Bombardier sued over Pinnacle CRJ crash
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ryan_not_fair - it's time you re-read post #12 (by the esteemed Elliot Moose) in this thread. There is a world of difference between an AFM limit pressure altitude of 41000 (basically a pressure vessel structural limit), and the performance to get you there at a high SAT at 500 fpm. The crew had PLENTY of indicators including stick pusher trying to save their skins; If you don't understand THAT, you're in the wrong business.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: EU
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure what take off weight has to do with anything?? There is a service celing and an absolute celing and the fact that this model handles like a sainsbury shopping trolly on one wheel at anything near either. In fact I probably do an injustice to sainsbury shopping trollies.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: EU
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bart1 - Quote from your idol (the esteemed Elliot Moose)
"To get there, you have to be light, and on a loooonnnnnggg leg"
How lighter do you have to be on a repo flight with only two pax on board - the pilot and co pilot. They were perfectly placed to test this baby to its published spec's but it couldnt even do it under these circumstances.
"To get there, you have to be light, and on a loooonnnnnggg leg"
How lighter do you have to be on a repo flight with only two pax on board - the pilot and co pilot. They were perfectly placed to test this baby to its published spec's but it couldnt even do it under these circumstances.
Drain Bamaged
Perfectly placed but wrong move.
Originally Posted by Willie Everlearn
It's rumored, not fact, (yet) that the accident crew used V/S, and zoom climbs to "milk" their way to FL410.
As I've already said, you climb in IAS/Mach, not V/S, which for the CRJ is 290/.70
As I've already said, you climb in IAS/Mach, not V/S, which for the CRJ is 290/.70
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ryan_Not_Fair - perhaps you would share with us your personal experience of flying. From your responses on this thread it would seem to be limited, at most, to possibly flying light twin jets on short sectors. You seem to display a complete lack of understanding of how aircraft operate at the limits of their performance envelopes.
Weight has lots to do with it. It provides a useful illustration of how actual performance can be below the maximum certified performance and it's also a factor in where the 'coffin corner' is located in the flight envelope. I don't know what your factual basis is for claiming that the aircraft handles like "a sainsbury shopping trolly on one wheel" at its service ceiling but most aircraft require kid gloves when at the limits of their operation. You seem to imply that because the aircraft was certified to fly at FL410 it should be able to climb with a V/S of 500fpm to that level at all times. Very, very wrong.
Not sure what take off weight has to do with anything?? There is a service celing and an absolute celing and the fact that this model handles like a sainsbury shopping trolly on one wheel at anything near either.
Ryan_not-fair, I cannot believe that any commercially-trained pilot can be quite so ignorant of the generic characteristics of high level jet aircraft operation as you appear to be.
Limits exist for a reason, company SOPs exist to keep aircraft well clear of any absolute limits.
The 2 Pinnacle pilots operated the aircraft in such a cavalier manner that they ultimately killed themselves. Neither Bombardier no Pinnacle nor anyone else's fault - the 2 pilots were solely to blame.
Attempting to sue Bombardier is an utter nonsense which shames even sleazy, low-life ambulance chasing lawyers.
Limits exist for a reason, company SOPs exist to keep aircraft well clear of any absolute limits.
The 2 Pinnacle pilots operated the aircraft in such a cavalier manner that they ultimately killed themselves. Neither Bombardier no Pinnacle nor anyone else's fault - the 2 pilots were solely to blame.
Attempting to sue Bombardier is an utter nonsense which shames even sleazy, low-life ambulance chasing lawyers.
Last edited by BEagle; 23rd Jan 2006 at 10:01.
Ryan not fair:
You seem to hold a very strong set of opinions. You lead off by making remarks intended to insult. You continue by presenting this conspiracy theory. Whatever your issue is, it is obvious by your statements that you have not done the work required to have a very informed opinion. Just an emotionally reactive one. And I hope that you intend to obtain and make use of an English language spell checker.
Those points aside, if you wish to put forth the opinion that this aircraft was certified for an altitude which it is incapable of attaining, and that the crew were somehow innocent victims of a corrupt corporate conspiracy, then why not start by posting the statements of these test pilots who claim it cannot be operated above FL350 safely? Let's examine exactly what was or was not said by these individuals.
Just as a point of interest, it is quite common for jet aircraft to have a certified ceiling well above that which will typically be flown in normal operations. You see, for each aircraft weight, pressure altitude and temperature combination, the aircraft will be capable of reaching only a given altitude while maintaining a safe speed. Furthermore, a safe speed must be maintained at all times during the climb. Whether or not on autopilot, no matter what vertical mode is selected, the speed must be closely monitored at all times. It is no more difficult or complex work than maintaining the speed limit while driving. Any pilot should be able to do it. You need only give your attention to the task at hand. If you get too slow, the thrust produced by the engines may be insufficient to overcome the increased induced drag incurred by flying at an excessive angle of attack. Any qualified jet pilot knows from study and experience that the higher you are, the more critical it becomes. The slower the climb speed used, the lower the altitude at which the airplane will be able to accelerate and recover to a normal airspeed. The FDR traces show that this is precisely what occurred. The aircraft reached FL410 at a speed and AOA it could not recover from except by reducing the pitch attitude and descending until a safe airspeed and AOA were achieved. This was not done. Instead, the altitude was held and the aircraft continued to slow until it stalled as the result of reaching critical AOA. Even then, the nose was held up. At this excessive AOA, one engine flamed out, while the other one exceeded it's maximum ITT limit by quite a bit before flaming out. (200 deg. or so, IIRC) Quite often, jet engines will not run again following such a severe overtemp. Everything that happened following this was an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to recover from a serious self-induced emergency situation. The issue of "core-lock" may or may not turn out to be a red hering since in all GE tests, the engines turned over when starter torque was applied even if they did not windmill. They really did come close to making the runway. 1 more minute or a nearer airport selection might have done it.
Every jet aircraft has one or more climb profiles published in the AFM which have been determined to provide maximum climb performance for the given conditions. If the specified speed is maintained or exceeded, the worst thing that can happen upon reaching the WAT limit is that you will no longer be climbing. But you will be at a safe airspeed and can simply admit to ATC that you need to settle for a lower altitude than the one you were cleared to. You must call them anyway if you can no longer hold a 500 fpm rate. If you allow the speed to decay, you may find a descent will be required to regain a safe speed. This stuff is all jet flying 101, (pretty basic knowledge) not rocket science. There is no "very special aerodynamic circumstances that are at work there." Just ordinary aerodynamics that are easily understood by anyone who flies and possesses just quite ordinary powers of observation. How this basic precept of pilot knowlege fell between the cracks in this instance is an open question. Perhaps that is the good which may come from this tragedy. An increased emphasis on airplane performance planning as a part of pilot training may result from attention paid to this accident. Possessing enough common air sense to know when to pay attention might have prevented this accident sequence from beginning. Jabbering on about this or that while the airplane is .10 mach too slow is indicative of a breakdown in basic airmanship and/or a lack of understanding of basic flight principles.
I appreciate that there are people who would defend the pilots no matter what the circumstances. on the one hand, this is laudable. On the other, facts are facts and they speak more clearly than sentiment when it comes to accidents. It's not a case of defending the airplane or the pilots. It's a case of looking at what happened and reaching conclusions objectively, according to the evidence before you. No axe to grind here. What happened is not pleasant. Nor is it something that will happen again with any regularity if proper airplane handling is practiced. Sorry to say it, but in this case, it was not. Let's just learn from it and move on.
The best thing for you to do, Ryan not fair, would be to simply back down and be better prepared to comment intelligently if you wish to dispute someone else's opinions on this forum. Normally, I would hesitate to, or at least apologize for flaming you, but your combative attitude and lack of familiarity with the facts merit a couple of virtual whacks. Straighten up and fly right! You can follow the link I provided in an earlier post to see all the evidence NTSB have posted to the public docket. Happy reading!
Best regards,
Westhawk
You seem to hold a very strong set of opinions. You lead off by making remarks intended to insult. You continue by presenting this conspiracy theory. Whatever your issue is, it is obvious by your statements that you have not done the work required to have a very informed opinion. Just an emotionally reactive one. And I hope that you intend to obtain and make use of an English language spell checker.
Those points aside, if you wish to put forth the opinion that this aircraft was certified for an altitude which it is incapable of attaining, and that the crew were somehow innocent victims of a corrupt corporate conspiracy, then why not start by posting the statements of these test pilots who claim it cannot be operated above FL350 safely? Let's examine exactly what was or was not said by these individuals.
Just as a point of interest, it is quite common for jet aircraft to have a certified ceiling well above that which will typically be flown in normal operations. You see, for each aircraft weight, pressure altitude and temperature combination, the aircraft will be capable of reaching only a given altitude while maintaining a safe speed. Furthermore, a safe speed must be maintained at all times during the climb. Whether or not on autopilot, no matter what vertical mode is selected, the speed must be closely monitored at all times. It is no more difficult or complex work than maintaining the speed limit while driving. Any pilot should be able to do it. You need only give your attention to the task at hand. If you get too slow, the thrust produced by the engines may be insufficient to overcome the increased induced drag incurred by flying at an excessive angle of attack. Any qualified jet pilot knows from study and experience that the higher you are, the more critical it becomes. The slower the climb speed used, the lower the altitude at which the airplane will be able to accelerate and recover to a normal airspeed. The FDR traces show that this is precisely what occurred. The aircraft reached FL410 at a speed and AOA it could not recover from except by reducing the pitch attitude and descending until a safe airspeed and AOA were achieved. This was not done. Instead, the altitude was held and the aircraft continued to slow until it stalled as the result of reaching critical AOA. Even then, the nose was held up. At this excessive AOA, one engine flamed out, while the other one exceeded it's maximum ITT limit by quite a bit before flaming out. (200 deg. or so, IIRC) Quite often, jet engines will not run again following such a severe overtemp. Everything that happened following this was an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to recover from a serious self-induced emergency situation. The issue of "core-lock" may or may not turn out to be a red hering since in all GE tests, the engines turned over when starter torque was applied even if they did not windmill. They really did come close to making the runway. 1 more minute or a nearer airport selection might have done it.
Every jet aircraft has one or more climb profiles published in the AFM which have been determined to provide maximum climb performance for the given conditions. If the specified speed is maintained or exceeded, the worst thing that can happen upon reaching the WAT limit is that you will no longer be climbing. But you will be at a safe airspeed and can simply admit to ATC that you need to settle for a lower altitude than the one you were cleared to. You must call them anyway if you can no longer hold a 500 fpm rate. If you allow the speed to decay, you may find a descent will be required to regain a safe speed. This stuff is all jet flying 101, (pretty basic knowledge) not rocket science. There is no "very special aerodynamic circumstances that are at work there." Just ordinary aerodynamics that are easily understood by anyone who flies and possesses just quite ordinary powers of observation. How this basic precept of pilot knowlege fell between the cracks in this instance is an open question. Perhaps that is the good which may come from this tragedy. An increased emphasis on airplane performance planning as a part of pilot training may result from attention paid to this accident. Possessing enough common air sense to know when to pay attention might have prevented this accident sequence from beginning. Jabbering on about this or that while the airplane is .10 mach too slow is indicative of a breakdown in basic airmanship and/or a lack of understanding of basic flight principles.
I appreciate that there are people who would defend the pilots no matter what the circumstances. on the one hand, this is laudable. On the other, facts are facts and they speak more clearly than sentiment when it comes to accidents. It's not a case of defending the airplane or the pilots. It's a case of looking at what happened and reaching conclusions objectively, according to the evidence before you. No axe to grind here. What happened is not pleasant. Nor is it something that will happen again with any regularity if proper airplane handling is practiced. Sorry to say it, but in this case, it was not. Let's just learn from it and move on.
The best thing for you to do, Ryan not fair, would be to simply back down and be better prepared to comment intelligently if you wish to dispute someone else's opinions on this forum. Normally, I would hesitate to, or at least apologize for flaming you, but your combative attitude and lack of familiarity with the facts merit a couple of virtual whacks. Straighten up and fly right! You can follow the link I provided in an earlier post to see all the evidence NTSB have posted to the public docket. Happy reading!
Best regards,
Westhawk
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Help needed!
I tried to put my motorcycle in the garage the other day and it tried to kill me. There is nothing in the handbook (and I have checked) that says not to try this at 30 miles per hour. Now I have a big hole in the back of the garage and a lot of trouble with the wife about her rose bushes in the back yard, not to mention cuts, abrasions, contusions and multiple fractures ...
Holding to Ryan not fair's logic someone (not me) should have to pay for this flaming example of gross corporate negligence! Or what?
Get real, man! Any machine will kill you if you don't use your head. Ever try to make toast while having a shower? See what happens and let us know how you got on with that.
Well, unless you wanted to build something like an Ercoupe, say, but that's so simple to operate that it's as close to totally boring as makes no difference. And even Ercoupes crash when mishandled.
Holding to Ryan not fair's logic someone (not me) should have to pay for this flaming example of gross corporate negligence! Or what?
Get real, man! Any machine will kill you if you don't use your head. Ever try to make toast while having a shower? See what happens and let us know how you got on with that.
Well, unless you wanted to build something like an Ercoupe, say, but that's so simple to operate that it's as close to totally boring as makes no difference. And even Ercoupes crash when mishandled.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On_the_straight_and_level
Very good post.
I'd just like to point out, if I may, that whatever your company procedures ARE or WERE, the Climb/Cruise Capability Chart for the 200, 700 and 900 series Canadair Regional Jet is titled 500' CLIMB/CRUISE CAPABILITY.
During your initial training (if it were completed at the Factory Training Centre in Montreal) you should have been informed that the chart is predicated on a 500 fpm climb performance at minimum. Therefore, should the ROC drop below this value SOMETHING'S WRONG, check it out. (or words to that effect)
So, I shouldn't think there's much of a need for searching to find an answer to that mystery, especially as it's published in the PRMs, is there?
In my estimation, looking at the pilot population I've had the pleasure to train over the past few years, the nationalities, education levels, experience, comprehension levels are so wide and varied it's often difficult as a TRI to know what the student has taken away from the 'canned' briefings delivered during flight training. The briefings are canned to ensure through QA process that factory trained pilots get the goods on a consistent basis. (Practically all Training Centres and Airlines do the same) Pinnacle was not a factory trained customer (which shouldn't matter) so it's difficult to know what they recieved with regard to climb, and step climbs in their briefings.
If this crew had flown in speed mode IAS 290/.70 to FL410, as they were likely trained to do, they would have safely reached FL410 and even if they weren't able to accelerate to .74, they could have safely maintained .70.
ACCORDING TO THE BOOK.
Very good post.
I'd just like to point out, if I may, that whatever your company procedures ARE or WERE, the Climb/Cruise Capability Chart for the 200, 700 and 900 series Canadair Regional Jet is titled 500' CLIMB/CRUISE CAPABILITY.
During your initial training (if it were completed at the Factory Training Centre in Montreal) you should have been informed that the chart is predicated on a 500 fpm climb performance at minimum. Therefore, should the ROC drop below this value SOMETHING'S WRONG, check it out. (or words to that effect)
So, I shouldn't think there's much of a need for searching to find an answer to that mystery, especially as it's published in the PRMs, is there? In my estimation, looking at the pilot population I've had the pleasure to train over the past few years, the nationalities, education levels, experience, comprehension levels are so wide and varied it's often difficult as a TRI to know what the student has taken away from the 'canned' briefings delivered during flight training. The briefings are canned to ensure through QA process that factory trained pilots get the goods on a consistent basis. (Practically all Training Centres and Airlines do the same) Pinnacle was not a factory trained customer (which shouldn't matter) so it's difficult to know what they recieved with regard to climb, and step climbs in their briefings.
If this crew had flown in speed mode IAS 290/.70 to FL410, as they were likely trained to do, they would have safely reached FL410 and even if they weren't able to accelerate to .74, they could have safely maintained .70.
ACCORDING TO THE BOOK.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: T2
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sims Fly Virtually
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Used to be 3rd Sand Dune from the Left - But now I'm somewhere else somewhere else.
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting reading
Not sure what to make of this. Have searched and found not too much more. "Impressions" are that the guys were "smoking something illegal", but that is just an impression. Maybe even forgot to fuel-up as well!?
Is there a point being made here? If so, what is it?
Stu
Is there a point being made here? If so, what is it?
Stu
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Up North
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This link was posted the other day, read it, was shocked but chose not to reply. Now it's up here again, I've reread and am equally shocked.
The tools of ones trade should be handled with care and not 'played with'.
Fact they came within a short distance of a runway doesn't really matter now..............does it?
The tools of ones trade should be handled with care and not 'played with'.
Fact they came within a short distance of a runway doesn't really matter now..............does it?
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have searched and found not too much more
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2005/Pinn...ts/default.htm
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's stated on Page 7 of 322805 (2nd one from the bottom in egbt's link) that tissue specimens from the captain and first officer tested negative for ethanol and a wide range of drugs, including major drugs of abuse.
That CVR transcript is pretty shocking... how weird.
That CVR transcript is pretty shocking... how weird.
Originally Posted by RMC
ESJ They had pleanty of fuel but took the aircraft above its max certified altitude....double engine flame out.
Psychophysiological entity
Darwin 1 Beavis and Buthead 0
I may be sounding flippant, but the thought of a pair of Cretans like this, driving a decent bit of kit, makes my blood boil.
I may be sounding flippant, but the thought of a pair of Cretans like this, driving a decent bit of kit, makes my blood boil.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 38N
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A lot of thoughts come to mind, but the most telling one is that they did not prioritise very well, once things went bad on them, with both engines out for reasons unclear, shortly followed by a failure to restart while relatively warm.
Had they decided right about then that "rule one is: we're going to aim to be around to see the sunrise", they would have confessed to the double engine-out, obtained early vectors to the nearest suitable airport, found the flashlights, and proceeded with a scary but fairly reliable dead-stick descent to an approach with very high probability of success. Engine re-starts and other such might be reasonable on the way down, but only as goal number two.
That way it might likely have worked out ok. T'other way it surely didn't. With only a couple chances left, surely then is time to prioritise.
Had they decided right about then that "rule one is: we're going to aim to be around to see the sunrise", they would have confessed to the double engine-out, obtained early vectors to the nearest suitable airport, found the flashlights, and proceeded with a scary but fairly reliable dead-stick descent to an approach with very high probability of success. Engine re-starts and other such might be reasonable on the way down, but only as goal number two.
That way it might likely have worked out ok. T'other way it surely didn't. With only a couple chances left, surely then is time to prioritise.