Pinnacle family members sue NWA!

[Tarzan]

What limitation was being exceeded at the time of the dual engine failures? Which one?

FDR says the engine temps were being grossly exceeded at the time they shut down. When they get that hot and quit, those compressor blades tend to stick to other metal. And getting the stick shaker then the push and over riding it at FL410???? I doubt the family sees a dime.

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

What limitation was being exceeded at the time of the dual engine failures? Which one? You have a valid point in that situation, but that is clearly not what happened here. I'll ask again, what did this crew do to cause the engines to flame out once they were leveled off trying to accelerate? I have never flown an airplane that cautioned the engines would fail and not relight at the stick shaker.

The limitation that they broke was stalling the airplane at high altitude. I do not fly the CRJ, but it is like anyother sweptwing jet, Any full stall is taking your life in your hands, one at high altitude is even worse.

There is a reason that shakers and pushers exist on sweptwing airplanes. When they intentionally overrode the shaker/pusher 3 times(Per the report I read), they moved into unknown and dangerous territory. A jet engine needs air to run for combustion, BUT that air also keeps the engine cool, shut off the air at a high thrust setting (such as a full stall at high altitude) and the engine has enough air for combustion just long enough to let the internal temperatures climb to blast furnace proportions...as happened in this case. If memory serves from reading the report, somewhere in the neighborood of 600 degrees OVER redline. That kind of temp will melt just about anything.

The engines seizing the N2 compressors was a logical and forseen result of the pilots actions in my opinion.

I guess I would make a lousy lawyer. No way would I try to sue GE on this, Pinnacles training department maybe, but not the builder.

 

[be-400xpdriver]

I would be embarrassed to be you with those comments.

What the hell is embarrassing about speaking the truth?

 

[Nancy Pryor]

Bingo

When are people going to start taking responsibility for their behavior?

TinGoose scores a home run. The rest of the post was right on target but the Goose's one sentence above says it all. The families of these two idiots who crashed the CRJ like it was a hotrod on a Friday night coming home from the bar should be keeping a low profile, not trying to blame (and get lots of money from) innocent parties (who, by the way, have lots of money!) Those boys died because they were stupid, not because of a lack of training. Does the training department also have to tell you to look both ways before you cross the street? Is it their fault if they don't tell you that and you get killed by a car on your way to CRJ class? At what point does common sense prevail? Both pilots had access to the AFM and many other materials including operating limitations and stardard procedures for operating the CRJ. A professional pilot would want to know these things. This crash (crash, not accident) happened because two pilots would rather clown around when noone was watching than obey the rules. That they did this only when noone was watching speaks volumes about their (lack of) maturity and character. Why should NWA or Bombardier pay their families a cent for their stupidity?

 

[lonelyguy]

Pinnacle Crash

What the hell is embarrassing about speaking the truth?

DITTO

 

[405]

If these two now DEAD PILOTS had flown this like the dispatcher filed it for them, they'd be alive today. I guess the moral of the story is not to treat a repo or a ferry flight like a Friday Night in a hotrod like Nancy said.

 

[IFlyFL410]

"The cause of the crash hasn't determined." Where have these writers been??? Rather apparent to me what the cause of the crash was.

 

[Sig]

If these two now DEAD PILOTS had flown this like the dispatcher filed it for them, they'd be alive today.

Bang on.

Loss is loss is loss, in this case these guys lost their lives and we're playing MMQB- but we're right and they're dead.

Nobody owes their families anything more than our condolences, and from me that's in spades.

 

[Uppercrust]

This is the problem with our legal system; two guys screw around and die. Its not their fault, its NWA, GE and Bombardier's faults. Hit 'em law suits and settle out of court because its easier for the companies involved. Why isn't the FO's family sueing the Captain's family? Because there is no money in the Rhode's checking account! I would be embarrassed if I was part of one of these families.

Here's the story: http://www.startribune.com/535/story/178952.html

I doubt it was their training.

 

[Butters]

If these two now DEAD PILOTS had flown this like the dispatcher filed it for them, they'd be alive today. I guess the moral of the story is not to treat a repo or a ferry flight like a Friday Night in a hotrod like Nancy said.

"Aww, f*ck dude... they never would have made it to 4-1-0 then. Dude, what matters more? Your plan or 4-1-0? Aww, dude..."



405 you are right on. Following the dispatcher's plan or having one pax on board and those moron's wouldn't have balled that thing up. Stupid is as stupid does, unfortunately.

 

[mrnolmts]

First of all, hindsight is always 20/20...
Having said that, I don't see how the parents have any chance of winning a lawsuit here. They declared an emergency at 2155, then 8 minutes (!) later, they finally tell ATC that they have ONE engine out, when they in fact had two from the get go. To top it off, when they finally acknowledge dual engine failure and request vectors to the nearest airport, another 6 minutes have passed. That is 14 minutes between losing both engines and requesting vectors for the nearest airport. Sad part is, they crashed only 2.5 miles short of the airport, meaning they would have made it in plenty of time if they would have headed that way sooner. Seems pilot error is pretty easy to prove here. Although, like I said, hindsight is always 20/20, and who am I to judge these pilots? Just trying to look at things from a logical point of view.

 

[screwed_again]

Neither engine restarted when they pressed the button with the APU running. I suppose your families wouldn't care about that fact. The aircraft is certified to due certain things, and it didn't. The main reason these lawsuits are filed isn't just for the money. These issues will be completely swept under the carpet by the airframe and engine manufactures unless they are held somewhat accountable. These guys paid the ultimate price for the position they got themselves into, but the engines should have restarted. How would you explain that in another accident with a different set of circumstances and there were people in the back? Pick whatever reason you want for an engine flameout, but it shouldn't have core locked. GE knew about this from their flight test. Alot of this info will come out in the lawsuits. Otherwise you would never see it. Let these guys rest in peace and let the process play out.

Hey Redflyer65,

Question for you...what is the max ambient temp for flight at FL410? My airplane is ISA + 35. I rememer that night when 3701 went down. It was SUPER warm at altitude in the Arkansas area. Yes, the CRJ is certified for FL410, but only within a certain temp range. I bet the airplane was operating outside the LIMITATION.

Yes, "the aircraft is suppose to do certain things," and it stalled at FL410 just like the manual suggested it should do. It was too warm.

 

[Nancy Pryor]

They declared an emergency at 2155, then 8 minutes (!) later, they finally tell ATC that they have ONE engine out, when they in fact had two from the get go. To top it off, when they finally acknowledge dual engine failure and request vectors to the nearest airport, another 6 minutes have passed. That is 14 minutes between losing both engines and requesting vectors for the nearest airport.

Would you conceal a CRJ dual engine failure from ATC unless you knew that you had caused the failure by clowning around, and were trying to hide it?

Obviously these clowns thought they could get away with it if they kept it quiet as long as possible. A dumb choice (not their first) that killed them. I hope the jury laughs in the face of these gold digging family members who have clearly decided to trade in (deserved) sympathy for greed, no doubt with the help of a greedy lawyer.

 

[405]

deleted.

 

[Flyerjosh]

Okay, here's my two cents (as both a former CRJ FO & CA, and having duplicated this in a CRJ Sim).

First, here are some things to consider:

1. The crew exceeded published limitations for the aircraft. They climbed at a weight/temperature that exceed the certifications of the aircraft. In addition, FDR data shows that the departure from the originating airport included pitch angles as high as 22 degrees nose up, and also induced stick shaker warnings.

2. The crew violated set company policies and common sense by SWITCHING SEATS after departure.

3. The crew violated FARs when one crewmember (the CA) left the cockpit at FL410 and the FO didn't put on O2.

4. The crew failed to recognize the continual negative trend of airspeed after the plan leveled off. Once they did recognize it, they failed to take immediate corrective action. They even laughed about how the airplane couldn't stay up at altitude

5. Because of the failure to remain within certificated operating envelopes, when the aircraft did stall, it did so in a manner that caused irrecoverable engine damage in the right (#2) engine. (ITT spiked at the top of the FDR recording limits at 1200 degrees C. For those of you unfamiliar with the CRJ, 928 ITT is the maximum ITT in the published limitations, 874 is max continuous operation)

6. The crew was so overwhelmed after the failure, it took them almost a full minute before they even silenced the master warning messages.

7. The crew failed to notify ATC in a timely manner that they had experienced a dual engine failure.

8. At 2200:38, the CA (while reading the QRH) instructs the FO (FP) to pitch for 300 knots to attempt a windmilling restart. At this point, the aircraft was descending through 27,000 feet. The top of the windmilling airstart envelope is 21,000'.

The windmilling restart requires a MINIMUM of 300 KIAS at or below FL210. The crew never pitched significantly enough to reach this speed (they made it only to approximately 250 KIAS).

As a result of not reaching the required airspeed, N2 rotation was never achieved, and the engine start/relight sequence was aborted.

9. At 2203:15 on the CVR, the captain misrepresented to ATC that they had only lost one engine at altitude, and were going to "descend down now to start our other engine."

10. There is the issue of engine core lock for the restart of the number 1 engine at 13000'. However, it is not unreasonable to expect engine damage following such violent maneuvers outside of normal operating limits. GE/Bombardier have shown in flight test that an engine that experiences either a flameout or intentional shutdown within the operating envelope will restart with APU bleed air rotation.

It's a sh*tty deal. Every accident is. However this was a 100% preventable accident. Even if the engines had never been relit. If the crew had considered the ramifications of a dual engine failure earlier on (and with significant altitude), there is no question in my mind that they could have found an airport to set down on that was within range. It might not have been pretty and might have resulted in an overrun, but it would have most likely been survivable.

This lawsuit is nothing more than a frivolous attempt by the families to gain some sort of monetary settlement, and in their mind clear the records of their deceased family members.

Instead it only serves to dig up the incident once again, put the spot light on two pilots that acted very unprofessionally and recklessly, and contribute to the growing legal burden that this country faces due to unjustifiable torts.

~Josh

------------------------------------
For those of you who are interested, here are some links for you to conduct your own research on this accident:

NTSB public docket of the last NTSB hearing held on the accident:

http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2005/Pinnacle/exhibits/default.htm

Some of the recommended reading from these documents would be the following:

CVR Transcript:
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2005/Pinnacle/exhibits/CVR_Factual.pdf

FDR Factual Report:
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2005/Pinnacle/exhibits/316970.pdf

GE Report on Engine Core Lock:
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2005/Pinnacle/exhibits/324090.pdf

Human Performance Report/Crew Histories:
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2005/Pinnacle/exhibits/322805.pdf

 

[redflyer65]

Guys, I don't disagree with you. They should have never gotten themselves in that position. PERIOD. Do any of you know the stall characteristics of the CRJ above FL300? Have you gone over it and taught the recovery procedure at that altitude? The stall recovery procedure that your taught at 10,000 doesn't work. Let me review...... At 10,000ft, go full power and hold altitude to not lose more than 100ft. What happens when you use that at F370? There is no more power and if you try to hold altitude you will enter a secondary stall, which might be completely unrecoverable. They had never been given the training and had NEVER heard of the 'core lock', which was known about at Bombarbier and GE.

And no the APU wasn't running until they started it around 15,000ft, so don't act like I don't know what I'm talking about because I have sifted through the FDR data more than once. The valves were all in the correct position with the APU running and neither engine started. I have read through this stuff to learn more about the airplane for my own knowledge. I hope there will be more to come with these lawsuits. Info that is not readily available to any CRJ pilot.

 

[Cokie907]

Well, it sounds as if you are referring to issues in the PCL training program. If so, why wasn't PCL named in the lawsuit? I think you know the reason.

Furthermore, if the alleged negligence concerns "core lock" and a faulty oil pump, then why are the avionics manufacturers named in the suit? Again, I think you know the reason.

If not, perhaps you can get in contact with John Edwards and ask him.

Btw, it doesn't take a lawsuit to bring about an investigation of an event. The investigation is the NTSB/FAA's job regardless of any litigation.

 

[Flyerjosh]

Guys, I don't disagree with you. They should have never gotten themselves in that position. PERIOD. Do any of you know the stall characteristics of the CRJ above FL300? Have you gone over it and taught the recovery procedure at that altitude? The stall recovery procedure that your taught at 10,000 doesn't work. Let me review...... At 10,000ft, go full power and hold altitude to not lose more than 100ft. What happens when you use that at F370? There is no more power and if you try to hold altitude you will enter a secondary stall, which might be completely unrecoverable. They had never been given the training and had NEVER heard of the 'core lock', which was known about at Bombarbier and GE.

And no the APU wasn't running until they started it around 15,000ft, so don't act like I don't know what I'm talking about because I have sifted through the FDR data more than once. The valves were all in the correct position with the APU running and neither engine started. I have read through this stuff to learn more about the airplane for my own knowledge. I hope there will be more to come with these lawsuits. Info that is not readily available to any CRJ pilot.

Red,

I agree. The crew wasn't taught how to recover from a stall at FL410. However we are all taught how to stay out of such a condition that would cause such a stall. They don't teach us how to fly the plane inverted either. Hopefully we have enough common sense not to fly upside down (even though the plane could probably do it for a period of time).

Just an FYI, the APU was running prior to 15000'. (It shows ready and connected from the time that the FDR regains "consciousness" at ~0259:15). This time point coinsides with approximately the time descended they through FL300.

The bleeds look like they were configured okay, however remember the engines weren't designed to be flamed out due to air starvation at FL410. There's a reason that the manufacturer creates LIMITATIONS and OPERATING ENVELOPES.

When the crew ceased to abide by those limits, they became test pilots. In doing so, they took the engines outside of anything that they had ever been tested for, including core lock. Notice that during the flight testing, GE didn't starve any of the engines. They intentionally shut them down, which is not likely to cause damage... unlike a starvation which can severely spike the ITT.

Just because the engines didn't restart doesn't mean that it's the engine manufacturers fault. Consider this. If you purchase an new car with a warranty, can you do anything you want with it and expect the dealer to fix it? No. You have to remain within pre-set use limits, otherwise the warranty is void. Essentally the crew, in failing to follow set procedures and abide by limitations established by the engine and aircraft manufacturers, void any claims of airworthiness made by either party.

Will the CRJ fly at F410? Sure. I've been there myself. Will it do it under every circumstance. Hell no. That's why the plane (and many others) have climb performace limits that are based on things such as weight, ISA deviation, SAT, AOA, etc.

This is nothing more than a lawsuit by scary mary and the families in an attempt to either clear the pilots names (ain't gonna happen), or grab what they feel is their share of the cash from huge corporations.

 

[Long Time Gone]

Guys, I don't disagree with you.........

Sorry, but that's all you've done.

Do any of you know the stall characteristics of the CRJ above FL300? Have you gone over it and taught the recovery procedure at that altitude?...........

Has nothing to do with it. What has everything to do with it is the ability to recognize aircraft limitations that are published for a reason. It's the ability to recognize and react appropriately to COFFIN CORNER. It's the ability to react to such. The aircraft didn't stall at 10,000 or "FL300". The aircraft limitations were exceeded, the aircraft engines stalled due to lack of airflow, and they tried to override every warning possible.

They had never been given the training and had NEVER heard of the 'core lock'.....

You can't tell me that neither had EVER received ANY training in high altitude operations or swept wing characteristics. As far as "core lock", is concerned, understood. However, limitations and operating envelopes are published for a reason. Rhodes NEVER ensured as PIC that the limitations were nevered exceeded or that the checklist was utilized 100%. He also, among numerous other screw ups, failed to notify the appropriate ground facility of an immediate failure of an aircraft component as required by 14CFR Part 91.
Unless you're employed by a manufacturer as a test pilot, it's never your place to question why limitations and checklists are as such, especially when you're putting someone else's life at stake. If you want to question them, be on the ground without someone else's life at stake.

And no the APU wasn't running until they started it around 15,000ft, so don't act like I don't know what I'm talking about because I have sifted through the FDR data more than once. The valves were all in the correct position with the APU running and neither engine started.

As a Captain (hopefully not on the CRJ), you again fail to recognize the necessity for limitations and checklists. From reading your comments, I highly recommend that you go back to the right seat of whatever aircraft you can hold and allow someone else with brains and common sense to assume the responsibility of the left seat. Here it is again.....had they done their jobs and not been "Cowboy children", they would still be alive. There are reasons why limitations and checklists exist. Our company has a minimum climb speed limitation of 250/.70. Did PCL not have such a limitation prior to this accident?

I hope there will be more to come with these lawsuits. Info that is not readily available to any CRJ pilot.

Hopefully the info will be simple......Rhodes was dangerous. There were numerous students and instructors from Riddle who had "running bets" on how long it would take him to kill himself or someone else due to his "hotdogging" and lack of professionalism. I've spoken personally to a few, so I don't see it as a rumor. Should Rhodes' family be ashamed of themselves for these lawsuits? Big time. Should Cesarz' family toy with the idea of a wrongful death suit against Rhodes' family. I'm not a lawyer, but I know the answer.

People seem to forget that when you're in a "high profile" profession such as we are, what you do away from home can be publisized and scrutenized easily. Do your job, and no one gets hurt.



Sorry your friends died, which is obviously why you're being so defensive. They screwed up bad. Thank God there were no passengers on board. Thank God no one on the ground was killed.


Obviously he couldn't have been, but it's a shame that Rhodes wasn't by himself.

 

[commuterpuke]

Like all of us I wanted the uniform, to fly a cool jet as quick as possible, to feel equal to my friends, have hot chicks look at you during boarding while you flip switches and look cool, and all that other stuff