It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Buffalo plane crash

page: 8
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 09:32 AM
Got this from another forum.

Like wiring-initiated fires, all icing crashes lose their critical evidence post-crash. The problem with rain-ice or freezing rain (or SLD as it's called less alarmingly by the fAA/NTSB) is that it "hits and sticks". It hits (and sticks) more on one side than the other due to prop slipstreaming. That asymmetry is insidious. It's particularly lethal if the autopilot is left to quietly "soak up" that asymmetric ice-loading. Ultimately the autopilot will run out of compensatory trim-loading and be itself over-powered. That can happen quite quickly even in cruise - as the stall speed rises very rapidly in the latter stages of ice build-up. But the REAL problem is that the stall speed difference between the LH wing and the RH wing can be as much as 25 knots - all due to the spanwise distribution of the ice (both its mass centroid and its aerodynamic drag increment on each wing) being so different, left to right. Once that RH wing stalls, the aircraft will roll rapidly and the instinctive pilot input of opposite aileron (to counter the roll) will only embed the aircraft in the then inescapable condition of autorotation (i.e. spinning).

NO aircraft is certified to fly in severe icing conditions.

Having flown the Dash 8 100/300 and Q400 for a couple of thousand hours:

Parts of the Q400 windshield become coverd with ice some times when cruising at very cold temperatures at cruising levels.
BUT when your (heated!) windshield gets frozen up so close to ground (at temperatures around freezing level = rather warm) that would alert me a lot.
I would consider this severe Icing conditions beyond the certified limits.

Interesting to know, that Bombardier considered to modify the Q400 to be equipped with bleed air anti/deicing and getting rid of boots at all.....

Activate Leading Edge Deice Boots
As Soon as Airplane Enters Icing Conditions

Thin amounts of ice, as little as 1/4 inch, can be deadly

The only parts of a Dash-8 that are protected by inflatable boots are:
Horizontal Stabilizer
Vertical Stabilizer
Engine nacelle intakes

Elevator Horns
Propeller blades
Plus a bundle of valves pitot tubes static ports atc. etc.

Hope this helps.

[edit on 14/2/2009 by C0bzz]

posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 10:26 AM
I would not classify myself as a "conspiracy theorist" but rather a healthy skeptic of most things gov't. related. The last NTSB briefing I saw on MSM shortly ago gave me serious pause for thought.

Mr Chealander(sp?) from the NTSB stated that as he has said before, Ice makes for the perfect CRIME, by the time LAW ENFORCEMENT arrives, all evidence of it is gone.

Now I can't for the life of me understand what relevance this would have if it was simply icing. And why would a gov't. official state anything of the sort?

Crime and law enforcement being mentioned in the same statement regarding this makes me wonder.

Anyone care to fathom a guess why someone in his position would make that statement at a time like this?


*edit for spelling*

[edit on 14-2-2009 by TheWelder]

posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 10:34 AM
Another interesting angle is

When planes crash, politicians can say look we need to invest money into our infrastructure, planes, trains, roadways.

Our bridges are failing, Our planes are crashing. Let's spend a 860,000,000,000 to fix it.

Not as cut and dry as that, but certainly, I heard a few people on TV today semi imply it.

posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 12:34 PM
It caught my attention when this plane came down that they seemed to very quickly determine that it had ice on the wings - compare that to how long it took them to confirm a bird stike in the plane that ditched into the river when everyone survived.

It did make me wonder if something odd might be happening, and now this:

Genocide expert dies in US crash

Odd coincidence?

[edit on 14-2-2009 by Power_Semi]

[edit on 14-2-2009 by Power_Semi]

posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 04:20 PM
Having reviewed a few more comments on this tragedy, thinking I need to re-iterate.

Two ways to deal with inflight icing: "De-Ice" or "Anti-ice".

Let's talk jets first....the engine inlets are heated by hot air that is 'bled' off of the are the leading edges of the wings. Most modern jets don't plumb the hot air all the way back to the horizontal stabilizer....

If severe ice accumulations are suspected, we had extra airspeed (we can judge the ice accumulation by observing the windshield wipers....I'm not joking. Of course, the windshield themselves are electrically heated.

So, heating the wing leading edges, and the engine intakes, and the windshields, this is "Anti-Ice" protection.

Turbo-prop airplanes generally use the "De-ice" concept, at least for the wings and the propellor blades. Rubber 'boots'....can be inflated periodically, to break the ice and the relative wind blows it off. Some turbo=props use a water/alcohol mixture to protect the propellor is sprayed on, and the ice is flung off by centrifigal force.

Here's the problem, with the 'boots'. In some situations, ice can accumulate BEHIND where the 'boot' ends, behind and on top of the wings....forming a ridge....which severely affects the airflow and the lift capacity of the airfoil.

Thinking that having ice 'protection' can sometimes lull a pilot into a sense of safety that is unwarranted...depending on how fast the ice is forming and the type of ice....whether 'rime' or 'clear' ice.

Generally, if in icing conditions, we want to get out of it, ASAP.

OK....pretty long-winded, I know.....hope it helps people's understanding of how pilots think, and what tools are at their disposal.

NOW, impression from what I've read in the papers....the Flight Crew were nearing the airport, minutes from landing....and configuring for the landing (Gear, Flaps) and appropriate speeds.

Maybe it wasn't in their Operating Handbook, as produced by the manufacturer, and approved by the FAA, and in their operating Specs per their is truly sad if a simple increase of ten or fifteen knots would have prevented this crash.

posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 09:48 PM
reply to post by theknuckler

i don't know what you are talking about the local news reporters not being there....
i live in a buffalo suburb and the local news stations were reporting it right after the plane crashed. the one station had a reported very close, but he wasn't able to get on scene as the police and fire departments were blocking the area off and trying to secure the scene. the one buffalo news station anchor actually lives a mile away from where the plane hit. you could tell he was extremely worried as were all the people who were calling in and giving their eye witness accounts. my fiance turned to an international news station and they were covering as well with an australian anchor. the bottom of the screen read, "plane crash in u.s. state of new york".

tis is a terrible disaster and my heart goes out to all effected by it. they haven't released the names of all the fatalities yet and so far two of my friends had loved ones on the flight.

you can find links to the radio transmissions and they are freaky. i heard one where the tower was talking to the flight and lost their signal. then the tower was talking to another plane, asking them if they were able to see the one they lost contact with. it gave me goosebumps and left me numb.

posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 10:48 PM
reply to post by systemic.aberration

i live about an hour from where the plane went down. the buffalo channels were covering it to the best of their ability almost immediately. in fact, one of the anchors lives a few blocks from the crash site. you could tell he was obviously very upset, as were the eye witnesses who were calling in with information on what they saw/heard. no one i heard that night sounded like they were faking emotion. initially, they had made it out to be a small plane, like a cesna (i'm sure i spelled that wrong). i don't know much more than has been posted here already. i know the house belonged to an elderly couple and that the ceiling collapsed and trapped their daughter who eventually made it out. i think the wife made it, but her husband was the one who passed away.

i'm really not sure what to think right now. some things do seem a bit fishy, but seeing how the information gets released so slowly maybe people are just trying to fill in the blanks. all i know is that one of my friends right now is very distraught over losing one of his best friends to this crash.

posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 12:26 AM
Thanks for posting! It's interesting to get the view from someone so close to the scene. it never occurred to me that maybe the initial slowness of information coming out might have been complicated by news presenters being so close to it that it was extremely personal and all the more difficult to present. I also had not heard that there were two more people in the house. It must have been beyond terrifying for the trapped daughter.

posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 01:08 AM
Some things are still not adding up for me as well... though, I might have missed some information.

What I want to know is how icing could have prevented the pilots from saying anything during their descent into the ground.

I mean, every other emergency event I've looked into regarding pilots of any aircraft involves them immediately radioing in their situation. I'm talking within seconds of them realizing somethings wrong.

You can't tell me they simply sat and stared at the ground the whole time in silence while the aircraft pitched down, and continued it's descent and hit the ground.

This just doesn't click for me.

Anyone have any information that can clear this up for me?

posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 07:34 AM
reply to post by johnsky

We truely don't know what happened, so it's hard to judge anything. However, if we assume it was icing that brang down the plane, that possibly mean the wing, or rather, one wing, stalled before the other. In such a situation, talking to ATC would do nothing. The pilots were likely fighting the aircraft trying to regain airflow over the wings, maybe cycling boots. Calling ATC would do nothing.

In loss of control incidents, pilots don't always radio towever. Would you think Alaska 261 while nose diving to the sea, inverted, would be talking to the tower? or what about Air Florida 90, where the airflow to the engine, and over the wings was constricted by ice? Or, the 737 rudder HARD-OVER events? Pilots NEVER radio ATC while trying to stop the aircraft crashing; the notion that they would, or should, is absurd.

[edit on 15/2/2009 by C0bzz]

posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 07:47 AM

CLARENCE, N.Y. – An investigator says the plane that crashed on a house in New York state landed flat on it and was pointed away from the airport where it was supposed to land.

Steve Chealander (CHEE-lan-duhr) said Saturday that Continental Connection Flight 3407 did not dive into the house, as initially thought.

Chealander says the New Jersey-to-Buffalo flight was cleared to land on a runway pointing to the southwest. But the plane crashed with its nose pointed to the northeast.

bolding is mine

from reading the comments on here and elsewhere - i think it can be said the aircraft entered an ice enduced flat spin (method given earlier as to how) and came down in that manner.

btw Bombadier were looking at anti-icing for the Q400`s (bled from the turbine) and removing the boots.

posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 09:27 PM
Hmmm. Not ice...

BBC: Crash plane 'dropped in seconds'

Air safety official Steve Chealander said the plane fell from 1,800ft to 1,000ft shortly before impact.

He also said investigators had not found that there were "severe icing" conditions, which would have required pilots to fly the plane manually.

The plane's autopilot was on until just before the crash, Mr Chealander said.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Since they didn't even cry out on the radio before they crashed, makes me wonder whether someone took over the plane and crashed it deliberately? But that's of course pure speculation at this point. That plane is designed for arctic conditions after all. If there was some technical error causing the crash, I'd expect the pilots to at least say something before they switched off the autopilot and crashed.

posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 09:36 PM
I'm curious.
Who will be taking over for the woman involved in the 9/11 investigation - that died?


Anyway to find out what she and Obama talked about?

This is stinky.
It just is.

posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 09:40 PM
What's the probability that satellite debris struck this plane?

posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 09:42 PM

Originally posted by JohnTheBaptist
What's the probability that satellite debris struck this plane?

That's an interesting thought/theory/possibility

posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 10:06 PM
Officials are saying the plane came down intact. What's the probability that this plane was caught in the wake of falling satellite debris? =)

Reports state that the plane was "rocked nearly upside down" causing twice the normal gravitational pull inside the cabin.

Something suddenly caused this plane to plummet to the ground and I don't think it was from "significant" icing.

posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 02:24 PM

crew on the flight voice recorder reported “significant icing.” Chealander said investigators don’t know what that means. The term “severe icing” is an official designation. However, “significant icing” isn’t.
Based on initial weather data and reports filed by other pilots flying into the airport that night, there isn’t any evidence to say the “severe icing” designation was applicable, he said.
“They viewed it as significant,” Chealander said. “We don’t know if it was severe icing. They didn’t say it was severe icing. The weather man didn’t say it was severe icing.”


Chealander said in the final seconds of flight, the airplane went through a series of up-and-down jerking motions and side-to- side rolls.
Right after that, the so-called stick pusher activating the nose of the aircraft rose to about 31 degrees, according to information recovered from the flight data recorder. The stick pusher will drop the nose of the aircraft in order to gain speed and avoid a stall.
Chealander said he wouldn’t comment on whether the sudden rise of the nose was caused by a pilot reaction to the stick pusher sending the plane into a dive. Following the nose of the airplane going up, the plane then went down to a 45 degree angle.
The plane then rolled about 46 degrees to the left followed by 105 degrees to the right, putting the aircraft onto its side.
He said passengers and crew experienced about 2 Gs of force. One G, or gravitational pull, is what a person standing still experiences.
The last radar hit showed the aircraft was at an altitude of about 900 feet traveling at about 100 knots (115 miles per hour). Radar also indicated the plane fell from 1,800 to 1,000 feet in five seconds, Chealander said.Source

For those who don’t know, icing can happen very quickly even on aircraft with de-icing boots. De-icing only clears away ice from the leading edges of the flight surfaces such as the wings and the tail. Icing can change the surface of the aircraft enough to cause drag or cause the aircraft to loose lift. That the plane bucked and rolled and fell flat out of the sky is an indication of severe icing.

posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 11:54 PM
reply to post by Hellmutt

Hellmut....due respect, but ice was reported by preceding airplanes. Temperatures were conducive to icing conditions.

A sense to say it?....complacency can set in when you are flying an airplane that is certified for 'known icing'...

Saying that, others have pointed out the inadequency and potential tragic result of relying on de-icing 'boots' (used primarily on turbo-prop airplanes) as compared to heated leading edges as jets use.

One aspect of the Accident airplane's Operating Handbook (Flight Manual) was to recommend hand-flying in 'severe' icing conditions. Three FAA phrases exist: "Light", "Moderate" and "Severe"....but is up to the judgement of a pilot to define those terms...I've heard many variations....and, you can pick up very light rime, for instance....say an eighth of an inch to a quarter inch in less than an hour....but, you'd likely NOT stay in the conditions or the altitude for that long....a rapid accumulation can occur night, the means of assessing the risk is harder. There are lights to illuminate the leading edges....but in thick clouds, well, you won't see all the way to the wingtips.

Hand-flying helps you 'feel' the changes if you're picking up'd instinctively KNOW to add power, and increase the airspeed a bit. The A/P will, however, dutifully fly to pitch and profile and airspeed as commanded...UNLESS the airframe's aerodynamics don't comport with the A/P programmed parameters.

Point is, and this is certainly only MY opinion, the 'incident' was likely begun as the airplane was being configured just prior to landing, based on the altitudes that have been mentioned in the media. They were in the clouds, on the ILS, and likely unaware of the severity of the danger.

Airplane accidents always involve a 'chain of events' one, simple mistake or mechanical failure, but many littler ones than can compound.

In my years of flying, not only did I see how this happens, we were taught in airline curricula (mandated at LEAST yearly by the FAA) for the last few decades about how insidious this 'chain' can be. The teaching emphasized recognizing and 'breaking the chain'.

Personal experience counts, as well....

posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 12:11 AM
reply to post by JohnTheBaptist

JohnTB....your question about the chances of falling satellite debris???

Infitessimally small chance.

When an airplane stalls (not when an engine quits) it is a disruption of proper airflow over the lifting surfaces.

There was a media report of the 'stick shaker' activation...larger airplanes use this as a sign of an impending stall....smaller airplanes use an audible warning (well, the stick shaker is BOTH audible and tactile...)

An airplane in a deep-enough stall WILL shake....there will be rolling left to right, and based on this airplane POSSIBLY being loaded with ice, wild pitching.

'Stalls' are practiced by every pilot, not only in training but in continuing testing. Never having flown this particular airplane, I can only describe how jet pilots 'practice' in the simulator. The intent is set up a scenario where the pilots are allowing the airplane to get too slow, for some reason.

Immediate recovery technique: (These 'procedures' are hand-flown, in training). Reduce the pitch while adding power....THIS at the first sound of the stick-shaker. What is expected of professional pilots is to maintain control, maintain altitude (+ 500 feet, -100 feet) and regain a safe airspeed, then reduce power to stabilize.

We brief for 1 and 1/2 hours before getting into the simulator. We read about these procedures in the Flight Manuals, and know what is expected of us to 'pass' the sim session. Real world?? A lapse of concentration (maybe), a stick-shaker....momentary surprise, confusion, disbelief....normal Human reaction time to such a surprise can last up to two seconds (or more).

In the dark, in the clouds, knowing that you are pretty close to the ground....well, it's a difficult scenario. Let's see what the final NTSB Report has to say. I've speculated enough.

posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 12:16 AM
Has anyone here have a tape of the early morning reporting on WABC TV NY channel 7 ?

I was up at 5:30 on 02/13/09 flipped on the TV and heard the reports for the first time on this crash.

A youngish woman reporting for WABC was "live" on the scene and approached two guys about twenty years old to ask them what they saw.

They said they were up late watching TV, heard the plane loud and low, ran outside and looked out to see what was happening. They said "the right engine was on fire" and was in trouble. "It was going up and down and then spun around and fell flat to the ground".

This part of the report wasn't aired again to my knowledge. I had to leave for work.
I just thought it was a simple horrible accident. Later, I wasn't so sure.

During the course of the day I heard the story focus on "icing" as the sole cause of the crash. When I got back home I listened to Bill Ritter on EyeWitness News report that they recovered the Black Boxes and that they didn't have much to indicate what happened on them.

Here is what I thought was peculiar... Witnesses did report that one Engine had all the blades of the propellers snapped off and the other one didn't.

This strongly suggests that when the plane fell flat to the ground, one rotor was running/spinning and the other one wasn't.

Then I heard who was on the plane. I already knew she had lawsuits to reopen the 9/11 investigation. Beverly was not going to go away.

The Illuminati love Prime Numbers...

<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in