PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Pinnacle Airlines aircraft incident
View Single Post
Old 16th Jun 2005, 16:28
  #124 (permalink)  
nugpot
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: South Africa
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This topic has also become a hot topic on the airliners.net forums.

I would like to answer Ryan_not_fair on some of his comments.

The CRJ 200 (which I still fly), requires no special training to be flown at its certified ceiling. If you follow the Bombardier normal climb schedule and max weight/altitude planner (both available in the cockpit), you will arrive at FL410 at M.70 and if you have correctly interpreted your weight for altitude planner, you will accelerate to cruise speed. I have been to FL410 - it is a non-event.

I do not want to bash the unfortunate crew of the Pinnacle flight, but they arrived at FL410 at M.64, on the wrong side of the drag curve. In no documentation or training that they have received will that MachNo be mentioned. The aircraft continued to decelerate until first the stick shaker and then the stick pusher operated. Fighting the stickpusher brought them to 75 KIAS and a full aerodynamic stall. This flamed out both engines. (No2 overtemping to 1250 degrees C).

Just as there is no reason to train pilots on other aircraft to fly at their respective certified ceilings, so there is no reason for the CRJ.

Bombardier and the operator made changes to their procedures as a typical kneejerk reaction.

Just as a 747 won't maintain FL410 at high weights, the CRJ can only do it when light. Does Boeing also have to recertify the 747?

Because RJ's mostly fly short sectors, we almost never have the right combination of weight and distance to get to FL410. Instructors at Pinnacle would almost certainly never have been there in the real a/c. All the CRJ sims that I have been in are much more unstable than the real thing and I think that the comments in the NTSB documentation are over the top.

I am not defending Bombardier, Pinnacle or the CRJ. I take issue with the fact that training is now suddenly necessary to fly an a/c at its certified ceiling or forcing Bombardier to limit the a/c to lower levels because one crew could not recognise and correct a low energy situation and then compounded the error by fighting the stickpusher.

I have looked at all the data available at the NTSB site. The aircraft operated as advertised.
nugpot is offline