Back in the news, "Man, we can do it, 41-it," said Cesarz

[RideTheWind]

CVR made Yahoo's front page http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050613/ap_on_re_us/plane_crash_investigation

Official CVR transcript from NTSB.
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2005/Pinnacle/exhibits/CVR_Factual.pdf


.
.
.

 

[Flechas]

Dude, the other avatar was way better, please bring her back!!!!!

 

[pilatus96]

Those guys were idiots! Yeah, ya know Ms. Patrick may be one of my clients soon.

 

[Wasted]

Air Traveler's Association? Who are these air travelers and where and when do they associate?

 

[PeteCO]

I see that the press is spouting the usual innuendo and BS implications, rather than sticking to the facts. The article implies that your average RJ pilot is an "inexperienced" moron:

"Oct. 14, 2004 accident, revealed how the pilots cracked jokes and decided to "have a little fun" and fly to 41,000 feet — the maximum altitude for their plane. Most commuter jets fly at lower altitudes." <--Implies that 41k is dangerous - it is certificated to that altitude, yes???!!!

"Accident investigators are examining how well the pilots were trained — a key safety question as the number of regional jets keeps growing." <-- False logic....just because the number keeps growing, that automatically means there are training issues? No.

"Jet engines work differently at higher altitudes, and it's unclear whether the relatively inexperienced Pinnacle pilots were aware that they had to be more careful in the thin air at 41,000 feet, the maximum altitude for their plane." <-- Oh, gimme a break....no comment.

"At the hearing,
NTSB investigators plan to delve into the plane's flight limits and the proper recovery techniques when engines fail. They also want to know if the pilots knew those procedures and to learn the engine's performance characteristics at high altitudes." <-- The press should have taken a cue from this statement rather than fill their article with their typical pilots-are-idiots tripe.

"This is more a story of pilots having time on their hands and playing with things in the cockpit that they shouldn't," he said. Flying, he said, is as boring as truck driving most of the time. This was boredom and experimentation, these guys experimenting with things they had no business doing," Stempler said. <-- Again, you got to be kidding me.

I haven't read the CVR, nor am I an RJ pilot, but the press gets more facts wrong, and skews more aviation-related stories than even gun stories. Sheesh.

 

[Dangerkitty]

"Oct. 14, 2004 accident, revealed how the pilots cracked jokes and decided to "have a little fun" and fly to 41,000 feet — the maximum altitude for their plane. Most commuter jets fly at lower altitudes." <--Implies that 41k is dangerous - it is certificated to that altitude, yes???!!!

"Jet engines work differently at higher altitudes, and it's unclear whether the relatively inexperienced Pinnacle pilots were aware that they had to be more careful in the thin air at 41,000 feet, the maximum altitude for their plane." <-- Oh, gimme a break....no comment.

I haven't read the CVR, nor am I an RJ pilot, but the press gets more facts wrong, and skews more aviation-related stories than even gun stories. Sheesh.

My Lear 60 is certified to fly at 51,000. I dont know of anyone including Bombardier Test pilots that have made it up that high. The highest I have ever gone in the Lear 60 is 43,000. One of my buddies went to 45,000 when the ISA was very very low.

Just because the plane is certified for a particular altitude doesn't mean it is safe to go there.

 

[joe_pilot]

Air Traveler's Association? Who are these air travelers and where and when do they associate?

See my post in this thread.

 

[PeteCO]

My Lear 60 is certified to fly at 51,000. I dont know of anyone including Bombardier Test pilots that have made it up that high.

You mean that a plane doesn't have to actually be flown at the max alititude it is certificated at?

 

[whaleroast]

If you read the CVR, you can't help but notice that those guys sounded like a couple of frat boys joyriding in Daddy's sportscar.

 

[Dangerkitty]

You mean that a plane doesn't have to actually be flown at the max alititude it is certificated at?

I am sure at one time the Lear 60 went to FL 510. HOWEVER, the ISA's would have to be very very very cold and the aircraft would have almost NIL fuel on board.

I have never taken the 60 above FL 430. And then it was like ISA -8 plus very smooth. I have talked to one Lear 60 pilot who has been to FL 450 a few times but not many. Even the Bombardier Test pilots will tell you not to go above FL 450. The wing is just too small.

Just because it is certified to do something doesn't mean you can automatically go there. Thats not how it works.

Reading the transcript I got the feeling that the two pilots didn't quite grasp the seriousness of their situation (before the stall). It also sounded like they didn't fully grasp high altitude jet operations.

Reading the CVR literally sent a chill up my spine. A very sad situation indeed.

 

[User546]

"Oct. 14, 2004 accident, revealed how the pilots cracked jokes and decided to "have a little fun" and fly to 41,000 feet — the maximum altitude for their plane. Most commuter jets fly at lower altitudes." <--Implies that 41k is dangerous - it is certificated to that altitude, yes???!!

Our aircraft it certified to 45,000 feet, and we cruise at that almost every single trip we do. Never had one bit of problems, and the aircraft has never acted unusual up there.

The media is insane - but we all know that here!

Incidentally, I found this article before I got on FlightInfo and saw this thread.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8205660/
(Sobering picture of the cockpit - brings home the human side to this story)

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

Our aircraft it certified to 45,000 feet, and we cruise at that almost every single trip we do. Never had one bit of problems, and the aircraft has never acted unusual up there.

A straight wing CJ is a very different critter than a swept wing airplane. Basically it is a jet powered Kingair.

No offense intended, I have spent my share of time in the left seat of a straight wing slowtation speedbump also.

It is spooky the amount of pilots out there that I hear say "whats the problem? It's certified." Somewhere along the way high speed/high altitude aerodynamics got deleted from the training programs. Ask 10 RJ or 10 Corporate Jet Captains what part of a swept wing normally stalls first. The answers that you get will make you think twice about your next airline ticket purchase.

I think we will be seeing those subjects emphasized again in the near future as a result of this crash.

 

[WMUSIGPI]

I have been to 450 a few times in the Lear 31, and several times at 430. It flew fine as long as you kept the climb rate slow and the airspeed high. It was certified to 510, but according to the AFM it could only get there at 10500#, Too bad our basic operating weight was a shade over 11000#. Not quite sure how that one is supposed to work. I have occasionally heard a Lear or Citation (not sure which models) at 470 block 490 on the radios. We wouldn't ever go there because of the "vegetable factor" (TOC) in the event of depressurization....not that it would be much better in the low 40's.
In all reality there isn't much excitement there at least not for me. The view at 350 and 450 really isn't much different.

 

[Rogue5]

Incidentally, I found this article before I got on FlightInfo and saw this thread.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8205660/
(Sobering picture of the cockpit - brings home the human side to this story)

I thought that was the nose of the A/C the first few times I saw it as well, but if you are familiar with the plane that is actually a view from behind with the fuselage inverted (Access door to aft equipment bay seen on top). The metal enclosure you see exposed is the APU casing turned 180 degrees seen through a hole in the lower left aft fuselage.

Regardless, disturbing indeed...

 

[johnny taliban]

It flew fine as long as you kept the climb rate slow and the airspeed high.

Exactly what those two RJ drivers did not do. I beleive at one point they had a mach speed of .6 and an indicated speed of 180 kts of FL410. Geez, if I looked down at my airspeed indicator and saw those numbers, Id be lowering the nose and high tailing it to a lower altitude without hesitation. Those guys just sat there completely clueless to the fact that they had exceeded their flight envelope. Its amazing that there was no mention of the outside air temp on the CVR or a reference to the weight of the aircraft, the performance charts, something, hell anything. I ALWAYS keep an eye on the OAT, and airspeed when I climb to those altitudes.

God rest their souls,
Johnny