RevJim 0 #26 June 15, 2005 Also, that news article states that they committed violations before the crash. Hmmm, they don't list any legal violations, at all. What they do list are violations of company policy. Sure, that's enough to get fired (if they had survived), but not anything that's going to get them a fine (or whatever) from the FAA. p.s. I'd like to know why they were unable to restart engines that were supposed to be restartable if they stalled at high altitude, after FOUR attempts.It's your life, live it! Karma RB#684 "Corcho", ASK#60, Muff#3520, NCB#398, NHDZ#4, C-33989, DG#1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #27 June 15, 2005 QuoteThe final line in this source http://yahoo.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-06-13-pilot-violations_x.htm?csp=1 says the following: "After reaching that height, they joked about celebrating with a beer. Within three minutes, they had lost so much speed that the jet plunged out of control. The loss of control was so violent it snuffed out the engines. " I don't know sweet shit about airplanes other than they get me to where I want to jump out so I am adding this to the conversation only as more information.... They joked about celebrating with a beer?!?!?!?! Dig the bastards up and hang em! jen----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
panzwami 0 #28 June 15, 2005 Quote They joked about celebrating with a beer?!?!?!?! Dig the bastards up and hang em! please tell me you're not serious... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #29 June 15, 2005 I can't understand why the couldn't get an engine re-lit. Sure, they flamed out and stalled, but there should have been a chance to recover. Perhaps they went into a flat spin. Pretty hard to get out of that box. mh ."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rebecca 0 #30 June 15, 2005 QuoteQuote They joked about celebrating with a beer?!?!?!?! Dig the bastards up and hang em! please tell me you're not serious... You're not serious. (I read Jen's post as sarcastic. ) you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RevJim 0 #31 June 15, 2005 Exactly, Mark. QuoteJet engines are designed to restart if they stop at high altitude, but the General Electric jets apparently froze. The pilots attempted to restart the engines four times over 20 minutes without success. The GE engines are on 970 jets, including the Bombardier CRJ-100 and CRJ-200, popular regional jets. GE spokeswoman Deb Case said the engine met all federal standards and the company does not believe the engine has ever frozen in flight. It's your life, live it! Karma RB#684 "Corcho", ASK#60, Muff#3520, NCB#398, NHDZ#4, C-33989, DG#1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
panzwami 0 #32 June 15, 2005 Quote If what they did was nothing wrong...then why did it crash??? I understand that this was FAA says that 41,000 is ok...but they even said it themselves...it wasnt going to stay up there long...and it didnt...it crashed. Piss poor decisions were made. This came out as part of the NTSB hearing into this crash: -------- WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Air Line Pilots Association Executive Air Safety Chairman Capt. Terry McVenes issued the following statement after day one of the National Transportation Safety Board Public Hearing on the Pinnacle Airlines Flight 3701 accident that took place on Oct. 14, 2004, in Jefferson City, Mo. “The NTSB investigation makes it clear that if just one of the two stalled engines had restarted, this accident would never have occurred. The facts show that the pilots followed the proper procedures and attempted to restart their engines multiple times. But both engines failed to restart because they had suffered ‘core lock,’ a safety risk previously known only to engine and aircraft manufacturers until very recently--and about which the pilots knew nothing. While the FAA’s Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin issued on June 2, 2005 instructs pilots about how to avoid the ‘core lock’ danger, it comes far too late for our lost colleagues" -------- As he says, "The facts show that the pilots followed the proper procedures and attempted to restart their engines multiple times." They did everything they could to save the plane, but because of an equipment problem about which they knew absolutely nothing, they couldn't get the engines going again. That's why they crashed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
madscape 0 #33 June 15, 2005 I like when Darwin adds some pool-shock to the gene pool. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jasonRose 0 #34 June 15, 2005 Quote There was a known risk at that alti. This time they could have killed more then just themselves...they managed not to...thank god. There are known risks in every thing you do. It is up to you if you want to take them. They chose to and some things went wrong unfortunatly. You and I choose to skydive and some things could go wrong and we could have the same fate. Does this stop you from skydiving? You will probable say that it doesn't risk others. What if your canopy got caught on the wing with skydivers in the plane? You just put them at risk even if you did not intend to. Being a pilot as well I would say what happened on that flight could of happened to anyone. Would I react differntly with the knowledge of this, of course. Some day I will have the best staff in the world!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #35 June 15, 2005 QuoteSeriously that is sad going from a great time to fighting for your life.. Happens in skydiving in a second."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eeneR 1 #36 June 15, 2005 This is an interesting statment i found on airliners.net... QuoteDon't forget that this a/c was being ferried after having mechanical problems earler in that day. Going to the higher and near max certified altitude may have aggravaed the problems that happened earlier in the day. If it can be proven in audio or other recording devices of an intended decision of the pilots to go to max certified ceiling, a considerable risk with an a/c with mechanical problems and no reasonable proveable and independent mechanical problem, then probably 'pilot error' will become the main attributed cause of this crash. Just a good point and something that had not been mentioned before, as a plane can be ferried for many reasons not just mechanical.She is not a "Dumb Blonde" - She is a "Light-Haired Detour Off The Information Superhighway." eeneR TF#72, FB#4130, Incauto Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eeneR 1 #37 June 15, 2005 full transcripts are here.... http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/2005/Pinnacle/exhibits/CVR_Factual.pdfShe is not a "Dumb Blonde" - She is a "Light-Haired Detour Off The Information Superhighway." eeneR TF#72, FB#4130, Incauto Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akjmpplt 0 #38 June 15, 2005 Quote If what they did was nothing wrong...then why did it crash??? I understand that this was FAA says that 41,000 is ok...but they even said it themselves...it wasnt going to stay up there long...and it didnt...it crashed. Piss poor decisions were made. The fact that the airplane wouldn't stay at 41K has nothing to do with it crashing. It couldn't maintain altitude because it wasn't making enough power (due to the high altitude, just like a Cessna at 15K )to stay at that altitude. It crashed because the engines quit. Apples and oranges.SmugMug Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jasonRose 0 #39 June 15, 2005 QuoteQuoteSeriously that is sad going from a great time to fighting for your life.. Happens in skydiving in a second. Yes indeed!!!! Some day I will have the best staff in the world!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydvr737 0 #40 June 15, 2005 As a professional pilot having read this headline for one more time too many I have to point out that this is a perfect example of the press taking a situation it did does not understand and sensationalizing it. This is to the detriment of many hard working professional pilots including the ones in this accident. This serves no purpose but to get the uninformed public and the government in an uproar to have more rules to protect us from ourselves. I fly the corporate version of this airplane and fly at 41,000 ft on a regular basis. What happened was a chain of events any one which had it been taken away would have prevented this. Why was this airplane at 41,000 ft? Because it is certified to fly at that altitude but in everyday passenger carrying operations it probably isn't feasible to get to that altitude. If you are a pilot who has never flown that high before it is a pretty cool and safe thing to experience. Why did the engines quit? Nobody will know for sure until the NTSB studies all the data. It appears that either lack of training or lack of knowledge on the performance of this aircraft and its engines at high altitude was the problem. You wouldn't want someone without a lot of jumps using a 90 sq ft canopy if they wern't trained to know what to expect and how to fly the canopy and you were not confident they would be respectful of its limitations. Why wouldn't the engines restart? Again we won't know for sure until the NTSB gets all the data. However the engines should have restarted so the phenomenon of "core lock" which pilots operating this engine had never heard of before could have been the problem. The main issue for me is the non flying public and even pilots who have never flown similar aircraft in similar operations don't have a clue what they are talking about. Think about how it sounds when a skydiving accident gets sensationalized and some of the stupid things people say. This only hurts the sport and jeopardizes the freedom we have. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 5 #41 June 15, 2005 Quoteyeah, might want to keep in mind that 41,000 feet was within the FAA certified operating limits for this particular aircraft, meaning these guys weren't actually doing anything reckless. Yes they were. They were too heavy to climb that high. They did not check the charts to see if the conditions were ok to go that high. That IS reckless. They just assumed it and paid with their lives. Then they edit: did not follow the procedure correctly after the failure. It took about 20 minutes to descend from 41,000 and they covered about 100 miles. They crashed about 2-3 miles from my parents home in Jefferson City, MO. I also fly this same type of aircraft. I have read the whole CVR transcript that is available at the NTSB. I sat with my jaw on the floor as I read what was happening in that cockpit. Just before, during, and just after the engine flameout the pilots had switched seats. For what reason I haven't read yet. But this captain was not certified to fly this aircraft from the right seat. That was only one of many things that have me dismayed about this accident. I work for an airline other than this one.Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 5 #42 June 15, 2005 Why these engines wouldn't start again: The term "core-lock" is being thrown around. This is where after an engine flame out a very hot engine cooled very fast "locks" from rotating. Max operating temp on these engines is 874 Centigrade. One of the engines on this accident aircraft reached the neighborhood of 1700 C before flaming out. That's over doulbe it's max operating temp. And you expect it to come back from that? These guys noted several times that their airspeed was declining and did nothing until just before the stall to try and request a lower altitude to gain speed and keep flying. It's like seeing a jumper go "wooowhooo!" just as they snap that toggle hook at 100 feet. You know they're screwed but in that moment they can't see it themselves. The procedure for relighting an engine in flight while windmilling (using your forward speed to turn the engine) calls for a MINIMUM speed of 300 knots. The highest recorded airspeed was about 235 knots. Not even close. I don't see how ALPA can put out a statement saying they did it right. A bunch of pilots are debating this very issue on Flightinfo.com. It's a very ugly thing. People want to defend these guys because they were "nice guys". I'm sure they were. But they did something incredibly dumb and unprofessional. It wasn't their plane to go screwing around with. Just because there were no passengers on board does not absolve us from following company procedure when operating a 20 million dollar aircraft.Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skycat 0 #43 June 15, 2005 QuotePeople want to defend these guys because they were "nice guys". I'm sure they were. But they did something incredibly dumb and unprofessional. How many times have we seen that after a jumpship crash. Fly it like you stole it! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GravityGirl 0 #44 June 16, 2005 So they should have put the plane into a dive to increase speed to get the engines back? Sounds like something an inexperience pilot would shit a brick over. Someone with more experience might just "hook it". What are the minimum hours for hire at that airline? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Peace and Blue Skies! Bonnie ==>Gravity Gear! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #45 June 16, 2005 QuoteQuote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- People want to defend these guys because they were "nice guys". I'm sure they were. But they did something incredibly dumb and unprofessional. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How many times have we seen that after a jumpship crash. How many times have we gone through this after a bounce? "How dare you say "X" screwed up??? He was so nice" Nice people screw up. A nice person screwing up does not make them less nice, it just means they screwed up."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rookie120 0 #46 June 16, 2005 QuoteSo they should have put the plane into a dive to increase speed to get the engines back? Not necessarily a dive but increase rate of decent to get airspeed up.If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 5 #47 June 16, 2005 QuoteSo they should have put the plane into a dive to increase speed to get the engines back? Sounds like something an inexperience pilot would shit a brick over. Someone with more experience might just "hook it". What are the minimum hours for hire at that airline? The procedure says that you can not relight the engine above 21,000. So, they had some time to think about this from 41,000 to 21,000. We are supposed to hold a speed of about 240 knots to keep them windmilling which will keep the hydraulic pumps going in the engine. This plane is all about hydraulics to keep it flying in control. Then, when ready you have to increase the rate of descent (no, not pointing directly at the ground in a dive) to attain at least 300 knots. Then you are supposed to have the ignition on and bring the thrust levers to idle. This should light the engines and they are supposed to be started together. On the CVR it seems they chose to try and start only one engine at a time. Why? I don't know. It's another mystery that seems to only have an explanation of "inexperienced" attached to it. What are the hiring minimums at that airline? They were hiring first officers with 500 hours total time. That's right. The same TT necessary to get into a 182 and fly jumpers at most DZs. See the problem develop here? Now, because they don't have enough people to upgrade they hire "street captains" (people who are new to the company and go straight to the left seat of the plane). This crew was fairly inexperienced in this plane. But, it was all legal to the FAA. Really, no reg could have prevented them deciding to ignore performance charts and climb to an altitude they weren't capable of and then switch seats (just for fun) and fly at such a slow speed with complete disregard that they flamed out both engines. It wasn't physical skill lacking here it was judgement. Poor judgement in a high performance aircraft with a very critical swept wing and poor training totalled up into a crash that fortunately only took the lives of the crew and no one else.Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 6 #48 June 16, 2005 hold a speed of about 240 knots to keep them windmilling which will keep the hydraulic pumps going in the engine. This plane is all about hydraulics to keep it flying in control. *** Not familiar with the inner workings of said aircraft...but if the hubs were to lock up due to a tempature situation...is there a R.A.T.? ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 5 #49 June 16, 2005 Quotehold a speed of about 240 knots to keep them windmilling which will keep the hydraulic pumps going in the engine. This plane is all about hydraulics to keep it flying in control. *** Not familiar with the inner workings of said aircraft...but if the hubs were to lock up due to a tempature situation...is there a R.A.T.? Yep... we have an air driven generator ( I think that's what you were refering to). It just generates electrical power which just runs one AC Hydraulic pump. Not great but you have some pressure. In this accident it did auto deploy. But it's much better to have the engine driven pumps going providing hydraulic pressure. You have more control and you don't have to accelerate more. The book says to expect a 5,000 foot loss of altitude to accelerate from 240 to 300 knots. So you need to start your acceleration at 26,000 feet so you have the maximum relight envelope.Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MC208B 0 #50 June 16, 2005 These jerks overflew several suitable airports after the engines failed trying to make it to Jeff City. Brumley field at the lake of the Ozarks comes to mind (I worked there once). Maybe taking this plane to 41 grand was somewhat okay, but trying to make an airport 100 miles away while flying over several where they could have deadsticked it is just plain stupid-dude Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
