Huh. So who did they miss (and apparently find) between the early morning after the crash and later that day?
EJsGirl answered that a couple of posts ago,
I was watching the news coverage live in the early morning yesterday, and the death toll was originally given as 48 from the plane, and one on the ground. The 48 was broken down as 44 passengers and 4 crew.
Then, around 2.30 am EST, CNN announced that there had been a pilot from the airline who had hitched a ride on the plane and that the company had just announced it, putting the total count up to 50. It sounded like the extra pilot was not on the passenger manifest, which is why he wasn’t included in the original count.
I think the term for that practice of a pilot hitching a ride is called “deadheading”, isn’t it? At least, I think that’s what it was called in Catch Me If You Can, about the imposter Frank Abagnale who posed as an airline pilot, amongst other things.
I stand corrected regarding the extra person. “Deadheading” is simply flying as a passenger for the purpose of repositioning. In my experience deadheading crew are listed on the manifest as usual though it may be different if it’s a company aircraft.
I know nothing about the systems of the Dash 8. Is it not possible for ice to simply jam the flap from physically moving, having nothing to do with the drive shafts?
If a flap jams for any reason the flap system is automatically shutdown. Aside from that the secondary flap drive connects the left wing flaps to the right wing flaps. They can’t really go asymmetric unless the secondary drive was broken. So if ice jammed the flaps on one wing, the flap would be jammed on both wings via the secondary drive and the flap system would stop flap extension.
Here’s a video on tail-plane icing that may be relevant and that you may find interesting.
i heard the wife/mother on anderson cooper 360 last night.
i don’t know who interviewed her, it was audio only. so very sad.
i’m still amazed anyone got out of the house. they showed the house and block on google earth and the house is not very big.
[QUOTE=1920s Style “Death Ray”;10826608
[Here’s a video on tail-plane icing that may be relevant]
(http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2238323060735779946) and that you may find interesting.
[/QUOTE]
I saw that link on Pprune, Definitely worth watching if you fly light aircraft in possible icing conditions or are interested in how tail icing icing can be deadly. Especially the comment that if you see ice forming you can bet the tail will have more ice than you can see.
I just read in our local paper (GP, Sweden) that it was a Dash 8 Q400 that went down. It’s the same aircraft that SAS, Scandinavian Airline System, removed from rotation a little while back. They suffered three failed landings in a couple of months. Thorough examinations of the planes revealed that 25 out of 27 were rusted to a point where they were considered potentially dangerous.
The paper also quoted an SAS pilot who said that if your rear stabilizer gets covered with ice, the plane may go into a nose dive. He also said that he’d had conversations with colleagues flying Dash 8 Q400s. They had reported medium to heavy icing while his Airbus was ice free.
Interesting. The Dash 8 is a Bombardier (Canadian) plane. You’d think if anyone would know about icing and de-icing it would be a Canadian company. The weather conditions around this neck of the woods were really strange a few days back, with above zero © temperatures and rain, and then instantly back to normal winter temps: definite anomalies.
The landing gear problems aren’t related to this as far as I can tell. Also, of course the airbus won’t have a lot of ice, it flies above most of the weather, turboprops generally can’t do that and so the Dash 8 and many others, cruise at altitudes where they’re more likely to pick up ice. Having said that, they have good ice protection systems. Don’t forget that Dash 8s have been flying in icing conditions without serious problems for over 20 years.
Any aeroplane may suffer a tail stall if it gets enough ice on it, that’s why the tail plane has anti-ice (elevator horn heat) and de-ice boots. Have a look at my link on tail-plane icing, this is not a problem specific to any particular aircraft.
The aeroplane is designed to fly in light to moderate icing. However, the flight manual procedure for severe icing is to disengage the autopilot, turn the icing gear on (if not already done) and exit the icing conditions. They’re not meant to be flown in those conditions.
That’s true of any airplane, of any size.
From the sound of it, this wasn’t ice picked up at cruise altitude but rather at the level airplanes pass through in order to land which means the Airbus is not protected by its higher cruise. The big Airbuses, though, do use a different and likely more robust anti-ice system than the turboprops do, in large part because they are able to carry more/heavier/more power hungry equipment
So one of the victims was a 9/11 widow. Can you imagine the sheer odds that a man and wife would be killed by two separate plane crashes? That poor family.
And this particular Dash 8 only rolled off the assembly line last year? WTF?
CBS news is now reporting that the plane did not nose-dive into the house- it was a flat landing, but backwards. 
Only one reasonable explanation remains. Aliens, with tractor beams, to cover up Obama’s involvement in the stock crash of -29.
Backward as in it had turned through 180 degrees from the runway perhaps? I don’t think it was actually crashed tail first.
The age of the aeroplane is not necessarily relevant in an air accident as a large proportion of accidents are caused, in one way or another, by human error.
On the earlier subject of split flap. I’ve been informed the Q400 is not as similar to the smaller Dash 8s as I thought. The Q400 does not have physically connected left and right flap systems but rather has a sensor that detects flap jam and asymmetry and shuts down the flap system to prevent asymmetry.
Initial reports say that the auto pilot was still engaged when the plane crashed
Radar that I’ve seen tracks don’t appear to support that. Is it possible they’d entered a flat spin? Seems unlikely, but much of what’s been reported has me scratching my head.
The thing that causes me the most perplexity is the calm demeanor of the First Officer, just moments before everything went to hell. Could they have been completely unaware of their peril, if heavy icing were the cause?
The latest news report says
And:
That sounds like the nose climbed due to the tail controls not functioning, then hit stall speed at the 31 degree climb and plunged down nose first. Why it rolled right I can’t fathom – tail controls wonky in more ways than one?
Yes it’s possible. Or even just a normal spin or steep spiral dive. Remember that radar tracks aren’t constant so the aeroplane can be doing things between radar sweeps that are not represented by the radar tracker.
That doesn’t surprise me too much. She was told to contact tower and she acknowledges this calmly enough, then they don’t hear from her again. Most likely at the time of the transmission she wasn’t aware that things were about to go pear shaped.
My feeling on this is that the media are not being discerning enough with their reporting. The NTSB are saying the autopilot was engaged until the accident but the media are interpreting that to mean it was engaged until impact. The NTSB have also said the stick pusher and stick shaker were triggered, these events will disengage the autopilot, so the autopilot can’t have been on at the time of impact but it may have been on up until the time they started losing control. Also, the flight manual recommends disengaging the autopilot in severe icing conditions. It may be that they did not have indications of severe icing conditions and in that case it is normal to leave the autopilot engaged.
It’s a weird situation. The nose can’t really climb if the elevator is not functioning because you need the elevator to function in order to raise the nose. Also the stick pusher will lower the nose with significant force but it may be over-ridden by the pilots. A roll will happen when you stall the wings. The wings don’t normally stall quite evenly so which ever one is still creating some lift will rise and you get a bank into the most stalled wing. A spin is intentionally initiated by using rudder to enhance this effect.
My own theory, that I’m constantly reviewing, is that they misdiagnosed a conventional stall as a tail-plane stall and applied an inappropriate recovery action which deepened the stall leading to a spin and crash. But I have as much information as you guys do so my theory may be slightly more educated but it is still just a WAG.