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

Flying and fun do not mix, heres proof

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

Turbinehead

One Dot High
Joined
Jul 15, 2002
Posts
174
Jet crash followed ‘fun,’ papers show
Pilots took plane to maximum altitude.




Published Sunday, March 6, 2005


ST. LOUIS (AP) - A pilot aboard a doomed regional jet told an air traffic controller moments before an October crash that he and his co-pilot "decided to have a little fun" by flying at the plane’s maximum altitude.

Cockpit transcripts the St. Louis Post-Disptach obtained from the Federal Aviation Administration describe the rapid descent of the Pinnacle Airlines Corp. plane after it lost engine power on Oct. 14.

An emergency landing was attempted, but the plane crashed into a residential neighborhood in Jefferson City, killing Capt. Jesse Rhodes and First Officer Richard Peter Cesarz.

There were no passsengers on the plane, and no one on the ground was injured.

Federal investigators said shortly after the crash that they were studying whether altitude contributed to the loss of engine power in the 50-seat plane affiliated with Northwest Airlines.

The problem is first hinted at in the transcipts when an air traffic controller in Kansas City told the pilots it was was rare to see the plane flying at an altitude of 41,000 feet.

"Yeah, we’re actually . . . we don’t have any passengers on board, so we decided to have a little fun and come up here," one of the pilots said. The transcripts don’t identify whether Rhodes or Cesarz made the statement.

But the pilot soon told air traffic controllers that the CRJ2 wouldn’t remain at that altitude for long.

"I don’t think he had enough gas up there; he was so slow," one air traffic controller said.

The transcripts then describe the conversations between the pilots and the air traffic controllers as the first engine loses power followed by the second engine at 13,000 feet.

"We’re going to need a little lower to start this other engine up, so we’re going to go down to about 12 or 11. Is that cool?" the pilot asked.

A few moments later, he reported double engine failure, according to the transcripts.

The last contact that air traffic controllers had with the plane was at 9,000 feet, when the pilot reported an airport beacon in sight.

Earlier that day, the jet had aborted a scheduled flight with passengers from Little Rock, Ark., after an indicator light went on for part of its bleed-air system. The system pulls hot, compressed air from the engines to heat other components of the plane.

An airplane indicator light signaled a potential problem with the bleed-air sensing loop, which uses heat to determine whether air is leaking from the engine.

The plane’s loop was replaced before it took off for Minneapolis with just the crew. Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
 
The truth is that AVIATION and THE MEDIA do not belong together. God forbid pilots have just an ounce of fun, even when it is legal.
 
Fun?

The truth is that AVIATION and THE MEDIA do not belong together. God forbid pilots have just an ounce of fun, even when it is legal.

Anyone whose idea of "fun" is to fly at 410 (where, last time I checked, the view ain't no better than at 400, 390, 380.....should find another line of work.
 
1-tacan-rule said:
The truth is that AVIATION and THE MEDIA do not belong together. God forbid pilots have just an ounce of fun, even when it is legal.

Anyone whose idea of "fun" is to fly at 410 (where, last time I checked, the view ain't no better than at 400, 390, 380.....should find another line of work.

I believe they have. Hopefully at an even higher flight level :)
 
They might of shutdown one engine or both at 410, just for something to brag about.
Then they realized for some reason it would not hold level flight.
Than it was A$$'s and Elbows to get one to restart.
OH well, we might know the whole story in 6 months.

650
 
I talked to a CRJ check airman who had been briefed on the CVR contents. The crew never pulled out a checklist during the entire episode. They kept trying to restart the engines outside the restart envelope and toasted both engines.
 
1-tacan-rule said:
Anyone whose idea of "fun" is to fly at 410 (where, last time I checked, the view ain't no better than at 400, 390, 380.....should find another line of work.

C'mon, man, the airplane is certified to fly at that height... They'd probably never gotten one that high and figured "what the heck, we're empty, let's give it a whirl".

What is wrong with that? You never flew your airplane to max altitude just to say you did it? You never flew right up to barber pole, when you didn't have to, just to have a little break from the grind? You never landed an empty airplane and tried to bring it to a stop in the shortest possible distance?

No matter what happened after the fact, flying an airplane to its' maximum certified altitude is NOT a foolish maneuver. To suggest otherwise tells me you don't find ANY "fun" in flying.
 
I.P. Freley said:
No matter what happened after the fact, flying an airplane to its' maximum certified altitude is NOT a foolish maneuver. To suggest otherwise tells me you don't find ANY "fun" in flying.

Flying an airplane at maximum certified altitude when you're OUTSIDE THE ENVELOPE(as they supposedly were) for that altitude IS a foolish...no, check that....downright stupid maneuver.
 
FracCapt said:
(as they supposedly were)

You hit the nail on the head with this one. Overall, my point is that there's a whole lot of jumping to conclusions here. Let's wait for the report.

All that aside, that's not the point I was arguing. Simply "going for max altitude" isn't foolish in and of itself... The point I responded to didn't say "they were foolish to go for max altitude outside of the envelope", it just said they were stupid to find going for max "fun".

Ya hear what I'm saying?
 
Last edited:
I.P. Freley said:
C'mon, man, the airplane is certified to fly at that height... They'd probably never gotten one that high and figured "what the heck, we're empty, let's give it a whirl".

What is wrong with that? You never flew your airplane to max altitude just to say you did it? You never flew right up to barber pole, when you didn't have to, just to have a little break from the grind? You never landed an empty airplane and tried to bring it to a stop in the shortest possible distance?

No matter what happened after the fact, flying an airplane to its' maximum certified altitude is NOT a foolish maneuver. To suggest otherwise tells me you don't find ANY "fun" in flying.

I might be in the minority here, but I tend to put safety ahead of "fun". How much more fun is it at 410 than at 330 when you are flying straight and level?

I've been as high as FL450 before. The view isn't that much better.
 
Theres nothing unsafe about going to the Max certified altitude.
They might of done something stupid since they were empty.
I been as high as 49600 in a block altitude with a AC certified to 510. We were within its limits it just could not climb anymore.

650
 
Stinkbug said:
"I don’t think he had enough gas up there; he was so slow," one air traffic controller said.

What the hell does that mean?

They were just above stalling speed and unable to maintain altitude. The controller was referring to how slow they were flying.
 
One man's fun...

IP, you said:

...The point I responded to didn't say "they were foolish to go for max altitude outside of the envelope", it just said they were stupid to find going for max "fun"....

In fact, I never said they were "stupid to find going to max fun." Please read my post.

What I'm saying is that if two guys (where's the CRM?) get their kicks from going to 410....???? comon....

I've been flying since '87 and I still love just about every minute of it...and at some point I actually thought walk-arounds were "fun." I grew up. They should have as well.
 
Come on, folks. You're passing judgement based on the descriptions of a popular news article, filled with inaccuracies. Wild spitballing at best.

The pilot made an off hand comment that was taken out of context, and has been misconstrued to mean all sorts of things that in all liklihood, were certainly never intended.

The pilots choice of wording, including the use of "cool," was misplaced and makes him sound flippant after the fact. Almost certainly that was never his intention, or his attitude. His vernacular should not be elected as his execution device; I find the idea that he went to 410 for "fun" ridiculous, and don't believe for a moment that the purpose of going there was at all what's being carried on about here or in the article. Get a grip.

The controller queried the pilots intent, and he responded with an off hand comment. That is all. Nothing more. Did he actually mean that he got his jollies by being at 410? No, doubtful. Did he actually mean that he was thrilled by the prospect of going to 410? No, I doubt that, either. Did he actually mean that his idea of a good time was climbing to 410? No. He made an offhand commend, period.

Was he outside his envelope? I believe several posters cited that being at 410 was outside the relight envelope. That is not at all the same, or consistent, with operating at 410. We all operate above our relight envelope, and that doesn't make any of us unsafe; it's SOP. If he elected to attempt a relight after a flameout and did so outside the envelope, then that's an error, but again, has nothing to do with a decision to maintain or attempt a cruise altitude of 410.

Occasionally I request an altitude and then find that it's not working for my weight, and ask for a lower for my final or for a time. We all do. So what? You're going to crucify the man for that?

I won't say I got hopping excited about it, but I did get a kick out of flying eastbound at 350 after RVSM, and picking previously unuseable altitudes. Nothing exciting, but I did it just for the novelty. Why not? One might say that was illicit "fun," and I wouldn't describe it as fun, but I might have said, in an offhand way, "Yeah, I'll take 350 for the fun of it."

Gonna crucify me, too? Crickey, guys. Who made you undertakers?
 
Since when is FL350 a new altitude? I have been using it for the past 18 years. Like I said in another post, we might know the whole story in 6 months.

650
 
No, it's not a new altitude...westbound. But eastbound it is...used to be "wrong way," and now it's not. That's how it's a new altitude.

Does that really require an explaination??
 
the guy wanted to see what 410 was like. He probably wanted to say he'd been there to his buddies.

too bad he never got any training on how to get there safely.

Just because it's certified doesn't mean it can allways get there.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top