RJ Crash Prelim

[acaTerry]

At about 9:55 p.m. the flight crew
declared an emergency. At about 9:59 p.m. the flight crew
requested an altitude of 13,000 feet.

This sounds consistent with the notion of a double engine failure. The APU could be started at 30,000 feet (the ECU will not allow it to start higher), and then the APU may be used to start an engine at 13,000 feet. I'd have tried sooner myself and I bet they did too, but that darn ECU may have prevented it as well as the insufficient bleed from the APU up high. What I am curious to find out is if they were trying a 300 kt windmill start or if they were trying to go slower for better glide and buy time for an APU start. Not to mention, the pressurization loss associating an emergency descent and the fact that the masks really are tough to communicate with. Poor guys, God rest 'em.

 

[n25na]

Is that you, red face man? (acaTerry)

 

[Pilot124]

Good Points.........Hopefully we will find out soon.

At about 9:55 p.m. the flight crew
declared an emergency. At about 9:59 p.m. the flight crew
requested an altitude of 13,000 feet.

This sounds consistent with the notion of a double engine failure. The APU could be started at 30,000 feet (the ECU will not allow it to start higher), and then the APU may be used to start an engine at 13,000 feet. I'd have tried sooner myself and I bet they did too, but that darn ECU may have prevented it as well as the insufficient bleed from the APU up high. What I am curious to find out is if they were trying a 300 kt windmill start or if they were trying to go slower for better glide and buy time for an APU start. Not to mention, the pressurization loss associating an emergency descent and the fact that the masks really are tough to communicate with. Poor guys, God rest 'em.

 

[Wile]

hey guys, thanks for finding the link, I have been away from the computer. Just curious, both engines stopped operating at the same time. I am willing to bet they tried every option to restart, windmill, apu bleed, also curious to know if the adg was deployed. Any thoughts on fuel delivery or contamination? I'm sure they didn't go down without a fight. Just my worthless opinion.

 

[Stifler's Mom]

Tell me if this sounds possible????

Trying to get the RJ up to 410, the pilots level off to build up speed, then pull up to gain that last bit of altitude needed to reach 410. As a result, they get the airspeed too slow, and have a double flame out. (Is there a speed to maintain during climb?)

Then during the descent, attempt a restart too soon and end up burning up both engines?

 

[dondk]

Tell me if this sounds possible????

Trying to get the RJ up to 410, the pilots level off to build up speed, then pull up to gain that last bit of altitude needed to reach 410. As a result, they get the airspeed too slow, and have a double flame out. (Is there a speed to maintain during climb?)

Then during the descent, attempt a restart too soon and end up burning up both engines?

It was empty.. so my "guess" (and uneducated at that), they probably had the 500FPM climb and were better than 250Kts. Been to FL410 in the pig before and that is what I remember and I was empty also..

I doubt they tried to relite to early.. the CA was out of upg recently and I would doubt highly "if" he went beyond the scope of the QRH. You get so wound into the sim environment, you tend to be WAY overcautious.

 

[Fokkerflyer]

Tell me if this sounds possible????

Trying to get the RJ up to 410, the pilots level off to build up speed, then pull up to gain that last bit of altitude needed to reach 410. As a result, they get the airspeed too slow, and have a double flame out. (Is there a speed to maintain during climb?)

Then during the descent, attempt a restart too soon and end up burning up both engines?

As SCT said, 410 is a pressurization limitation. This engine is a proven product with millions of hours of service. The aircraft reached 410 31 minutes after takeoff: they must have been light on fuel. I think one should consider the possibility of fuel starvation or contaminated fuel as the cause of this unfortunate accident.

My two cents.

FF

 

[flying4food]

Looking at the news footage, there was a pretty good fire going, looks like they had a lot of fuel!!

 

[Oakum_Boy]

Only TWO minutes at 410 and they needed to descend. Sounds vaguely familiar to a little incident at another carrier where the crew reached 390 and decided that the negative trend vector wasn't going to turn around, even with the thrust levers at the stops. The engines couldn't even produce rated CRZ thrust. ATC didn't have lower, gave them a turn (they accepted, and furthered their predicament), and well, they just didn't have a choice but to descend. They got lucky there, but it could have been a lot worse. The CRJ has a super-critical airfoil that needs air to sustain lift. Engines need it too. It doesn't matter one bit that the A/C is certified to 410. Climb capability charts dictate the operation of the aircraft, even then they are based on a 300 fpm climb rate and G protection factor. Encounter some moderate turbulence, and all bets are off. Just because it is a pressurization limitaion, does anyone think they can climb a CRJ above 410??? Why??? Climb just a little below profile speeds and you'll never get it back. Somehow this fact is overlooked from time to time.
Furthermore, climbing to that level doesn't do you any good as temperature ceases to decrease, and in some cases may increase. Your fuel consumption is low, but TAS deteriorates. It's just not practical, nor safe.

 

[Lear70]

Furthermore, climbing to that level doesn't do you any good as temperature ceases to decrease, and in some cases may increase. Your fuel consumption is low, but TAS deteriorates. It's just not practical, nor safe.

That's stretching it a bit, not to mention Monday Morning Quarterbacking. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with having this aircraft (or any other certificated for it) up at FL 41,0. To suggest that it is otherwise is to say that the manufacturer, test pilots, and FAA (not to mention the thousands of us who have safely taken the aircraft to that altitude) are somehow less knowledgeable than you are... I wouldn't go there if I were you.

Not being practical? Many times that is correct, as are the other things you mmentioned there (with the exception of TAS deteriorating - that only happens as a function of a deteriorating IAS); sometimes the conditions (weight, temperature, and available thrust) just don't make sense to stay there, but sometimes they do. Been in both situations, sometimes you stay, sometimes you gotta give it up and go lower. Same thing in the Lear up at 51,0...

Our own MEC updated us yesterday with mini "conferences" as part of the CIRP and all the questions that would really tell us how it happened went unanswered; some because the data hadn't been released by the NTSB, some because they just don't know (it was basically the info in that last NTSB report). It's still too early to drawn any meaningful conclusions; not enough data.