News just reported CRJ crash...

[T-Gates]

Anybody think that maybe they had a problem with one engine and in a panic shut the wrong (good) engine down, leaving them with no engines? And at FL410 they could not get the good engine to light off again? Just my 2 cents. I hope they find out soon what happened so this can be resolved quickly and prevent any other future incidents.

I sure as hell hope not, but lets all hold off on useless speculation. The NTSB holds all the info, if it's that cut and dry, we'll all know soon enough.

 

[Kaman]

Hello,

Just speculating here, but if the crew lost an engine at FL410, wouldn't they have plenty of time to identify the correct engine? And even if they didn't still have plenty of time to realize their error and correct it? Also, I find it surprising that people would say that the crew "panicked" I just can't find myself believing that theory. It was a tragedy no matter what the cause, and in time we will have better information and hopefully it will be information that can be used to prevent a similar mishap in the future.

Godspeed to the crew

ex-Navy Rotorhead

 

[Publishers]

speculation

There are many things that could have accounted for the accident and while speculation in the media is not good, the fact is that pilots can and will talk intelligently about causes and that is the good kind of speculation.

For what it is worth: Let's assume that we had an engine fire in #1 at altitude. We start down going through the emergency list. Fire bottle fired but it does not extinguish the fire and eventually the fire causes some control and fuel issues to the remaining engine at 13000. I do not believe you can start the APU until a lower altitude so that might have some remote effect. Another issue may have related to descent speeds trying to keep up speed for restart.

We once had two engines go to flight idle in a Citation when the fuel ports froze.

Remember what we all know. Accidents are usually the result of a number of things going wrong at the same time or in progress. Not just isolated incidents.

 

[dondk]

C'mon.. They (who ever you want to think) have to point some finger at the crew.. So I guess they are questioning the decision to cruise at 410. The fact that it did not relight (either engine) for 40,000' and about 100 NM means little. It was 410 and that is the problem...

Lets not state that the crew did their job all the way to the ground, lets not state they tried in vain to get it back, let's not state that we (all pilots) lost 2 fine aviatiors on that evening.

I really don't care for the spin's the NTSB is putting on this. Start the spin by the crew did a great job and the NTSB will make sure these two pilots will not be just a statistic.

 

[T-Gates]

C'mon.. They (who ever you want to think) have to point some finger at the crew.. So I guess they are questioning the decision to cruise at 410. The fact that it did not relight (either engine) for 40,000' and about 100 NM means little. It was 410 and that is the problem...

Lets not state that the crew did their job all the way to the ground, lets not state they tried in vain to get it back, let's not state that we (all pilots) lost 2 fine aviatiors on that evening.

I really don't care for the spin's the NTSB is putting on this. Start the spin by the crew did a great job and the NTSB will make sure these two pilots will not be just a statistic.

Well said Don......

 

[suupah]

If you lose an engine, isn't easy to stall the other engine when the nose gets crooked. But it isn't like these guys were amateurs and also they had a long time to get them relit.

I am going to assume that they were both skillled pilots who did everything they could but they encountered a weird anomoly.

 

[100LL... Again!]

Catyaak-

You gotta go back to the Krusty avatar; it's how I always picture you now. It nicely punctuates the stinging wit in your posts.

 

[CatYaaak]

C'mon.. They (who ever you want to think) have to point some finger at the crew.. So I guess they are questioning the decision to cruise at 410....
......I really don't care for the spin's the NTSB is putting on this. Start the spin by the crew did a great job and the NTSB will make sure these two pilots will not be just a statistic.

Sorry, but the NTSB doesn't "spin", have any reason to, or done so in this case. You're drawing an inference from one of the things they said was of "interest" to them...the altitude, since it is at the edge of the a/cs certified envelope....something they may eventually discount as a factor. Essentially, you're the one who's spinning, not them, because you're emotionally involved in it. That's why the NTSB is ultimately tasked with these investigations, and not the FAA, the airlines, or pilots...because they can remain detached.

Human factors, crew performance, and decision-making are always examined. No comment has been made by the NTSB regarding any of these, and they aren't going to say anything was "bad" (causal) until the puzzle has been pieced together, nor will they declare anything to be "good" (including crew performance and decisions) until that time. Like it or not, this avenue of investigation, along with all the others, is just another part of the fishbowl-world, big-boy/girl profession we've chosen.

 

[AceCrackshot]

Sorry CatYaaak, but I can't allow you to let the NTSB off the hook, twice.
The NTSB does spin...off the top of my head I can think of two accidents where the NTSB proceeded with the "Ready, Fire, Aim" mentality.

How long did the NTSB persist in a whispering campaign regarding the UA 737 COS accident, floating a crew suicide theory, Boeing's freak wind rotor theory, and walking down every other blind alley only to come up empty-handed after a rash of similiar accidents (COPA coming immediately to mind.) It took eleven, eleven other 73 accidents before the NTSB came to the startling conclusion, arrived at by the Brits years before, that the rudder could hard over.

While I wasn't a party to TW 800, I know people who principals in the investigation. The FAA and NTSB, from the outset, were dead set against the missile theory. Now, if it was a missile or not is irrelevant. At the end of the day, the NTSB decided that certain outcomes to the investigation were unacceptable, and that no investigatory time or effort would be expended on "unpopular" theories.

I'm no accident investigator or aeronautical engineer. But to me, a realitively low time pilot, the "most interesting thing" would exactly why a transport aircraft, operated well within its certified limits, decided to die.

 

[Crossky]

He's not confused at all....It was the RJ100 prototype doing post certification testing. 1993.

http://aviation-safety.net/database/1993/930726-2.htm3

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001211X12882&ntsbno=CHI93MA276&akey=1


That registration # is now on a CRJ700

Edit.....Sorry English, I don't know what happened to the link. If you cut/paste the ntsb address it will work then.

Sorry, thanks for the clarification. That's what I get for not checking the facts myself before posting.

 

[Lear70]

Its not like its a brand new airplane and no one knows what it will do. It has been certified for F410 and has been there MANY times. The chalanger has been there MANY times. I doubt altitude alone was the problem. A 2 engine flame out on this airplane has to be 1:1,000,000. These engines are just too good to just shut down.

Oh I agree completely, just seems to be the direction someone is leaning for it to come out on our releases like it is...

Again, not speculating, just putting info out there for the inevitable discussion and would rather people have heard it from someone who works here rather than "someone's uncles' brother's cousin"; when it comes out like that people ALWAYS seem to think someone was hiding something...

 

[CatYaaak]

Sorry CatYaaak, but I can't allow you to let the NTSB off the hook, twice.
The NTSB does spin...off the top of my head I can think of two accidents where the NTSB proceeded with the "Ready, Fire, Aim" mentality.

How long did the NTSB persist in a whispering campaign regarding the UA 737 COS accident, floating a crew suicide theory, Boeing's freak wind rotor theory, and walking down every other blind alley only to come up empty-handed after a rash of similiar accidents (COPA coming immediately to mind.) It took eleven, eleven other 73 accidents before the NTSB came to the startling conclusion, arrived at by the Brits years before, that the rudder could hard over.

While I wasn't a party to TW 800, I know people who principals in the investigation. The FAA and NTSB, from the outset, were dead set against the missile theory. Now, if it was a missile or not is irrelevant. At the end of the day, the NTSB decided that certain outcomes to the investigation were unacceptable, and that no investigatory time or effort would be expended on "unpopular" theories.

I'm no accident investigator or aeronautical engineer. But to me, a realitively low time pilot, the "most interesting thing" would exactly why a transport aircraft, operated well within its certified limits, decided to die.

What you're telling me is that the NTSB, when answering questions regarding just one of many avenues of scentific investigation they are pursuing, somehow constitutes "spin", as if it were a criminal investigation and they a have a prime suspect. Their job is scientific, to walk down every "ally" blind or not, and investigators are assigned as such in every instance.

You're faulting them for being thorough, while at the same time wanting to find out "EXACTLY WHY a transport aircraft decided to die". I left out the "operated well within it's certified limits" part of your sentence, because you're stating as fact something that remains to be determined by them, or if it has been, revealed. You simply don't know that to be true, and in any scientific investigation in the early stages you assume nothing where variables can exist.

The NTSB never found that suicide was a factor in the CO incident, and the "whispering campaign" accusation is misplaced, since that one was originally floated somewhere by flight crews themselves and since such rumors abounded, investigators would be remiss not to consider it. A process that discounts such things leads to "official findings" along the lines of the Egyptian Aviation authorities blaming Boeing for the Egyptair 767 crash off Long Island, because their prime objective was to absolve the flight crew, still insisting that "Muslims don't commit suicide".

As far as the missile theory with TWA 800, that avenue would be primarily a criminal (FBI) or DOD investigation, which isn't the purview of the NTSB, and I believe those investigations "pursuing those unpopular theories" did run in tandem with the NTSB one. You can believe what you want with regards to conspiracy theories discounting the findings those other investigations, and that the NTSBs fuel tank finding was just a big smokescreen.

And the Brits?...well, they design airplanes and after they're finished, finally remember that it needs a cockpit, and kind of bolt one on top.

 

[EAP]

Well boys and gals, as usual, we're just gonna have to wait and see. Prophetic, I know, but true none the less. I have my own criticisms of the NTSB as of late, but they do a pretty thorough paper chase by the time all is said and done.

 

[JetCapt69]

AIN ONLINE article:

http://www.ainonline.com/weeklynews/AIN_weeklynews.html

October 19, 2004
Engines Flamed Out before Fatal Crash of Regional Jet
Both engines stalled at FL410 during last Thursday’s fatal Pinnacle Airlines repositioning flight from Little Rock, Ark., to Minneapolis, according to the NTSB. Both pilots died when their Bombardier CRJ200 regional jet crashed outside Jefferson City, Mo., at 9:21 p.m. local time into a residential neighborhood. No one on the ground was injured. NTSB investigators, still in the process of reading data from the airplane’s cockpit-voice and flight-data recorders, haven’t yet determined what caused the engines to quit. The 50-seat aircraft (S/N 7396, built in 2000) had 10,161 hours total time and its last major inspection revealed no major problems. However, pilots aborted the airplane’s last scheduled flight when, during taxi, an indicator light alerted the crew to a possible problem with the bleed-air system. Shortly afterward Pinnacle flew two mechanics to Little Rock to repair the 14th stage bleed-air route on the right engine, according to a Safety Board spokesman.

 

[JetPilot_Mike]

I guess I better brush up on my Double Engine Failure in Flight memory items.

 

[601Pilot]

Article in Aviation Daily

Engine Focus Likely For NTSB In Pinnacle CRJ-200 Crash
Aviation Daily

10/20/2004

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is examining the two GE CF34-3B1 turbofans powering the Pinnacle Airlines CRJ-200 that crashed during a repositioning flight last week to determine why both engines lost power.
The flight was en route from Little Rock, Ark., to Minneapolis Thursday evening when it crashed in a residential area of Jefferson City, Mo., (DAILY, Oct. 18). Maintainers worked on the plane earlier in the day after that same aircraft had an aborted takeoff from Little Rock.
The CRJ was cruising at 41,000 feet -- the maximum certified altitude for that plane -- when the first engine lost power. The pilot requested a lower altitude and descended to 24,000 feet. At 13,000 feet, the second engine failed. The last communication from the crew noted on the aircraft's cockpit voice recorder was at 9,000 feet when the crew said they had the airport beacon in sight and radar vectors were guiding the plane. The communication was with the Kansas City air traffic control center.
NTSB member Carol Carmody said that an initial examination of engines indicated they weren't running when they hit the ground. "This accident is unique. We don't know what other accidents may or may not be like it," she said. "We will be going over the engines very thoroughly."

 

[Mel Sharples]

I'm sure 300 hour FO wonderboy from Gulfstream was right on top of things during the emergency. I'm sure it was single pilot with a distraction for Captain Rhodes.

Nice. Pure class, dude. Don't even have all the facts, don't know these guys from your ass and you are going to figure out exactly what happened based on where they are from.

Care to bash them for race while you are at it? I'm sure they had to have more in their past you can criticize them for.

What distinguished places of business have you worked for, since you are perfect?

And I was praying for their souls. Maybe I should be praying for your's you heartless jackass.



.

 

[blade230]

Agreed, lequip is a complete Jackass/Prick.

 

[J32driver]

Moderators.... I would like to suggest the permanent banning of Lequip.

 

[Lequip]

Sorry but that wasn't my post. My account must have been logged on and somebody else posted it. I know I say some off the wall stuff to stir the pot here but I respect those that lost their lives in this crash. I see somebody already removed the post. Thank you for doing so!

 

[Rhoid]

Some new info from another board:



Excerpt from a pilot who works with the safety portion of the union:

"Because the plane was empty, the crew probably thought they could fly at 410 no problem. Well the plane stalled and dual engine flameout occured. They recovered around 330 and tried to relight the engines. They spent the next 24 or so minutes getting vectors from ATC. Relight never occured and it looks like it was due to the slow airspeed they were tying to relight at. It sounds like the NTSB will be implementing the rule that CRJ 100/200's are limited to 350. It is a very sad way to learn a lesson, but the 200's should not be up a 410. Sounds like the engines were melted because of the heavy loads of fuel passed through and not enough speed. No checklists were used in the entire 24 minute period. Pinnacle uses memory items."

 

[JetPilot_Mike]

Some new info from another board:
Excerpt from a pilot who works with the safety portion of the union:
"Because the plane was empty, the crew probably thought they could fly at 410 no problem. Well the plane stalled and dual engine flameout occured. They recovered around 330 and tried to relight the engines. They spent the next 24 or so minutes getting vectors from ATC. Relight never occured and it looks like it was due to the slow airspeed they were tying to relight at. It sounds like the NTSB will be implementing the rule that CRJ 100/200's are limited to 350. It is a very sad way to learn a lesson, but the 200's should not be up a 410. Sounds like the engines were melted because of the heavy loads of fuel passed through and not enough speed. No checklists were used in the entire 24 minute period. Pinnacle uses memory items."

I'm not saying that I agree with this, but hopefully they used the QRH after the initial memory items for Double Engine Failure, because that is one long a$s procedure. Also, if they went to single engine driftdown speed (Vfs +30) that probably isnt fast enough to do a relight.

 

[efiscompmon]

And until now I thought that my Rhoid Rage was from tight, damp undies. Didn't know it was from the tool above.

-----

Yes there are memory items, followed by a CHECKLIST--big red tab. Hard to miss.

NTSB doesn't implement ANY rules--my private pilot applicants know that.

Engines were melted? WTF?

I know almost every person on PCL's Air safety committee and their chair once flew as my FO--none of them would say sh!t if they had a mouth full of it.

Clearly it's more than your mouth--you're full of it.

 

[Rhoid]

Don't shoot the messenger, I copied from another message board pal.

 

[Palerider957]

If the engines are found to be at fault, this has tremendous implications in a world full of CRJ's. At ASA we have certainly had our share of probs. with the GE engines.

I'm concerned that (like the NYC Airbus) crash, they will quickly blame the pilots. It's easier to blame two dead guys, then ground a world full of airplanes. I have a feeling this investigation will get nasty.

 

[efiscompmon]

care to source that message board?

 

[Relic01]

Godspeed to both of these guys. May their sould rest in peace. These are difficult times and they require strength in grieving with our colleagues at Pinnacle and the families of these gentlemen. However, we must never forget what caused this tragedy, we have a very dangerous job. I have heard new hires tell me that this is the easiest job they have ever had...not so. This job is dangerous and very difficult. We can never rest on our laurels or become complacent.

There should be a forum for the safety issues within our industry without bashing.

...to be continued.

 

[Lear70]

Flamebait

Don't shoot the messenger, I copied from another message board pal.

No you didn't... at least not from any message board associated with Pinnacle Airlines or our Safety Committee. This isn't ANYWHERE on our ALPA board or our private message board, so I have to call "BULLSH*T" on you buddy, and pretty uninformed B.S. at that because,

1. Engines don't spontaneously "Melt". If it was operating at 41,0 using max climb thrust, engine temperatures would be about 100 deg C below red line which is probably another 300 to 400 degrees below where damage starts occurring, not to mention most of the moving parts in there are titanium which wouldn't "melt" until about 1500 deg C. Do you even know what the normal operating temp of a turbine engine is? Oh, I forgot, you only fly bugsmashers.

2. The aircraft doesn't have to be accelerated to spool the engine up to do a relight if you're using a "starter assisted" relight.

3. Info from the paper says people on the ground saw landing lights - that requires AC electrical power which means the APU more than likely WAS running, but even if it wasn't and the people on the ground are not remembering clearly, the checklist VERY CLEARLY gives the windmilling relight flight envelop of which I have no doubt Captain Rhodes would have followed correctly.

You don't know anything, stop spreading smack or quote your source.

 

[Crossky]

I'm not a crash expert, but I've been thinking about the possible causes of this and would like to share them. This is a tragedy and I don't mean to disrespect or demean the cerw for anything they did or didn't do. I'll try not to speculate on that too much.

the NTSB is now saying that both engines stalled or failed at FL410, and the aircraft's 15th stage bleed system was worked on by mechanics after an aborted TO in Little Rock after the crew received a 14th stage bleed overheat warning.

I don't have a CRJ200 MEL in front of me, but I assume maint MEL'D the 14th stage bleed system, which provides bleed air to the cowl and wing anti-ice systems. I assume they rendered the 14th stage shut off valves (SOV) closed, possibly placarding the cockpit switches and physically safety wiring the SOV's closed. I propose that the cowl and wing anti-ice was inoperative per the MEL. This means the crew had to avoid icing conditions in flight and be dispatched safely on a route and altitude which would permit them to avoid icing conditions.

If they encountered icing condtions and were unable to use the cowl anti-ice, that would endanger the engines.

Additionally, another scenario is that the CRJ200 has a limitation that if you operate it above FL400 then one air conditioning unit (PACK) or cowl anti-ice must be selected on for each engine. If somehow one or both PACK's failed at FL410 the aircraft would be operating in violation of this limitation, especially because the cowl anti-ice would be inoperative. I don't know the exact reason for this limitation, I asked during training and the instructor didn't know. I guess it would have to do with the engine needing to get rid of excess air at that altitude to enable combustion to continue. I don't believe dispatch would have filed the flight at FL410 if they had read the MEL and been doing their homework.

The PACK's have fewer protections if operated in manual mode. With two pilots and no passengers at FL410, it would've been a cold one and the PACK's would need a high output duct supply temp to warm the cabin. According to my system class notes automatic pack shutdown occurs if the pack outlet temp exceed 93 - 103 degrees C while being operated in manual mode. The PACK's have a high temp shutdown protection in Automatic mode.

Additionally, if somehow the aircraft was operated with one PACK inoperative at FL410, that is another limitation violation. The maximum single PACK altitude is FL250. I assume this is for the capability of the aircraft to have satisfactory pressurization, my fear is it also has to do with the operating pressure of the PACK. My systems notes tell me that during dual pack operation the pressure delivered to the packs is regulated to 30 psi on the ground, 41 psi for single pack operations, and the pack will shutdown with a pressure of greater than 51 psi.

If they encountered icing this theory accounts for a dual engine loss, if they lost one pack it proposes why they lost one engine and is murkey on the second loss. I have no idea why they were not able to restart the engines.

I can't believe another crash happened in MO. Continued thoughts and prayers go out for those affected by the Corporate Airlines crash.

 

[Russ]

Icing at 410 is unlikely.