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.hmmm said:
CatYaaak said: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).hmmm said:
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?
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.~~~^~~~ said:
Relic01 said:
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?paid4training said:
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?TonyC said:
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.enigma said:
