Pinnacle Accident

[Rez O. Lewshun]

The above pilots may not have been willfully negligent but history is riddled with ones that were. Two that come to mind are the Northwest crew that operated drunk and the America West pilots that tried to. While these did not result in a loss of life I think you can see my point.

Its human nature to disobey rules. Being a "legacy" pilot is not an exemption to human nature.

Bananas to apples???

Now we are trying to use alcoholics to argue a point?

I'll re-emphasize....

I used legacy carrier pilot as an example becuase the legacy flight ops culture is very old.

Usually the guys and gals that are flying at a career carrier don't have much to prove and too much to lose to operate a jet like this.. therefore they don't. It is not that legacy carrier pilots can walk on water. Perhpas I should have stated "a mature, experienced and established pilot well into his or her career" would have stopped any poor behavior and thus prevented an accident.

 

[DoinTime]

Perhpas I should have stated "a mature, experienced and established pilot well into his or her career" would have stopped any poor behavior and thus prevented an accident.

Surely a "mature, experienced and established pilot well into his or her career" can show up to work sober. Certainly they have to much to lose to operate a jet drunk.

Apples to apples IMO.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Surely a "mature, experienced and established pilot well into his or her career" can show up to work sober. Certainly they have to much to lose to operate a jet drunk.

Apples to apples IMO.

Depends on how alcoholism is viewed. The professional medical community and medical insurance industry views it as a disease. Your post suggest that you believe a pilot shows up to fly drunk because it is a choice just like the Pinnacle pilots' choice to fly reckless?

While there are serious ramifications for flying drunk, if a pilot, properly informs his supervisor that he has a drinking problem, he will get to keep his job, after he completes a program. If the Pinnacle pilots, in question, informed thier supervisor of the way they flew recklessly, even thru ASAP, they would be terminated. FAA action most likely.

How is a medical disease (an apple) comparable to immature unprofessional choices to operate a jet recklessly? (not an apple)

Finally, all the accidents brought up by flybunny are CRM caused accidents, not reckless behavior for personal aggrandizement. Even the KLM/PanAm accident doesn't work in this discussion because it is unknown if the KLM Capt. knew where the PanAm jet was. In addition there is nothing to indicate that the KLM Capt would jepordize his elite status within the pilot ranks at KLM via reckless behavior. Sure the KLM Capt thought he was god, but that thinking was supported by the company cutlure.

My point? If you insist on arguing that legacy pilots are just as capable as the Pinnacle Children who destroyed a CRJ, then bring up a legacy pilot who joy rode a jet for personal thrills. Not alcoholics and not CRM accidents.

What we are really talkling about is a Rogue. A similiar example is Mr. Air Show. The USAF's B-52 demontration pilot who destroyed his aircraft and crew for personal thrills. Now, this guy wasn't a legacy pilot, but he was a military officer and fits my description of

Usually the guys and gals that are flying at a career carrier don't have much to prove and too much to lose to operate a jet like this.. therefore they don't. It is not that legacy carrier pilots can walk on water. Perhpas I should have stated "a mature, experienced and established pilot well into his or her career" would have stopped any poor behavior and thus prevented an accident.


​

How 'bout them apples?

 

[DoinTime]

Your post suggest that you believe a pilot shows up to fly drunk because it is a choice just like the Pinnacle pilots' choice to fly reckless?

Your dåmn right putting the bottle to your lips just prior to flying is a choice. Your assertion that an alcoholic has no choice but to drink really shows a lot about your character. I'm pretty liberal but you are genuine pinko commie tree hugger.

My point? If you insist on arguing that legacy pilots are just as capable as the Pinnacle Children who destroyed a CRJ, then bring up a legacy pilot who joyed rode a jet for personal thrills. Not alcoholics and not CRM accidents.

You seem to be looking for a carbon copy string of events that prove your point. I got news for you....you'll never find it. Tragic events like this tend to only happen once. Proof that pilots can learn I guess.

If you think that legacy pilots have never horsed around on an empty repo flight than you are more naive that I could have ever guessed. Spend some time at the bar with some of the veterans of this industry you'll learn some things that you never thought the 727 was capable of.

 

[okcplt]

The above pilots may not have been willfully negligent but history is riddled with ones that were. Two that come to mind are the Northwest crew that operated drunk and the America West pilots that tried to. While these did not result in a loss of life I think you can see my point.

.

So your point is that a drunk willfully negligent NW crew can operate a 727 flawlessly, from push-back to parking brake, but a sober willfully negligent PCL crew can't manage to operate a crj without killing themselves.


Point taken.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Your dåmn right putting the bottle to your lips just prior to flying is a choice. Your assertion that an alcoholic has no choice but to drink really shows a lot about your character. I'm pretty liberal but you are genuine pinko commie tree hugger.

Starting to swear and getting personal? What does your perception of my politics have to do with this? I already explained that a professional medical community and a multi billion dollar insurance industry don't agree with you. And your last quote below is the coup de grace: You clearly state as a pilot it is ok to drink.... just don't get addicted and become an alcoholic, right? Can an alcoholic control his addiction? Thus the term alcoholism. If you have a HIMS rep...he might share some info.

You seem to be looking for a carbon copy string of events that prove your point. I got news for you....you'll never find it. Tragic events like this tend to only happen once. Proof that pilots can learn I guess.

They tend to only happen once even though I just told you in my last post about a similiar pilot operating a B-52. If tragic events like this only happen once then you don't have to worry much. That is the impression you give, which is unfortunate, that you are above all this.... I don't think you are, but that is the impression you give...

If you think that legacy pilots have never horsed around on an empty repo flight than you are more naive that I could have ever guessed. Spend some time at the bar with some of the veterans of this industry you'll learn some things that you never thought the 727 was capable of.

So, you are suggesting I hang out at a bar, protege style, listening to drunk ol' timers relive their exploits? Would it be fair to say that these stories under the influence of alcohol could be embellished?

You can spend your time, barside, if you like, I've got better things to do than hang out with drunk rogue pilots.

 

[Rook]

You can spend your time, barside, if you like, I've got better things to do than hang out with drunk rogue pilots.

Sounds like my last re-current...

 

[Lear70]

Your dåmn right putting the bottle to your lips just prior to flying is a choice. Your assertion that an alcoholic has no choice but to drink really shows a lot about your character. I'm pretty liberal but you are genuine pinko commie tree hugger.

ROFLMAO!!

If you think that legacy pilots have never horsed around on an empty repo flight than you are more naive that I could have ever guessed. Spend some time at the bar with some of the veterans of this industry you'll learn some things that you never thought the 727 was capable of.

Don't even have to hang out at a bar, I flew with a bunch of them. I would argue that Eastern could be considered a legacy carrier, flew with a BUNCH of those guys and I'm here to tell you they horsed around PLENTY.

Hell, one of them got fired for rolling the 727 one night. Got lav juice all over the ceiling, that's how he got caught, ground crew turned him in.

Don't buy the whole "if a legacy pilot had been flying" bullsh*t. Probably, but not a definite. Additionally, I don't buy into the idea that the pilots had no choice but to drink.

Any addiction combines an element of choice to it. If you don't believe that, then you obviously haven't ever lived with an "addict", whether it's drugs, alcohol, sex, food, or a mix of any or all of the above. I have, and I'm here to tell you that, when it's important, even the worst alcoholics can choose not to drink for periods of time.

 

[CRJGOAT]

Big Tool

Rez O. Lewshun

Hey man you need to get a life. All I have to say is: you are a big tool!! Talk is cheap two men are dead.

 

[Lear70]

Sounds like my last re-current...

Can I get a HELL YEAH ??!!

Hey, wait a second. I resemble that remark.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Rez O. Lewshun

Hey man you need to get a life. All I have to say is: you are a big tool!! Talk is cheap two men are dead.

If not being cool makes me a tool.... then so be it....

 

[GravityHater]

OK here is likely a very basic aerodynamics question that I was not taught, and apparently is not well-known (I have asked several pilots and they did not have a good explanation), which applies to this crash.

How can an airplane achieve an altitude, but not be able to maintain it?

There was no evidence I saw that they were using kinetic energy to achieve 410. (I have zoom-climbed light a/c to altitudes they could not maintain, and had to come back down.)

Most aircraft, if you climb slowly (they were doing 500fpm) when you reach your target altitude, you pitch over - reducing your angle of attack which makes you farther from Vs (this airplane got closer), and now more thrust is available to accelerate. This airplane decelerated after leveling at 410.

I think there are still aerodynamic things for many of us to learn about this crash.

 

[Superunknown]

OK here is likely a very basic aerodynamics question that I was not taught, and apparently is not well-known (I have asked several pilots and they did not have a good explanation), which applies to this crash.

How can an airplane achieve an altitude, but not be able to maintain it?

There was no evidence I saw that they were using kinetic energy to achieve 410. (I have zoom-climbed light a/c to altitudes they could not maintain, and had to come back down.)

Most aircraft, if you climb slowly (they were doing 500fpm) when you reach your target altitude, you pitch over - reducing your angle of attack which makes you farther from Vs (this airplane got closer), and now more thrust is available to accelerate. This airplane decelerated after leveling at 410.

I think there are still aerodynamic things for many of us to learn about this crash.

GravityHater,

They were in fact using kinetic energy even at 500 FPM climb. They were most likely continually getting slower in the climb and upon level off were so far on the back side of the lift/drag bubble they did not have the power/energy to accelerate to the other side of it and hence kept getting slower to the stall (most pilots would have let the nose drop before the stall to maintain airspeed as you stated). One thing that is not taught enough in high level flight is the effect of temperature up at very high altitude. An above standard day up there and you have essentially a whole different aircraft on your hands (even though the CRJ200 is questionable as a 410 aircraft, even on a standard day).

 

[GravityHater]

Thanks SUK (ooooo, is that a bad acronym or what!)
I can see how such a huge mass in a climb obviously has a lot of K.E. so I agree and understand now.
Maybe its a voice in favor of flying "The Step"! (the mythical overshooting desired alt and zooming back down to it to enhance cruise speed) -just kidding.

Has anyone been taught about this (K.E. and how you may not be able to stay at the altitude you have achieved)?
I bet if you polled most pilots they would not know it and I think this is a big part of this crash.

The OAT/RAT.... I did not see this in the report, have not seen it anywhere.
Anyone hear if it was above std at that time and place?

The report mentions how the fms is unreliable above 350(?) for power settings, and seems to make a big deal of it... .but later a tech person says it still is within 0.2% .....so that makes it unlikely to be a factor in my mind... 0.2% seems immaterial.

Also the engines seized due to overtemp, is that the current thinking? If so, how come no warnings on the panel, no mention in the report, no record of temp data on the FDR??

 

[wmuflyguy]

Excessive ITT alone won't set off an aural alert in the RJ. The ITT gauges will turn red though.

The reason was giving to me for the seziure was the overtemp and lack of cooling airflow due to the high angle of attack. That isn't from an official source though and could be wrong.

 

[GravityHater]

Excessive ITT alone won't set off an aural alert in the RJ. The ITT gauges will turn red though.

I wonder if the seizing was due to overtemp in an area that has no sensors whatsoever?

They did not, on the cvr transcript, mention overtemp even once.

So the engine failure might become a forgivable thing (except that they exceeded the minimum climb speed limits set out by Pinnacle). There was no indication as to why their engines failed and wound no spool up at all.

 

[wmuflyguy]

Well they did stall the plane. And at the high angle of attack the wing can block the airflow to the engines and cause compressor stalls/surges and ultimately a flame out.

 

[GravityHater]

Well they did stall the plane. And at the high angle of attack the wing can block the airflow to the engines and cause compressor stalls/surges and ultimately a flame out.

Yes but not a single mention of surging on the tape, or the report.... and no characteristic 'banging' on the CVR.

Also once those engine spooled down, there is no evidence they turned again.... several times they say "N2=0" I believe. Sounds more like a lock-up.

Anyone find suggestions/reports otherwise?

 

[PCL_128]

(except that they exceeded the minimum climb speed limits set out by Pinnacle).

Actually, that's not really correct. Pinnacle didn't have a minimum climb speed published in our manuals before this accident. I believe we were the only CRJ-200 operator that didn't publish 250/.70M as a limitation. We have it now, but that only came after the accident.

 

[GravityHater]

Actually, that's not really correct. Pinnacle didn't have a minimum climb speed published in our manuals before this accident. I believe we were the only CRJ-200 operator that didn't publish 250/.70M as a limitation. We have it now, but that only came after the accident.

Thanks, you're right. I see it now as an addition after this accident.
So there was no climb speed guidance for these guys?

I think we get hung up on the cockpit language and their desire to explore the envelope - yes that needs to be considered.
But from a purely scientific analysis of the aerodynamics and systems I don't think we've heard it all, on this accident.
The manual says it can safely fly at 410, and it didn't.

 

[xjcaptain]

The manual says it can safely fly at 410, and it didn't.

A skyhawk manual may saiy that it can get up to about 14,000, but if you pull the controls back to your gut on T.O. you won't get to 100'. Any plane needs to be flown properly to get the advertised performance.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

The manual says it can safely fly at 410, and it didn't.

The manual says at the temp they were operating the airplane that you can only get to FL410 with a 300fpm climb at around 37000 pounds...

Big difference. Not to mention some of your previous posts show exactly the same misunderstanding of getting behind the power curve as the two that were flying the plane showed.

 

[pilotdiscretion]

It's a very simple concept learned by our fathers before us and never taught to us. You do not trade airspeed for altitude in a swept wing turbojet. There were 40 check airman with zero previous jet experience teaching just the opposite. With out any means to monitor the flying habits of the Pinnacle pilot group this bad concept of trading airspeed for altitude was taken to it's absurd conclusion during 3701.