Friday, 13 February 2009 Continental Flight 3407 Crashes near Buffalo quote [ Continental Flight 3407 from Newark, New Jersey, carrying 48 passengers ] Reports are all passengers and staff lost, along with someone on the ground. [by sythe@5:12amGMT] [+10 Informative]

mwoody said @ 5:18am GMT on 13th Feb [Score:1] No upmod please, just copying-pasting text from the link since it doesn't like noScript. (CNN) -- A Continental Airlines plane crashed in suburban Buffalo, New York, late Thursday with 48 people aboard, according to authorities. Flight 3407, operated by Colgan Air, was en route from Newark, New Jersey, when it went down in Clarence Center, said Bill Peat with New York State Emergency Management in Albany. The plane crashed about 10:20 p.m., hitting a home and bursting into a fireball, according to New York State Trooper John Manthey. The crash took place about seven miles from Buffalo Niagara International Airport. Video Watch video from CNN affiliate WGRZ » Area resident Keith Burtis said he was driving to the store about a mile from the crash site when he heard the plane go down. "It was a high-pitched sound," Burtis said. "It felt like a mini-earthquake." Shortly after the crash, Burtis said he saw a steady stream of fire trucks rush by him as smoke billowed into the sky. Are you on the scene? Let us know Continental Airlines confirmed that the Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 was operating between Newark Liberty International Airport and Buffalo. The National Transportation Safety Board said early Friday that is was preparing a "go team" to head to Buffalo to investigate the crash. The aircraft has seating capacity of 74, officials said. There was a light mix of snow and sleet at the time of the crash, officials said. Officials said relatives of passengers aboard the flight should call 1-800-621-3263 for information. At this time, officials said they are not concerned about a hazardous materials situation on the ground.

EPT said @ 5:58am GMT on 13th Feb I like NoScript, it really shows some interesting ways to make the webbernet break. It also shows some weak points in webpage design (not that I'm a designer).

mwoody said @ 7:00am GMT on 13th Feb Yeah, if I show up to a website and it's just a blank page or random garbage w/noScript turned on, I know immediately that it's going to be a shitty page. It's an excellent way to get a generally accurate first impression of a company/site.

max_damage78 said @ 7:42pm GMT on 13th Feb [Score:1 Informative] What? They guy asked for "no upmod", I only evened things out. sheesh.

mwoody said @ 11:23pm GMT on 13th Feb +1 now don't you feel guilty

j5 said @ 5:47am GMT on 13th Feb i hate flying.

leezurd said @ 5:48am GMT on 13th Feb i hat crashing.

leezurd said @ 5:50am GMT on 13th Feb HATE! I "HATE" cra.... Oh, nevermind.

Dissonant said @ 3:43am GMT on 14th Feb [Score:1 Underrated] My hat of crashign know no limit.

firebomrr7 said @ 5:56am GMT on 13th Feb this is really sad.

f00m@nB@r said @ 5:59am GMT on 13th Feb

snowfox said @ 6:00am GMT on 13th Feb I have a flight next Monday. This reminds me to get more anxiety pills.

Nostrildamus said @ 6:07am GMT on 13th Feb These recent crashes actually make it statistically less likely that you will experience one yourself.

yevishere said @ 6:13am GMT on 13th Feb [Score:5 Insightful] Law of independent probabilities shows that you are wrong.

pays4porn said @ 6:27am GMT on 13th Feb [Score:1 Interesting] On the other hand there are more air crashes during a recession. This is caused buy things like deferred maintenance. However car crashes go down as the unemployment rate goes up with r~=8.5. What I am trying to say is the probabilities of accidents are not independent.

pays4porn said @ 6:28am GMT on 13th Feb umm. r~=0.85 Off by a factor of ten? what am I an idiot?

brat#3 said @ 6:30am GMT on 13th Feb [Score:3 Funny] well you do pay for porn...

yevishere said @ 6:40am GMT on 13th Feb Certainly the events might not be independent, but that just might make it worse if they are now more likely to happen.

sacrelicious said @ 7:05am GMT on 13th Feb I pay for my porn in ejaculate. I'd pay my rent that way too, but my landlord got kinda upset last time I tried that.

Naruki said @ 1:08pm GMT on 13th Feb I pay for my porn in rape dollars. Now bend over and I'll make you rich!

falloutboy79 said @ 1:41pm GMT on 13th Feb Geez, I had the perfect formula to predict your flight but I burned it and drilled a hole in my temple with a drill. me so sorry.

maryyugo said @ 3:55pm GMT on 13th Feb "there are more air crashes during a recession. " data or stfu (it could be but probably not significant or demonstrable)

snowfox said @ 6:27am GMT on 13th Feb The continuation of harsh north-eastern weather conditions indicates that he is wrong...

ckfahrenheit said @ 7:39am GMT on 13th Feb [Score:1 Insightful] well -- there's less planes now...

shiney things said @ 2:32pm GMT on 13th Feb It doesn't apply when you're trying to reassure someone against something unpredictable.

Misanthrope said @ 8:58am GMT on 14th Feb Only if said thing is unavoidable.

horseinsheep said @ 12:05pm GMT on 13th Feb That's called the Gambler's Fallacy.

Tirade said @ 12:58pm GMT on 13th Feb Luck has no memory.

donnie said @ 1:05pm GMT on 13th Feb Unless you're Monty Hall.

Naruki said @ 1:18pm GMT on 13th Feb DOOR 1 1 2 3? 1 -> [Monty cuts 2] 1 3? 1 = WIN 1 3? 3 = LOSE 1 2 3? 1 -> [Monty cuts 3] 1 2? 1 = WIN 1 2? 2 = LOSE 1 2 3? 2 -> [Monty cuts 3] 1 2? 1 = WIN 1 2? 2 = LOSE [Monty cannot cut 1] 1 2 3? 3 -> [Monty cuts 2] 1 3? 1 = WIN 1 3? 3 = LOSE [Monty cannot cut 1] So, if DOOR 1 is the correct door, then 50% of the time you will win by switching, 50% of the time you will lose by switching. Adding the possibilities for the other 2 doors will not affect this in the slightest. The "correct" and counter-intuitive solution of "always switch" is bullshit. It's flipping a coin.

donnie said @ 1:44pm GMT on 13th Feb Dude, even knowing the right answer you get it wrong. This is hilarious.

Naruki said @ 10:53pm GMT on 13th Feb Being on the opposite side of a mathematical argument from donnie gives me confidence in my position. This mathtard can't tell the difference between mean and average. :-)

Jewbacchus said @ 3:45pm GMT on 13th Feb It's not too difficult to have a computer simulate this for you and prove you're wrong.

Naruki said @ 10:49pm GMT on 13th Feb [Score:-1 Bad] I just wrote out every possible combination for one door. The other two doors have the exact same number of possibilities. It's exactly 50/50. Your computer program won't alter that unless you write it incorrectly. The cognitive problem is that you think there is a 3 to 1 choice, even though we know beforehand that an invalid door will be eliminated -- meaning it's always a 50/50 choice.

donnie said @ 10:56pm GMT on 13th Feb

Narzuuuuki said @ 11:06pm GMT on 13th Feb That only works with cups, with doors it'd be 50/50.;)

donnie said @ 11:15pm GMT on 13th Feb It's funny because the second after I posted that I regretted not putting in a caveat about the distinction between cups and doors.

donnie said @ 11:24pm GMT on 13th Feb Monty Hall is also a professional starcraft map - three corridors between you and your opponent which each of you can choose to open up...from your end.

Naruki said @ 8:51am GMT on 14th Feb [Score:1 WTF] Well, if the Statistics Nazis will stop revenge modding me for a second, I'll point out why your graphic fails.

donnie said @ 11:51am GMT on 14th Feb There, despite your own rabid and reactionary flair for arbitrarily downmodding me, I give you a free +1 to please continue - enlighten us. If you dare.

Naruki said @ 12:01pm GMT on 14th Feb Despite your false characterization of my modding habits, I accept. You missed a column. When following ALL branches of probability, you cannot arbitrarily ignore ones that are not to your liking. There are 4 columns, not 3. Compare with my original comment to find the missing column, and see how your 2:1 scenario becomes 2:2.

donnie said @ 12:23pm GMT on 14th Feb Um, no. Figure it out.

donnie said @ 12:24pm GMT on 14th Feb You're basically saying, in stating that there should be four columns, that the probability of picking the diamond is 50-50 to begin with - two cases where you've made the correct choice and two cases where you've chosen one of the other two cups.

donnie said @ 12:28pm GMT on 14th Feb To explain further - once you've already chosen the diamond, an event with a 1/3 probability, Monty has two choices available to him which are isomorphic. He either removes cup 2 or cup 3. From the players perspective, it doesn't matter which he choses because they are identical and interchangeable. Regardless of his choice, the outcome is the same - if you switch, you lose, if you don't, you win.

donnie said @ 12:37pm GMT on 14th Feb

Omegaphobic said @ 1:09pm GMT on 14th Feb Not having encountered this before, I was initially inclined to side with Naruki and say that the entire first choice was irrelevant as one of the false choices was being eliminated automatically, reducing it to 50/50. However, after considering it for a while and heating up my brain I worked out the flaw in that. It's that your initial choice of door/cup is locked after step one and cannot be eliminated by the host. It's not really correct to say that this represents an exception to probabilities not carrying a 'memory', however, as the rules of the selection mean that the final outcome isn't determined until all the steps are completed - and each time the entire process was repeated, the outcome would be equally random and the odds would always be 2/3 success if you switch. Picture it like this, Naruki: You are a blind man being offered an apple from a fruit bowl. You are told that of the 3 apples in the bowl, 2 are green and 1 is red. You know that eating a green apple will give you a stomach ache. You also know that your host will only eat green apples. You get to take an apple out of the bowl first, out of courtesy. You don't know what colour it is. Your host then gets to take one of the 2 remaining apples. You know that he will always take a green one. This means that the choices break down as follows: RED - you GREEN - host GREEN - bowl GREEN - you GREEN - host RED - bowl GREEN - you GREEN - host RED - bowl Because you've got a 2/3 chance of picking the green apple initially, and you know the host will remove another green one, the apple left in the bowl will be 2/3 likely to be the red one. Your best option to make sure you get the red apple is to politely swap the apple you've been holding for the one remaining in the bowl.

donnie said @ 1:34pm GMT on 14th Feb Aye : step one, you probably choose wrong. step two, he definitely chooses wrong. step three - what's left is probably win.

sythe said @ 2:25pm GMT on 14th Feb Even though the logical side of my brain has always understood the concept and the math behind this situation, the rest of my brain is all like "Fuck you, I'm not switching because of your lame little numbers".

donnie said @ 2:48pm GMT on 14th Feb Perhaps I could interest you in some choice investment opportunities...

mrcucumber said @ 4:10pm GMT on 14th Feb Now that attitude is exactly what makes free markets in desperate need of regulation. You want to capitalize on possible ignorance.

donnie said @ 8:18pm GMT on 14th Feb Actually, I wanted only to make a joke. At any rate - cheats, grudgers and suckers - read about them.

mrcucumber said @ 11:29pm GMT on 14th Feb I think you've exhausted the let me google that for you. I won't even bother with it now.

donnie said @ 11:32pm GMT on 14th Feb but it's so fun

spite48 said @ 4:21am GMT on 16th Feb The logical part of my brain says, why the fuck do I trust this Monty guy to actually remove what he says he's going to remove?

benjamander said @ 4:11pm GMT on 13th Feb [Score:1 Insightful] TRUE FALSE FALSE pick one. Odds of FALSE with first choice are 2/3, i.e. greater than %50. Do you deny it? I take away one FALSE, leaving one TRUE and one FALSE. The question is no longer about probability(<-- important part), the question is whether you will NEGATE YOUR CHOICE. Either you have chosen FALSE and switching will give you TRUE, or you have chosen TRUE and switching will give you FALSE. If the odds of choosing FALSE on the first try are greater than %50, i.e. 2/3, it is in your best interest to NEGATE your first choice.

f00m@nB@r said @ 4:41pm GMT on 13th Feb precisely: switching doors means switching your winning probability from 1/3 to 1/2.

benjamander said @ 5:24pm GMT on 13th Feb [Score:1 Underrated] from 1/3 to 2/3.

f00m@nB@r said @ 4:51am GMT on 14th Feb /me fail

Naruki said @ 10:51pm GMT on 13th Feb [Score:-1 WTF] TRUE FALSE FALSE pick one. Odds of FALSE with first choice are 2/3, i.e. greater than %50. Do you deny it? Absolutely, since we have been told that one of the falses will be eliminated for free, guaranteed. It only looks like 3 to 1 because there are 3 items. It's really 2 to 1.

donnie said @ 10:55pm GMT on 13th Feb Nope, keep grinding that grey matter, though, you'll get there.

randomaction said @ 10:13pm GMT on 13th Feb [Score:1 Underrated] The probability of winning by switching then reduces to the probability of picking the wrong door in the initial stage which is clearly 2/3.

Aidentas said @ 10:58pm GMT on 13th Feb [Score:1 Informative] I'll just leave this here. Monty Hall problem

-_- said @ 11:08pm GMT on 13th Feb

maryyugo said @ 3:54pm GMT on 13th Feb [Score:-1 Flamebait] "These recent crashes actually make it statistically less likely that you will experience one yourself. <" a truly stupendously idiotic and ignorant conclusion. from what do you get this brilliant information?

randomaction said @ 10:11pm GMT on 13th Feb ...flight and ground crews being extra careful for a few weeks following? I don't think anyone is claiming you should bet black after a string of reds on a fair roulette wheel.

maryyugo said @ 12:20am GMT on 14th Feb nah

Tang said @ 7:29am GMT on 13th Feb [Score:1 Funny] Good news! It's a suppository

Rainbow Randolf said @ 6:14am GMT on 13th Feb When you said "along with someone on the ground." I immediately thought "How unlucky do you have to be to have a plane land on your freakin' head?!"

mwoody said @ 7:13am GMT on 13th Feb [Score:2] I actually saw a small commuter plane crash (or, more specifically, make a very unscheduled landing) about a year ago. Was sitting at a stoplight when a plane almost clipped the light pole, heading in the perpendicular direction. After a stunned moment, we turned the corner and got there just in time to see it stop. The pilot, out of fuel (as we would later learn), had made an emergency landing in the street. But he bounced off the top of a minivan in the process. No one was hurt, but we did learn that even with a very small plane and eight burly bystanders, moving an aircraft out of the road manually just isn't even remotely possible. The pilot was sort of a dick, too. When we showed up, he was on his cell phone telling some buddy he'd gone down. It wasn't a good five minutes or so after he'd "landed," having finished his phone call, that he even asked who he'd hit. I took great pleasure, disliking as I did his attitude, pointing to the woman and her two young daughters hugging each other and crying next to their ruined vehicle, all three holding Labrador puppies. "Awwww, shit." In retrospect, the woman's cellphone call to her husband was pretty hilarious. "A plane hit us. A plane. No, we were in our car. We're ok. A plane. It landed on us. In the car! Look, we were driving and a plane landed on us! Alright, I'll explain when you get here, just please pick us up."

mwoody said @ 7:14am GMT on 13th Feb Sorry, I should clarify, it was a two-seater prop plane, not a commuter flight. I mistakenly used that term to mean "small," realizing after I'd hit post that it means something more literal.

donnie said @ 10:29am GMT on 13th Feb Yeah, commercial pilots almost without exception project the epitome of congeniality. They would certainly be most immediately concerned with the welfare and safety of any people in the vicinity.

maryyugo said @ 3:56pm GMT on 13th Feb commercial pilots don't usually run out of fuel... private pilots, on the other hand...

ComposerNate said @ 12:36pm GMT on 13th Feb [Score:1 WTF]

-_- said @ 5:01pm GMT on 13th Feb

extrakiss said @ 7:04am GMT on 13th Feb no it's more like 50 random people dead.

klingon_fodder said @ 2:07pm GMT on 13th Feb i never liked buffalo anyway

donnie said @ 9:50am GMT on 13th Feb "The pilot's last comment was "Colgan Flight 3407."" Erm, no, that was the pilot identifying who he was, after his last comment. Would be nice to know what he said just before that...

donnie said @ 10:26am GMT on 13th Feb Ice may have been a factor Plausible, I suppose, if the de-icing system was not on or was damaged.

maryyugo said @ 3:53pm GMT on 13th Feb or maybe they meant "it was a little piece of ass"... can't be sure with that southern accent.

donnie said @ 9:53pm GMT on 13th Feb Ice seems to have definitely been what it was.

-_- said @ 11:04pm GMT on 13th Feb

maryyugo said @ 3:57pm GMT on 13th Feb actually her call sign was her last transmission, acknowledging hand off to the tower. i heard it this morning on a newscast.

donnie said @ 4:05pm GMT on 13th Feb My point is that the callsign follows every communication given by the pilot and gives no clue as to what was actually the last thing said.

maryyugo said @ 12:21am GMT on 14th Feb she just said something like "ok" or what she said was before she keyed the mike and said her call sign. listen to it. it was very brief.

maryyugo said @ 12:22am GMT on 14th Feb and of course, the transmission immediately before gave the clue-- "contact tower, etc."

donnie said @ 11:53am GMT on 14th Feb In retrospect we know this. I was talking about the original article. You're not following, it's ok.

3bop said @ 1:34pm GMT on 13th Feb Another year of plane crashes? I suppose next year will be roller coaster accidents.

ComposerNate said @ 1:52pm GMT on 13th Feb And the year after, electric car crashes.

donnie said @ 1:58pm GMT on 13th Feb This was a freak accident. '09 will definitely be the year of stock market crashes.

klingon_fodder said @ 2:06pm GMT on 13th Feb they're all freak accidents, the freakier the better

donnie said @ 2:12pm GMT on 13th Feb I suppose you're right. It would be rather disconcerting if the pilot simply succumbed to the voices telling him that he should dive the plane into the houses... RIGHT NOW.

ring riot said @ 2:38pm GMT on 13th Feb One of the victims was a 9/11 widow who lobbied Congress to reform Intelligence practices. Sad. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/13/beverly-eckert-continenta_n_166679.html

lilmookieesquire said @ 3:30pm GMT on 13th Feb I always feel sorriest for the bastards on the ground that get it. What a shitty way to go. They didn't even get on the plane.

sythe said @ 3:55pm GMT on 13th Feb Now just imagine if that person had refused to fly all their life because they were worried they'd die in a crash.

Jewbacchus said @ 4:52pm GMT on 13th Feb Happened to my cousin Walter.

animus kadmon said @ 6:08pm GMT on 13th Feb Jesus *Christ*, man! There's just some things you don't talk about in public!

Bodnoirbabe said @ 7:17pm GMT on 13th Feb [Score:1 Insightful] You see that, Alanis?!? See? Now THAT is irony.

tamp said @ 9:15pm GMT on 13th Feb Alanis is God-Dess, I think shes Mad, shes so ironic beautiful when shes mad...

fz75 said @ 3:28am GMT on 14th Feb Regardless of the final outcome, CNN has been doing a rather scientific journal report so far. Wondering what caused the change,...

maryyugo said @ 5:59am GMT on 14th Feb interesting stats: the captain was 27 years old and the copilot was 24. it doesn't take all that much to get an air transport pilot certificate and then a few years as copilot and you're in charge. pure conjecture but maybe a more experienced pilot would have been able to save the bacon if indeed it was icing that caused the problem. well... it will be months or years to complete the investigation. ntsb is very careful and complete.

donnie said @ 12:50pm GMT on 14th Feb I don't know - they had blackbox data the next (same?) day. The question in my mind is - when did the pilot turn on the anti-ice system? It sounds like either it was broken or he waited too long before realising he needed it.

donnie said @ 1:04pm GMT on 14th Feb I almost have to suspect that the system was broken, to be honest, because the Dash-8s are such tough and well designed planes - they're really made to fly in all sorts of freezing conditions. I fly in them pretty often and, of that, pretty often in really shitty weather - snow, cold mist, ice, rain. Scandinavian Airlines and Air Canada use them a lot because they're so good in that sort of weather.

donnie said @ 1:11pm GMT on 14th Feb Dash-8 - the plane of choice for the worst icing conditions.

sythe said @ 2:29pm GMT on 14th Feb I'm pretty sure I read somewhere recently that Scandinavian Air recently grounded ALL of their Dash-8s because people were refusing to fly on them.

donnie said @ 2:49pm GMT on 14th Feb I think that was maintenance issues with Scandinavian rather than problems with the planes.

donnie said @ 2:54pm GMT on 14th Feb That also seemed to be an issue with the landing gear specifically on the Q-400 and not all Dash-8s. The Dash-8 series has been flown for decades and has an exceptional safety record.

maryyugo said @ 6:00pm GMT on 14th Feb well, the obvious clue is that the plane fell out of the sky shortly after the gear was lowered and immediately upon the flaps being set to 15 degrees. i suppose eventually it will be known if the deicing system failed though there is very little of the aircraft that didn't burn up so a determination may be impossible... and even if there was icing, and the deicing gear was not working, could the pilots have realized it, given sufficient experience, and have mitigated the problem and made some sort of acceptable emergency landing somewhere?

donnie said @ 11:48pm GMT on 14th Feb Hard to say. A problem with the landing gear wouldn't have made them fall out of the sky, at any rate.

maryyugo said @ 8:09pm GMT on 14th Feb seems i was wrong about the captain's age -- he was 47 not 27 according to an nyt article. the article also noted: "The captain, Marvin Renslow, 47, had been working for Colgan since Sept. 9, 2005, but had only recently begun to fly the Dash 8 Q400. The first officer, Rebecca Shaw, 24, joined Colgan on Jan. 16, 2008." and... "Both the airplane and the airline have had safety issues over the years, but whether any of them bear any relationship to the crash is unclear. Federal Aviation Administration records show that Colgan paid three penalties totaling $20,521 in 2005 and 2007 for maintenance, flight operations and drug-testing violations. In 2005, the safety board found loose rivets in the tail elevator in a different model of small plane that Colgan flies; the Dash 8 also has had landing-gear problems." from here.

donnie said @ 8:08pm GMT on 15th Feb I didn't say so earlier, but the thought crossed my mind that the flight may have been (stupidly) on autopilot and tracking the ILS on arrival - seems it was. If you start to lose lift due to ice, the autopilot won't always behave properly and sometimes will completely stall the aircraft trying to pull up. If the set airspeed is not enough to maintain lift, which ice would of course frustrate, then the plane will just fall out of the sky, which it seems to have done.

[note: if you are replying to a specific comment, then click the reply link on that comment instead]

You must be logged in to comment on posts.