Jefferson City pilots took plane to maximum altitude

"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

Engine out issues aside, one thing that struck me about this accident
was the fact that these guys had so much altitude in which to glide to
a safe landing that I wonder if it was actually _too_ much altitude? I
don't know how far away the airport was that they finally decided upon
for the emergency landing attempt, but clearly they didn't succeed in
meeting their goal. Were they too complacent in thinking they'd be able
to restart the engines, given that they were nearly 8 miles up?

One of the things I always try to get on a long x-country in a 172SP is
altitude. I've only flown on the east coast of the U.S. during my short
3 years as a private pilot, and while there are lots of airports
around, there are stretches where I'd be out of gliding range from an
airport even at 10,000 feet. These guys had 4 times that, and still
couldn't make it to an airport. Was there a field that was closer and
still suitable enough for their plane to land on? Considering they were
in a no-power situation, I assume on short final they'd be coming in
pretty close to stall speed to minimize forward velocity when touching
down (tho maybe I'm wrong on that point). I just can't believe that
with all that altitude they couldn't get safely on the ground.

--
Guy

("Guy Elden Jr" wrote)
[snip]
Engine out issues aside, one thing that struck me about this accident
was the fact that these guys had so much altitude in which to glide to
a safe landing that I wonder if it was actually _too_ much altitude? I
don't know how far away the airport was that they finally decided upon
for the emergency landing attempt, but clearly they didn't succeed in
meeting their goal. Were they too complacent in thinking they'd be able
to restart the engines, given that they were nearly 8 miles up?


My thoughts exactly.

10:1 = 80 miles
15:1 = 120 miles

I wonder if they had x-length of runway as a landing requirement set in
their minds? Or, like that person in the Everglades, with a rough running
engine a month ago, heading for a patch of freeway - then diverting to an
airport that ATC advised, even though he wasn't sure if he could make it if
the engine quit. (It worked out for him)

I wonder if they had no ATC to advise them, would they have chosen to put it
down at a smaller (closer) 3,000-ft strip airport? Or, maybe they were ok
with the chosen field, but did some math wrong in their heads, and didn't
catch it until too late. Very sad.

Also, has 'no fuel' been ruled out? I might have missed that part.


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