Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

NTSB Board Meeting for Pinnacle 3701

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Did you see that commercial during the big game last night? Where the ref comes out and makes that fake "penalty" announcement where he says "I totally goofed - I totally blew it - but I'll make it up in the 2nd half by randomly penalizing the other team to make it even" . . . and then it says "This fresh moment brought to you by Subway" or something like that.

I just wish the people here would give us a fresh moment like that and say "This crew totally blew it and it's their fault. You are now all excused."
 
This is by far the biggest event happening in the airline industry today and I'm surprised there hasn't been more reaction on this message board.
I didn't get a chance to catch all of it, but the conclusions I heard were not a much of a surprise. It was interesting that some of the NTSB board members didn't have even a basic understanding of how FOQA and ASAP worked. There were a couple of the board members actually wanted the FAA to force FOQA on all regionals (and majors as well).

I truly hope Jesse and Pete didn't die in vain. Hopefully there will be a genuine push for airlines to educate their pilots on the truth about high altitude areodynamics and find a way to create a cuture so our pilots fly professionally, even on part 91 flights.

I also hope GE starts determining the limits of their engines. I'm not excusing the way the airplane was operated, but from what I heard, no one knows precisely when the CF-34-3B1 engines will core lock and I would hate to find out the hard way. They owe it to all of us to test these engines and tell the airlines what to expect.

Anyone know when the blue cover report will be available? Let's learn from this.

Aloha.
 
I agree with you that I hope Jesse and Peter didn't die in vain. The unfortunate truth is that most regionals don't have an instructor that knows or understands high altitude aerodynamics well enough to teach it. That is what I have been told by one of our head instructors here.
 
I also hope GE starts determining the limits of their engines. I'm not excusing the way the airplane was operated, but from what I heard, no one knows precisely when the CF-34-3B1 engines will core lock and I would hate to find out the hard way. They owe it to all of us to test these engines and tell the airlines what to expect.

The engines were operated outside of their design envelope. The crew failed to maintain the minimum airspeed to keep the cores rotating. The crew failed to operate the aircraft in accordance with the flight manual.

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=87917438-e0b9-44b5-bc65-f40f4e5957aa&

the pilots' unprofessional behavior, deviation from standard operating procedures, and poor airmanship, which resulted in an in-flight emergency from which they were unable to recover, in part because of the pilots' inadequate training
the pilots' failure to prepare for an emergency landing in a timely manner, including communicating with air traffic controllers immediately after the emergency about the loss of both engines and the availability of landing sites
and the pilots' failure to achieve and maintain the target airspeed in the double engine failure checklist, which caused the engine cores to stop rotating and resulted in the core lock engine condition.
 
I just wish the people here would give us a fresh moment like that and say "This crew totally blew it and it's their fault. You are now all excused."

Well, here you go:

************************************************************
NTSB PRESS RELEASE
************************************************************

National Transportation Safety Board
Washington, DC 20594

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 9, 2007
SB-07-03

************************************************************

NTSB DETERMINES PILOTS' POOR AIRMANSHIP CAUSED 2004 PINNACLE
ACCIDENT IN JEFFERSON CITY, MISSOURI

************************************************************

Washington, DC -- The National Transportation Safety Board
determined today that the probable cause of the October 14,
2004 accident of Pinnacle Airlines flight 3701 was the pilots'
unprofessional behavior, deviation from standard operating
procedures, and poor airmanship, which resulted in an in-
flight emergency from which they were unable to recover, in
part because of the pilots' inadequate training; the pilots'
failure to prepare for an emergency landing in a timely
manner, including communicating with air traffic controllers
immediately after the emergency about the loss of both engines
and the availability of landing sites; and the pilots' failure
to achieve and maintain the target airspeed in the double
engine failure checklist, which caused the engine cores to
stop rotating and resulted in the core lock engine condition.

Contributing to the cause of this accident were the engine
core lock condition, which prevented at least one engine
from being restarted, and the airplane flight manuals that
did not communicate to pilots the importance of maintaining
a minimum airspeed to keep the engine cores rotating.

"This accident was caused by the pilots' inappropriate and
unprofessional behavior," said NTSB Chairman Mark V.
Rosenker. "Simply adhering to standard operating procedures
and correctly implementing emergency procedures would have
gone a long way to adverting this tragic accident."

On October 14, 2004, a Bombardier CL-600-2B19 (N8396A)
operated by Pinnacle Airlines (doing business as Northwest
Airlink) departed Little Rock National Airport about 9:21
p.m. central daylight time en route to Minneapolis-St. Paul,
Minnesota for a repositioning flight. The flight plan
indicated that the planned cruise altitude was 33,000 feet.
At about 9:26 p.m., the airplane was at an altitude of
about 14,000 feet and the flight crew engaged the autopilot.

A few seconds later, the captain requested and received
clearance to climb to the Commuter Regional Jet's maximum
operating altitude of 41,000 feet. After the aircraft
reached 41,000 feet, the airplane entered several stalls and
shortly thereafter had double engine failure. The crew
declared an emergency with the tower, informing them of an
engine failure. However, they failed to inform the tower
that both engines had failed while they made several
unsuccessful attempts to restart the engines. The crew also
continued to try to restart the engines after the controller
asked if they wanted to land.

The flight crew attempted to make an emergency landing at
the Jefferson City, Missouri airport but crashed in a
residential area about three miles south of the airport. The
airplane was destroyed by impact forces and a post crash
fire. The two crewmembers were fatally injured. There were
no passengers on board and no injuries on the ground.

The Safety Board issued eleven recommendations to the
Federal Aviation Administration, as a result of this
accident, dealing with pilots training and high altitude
stall recovery techniques.

On November 20, 2006, the Safety Board also issued the
following urgent safety recommendations, as a part of its
investigation into this accident:

To the Federal Aviation Administration

1. For airplanes equipped with CF34-1 or CF34-3
engines, require manufacturers to perform
high power, high altitude sudden engines
shutdowns; determine the minimum airspeed
required to maintain sufficient core
rotation; and demonstrate that all methods of
in-flight restart can be accomplished when
the airspeed is maintained.

2. Ensure that airplane flight manuals of
airplanes equipped with CF34-1 or CF34-3
engines clearly state the minimum airspeed
required for core engine rotation and that,
if this airspeed is not maintained after a
high power, high altitude sudden engine
shutdown, a loss of in-flight restart
capability as a result of core lock may
occur.

3. Require the operators of CRJ-100, -200, and
400 airplanes include in airplane flight
manuals the significant performance
penalties, such as loss of glide distance and
increase descent rate, that can be incurred
from maintaining the minimum airspeed
required for core rotation and windmill
restart attempts.

A synopsis of the Board's report, including the probable
cause and recommendations, is available on the Board's
website, www.ntsb.gov. The Board's full report will be
available on the website in several weeks.

Media Contact: Terry N. Williams [email protected]
202) 314-6100










************************************************************

This message is delivered to you as a free service from the
National Transportation Safety Board.

You may unsubscribe at any time at
http://www.ntsb.gov/registration/registration.htm

An archive of press releases is available at
http://www.ntsb.gov/pressrel/pressrel.htm

Current job opportunities with the NTSB are listed at
http://www.ntsb.gov/vacancies/listing.htm

For questions/problems, contact [email protected]
 
Does anyone know where an archive site of the video might be?
 
By I tell yah that is just sad. Not in a sarcastic way either. I lived in a town near the crash and could not believed what happened. If only they did not take it to 41,000 ft. You would think that there would be a margin above that altitude were the engines could still operate though.
 
By I tell yah that is just sad. Not in a sarcastic way either. I lived in a town near the crash and could not believed what happened. If only they did not take it to 41,000 ft. You would think that there would be a margin above that altitude were the engines could still operate though.
Not likely, extra performance usually means more cost. It will only get worse from here on out, as manufactures try to save weight in such a fuel critical environment. I doubt these pilots would have done this with passengers aboard. With that being said, I think most of us here have pushed the limit at some point since being a pilot. I think this case is more attributed to bad luck rather than unprofessionalism.
 
This is by far the biggest event happening in the airline industry today and I'm surprised there hasn't been more reaction [on this message board]........... .

I think the reason why there isn't much of a reaction is bacause...... as stated...
were not a much of a surprise. .
We already know these guys were lacking in professionalism, airmanship and discipline.... nothing new here...







I truly hope...... didn't die in vain. .

Well, we can't control GE, the FAA, the NTSB, our airlines. (we can influence though)

But we can control ourselves.

Got Flight Discipline?

Kern's Trilogy is a great place to start....

Flight Discipline
Redefining Airmanship
Rogue Pilot
 
Last edited:
Well if you climb at the proper airspeed empty you can get to FL410 in the CL-65, If you climb at too slow an airspeed to ZOOM (if you will) climb to your altitude you will not be able to accelerate. IE climbing on the backside of the power curve will cause any engine to suffer the same reaction.

Opperating at the proper airspeed for the climb will result in it never being a problem.

I hope everyone is able to learn from this horrible chain of events.
 
This is by far the biggest event happening in the airline industry today and I'm surprised there hasn't been more reaction on this message board.

They are too busy debating why basic ATP minimums are adequate to upgrade to Captain on a CRJ.....:bomb:
 
The engines were operated outside of their design envelope. The crew failed to maintain the minimum airspeed to keep the cores rotating.

What speed was that?

According to the NTSB, we don't know when the engines will core lock.

1. For airplanes equipped with CF34-1 or CF34-3
engines, require manufacturers to perform
high power, high altitude sudden engines
shutdowns; determine the minimum airspeed
required to maintain sufficient core
rotation; and demonstrate that all methods of
in-flight restart can be accomplished when
the airspeed is maintained.

There are other scenarios where you could find yourself in a high power slow speed condition at a high altitude which aren't necessarily the result of flying carelessly or recklessly. The crew's behavior was the primary cause of the accident, but we can still learn this whole experience.
 
There is no certification requirement for turbo fan engines to demonstrate that. The crew did not have the minimum forward velocity to maintain airflow through the second stage compressor section. That is known, and was ignored.

What is true is that the flight crew failed to follow the approved procedures as they are current now.

What is true is that the flight crew ignored basic airmanship and became test pilots. The crews experience level was not enough to perform this function sucessfully in a regional jet aircraft.
 
There is no certification requirement for turbo fan engines to demonstrate that. The crew did not have the minimum forward velocity to maintain airflow through the second stage compressor section. That is known, and was ignored.


Yep.

I'm sorry, but I find no fault with GE or Bombardier on this one. The machine tried to tell them several times that they were doing the wrong thing. The ignored the stick-shaker, and overrode the stick-pusher!

That's the equivalent of walking up to a dog in a cage, and having him growl at you and show his teeth. So you put your finger in, and he bites it. Then you put your whole arm in, the dog rips it off, and you somehow want to make it somebody else's fault. No way.
 
Well if you climb at the proper airspeed empty you can get to FL410 in the CL-65, If you climb at too slow an airspeed to ZOOM (if you will) climb to your altitude you will not be able to accelerate. IE climbing on the backside of the power curve will cause any engine to suffer the same reaction.

Opperating at the proper airspeed for the climb will result in it never being a problem.

He is right.

Business and Commercial Aviation Magazine did an excellent accident report on this event. In fact, a performance chart for the CL-65 was included and it was said in the article that had they properly followed the performance charts, they could have achieved FL410 safely and flown the rest of the to MSP at this altitude. If anyone has an opportunity to get their hands on this issue (not sure what month) it is very good reading. I checked the chart myself and it is true, although they would have been doing 250fpm at the level off.

So long!
 
Yep.

I'm sorry, but I find no fault with GE or Bombardier on this one. The machine tried to tell them several times that they were doing the wrong thing. The ignored the stick-shaker, and overrode the stick-pusher!

That's the equivalent of walking up to a dog in a cage, and having him growl at you and show his teeth. So you put your finger in, and he bites it. Then you put your whole arm in, the dog rips it off, and you somehow want to make it somebody else's fault. No way.

Couldn't have stated it any better myself.
 
It seemed like the board really hammered them on using VS mode instead of SPD or IAS mode to climb up there. Just wondering what everyone else does? Most people I fly with do use VS mode or Pitch mode above 10,000.
 
The crew did not have the minimum forward velocity to maintain airflow through the second stage compressor section.

If a minimum forward airspeed is required to keep the engines running how does an aircraft accelerate from a stop?

FYI...the CRJ (at PCL anyway) does not have any airspeed or flight envelope limitations on the powerplants.


That is known, and was ignored.

I don't see how you can testify as to what these pilots "knew."
 
Part of the problem is that the CF-34-3b1 engines are under powered. Anyone who flies the CRJ 200 knows that ATC often has us stop short of our assigned altitude because they don't anticipate us climbing at 500fpm at higher altitudes and slowing in the process. In addition, the CRJ can climb to an altitude it can't maintain. This doesn't excuse the deliberate deviation from proper proceedures, but it does mean we need to know when they are going to core lock.

Let's face it, the 200 is really a corporate jet trying to fly as an airliner. This is why I support the NTSB's recommendations and why we should be using the accident to prevent future accidents not simply jeer at dead pilots who used poor judgement.
 
It seemed like the board really hammered them on using VS mode instead of SPD or IAS mode to climb up there. Just wondering what everyone else does? Most people I fly with do use VS mode or Pitch mode above 10,000.

Flying in SPD mode past the mid 20s is about impossible in this plane. I usually keep it in SPD mode (with TURB mode engaged to dampen the oscillations) until it starts to dip below 500 fpm, then I switch to VS mode. You simply can't fly this plane in SPD mode all the way up to cruise.
 
I think this case is more attributed to bad luck rather than unprofessionalism.

Yeah, it was bad luck that caused them to swap seats. It was bad luck that caused them to not reference the performance data for operations af FL410 that night. It was bad luck that caused them to ignore all the warnings of an impending stall. It was bad luck which caused them to deviate from SOP. It was bad luck which caused them to not prepare for an emergency landing in a timely manner.

As with so many other things, YPF, you're right again. Let it be known the crash of Flagship 3701 was caused by BAD LUCK.

Someone nailed it perfectly in an earlier post on this thread:

This should be classified as "Pilots were being stupid, pilots fcuked up, and unfortunately, pilots died."
 
It seemed like the board really hammered them on using VS mode instead of SPD or IAS mode to climb up there. Just wondering what everyone else does? Most people I fly with do use VS mode or Pitch mode above 10,000.

Their point wasn't about the mode the autopilot uses but rather what the pilot uses as controlling in the climb, the indicate airspeed or the vertical speed. You would be surprised at how many instructors teach pilots to climb based on their vertical speed with little to know regard to airspeed.
 
The best vertical mode is pitch mode but due to some seriously unenlightened instructors at Pinnacle pitch mode is a forbidden fruit.
 
Heh. In 2000 PTCH meant that you had "screwed up" and it had reverted to a default. Speed mode to 10,000 then VS to altitude. No exceptions.

Of course, in 2000 people were nervous if you hand flew the plane above 1000 AGL.

:)
 
VS that CRJ. Ever sit in the back when your mighty crew uses Speed mode? Sucks, the AC pitches around, you sink into your sit and the guy next to you mutters something about not wanting to die. Ever sit in front of a tube in tracon and watch a CRJ's rate of climb vary like crazy as it continually recovers from it's terrible design. ATC wants a consitent Rate of climb to get you out of their airspace. In my opinion speed mode won't do it. watch how much your ROC changes in the speed mode next time you fly.

VS that wanna be airliner, until your ROC can't maintain the speed with the climb power setting, then change your ROC and inform ATC. Incriments of 500 fpm works well. Upper altitudes use the speed mode, much more critical up there.
 
I dunno. I must be dumb. But I use speed mode to climb all the way unless I need a particular VS to make a crossing. What I see is people not keeping the N1s in the carrot and as the N1 speed drops off the climb rate will diminish. The crews long inattention then leaves the plane climbing very slowly so they jam the N1 back up to the carrot which gives an acceleration and the plane pitches up to maintain speed. THAT's why you are getting your pitch excursions in Speed mode not that it can't handle it.

Or, at least that's what I've learned over my 6 years as CA on the CRJ. But, each pilot has to fly it the way they want and as long as the way they want to fly it gets the job done on profile and doesn't stall it I don't care.
 
Same where I work. They never explained why we're not supposed to use it.

Before EICAS 200 I believ it was safer to use than VS. In VS you could stall the airplane whereas in pitch it woud just give up the climb (something the 200 accels at).

I like pitch from Accel Alt up to the mid 20's on the 700. I liked VS better on the 200 though all the way.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom