Re the revelations
below (tabled in blue), two
theories are worth pursuing (but they're not mutually
exclusive):
The
asymm icing scenario
(as induced
spanwise by
same-direction
prop rotation on each engine
a.
firstly, that the
flap extension suddenly exacerbated the differential between the
left and right wing's icing asymmetry (i.e. by rapidly changing
each wing's stalling angle-of-attack - and the L&R tailplane's also).
Think and concede "effective wing leading-edge boot
de-icing" but, in freezing rain, areas further back on each
wing's chord would contain varying (and significant) thicknesses
of spanwise-ridged ice accretions on particularly the upper (but
also on lower) wing surfaces. At lower (approach) speeds the
difference between the L&R wing's elevated stalling speeds (at
the higher AoA) would be even more critical. With flap
extension, those ice ridges would have an increased asymmetry
effect upon the power of a differential frieze aileron to impose
(or oppose) roll. Additionally (and more lethally) however,
there'd be an increased likelihood that a large aileron
deflection (turning onto the localizer) would be more likely to
stall the upgoing wing and induce autorotation. The slipstream
effect of added engine power at lower speed (due to gear/flap
extension drag) would also accentuate the differing lift and
drag coefficients between the two wings (and across
the horizontal stabilizer).
The TailPlane Stall Scenario
b.
Secondly,
in respect of tailplane stall due to ice build-up on the
undersurface of the horizontal stabilizer and elevator (whether
asymmetric or not). Note that Q400 does not have a variable
incidence tailplane:
The problem is that wing and tailplane
stalls have opposite recovery procedures. Recovering from a
tailplane stall entails full aft yoke, raising flaps and
decreasing airspeed. Tough situation to find yourself in,
particularly at low speeds.
Unfortunately, these recovery
procedures are generally not part of airline training.
Recognizing instantly that these wholly different
recovery measures are required? Another whole new ball-game."
It's like the 737 pilot's reaction to the rudder hardover in
USAIR 427. If he'd eased off the rudder (and pedalled it
L/R), that may have undone the jammed PCU's reversal. But
instinctive sustained inputs always rule the day when instant
inputs are required to resolve underway doomsday scenarios.
c.
It's also noteworthy that the Q400 isn't difficult to load
correctly but it does have a pretty narrow CofG range (despite
what the Bombardier website says) and it's quite trim sensitive
due to its length. Both spin and spiral instability are
adversely affected by an aft CofG. An aft CofG will promote a
flattish spin. It's worth noting that an aft CofG, even if
within CofG limits, can become an adverse condition once
tailplane/elevator authority has been partly compromised (and
even excessive elevator trim travel caused?) by icing
(on the tailplane and elsewhere).
So, to restate the case for
an asymmetric icing cause for Control Loss: "Sudden unexpected
autorotative roll during a turn, at well above the normal stall
speed, is highly likely to generate an instinctive pilot
reaction of opposite ("held-in") aileron. It's a well-known fact
that use of aileron to re-instate wings level at the
stall will more deeply embed the aircraft in the autorotative
condition. This is why, even for wing drop in a wings level
stall, the only solution (to prevent further wing-drop whilst
pushing the yoke fwd to unstall the wings) is the secondary
effect of rudder (i.e. roll) to prevent further wing-drop." That
use of rudder to stop roll has never been instinctive in an
unexpected sudden wing-drop/uncommanded roll scenario. In fact it got a bad rep
for being the instigator of the A300 fin detachment in AA587 at
Belle Harbor, Queens. If you're unaware that the wing-drop is
the result of one wing stalling and you maintain a desperate wing-levelling
aileron input (in an attempt to stop that roll), the result will
be a flat spin. Use of increased engine power will also flatten
the spin's pitch attitude.
Preferred
Theory? If a tail stalls on any aircraft, the
nose will drop, but the wings do not stall. The aircraft will
continue to have considerable forward
movement. I suppose it
might theoretically even continue to nose over until inverted -
or, more likely, nose-drop ONLY UNTIL the higher IAS
restores tailplane effectiveness - i.e. unstalls it as the speed
increase lessens its AoA. Neither
outcome or development was evident in this accident.
The stick-shaker and stick-pusher
actuation suggests a simple wing-stall. It's hard enough to stop
a wingdrop in a clean, 1g, full back-stick induced stall; but
give each wing different aerodynamic characteristics and
superimpose the pilot's natural reaction (of immediate opposite
aileron) and you've got pro-spin controls (even though he went
nowhere near the full backstick that is characteristic of stall
training - so he's not thinking "stall/spin" nor
contemplating the use of rudder to prevent further roll).
Moreover, the FDR, the accident scene, and eyewitness accounts, do
suggest a classic stall/spin scenario. Witnesses say that the
aircraft's impact attitude was flat with roll and yaw - the
classic flat spin impact attitude resulting from
autorotation with a sustained aileron input and moderate to full
power.
There's been ample precedent amongst
turboprops for this asymmetric icing scenario resulting in the
stall speed between L&R wings differing significantly
(as induced spanwise by
same-direction prop rotation).
Such a large stall speed differential between port and starboard
wings is conducive to a very rapid snap-roll entry into an
unrecoverable spin. Pilots, whether on
autopilot or not will be totally caught out and will
instinctively try to oppose the roll with aileron. That input
will merely EMBED the dropping wing more deeply into a stalled
condition. Application of power will just flatten the spin.
Spins entered on autopilot will have the added penalty of having
been trimmed (pitch and roll) deeply into the condition - and
this will really complicate the already impossible task of
attempted recovery.
Roselawn ATR /
Aero Commander in NZ / ATR freighter in the Taiwan
Straits /United Express,
flight 2415 (BA-3101 turboprop)/ March 4, 1993, a
Continental Express ATR-42/ EMB-120
Brasilia turboprop, (Comair 3272)/ a number of MU-2
accidents etc etc (see third cell down, in the table below).
BUFFALO, New York (USA) -
In the minutes before a turboprop plane plunged to the
earth killing all 49 people aboard and one person on the
ground, the pilot and crew were recorded discussing
"significant ice build-up" on the plane's windshield and
the leading edge of the wings, federal investigators
said today.
The "black boxes" recovered from the burning remains of
Continental Express Flight 3407 also indicated that the
de-icing button in the cockpit had been in the "on"
position.
Shortly after that conversation, Capt. Marvin Renslow
deployed the plane's landing gears
and the wing flaps to slow down the plane in
preparation for landing.
"Severe pitch and roll
[began] within seconds" of the flaps being deployed,
said Steven Chealander, spokesman for the National
Transportation Safety Board. Chealander said that means
the plane's nose bucked up and down while the wing's
dipped and rose violently.
The plane plummeted to the earth so rapidly that Renslow
and his crew never had time to radio a mayday alert.
|
|
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 (i.e. wing)
stall, had activated after the upset.
Chealander yesterday reported that initial review of the
CVR showed pilots discussing "significant" ice build-up on
the wings and windshield.
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.
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.

|
Sudden Onsets
(Tail Icing or.....?)
On Oct. 31st, 1994, an ATR-72-210, American
Eagle flight 4184, crashed near Roselawn, Indiana, killing all
68 on board. The plane was in a holding pattern in icing
conditions, when it suddenly rolled over and dove into the
ground.
Ice, forming on the airframe and in
particular aft of the deicing boots---which are located on the
leading edge of the wings---was the cause of the sudden
rollover. The existing regulations, in respect to design
certification of an airliner, were not adequate when it came to
the ability of the plane to operate in light to moderate icing
conditions.
Extensive airborne testing, following that
accident, revealed it is possible for airliners to encounter
water droplets exceeding 200 microns in average diameter, which
is probably what happened to AMR 4184. The existing FAA design
certification rules for Transport Category aircraft (Part 25,
Appendix C), at that time, only required the plane to handle
droplets with an average diameter of 20 to 50 microns.
The ATR was designed and manufactured in
France by Aerospatiale. Mr. Fredrick's book,
Unheeded Warning, reveals how political considerations
overruled the safety mandate that is supposed to govern the
FAA's design certification decisions on aircraft of foreign
manufacture.
Fredrick details strong evidence that some
experts in the FAA, knew the plane would be dangerous in icing
conditions, but they were overruled by higher officials because
the French might have been offended if certification was denied
by the FAA. He also demonstrates that numerous "close-call"
incidents and one accident (10-15-87, near Lake Como, Italy with
no survivors), which preceded the Roselawn crash, were
known to be the result of in-flight icing, but Aerospatiale
effectively covered-up and did not circulate that information,
lest the reputation of its ATR aircraft be damaged. The FAA also
failed to follow up on the findings in the accident report of
the Italian crash. If it had, the 68 that died at Roselawn might
well be alive today.
On December 26, 1989, a United Express,
flight 2415, suddenly pitched nose down, while on final approach
to the Pasco, Washington Airport. The pilots, of that British
Aerospace BA-3101 turboprop aircraft, were not able to recover
and all died in the ensuing crash.
As in most accidents, there were multiple
factors that combined until they culminated in a crash. At the
previous enroute stop, the captain did not have the plane deiced;
instead crewmembers manually removed some of the accumulated ice
from the wings and tail. There was also evidence that the deice
distribution valve, which controlled the amount of air available
to the deicing boots on the leading edges of the airfoils, was
partially defective and may not have allowed the boots to
inflate to their full capability.
The NTSB concluded, in its final accident
report, that during the descent into Pasco, the plane
accumulated from 1/2 to 1 inch of mixed rime and clear ice and
that it most likely took the "mushroom" or "ram's horn" shape
that is very detrimental to airflow over both wing and empennage
(tail) airfoil surfaces. Since the plane did not carry any
"black boxes," (cockpit voice or air data recorders), the NTSB
could not be certain of what control actions the pilots took,
while on that fatal approach. However, the Board was able to
come to a conclusion, with aid of computer simulation of the
sudden pitch down (50 to 60 degrees nose down at impact),
combined with the ATC radar tape (which recorded ground speed,
course and glide slope tracks), that the plane stalled because
of ice accumulation.
They couldn't be certain if it was a wing
stall or a tail stall, but the most likely scenario was a tail
stall, since the computer simulation showed a wing stall as
producing only a 35-degree nose down pitch, whereas the tail
stall would match the actual 50 to 60 degree down pitch. It
matches the classic tail-stall profile that has been seen in
other accident investigations over many years. It usually
happens suddenly and without time for recovery (because they are
too close to the ground on that stage of the final approach),
when the flaps are extended to their maximum range.
On March 4, 1993, a Continental Express
ATR-42 experienced a sudden roll, but the pilot was able to
recover and make a safe landing. There were other such
incidents, prior to the Roselawn crash, but they were passed off
as turbulence encounters, even though icing conditions existed
at the time. It wasn't until after the Roselawn accident that it
became clear that those incidents too, had been near-disasters
precipitated by the inability of that airfoil design to handle
more than light icing conditions.
On Jan. 9th, 1997,
an EMB-120 Brasilia turboprop, (Comair 3272) crashed near
Detroit, killing all 29 on board.
The NTSB found the
probable cause of that accident to be:
...the FAA's
failure to establish adequate aircraft certification
standards for flight in icing conditions, the FAA's failure
to ensure that a Centro Tecnico Aeroespacial/FAA-approved
procedure for the accident airplane's deice system operation
was implemented by U.S.-based air carriers, and the FAA's
failure to require the establishment of adequate minimum
airspeeds for icing conditions, which led to the loss of
control when the airplane accumulated a thin, rough
accretion of ice on its lifting surfaces.
Contributing to
the accident were the flightcrew's decision to operate in
icing conditions near the lower margin of the operating
airspeed envelope (with flaps retracted), and Comair's
failure to establish and adequately disseminate unambiguous
minimum airspeed values for flap configurations and for
flight in icing conditions.
In March, 1998, a WestAir EMB-120 Brasilia,
departed Sacramento and was immediately placed into a holding
pattern in icing conditions. It was only in its second turn, in
that holding pattern, when it suddenly rolled and dove towards
the ground. The pilots immediately extended the flaps and were
able to recover before they hit the ground. The pilots, in the
Roselawn crash, also tried to extend the flaps, but the French
computer, on that plane, would not allow flap extension because
the computer determined the speed exceeded the limit for that
degree of flap extension.
On March 19, 2001, a Comair EMB-120
Brasilia, experienced an upset event after encountering icing
conditions. The aircraft, flying from Nassau, Bahamas, to
Orlando, Florida, made an emergency diversion to West Palm
Beach, Florida. A ground examination revealed substantial damage
to the elevators and the horizontal stabilizer. Fortunately,
the captain was able to recover from the dive and there were no
injuries to the 28 onboard. Comments from the NTSB summary:
The crew reported that the airplane's
systems, including its ice detection and anti ice systems,
functioned normally before the upset.
They indicated that the airplane was
being controlled by the autopilot at about 18,000 feet when
they encountered instrument meteorological conditions that
rapidly led to the windscreen being covered by a layer of
ice.
The crew turned ice protection systems on
and the ice on the windshield was cleared. The first officer
observed ice on the right wing's boots and the right prop's
spinner that extended farther back than he had previously
experienced. The first officer switched the ice protection
systems to their highest settings.
The first officer notified the captain of
a decrease in airspeed from about 175 to 160 knots.
The captain disconnected the autopilot,
applied power, and initiated nose down pitch inputs to
arrest the airspeed loss. They indicated that these actions
were unsuccessful and the speed further deteriorated to
about 130 knots at which point the airplane experienced
oscillations about its pitch, yaw, and roll axes and
subsequently rolled sharply to the right and entered a steep
descent.
During the descent, the electronic
attitude display indicators in the airplane were observed to
intermittently present no useful information. The captain
stated that, "when we needed it [the electronic attitude
display indicators] the most we didn't have it."
The airplane descended between cloud
layers into visual conditions where recovery occurred about
10,000 feet.
After the recovery, no anomalies with the
airplane, its handling characteristics, or its systems were
noted.
The flight data recorder and the cockpit
voice recorder have been examined at the Safety Board's
laboratory. The cockpit voice recorder continued to run
after the landing and did not provide any useful information
regarding the upset. The accident airplane's solid state
25-hour FDR captured the event and functioned until power
was removed on the ground. Preliminary review of the FDR
data indicate the following sequence of events:
The airplane was at about 17,000 feet,
with the airspeed stabilized around 200 knots indicated
airspeed (kias). The autopilot was engaged.
The airspeed slowed from about 200 kias
to 180, and the airplane began trimming nose-up. The
airspeed continued to decrease to about 140 kias while
trimming to a nearly full nose-up position.
The autopilot disconnected and the
airplane rolled about 90 degrees to the left, and then back
to near level. In the next 24 seconds, the airplane again
rolled about 110 degrees to the left, back to level, then
about 120 degrees to the right, back to level, and then
rolled 360 degrees to the right, back to near wings level.
Since the crew reported trouble with the flight attitude
instruments, the roll angles recorded on the FDR are being
further investigated.
The maximum nose down pitch attitude was
60 degrees, the maximum recorded airspeed was about 240 kias,
and maximum vertical acceleration during recovery was about
+3.6 g.
In April, 1996, following the Roselawn crash,
the FAA issued 18 new airworthiness directives (ADs) affecting
29 models of turboprop aircraft. Those aircraft all have the
same common features in their designs:
---- Unpowered flight controls.
---- Pneumatic deicing boots.
---- NACA five-digit sharp-stall airfoils
(which were made obsolete by the more modern soft-stall
designs).
The ADs require extensive instruction, to
pilots flying the affected aircraft, on how to fly in freezing
rain and drizzle (including the prohibition of the use of the
autopilot in icing conditions), how to recognize indications of
severe icing, and then require an immediate exit from icing
areas. In addition, both ATR-42 and ATR-72 aircraft had their
deicing boots modified to extend the boot area to reach back to
12.5 % of the chord. Previously, they had extended only to 5 %
and 7 %, respectively. In theory, that should solve the problem
of the tendency of ice ridge formation at the 9% chord position
of those obsolete sharp-stall airfoils.
However, it still doesn't deal with the
results of the Bascombe-Downs tests, conducted by the British,
which demonstrated ice could form as far back on the wing as 23%
of the chord, and on the tail at 30% of chord. Both percentages
remain well beyond the limits of the deicing boots. Those tests
limited the size of the droplets to 40 microns, near the maximum
limit of the archaic FAA design certification rules for
Transport Category aircraft (Part 25, Appendix C), still in
effect at that time of the Roselawn crash.
That is why I still believe that some, if not
all, turboprop airliners still have a serious problem in regards
to tail icing. To the best of my knowledge, nothing has been
done to make tail deicing more effective.
STEPHEN A. FREDRICK, the author of
Unheeded Warning, came very close to "buying the farm," when
he was flying the ATR in icing conditions. After the Roselawn
crash, his conscience compelled him to work surreptitiously to
expose the deficiencies of the ATR aircraft, in icing
conditions, and the history of how those deficiencies were known
and covered up by the French manufacturer, the FAA and airline
officials. Fredrick is a rare person of genuine conscience. He
was willing to give up his job as an airline pilot (actually --
his entire career, since he cannot hope to ever be hired again
by any airline), to expose the facts about the ATR.
My recommendation to the flying public is the
same as that of the courageous American Eagle pilots who wrote
and distributed an anonymous pamphlet at Chicago's O'Hare
airport, after the Roselawn crash (Fredrick was one of those
pilots):
"...If the weather is clear this winter,
sit back and relax because this is a good aircraft. If the
weather is cloudy, snowy, or cool and rainy, think about
alternate transportation methods..."
|

Another aspect of investigating a roll
upset icing accident should consider the possible effect of ice
asymmetry and ice protection coverage. Propellers impart a
swirling motion to the air that results in an asymmetric ice
formation on the wing leading edges immediately downstream of
the propellers. The downgoing blade side will cause more ice to
accumulate farther aft on the upper surface and less further aft
on the underside on that side. Conversely, the upgoing
blade side will tend to cause more ice to accumulate farther aft
on the lower surface and less on the upper surface.
Another aspect of investigating
a roll upset icing accident should consider the
possible effect of ice asymmetry and ice protection
coverage. Propellers impart a swirling motion to
the air that results in an asymmetric ice formation
on the wing leading edges immediately downstream of
the propellers. The downgoing blade side will cause
more ice to accumulate farther aft on the upper
surface and less further aft on the underside on
that side. Conversely, the upgoing blade side will
tend to cause more ice to accumulate farther aft on
the lower surface and less on the upper surface. Apply
this theory to each wing and then factor in the
significance of the left and right props rotating in
the same direction.
The
spanwise ice distribution will be lopsided to say
the least. The Left and Right wings's upper and
lower surfaces will end up with significantly
different profiles and stalling speeds and
characteristics. There will also be additional
disymmetry in accretions on the port (versus
starboard) fuselage and tail surfaces.
The computational fluid dynamics analysis
derived graphic below visualizes this effect clearly on the
horizontal surface. (from Newmerical Technologies International)
The blue area in the image below shows the
area of the DHC-8- Q400 wing immersed in the propwash. It is
approximately 43% of the wing area and represents a substantial
percentage of the wing lift - so asymmetry due to ice formation in
this area is worthy of careful consideration.
In certain icing conditions the helical
flow field may result in not only asymmetry of ice formation,
but may also form asymmetrically aft of the ice protection
system coverage. When the engine power is reduced, the velocity
of the propwash and the beneficial effects of the propeller flow
will be reduced and the local angle of attack behind the
propeller can increase suddenly. If the ice has caused a
serious erosion of the normal safety margins, the result can be
a lateral imbalance of lift and can contribute to a roll. In
some cases the wing stall can spread across the wing and the
ailerons changing the control characteristics of the airplane.
The picture below (from FAA FFFSCR report)
was taken in an icing test behind an aerial tanker spraying
water from a large “shower head” to determine the formation of
ice. The water contains sea marker dye that appears yellow in
the solid (ice) phase and fluorescent green in the liquid
phase. Some green is visible on the viewer’s right at the very
leading edge. Note the ice formation aft of the active area of
the deicing boots on the viewers left (airplane’s right wing).
This ice cannot be removed by the ice protection system. The
DHC-8-Q400 propellers both rotate in the opposite direction so the
effect would tend to be the mirror image of this.
If icing is found to be a causal factor, it's
not known how the manufacturer addressed this issue on the
accident airplane design and if, and/or how much, of a factor this
may be.

|