I guess my +1 knew someone on the flight--a friend's father. Not sure how much she knew him, but it sounds like she had been to his house a few years ago.

If anyone wants more detailed info, let me know. As I stated earlier, I live in a BUF suburb (and lived 4 miles from the airport from birth until I was 22). My sister-in-law lives 1/2 mile from the crash site, so I know this area like the back of my hand. Also, we are getting better info here than what you are hearing on the national news.

A friend of a friend lives across the street from the crash site and saw the crash. He said the plane was on fire before it hit the ground. Also, the woman whose home was hit was interviewed on the local radio station, and she said she heard people crying after the plane hit, so people were still alive. Sorry to be gruesome, but others have suggested the passengers were already dead when the plane hit, and that clearly was not the case.

Anything else you want to know, I can probably provide better info...

That's new information. Does you friend have a better description?

sunnyjl,

You name me a famous aircraft accident and I can almost guarantee that there will be a half dozen witnesses who swear they saw the plane on fire or that there was a large explosion inflight....and 99% of the time they always wrong. BTW, numerous witnesses in the recent USAirways ditching claimed the plane was on fire. Witnesses to aviation accidents are notoriously unreliable. That doesn't mean that the NTSB doesn't want to hear from them, but in many cases they simply don't provide useful information because they have preconceived ideas of what makes a plane crash. Many people are convinced that when an aircraft engine catches fire, the plane immediately plummets out of the sky (not to mention that engines rarely ever catch fire). Say the word 'stall' in regards to aviation and most people are convinced that it means the engine stopped working.





I haven't read that anywhere. What I have read in numerous accounts is that the owner of the house, Karen Wielinski , heard her daughter Jill who also survived, crying and screaming hysterically. Numerous accounts also report that neighbors were instantly on the scene crying and screaming for help and to "call 911". In any case, I'm sure you know that the NTSB has something called a Survival Factors Group that will forensically look at victims to determine whether any survived the accident and/or what can be done in the future to make that type of accident more survivable. If someone survived, it will be in the report. In the meantime, several posters to this thread have mentioned that they knew someone on board so I don't see how you're helping by posting unsubtantiated rumors as fact.

No, I don't think you can. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are just trying to be helpful. Further, there's nothing wrong with suggesting theories or possibilities about the causes or results of the accident. There are numerous "What might have happened" threads on the several Airline Pilot Boards that I participate in. However, we clearly differentiate between what is fact and what is supposition or theory. You're not providing 'info', you're providing rumor and posting it as fact.

These reports are inconsistent with both the identification of icing as a primary factor and the established angle of intercept with the ground. The impact was probably not survivable.

In a Dash8-Q400 ?

The much higher than normal speeds on landing.
The way they sometimes slam into the runway as if they missed the 50 foot countdown. Thankfully I don't fly SAS and the undercarriage holds up, even when it bottoms out.
The one wheel touch and goes
The general buffeting

In comparison I have flown the same route many times in 195s, 737s RJ100s RJ145s, with no undue worries.

Sounds like some crappy landings to me!

The general buffeting is due to the use of the 35 degree flap setting which allows for a slower approach speed, but causes the unsettling vibrations you are referring to.

As for the higher than normal speeds on landing, unless the pilots are flying well above their target speed, which may be the company procedure to prevent any windsheer upsets, the landing speed of the Q400 is pretty much the same as the other aircraft you listed, unless it is very lightly loaded, then the speed is actually slower.

I still think crosswind landings are fun!

Checko

50 people just died - we should have that in context

Apparently the angle of intercept with the ground is not yet established, per this afternoon's news conference.

Before I knew the reason for the occasional speeding up on approach, the speed itself made me nervous because it was unusual to me and without explanation.

Once I got explanation, it made me more nervous because frankly windsheer is scary to me.

Neither of these may be entirely rational, but neither am I.

Perhaps not precisely. But as the aircraft destroyed one and only one house and the wreckage footprint is compact, it clearly impacted at an acute angle with traumatic immediate / total deceleration. Unsurvivable.

I've been following this thread since it first started, so thanks to everyone for the great insight and quick information.

I know the media is not the best at reporting sudden and tragic news events, but this is interesting:

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/587842

From the article above:

This is utter garbage and a complete misinterpretation.

To add further point about the plane being found not to have been in a nosedive, Bloomberg reports this:

I just heard on TV that it was not in a nose dive when it hit. It hit on it's belly.