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

Never Give A Kid A Jet!

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

skydan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Posts
161




Simple explanation. Lack of maturity, experience and brains. When your young you'll never die. Only maturity give you the experience to make proper decision in aviation. Been there done that and survived! Just glad I was not a captain of a jet at 31 with 3000 of flight time.

Alone in their 50-seat commercial jet, the two young pilots decided to see what it could do.



According to documents released Monday by the National Transportation Safety Board, they climbed so fast that they were pushed down into their seats with 2.3 times the normal force of gravity, zooming toward 41,000 feet, the limit of their Bombardier CRJ200.

"Ooh, look at that," said the second-in-command, Peter R. Cesarz, 23, apparently referring to cockpit readings. "Pretty cool."

"Man, we can do it," said the captain, Jesse Rhodes, 31. "Forty-one it," he said, referring to the maximum altitude.

A few minutes later, though, both engines were dead, and the pilots were struggling to glide to an emergency landing at an airport in Jefferson City, Mo. "We're going to hit houses, dude," one of them said.

The plane crashed two and a half miles from the runway, missing the houses but killing the pilots.

On Monday, the safety board opened three days of hearings into the crash, which occurred last Oct. 14 on a night flight from Little Rock, Ark., to Minneapolis, to reposition the plane for the next day's schedule.

Among the questions at issue is whether the plane's two engines, which are designed to be capable of restarting in flight, may have seized up, resisting four efforts to get them running. Another is whether the airline, Pinnacle, which is rapidly growing and moving young pilots from turboprops into jets, provided appropriate training.

Some investigators say the pilots flew the plane far harder than an airline would fly with passengers on board, and in testimony on Monday, Terry Mefford, Pinnacle's chief pilot, agreed.

"If there's people in the airplane," he said, "you can count that the crew members are pretty much going by the book."

Mr. Mefford also said that since the accident, he had heard talk of a "410 club," whose members had flown the Bombardier to Flight Level 410, or 41,000 feet. Investigators for the safety board apparently heard similar talk. "Investigators formed the impression," a board report said, "that there was a sense of allure to some pilots to cruise at FL 410 just to say they had 'been there and done that.' "

The two pilots had set the autopilot to take the plane to its 41,000-foot limit, but instead of specifying the speed at which it should fly while climbing, they specified the rate of climb. When the jet reached the assigned altitude, it was flying relatively slowly.

The transcript of their conversation as captured by the cockpit voice recorder suggests exhilaration. An air traffic controller with jurisdiction over the flight asked at one point, "3701, are you an RJ-200?"

"That's affirmative," one of the pilots replied.

"I've never seen you guys up at 41 there," she said.

Then there was laughter in the cockpit.

"Yeah, we're actually a, there's ah, we don't have any passengers on board, so we decided to have a little fun and come on up here," one of the pilots answered.

In the thin air, though, the engines had less thrust, and the plane slowed further. The nose pitched up as the autopilot tried to keep it at the assigned altitude, and then an automatic system began warning that the plane was approaching a "stall," in which there is too little lift to maintain flight.

"Dude, it's losing it," one pilot said, using an expletive. "Yeah," the other said.

But as an automatic system tried to push the nose down, to gain speed and prevent the stall, the pilots, for reasons that are unclear, overrode it.

So the plane did stall, and the turbulent air flowing off the wings entered the engines, shutting them down.

"We don't have any engines," one of the pilots said. "You got to be kidding me."

At that point, the safety board says, the plane was within gliding range of five suitable airports. Yet the pilots did not tell the controller the full extent of their problem, reporting that they had lost one engine, not both, and it was not until 14 minutes later that one said: "We need direct to any airport. We have a double engine failure."

The airline has denounced the pilots.

"It's beyond belief that a professional air crew would act in that manner," said Thomas Palmer, former manager of Pinnacle's training program for that model of jet. He said the crew had evidently disregarded "training and common airmanship."

But the Air Line Pilots Association says Pinnacle's safety program had crucial gaps, including lack of training for high altitudes. It also maintains that the engines suffered "core lock," in which engines running at high thrust are shut down suddenly and, when the parts cool at different rates, some rotating components bind up.

General Electric, which built the engines, says they did not seize up. To be certified by the Federal Aviation Administration, engines must be capable of restarting in flight. One issue that the safety board will have to resolve is whether the engines on this plane met that rule.
 
Speaking of Littlerock, didn't a senior captain crash his aircraft into there? How old was he? What was his position?

Exactly. Go screw yourself.
 
Last edited:
Gee, one accident and it's "don't give a kid a jet"

Oh, and I have never met an immature 40 something year old jet jock with 10,000 hours......yeah, ok buddy.

Give me a break.
 
Agreed. I know you old as dirt legacy guys NEVER screw up, do ya. No there's NEVER been an accident due to the same type of circumstances with 2 grey heads in the cockpit.

Remove the pole from your a$$ and go take your geritol.
 
skydan said:
Simple explanation. Lack of maturity, experience and brains. When your young you'll never die. Only maturity give you the experience to make proper decision in aviation. Been there done that and survived! Just glad I was not a captain of a jet at 31 with 3000 of flight time.

I was jumpseating on a United flight and the 40+ year old Airbus captain was bragging about how he had just bought a C-210 that is years out of annual and enjoys taking it through barrel rolls and hammerhead stalls.

Is he a kid too?? Try stupid and immature.

There are younger jet pilots with less time that know much better. Don't pin it on age!

The pinnacle crew lost their respect of physics, and abandoned an attitude required of a professional crew and they didn't get away with it.
 
gotta say, the mood of that article is somewhat offensive in regards to the implication that the cause of that accident was the pilots' age. what concerns me though is not their age, but their (or at least, the way the transcripts portray) attitude and respect for the job and situation at hand.

i'd be just as concerned if it was two 50+ year olds.
 
Enough

I am so FU*#ing tired of hearing about the pimple faced young pilots and how stupid they are and don't know what they are doing because they have not "earned their place" by spending 15 years as a CFI to get a job flying cargo for 10 years, each night in thunderstorms at night in icing with windshear alone in a 310 with freight!
oh yeah also on one engine with partial panel, did I get it all?

I will agree in the situation of 200hr pilots going into a jet with 20 hours solo is not a good idea. There are however many of us (non PTF) that have worked very hard to be where we are. We have an excellent understanding of systems, aerodynamics and high altitude flight. This is do to the fact that we have had good education on human factors, aerodynamics, CRM, Jet sims, and pilot bridge programs. I bet we are more cautious in the jet then the old timers that hit the AP unfold the free USATODAY and go into news paper mode because they have earned the right to do so.

I can't tell you how many situations I have had to fix because of Fu%*ing "been there done that" seasoned captains who are over confident and do not care to stay up to speed with the plane/flight because they have 10k + hours.

I throw this out there, How many crashes in aviation history have been caused because of an arrogent over confident seasoned crews?
 
skydan said:
Simple explanation. Lack of maturity, experience and brains. When your young you'll never die. Only maturity give you the experience to make proper decision in aviation. Been there done that and survived! Just glad I was not a captain of a jet at 31 with 3000 of flight time.[emphasis added]

What?! Are you saying you were in your forties with much more flight time before you "got your act together"?

I'm guessing Skydan is a poser. I cannot imagine a career progression that supports his aircraft flown profile. The main reason I'm raising the BS flag is that somebody with his pupported level of experience should recognize that age has nothing to do with it. The Pinnacle crew's complete and utter lack of flight discipline, combined with poor airmanship, is what killed them. Just like the GIII crew that tuned in a VOR at HOU and proceeded to CFIT the jet into the ground thinking they were flying the ILS. That crew had a combined age of well over 100 years and over 40,000 hours of flying time. (Yes, you read that right.)

Hey Skydan: I think your sophomoric assesment of the human factors involved with XJ3701 is way off-base. You claimto have flown the B-17. The USAAF sent four engine bomber crews into the ETO with 21 year-old A/C's, some of whom had less than 500 hours. They brought daylight precision bombing to the continent. KIndly enlighten us dullards as to how age has anything to do with it.

I'll apologize right here on the board for calling you misinformed if you can prove to us (With NTSB data) that the age of the flight crew is statistically significant to the rate of accidents by age group. Don't buy into the media hype
 
Last edited:
Post Deleted by LJDRVR
 
Last edited:
It's just one of those things...

If they had been women, we'd be hearing all about that.

If they had changed the age 60 rule, and they were over 60, we'd be hearing all about that.

But, since they were both young (??) then everyone is going to hone in on that.

They would have had to be 48 years old with gray hair on the sides to not have this crap mentioned.

Yes, they were immature and unprofessional. But not because of their biological age. We give multi-million dollar aircraft to 23- year olds all the time, and load them up with bombs, too, and send them overseas. Oh yeah, the US military.

Aren't we able to ignore that crap on CNN et al when they talk about airlines?? Don't buy into the media hype. As aviators, WE ALL KNOW that whatever these guys lacked, or failed to do, or chose to do, had nothing to do with what you read in the USA Today.
 
LJDRVR said:
The main reason I'm raising the BS flag is that somebody with his pupported level of experience should recognize that age has nothing to do with it.

...

I'll apologize right here on the board for calling you a misinformed prevaricator if you can prove to us (With NTSB data) that the age of the flight crew is statistically significant to the rate of accidents by age group.
Slow down a minute. I think age does indeed have something to do with it - in this case. You point out that you know of no statistical relationship between age and aviation accident rates and I don't mean to suggest that a direct link exists. However, two facts loom large here. First, this is a specific accident and thus, statistical analysis does not apply. Only the specifics of this case are relevant. Second, youth translates directly, in many cases, as basic inexperience at all things in life.

Now before you take exception to that second item I would remind you that the specifics of THIS case show that this was indeed the true in cockpit of this accident aircraft. In their respective positions youthful is a valid one-word descriptor. Inexperienced is another. The captain failed to recognize several cues that his airplane was in trouble, leaving the cockpit to get a soda even as his aircraft was beginning to founder. The first officer, at 23 and with only 761 hours total time and 222 in type was simply following the lead of a person he believed knew what he was doing. In short, one thing that can definitely be said is that BOTH pilots were youthful in their respective positions – in more ways than one.

It is not useful to compare other accidents - like the one in Little Rock - to this one in an effort to refute the notion that age and inexperience contributed to this accident. Little Rock has been attributed to a long duty day combined with lack of recent experience (on the part of the management pilot involved) and the weather. Those are not even remotely similar facts or circumstances to this case.

This accident investigation centers on the fact that the crew was screwing around with a metaphorical flamethrower without knowing which end was the business end. They didn’t take what they were doing as seriously as they should have been considering the circumstances and they got burned. The open question is how this could have come about and youth and inexperience definitely have a hand in it. Put another way, had the two survived their experiment with high altitude flight I think I can safely say that two slightly older yet considerably WISER pilots would have emerged - BOTH pointing to the experience as one they would NEVER repeat.

The rest of us are in a position to gain from their loss. We can either argue over the merits of age or immaturity having had a hand in this or we can quite wasting time with vacuous protestations and get on with learning from the mistakes that these guys (and those around them) made that led them to an accident chain.

The business of flying planes is a serious one. Very few professions exist in which the decisions you make in the routine performance of your job directly affect (ultimately) whether people will live or die. At the very least one has to TRY to be good at piloting an airplane. We have on display, in this accident, a shining example of a level of effort toward that end that didn’t rise to a minimally acceptable level – whatever these guys did just wasn’t enough. THAT is what we should be trying to assess for ourselves. Whether we be old and grey or youthful and spry we each bring certain advantages and disadvantages to the game. We each need to work to ameliorate the disadvantages and promote the advantages.

TIS
 
Last edited:
Age had nothing to do with it, so go screw yourself. For all you old timers thinking your gods gift to aviation, you're the same as the next HUMAN pilot. It's unfortunate what happened to the pinnacle guys, may we ALL learn from them and allow them rest in peace.


Sign: a young pilot flying a jet (not a kid pilot)
 
One of the only times I've truly been scared in an airplane was with a 60+ year old veteran professional pilot who got completely disoriented performing a missed approach in the soup. I, the 21 year old FO who was fairly new to the jet at the time, had to take over the controls. Old, young, somewhere in the middle, we all screw up. Just learn from it and stop poking two dead guys already.
 
skydan said:
Just glad I was not a captain of a jet at 31 with 3000 of flight time.


If your profile is true, there probably weren't any jet airliners in service when you were 31.

So are you saying that 25 year old pilots with 500 hours have no business landing a jet on an aircraft carrier? Based on your logic, they would be way too immature and inexperienced for such a task.

I was a CRJ Captain at age 33 with 3000 hours. Was I old and wise enough or am I lucky to be alive today? At what age was I no longer a kid?

I read the whole transcript and I was appalled by the actions of the crew and I will not defend them in any way (nor will I bad mouth them). But your comment is idiotic and serves no purpose.

I do agree with you on one thing - I, too, am glad you were not a jet captain at that age - imagine all of those poor FO's!

The arrogance of some never ceases to amaze me.

C425Driver
 
skydan, I believe there's a Pinnacle pilot that posts on jetcareers that just upgraded a few days/weeks after his 23rd birthday.

When Mesa was hiring back pre-911 there were a bunch that upgraded on their 23rd birthday, I remember reading a few stories about it.

~wheelsup
 
B-17 time?

What interests me is the fact that anyone w/ actual B-17 or B-25 time would condemn young pilots, when in WWII these bombers were carrying out their missions over Europe with crews of 19-25 year old men on board.
 
wheelsup said:
skydan, I believe there's a Pinnacle pilot that posts on jetcareers that just upgraded a few days/weeks after his 23rd birthday.

So what? Is there an actual point to your post?
 
It's seems to me that, although there is a correlation between youth and immaturity, it wasn't their youth that killed them - - it was their immaturity.


Young people can be mature and professional, while older people can be immature and unprofessional. It just so happens that in this case youth and immaturity went together.







.
 
Just a question for the lower time guys out there. this is not flame bait! Do any of you think you might learn anything in the next 10K or so hours during your carreer? The reason I ask such a stupid question is there are many posts on this and other threads where the general response seems to be I went to x school I learned all I need to know. Yes there are very good 1500 hour pilots out there, and there are poor 20,000 hours guys as well. But even that really good 1500 hour pilot will get better as he does the job more and more. The point I am trying to make is just acknowledge that there might be a thing or two to learn after you have been doing this for a few decades. The origonal way this used to work was the new guy flew with the old grizzled guy and learned stuff. This does not happen as much as it used to. The point is that the pinnacle thing probably would have not happened if one of the two was an old grizzled type.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top