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

[say again]

Hey TonyC,

Great posts. I hope that something has been learned by some, if not, maybe you could explain yet again. Actually, you've said enough. Maybe some day he'll get it.

 

[enigma]

I've been busy flying and buying myself a new tractor, and haven't kept up with this the last few days as some of you have obviously done. I did read the CVR and that's about all. It leaves me with a question.

At any point in their descent did these pilots ever indicate to anyone, or each other, that they were in deeeeeeep trouble? At what point do you all think that they realized their engines were not going to restart?


I can't really fault them too much for their actions after the the engines flamed out, they obviously were too inexperienced and poorly educated/trained to be able to deal with their problems. BUT, their actions leading up to the stall/flameout are about as irresponsible and stupid as any action I've ever heard about from any pilot, professional or amatuer. (assuming that they actions some of you here have recounted are in fact true)

This accident/tragedy should initiate a major FAA/NTSB/Congressional investigation into airline pilot training and qualification.

My first recommendation would be to require specific performance training and demonstrated proficiency as a part of jet type rating training/checking. Next, the FAA should reduce it's emphasis on instrument approaches during a type ride, and increase the time spent in the upper reaches of the certification envelope.

I was blessed to work corporate, for a company that spent extra to send me to a high altitue/high speed recurrent at Simuflite long ago. I wish that everyone could have the chance to attend such training. It should be mandatory.


I sincerely hope that ever low time jet pilot, or anyone who desires to be such, learn from those mens mistakes. Please take the time to educate yourself. These sleek aluminum tubes will KILL you.


Oh yeah, What's the big lesson here? When you've got an emergency. Don't try and cover your arse until you've ensured your own survival.


God Bless their families

enigma

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Hey TonyC,

Great posts. I hope that something has been learned by some, if not, maybe you could explain yet again. Actually, you've said enough. Maybe some day he'll get it.

Tony C.,

I admire your determination to school the fellas. Are you married? Is your wife on vacation? Maybe visiting her mother? Are you sleeping during the day? Are you excercising?

 

[ArcticFlier]

I think the big question is why were they not able to restart the engines? It seemed they were following the checklists. Also, maybe when they flamed out both engines, they could have asked ATC for nearest airport right away, but for some reason people are very afraid of declaring an emergency.

I have seen reports of compressor stalls before (in turbulence, etc), why could they not restart?

Core lock is something that can be overcome by the air turbine starter (so says GE).

Why couldn't they start the engines? My guess, and it's only a guess, is that the 10th stage bleed valves weren't closed. It said 'closed' on the switches and on the EICAS, but that's because they require air to hold them open. No engines, no air. No air, the valves close. But where is the switch position? Open. Once they had the APU up, and they hit the start switch, what happened to the 10th stage valves? They opened. Big bleed air leak, and not enough to get N2 rotation. Heat in the core and not enough air flow.

YMMV,

AF

 

[TonyC]

Tony C.,

I admire your determination to school the fellas. Are you married? Is your wife on vacation? Maybe visiting her mother? Are you sleeping during the day? Are you excercising?

Yes, yes, yes, yes, .... ooops, gotta find my running shoes.









.

 

[JohnE]

Thanks for the info. And thanks for the website DC8, great explanation of turbine operations.

Perhaps another ignorant question (as I do not fly jets ;-))... I was under the impression that most modern jets will not allow the pilot to actually stall the aircraft. When the stick shaker goes on, the flight manager will lower the nose.

Can anyone give me a link (or registration info) of the Korean 747 pilot who lost it in IMC west of Oakland, CA, ended up going from 30,000 feet to around 8,000 feet almost straight down? Didn't want to declare emergency.

Core lock is something that can be overcome by the air turbine starter (so says GE).

Why couldn't they start the engines? My guess, and it's only a guess, is that the 10th stage bleed valves weren't closed. It said 'closed' on the switches and on the EICAS, but that's because they require air to hold them open. No engines, no air. No air, the valves close. But where is the switch position? Open. Once they had the APU up, and they hit the start switch, what happened to the 10th stage valves? They opened. Big bleed air leak, and not enough to get N2 rotation. Heat in the core and not enough air flow.

YMMV,

AF

 

[TIS]

Now, take off your oxygen mask, unstrap, and step away from the controls. The autopilot keeping the wings level and lowering the nose to maintain an airspeed now as you're standing behind the seats is probably the most intelligent piece of equipment, human or machine, on the entire airplane right now.

Again, just out of curiosity, you think the autopilot was working??? I could be wrong but I think there's substantial room for the belief that the autpilot was OFF due to the electrical failure alone, if not the hydraulic problem associated with two (more or less) stationary engines.

Any CRJ drivers out there care to comment? Does the autpilot work in a double generator failure? Does it work if you have ADG power but no hydraulics?

Anyway, if my suspicions are correct, that second seat swap happened like you said only NOTHING was actually in control of the airplane's axes.

TIS

 

[TonyC]

Again, just out of curiosity, you think the autopilot was working??? I could be wrong but I think there's substantial room for the belief that the autpilot was OFF due to the electrical failure alone, if not the hydraulic problem associated with two (more or less) stationary engines.

Any CRJ drivers out there care to comment? Does the autpilot work in a double generator failure? Does it work if you have ADG power but no hydraulics?

Anyway, if my suspicions are correct, that second seat swap happened like you said only NOTHING was actually in control of the airplane's axes.

TIS

I corrected that notion in a later post. (#42) I suppose I made an assumption, giving the guys more credit than they deserved, when I originally, as Yank McCobb might say, spun the melodrama.


The FDR clearly shows that the auotpilot was selected OFF. That makes the picture all the more scary.






.




.

 

[TIS]

And ya know what? I just realized that I clicked into page three of the thread and the way I have things set, that plugs me in below #42. Never even saw it until now. There I go beating a dead horse again!

I'm still cuirous about the answers to my Qs.

TIS

 

[skyslug]

with the ADG deployed you will lose pressurization (amongst other things) and the Auto Pilot will not engage.

 

[Duderino]

Is core lock something that is taught to during the CRJ training. I for one have never heard of it. I haven't flown GE engines before, only Rolls and Garretts. It is just unusual to me that in order to air start you have to use the APU to get them going(or not) with Core Lock, and you have to be at 170 indicated below 13000 or something.

Reading that **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** CVR almost brought tears to my eyes(I am kinda hungover though). They were trying to make up for there mistakes and it just wasn't happening. Very Sad.

One thing that disturbed me, were the signs that they didn't seem to catch. Like climbing at .64 mach, and saying things like don't get below 180 inidicated. That is very slow. I am not familiar with the CRJ but I wouldn't want to be that slow in any airplane I've flown at that altitude. Another thing was the controller saying "I have never seen a CRJ that high before."

I knew of Peter when he was a flight instructor. He was trying to get on at the place I was flying Lears. Very sad. God Bless the families and friends involved.

 

[Pirate at Forty]

At 21:49:25

CAM-1 Look at that cabin altitude man.

Followed by laughing.

What should the cabin altitude have been? Were they wearing masks?

 

[Cardinal]

At that point the cabin was probably at max differential, and was yielding an abnormally high, yet within limits cabin altitude. (Still below 10,000)

 

[Publishers]

Excellent post TonyC

 

[Spinn555]

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.

PeteCo- I hate the press, well, as much as anyone out there.

But, you're a moron.

Just read the transcript. Those guys were doomed the second the wheels left the ground.

"QRH 'Dual Engine Failure' " was never heard on the tape.

That's one example of the many mistakes that occured on that flight.