Mary Schiavo Suing (ref:PinnacleCRJ200)

[DetoXJ]

If the crew had been trained in core-lock issues they might have recognized it, abandoned the restart attempts and headed for an airport much sooner, thereby increasing chances of survival.

As much as I detest Schiavo (she thinks MESA is the worlds safest airline) this lawsuit has to go forward.

The point is not how they got themselves into the mess, but how Bombardier/GE/Pinnacle/FAA kept vital information concerning these engines from all who fly them. Even my employer still gives false information to crews during initial/recurrent ignoring core lock completely.

RF

Was the crew trained to not exceed EGT limits? It's one thing to push EGT limits but to exceed them by like 800 degress? (GROSSLY ignored by crew)

Was the crew trained to recognize and properly handle a dual engine failure? (GROSSLY ignored by crew)

Was the crew trained about the Vmin / Mmin airspeed Limitation during climb? (GROSSLY ignored by crew)

I could go on and on but I think you get the point. This lawsuit is a total joke.

 

[LoveGun]

You guys are right. The pilot's are mostly to blame for this accident. However, it's the FAA's responsibilty to make sure this accident does not occur again.

Think of the multiple ways the part 121 system failed with the result being the pinnacle crash. The FAA needs to ferret out all responsible parties, not just the pilots. The FAA would be negligent if they didn't follow up all leads.

 

[twepilot]

slimey effn' lawyers...

RV

 

[Flyerjosh]

You guys are right. The pilot's are mostly to blame for this accident. However, it's the FAA's responsibilty to make sure this accident does not occur again.

Think of the multiple ways the part 121 system failed with the result being the pinnacle crash. The FAA needs to ferret out all responsible parties, not just the pilots. The FAA would be negligent if they didn't follow up all leads.

I agree. The FAA does need to ferret out all responsible parties and take action to ensure it doesn't happen again. That's the FAA's job. NOT THE CIVIL COURT SYSTEMS. If the FAA fails to take action, then the families have ligitimate beef and should pursue other avenues.

However, to file a suit now, before the final report is released by the NTSB is nothing more than a grab at cash and attention by the family and in particular by Scary Mary.

 

[Berry McCockner]

I was trained to fly the CRJ 200 at the Bombardier factory in Montreal by Bombardier instructors. Core lock was never brought up. If core lock is an issue with the CRJ-200 engines, bombardier and GE need to address the problem. How is it that we have hundreds of CRJ type rated pilots that don't even know what core lock is?

Also, high altitude flight was covered only briefly in our CRJ training. Granted the argument coud be made that if you're captain of a jet you should have an understanding of high altitude flight, but there is also a responsibilty on the part of examiners to assure that whoever was/is CRJ typed is familiar with high altitiude ops.

A lot of blame can be focused on the pilots for this accident, but also the finger can be pointed at the manufacturer, the training dept, and airline management. Anyone that had a hand in allowing those pilots to fly a CRJ is suspect.

Were you trained that if you put enough G's on the airplane the wings will fall off?? No, its just something that will happen. Just like if you stall the a/c and let the engines flame out at fl410 and let the ITT go through the roof, the ingines will melt and lock up. When you buy a car do they tell you that if you don't put oil in it that the engine will overheat and lock up. No..
My point is that Core Lock is something that will happen to any engine under those circumstances. Its not bombardiers fault that the dumbass pilots put the airplane in that situation. Lame lawsuit. The families just want to collect some cash for there loss. Its the American way.

 

[Nancy Pryor]

The legacy of morning tv talk shows

If core lock is an issue with the CRJ-200 engines, bombardier and GE need to address the problem.

Bombardier does address it. Starting in the mid-1980s, each CF34 engine except for spare engines is flight tested for core lock. Tight engines undergo an in-flight seal "grind in" procedure. Engines that fail this flight test are returned to General Electric. The right engine on 3701 was a spare and had not been flight tested for core lock, but the left engine was tested before delivery. As others have mentioned, the left engine didn't fail to restart because of core lock, it failed to restart because the high pressure turbine was melted by an extreme overtemperature condition caused/uncorrected by the crew. Core lock is caused by interaction between shafts and seals. See:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0UBT/is_2005_June_27/ai_n14713922/pg_2

How is it that we have hundreds of CRJ type rated pilots that don't even know what core lock is?

Many mainline pilots have been complaining in recent years that the technical information made available to them by their company is becoming more and more limited. As a technically oriented pilot, I am sometimes frustrated by this also. Sometimes I just want to know more, or more detail. So for many, having access to this type of information would be a good thing. On the other hand, I can see why airlines are prioritizing what information is provided during training, and that as a practical matter they can only cover the essentials unless the length of training increases beyond what is reasonable.

The limitations for the CRJ define a minimum airspeed to be maintained in the event of a flameout. The purpose of the limitation is to maintain N2 rotation and prevent the possibility of core lock in the flamed out engine. In this sense, training does cover core lock, by teaching adherence to this airspeed limitation. The technical reason for the limitation might not be explained in detail, and some of us would find it very interesting if it was, but it should not be necessary to justify a limitation to get pilots to follow it. Where would you draw the line? I think it is reasonable to rely on an airline pilot to have a sufficiently mature and responsible attitude that persuading him/her to follow the published limitations isn't necessary. Given the immature behavior exhibited by the 3701 flight crew, perhaps that is what needs to be addressed, at the hiring level.

Also, high altitude flight was covered only briefly in our CRJ training. Granted the argument coud be made that if you're captain of a jet you should have an understanding of high altitude flight,

Anyone without an understanding of high altitude flight has no business in the cockpit of a jet, and certainly not in the command seat. Because it is common to all high altitude flight, this is not a subject that is appropriate to a particular transport jet type and does not belong in type training where it would only take valuable time away from type specific subject areas. It's general knowledge that should be brought to the class.

but there is also a responsibilty on the part of examiners to assure that whoever was/is CRJ typed is familiar with high altitiude ops.

I agree that all examiners should be checking for this. There is also some responsibility on the pilot here, if you don't know this area hit the books before or during your type rating, don't wait to be spoon fed general airmanship.

A lot of blame can be focused on the pilots for this accident, but also the finger can be pointed at the manufacturer, the training dept, and airline management.

This is like a drunk driver trying to avoid responsibility by blaming the bartender for serving him. The airspeed limitation in the event of an engine flame-out was published and trained, and ignored by the 3701 flight crew. How is this anyone elses fault? Not to mention all the other dangerous and immature acts that the DFDR and CVR revealed that led up to this crash.

Anyone that had a hand in allowing those pilots to fly a CRJ is suspect.

One more thing we agree on. These idiots, especially the CA but also the FO for not being assertive and putting a stop to the CA's dangerous antics, should have been weeded out of the system long before they got to the cockpit of a CRJ. The real problem was their lack of maturity and adolescent attitude. This crash, as someone else said so aptly was "self induced". They were not victims of anything external, except perhaps failed parenting that didn't instill a sufficient level of responsibility and maturity before these kids left home. Lying to ATC to conceal their second engine failure says it all. Hopefully if there is another crew out there like this one, this crash might be an eye opener that gives them a clue in time.

 

[FlyBarneyJets]

So you're saying an aircraft manufacturer doesn't have to admit and address design flaws. Also, a training department is not accountable for handing out type ratings, and an airline is not responsible for checking the proficiency of its pilots. I'm not trying to defend what these yahoos did, but there is a whole chain of events that should have been broken and kept them out of the cockpit or at least insured they were properly trained.

Sure they do...when they're the sole cause of the accident.

Suing a manufacturer for the failure of a product that lead to the death of an individual after said individual used the product in a manner in which it was not intended to be used is what's happening here. It's kinda like suing the manufacturer of the electrical outlet, the home builder, and the power company after your dumb-ass kid sticks a metal fork into it because YOU weren't watching him.

 

[OldManPilot]

This Law firm is from Charleston SC, it has a Falcon 50 and a Citation II

 

[Dodge]

Any pilot that thinks that "Core Lock" is a topic that has been omitted in their training is a complete dufus. Look at the engine in your cars and other fossil fuel burning toys. If you over heat em, they are gonna lock up. Especially they way these guys torched them

Maybe the families of the deceased should sue Pinnacle for hiring their kin who were professional pilot imposters.

 

[DoinTime]

Anyone without an understanding of high altitude flight has no business in the cockpit of a jet, and certainly not in the command seat. Because it is common to all high altitude flight, this is not a subject that is appropriate to a particular transport jet type and does not belong in type training where it would only take valuable time away from type specific subject areas. It's general knowledge that should be brought to the class.

It seems to me that if, in a effort to ever shave costs, regional airlines are going to hire 500 hour G/A pilots for the right seat and pilots with ZERO jet time on their resume for the left seat they have an obligation to provide this training.

The airspeed limitation in the event of an engine flame-out was published and trained, and ignored by the 3701 flight crew.

Incorrect. The airspeed limitation was offered for memorization without any supporting information as to why it existed (even our instructors and examiners didn't know why this limitation existed). The memory items for dual engine flame were also never physically trained in any sort of practical mannor.

Any pilot that thinks that "Core Lock" is a topic that has been omitted in their training is a complete dufus. Look at the engine in your cars and other fossil fuel burning toys. If you over heat em, they are gonna lock up. Especially they way these guys torched them

Dodge, you have no clue what you are talking about. One engine was overtemped beyond operation but the other engine was fine and should have started.