News just reported CRJ crash...

[paid4training]

It's all about the money...the FAA is about promoting the airline industry and that includes protecting companies. The Pilots are sometimes scape goats to save the industry...Maintaining the publics trust in the airplanes and the system!!! The Airplanes design and big money companies....

 

[CatYaaak]

Because they will be looking for reasons to blame the pilots over anyone else.
The FAA and their counterparts and manufacturer certified the aircraft for operation up there and that is where this mess started.

The statement that they will be "looking to blame the pilots over anyone else" is unjustified. The NTSB isn't the FAA, and even in those cases where pilots primarily contribute to accidents the NTSB usually doesn't leave others unscathed, and cite contributing factors such as training, the airline itself, lack of oversight by the FAA, the manufacturer etc. etc.

And no, there shouldn't have been a stall or overtemp, but the CRJ has a good FDR and CVR, and the report will fill in the blanks. Btw, where did you see the temperature reported? I missed that one wherever it was stated, but we know also those can change quickly at altitude. And the weight?..I didn't see that either..what was it? Was it turbulent?...no info on that yet but could be important. Like you, "speaking from experience", I know the thing's a pig above FL350, even on a good day.

 

[CatYaaak]

It's all about the money...the FAA is about promoting the airline industry and that includes protecting companies. The Pilots are sometimes scape goats to save the industry...Maintaining the publics trust in the airplanes and the system!!! The Airplanes design and big money companies....

Well, you're just reiterating the reason why the NTSB does these types of investigations, and not the FAA. Oh, and are you paranoid, or what?

 

[Lear70]

ummm hmmm No "Base Hopper" I mean Lear70 just who's side are you on. If the aircraft is certified at the ambient temp and weight at FL410, then it was certificated to operate that night at FL410 and if the engines flamed out it is the entities that certified its responsibility. They shouldn't have flamed in the first place.
QUOTE]

I don't think anyone's taking "sides" in the matter, just a discussion. It seems that the first statement the NTSB made indicated that the aircraft entered an "aerodynamic stall". If that turns out to be accurate..if that was the first thing that happened.. doing so could certainly flame out the engines, and a subsequent overtemp during an attempted windmilling restart could melt one. Correct me if I'm wrong because I may be getting my engines mixed up, but I seem to recall there is no overtemp protection in that scenario.

Don't worry Yaaak, he was just giving me a little grief, he knows who I am and I'm pretty cerain I know who he is, so it was kind of an inside thing ("Base Hopper" is probably what I should change my s/n to).

You're both exactly right, wasn't trying to take sides, was just stating that the aircraft IS pressurization-limited at that altitude and I put the wrong number down (guess I should brush up on my limitations, eh?) . I specifically remember having a "We're at Max PSID at this altitude" discussion every time I had the aircraft up there, and I"m sure they took the airplane higher during certification, but not much - the d*mn thing sits right on green line (about M .68) up there even with only 3,000 lbs of FOB and no pax. I didn't like it and didn't stay long - I'm happiest about M .77 or higher.

I also agree that the engines should NOT have flamed out as long as the aircraft wasn't stalled; everything else I'm thinking is speculation and I ain't going there. Should have known better than to discuss systems with Mmmm anyway, pilots who used to be mechanics ought to have disclaimers under their s/n's.

Here's a question for ya': you mentioned the 500 fpm climb with both packs off, but every time I've done an unpressurized landing (apu deferred, anti ice required) including two days ago, the climb rate once you turn the packs off skyrockets up to 2,000 fpm which is uncomfortable. Does it stabilize at the 500 fpm rate at some point if you were to lose the packs at altitude?

 

[hmmm]

500FPM after stabilized. For Lear 70. I assume that you are saying 2000 fpm before you open the Ram Air valve per the unpressurized landing checklist. I have never turned off the packs and waited before pushing in the Ram Air valve. The stabilized at 500 fpm was with ram air valve closed as said by test pilot and some others that had done pre-delivery acceptance tests where they shut off the packs and see the fpm climb rate is within limits. Of course this was not a new airplane. This after calling around to some different top check airmen and a call to a mechanical engineer at Bmbdr whom I ask questions of once in awhile when I was studying things like double failure thinking they were going to give that in the sim.


For Cat. Temp was off of Weather Tap that night and was close to ISA and with a BOW even at the most for the airplane is aproximately 31.9 plus even a fuel load of 6.0 by the time they got to 410 would allow the airplane up there per the climb chart. And no Catyaak just trying to protect their good name.

Done speaking here. We're getting too deep, getting too close to speculation when we should not go beyond what is public information available out of the Bombardier manuals and Bombardier QRH and NTSB reports and weather services.

Was just tired of people saying things that was flat out bull that would seem to lead to tarnishing the good name of our fellow airmen. We are all brothers as pilots.

 

[FN FAL]

Finally. To answer someone else question above as to why they didn't do some of the declarations over the radio.

THEY WERE BUSY...
...Hopefully we will all learn every factor involved here and nobody will hide anything or push aside their responsibility.

Thanks for the reply, that clears a few things up for me. I gather from reading your post that the aircraft had more than sufficient systems redundancy.

 

[Relic01]

I think other airlines will follow with altitude restrictions. My observation has been that our IP's and experienced line pilots seem to believe 37,000 is the maximum sensible altitude for the airplane. Although nothing is codified, we are told of experiences of low IAS / Mach resulting in compressor stalls.

Two factors are involved. First, CF34-3B1 is correct that mass airflow is very important to these engines. I have seen the thrust carat react to slowing airspeeds. Simply put, the more air you ram into the front of the engine the more power it makes. Nearly no air in the front of the engine results in compressor stalls, although I will be surprised if they could be so serious as to cause dual flameouts in an engine with variable stators.

The other factor is the supercritical wing. This wing hates to go slow. The L/D curve on the slow side of the wing's envelope is steeper than you might think.

These two factors combined make the RJ a great airplane to be at FL410 if you are at .76 or more. At .68 you are someplace you do not want to be.

Other observations about the report are that this airplane about set a time to climb record for a 200 and that the RT engine may have been damaged during a airstart attempt.

Gossip is that this was a very low time crew. New hire FO and Captain with about a year's time with the operator. Anyone know?

This is a bothersome accident. Airplanes should not have dual flameouts in their certified flight envelope. My prayers are with the friends and families of my fellow RJ pilots.

Well thought out post. This entire accident bothers me and hopefully we will have most questions answered. I had a simulator instructor who had us do a restart after a simulated double engine failure at 350. For two newhire FOs, it was not a easy task and even with the EPC/CFM there was some confusion and hesitance. The flying pilot trying fly the airplane with power loss, attain adequate speed while the PNF completed the appropriate steps. This procedure called for the continuos ignition on, mach .70, and rotation of n2 above 12% before the introduction of fuel. In panic, I watched my PNF trying to introduce fuel way too early to no avail. There was an increase on the eicas with premature fuel introduction but none that I believe could have fried an engine.

Another problem I have is the experience of the crew with both the CRJ, high altitude flight and the company. If I'm not mistaken the Capt was hired in 02/2003. He had been a Capt at gulfstream presumably flying a b1900. He was hired as a street captain and may not have had any previous jet, swept wing or high altitude experience. The FO was basically a new hire as of 06/2004. Training takes about two months thus the FO had two months of line experience. Together, everyone better be on their A game.

I've flown the crj200 with pax to 370 and it was a dog. At such altitude and a high nose up attitude, the CRJ struggles to accelerate. You have to watch it carefully. The green line is right there and after encountering some weather and the aircraft reacting sluggishly around .70 and still not accelerating, I suggested to the captaion that I was not comfortable there and we should request lower. We did get down to 330 and later that day I heard of abnormalities within the atmosphere that cause not just a RJ but also a 737 to experience performance problems.

These airplane are not brand new. They are certified brand new with everything working. Our CRJs have high cycles and older engines so these are things to take into consideration when deciding to take this bird to altitude. What was ISA that particular day? What was the a/cs weight? Can the events be simulated in the sim? Does pinnacle incorporate high altitude sim training into their flight ops?The questions are many but hopefully we will find the true culprit.

Finally, let's all not get too excited and start arguing and bickering amongst ourselves. We sympatize with the lost but these discussions help us think. It could have been anyone of us up there. Accidents are always a chain of events. If the chain is broken anywhere, usually it erases the accident.

God be with the crew and families of all three accidents.

Bon voyage, mon ami.

 

[MetroSheriff]

The plane had a history of ignitor replacements also.

As do most aircraft. Ignitors are time limited parts, not "on condition".

My mouth and my theories are shut for now.

That is probably for the best.

 

[PCL_128]

Another problem I have is the experience of the crew with both the CRJ, high altitude flight and the company. If I'm not mistaken the Capt was hired in 02/2003. He had been a Capt at gulfstream presumably flying a b1900. He was hired as a street captain and may not have had any previous jet, swept wing or high altitude experience. The FO was basically a new hire as of 06/2004. Training takes about two months thus the FO had two months of line experience. Together, everyone better be on their A game.

Alright, this is really starting to pi$$ me off. Jessie was not an inexperienced pilot. He had 6700 hours TT, somewhere around half of that would have been turbine PIC. He would have had around 1000 hours in type also. That's not a low level of experience. Let's not start blaming the crew until more information comes out.

 

[NoBathroom]

Not only was Jesse one of my best friends, he was also a great pilot. I have no doubt that he did everything possible to get that airplane on the ground safely. Do not question the pilots experience or knowledge of the plane. They acted professionally, there is no question about that. Do not blame the crew.

 

[CatYaaak]

Let's not start blaming the crew until more information comes out.

Nobody's blamed the crew.

 

[BE99chick]

CatYaaak...your Avatar is one of the funniest ones yet!

I have so many questions I don't know where to start!!!!!!

 

[paid4training]

Well, you're just reiterating the reason why the NTSB does these types of investigations, and not the FAA. Oh, and are you paranoid, or what?

Paranoid, no... realistic yes!!! You really believe the gov't has never convered up a crash investigation before to cover either a major aircraft designer etc.?

 

[efiscompmon]

Relic--don't count the training time. Here at PCL, training is on YOUR dime, on YOUR time! Hire dates approximate start of IOE.

I've seen lots of accidents over the years--NEVER have I seen one where people were so quick to make commetns about the experience level of the crew.

Y'all need to stow that sh!t before the press picks it up and makes it into something ugly and twisted regarding our whole industry. I see no way in which it can help ANY of us.

I've been an active instructor for over a decade and held a letter for the last four years--I can honestly say there is no hard and fast direct correlation between the numbers in a logbook and ability--under stress or not. Seen 120 hour private pilots fly the RJ sim better than I could on my best day--seen 12000 hour turboprop check airmen _consistently_ auger the sim. Flew with an assistant chief pilot who froze on an aborted takeoff.

Unless YOU have heard the CVR, let's not talk about crew performance. Regardless what happened here, it's not helping the rest of us.

 

[efiscompmon]

hey paid 4 training--

who said you could put my sis's picture up?

 

[Oakum_Boy]

I think I flew with that F/A once...

 

[CatYaaak]

paranoia runs deep!

Paranoid, no... realistic yes!!! You really believe the gov't has never convered up a crash investigation before to cover either a major aircraft designer etc.?

So you're telling me that the U.S. government including all the individuals in involved in the investigation are now risking careers and freedom scrambling to commit federal cover-up crimes, falsifying documents, planting evidence, twisting arms, buying off whoever needs to be bought off, finding some magic formula to convince all the self-interested parties who normally compete with each other in any investigation to provide the NTSB info on "the other guy" to suddenly all play from the same sheet of music....all this.....because of a ferry flight accident with no pax involving a Canadian-designed airplane?

I think you've been reading too many Michael Crighton novels.

 

[CatYaaak]

CatYaaak...your Avatar is one of the funniest ones yet!

I have so many questions I don't know where to start!!!!!!

You have to admit, that cat has a great sense of priorities and taste.

 

[enigma]

Enigma,


As I read through the timeline, those exact same questions came to my mind. Why didn't they declare an emergency and announce a dual engine flameout from the beginning, if indeed that's what happened? Did they not know 2 engines failed, or were they trying to hide something, perhaps a mistake they made? And more . . . The problem is, to even ASK these types of questions tends to paint the crew in a bad light.

These and other "why" questions are best reserved for after the investigation is complete. We might not like the answers, and we don't have the "rest of the story," namely the CVR. The cockpit conversation will undoubtedly provide better insight into the actions of the crew.

I'm dying to know, too, but let's be patient and respectful.

Tony, it is a rare occasion that I make a rash post. The one to which you refer was not one of them. I am fully aware that asking those questions can be construed to paint the crew in a bad light. However, I felt that I was commenting more on the wording of the preliminary report than on the actions of the crew. To me, the report should have either contained more, or less detail. The NTSB obviously has the FDR, so why release incomplete data?

For the crew, I didn't mean to imply that they did anything wrong, I was just wondering why they took the actions that they took. I completely understand that talking to atc is sometimes the last thing on a pilots mind. With that, I'll take your good advice.

regards,
enigma

 

[TonyC]

Tony, it is a rare occasion that I make a rash post. The one to which you refer was not one of them. I am fully aware that asking those questions can be construed to paint the crew in a bad light. However, I felt that I was commenting more on the wording of the preliminary report than on the actions of the crew. To me, the report should have either contained more, or less detail. The NTSB obviously has the FDR, so why release incomplete data?

For the crew, I didn't mean to imply that they did anything wrong, I was just wondering why they took the actions that they took. I completely understand that talking to atc is sometimes the last thing on a pilots mind. With that, I'll take your good advice.

regards,
enigma

Please don't mistake my post as an attack, or even as an accusation. I think we all must be very conscious of what we say, and how the words we record here can echo throughout time and space. Sometimes we can paint a picture in a bad way simply by asking questions that don't have an obvious or immediate answer. My post was intended as a general cautionary statement for us all, myself included.

I believe - - emphasis on believe - - the reason the information that HAS been released was released because, having been transmitted over public airwaves, i.e., the VHF radio, they are considered in some way public knowledge. Anyone with a scanner tuned in at the appropriate times and places could have heard the information released heretofore, with the exception of the initial event at FL410, the dual flameout. Why they released that is a mystery to me.

I don't think we would want them releasing the entire contents of the CVR and the DFDR, but it wouldn't be very useful, and it would lead to unwarranted speculation.