As you say - pilot error sounds very tidy. I've only been in one true "panic" situation and it involved SCUBA diving. Until you've experienced a true panic-inducing moment, it is hard to appreciate what it really means to be faced with one. When you make it through, you immediately know that you are better able to handle the same situation the next time because the experience is seared into your mind.

I flew quite happily for decades on commercial jets, local and overseas, and the occasional puddle-jumper. Several years ago, after two "bad" flights back-to-back, I suddenly started experiencing something approaching terror when on a plane. On one memorable occasion two years ago I abandoned my plan to fly home for the holidays while standing in the baggage-check queue at 6 p.m. on Christmas Eve. (Many thanks to the folks at WestJet who took pity on me and gave me a credit for the fare.)

In any event I seem to be on the road to recovery and have flown twice since then without screaming and clutching at whoever happens to be in the next seat. I've also been reading your columns regularly and I suspect that they've helped me simply by demystifying the "magic" of flight. Knowledge is power!

Mr. Smith repeats an often used mis-statement that Bernoulli’s principal governs the flight of wings. While a properly designed wing uses Bernoulli’s principal to increase the efficiency of aircraft wings, wings fly due the resulting forces caused by the angle of attack of the chord of the wing on the oncoming air stream. Even a sheet of plywood will fly if there is enough power and the angle of attack is correct. Acrobatic aircraft use symmetrical cross section wings which allow efficient flight up-right or inverted.

Thanks for this very informative piece.

It appears that the extremely interesting NASA video which was posted in response to last week's column was not viewed by the author:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2238323060735779946

According to the experts at NASA, the proper response to a wing stall is the opposite of the proper response to a tail stall.

Given this, it's hard to understand how Mr. Smith is able to state unequivocally that the pilot's response - pulling back on the controls - was in error.

Sincerely,

Flash Fludd

Patrick, please write more about this soon.

Anyway, "Stall" in an aircraft has nothing whatsoever to do with the engines. It is an aerodynamic situation when the wings provide no lift. It usually happens when an airplane is traveling too slowly, when not enough air travels over and under the wings, so not enough lift. When it happens, an airplane stops flying, and just falls. In the Buffalo situation, as Patrick wrote, the efficiency of the wings proably was impaired by ice, so that normal speed was too slow.

So... Did you not think it odd that, as Patrick wrote, the tactic to counter a stall is to point an aircraft's nose down, toward the ground? It seems, maybe, as if it would contribute to a crash.

But, the idea of "Nose Down" is to give the aircraft more speed. Going down, with gravity, increases the speed, and increases the flow of air over and under the wings, and provides more lift. Then, with more lift, a pilot may pull up, and get control, and get out of a stall.

Remember that aircraft stalls have nothing whatsoever to do with the engines. During all this stuff, engines can be functioning fully or totally out of service. Stalls involve airflow over and under the wings and airspeed.

I now return you to your regularly-scheduled pilot.

I get on a plane as rarely as possible. In other words, only when I need to go overseas. Which is rare, though I wish I could go more. So sad. But I won't fly more often until this sh*t is corrected. Stop killing people. How many other industries get this lee-way?

I want to go to Europe. I've been to there at the risk of my life seven times. I want to go more often. I don't want to go at the risk of my life.

It's entirely possible that the captain believed that the tail had stalled due to icing. From what I've read, the event happened right after they dropped the flaps, which can precipitate a tailplane stall. Add that to the nose violently pitching down from the pusher, which might resemble the pitch down associated with a tailplane stall.

The recovery procedure for tailplane icing is pretty much opposite that of a normal stall. Instead of adding power and reducing the angle of attack while keeping the configuration the same until a safe airspeed, one pulls BACK on the yoke, reduces power and raises the flaps (if they were lowered).

The Q400 does not have a history of tailplane icing. But the captain had a lot of time in Saab 340s, which are in fact prone towards tailplane stalls in icing conditions.

For the record, I'll wait for the NTSB report to come out before I pass judgment. I know someone who flew with the captain, and by all accounts he was a good, conscientious pilot. He may have made a mistake, but it was one that could easily have been made by many. He had seconds to identify the problem and apply corrective action. In the stall from icing scenario, he would have had two possibilities to choose from, both plausible. But guessing wrong would have resulted in a crash.

But I won't fly more often until this sh*t is corrected. Stop killing people. How many other industries get this lee-way?

Oh, I don't know. The car industry? The gun industry? The cigarette industry? The liquor industry? The drug industry? The hospital industry?

But forget the illogic there. You do know that you're thousands and thousands of times more likely to die because you don't exercise and eat right than you would be if you got on a plane every day of the year?

So let's add the food "industry" to others that get the "lee-way" (sic) to "kill people".

But then you go on:

I want to go to Europe. I've been to there at the risk of my life seven times. I want to go more often. I don't want to go at the risk of my life.

The only rational response to this is to construct a similar sentence which actually includes a risky activity (unlike yours):

I want to drive to the store. I've been there at the risk of my life once a week for years. I want to go more often. I don't want to go at the risk of my life.