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 Pilots: "Just wanted to have fun"
- Thread starter lowecur
- Start date
- Watchers 36
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
Yes, the POM prohibits anyone from using VS other than in a decent. And then only to 10000', because we are not good enough pilots to hold our speed below 250. The IAS mode doesn't do a very good job in the climb. Lots of leveling off and descending in the climb to get to your cruise altitude. But, that's what the POM says to do. So what if you can't maintain a 500 fpm climb. I just tell center that Mesaba won't let me pick up the climb rate. We'll take a lower altitude.
flap operator
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2002
- Posts
- 507
Ah... you got the JM ground school. Dave has been on a leave for awhile, but presented a terrific day on high altitude operations. IT should have been captured on video to show all the subsequent classes that have since been through avro training.
If you climb in VS you see exactly why they tell us not to... because the a/s bleeds off, if you use LVL CHG you get some oscilating, but it's not that bad. It's worse in turb, but it's pretty effective.
I hope that this accident will inspire Mesaba to add to the program.
FO
If you climb in VS you see exactly why they tell us not to... because the a/s bleeds off, if you use LVL CHG you get some oscilating, but it's not that bad. It's worse in turb, but it's pretty effective.
I hope that this accident will inspire Mesaba to add to the program.
FO
Lear70
JAFFO
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2003
- Posts
- 7,487
And another one went to work for Mesaba... he was teaching ground school all last month in DTW and told us about the mass exodus from the training department.ataopsdave said:
I find it VERY odd that the company would allow promotions from within and leave them with ONE ground instructors... then again, this company has never been known for their stellar staffing abilities.
furlough-boy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2002
- Posts
- 158
Towelie said:
What about the checkride history of these guys too:
Captain:
CFI Checkride - Failed twice
CFII Checkride - Failed
J41 Oral - Failed
J41 F/O sim - Failed
ATP/BE-1900 Type - Failed
Fired from TSA for abuse of sick time, unable to contact on reserve, etc...
F/O:
Commerical Multi - Failed.
Wow.
furlough-boy said:
Alright, Jesse's checkride history is somewhat, umm, colorful, but Peter only failed one checkride. I think it's safe to say that most pilots fail one checkride in their training. It just happens sometimes. Bad day, examiner's in a bad mood, whatever. I will concede that Jesse's history is very interesting though. Where did you get all those details? I didn't see it in the Human Factors report from the NTSB. Did I just miss it?
furlough-boy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2002
- Posts
- 158
It's in the NTSB Group Chairman's Factual Report - Operations/Human Performance Group.
Certainly a history in the Captain's background. How do you get hired with 6 failed checkrides and being terminated from your previous airline?
Not much chance for the F/O to have much of a history with only 700 hours.
Certainly a history in the Captain's background. How do you get hired with 6 failed checkrides and being terminated from your previous airline?
Not much chance for the F/O to have much of a history with only 700 hours.
T
Towelie
PCL_128 said:
Yeah, it's in there.
To me, Peter's failed checkride doesn't mean half as much as his 700 total time (hired with 500 total). While were at it, what business does Jesse have dicking around in a plane when he is barely off high mins? I don't care if he was an FO in the thing or not. No one should screw around, especially two people who have less than 400 hours combined in their two seats. Really, really not a good idea.
What's the most depressing is that Jesse left behind three kids, one of whom he never met. It's one thing for your dad to die in an accident, but when he dies in an accident because he was intentionally screwing around... Senseless.
*sigh*
100LL... Again!
youwantapieceofme??
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2002
- Posts
- 1,533
CatYaaak
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2002
- Posts
- 809
Maturity Isn't an "act" for Pax.
The unrelenting level of immaturity revealed here is nothing short of shocking.
The immature person....
....banks and yanks and stresses airplanes not their own, without any thought for who may be flying it after them, or the pax who will be in it later.
....shows a complete disregard for the notion of "setting an example" for a relative new-hire.
....doesn't question when another pilot, even if more experienced, is doing obviously stupid things and making decisions the one's signing the paychecks wouldn't approve of....a situation, btw, that was probably posed to them hypothetically in an interview, and undoubtedly answered that they WOULD question the other person in the interests of safety. (Along those lines....)
...Lies. To the company, to ATC, to themselves. They think nothing of it. It's their world, they think, and everybody else is just livin' in it.
.... does things for "the fun of it" along the lines of lying on highway centerlines, playing with guns, and clawing for altitude even when they know they shouldnt be doing any of them. They can't differentiate between "fun" and "stupid". This is because immaturity also has them believe that a squished torso, a splattered brain, or winding up in a smoking hole is something that happens "to someone else", reams of historical evidence regarding their types in general notwithstanding.
....walks, acts, and talks like a child when they think nobody's looking, dude.
..is in denial and oblivious to anything they don't see with their own eyes, and doesn't bother to find out something they don't know of their own volition, even if it's their profession, and a big-boy/girl one at that. They can even be in denial after you've put yourself smack in the middle of the World of Hurt.
...can't excercise good judgement over any period of time because judgement requires knowledge in addition to the experience, and immaturity while engaged in edeavors that require critical thought spells Ignorance.
Is there any question that poor judgement driven by immaturity is at the heart of this accident?
From the FDR and CVR data:
At a known weight, at ISA +10 temps, flew off the performance charts available to them. On the way up, playing "Zoomie" numerous times complete with stick shaker...the first immediately after T/O. Seat swap with nobody at the controls. Request an unchecked-by-chart altitude for "the fun of it", 8,000' above what they were dispatched for. Continued climb well below profile Mach #, knowingly. Focus on FF instead of where it should have been. High altitude climb using VS instead of Mach Hold. No discussion (and therefore apparent unawareness) as to their razor-thin and unmaintainable situation. No references to Temps Aloft at their new, unplanned altitude. Immature glee to have clawed up there despite ridiculously/dangerously low Mach. Noted decaying Mach in level flight numerous times. Immaterial references to IAS. After arriving at the predictably unmaintainable altitude, PF exhibits his ignorance of the "Altitude Question" by questioning PNC (Pilot Not in Cockpit) PIC, who repeatedly displays amusement and confirms that they won't be able to stay there. ATC notes not only high altitude, but most importantly decaying groundspeed to the point it's mentioned between controllers.
No sense of urgency from either of the crew to get lower NOW while speed decays and pitch increases until the A/P diconnect and the shaker. After the shaker, the pusher...then numerous pushers each followed by what the FDR would indicate to be the PF pulling the aircraft into every-higher nose-up attitudes, exacerbating the problem by trying to maintain altitude AND NOT LETTING THE AIRCRAFT DO WHAT IT WAS DESIGNED TO DO, which is to get headed earthward in a controlled manner. During, and probably because of, these occillations the engine airflow was blanketed to the point the cores completely spooled-down. You want "core lock"? Do what they did and not what the airplane is wanting to do! Kept up the PIO to the point a wing dropped...82 degrees of bank. Apparent unawareness to smoked #2 engine due to pegging out ITT at any point from then on.
Oh, and this little ommision.....
THEY AVOIDED AND PURPOSELY DID NOT COMMMUNICATE TO THE FACT THAT THEY WERE NOW A GLIDER TO ATC, WHO WOULD HAVE IMMEDIATELY BEGUN ADVISING THEM AS TO LOCATION AND OFFER VECTORS TO THE CLOSEST AIRPORT. IN FACT, THE REPORT INDICATES THEY HAD THREE OF THEM AT THAT POINT.
Never achieved windmilling re-start IAS in the glide after starting APU. Not even hand-grenade close. No attempt to achieve it prior to windmilling re-light envelope. Seeming consternation as to why no N2 indications, or a re-try for min windmilling speed after the proper checklist was finally read. Instead, immediately focusing on APU start and low best-glide speed when achieving book windmilling speed but seeing no resultant core rotation where it should have been MIGHT HAVE CLUED THEM IN THAT THEY WERE A GLIDER AND NUDGED THEIR BRAINS INTO THAT HARSH REALITY, AND ACTED ACCORDINGLY WHEN THE OPTIONS WERE BETTER....FIND A PLACE TO LAND...DO EVERYTHING ELSE AFTER DOING THAT.
but instead...
STILL NO COMMUNICATION TO ATC OF THEIR DIRE SITUATION. CREW PURPOSELY KEPT UP THIS RUSE BY USING PHRASES SUCH AS "getting the OTHER engine started" WHEN DIRECTLY QUERIED. Is this the Clinton Approach of trying to mitigate or downplay a mistake that might paint you in an unfavorable light?...."Yes, I tried pot once" (yes, we went too high and stalled the airplane), "I didn't like it" (We are now doing the right thing and asking for lower)...."Didn't inhale!" (Hey, we'll pretend we only lost one engine so it won't seem so bad!). And importantly, no discussion even amongst themselves as to WHERE TO LAND THE FRIGGIN' AIRPLANE IF THEIR "A$$HOLES AND ELBOWS" APPROACH TO AIRMANSHIP AND SWITCH-FLIPPING DIDN'T WORK.
Swapping seats again..nobody at the controls. APU start doesnt work. and finally...finally....
an admission to ATC that they have lost both engines, at 8,500' AGL...about 30,000' too late, and even then it seems to come because they know ATC will see they can't maintain altitude. It's only at the last moment they seem to realize the gravity of the moment...their reality.
You know guys/gals.....
Machinery, even highly-reliable and proven engine types like CF-34s can fail if you abuse them. He11, these guys were semi-abusing this airplane structurally throughout the climb. Thats why they have limitations. For those saying that "there's no reason the engines shouldn't have re-started", go back and re-read the FDR starting just before FL410 shaker until losing electrical. Think about the recorded AOA's, pitch angles, column forces, airflow, engine temps, OAT, G's, oil, fuel scheduling, and what those engines went through. Compare that with what an engine would go through if they had let the pusher do it's job and established a hand-flown descent when they should have. If you still think it's a suprise they couldnt be re-lit, well I wouldn't even trust you with my car and no doubt still can't figure out why the airplane didn't fly at it's "certified altitude".
Training is never perfect. And yes, this airline's training prior to the accident regarding high altitude flight obviously sucked....they depended on their pilots sticking to flight plans, thereby operating well-within the aerodynamic womb...not on the fringe, and they didn't sufficiently stress the dangers of going outside it. But it remains that if the crew had stuck to, or even marginally adhered to the plan, it wouldn't have happened. And like someone else has mentioned, for lack company training neither pilot reflected a self-education of knowledge (that even if the company didn't provide it) is very basic to flying jet aircraft at high-altitudes and is readily available from many sources. Educating yourself to a higher degree than what any company can spoon-feed you is part of what proffessionals do, and i make no apologies for saying that if you're getting paid to captain a jet you better know this basic %@#@.
Everyone can make mistakes, and everyone does. Everyone has lapses in judgement, but usually singular and temporary. This whole event, on the other hand, is a friggin' showcase of immaturity from the get-go. This is the kind of thing only peer pressure can solve. I know the vast majority aren't like this. Hopefully, they'll apply the pressure to maintain standards and change those who can find a maturity level that befits the profession, or drum out those who can't.
RIP to those guys, but it's only sheer luck they didn't kill or maim someone on the ground as they sat in their living room, layed in their beds, or drove down the street. To any who still think "No Pax =Playtime" and airplanes are just a big 'ole toy, it's NOT just your World, and there ARE other people living in it. If you want to play find another way, like rent a Pitts, go find a remote area and get your ya ya's out like I do. Or something. However you do it, it's just like your mother told you, there's a time and a place for everything.
The whole thing, and some of the responses excusing it, disgust me.
The unrelenting level of immaturity revealed here is nothing short of shocking.
The immature person....
....banks and yanks and stresses airplanes not their own, without any thought for who may be flying it after them, or the pax who will be in it later.
....shows a complete disregard for the notion of "setting an example" for a relative new-hire.
....doesn't question when another pilot, even if more experienced, is doing obviously stupid things and making decisions the one's signing the paychecks wouldn't approve of....a situation, btw, that was probably posed to them hypothetically in an interview, and undoubtedly answered that they WOULD question the other person in the interests of safety. (Along those lines....)
...Lies. To the company, to ATC, to themselves. They think nothing of it. It's their world, they think, and everybody else is just livin' in it.
.... does things for "the fun of it" along the lines of lying on highway centerlines, playing with guns, and clawing for altitude even when they know they shouldnt be doing any of them. They can't differentiate between "fun" and "stupid". This is because immaturity also has them believe that a squished torso, a splattered brain, or winding up in a smoking hole is something that happens "to someone else", reams of historical evidence regarding their types in general notwithstanding.
....walks, acts, and talks like a child when they think nobody's looking, dude.
..is in denial and oblivious to anything they don't see with their own eyes, and doesn't bother to find out something they don't know of their own volition, even if it's their profession, and a big-boy/girl one at that. They can even be in denial after you've put yourself smack in the middle of the World of Hurt.
...can't excercise good judgement over any period of time because judgement requires knowledge in addition to the experience, and immaturity while engaged in edeavors that require critical thought spells Ignorance.
Is there any question that poor judgement driven by immaturity is at the heart of this accident?
From the FDR and CVR data:
At a known weight, at ISA +10 temps, flew off the performance charts available to them. On the way up, playing "Zoomie" numerous times complete with stick shaker...the first immediately after T/O. Seat swap with nobody at the controls. Request an unchecked-by-chart altitude for "the fun of it", 8,000' above what they were dispatched for. Continued climb well below profile Mach #, knowingly. Focus on FF instead of where it should have been. High altitude climb using VS instead of Mach Hold. No discussion (and therefore apparent unawareness) as to their razor-thin and unmaintainable situation. No references to Temps Aloft at their new, unplanned altitude. Immature glee to have clawed up there despite ridiculously/dangerously low Mach. Noted decaying Mach in level flight numerous times. Immaterial references to IAS. After arriving at the predictably unmaintainable altitude, PF exhibits his ignorance of the "Altitude Question" by questioning PNC (Pilot Not in Cockpit) PIC, who repeatedly displays amusement and confirms that they won't be able to stay there. ATC notes not only high altitude, but most importantly decaying groundspeed to the point it's mentioned between controllers.
No sense of urgency from either of the crew to get lower NOW while speed decays and pitch increases until the A/P diconnect and the shaker. After the shaker, the pusher...then numerous pushers each followed by what the FDR would indicate to be the PF pulling the aircraft into every-higher nose-up attitudes, exacerbating the problem by trying to maintain altitude AND NOT LETTING THE AIRCRAFT DO WHAT IT WAS DESIGNED TO DO, which is to get headed earthward in a controlled manner. During, and probably because of, these occillations the engine airflow was blanketed to the point the cores completely spooled-down. You want "core lock"? Do what they did and not what the airplane is wanting to do! Kept up the PIO to the point a wing dropped...82 degrees of bank. Apparent unawareness to smoked #2 engine due to pegging out ITT at any point from then on.
Oh, and this little ommision.....
THEY AVOIDED AND PURPOSELY DID NOT COMMMUNICATE TO THE FACT THAT THEY WERE NOW A GLIDER TO ATC, WHO WOULD HAVE IMMEDIATELY BEGUN ADVISING THEM AS TO LOCATION AND OFFER VECTORS TO THE CLOSEST AIRPORT. IN FACT, THE REPORT INDICATES THEY HAD THREE OF THEM AT THAT POINT.
Never achieved windmilling re-start IAS in the glide after starting APU. Not even hand-grenade close. No attempt to achieve it prior to windmilling re-light envelope. Seeming consternation as to why no N2 indications, or a re-try for min windmilling speed after the proper checklist was finally read. Instead, immediately focusing on APU start and low best-glide speed when achieving book windmilling speed but seeing no resultant core rotation where it should have been MIGHT HAVE CLUED THEM IN THAT THEY WERE A GLIDER AND NUDGED THEIR BRAINS INTO THAT HARSH REALITY, AND ACTED ACCORDINGLY WHEN THE OPTIONS WERE BETTER....FIND A PLACE TO LAND...DO EVERYTHING ELSE AFTER DOING THAT.
but instead...
STILL NO COMMUNICATION TO ATC OF THEIR DIRE SITUATION. CREW PURPOSELY KEPT UP THIS RUSE BY USING PHRASES SUCH AS "getting the OTHER engine started" WHEN DIRECTLY QUERIED. Is this the Clinton Approach of trying to mitigate or downplay a mistake that might paint you in an unfavorable light?...."Yes, I tried pot once" (yes, we went too high and stalled the airplane), "I didn't like it" (We are now doing the right thing and asking for lower)...."Didn't inhale!" (Hey, we'll pretend we only lost one engine so it won't seem so bad!). And importantly, no discussion even amongst themselves as to WHERE TO LAND THE FRIGGIN' AIRPLANE IF THEIR "A$$HOLES AND ELBOWS" APPROACH TO AIRMANSHIP AND SWITCH-FLIPPING DIDN'T WORK.
Swapping seats again..nobody at the controls. APU start doesnt work. and finally...finally....
an admission to ATC that they have lost both engines, at 8,500' AGL...about 30,000' too late, and even then it seems to come because they know ATC will see they can't maintain altitude. It's only at the last moment they seem to realize the gravity of the moment...their reality.
You know guys/gals.....
Machinery, even highly-reliable and proven engine types like CF-34s can fail if you abuse them. He11, these guys were semi-abusing this airplane structurally throughout the climb. Thats why they have limitations. For those saying that "there's no reason the engines shouldn't have re-started", go back and re-read the FDR starting just before FL410 shaker until losing electrical. Think about the recorded AOA's, pitch angles, column forces, airflow, engine temps, OAT, G's, oil, fuel scheduling, and what those engines went through. Compare that with what an engine would go through if they had let the pusher do it's job and established a hand-flown descent when they should have. If you still think it's a suprise they couldnt be re-lit, well I wouldn't even trust you with my car and no doubt still can't figure out why the airplane didn't fly at it's "certified altitude".
Training is never perfect. And yes, this airline's training prior to the accident regarding high altitude flight obviously sucked....they depended on their pilots sticking to flight plans, thereby operating well-within the aerodynamic womb...not on the fringe, and they didn't sufficiently stress the dangers of going outside it. But it remains that if the crew had stuck to, or even marginally adhered to the plan, it wouldn't have happened. And like someone else has mentioned, for lack company training neither pilot reflected a self-education of knowledge (that even if the company didn't provide it) is very basic to flying jet aircraft at high-altitudes and is readily available from many sources. Educating yourself to a higher degree than what any company can spoon-feed you is part of what proffessionals do, and i make no apologies for saying that if you're getting paid to captain a jet you better know this basic %@#@.
Everyone can make mistakes, and everyone does. Everyone has lapses in judgement, but usually singular and temporary. This whole event, on the other hand, is a friggin' showcase of immaturity from the get-go. This is the kind of thing only peer pressure can solve. I know the vast majority aren't like this. Hopefully, they'll apply the pressure to maintain standards and change those who can find a maturity level that befits the profession, or drum out those who can't.
RIP to those guys, but it's only sheer luck they didn't kill or maim someone on the ground as they sat in their living room, layed in their beds, or drove down the street. To any who still think "No Pax =Playtime" and airplanes are just a big 'ole toy, it's NOT just your World, and there ARE other people living in it. If you want to play find another way, like rent a Pitts, go find a remote area and get your ya ya's out like I do. Or something. However you do it, it's just like your mother told you, there's a time and a place for everything.
The whole thing, and some of the responses excusing it, disgust me.
Last edited:
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
