Rez O. Lewshun said:
The original poster was looking for info and a learning experience. As bad as this is (read embarassing) for PCL, this accident maybe the text book example of what not to do. Therefore many other operators are looking to learn from this. We can shut out the inquiries or we can be graceful and point people in the right direction. I believe the later is the professional path.
That would be all fine and good if the training film was accurate. It's not. It's chock FULL of dramatizations to make a point, and it's not fair to the families of the pilots to cast even MORE dispariagement on their memories.
Talked to a buddy who's seen it. Much of it is true, some of it is not. It needs to be edited before the creator gets the ratsh*t sued out of them for defamation of character and pain and suffering of the families of the deceased.
One of the blatant lies is in what the first poster stated that they "stalled the aircraft several times and got the shaker and pusher" during the climb. That simply didn't happen.
They were level at altitude during the first and subsequent shaker/pusher events.
Were they horsing around? Yes. Did they change seats? Yes. Have I done the same at some point in my career? Yup. Used to horse around at low altitude with a Lear on empty legs all the d*mn time, but I also was trained well and knew what the heck I was doing.
These guys had no business being in the aircraft. Period. The Captain should have been in the right seat as an F/O with his lack of jet time and lack of knowledge about swept-wing aerodynamics. The F/O should have still been back in a turboprop, if not flight instructing somewhere.
Lack of experience, lack of knowledge of the aircraft and the regime they were in, lack of respect for the aircraft, lack of professionalism, and lack of proper responses to the emergency is what killed them (improper airspeed control).
Incidentally ERJFO, GE bears quite a bit of responsibility for the inability to start either engine. One of the engines was trashed. The other engine DID core lock, and you'll never convince me otherwise. One of the interesting things mentioned in the NTSB hearings (that you probably didn't watch) was the FACT that GE doesn't test these engines to fail in a way that's realistic.
They take the aircraft to altitude, then pull the engine back to idle and let the temps stabilize before they shut it down. That's not how it's going to happen in real life. In real life, the engine is going to be producing climb or cruise thrust, be dying for air during an aerodynamic stall, compressor stall several times, then SUDDENLY die out while at its hottest operating temperature range during the compressor stalls, THEN it will be shock-cooled.
GE did say that, when failed in this manner, the core lock percentage more than quadrupled to nearly 25%. Something tells me that GE is going to have to settle for some money on this one and that they REALLY need to do some more testing on this engine design. Quite frankly, the engine wasn't originally designed to do what it's doing; it was originally designed to fly on a low-altitude gunship (A-10) so core-lock wasn't on the front of their minds.
