PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Pinnacle Airlines aircraft incident
View Single Post
Old 26th Jun 2005, 22:15
  #165 (permalink)  
Willie Everlearn
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A series of unfortunate events.

There are very few excuses for the crew who flew this particular CRJ on this particular day to this particular altitude and who were unable to relight AT LEAST ONE of the two engines. They should have been able to do that despite switching seats.

According to the Climb capability chart, at 37,800 lbs in ISA conditions they were able FL410. End of story. Anything off ISA and they were out of luck.
Had they flown the aircraft in accordance with the AFM and company SOPs, we wouldn't be discussing this.
Unfortunately, it wasn't ISA at altitude. It was warmer and at that weight the max altitude was lower than 41. Had they checked.

Blame Bombardier? Not their fault.
Blame Bombardier Tech Pubs? The relight procedure is crystal clear in the AOM and QRH. Works well, lasts a long time.
Blame Bombardier Airworthiness/Engineering? Bleed configuration (while awkward) is a no brainer.
Blame Bombardier's Training Center? They didn't train either of these two pilots, FWIW, they didn't train most of the Pinnacle crews.
Blame GE? Both engines were operating fine until someone took the aircraft outside it's performance envelope.
Blame Pinnacle? SOPs are SOPs. Doesn't sound like these two respected, let alone operated, the aircraft in accordance with SOPs. Had they followed SOPs and flown their Company Despatch FPLN to Minney would certainly have ensured there would have been no opportunity to discuss their flight on a public forum.
Blame the FAA GADO/FSDO? Why not? I'm in. Feds get no respect anyway.
Blame Flight Safety Memphis? We'll see.
Blame whomever YOU like! If that's what this is all about?

At the end of the day it doesn't sound like either of these two did much to question the climb performance nor the effort it took to get to 41, as the indications would have certainly been there, nor did they even seem to consider the cost of operating off optimum like that. Judging by the result of that decision I'd say that is a moot point.

I've read enough. I've listened to enough. I've drawn my own conclusions.

The ever increasing rush to fill flight decks with minimal/questionable experience levels is only going to see an ever increasing number of these "unfortunate events" as a gaping hole in flight training widens and deepens.

These two individuals, while they may not have known or realized it at the time, role modelled an excellent script for a movie sequel, called DUMB AND DUMBER II.

The one wish I do have out of all this is a genuine wish they'd both survived so they could be despatched to the safety lecture circuit to explain what the HECK they were thinking and what they'd learned!!!


On a more somber note, my heart felt condolences to their survivors.
May God keep and rest their souls.
and...
There, but for the grace of God, go I.

Last edited by Willie Everlearn; 26th Jun 2005 at 22:31.
Willie Everlearn is offline