RJ Crash Prelim

[Wile]

NTSB prelim on the FDR says both engines stopped operating at FL 410. Pinnacle has new company altitude restriction FL 370. Look on NTSB web site. Interesting info.

 

[N813CA]

41,000 is a restriction for pressurization, not engines.

 

["TheBigPicture"]

Hey Wile....Could you provide a reference for your info. I checked out NTSB.gov and found no record of what you were talking about....so I really hope you're not just blowin' smoke

 

[SCT]

I have never flown a CRJ, but on it's baby brother the 604, the FL410 ceiling is a pressurization limitation, (not engine/wing) for FAA certified a/c. From what I was told in school, above FL410 the a/c could not do an emergency descent to 15000 within in so many minutes. Canadian registered a/c have a higher ceiling limit.

 

[Flying Illini]

Wile, I'm in the same boat as "TheBigPicture." Please post a link to your info, I'd like to read it.

 

[Flying Horses]

NTSB Update

National Transportation Safety Board
Washington, DC 20594

October 20, 2004

************************************************************

UPDATE ON PINNACLE AIRLINES CRASH IN JEFFERSON CITY,
MISSOURI

************************************************************

Washington, D.C. -- The National Transportation Safety Board
today 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, Missouri, about
three miles south of the Jefferson City, Missouri, airport.
The crash resulted in the deaths of the two crewmen. The
airplane was destroyed by the impact forces and a post crash
fire. There were no passengers onboard, nor were there any
injuries on the ground.

On October 14, 2004, the aircraft departed Little Rock,
Arkansas about 9:21 p.m. (CDT), on a repositioning flight
en-route to Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota.

Air Traffic Control
At about 9:43 p.m., the flight crew checked in with Kansas
City Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) and indicated
that they were climbing to 41,000 feet. At approximately
9:52 p.m., the flight crew acknowledged that they were at
41,000 feet. At about 9:54 p.m., the flight crew asked for
a lower altitude. 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. At about 10:03 p.m.,
the flight crew reported that they had experienced an engine
failure at 41,000. At 10:08 p.m., the flight crew stated
that they had a double engine failure and that they wanted a
direct route to any airport (According to the Flight Data
Recorder both engines stopped operating almost
simultaneously at 41,000 feet.) Kansas City ARTCC directed
the flight to Jefferson City Missouri Airport. At about
10:13 p.m., the flight crew stated that they had the runway
approach end in sight. The last radar contact for the
flight was at 900 feet above ground. The plane crashed at
about 10:15 p.m.

Maintenance
On October 14, the day of the accident, the airplane
underwent maintenance to replace the 14th stage bleed air-
sensing loop on the right engine. During a scheduled 7:45
a.m. departure from Little Rock, Arkansas to Minneapolis
St.-Paul, Missouri, an Indicating Crew Alerting System
(ICAS) message stating "R 14th duct" occurred during take-
off and the flight crew (not the accident crew) aborted the
take-off and returned to the gate. The 21 passengers were
deplaned. The airplane never left the ground.
Two mechanics from Pinnacle's Memphis, Tennessee facility
did the repair. During a Safety Board interview on
Saturday, the mechanics stated that they only replaced the
No. 2 (right) engine's 14th stage bleed air sensing loop.
The mechanics completed the repair and tested the system.
The aircraft was released for flight. On-scene evidence
confirms that the repair was done in accordance with the
Aircraft Maintenance Manual.

The aircraft was equipped with two GE CF34-3B1 engines. The
right engine had accumulated 2,303 hours and 1,971 cycles
since new. It was installed new on the aircraft on October
23, 2003. The left hand engine had 8,856 hours and 8,480
cycles since new. It was removed from another aircraft on
October 30, 2003 and installed on the accident aircraft on
April 6, 2004. Maintenance records indicate that during an
A4 check on June 9, 2004, the left engine igniters were
replaced. During an A5 check on August 18, 2004, the right
engine igniters were replaced. The most recent check was
the A5 check performed on August 18, 2004.

Operations
The Operations group traveled to Memphis to interview pilots
who had flown with the two crew members and to interview
some of the airlines training personnel and managers. There
are 10 to 12 interviews scheduled.

Wreckage
On-scene examination of the wreckage shows there was no sign
of an in-flight fire on the structure of the aircraft. The
airplane was found inverted and separated in several
sections. All four major flight surfaces were found at the
main wreckage site. The cockpit area was severely damaged
by the post crash fire.

During the Safety Board's examination of the engines, it was
noted that there was some thermal damage to the No. 2 engine
and that will be further looked at during a teardown in
Lynn, Mass. The engines will be shipped out today.

The wreckage is being shipped to Rantoul, Kansas.

Since the accident, the operator, Pinnacle Airlines, has
placed a new company altitude restriction on the flight
ceiling for their CL600-2B19s of 37,000 feet.

Parties to the investigation are Pinnacle Airlines, Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Line Pilot's Association,
National Air Traffic Controller's Association, and General
Electric (GE). The Transportation Safety Board of Canada
has sent an accredited representative along with technical
advisors from Transport Canada, the agency that certified
the aircraft, and Bombardier Aerospace, the manufacture of
the aircraft.
http://master.mx-targeting.com/mx/s...61:45696:4322:1451520:4908:564096:5038:564480

 

[FL000]

Anyone have a link to the above narrative, perhaps with an ntsb.gov domain? I can't find anything on their site that resembles this.

 

[tarp]

Go to the NTSB "Home Page" and then fing the link for Press releases - this is an active investigation and the most up-to-date stuff is in press releases not the aviation database.

http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2004/041020c.htm

 

[Flying Illini]

Go to the NTSB "Home Page" and then fing the link for Press releases - this is an active investigation and the most up-to-date stuff is in press releases not the aviation database.

http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2004/041020c.htm

aahhhhh, thankyou. That's why I couldn't find any of this stuff.

 

["TheBigPicture"]

Thanks Tarp and Horses

 

[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.

 

[Oakum_Boy]

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...

Not what I was talking about! For a given Mach number, TAS decreases with altitude. Furthermore, the Mach you can achieve at high altitudes is not great. CRJ's have the best combination of performance in the high 20's:

1. They can achieve .77 mach,
2. .77 Mach at 28000 feet is much faster than .77 mach at 41000
3. CRJ-200 Can't really do .77 Mach at higher FL's.
4. Fuel burn at 28000 feet is relatively low, compared to the TAS that you can get.

Edited for spelling, and format.

 

[Mike15601]

Food for thought from a previous incident.... Date: 20 MAR 1994
Time: 00:36 CST
Type: Canadair CL-601-3A Challenger
Operator: Crystal Aviation
Registration: N88HA
Msn / C/n: 5072
Crew: 0 fatalities / 2 on board
Passengers: 0 fatalities / 0 on board
Total: 0 fatalities / 2 on board
Airplane damage: Written off
Location: Bassett-Rock, NE (USA)
Departure airport: Burlington International Airport, VT (BTV)
Destination airport: Long Beach Municipal Airport, CA (LGB)
Narrative:
Both engines lost power at FL410; forced landing in a field, striking an irrigation structure and trees. Improper refueling by FBO personnel at Lawrence, MA caused the Challenger to depart with water contaminted fuel.

 

[Lear70]

Mike, the info you posted had been up on another thread, but fuel contamination doesn't seem to be a factor here... lots of reasons why, but the main one is that during the double engine failure, the right one got so hot that it damaged it (probably so badly that it wouldn't have restarted), which means (more than likely) that the fuel going in was burning just fine (too much fuel, not enough cooling air = extreme high temp).

Oakum, the generalities you posted on Mach .77 only work if you assume a TP level of 28,0. As long as temperature continues to decrease with altitude, a constant mach number will result in a higher TAS with a higher altitude. It only stops doing that when the ambient lapse rate stops.

And Mach .77 at 41,0? H*ll, we're lucky to get .70 out of the thing that high. Our standard cruise speed is .74, and although I'd be trying to go MUCH faster to have the airflow over the wing (resultant lift) to get higher, it may have bled off to .74 or .70 to get that last 4,000 feet but we'll know more in a month or so about that.

I personally like FL 31,0 and 33,0 in this aircraft for the best combination of fuel burn and TAS, and she'll do .77 all day long at those altitudes if you keep her speed up in the climb.

 

[acaTerry]

You mean Mr. Red FAce? Yes it is if we are thinking of the same guy

 

[comrcap]

My guess is that they stalled the airplane and both engines flamed out. The rj-50 is a pig at FL410, even if empty. That is why Comair has a min speed limitation (climb) for our rj's. We've had a couple of incidents a while ago where the aircraft was allowed to go below the green line and get on the back side of the power curve. Stick shaker and all the rest. No flame out though, thank god!

 

[efiscompmon]

Of course, Express I refused all offers of technical assistance and acquired knowledge from CMR (both CMR mgmt and Alpa) when we got our jets in 2000. Better to go it alone with our memphian inferiority complex and re-invent the wheel with our FSI manuals. I have never been privy to a min speed limitation--boy would I be peeved if that is a contributing factor in this investigation.

Can't help but wonder if SAFETY could have been enhanced by chatting with the world's largest operator of the type. I'll put that SQUARELY on Jon Y. and Santi L.'s shoulders.

I wonder how much the new "fuel policy" had an effect on the decision to be at 410.

So let's review--incomplete training, knowledge transfer blocked by management arrogance, intimidation in flight planning and fuel burn. Sounds like pinch-a-nickle! No wonder Phil T. is the RAA apologist of the year. These muppets couldnt manage a bake sale.

The irony here is that SOC is _still_ trying to dx illegally with questionable performance. "Hey, I know it's 8C and precip; would you consider taking off without anti-ice so we can make our numbers?"
"Uhhh. No. It's a limitation."
"No, it's a switch, just switch it off Captain."
Friggin unbelievable. Would be funny if people weren't dead.

I think Aaron says it best with the company motto of "Never Compromise Savings!"

 

[Oakum_Boy]

.
As long as temperature continues to decrease with altitude, a constant mach number will result in a higher TAS with a higher altitude. It only stops doing that when the ambient lapse rate stops.

Not trying to start anything here, but lets talk about this. If you're flying a constant Mach#, your TAS DECREASES with altitude. For example, if you're flying Mach 1 at sea level, that means your TAS equals the speed of sound, which at sea level is 761 MPH. Now, go to FL410. Mach 1 at 410 is 660 miles per hour. Above the Tropopause, ambient lapse rate stops, yes. But, warmer temperatures will require an increase of thrust to attain a particular Mach number. That's why above it, jets don't perform as well in terms of fuel flow. I think you're thinking of constant IAS which with altitude results in higher TAS. If fly with some people who think that's the way Mach works because the only example, unless you've been schooled properly, is when climbing at a constant IAS, then trasitioning to Mach. Until you transition to Mach, your TAS is increasing with altitude. Should I be scared when an experienced jet driver doesn't know this?????? Anyone care to jump in on this subject?????

 

[Lear70]

Oakum, no need to get personal or combative, your "Should I be scared..." comment is uncalled for.

I disagree with your assertion, but we'll put your theory to the test in ACTUAL flying conditions when I start my two-day this afternoon.

 

[DirkkDiggler]

I disagree with your assertion, but we'll put your theory to the test in ACTUAL flying conditions when I start my two-day this afternoon.

It's not an assertion. It's a fact. You can look it up an any flying book that talks about high performance jet aircraft. You guys need to read some books so you'll understand a bit more about the things you deal with everyday at work.

 

[Oakum_Boy]

Oakum, no need to get personal or combative, your "Should I be scared..." comment is uncalled for.

I disagree with your assertion, but we'll put your theory to the test in ACTUAL flying conditions when I start my two-day this afternoon.

Yes, it was uncalled for. Sorry.