[air-cool-me]

[QUOTE=Porsche-O-Phile;4660593]d use RUDDER to level the wings as appropriate. This has been drilled into my head since Day #1 of my flight training that began back in 1990.
/QUOTE]


No.... no rudder... this is not a 172.


I think you(digital yeager's and computer bob hoovers) might be confusing inexperience with incompetence..

Biased on the data it looks like the FO was doing a checklists when both of there inattentiveness let the speed bleed off. This isnt the end of the word... and I bet even the old crusty 10,000 hour aviation gods can recall a time at least once in there perfect career when workload or something distracted them long enough for the speed to get 10kts slow.(if they can even remember the last time they flew something without auto-throttles).

Slow speed events have happened and will happen again.

The ntsb will judge but looking at the data it was with pilot flying actions after the stick shaker sealed there fate..... and the pilot monitoring not being able to make the tough conclusion(in a very short period of time with the plane is rocking all over) that the (supposedly better) guy sitting to the left might be doing it wrong and is going to kill you. When the stick shaker goes off.. the plane isnt stalled.. adding power and maybe dropping the nose(although with the buffer just power would have worked) would have solved the problem. In Icing conditions in most turboprops the shaker comes on very early well before the stall. Pulling up into the pusher overriding that and actually stalling was not the appropriate action. Only question remains is.. did human factors play a part? did he think this was a tailplane stall condition? did he fully understand the difference? Was training to blame for his airmanship?

condition indicator. Is the condition the blade pitch?

in a rough rough rough approximation yes. It was a normal to put the condition levers near full for the approach.

Basic airman ship is suffering very badly with the new generation pilots. In the 80's we would stall every thing we flew on empty legs just to see how the airplane would react. The plane would give you tell tail signs of what was going to happen.
I may get flamed but spin training should be mandatory for the private licensee.

I agree with the first and last point. I took every opportunity to do upset training\areobatics\stalls\spins ext.. but I could have got here without any of that.
The second point is a good way to die. If you operate the aircraft like you do on every flight instead of Pinnacle 3701'ing around then you have a good chance at the flight ending like all the rest of them. I do alot of ferry flights and "testing it out" is not something I want to do. Both transport category aircraft I have flown have very dangerous stall characteristics. They have shakers and pushers for a reason. Stall characteristics were traded for design and operational efficiency's.(keep those ticket prices down!)

last year, our airline was so famished for pilots that we were taking 250 hour wonders. 250 hour pilots flying 76 seat metal tubes at Mach .78 at FL390. I'm not saying that a 250 hour pilot can't be good (for example...guys that go through military training.)

Some how I made it through two training programs and did not end up a smoking hole I think there is a fundamental problem with accepting a 500 hour guy over a 400 hour guy assuming at this level that hours in a light plane = skills in an airliner. (On an interesting note Russians have the same problem.. hours in an AN-2 do not translate well to swept wing jets)

Back to flight info... *puke*

-First officer BIFF
former low time large turboprop puke
now RJ slave
(back to 5 leg a day "milk runs" and timing out 2 days in a row)
guess what was on my W2 last year
(the reason I am driving a toyota)