Skip to Main Content
FlightPushFLIGHTPUSH
NTSB Safety Recommendations

Learn

Dashboard My Courses Mastery Map Practice Flight Bag

Resources

CFR & AIM FAA Orders Handbooks & Guides Certification Standards Pilot/Controller Glossary Advisory Circulars Legal Interpretations
Safety Center
Articles Trust Center
Help Center FAQ Status
  1. Safety Center
  2. NTSB Safety Recommendations
  3. NTSB A-12-024
Loading
flightpush.co home

NTSB · Safety Recommendation

Safety Recommendation A-12-024

Recommendation

TO THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION: Require that Avions de Transport Régional (ATR) 42-series airplanes operating in the United States incorporate a revised stick pusher activation angle of attack (AOA), such that the stick pusher activates before the stall AOA in the presence of airframe ice accretions.

Safety Issue and Context

On January 27, 2009, about 0437 central standard time, an Avions de Transport Regional (ATR) Aerospatiale Alenia ATR 42-320 (ATR 42), N902FX, operating as Empire Airlines flight 8284, was on an instrument approach when it crashed short of the runway at Lubbock Preston Smith International Airport, Lubbock, Texas. The captain sustained serious injuries, and the first officer sustained minor injuries. The airplane was substantially damaged. The airplane was registered to FedEx Corporation and operated by Empire Airlines, Inc., as a 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 121 supplemental cargo flight. The flight departed from Fort Worth Alliance Airport, Fort Worth, Texas, about 0313.

Instrument meteorological conditions prevailed, and an instrument flight rules flight plan was filed.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined that the probable cause of this accident was the flight crew's failure to monitor and maintain a minimum safe airspeed while executing an instrument approach in icing conditions, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall at low altitude.

Contributing to the accident were 1) the flight crew's failure to follow published standard operating procedures in response to a flap anomaly, 2) the captain's decision to continue with the unstabilized approach, 3) the flight crew's poor crew resource management, and 4) fatigue due to the time of day in which the accident occurred and a cumulative sleep debt, which likely impaired the captain's performance.

Additional review of the stall protection system in the accident airplane and the events leading to the stall in this accident prompted the NTSB to make the following recommendations.

Response History

February 10, 2015 · NTSB Correspondence · FAA

We note that, in icing conditions, the ATR-42’s stick pusher activation AOA is set in accordance with applicable requirements. However, our concern is that these requirements do not ensure that the stick pusher provides adequate stall protection. Unlike the stick shaker, the stick pusher’s activation AOA does not change when the ice protection system is engaged and, as a result, may not offer stall protection when the airplane encounters icing conditions. We believe that the unsafe condition that was identified and used as justification for reducing the stick shaker’s activation AOA in icing conditions could similarly be used to reduce that of the stick pusher in the same conditions.

We point out that several airplanes, including the ATR 72, lower the trigger AOA for both stick shaker and stick pusher in the presence of ice to preserve the AOA margin between stick shaker and stick pusher. We are aware that, for the ATR 42-series and other older design airplanes, other mitigations are in place to provide stall protection in icing conditions. However, we continue to believe that a stick pusher design that accounts for and activates before the reduced stall AOA in icing conditions would enhance the safety of the flight, especially when pilots are operating at low altitudes.

We do not agree that low-speed alerting constitutes an effective solution for the problem in icing conditions, although it may be an effective safety enhancement for preventing low airspeed loss of control. However, because you indicated that your actions in response to Safety Recommendations A-12-24 and -25 are complete, the recommendations are classified CLOSED—UNACCEPTABLE ACTION.

November 18, 2014 · Recipient Response · FAA

-From Michael P. Huerta, Administrator: After seeking information from ATR, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) determined that the A TR-42 met the stall identification requirements of§§ 25.201 and 25.203

Read Recommendation

Recommendation Facts

Status
Closed - Unacceptable Action
Issued
June 26, 2012
Priority
CLASS II
Recipient
FAA
Adopted
May 18, 2012
Closed
February 10, 2015
Related Investigation
CEN09MA142
Related Report
AAR-11-02
in icing conditions with the same stick pusher activation angle of attack used for non-icing conditions. Compliance with
§§ 25.201 and 25.203
was demonstrated in flight tests with simulated ice accretions as well as in natural icing conditions.

Based on the information above, we conclude that the A TR-42 series airplane's stick pusher activation angle of attack in icing conditions was adequately set in accordance with applicable requirements. In order for the FAA to require A TR to revise the stick pusher activation angle-of-attack for icing conditions, the FAA would need to identify an associated unsafe condition that would be corrected by such a change. We concluded that this is not the case. As a result, the FAA will not require ATR to revise the stick pusher activation angle-of-attack in the presence of airframe ice accretion.

I believe the FAA has effectively addressed this safety recommendation and consider our actions complete.

January 11, 2013 · NTSB Correspondence · FAA

We note that the FAA is working with the ATR and the European Aviation Safety Authority to determine the appropriate actions in response to this recommendation. We look forward to learning more about the FAA’s progress in addressing this recommendation, including the outcome of its September 2012 meeting with the ATR. Pending our receipt and review of this information and a plan for action that will satisfy Safety Recommendation A 12 24, the recommendation is classified OPEN—ACCEPTABLE RESPONSE.

September 24, 2012 · Recipient Response · FAA

-From Michael P. Huerta, Acting Administrator: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is seeking information from the aircraft manufacturer, ATR, and the European Aviation Safety Authority (EASA) to determine the appropriate actions in response to this safety recommendation. The FAA engineering staff has a meeting with ATR scheduled for September 2012 to further discuss this recommendation, and we expect to gather the necessary information by November 2012.

I will keep the Board informed of the FAA's progress on these safety recommendations and provide an update by October 2013.