Jefferson City pilots took plane to maximum altitude

Where do you come up with this BS? There is no relationship between climb
rate and over temping.

Mike
MU-2

Well never mind where I got it initially, but it's all on the NTSB
website now. There are even the cockpit data recorder info online. They
are looking at climb SPEED (they climbed for 15 minutes at slower than
the speed called for in the manual, which is in one of the files on the
NTSB website), they STALLED the aircraft at 41k (or so). They failed to
do a restart. And they are looking at seized engines. It doesn't
actually say yet, the engines seized, but they have some reports on
engine core lock in the display documents. There is a rather gripping,
blow by blow transcription of everything the pilots and ATC said, as
well as their struggle to unsuccessfully restart the engines. They
aren't looking at fuel or pressurization issues.

If you want to actually find out what happened check it out at:
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2005/Pinnacle/exhibits/

The idea about the cooling "cycle" (getting behind the cooling curve),
is not there yet and I didn't see engine temperatures in the data
recording file. Don't know why. There may be more coming out on that
one. Maybe not. Anyway, if the engines DID seize, both of them, there
is something peculiar going on with the GE engines, probably related to
the speed at which they climbed. But this is all preliminary and
obviously not conclusive. This one is going to be interesting.

Bob,

Word on the street now is that it may have been something called "core
lockup" on both engines. Bombardier claims it's never happened on an
in-service engine, however.

More he
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2005/Pinn...its/323843.pdf

All the best,
Rick

wrote in message
oups.com...
Word on the street now is that it may have been something called "core
lockup" on both engines. Bombardier claims it's never happened on an
in-service engine, however.

More he
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2005/Pinn...its/323843.pdf

If I read that right (and I'm not sure I did), "core lockup" is something
that happens to an engine that has been stopped. That is, it's not a cause
of engine stoppage, but rather it's a cause of not being able to restart the
engine once it's been stopped. Something else needs to stop the engine
first (eg in their testing, they shut down the engine and let it spool down,
and THEN test for "core lockup").

Pete

"T o d d P a t t i s t" wrote in message
news
[...]
I'm not familiar with how these engines react at high
altitude/high AOA, but I presume that shutdown is one
possible consequence since the AOA sensor automatically
turns on continuous ignition at high alpha. Anyone want to
comment?

Well, I'm no expert either. But my understanding is that high angles of
attack can result in a compressor stall, resulting in loss of combustion,
thus the automatic operation of the ignition system.

Jose made the comment that he wondered if hypoxia wasn't playing a part in
this. After reading the transcript, I can certainly see where he got that
idea. The pilots seem relatively oblivious to what's going on, they fail to
immediately start flying to a safe landing site (which IMHO is the very
first action after any engine failure), and they spend WAY too much time
trying to restart the engines, rather than planning for an emergency
landing.

One other thing I noticed was that the one pilot was several times
commenting on maintaining their airspeed at 170 knots, leading me to believe
the airspeed wasn't very high. The "core lockup" article suggests that
slowing to 190 knots may be sufficient to reduce engine rotation completely.
If so, the pilots in this accident were WAY too slow to ensure the engines
didn't stop rotating, and should have flown at a MUCH higher airspeed during
the glide.

I assume that somewhere in the flight data recorder information is airspeed
information, but I don't have time to look at it right now.

All that said, this definitely appears to be one of those accidents where
there were several links in the chain leading to the accident, or at least
the fatalities. One key link was the failure to divert to an airport
immediately upon engine failure. Had they done so, I think all of the other
issues would have been academic, and we would have the two people who could
actually answer questions directly about what happened still alive.

Pete

"Doug" wrote in message
ups.com...
Where do you come up with this BS? There is no relationship between
climb
rate and over temping.

Mike
MU-2

Well never mind where I got it initially, but it's all on the NTSB
website now. There are even the cockpit data recorder info online. They
are looking at climb SPEED (they climbed for 15 minutes at slower than
the speed called for in the manual, which is in one of the files on the
NTSB website), they STALLED the aircraft at 41k (or so). They failed to
do a restart. And they are looking at seized engines. It doesn't
actually say yet, the engines seized, but they have some reports on
engine core lock in the display documents. There is a rather gripping,
blow by blow transcription of everything the pilots and ATC said, as
well as their struggle to unsuccessfully restart the engines. They
aren't looking at fuel or pressurization issues.

If you want to actually find out what happened check it out at:
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2005/Pinnacle/exhibits/

The idea about the cooling "cycle" (getting behind the cooling curve),
is not there yet and I didn't see engine temperatures in the data
recording file. Don't know why. There may be more coming out on that
one. Maybe not. Anyway, if the engines DID seize, both of them, there
is something peculiar going on with the GE engines, probably related to
the speed at which they climbed. But this is all preliminary and
obviously not conclusive. This one is going to be interesting.


OK that is totally different. Forward speed while climbing in a turbine
aircraft near max altitude is critical not only because of l/d but also
becasue turbine engines produce more power as higher airspeeds as inlet
pressure is higher. Sounds like the pilots of this aircraft operated
outside the airplanes flight envelope and then were unfortunate enough to
have the engines sieze after they flamed out.

Mike
MU-2

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug" wrote in message
ups.com...
Where do you come up with this BS? There is no relationship between
climb
rate and over temping.

Mike
MU-2

Well never mind where I got it initially, but it's all on the NTSB
website now. There are even the cockpit data recorder info online. They
are looking at climb SPEED (they climbed for 15 minutes at slower than
the speed called for in the manual, which is in one of the files on the
NTSB website), they STALLED the aircraft at 41k (or so). They failed to
do a restart. And they are looking at seized engines. It doesn't
actually say yet, the engines seized, but they have some reports on
engine core lock in the display documents. There is a rather gripping,
blow by blow transcription of everything the pilots and ATC said, as
well as their struggle to unsuccessfully restart the engines. They
aren't looking at fuel or pressurization issues.

If you want to actually find out what happened check it out at:
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2005/Pinnacle/exhibits/

The idea about the cooling "cycle" (getting behind the cooling curve),
is not there yet and I didn't see engine temperatures in the data
recording file. Don't know why. There may be more coming out on that
one. Maybe not. Anyway, if the engines DID seize, both of them, there
is something peculiar going on with the GE engines, probably related to
the speed at which they climbed. But this is all preliminary and
obviously not conclusive. This one is going to be interesting.


OK that is totally different. Forward speed while climbing in a turbine
aircraft near max altitude is critical not only because of l/d but also
becasue turbine engines produce more power as higher airspeeds as inlet
pressure is higher. Sounds like the pilots of this aircraft operated
outside the airplanes flight envelope and then were unfortunate enough to
have the engines sieze after they flamed out.

Darwinism at work again

("Mike Rapoport" wrote)
OK that is totally different. Forward speed while climbing in a turbine
aircraft near max altitude is critical not only because of l/d but also
becasue turbine engines produce more power as higher airspeeds as inlet
pressure is higher. Sounds like the pilots of this aircraft operated
outside the airplanes flight envelope and then were unfortunate enough to
have the engines sieze after they flamed out.


The Salt Lake Tribune:
http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_2800743
Excerpts from conversations between Pinnacle Airlines Capt. Jesse Rhodes and
First Officer Peter Cesarz just before they died in the crash of a
Bombardier regional jet on Oct. 14, 2004.

Thursday's AvWeb:
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/414-full.html#189978
(scroll down for it)

....And The High Price Of A Good Time

"Aw [expletive] we're gonna hit houses, dude." The NTSB has released new
information -- including cockpit voice excerpts (see NewsWire) -- related to
the Oct. 14 fatal crash of a Pinnacle Airlines regional jet. The pilots were
flying an empty Bombardier CL-600-2B19 and hoping to "have a little fun"
when they decided to climb to the jet's maximum altitude at FL410, according
to transcripts from the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) that the NTSB released
this week. The two were ferrying the 50-seat jet from Little Rock, Ark., to
Minneapolis on Oct. 14. A controller questioned the jet's model and altitude
told the pilots, "I've never seen you guys up at 41 there." The crew
responded, "Yeah, we're actually ... we don't have any passengers on board,
so we decided to have a little fun and come up here." Minutes later, the
pilots told controllers first that one and later that both engines had
failed. An automatic system had attempted to lower the nose as the aircraft
lost airspeed at 41,000 feet, but the pilots overrode it. The plane stalled
and turbulent airflow entered the engines, according to NTSB information
obtained by the New York Times. Though the NTSB noted that the aircraft had
been within gliding distance of five suitable airports when the pilots were
first aware of the loss of power, the aircraft did not make a runway. The
pilots had attempted, but were unable, to restart either engine and crashed
more than two miles short of Jefferson City, Mo., airport. They missed the
houses.

Both pilots were killed when the aircraft crashed in a residential
neighborhood at night -- excerpts from their last exchanges suggest they
were trying for a road. According to an NTSB report quoted in The New York
Times, "Investigators formed the impression that there was a sense of allure
to some pilots to cruise at FL 410 just to say they had 'been there and done
that.'" The airline has blamed the pilots for behaving unprofessionally and
disregarding their training. The Air Line Pilots Association has said the
airline's training program was inadequate and that the engines suffered
"core lock" caused by differential cooling when engines are run at high
thrust and suddenly shut down -- an allegation the manufacturer has
rejected. The FAA issued, June 2, a Special Airworthiness Information
Bulletin intended to clarify and promote successful air-restart procedures
in the case of a double engine failure. According to NTSB data, "starter
assist" is required to start engines at altitudes below 15,000 feet and
speeds below 190 knots. The NTSB will investigate whether the aircraft's GE
engines indeed suffered core lock and whether proper technique could have
seen them restarted. Investigative exhibit items from the public docket are
available here.

http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2005/Pinnacle/exhibits/


Montblack

Bucky wrote:
When the engineers
specify a maximum altitude, doesn't it still have to be safe at that
altitude?

Remember, at above 18,000 feet your altimeter is set to 29.92. The
airplane continues to perform and behave based on density altitude. How
much of a difference that is (between PA and DA) up at FL410.. I have no
idea.

In this case, the in the course of trying to obtain max altitude (or
maybe even climb higher) they got too slow. And stalled. Any airplane
will stall given the right circumstances. The autopilot/aircraft systems
tried to correct the situation (by pushing the stick forward, to cause a
descent) and the pilots (incorrectly) chose to override a properly
functioning safety feature.

In this particular stall evolution, the engines both failed because the
smooth airflow going into the engines that were operating at high
power/high flow was disrupted, and for whatever reason they were unable
to restart the engines. There is some specuation about "core lock", in
which sounds like the "shock cooling" equivalent for turbines, going
from high power to no power at high, cold altitudes.

Just what is it about "PILOT ERROR" makes the airframe unsafe? If you
are running with scissors, and your mom says "I wouldnt do that if I
were you".. is it the scissors fault?

Dave

Mike,

I'm not referring to water in the fuel as we deal with in piston
pounders (and where it would be expected to affect a number of
airplanes), but rather the normal moisture entrained in fuel and that
processes through the system without any effect except at high altitude
where it's so terribly cold and the entrained moisture freezes and can
clog filters with the very small ice particles unless something like
PRIST is used. (Although one poster was correct, it usually takes more
than a few minutes to cool the fuel to the point where the entrained
water freezes. It's more of a concern after about an hour at cruise.)

May not be a good theory as it appears the crew let the speed
deteriorate badly in the final climb to 410 and it continued to bleed
off once there.

All the best,
Rick

wrote in message
ups.com...
Mike,

I'm not referring to water in the fuel as we deal with in piston
pounders (and where it would be expected to affect a number of
airplanes), but rather the normal moisture entrained in fuel and that
processes through the system without any effect except at high altitude
where it's so terribly cold and the entrained moisture freezes and can
clog filters with the very small ice particles unless something like
PRIST is used. (Although one poster was correct, it usually takes more
than a few minutes to cool the fuel to the point where the entrained
water freezes. It's more of a concern after about an hour at cruise.)

May not be a good theory as it appears the crew let the speed
deteriorate badly in the final climb to 410 and it continued to bleed
off once there.

All the best,
Rick


I would still expect that a lot of Jet A buyers are going to FL410 (or
higher) and that if there was enough water in the fuel to crystalize and
block the fuel system to the extent that the engines failed that it would
have affected other planes too. Also, at least in my airplane, you have
some time between when the filter bypass light comes on and when the engines
flame out since the fuel lines are a lot bigger that the filter pores and it
takes more ice to clog them. I always look for what is unique to the
situation and what is common. So, I think that the problem was, most
likely, not the fuel because many others probably bought the fuel and flew
at least as high for at least as long.

I would guess that the pilots had never been anywhere close to FL410 since
it appears unlikely that the plane could reach that altitude with passengers
aboard if it can barely get there empty. They probably didn't remember the
cautions about high altitude flight in the manual. Why they chose to
override the shaker or not set up their glide towards an airport is
baffling.

Mike
MU-2