick Shaker and Stick Pusher were activated. That doesn't happen with a tailplane stall. The NTSB has never mentioned tailplane stall. So where is it coming from? You guys would all make very poor accident investigators. Stick to the facts for a change. I agree. Does the Dash have any documented tail stall events? I've talked with some that have flown it and they said no. I think it unlikely that we go from never happening to an event like this without a hint of it being an issue. How many thousands of hours has this plane spent in icing conditions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pivot Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Pulled this off of the Airliners forum: Brick From United States, joined Aug 1999, 1316 posts, RR: 8 Reply 95, posted Thu Feb 12 2009 20:23:13 your local time (2 days 11 hours 52 minutes ago) and read 52478 times: Holy smokes I saw N200WQ at Albany today! It was parked at C1 and was going to operate a flight to EWR as CO3202 and was delayed be several hours. The crew did an engine run up test on the right engine before the passengers boarded. One of the flight deck crew was outside the aircraft during the run up monitoring something. After the test was completed, the passengers boardly shortly and the aircraft pushed back from the gate. I had my camera with me and thought about taking an overcast photo of the aircraft as I don't have a lot lot of Colgan Air in my collection. I didn't because of a power cart parked by the nose gear. I can't believe I after seeing this aircraft that it crashed a few hours later...! [Edited 2009-02-12 21:25:58] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Along with the Tailplane icing video linked earlier in this thread, there were several key papers presented on icing, available at this site: 2007 SAE Aircraft and Engine Icing International Conference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.