Flg 3701 Audio Tape

[jarhead]

Jarhead,

No offense meant to you but since you've never flown these "paying customers" for a living, you simply will never understand where I and many others here, venting against the media are coming from.

We are the ones who have to put up with these ignorant, uninformed and just childish comments from these smart-*sses who think that just because they have a boarding pass in their hands they're automatically an aviation expert.

The media, like others have stated, will latch onto this "having fun" statement and run with it. They will make news out of something that by itself, is clearly not news. That's the problem these days. The media no longer reports on the news. They create the news for themselves and run with it from there with no oversight. Even the mighty Dan Rather fell victim to this irresponsible practice.

For heaven's sake, read the transcript that KSTP tried to translate to match the audio. It is full of errors and mistakes. No oversight, no accountability.

Unbelievable.

You are indeed correct that I have never flown the paying customers you allude to. I still know that customers, while ignorant of the inner workings of any business, are the sole means of support for our paycheck. The customer may not always be right, the he is ALWAYS the customer. That was true for my business, and it is true for yours as well.

I tend to keep my ear close to the rail on this stuff, as I have a son who is a 9 year captain at Comair, on the same aircraft the PCL crew crashed. I know about Comair's high altitude training regimen. I am in the dark about Pinnacle's. Beyond being a pilot on the CRJ200, my son also has been a sim instructor at CMR, and is very familiar with high altitude operations, and has over 200 times flown the sim at high altitude with double engine failures, so he has an advantage of perspective most pilots do not have. He has also been at FL410 in the actual aircraft while on a ferry flight. He knows what he talks about to me, and will not publicly comment on the Pinnacle problem with the flight in question. That's fine.

While the news media may not always get things 100% accurate, they make their best effort. You may not like it that the KSTP report was not sanitized by a Pinnacle pilot, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. To compare the actual audio tapes on 3701 to Dan Rather's problem on 60 minutes, is a red herring; it has nothing at all in common with an audio transcript being put out on the airwaves.

 

[capt. megadeth]

Well there's some insight most don't have. BTW, if it were not for those "duchebag" passengers, the crew, and everyone else at Pinnacle would not have a job. The passengers (customers) are who pays everyone’s paycheck, whether it's at Pinnacle, NWA, or Macy's department store. "

1. you forgot to say SMALL paycheck
2. you also forgot that these we are essentially subsidizing cheap travel for all these people in America. I can't even say goodbye to these people anymore because it makes me sick that I have to go to my second job on my day off. Meanwhile, they got to go on vacation at the same price that they could have in 1980.

 

[surplus1]

Jarhead,

No offense meant to you but since you've never flown these "paying customers" for a living,

you simply will never understand where I and many others here, venting against the media are coming from.

Maybe jarhead hasn't flown any paying passengers for a living, but I sure have and I think his assesment of how the "customers" will see this is pretty accurate. It's not much different from how I see it either.

While it is true that the media often "reports" inaccurately on aircraft
accidents/incidents, in this case it appears they were not doing a lot of guessing. They merely played exerpts from a recording of an actual conversation. It doesn't surprise me that pilots, myself included, are not so happy with the broadcast of this tape but frankly, that begs the question.

Regardless of how much "fun" we all like to have or may be having at any in-flight point in time, that isn't really what's important about this tape release, at lest not in my view.

What the remark tells me is that the particular aircraft was taken to FL 410, by its crew, intentionally and for no purpose other than their own entertainment; at best a questopmable activity in a 20 million dollar airplane that doesn't belong to you.

Having "fun" is a recreational activity. Operating an airliner is a professional activity (a job if you prefer). From my perspective the two don't mix. Granted the job is enjoyable (that's why I chose it) but that doesn't make it a recreational activity.

Another important point that seems to be ignored so far in this thread, is that the audio and the transcript do NOT appear to be from a CVR. This appears to be a controller's tape and it reports only the exchange between the controller(s) and the flight crew; probably only parts of it. Therefore, the "sanctity" of the CVR tape has NOT been violated. Controller tapes have never been
"secret" and are always available to the media if they ask enough. CVR tapes are not available, by law. You (pl) and I will never hear the CVR tape (unless you are an official party to the investigation, and even all of those don't get to hear the CVR tape) and will only see a transcript of "excerpts from that tape after the final report comes out. If there is a "public" hearing, relatives of the crew may be allowed to listen. In other words, this broadcast didn't violate any protocols.

Nevertheless, we learn several things from it. 1) The aircraft did reach FL410; 2) It went there apparently for no particular operational reason; 3) The unusual altitude (for the type) was uncommon enough to be noticed by the controller and questioned (resulting in the

"fun" explanation/remark). 4) Shortly after reaching the altitude (no time is given) something went very wrong; 5) The talking pilots indicated a "stall" 5) Power was lost on at least one (1) of the 2 engines; 6) At a later time both engines were reported "out" and the nearest airport was requested; 7) The altitude remaining was then reported as 9,500 feet.

Those with any knowledge of this aircraft type already know that it can maintain altitudes far above 9,500 feet with only one operating engine. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to presume that the 2nd engine failure occured somewhere above 9,500 feet and possibly as high as FL410. We don't know where but we do know it wasn't at 9.5 since the aircraft was apparently NOT proceeding to any airport before it asked for "the nearest airport". Is it
wrong to notice that or to ask about it?

This is a "public" forum but it also true that the overwhelming majority of members/readers of this forum are not the general public. We are professional aviators, aspiring professional aviators, private pilots and people directly associated with all of those. A realitively "controlled" audience of mostly "aviation people".

Discussions about what happened and why a particular accident occurred always contain speculation of a degree and conjecture from known information. This "tape" is part of the known information, as are the preliminary reports of the NTSB. The fact that we talk about them, ask questions, voice opinions, etc., does not mean, at least to me, that we are trying to blame anyone or disparage anyone's reputation. It means that we are trying to determine a
probable cause based on the information we have available. That information will not be as complete as the NTSB team gets, but there's enough of it (in this case) to give some reasonable ideas of how this "event" may have started. I don't see that as being disrespectful to the memory of the crew. WE who fly this and similar aircraft need to know as much as we can as soon as we can, in hopes that we might thereby avoid experiencing the same problem, with the same result, long before a final NTSB report, which we may never see, comes out. To me, there's nothing wrong with that.

If I should have a wreck I would want you all to know as much about it as possible so that you aren't exposed to the same thing. If it turns out I made an error, especially one that was fatal, so be it. The objective of the discussions is future avoidance of the same problem, not an attempt to blackball the flight crew.

None of us can live through this profession without making mistakes. Fortunately for everyone most mistakes are not fatal. But, accidents don't just "happen", they are caused. Unfortunately, most of them are caused by people that fly airplanes. We really aren't sky gods and we do screw up much more than any of us wants to admit. If and when the cause turns out to be an avoidable "mistake" it only helps the profession to learn that and hopefully
avoid repeating it in the future. There is no legitimate flight crew (Arab fanatics don't count) that intentionally crashes an aircraft. Some accidents are unavoidable, but the majority are not. The more we learn and talk about them, regardless of the probable cause, the safer we fly tomorrow.

Maybe I'm in left field but I don't think this particular TV news report was ignorant, uninformed or childish. It wasn't pretty, and it wasn't favorable, but it was very straight forward. What the pilot and controller said to each other is a fact. Reporting the facts is the newsman's job. Hiding the facts is not part of a pilot's job. Neither is choosing a particular altitude for "fun"; especially one that pushes the performance envelope of the particular aircraft. The best I can do is call the "fun" remark an unfortunate choice of words by a professional pilot.

Perhaps I'm wrong but that's how I see it.

 

[Mel Sharples]

Perhaps I'm wrong but that's how I see it.

A little long-winded, but I agree with almost everything you said. Good analysis.

 

[VGerect]

The best I can do is call the "fun" remark an unfortunate choice of words by a professional pilot.

How true.

 

[Lear70]

If the high-altitude cruise chart data showed they could expect to cruise at FL410 and maintain a 1.3 or 1.4G margin at the prevailing temperature, then there was no reason not to go up there, and you clowns that are Monday-morning quarterbacking them are a sorry bunch of idiots.

Thank God for the voice of reason. NO ONE ON THIS BOARD WAS THERE. Why are we even hashing this out before the NTSB Final Report is out?

Someone asked on the first page what data PCL uses for altitude determination - it's in our FCOM Volume 2 which every pilot has in their kit bag. FL 41,0 is obtainable under a relatively wide envelope of weights and temperatures and I've been up there several times in this aircraft, and used to cruise there DAILY in other aircraft.

NONE of you are NTSB accident investigators on the scene,,, NEITHER AM I. Give it a rest.

 

[NuGuy]

Thank God for the voice of reason. NO ONE ON THIS BOARD WAS THERE. Why are we even hashing this out before the NTSB Final Report is out?

Someone asked on the first page what data PCL uses for altitude determination - it's in our FCOM Volume 2 which every pilot has in their kit bag. FL 41,0 is obtainable under a relatively wide envelope of weights and temperatures and I've been up there several times in this aircraft, and used to cruise there DAILY in other aircraft.

NONE of you are NTSB accident investigators on the scene,,, NEITHER AM I. Give it a rest.

Lear,

Give it a rest... we simply cannot have people comming into the forum injecting reason and common sense...DON'T let it happen again...

Nu

 

[Dumbledore]

If the high-altitude cruise chart data showed they could expect to cruise at FL410 and maintain a 1.3 or 1.4G margin at the prevailing temperature, then there was no reason not to go up there, and you clowns that are Monday-morning quarterbacking them are a sorry bunch of idiots.

Sorry dude but that won't fly. It won't fly for the same reason that, as EVERYONE here who has ever ACTUALLY flown an airliner knows, there are times when you just can't have the faith in the airport analysis that it's supposed to inspire - your airplane is just too whooped and the engines are just too tired. Sometimes the airplane you have in your possession just won't do what it would have done the day it rolled out green from the factory.

I don't care what the book says about what my airplane will do. If it doesn't seem like it's gonna do it I abandon the try. It's just not worth a jet upset incident (or worse as these guys demonstrated).

Thank God for the voice of reason. NO ONE ON THIS BOARD WAS THERE. Why are we even hashing this out before the NTSB Final Report is out?

Because there is plenty that can be learned from the conjecture that is most likely not that far from the mark here while we wait for the vaunted NTSB to tell us all what we already know. The plane went too high for the weight and temperature that night and it stalled - repeatedly - before things got really out of hand. After that the crew did not respond appropriately to the double engine failure that they wound up with as a result. That much is not open to speculation - it's in the preliminary NTSB updates. Go read them if you don't believe me. They were supposed to get the plane above 300 KIAS to attempt an airstart and they never got there.

Someone asked on the first page what data PCL uses for altitude determination - it's in our FCOM Volume 2 which every pilot has in their kit bag. FL 41,0 is obtainable under a relatively wide envelope of weights and temperatures and I've been up there several times in this aircraft, and used to cruise there DAILY in other aircraft.

At least you're smart enough to avoid saying you cruise there daily in the CRJ. In fact, I note with interest that you specifically say you've ventured up to FL 410 "several times". Hmm. I'm thinkin' there must be a reason for that and it isn't because it gets there like a Gulfstream or a Lear.

 

[Lear70]

At least you're smart enough to avoid saying you cruise there daily in the CRJ. In fact, I note with interest that you specifically say you've ventured up to FL 410 "several times". Hmm. I'm thinkin' there must be a reason for that and it isn't because it gets there like a Gulfstream or a Lear.

The few times we "ventured" that high was, quite simply, because I was flying with first officers who had never flown jets before, much less been into the higher altitudes, and I believed it good instruction for them to feel firsthand what the aircraft handled like at that altitude and have a nice conversation about high altitude aerodynamics because, quite frankly, our training does NOT cover it. (And yes, all three times the aircraft was empty - two aircraft deliveries and one MX reposition similar to what these guys were doing).

Your conjecture may, in all likelihood, turn out to have more truth than not to it, I just don't care to hear anyone get personal in their bashing of the people involved. Both were decent human beings with families and friends left behind and I believe we can have a better discussion than calling them some of the names I've seen on similar threads.

Discuss - yes. Bash - no. There IS a difference... it's called RESPECT.

Nu... I apologize. Once again I have inserted my foot in my oral cavity and interrupted what is supposed to be pure entertainment with logic and reason. I will try, once again, to amend my ways.

 

[Dumbledore]

Discuss - yes. Bash - no. There IS a difference... it's called RESPECT.

Fair 'nuf. I don't disagree.