News just reported CRJ crash...

[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.

 

[Freddie Spencer]

410, stall with stickshaker and dual flameout, re-lights attempted.

 

[CaptainBrazilia]

Having been on the RJ for going on two years now, I've had the thing up to 410 on a handfull of occasions. To run this thing at altitudes greater than 370, you've gotta be mindful of a lot of things, most of which have been mentioned already. One thing that hasn't been touched on (or maybe it has and I missed it) is that you need to know where you are in terms of weather. If you get up to 410 and cross a frontal zone where the ISA deviation changes significantly, you could end up having your hands full really quick...

Not speculating as to the cause of this accident...just adding to the mix of things people have presented here that could serve well in keeping us all more in the game.

Stay safe, everyone.

 

[timmay]

410, stall with stickshaker and dual flameout, re-lights attempted.

the stick shaker comes on prior to a stall it doesnt mean the airplane actually stalled. the stick pusher lowers the nose to prevent a stall from occuring.

 

[CatYaaak]

If you get up to 410 and cross a frontal zone where the ISA deviation changes significantly, you could end up having your hands full really quick...

Not speculating as to the cause of this accident...just adding to the mix of things people have presented here that could serve well in keeping us all more in the game.
QUOTE]

Not speculating either here about this case, but you've made an excellent point to always remember in general about why it can be dicey to struggle up to an altitude early, plod along, and think you're in the comfort zone just because you're burning off fuel. Our FFs in modern, smaller a/c aren't that much, and the temps can fluxuate quickly as you cross those zones. Thing can go to he11 in a handbasket in a hurry if you're high and at the edge of your perf envelope. You may quickly find yourself outside it.

And its not just temps. I remember the case of a Lear that stalled at altitude, where all it took was riding near the edge, a few bumps, and someone turning the heading bug in heading mode without using half-bank. Up there, it's possible for things to happen a lot quicker than a stick pusher can respond in time to prevent it.

 

[Freddie Spencer]

The wing actually stalled, at least according to my sources...

 

[efiscompmon]

and who might they be?

 

[Mike15601]

This has happend before in in the Corp. version of this A/C. Water in the fuel led to a double engine flameout at altitude....... Date: 20 MAR 1994
Time: 00:36 CST
Type: Canadair CL-601-3A Challenger
Operator: Crystal Aviation
Registration: N88HA
Msn / C/n: 5072
Crew: 0 fatalities / 2 on board
Passengers: 0 fatalities / 0 on board
Total: 0 fatalities / 2 on board
Airplane damage: Written off
Location: Bassett-Rock, NE (USA)
Departure airport: Burlington International Airport, VT (BTV)
Destination airport: Long Beach Municipal Airport, CA (LGB)
Narrative:
Both engines lost power at FL410; forced landing in a field, striking an irrigation structure and trees. Improper refueling by FBO personnel at Lawrence, MA caused the Challenger to depart with water contaminted fuel.

 

[lancair360]

High Alt. Engine Performance at Warmer than Std. Temps

So why make such a big deal about FL410? I still find it odd that the NTSB focused on that one issue so quickly.

I entered into the FMS the other day; FLPLN ALT = F410 with TOTAL WT = 40,000 lbs. at ISA +9 deg C and got UNABLE CRUISE ALTITUDE message. Unless you actually enter a temperature, it defaults to 0 degC which will not result in the UNABLE CRUISE ALT message.

 

[Erlanger]

Good source at Pinnacle tells me;

1) Plane stalled at 41,000' and the engines quit.

2) The plane glided 60 miles from FL41 to impact.

3) Cpt. flew, while the F.O. tryed to relight.

There's more, but I'll leave it for when it comes out in the final report,
since it wouldn't be fair to the crew and just in case the source is wrong.

 

[T-Gates]

There's more, but I'll leave it for when it comes out in the final report, since it wouldn't be fair to the crew and just in case the source is wrong.

If there is a possibility that your source is wrong, why post anything at all??