OK...

So according to the TSB report, did the stall occour before
the 1st impact (on the rny and the nose gear failing) or before the
2nd impact after climbing again?

The Emergency crews indicated the next day, and it was still
visible) , the skidoo track was continuous from the rny to the
trees... although the engine thrust could have made the track as
well, it was not as well defined the following day, in daylight....

Although I can stand corrected, as my info is from the guys
on the response crew (known to me) the following day, I have not seen
the whole report...

(Fredericton is my home base airport)

Thanks!


Dave


On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 21:00:13 -0400, nobody wrote:

Dave wrote:
Coming out of a very low (legal) ceiling, the rny was not
directly under the a/c, and the crew tried to correct laterally and
doing so, the decent rate increased. They started the go around to
late, the AC slammed down on the rny hard, the nose gear ripping the
control functions as it rammed vertically up through the floor
above.

The TSB report clearly stated that the pilots initiated a go around WITHOUT
LANDING, with airspeed that would have required landing before speed was high
enough to climb again. Upon starting to climb again, the skidoo did regain
some altitude before stalling, after which it fell to the ground where its
recessive skidoo genes became dominant again.

One problem is that the flight director had not been programmed to handle such
a situation, neither had Bombardier foreseen/simulated situations such as
those. While the FO (PIC) was trying to climb according to normal climb rates
provided by the flight director, the captain did not realise that the newbie
co-pilot wasn't aware of the very low airspeed.