I do not know if it was posted already. Sorry just in case.http://video.aol.fr/video-detail/colgan-fl...-q400/192145005Uhhh! (<-????????????????? = me)"I put the flaps up." During landing with Approach engaged??? = me. Wow,Cheers,MAB :(

Putting the flaps up was the correct response, unfortunately, they were too low to effect a recovery from the dive.The reason you put the flaps up is because when they are down, they increase the downwash from the main wing and that effectively increases the angle of attack for the tailplane, as the air is caused to rush downwards past the tailplane because it is coming off the flaps. When the tailplane is iced up, the aerofoil is not as efficient and so that increased angle of attack of the airflow over the tailplane is enough to make the tailplane stall. That's why one minute you are flying along fine and the moment you drop the flaps more, you suddenly lose control.When the tailplane stalls, the elevator gets jammed down into the vacuum of the disturbed airflow, which forces the nose down a little and also means there is no airflow over the elevator and it cannot be forced forwards to prevent a stall of the main wing, because the tailplane is no longer flying. So what you have to do is tackle the tailplane stall, by raising the flaps, to make the tailplane effective, so you can pull out of the dive. Sadly, if it happens at low altitude, you are basically screwed as there is a good chance one wing will stall before the other if there is ice on them, causing a roll and possibly incipient spin, which means you have to use the rudder to stop the spin, then force the nose down to get the wing flying. Anything less than about 5,000 feet and you are going to be way too short of time to do anything about it, and you'd probably need something like over 10,000 feet to be in with a chance.That's why it is advisable to lower the flaps earlier in an icing conditions approach, so that if there is a problem detected, you have time to do something about it. Seems like the co-pilot knew what was wrong when she raised the flaps, but there just wasn't enough time to recover.Al

Good explanation of the phenomena, but there was no tailplane stall involved here.

Looks to me he called for flaps too late, he was already near or at stall speed according to the PFD at the time Flaps 10 was called. Either pilot error, or the Pitot tube gave inaccurate reading. Seems to me if he increased flaps to lower the stall speed while compensating for the increased drag with power and push nose down to prevent ballooning he may have had a better chance to get control. Below stall speed he had no chance.

To be honest, I've not really followed the investigation closely enough to know the ins and out of it and what was the cause of things. I was really just pointing out that if it seems odd to take the flaps up in such circumstances, then there is a logical reason behind the choosing to do so if it is icy out there.The crew have come in for a bit of flak from some sources (not entirely undeservedly), but that action does indicate that the co-pilot was no slouch in reacting intelligently to a problem, just a shame it didn't work. Like all crashes, it is tragic, but her actions may well contribute to a wider understanding of the phenomenon, and that may end up saving some lives in the future.Al

A friend of mine had flown that aircraft two days prior to the accident. It's chilling how the crew goes about their normal business before accidents, completely unaware of the tragedy to come. The CVR didn't exactly help the pilot's case.

Pilot asked for flaps 15, Co-pilot just gave flaps 10. If there was a prayer in heck to recover at low speed that night it was gone with the flap fully up. Ice is an speculation at this point. Pilot didn't ask for flaps fully up. We still need an explanation for the meaning of "Uhhh". Uhhh like in HELLO??? We are try to land an airplane here Mr. Co-pilot.Not good,MAB :( Uhhh :( :(

That's certainly true - that would be 'Mrs co-pilot', in the case of that accident incidentally - at that altitude it is very difficult and probably impossible to recover. I have personally done a spin recovery below 1000 feet AGL, but that was in an aircraft cleared for aerobatics with a 40 knot stall speed and not in an airliner, and even then you have to be really on the case!Ice accretion is to some extent always speculation in accident investigations, simply because the evidence melts. But it is known that the aircraft was in icing conditions, several aircraft were reporting it that night. Speculation it may indeed be, but certainly not unwarranted speculation and more than likely I would have thought.Al

I honestly think the pilot was just not paying attention to the airspeed, whether he was looking at something else or outside, we'll never know. The copilot seemed to know the airspeed wasn't good for flaps 15, so she selected flaps 10 only. What doesn't make sense is that the airspeed was dropping steadily into the stall range when he called for flaps 15 and she moved the flaps lever anyhow. Why she didn't say something about the airspeed is odd, unless she was looking somewhere else as well. It did sound like she was aware of the unsafe airspeed when he called for flaps 15 and she moved the lever, but it doesn't explain why she'd still move the lever and not call him out on his error. Was she too afraid of a captain to say something as a copilot? Did she think he knew something she didn't? I believe she had more flight time in the Dash 8 and possibly more experience than him flying. She was an instructor here in AZ for some time. Why was she so passive on that flight? Personally, if it were me, I'd grab the throttle and advance it. I don't care if I were PNF. His airspeed was dropping into stall range. Catch it before it enters the red.Fact is, these two had every reason to live, so why they (captain mostly) failed so miserably in their operation of the aircraft is beyond me. My opinion is that the captain (PF) was distracted by something outside or totally not looking at the airspeed and forgot that he basically idled the throttles to slow for approach. The copilot (PNF) was either distracted as well or too passive and trusting of the captain to say something and therefore allowed the captain to stall the aircraft.

I honestly think the pilot was just not paying attention to the airspeed, whether he was looking at something else or outside, we'll never know. The copilot seemed to know the airspeed wasn't good for flaps 15, so she selected flaps 10 only.

Not being a smart alec, so please don't take this the wrong way. I'm not getting the logic in what you say.

Ice accretion is to some extent always speculation in accident investigations, simply because the evidence melts. But it is known that the aircraft was in icing conditions, several aircraft were reporting it that night. Speculation it may indeed be, but certainly not unwarranted speculation and more than likely I would have thought.Al

The performance data recovered from the fdr pretty much have allowed investigators to rule out icing. The plane was performing as it should for a clean plane.

Let’s wait for the final report by the NTSB to see if they think it was possible to recover from it. And how??? I think it was possible iff the flaps would have been at least at 15 degrees.Something farther from teamwork happened up there but there wasn’t enough time to solve it. Oh well, it is much too late now unfortunately. Sad,MAB