Talk:Colgan Air Flight 3407

Fix this, nerds

A happened before B or B happened before A??

Article says

In its final moments, the aircraft pitched up 31 degrees, then pitched down 25 degrees, then rolled left 46 degrees and snapped back to the right at 105 degrees.

but later says

Data extracted from the FDR revealed the aircraft went through severe pitch and roll oscillations shortly after the extension of flaps and landing gear, which was followed by the activation of the "stick shaker" stall system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.99.191 (talk) 08:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks but you may get a better response if you are not so rude. Also you may like to explain what you think is wrong as both extracts are saying the same thing. MilborneOne (talk) 08:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I think our fellow contributor(!) is actually struggling with the sequence of three events. (Yes, I know that's not what s/he says!) Three, as follows:

A - config change (flaps, gear)

B - upset (pitch + roll excursions)

C - stall warning (stick shaker)

That order of events - A, then B, then C - is the obviously-likely sequence (until you understand how this accident was in fact caused), and I think the contributor read the later (Data extracted) extract as saying exactly that. (Thus, misunderstood which as meaning the upset (B, severe pitch and roll oscillations).) With this misreading, the two extracts are not saying the same thing.

In the intended reading, which refers to the reconfig (A, extension of flaps and landing gear), correctly describing the actual sequence A - C - B. On that reading, yes, of course the two extracts do agree.

Gotta confess, the misreading is perfectly natural; so I'm having a go at a slight reconfig of that sentence in the article (shuffling commas around etc) . . not sure how well this works, though: fellow nerds, please feel free to re-edit! 84.9.119.66 (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Colgan Air Continental Connection DHC-8-400 N200WQ.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Why would the autopilot bring the plane to a stall?

"The autopilot was in control until it automatically disconnected when the stall-warning stick shaker activated."

This question is answered by Mentour Pilot on YouTube in 'The CRASH that Changed US Aviation', but no mention of it here. The pilots had set the Ref Speeds switch due to icing concerns. This switch is used to positively bias stall threshold speeds because ice on wings can cause stalls at a lower angle of attack. BUT they used an approach speed that would be appropriate with this switch off, and which was much closer to the reprogrammed stall threshold at that stage of the flight. The investigation found that the aircraft was not ice effected and the stall was in fact not imminent when the stick shaker triggered - though the pilot's pitch up reaction was sufficient to bring the aircraft to a true stall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.47.51.78 (talk) 02:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Infobox summary

This feels very tedious, but to avoid the progression of an unnecessary edit war I will start a discussion on the talk page regarding the addition of the term "pilot error" in the summary of this accident. @Sjones23 has been protectively monitoring and reverting changes made to this page and feels that my specific addition needs a "new consensus." A majority aviation accidents on this site include one or more of the primary causes for the accident in its summary. These causes will usually align with the primary ones given by the aviation agency investigating the accident (NTSB, BEA, AAIB etc.) According to page 92 the NTSB official report on the accident, one of the main probable causes for the accident was "an improper pilot response to the stall warning, including failing to advance the power levers to maximum and inappropriately raising the flaps."[1] Along with this, several reliable sources such as NPR for example mentioned the fact that the pilots made errors before takeoff when inputting data in regards to the icing conditions. "the pilots of the ill-fated flight erred even before take-off from Newark International Airport, with the pilot entering data into an on-board computer that anticipated icing conditions and the co-pilot entering conflicting information."[2] I would like Sjones23 to provide their reasoning for why this umbrella term shouldn't belong in the summary parameter of the infobox please. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey, there. We've actually had some discussion on that "pilot error" terminology in the past here. Also, the term does not appear in the NTSB report itself. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, I will highlight the point that you made about the NTSB report not mentioning the term "pilot error". It is not relatively difficult to allude that the phrase "improper pilot response" stated in the NTSB report certainly means error. To back this, a PBS article from 2011 states that the NTSB concluded that "pilot error was to blame for this accident."[3] Even if you don't agree with my point, it would be still definitely be quite fruitful to have new discussion due to a potential consensus change due to WP:CCC. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I have added a question about this issue to the Talk page of template-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_aircraft_occurrence#Accident_cause DonFB (talk) 23:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

As per the general discussion here, I just thought I would add a few thoughts to this discussion. The proposal to make the infobox summary Stalled during landing approach due to pilot error; crashed into house is not helpful. As the infobox template documentation states it should be a brief factual summary of the occurrence. Because it is in the infobox it really needs to be brief. This particular accident has a many and complex causes, and adding "pilot error" is not an accurate summary of the sum total of them. Even in the simplest of accidents in the flight safety and accident investigation worlds we usually avoid the term "pilot error" these days because it doesn't tell you much. In fact when I did my first training as a flight safety officer it was already "out of use" and that was 40 years ago. In this case there were pilot training, pilot selection, fatigue, company cultural, pay and hiring, and many other cause factors involved. These are all pretty much covered in the article text, but cannot be covered in a brief factual summary of the occurrence. I would suggest that the infobox just read Stalled during landing approach as even the 'hit a house' part is not needed. Keep in mind this is just a brief summary, most readers will dig into the causes in the text and not think that it covers the issue in detail, especially in a complex case like this one. - Ahunt (talk) 01:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Introduction

Colgan was not the last accident with multiple casualties. The linked citation (4) references the southwest accident with I believe 7 casualties, including one fatal.

Wiki on southwest flight 99.230.82.79 (talk) 04:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Looks like that has been addressed and now says Flight 3407 is the most recent aviation accident involving a U.S.-based airline that resulted in multiple fatalities. To be honest, the statement should probably just be removed as per WP:AVILAYOUT-WW. - Ahunt (talk) 12:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

In thinking it over, I have removed the sentence as per WP:AVILAYOUT-WW. - Ahunt (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)