Bombardier sued over Pinnacle CRJ crash
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ExSimGuy
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
http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/2005/Pinnacle/exhibits
For example..
http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/2005/Pinn...its/322805.pdf
Says..
"Tissue specimens from the captain and first officer tested negative for ethanol and a wide range of drugs, including major drugs of abuse."
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with arcniz, plan and start executing your engine out landing first, then try the engine restarts.
I noticed a couple of other things in the NTSB exhibits. In exhibit 322908, there's discussion of the "engine rollback" problem with high altitude and high AOA with this airframe. When the problem is more severe, the engines don't recover. The stick pusher parameters had to be modified during certification to help compensate for this problem. The testing was done at FL390, but not at FL410. It appears that the pilots performed a steep climb to FL410 at speeds that may have been too slow to prevent the power rollback problem.
In exhibit 324090, GE discusses the "core lock" problem with the CF34, that may have prevented the air start of the engines. Apparently at an HPT seal after shutdown from high power, the rotating parts cool at a different rate from the stator parts, causing the ISS seal (Inter Stage Seal) to stick (a "stiction" as the document refers to it), which windmilling alone cannot overcome, until the rotating and static parts reach a more equal temperature. Apparently while the "stiction" event is in progress, ATS (Air Turbine Start) power can overcome the friction, but windmilling cannot. GE recommends a "grind in" procedure (you're kidding right??) to create the necessary clearances for the ISS seal to prevent the "stiction".
It appears to me that these 2 airframe issues may have stacked the odds against the pilots in this accident.
I noticed a couple of other things in the NTSB exhibits. In exhibit 322908, there's discussion of the "engine rollback" problem with high altitude and high AOA with this airframe. When the problem is more severe, the engines don't recover. The stick pusher parameters had to be modified during certification to help compensate for this problem. The testing was done at FL390, but not at FL410. It appears that the pilots performed a steep climb to FL410 at speeds that may have been too slow to prevent the power rollback problem.
In exhibit 324090, GE discusses the "core lock" problem with the CF34, that may have prevented the air start of the engines. Apparently at an HPT seal after shutdown from high power, the rotating parts cool at a different rate from the stator parts, causing the ISS seal (Inter Stage Seal) to stick (a "stiction" as the document refers to it), which windmilling alone cannot overcome, until the rotating and static parts reach a more equal temperature. Apparently while the "stiction" event is in progress, ATS (Air Turbine Start) power can overcome the friction, but windmilling cannot. GE recommends a "grind in" procedure (you're kidding right??) to create the necessary clearances for the ISS seal to prevent the "stiction".
It appears to me that these 2 airframe issues may have stacked the odds against the pilots in this accident.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I could find nothing indicating the use of alcohol or illegal drugs of any kind. Please be specific if you have something quote it!
Now, what I hear is that a crew took an airplane up to the edge of its "envelope". I hear joking around ( believe me it happens in cockpits) ... even a joke about beer, but that is all it is a joke.
now, if one of the pilots left the flight deck at fl410 to get pepsi and the other didn't put on the oxygen mask that is a big problem in my book.
I also hear a responsible pilot trying to avoid crashing into a house or houses.
expletives are part of everyday life these days. so is the word "dude". In my 12000 some odd flying hours, it is sometimes easier to call someone "dude", pardner, hey clem or whatever. It is easy to forget the name of someone you are flying with if you haven't flown with them before.
no where did the word "mayday" come up in the CVR. I checked with my "FIND FUNCTION". Believe me, "MAYDAY" might have gotten a little more attention from ATC...they got cleared direct to JEF , and they spent some time trying to tune up JEF...ATC should have given them a heading (unless I missed this, please check and inform me), a RADAR VECTOR and a few seconds might have been saved.
I will say that the CAM 2 (f/o) seemed more concerned about stalling/coffin corner etc than the captain.
One thing to really understand too is that at FL410 the cabin altitude may have been at the max for this plane. Is it possible that a little bit of hypoxia had happened. For years, 8000 feet has been the magic number....but I know that at 8000' cabin altitude I feel it. I know that boeing is advertising at max cabin altitude of 6000' for comfort in its new 787 dreamliner.
Hypoxia is even more telling at night on the human mind...night vision suffers and so forth. perhaps this is why the less than swift reaction to the "ball" being out of center.
all dudes aside, once they started on the checklist the professionalism seemed to return a bit ...
this core lock business sounds something like a "hung start" problem on the ground in the old garrett turboprop. things get a little warped due to different coolings.
sorry, whatever you think the problem is with the crew ( and they are not perfect...neither was atc) that plane should not be certifed so high and there better be a fix for the engine relight...even allowing for in - flight use of ground starter motors either electric or pneumatic whichever this thing has.
the envelope better be made smaller on this plane to keep it safe.
jon
Now, what I hear is that a crew took an airplane up to the edge of its "envelope". I hear joking around ( believe me it happens in cockpits) ... even a joke about beer, but that is all it is a joke.
now, if one of the pilots left the flight deck at fl410 to get pepsi and the other didn't put on the oxygen mask that is a big problem in my book.
I also hear a responsible pilot trying to avoid crashing into a house or houses.
expletives are part of everyday life these days. so is the word "dude". In my 12000 some odd flying hours, it is sometimes easier to call someone "dude", pardner, hey clem or whatever. It is easy to forget the name of someone you are flying with if you haven't flown with them before.
no where did the word "mayday" come up in the CVR. I checked with my "FIND FUNCTION". Believe me, "MAYDAY" might have gotten a little more attention from ATC...they got cleared direct to JEF , and they spent some time trying to tune up JEF...ATC should have given them a heading (unless I missed this, please check and inform me), a RADAR VECTOR and a few seconds might have been saved.
I will say that the CAM 2 (f/o) seemed more concerned about stalling/coffin corner etc than the captain.
One thing to really understand too is that at FL410 the cabin altitude may have been at the max for this plane. Is it possible that a little bit of hypoxia had happened. For years, 8000 feet has been the magic number....but I know that at 8000' cabin altitude I feel it. I know that boeing is advertising at max cabin altitude of 6000' for comfort in its new 787 dreamliner.
Hypoxia is even more telling at night on the human mind...night vision suffers and so forth. perhaps this is why the less than swift reaction to the "ball" being out of center.
all dudes aside, once they started on the checklist the professionalism seemed to return a bit ...
this core lock business sounds something like a "hung start" problem on the ground in the old garrett turboprop. things get a little warped due to different coolings.
sorry, whatever you think the problem is with the crew ( and they are not perfect...neither was atc) that plane should not be certifed so high and there better be a fix for the engine relight...even allowing for in - flight use of ground starter motors either electric or pneumatic whichever this thing has.
the envelope better be made smaller on this plane to keep it safe.
jon
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
Thanks, Cwatters , JonDC9 et al.
It did come over a bit that the atmosphere on the flight deck was a little "hilarious" before the problem occurred (and even a little after it started)
And I take the point about hypoxia (I did wonder if they were perhaps a little late getting on the O2)
Yes, I did notice that - once the severity of the problem was evident, the guys on the ground did seem to take a while to give frequencies, vectors etc.
Hope I did not sound too "accusing", and thanks to all for the clarification on the "med tests". That's just the way it came over, and I had tried (Google, All-the-web) to find more info but could only find the same report, or newspaper reports.
The guys were probably "clowning a bit to "whack it to the edge (literally) of the envelope", but sorry they didn't get it down and only suffer a "smacked wrist" from the Boss
Stu
It did come over a bit that the atmosphere on the flight deck was a little "hilarious" before the problem occurred (and even a little after it started)
And I take the point about hypoxia (I did wonder if they were perhaps a little late getting on the O2)
Yes, I did notice that - once the severity of the problem was evident, the guys on the ground did seem to take a while to give frequencies, vectors etc.
Hope I did not sound too "accusing", and thanks to all for the clarification on the "med tests". That's just the way it came over, and I had tried (Google, All-the-web) to find more info but could only find the same report, or newspaper reports.
The guys were probably "clowning a bit to "whack it to the edge (literally) of the envelope", but sorry they didn't get it down and only suffer a "smacked wrist" from the Boss
Stu
Originally Posted by Flight Safety
I agree with arcniz, plan and start executing your engine out landing first, then try the engine restarts.
...
...
but it is absolutley imperative that you attain the inflight restart envelop within spec if you want to have a more than lucky chance at restarting the buggers.In some restart envelopes this means giving up all engine out glide distance in order to stay in the restart envelop the longest.
It's a basic pilot decision time in a high pucker factor scenario. You have to pay the piper to hear the music
.
In my own restricted experience, once I'm out of the restart envelop and no chance of attaining it (too slow, too badly a mess in the engines) then I would seriously configure the aircraft for the best glide condition to achieve the softest landing. Half-way neasures either way don't sound to me like they are wise.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my own restricted experience, once I'm out of the restart envelop and no chance of attaining it (too slow, too badly a mess in the engines) then I would seriously configure the aircraft for the best glide condition to achieve the softest landing. Half-way neasures either way don't sound to me like they are wise.
I wonder what the stats are for successful restarts after 2 (or both) jet engines shutdown in flight. Success would depend on the cause of the shutdown of course. Then you have a possible extra factor such as the GE34 "core lock" problem which the NTSB is looking into for this particular accident.
If someone feels that an engine restart is better than an engine out landing, I would agree absolutely. But if you can't them restarted, than a glide landing is your only other option, so I think you said it correctly.
Half-way measures either way don't sound to me like they are wise.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's another recovery factor that happens to be present in this particular accident that I've been wanting to discuss.
In this case, the cabin pressure started to decay after the engines shutdown, as would be the case in many types. So how long can you stay at altitude in a glide before you have to get down lower to restore cabin pressure and O2? In this case, APU start at 30,000 could have provided a better engine restart option. Could it have provided cabin pressure as well on this type?
Ah, the conundrum of high altitude engine shutdown. Avoid hypoxia, preserve your glide to a good landing spot, and preserve your engine restart options. All at the same time.
In this case, the cabin pressure started to decay after the engines shutdown, as would be the case in many types. So how long can you stay at altitude in a glide before you have to get down lower to restore cabin pressure and O2? In this case, APU start at 30,000 could have provided a better engine restart option. Could it have provided cabin pressure as well on this type?
Ah, the conundrum of high altitude engine shutdown. Avoid hypoxia, preserve your glide to a good landing spot, and preserve your engine restart options. All at the same time.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't flown the CRJ series of aircraft. does anyone know if the engines are started on the ground with apu air (pneumatic starts) or by electric starter motor (that might be switched to perform function of generator after start)?
I love the dc9, but when at high altitude and descending at idle thrust, some of the older planes had their cabin altitude climb a bit... the engine out at high altitude scenario and getting hypoxia is not to be laughed at...sadly it is not trained for enough.
I think we as pilots depend too much on the 10thousand foot altitude warning horn, and with the case of the cypriot737, were fooled into thinking something was wrong with the gear warning horn!
awhile ago, there was a fine article about people traveling to florida on a CAL flight. one of the older folks died and lack of oxygen was to blame. Dippy pilot was quoted as saying something like, don't blame me if they are too old to fly.
many older people fly to florida...(duh)...after I read this article I started flying a bit lower to hold a 6k cabin instead of an 8k cabin. while I am not a statistician, more people came up to me telling me how much they enjoyed the flight.
Those 8 thousand foot numbers were derived during WW2 using healthy young men as subjects...not older people.
so, if you lose an engine or two, get on oxygen right away!
GEE
or should I say, G-E ?
ps. if you have a loss of any engine or all engines...trim for best glide and head towards your pre-selected field for landing...once you have the option of gliding to some kind of survivable landing, you might try the restart option including accelerating to obtain windmill speed.
of course if you are way out over the ocean, might have to try inflight relight first! ;-)
jon
I love the dc9, but when at high altitude and descending at idle thrust, some of the older planes had their cabin altitude climb a bit... the engine out at high altitude scenario and getting hypoxia is not to be laughed at...sadly it is not trained for enough.
I think we as pilots depend too much on the 10thousand foot altitude warning horn, and with the case of the cypriot737, were fooled into thinking something was wrong with the gear warning horn!
awhile ago, there was a fine article about people traveling to florida on a CAL flight. one of the older folks died and lack of oxygen was to blame. Dippy pilot was quoted as saying something like, don't blame me if they are too old to fly.
many older people fly to florida...(duh)...after I read this article I started flying a bit lower to hold a 6k cabin instead of an 8k cabin. while I am not a statistician, more people came up to me telling me how much they enjoyed the flight.
Those 8 thousand foot numbers were derived during WW2 using healthy young men as subjects...not older people.
so, if you lose an engine or two, get on oxygen right away!
GEE
or should I say, G-E ?
ps. if you have a loss of any engine or all engines...trim for best glide and head towards your pre-selected field for landing...once you have the option of gliding to some kind of survivable landing, you might try the restart option including accelerating to obtain windmill speed.
of course if you are way out over the ocean, might have to try inflight relight first! ;-)
jon
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Up North
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Mayday......& imperfect ATC?
no where did the word "mayday" come up in the CVR. I checked with my "FIND FUNCTION". Believe me, "MAYDAY" might have gotten a little more attention from ATC...they got cleared direct to JEF , and they spent some time trying to tune up JEF...ATC should have given them a heading (unless I missed this, please check and inform me), a RADAR VECTOR and a few seconds might have been saved.
Oh no! Another Pinnacle thread!
So Darwin awards finalists are back with us again. Well...
Let me put it this way: CRJ is airplane. Airplanes are devices used to transport goods and people through air by method we'll call flying. To fly we need two forces: lift and thrust. Lift is provided when the device we'll call wing moves through the air. To propel wing we use thrust from engines. CRJ has it wings attached to bottom of the mid-fuselage and two turbofan engines attached to the rear of the a/c with T-tail above 'em. Now this configuration is susceptible to disturbance of air inflow to the engines if operated at high angle of attack. Not enough air to the engines means too much fuel (if fuel supply isn't immediately reduced) and internal engine temperature rising above the design limit temperature. Now this may lead to melting and welding of some engine components and if it happens engine can no longer produce thrust and it's not a good thing. No thrust soon turns into not enough lift and gravity takes over.
Before someone gets idea that T-tailed rear-engined jetplanes are dangerous by design, they're not! One just needs to keep his AoA low, as it's proved every day by thousands of CRJs, ERJs, DC9s, B727s, Tu134s, Tu154s, Gulfstreams, etc still flying happily around.
Mind boggles on this one. If you're flying hi-perf sailplane in mountain vawe, as long as your oxy bottle lasts but if you're in transport category airplane, not even a split-second! Even if you go for your best glide speed you'll be plungin' earthwards with some rarely seen RoD - you'll get your 10:1 glide ratio but at quite high TAS. And if you go for windmilling restart of turbo-fan engine, you might need to pitch down in vicinity of 15° to get enough speed to windmill core shaft. This is a very scarry view, even in a sim.
About core lock: it happens on some turbofan engines in case of inflight flameout. Now the HP casing is cooled by stream of cold air going through bypass duct so it cools and shrinks more rapidly than core. Soon it contacts HP rotors and locks it until core gets cold enough and clearance between rotor and it's casing is restored. Was it relevant here: very small chance! Those GE's didn't just flameout, they failed after being severly overtemperatured, even partially melted!
I nominate expression "relatively warm" for "Understatement of the year award".
It's a shame such a beautiful plane was lost for no good reason. And too, too, too bad that pilots' families lost their loved ones. So next time when you ferry the bird or go up solo and have that itch to try something new, supress it. Thinking about the ones who will be hit hardest by your flight going awry might help.
both engines out for reasons unclear
Before someone gets idea that T-tailed rear-engined jetplanes are dangerous by design, they're not! One just needs to keep his AoA low, as it's proved every day by thousands of CRJs, ERJs, DC9s, B727s, Tu134s, Tu154s, Gulfstreams, etc still flying happily around.
So how long can you stay at altitude in a glide?
About core lock: it happens on some turbofan engines in case of inflight flameout. Now the HP casing is cooled by stream of cold air going through bypass duct so it cools and shrinks more rapidly than core. Soon it contacts HP rotors and locks it until core gets cold enough and clearance between rotor and it's casing is restored. Was it relevant here: very small chance! Those GE's didn't just flameout, they failed after being severly overtemperatured, even partially melted!
failure to restart while relatively warm
It's a shame such a beautiful plane was lost for no good reason. And too, too, too bad that pilots' families lost their loved ones. So next time when you ferry the bird or go up solo and have that itch to try something new, supress it. Thinking about the ones who will be hit hardest by your flight going awry might help.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To reiterate:
The engines DID NOT quit as a result of climbing to FL410.
The engines quit because of sloppy handling in the climb - trading airspeed for ROC, getting behind the power curve, disregarding stick shaker, manually overpowering the stick pusher, stalling the airplane - ultimately guaranteeing the engines were no longer receiving the clean inlet airflow they require to keep running at that altitude.
Then, through mishandling the relight process, they destroyed whatever chance they had to fly away from the earlier mistakes.
And they did it all at night, and never called Mayday. I feel for their families, and even a bit for the insurance company stockholders, but these guys didn't do their homework.
The engines DID NOT quit as a result of climbing to FL410.
The engines quit because of sloppy handling in the climb - trading airspeed for ROC, getting behind the power curve, disregarding stick shaker, manually overpowering the stick pusher, stalling the airplane - ultimately guaranteeing the engines were no longer receiving the clean inlet airflow they require to keep running at that altitude.
Then, through mishandling the relight process, they destroyed whatever chance they had to fly away from the earlier mistakes.
And they did it all at night, and never called Mayday. I feel for their families, and even a bit for the insurance company stockholders, but these guys didn't do their homework.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hi barit 1 and all.
I think this is one of the most important threads going.
Again, I haven't flown the CRJ. I have flown T tail airplanes or planes with tail mounted engines. They are fine designs and I would prefer this type of plane over the 737 configuration...indeed, when the 737 was first proposed it was a T tail like the BAC 111, trident, dc9 etc. But some smart guy thought boeings should look a bit different. The 737 ended up with a huge vertical fin and rudder which was required for the engine out scenario with engines on wings. by the way, the 737 has lost both engines and glided to a safe landing ( 737-300 entered heavy rain, lost both glided to landing on levey in the american southwest somewhere...a foreign carrier too)
BUT I DIGRESS.
On one of the planes I flew, when the stall warning activated, the ignition would automatically come on to protect the engines from flame out. Does anyone know if the CRJ has this protection?
And, since we ( collectively that is) have proven that the CRJ can lose power in both engines at high angle of attack, during high altitude stall or upset, have the engines, inlets, or ignition systems been red-designed to protect against this happening again?
interestingly enough, all of my training in transport jets calls for battling the stall with firewall power and trying to maintain altitude (it is not my view in all cases of course). Could the training have been part of the problem. I will say that this stall recovery technique is mainly for low altitude and also for windshear. In the manual for another jet it says that this method MAY NOT WORK at high altitude and to trade altitude to recover.
there was quite a bit of talk about the AOA display or whatever it was in the cockpit...many a slip twixt the cup and lip... if the plane aint' flying right, start to unload it, push forward and get it flying even if in a high rate of descent. All pilots should read "stick and rudder" and memorize what the brilliant author says about stalls and how to get out of trouble.
jon
blabbering on
I think this is one of the most important threads going.
Again, I haven't flown the CRJ. I have flown T tail airplanes or planes with tail mounted engines. They are fine designs and I would prefer this type of plane over the 737 configuration...indeed, when the 737 was first proposed it was a T tail like the BAC 111, trident, dc9 etc. But some smart guy thought boeings should look a bit different. The 737 ended up with a huge vertical fin and rudder which was required for the engine out scenario with engines on wings. by the way, the 737 has lost both engines and glided to a safe landing ( 737-300 entered heavy rain, lost both glided to landing on levey in the american southwest somewhere...a foreign carrier too)
BUT I DIGRESS.
On one of the planes I flew, when the stall warning activated, the ignition would automatically come on to protect the engines from flame out. Does anyone know if the CRJ has this protection?
And, since we ( collectively that is) have proven that the CRJ can lose power in both engines at high angle of attack, during high altitude stall or upset, have the engines, inlets, or ignition systems been red-designed to protect against this happening again?
interestingly enough, all of my training in transport jets calls for battling the stall with firewall power and trying to maintain altitude (it is not my view in all cases of course). Could the training have been part of the problem. I will say that this stall recovery technique is mainly for low altitude and also for windshear. In the manual for another jet it says that this method MAY NOT WORK at high altitude and to trade altitude to recover.
there was quite a bit of talk about the AOA display or whatever it was in the cockpit...many a slip twixt the cup and lip... if the plane aint' flying right, start to unload it, push forward and get it flying even if in a high rate of descent. All pilots should read "stick and rudder" and memorize what the brilliant author says about stalls and how to get out of trouble.
jon
blabbering on
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 20driver
In Chuck Yeager's book he mentioned how many hot shot test pilots ended up in a great smoking hole because they would not read the manual before flight. In one funny bit he describes how a buddy parked his shiny new jet in the wall of the hangar. Seems to still be happening.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jondc9
... by the way, the 737 has lost both engines and glided to a safe landing ( 737-300 entered heavy rain, lost both glided to landing on levey in the american southwest somewhere...a foreign carrier too)...
These guys had their act together! Didn't ding anything - aircraft was ferried out in a few days.
And, since we ( collectively that is) have proven that the CRJ can lose power in both engines at high angle of attack, during high altitude stall or upset, have the engines, inlets, or ignition systems been red-designed to protect against this happening again?
CRJ is adequatly protected from stalling at any altitude by stick-shaker and stick-pusher. They worked as designed but it seems they were overriden manually
It's easy to blame lack of hi-alt upset recovery trainning for the mess these guys got themselves into, but they could avoid it by not flying on the backside of the power curve and that's something I was taught while flying C-150. If you get into plane where you have to worry about mach no, it doesn't mean you can take a break from ol' power required vs power available.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still would like to know if the crj has automatic ignition protection along with stall warning.
as to air intakes and being blanked by the wing, does that mean the t tail was blanked by the wing too?
unless you personally have knowledge of flew the CRJ at FL410 with exact weights, speeds, aoa and the rest, specualtion on the capability of the air intake is a bit odd. and bringing up a slew of fighter planes means nothing.
yes the engines flamed out but all I WANT TO know is : does it have auto ignition or not?
as to air intakes and being blanked by the wing, does that mean the t tail was blanked by the wing too?
unless you personally have knowledge of flew the CRJ at FL410 with exact weights, speeds, aoa and the rest, specualtion on the capability of the air intake is a bit odd. and bringing up a slew of fighter planes means nothing.
yes the engines flamed out but all I WANT TO know is : does it have auto ignition or not?
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
willie
thanks!
as I mentioned in an earlier post, too many pilots are being trained to hold altitude in stall recovery thinking engines will increase a/s and lower aoa...but as I mentioned it doesn't work at high altitudes.
still, no matter what really happened and why, every pilot today now knows that the GE engines on the CRJ need to be respected and given a safer envelope.
I do recall that the Saab 340 has GE engines that had certain icing problems and they were fixed with some sort of ignition change. (correct me if I am wrong, please)
i also recall that the TACA dual flameout triggered a change in the CFM56 engines (spinner?) and for the longest time you were not supposed to fly the CFM56 737's in heavy rain or precip.
Imagine being able to fly a PA28 in heavy rain and not a big jet!
Let's not be too harsh to our fallen comrades in the CRJ. They taught us all something, just like the air florida pilots did, and the TWA pilots in '74 near Dulles and so many of the fallen birdmen.
by knowing how people get into trouble, one has a map of how to avoid it. as soon as you see yourself "pulling a CRJ, or an air florida" or the like, you run away from it and save yourself, the crew and passengers, and those poor innocents on the ground.
thoughts?
jon
thanks!
as I mentioned in an earlier post, too many pilots are being trained to hold altitude in stall recovery thinking engines will increase a/s and lower aoa...but as I mentioned it doesn't work at high altitudes.
still, no matter what really happened and why, every pilot today now knows that the GE engines on the CRJ need to be respected and given a safer envelope.
I do recall that the Saab 340 has GE engines that had certain icing problems and they were fixed with some sort of ignition change. (correct me if I am wrong, please)
i also recall that the TACA dual flameout triggered a change in the CFM56 engines (spinner?) and for the longest time you were not supposed to fly the CFM56 737's in heavy rain or precip.
Imagine being able to fly a PA28 in heavy rain and not a big jet!
Let's not be too harsh to our fallen comrades in the CRJ. They taught us all something, just like the air florida pilots did, and the TWA pilots in '74 near Dulles and so many of the fallen birdmen.
by knowing how people get into trouble, one has a map of how to avoid it. as soon as you see yourself "pulling a CRJ, or an air florida" or the like, you run away from it and save yourself, the crew and passengers, and those poor innocents on the ground.
thoughts?
jon
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I've said before, there are three kinds of people: Those who learn from their own mistakes; Those who learn from others' mistakes; and those who never learn.
The second category is to be preferred.
The second category is to be preferred.
Mike Really??!! – Unfortunately, yes.
Many years ago, the ‘level flight’ method was advocated as FAA approved training; the manufacturers led by Airbus reinstated the more conventional reduction in AOA method of recovery.
However, more recently in those modern aircraft not cleared for a full stall (stick push) without additional instrumentation, in-flight training has been restricted to approaching the stall - stick shake only. Here the recovery may be wings level using a power out technique.
Unfortunately, this technique has crept into simulator training, and onto other aircraft types when demonstrating a full stall. “First learnt – best remembered” ‘Bad habits hard to forget’ – especially when stressed or mis-assessing the risk of an alt bust vs a stall.
Many years ago, the ‘level flight’ method was advocated as FAA approved training; the manufacturers led by Airbus reinstated the more conventional reduction in AOA method of recovery.
However, more recently in those modern aircraft not cleared for a full stall (stick push) without additional instrumentation, in-flight training has been restricted to approaching the stall - stick shake only. Here the recovery may be wings level using a power out technique.
Unfortunately, this technique has crept into simulator training, and onto other aircraft types when demonstrating a full stall. “First learnt – best remembered” ‘Bad habits hard to forget’ – especially when stressed or mis-assessing the risk of an alt bust vs a stall.