Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Pinnacle NTSB Update

  • Thread starter Thread starter Beerme
  • Start date Start date
  • Watchers Watchers 28

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

Beerme

Beerme
Joined
Aug 22, 2003
Posts
39
Second NTSB Update On The Pinnacle Airlines Crash
Aircraft Apparently Entered Stall At 41,000 Feet

The National Transportation Safety
Board Wednesday released the following update on its investigation
of the October 14, 2004 crash of Pinnacle Airlines flight
3701 in a residential area in Jefferson City (MO). The
two crewmembers, who were the only occupants on board, were killed,
and impact forces and a postcrash fire destroyed the airplane.
There were no injuries on the ground. The on-scene portion of the
investigation finished on October 20, 2004.

The two GE CF34-3B1 engines were shipped to a General Electric
Aircraft Engine facility in Lynn, Massachusetts for detailed
examination. The examination found that the cores of both engines
were free to rotate and there was no indication of any pre-existing
problems that would have led to the accident.

The flight data recorder (FDR) data indicate that while the
airplane was at 41,000 feet, the stick shaker and stick pusher
activated several times before the airplane entered an aerodynamic
stall. Almost simultaneously, both engines shut down. The
air-driven generator was automatically deployed and supplied the
backup alternating current power to the airplane.

According to the emergency checklist for a dual engine failure,
there are two ways to restart or relight the engines. One option is
to use a windmill restart, which requires at least 300 knots
indicated airspeed and the core of the engine to be either 12
percent rpm above 15,000 feet or 9 percent rpm below 15,000 feet.
The FDR data show that the computed airspeed did not get above 300
knots and that there was no measured rotation of the engine
core.

The second option is to use auxiliary power unit (APU) bleed
air, which has to be accomplished at 13,000 feet or below. The
target best glide speed depends on the weight of the aircraft and
is either 190 knots indicated airspeed or 170 knots indicated
airspeed. The FDR data indicate that the APU was on after the
aerodynamic stall and that the airspeed was sufficient for an APU
start. The FDR and CVR indicated that the flight crew tried to
start the engines several times but were unsuccessful.

The operations group is still conducting interviews and
developing the 72-hour history for the flight crew. The operations
group has scheduled interviews with the Federal Aviation
Administration principal operations inspector and several managers
for the operator. The systems, powerplants, and aircraft
performance will visit the airplane manufacturer.
FMI: www.ntsb.gov

For the WHOLE story, go to http://www.aero-news.net/news/commbus.cfm?ContentBlockID=15c279ca-18a6-4bff-9a1c-e2ec1d2ffcfc
 
Ouch..... - .70M/250KIAS...don't go slower in the climb.
 
Well, I think we can see upon whose shoulders this will be laid.

Nice to know that if you are a massive multinational (GE) you can get a press release mid-investigation proclaiming your product was "just fine". B@stards.
 
Last edited:
I wonder why did the Captain not recognize the peril they were flying into. Jets don't stall without disregard for perfomance considerations. I've heard how good the captain was supposed to be, but I wonder if he had ANY formal jet aerodynamics/performance training whatsoever.
 
Sounds to me that Bombardier should take some blame here too. They say that the airplane can get to 410 and stay there. Why did this one not?
 
J32driver said:
The bigger question is why were they unable to start the engines on the APU?
That's a great one I'd like to know as well. I remember reading that the right engine had heat damage. It could be that they were not getting the ITT down to 90 degrees as the procedure requires. Those engines after flaming out at 410, with very little airflow on the glide may have stayed extremely hot and in the attmept to get them relighted, have suffered more damage that could not be undone. The fact that the spools "rotated freely" does not mean they were in a state to be started normally.
 
73belair said:
Sounds to me that Bombardier should take some blame here too. They say that the airplane can get to 410 and stay there. Why did this one not?
....and a 747-400 is certified for 45100', but some days you can only get up to 29000', why do you think that is?
 
Freddie Spencer said:
....and a 747-400 is certified for 45100', but some days you can only get up to 29000', why do you think that is?
Come on now... Do I really have to explain what I meant?

Ok I will....

Yes X airplane is certified to go Y altitude, and when X airplane is heavy it can't get to Y altitude. BUT when X airplane has only fuel and 2 crew (the required #) seems to me it should make it to Y altitude and not have a problem if the company that made X airplane certified it to go to Y altitude.



I fly the RJ and I know that even moderately heavy sometimes we can't even get to our planned cruise altitude. But you would think in flight testing to get it certified that there must be something about it having some kind of load and still making it to 410 without stalling and a duel engine flame out killing anyone on board.
 
Many of us have had the CRJ to 41. Why didnt it happen then? Im sure the temp during this horrible event was near ISA if not below. Not speculating or laying blame.

Best wishes to the crew's loved ones and all who knew them.

Lets all learn something from this.
 
Has anyone seen the pilot profiles yet? TT, time in type, last 12months? I am yet to see it posted anywhere.

Just guesses from what I have read.

Street Capt,6700tt been at 9E less than 2 yrs most likely his first Jet job been sitting Reserve for a year and a half might have 700-1000hr in the CRJ

FO New hire June 2004 at 9E 700-1200TT might have been online since mid Aug sitting Reserve might have 90-150hr in the Crj.

At night, 41,000ft, in a stall with both engines flamed out.

I know that these guys attemped every thing in the power to get it restarted and or on the ground safely. But I think these guys are going to be lucky if they had 1000 hr in type between them. Not a lot to fall back on when trouble of this magnatuide develope's.


Pure estimation on the times of course, It makes me wonder if their (in my estimations) lack of time in the CRJ might come into play in the NTSB final report

All the best to their loved ones
 
Last edited:
I think you will see something more in the line of not following prescribed profiles. The airplane may have been capable of cruising at 410 that evening, but the technique used to get there may have been the problemo....
 
73belair said:
Sounds to me that Bombardier should take some blame here too. They say that the airplane can get to 410 and stay there. Why did this one not?
Do they teach you buffet margins in the CRJ. It is a big deal in a boeing. THE -737-700-800-900 are all certified to FL410, but, only at certain weights and certain speeds and whether it is turbulent or not. I flew at a regional airline (E145) while furloughed and these things were never even disgussed in ground school as they were at the major airline I was furloughed from. When we brought this up in ground schhol at the regional airline, the instructor had never even heard of buffet speeds, he thought that you could go straight to FL370 no matter what.....I am not at all trying to assume what happened. I was only concerned with the way the E145 was flown where I worked at.
 
voteno said:
Do they teach you buffet margins in the CRJ. It is a big deal in a boeing. THE -737-700-800-900 are all certified to FL410, but, only at certain weights and certain speeds and whether it is turbulent or not. I flew at a regional airline (E145) while furloughed and these things were never even disgussed in ground school as they were at the major airline I was furloughed from. When we brought this up in ground schhol at the regional airline, the instructor had never even heard of buffet speeds, he thought that you could go straight to FL370 no matter what.....I am not at all trying to assume what happened. I was only concerned with the way the E145 was flown where I worked at.
I think you've nailed it. It is no secret that these companies hire people with prop backgrounds, including those in the training department. There is a significant lack of knowledge and experience in jet flying at the regionals. It is incredibly sad that this is how we learn in aviation.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom