NTSB Board Meeting for Pinnacle 3701

[Rez O. Lewshun]

This is by far the biggest event happening in the airline industry today and I'm surprised there hasn't been more reaction [on this message board]........... .

I think the reason why there isn't much of a reaction is bacause...... as stated...

were not a much of a surprise. .

We already know these guys were lacking in professionalism, airmanship and discipline.... nothing new here...

I truly hope...... didn't die in vain. .

Well, we can't control GE, the FAA, the NTSB, our airlines. (we can influence though)

But we can control ourselves.

Got Flight Discipline?

Kern's Trilogy is a great place to start....

Flight Discipline
Redefining Airmanship
Rogue Pilot

 

[Smoking Man]

Well if you climb at the proper airspeed empty you can get to FL410 in the CL-65, If you climb at too slow an airspeed to ZOOM (if you will) climb to your altitude you will not be able to accelerate. IE climbing on the backside of the power curve will cause any engine to suffer the same reaction.

Opperating at the proper airspeed for the climb will result in it never being a problem.

I hope everyone is able to learn from this horrible chain of events.

 

[Fly4hire]

This is by far the biggest event happening in the airline industry today and I'm surprised there hasn't been more reaction on this message board.

They are too busy debating why basic ATP minimums are adequate to upgrade to Captain on a CRJ.....:bomb:

 

[Poahi]

The engines were operated outside of their design envelope. The crew failed to maintain the minimum airspeed to keep the cores rotating.

What speed was that?

According to the NTSB, we don't know when the engines will core lock.

1. For airplanes equipped with CF34-1 or CF34-3
engines, require manufacturers to perform
high power, high altitude sudden engines
shutdowns; determine the minimum airspeed
required to maintain sufficient core
rotation; and demonstrate that all methods of
in-flight restart can be accomplished when
the airspeed is maintained.

There are other scenarios where you could find yourself in a high power slow speed condition at a high altitude which aren't necessarily the result of flying carelessly or recklessly. The crew's behavior was the primary cause of the accident, but we can still learn this whole experience.

 

[erj-145mech]

There is no certification requirement for turbo fan engines to demonstrate that. The crew did not have the minimum forward velocity to maintain airflow through the second stage compressor section. That is known, and was ignored.

What is true is that the flight crew failed to follow the approved procedures as they are current now.

What is true is that the flight crew ignored basic airmanship and became test pilots. The crews experience level was not enough to perform this function sucessfully in a regional jet aircraft.

 

[CA1900]

There is no certification requirement for turbo fan engines to demonstrate that. The crew did not have the minimum forward velocity to maintain airflow through the second stage compressor section. That is known, and was ignored.

Yep.

I'm sorry, but I find no fault with GE or Bombardier on this one. The machine tried to tell them several times that they were doing the wrong thing. The ignored the stick-shaker, and overrode the stick-pusher!

That's the equivalent of walking up to a dog in a cage, and having him growl at you and show his teeth. So you put your finger in, and he bites it. Then you put your whole arm in, the dog rips it off, and you somehow want to make it somebody else's fault. No way.

 

[B1900FO]

Well if you climb at the proper airspeed empty you can get to FL410 in the CL-65, If you climb at too slow an airspeed to ZOOM (if you will) climb to your altitude you will not be able to accelerate. IE climbing on the backside of the power curve will cause any engine to suffer the same reaction.

Opperating at the proper airspeed for the climb will result in it never being a problem.

He is right.

Business and Commercial Aviation Magazine did an excellent accident report on this event. In fact, a performance chart for the CL-65 was included and it was said in the article that had they properly followed the performance charts, they could have achieved FL410 safely and flown the rest of the to MSP at this altitude. If anyone has an opportunity to get their hands on this issue (not sure what month) it is very good reading. I checked the chart myself and it is true, although they would have been doing 250fpm at the level off.

So long!

 

[V-1]

Yep.

I'm sorry, but I find no fault with GE or Bombardier on this one. The machine tried to tell them several times that they were doing the wrong thing. The ignored the stick-shaker, and overrode the stick-pusher!

That's the equivalent of walking up to a dog in a cage, and having him growl at you and show his teeth. So you put your finger in, and he bites it. Then you put your whole arm in, the dog rips it off, and you somehow want to make it somebody else's fault. No way.

Couldn't have stated it any better myself.

 

[SLUF4]

It seemed like the board really hammered them on using VS mode instead of SPD or IAS mode to climb up there. Just wondering what everyone else does? Most people I fly with do use VS mode or Pitch mode above 10,000.

 

[DoinTime]

The crew did not have the minimum forward velocity to maintain airflow through the second stage compressor section.

If a minimum forward airspeed is required to keep the engines running how does an aircraft accelerate from a stop?

FYI...the CRJ (at PCL anyway) does not have any airspeed or flight envelope limitations on the powerplants.

That is known, and was ignored.

I don't see how you can testify as to what these pilots "knew."