BUF plane crash

buzzard767

golfaknifeaholic
Gold Site Supporter
I've been listening to CNN and Fox News reporting (read speculating) on yesterday's plane crash in Buffalo. Take their "reports" with a grain of salt. They don't have a clue.

Common sense tells me that this was an icing incident. My personal guess is that the crew neglected to turn on the wing anti icing system which is separate from engine anti icing. The wing system is mechanical whereas the engine A/I is hot air and the wind screen is most likely electric. Anyway, if I am correct, they probably had engine A/I ON, electric W/S and pitot/static system ON, and wing A/I OFF. The ice induced wing stall put the aircraft out of control and at 2300" above the ground they had no time to recover.

Both the flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder have been recovered. The National Transportation Safety Board will do what it does best and will figure out exactly what happened.

God bless them all. This sort of thing shouldn't happen.

Again, just my guess - Buzz
 
Last edited:

VeraBlue

Head Mistress
Gold Site Supporter
I only got the short version of this story at 5am and that was on NBC. What was CNN saying that prompted your post?
As of 5am, nothing was recovered, but they did report that terrorism was NOT a considered factor.

What is surprising was that no contact was had with the plane for some time before it actually crashed.
 

buzzard767

golfaknifeaholic
Gold Site Supporter
Any thought on the witness who said he heard the engines sputtering?

Not really. Layman witnesses seldom understand what they are seeing or hearing and generally can't effectively relay the information. The plane was most likely in a very nose down attitude so it would be natural for the crew to reduce power. But of course there was nothing natural going on at the time. It'll all be on the recorders.
 

chowhound

New member
Not really. Layman witnesses seldom understand what they are seeing or hearing and generally can't effectively relay the information. The plane was most likely in a very nose down attitude so it would be natural for the crew to reduce power. But of course there was nothing natural going on at the time. It'll all be on the recorders.

mmm, I don't know.... These people hear these planes all day long. If one sounded like it was sputtering, I think even a layman would notice the difference from a healthy engine(s), but we'll see when they listen to the flight recorder.
 

buzzard767

golfaknifeaholic
Gold Site Supporter
What was CNN saying that prompted your post?

CNN & Fox News have an amazing way of making an all day story with little or nothing to go on. Remember when the ValuJet DC-9 went down head first into the Everglades? I watched pictures from the CNN helicopter clearly showing the fuselage and wing shaped scars on the surface of the swamp. There was never any doubt of the aircraft's attitude upon impact - straight down. Yet CNN spent countless hours trying to figure out why there wasn't a pile of plane parts, fire, etc. at the crash site. I hung in there for no more than a few minutes before I switched over to my pilot union web site and had verified what I already knew. Hours later I turned on CNN and they were still asking the same questions.

I never trust the news until the details are revealed.
 

buzzard767

golfaknifeaholic
Gold Site Supporter
mmm, I don't know.... These people hear these planes all day long. If one sounded like it was sputtering, I think even a layman would notice the difference from a healthy engine(s), but we'll see when they listen to the flight recorder.

Fox News is reporting right now that several witnesses claimed "sputtering" so who knows? This would indicate that engine anti icing was NOT on and the ice buildup on the cowling and first stage compressor blades caused a single, or more than likely, dual engine stall. This is certainly possible, but turning on "engine heat" is as normal as putting the gear down prior to landing. The requirement is that any time the TAT (total air temperature) is 10 degrees celsius or less AND there is visible moisture, the engine heat must be ON. Wing anti icing, be it mechanical (this case) or hot air (jets) isn't used unless there is visible ice build up or certain icing forecasts.
 
Last edited:

buckytom

Grill Master
mmm, I don't know.... These people hear these planes all day long. If one sounded like it was sputtering, I think even a layman would notice the difference from a healthy engine(s), but we'll see when they listen to the flight recorder.

you should hear some of the planes coming into teterboro airport, not too far from my house.

with the throttling up and down, and somewhat drastic changes of course and altitude on final(?) approach, you'd swear that half of them are in trouble.
 

buzzard767

golfaknifeaholic
Gold Site Supporter
This is what I mean about the press: The NTSB just held a news conference and reported that the plane was in icing conditions and that anti icing had been selected by the pilots. He went on to say that as the crew was configuring for landing, ie. gear and flaps, 15 degrees of flaps were selected and shortly afterwards control of the aircraft was lost. Not one question was asked about what could have happened when the flaps were selected. Instead, all the questions were about icing.

I don't know anything about Bombardier aircraft systems (love their snow mobiles however). But, there is a chance that the flaps locked on one wing resulting in an asymmetrical flaps condition. The wing with the more extended flaps would produce more lift that possibly might not been able to be overcome with aileron input. The aeronautical engineers are too smart to normally let that happen but you never know. I've been exposed to a plethora of weirdo aircraft incidents over the years.
 

MexicoKaren

Joyfully Retired
Super Site Supporter
Well, regardless of what caused it, it must have been a terrifying last few minutes for the people on board. One of the victims was a woman whose husband died in one of the twin towers on 9/11. Very sad.
 

PieSusan

Tortes Are Us
Super Site Supporter
It was a horrific event, I believe the last count was 50 dead. May they all rest in peace.

Sometimes, I really do believe cancelling flights in iffy weather is far better than taking a risk. I live in the snowbelt, too and I would hesitate to take a plane on some of the days we have had here.
 

buzzard767

golfaknifeaholic
Gold Site Supporter
Sometimes, I really do believe cancelling flights in iffy weather is far better than taking a risk. I live in the snowbelt, too and I would hesitate to take a plane on some of the days we have had here.

Although I understand your concern, the planes are designed, and the pilots are trained, for inclement weather. It is faced every day and is commonplace in the profession. Almost all training is comprised of making instrument (only) approaches while enduring system deficiencies up to and including engine failure. If weather and runway conditions are within parameters there is no problem. On a more personal level, with roughly 30,000 hours of flying experience, I do indeed question the abilities of young pilots in commuter type airplanes when the weather is on its butt. Sometimes I'd rather rather drive even knowing that statistically driving is less safe, especially in heavy weather. Go figure.

Buzz
 

joec

New member
Gold Site Supporter
I simply won't fly because I can't smoke which would be hazardous to every one on the planes health. I haven't flown but once since it was banded on inter continently
flights and sure won't on international flights.
 

buzzard767

golfaknifeaholic
Gold Site Supporter
I'm opening myself up for a barrage of comments Joe, but I link second hand smoke with global warming. The very thought of someone inhaling smoke particles from across the room being even 1% as dangerous as inhaling directly into the lungs is the language of paranoidals. Obviously there is a health issue, but it's a matter of quantity.
 

Maverick2272

Stewed Monkey
Super Site Supporter
I hate it when the news channels cover these things like stink on s**t. They don't know anything so they should stop at informing us that a crash has taken place and what flight it was.
Beyond that, it is just torture to the families of those on the plane, IMHO. I am so tired of news channels obsessing over one thing and spending all day on. Do they not have anything else to report on?
 

joec

New member
Gold Site Supporter
I'm opening myself up for a barrage of comments Joe, but I link second hand smoke with global warming. The very thought of someone inhaling smoke particles from across the room being even 1% as dangerous as inhaling directly into the lungs is the language of paranoidals. Obviously there is a health issue, but it's a matter of quantity.

I understand your comment completely, hence I don't smoke in my home but rain or shine go outdoors to smoke. Now I only smoke a 1/2 pack a day I still can't go from the east coast to west coast without a cigarette. About half way I would be ready to climb a tower in Dallas. :dizzy: Hence for mine and others safety I don't fly any longer but then I have no need to fly anymore. I probably could match you with hours on a plane for a 3 year span from '80 to '84 when I went to 94 countries. Needless to say I'm now rooted and will be planted where I live. :mrgreen:
 

MexicoKaren

Joyfully Retired
Super Site Supporter
JoeC , as a smoker, I can understand your frustration. Last year, I flew to China to visit my son, who lives there. 15 HOURS. One of the most uncomfortable 15 hours I have ever spent....
 

PanchoHambre

New member
I think they should have tube of shame... a little ventilated bathroom sized air lock space where you can go and have a quick smoke... ugh I get so edgy when I have to fly as it is.
 

joec

New member
Gold Site Supporter
I flew one time since the smoking ban was put into place. I went from Miami, Florida to Seattle, Washington a 7 hour non stop flight though it wasn't. Well knowing I can't go more than 2 hours I saw my doctor who gave me 2 sleeping pills. Well we stopped in Dallas for about 15 minutes to pick up a few passengers and gone. I sleep the whole way waking about 10 minutes before we landed so not a problem. Now the return trip (also non stop) after 7 hours of sleep I woke up circling Atlanta, Georgia. We circled another hour before finally landing at which point I asked to leave the plane. Well the stewardess said I couldn't but the pilot and co pilot came along, heard the conversation and I went with them to a spot for smoking. Two hours later we re boarded the plane moved a 100 feet from the tarmac and sat another hours then got into this long like (a good mile) before taking off for the last hour of flying. At that point I swore to myself I would never step foot on a commercial flight and have lived up to it.
 

waybomb

Well-known member
I just read that in fact, all de-icing was on. Well, at least the switches were in the correct position when found.
 

buzzard767

golfaknifeaholic
Gold Site Supporter
I just read that in fact, all de-icing was on. Well, at least the switches were in the correct position when found.

Yes. The switch positions are one of the parameters found on the Flight Data Recorder. There could have been a mechanical valve failure and I don't think they're monitored. Not positive about that however. The NTSB has a phenomenal history of determining every little detail which is one of the reasons the final reports usually take about a year. One exception, TWA 800. My opinion, they lied. Not something I am willing to discuss on this thread.
 

Wart

Banned
800

Yeah, having seen charred wiring for the 47's center tanks transfer pump I'm not inclined to believe 'static' explanation myself. And then theres the 'eye witnesses' swearing they saw streaks from surface to air ... if the latter is true then no one is safe ... OTOH no one has or will ever be "safe".
>

3407

Some witnesses said they heard sputtering but others said the engines were unusually loud. Sputtering is a sound associated with a recip and Not a turbine. Turbines whine, they sputter and backfire when they stall, not really sputter. And turboprops make a worshing whining sound, normally. Since this was not a normal condition any number of things could have been going on. The engine(s) could have been coming unglued from an overspeed, prop pitch could have been anything from reverse to feathered, or hunting.

And then there is the nature of sound itself. The DC-9/MD-80 APU is great illustration of the freaky nature of sound. Stand in one spot, hold your head one way, and you'll hear about nothing. Not even one side step or slight turn of the head and the eyes water from the pain in the ears. Two engines, two props, witnesses in different positions, all their descriptions could be (somewhat) accurate.

Ice. This is where I have a problem with the talking heads on what passes for news these days.

What Buss wrote:{i]I do indeed question the abilities of young pilots in commuter type airplanes when the weather is on its butt.[/i], the talking heads made it sound as though the pilot noticed the ice, turned on the de-icing systems, set flaps and lowered gear almost simultaneously. Doesn't make sense to me to change more than one thing at a time.

To top it off the pilot was flying into known icing conditions.

Could have been inexperience, could have been ego and arrogance. And ego and arrogance is a reason you really don't want to work on a doctors airplane.

Oh yeah, and the talking heads and their sheets of paper they were blowing over. That ones going to be with us for a while. Did nothing to enplane how ice changes the profile of an airfoil, and was borderline misinformation. Bernoulli is part of it, Newton's third is the rest.
 
Top