[FLYBOYSID]

Originally Posted by Anonymous guy

I believe it is a mix of heavy cross winds, icing, low air speed and incorrect use of rudder. Rip to the people who dies

When put across like that, it questions the professionalism and competence of the crew big time. Remember, they would have applied every bit of their knowledge and experience to recover from it. They may have gone wrong somewhere, which will be found out in due course of investigations.
Since flying turbo-props itself is more challenging than the jets/ turbofans, these pilots would surely know the right side of the rudder in any situation.
Also, cross winds and stalls/spins are independent subjects of their own. Yes, they can create piloting difficulties when brought in together.
However, you seem to have put across an equation with only variables. How do we solve it.
Expert opinions are available, please refer and learn.

[skanchan95]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYSID

these pilots would surely know the right side of the rudder in any situation.

Very well put.

And those pilots would have been fighting till the very end to save their aircraft and passengers.

Something went wrong very quickly that overwhelmed the crew and only results of the investigations will reveal the truth. Till then, the causes for the crash can only be speculated.

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

If you want to hear a real expert talk about this accident have a look at this...

Huge fan of Mr. Feith. Such a clear & concise communicator!

I frequently use bits of him speaking as an example of 'how to articulate your thought process'.

[VijayAnand1]

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

Huge fan of Mr. Feith. Such a clear & concise communicator!

I frequently use bits of him speaking as an example of 'how to articulate your thought process'.

Greg Feith of NTSB and Nat Geo Air Crash Investigation were simply shows that went above and beyond and set the standard as to what an actual investigation should be, their presentation, their actors, their recreation, segueing with the actual recordings. Phenomenal shows, phenomenal information and it still is one of my top viewing when it comes to Nat Geo. Anti-icing boots and de-icing are a standard process/equipment, but each aircraft has a ceiling even with the anti-ice on.

A through investigation shall yield the better of it, but ice on a wing is simply more dangerous than a single engine failure primarily because of the disrupted air flow, messed up angle of attack, the lift component is severely compromised inducing an aerodynamic stall is which, and in such conditions is very, very hard to recover.

RIP to those souls.

Cheers!
VJ

[fhdowntheline]

Originally Posted by Anonymous guy

I believe it is a mix of heavy cross winds, icing, low air speed and incorrect use of rudder. Rip to the people who dies

Crosswind may not be a significant factor in flight at those altitudes. Turbulence of a moderate/severe category could be (if that is what you meant). But I am not sure if the weather forecast included severe turbulence-it did indicate icing, which seems to be the preliminary factor thus far.


Also, I have seen another video from a pilot who has ATR experience.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2y6aRyYFt8

On a separate note- I wonder why couldn't the flight crew have "avoided" the specific airspace completely during the pre-flight planning given the known risk of icing in that region and the ATR's not so forgiving history in that regard ?

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by fhdowntheline

On a separate note- I wonder why couldn't the flight crew have "avoided" the specific airspace completely during the pre-flight planning given the known risk of icing in that region and the ATR's not so forgiving history in that regard ?

Commercial airplanes fly into known icing conditions every single day. Hundreds if not thousands times a day.

In general they are certified for flying into known icing conditions. To what extend the aircraft manufacturer and or regulatory bodies involved put limitations on flying into known icing conditions I do not know. But going by what I read on the pilot forum, PRUNE, I haven’t seen too much of restrictions into this area for this plane.

Very often, layperson qualify something as dangerous, because we simply don’t understand the topic at hand sufficiently to have a solid understanding.

I can tell you people were often completely flabbergasted, sometimes even affronted, when I told them, I fly my single propellor aircraft “blind”. Only on instruments. It was designed to do so, it was certified to do so, I was trained and certified to do so. I enjoyed it tremendously and would look for actual conditions to fly “blind”/ IFR.

Some of the planes I flew were also certified for flying into “known icing” conditions. (E.g. Cirrus SR22).

So I’m not going to avoid flying through clouds, or at night with poor visibility. Under IFR rules I still need to abide to a number of rules, e.g. visibility during landing. But as long as I keep within those prescribed boundaries, it’s perfectly safe (and legal ) to fly in very limited visibility.

Same is true for flying into known icing. If your aircraft is certified for it, the crew is trained for it and competent and certified, it is deemed safe!

Again, I can’t comment on this specific accident, because I am not familiar with this type of aircraft.

But the same principle applies. As long as you stay within the defined and prescribed limits for aircraft and crew you are good to go.

Pilots such as me, tend to adhere to personal minimums. So even though we might be allowed to fly into certain conditions and or areas, we tend to limit ourselves based on personal (or rather lack of) relevant experience. But every pilot will push to broaden/widen his/her personal limits. In many cases being able to handle, being confident in more tricky situations is actually a safety enhancement. E.g. The more cross wind you can handle during a landing, the more options you have in finding a nearby airport to land.

For commercial pilots it’s different of course. Their limits are purely defined by regulatory and company procedures. The bare minimums are very high for every commercial pilot.

Jeroen

[fhdowntheline]

@Jeroen - understood. But just for example , as how pilots monitor outside air temp during transpolar flights to avoid potential "fuel freeze" and lower their cruise altitude, or avoid "red cells" on the weather radar, there could be SOPs for avoiding areas where severe icing has been forecast, especially for the airplane type (ATR 72).

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by fhdowntheline

@Jeroen - understood. But just for example , as how pilots monitor outside air temp during transpolar flights to avoid potential "fuel freeze" and lower their cruise altitude, or avoid "red cells" on the weather radar, there could be SOPs for avoiding areas where severe icing has been forecast, especially for the airplane type (ATR 72).

There could be all kinds of SOPs. I simply dont know. I am just pointing out flying into known icing areas is in essence a normal and safe daily practice for tens of thousands flights per day. Whether these pilots did not adhere to their airplane specific instructions in this particular case, I just don’t know.

No use in assuming or suggesting so, let’s see what comes up in the accident investigation or maybe one of our resident commercial airline pilots can add more insights into this topic a d this type of plane.

Jeroen

[fhdowntheline]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgQwFs8DQhE

This looks horrible and quite concerning.

[Jeroen]

Excellent video!

For those interested to read the preliminary report


https://dedalo.sti.fab.mil.br/en/85259

Jeroen