Unbelievable...

This accident was pretty well thrashed about at the time on this board. Sounds like it went about the way that one of the jet pilots amongst the board members thought.

Jim G
 
Famous last words:
"Hey, watch this! This will be fun!"

*sigh*
 
larrysb said:
Isn't the CRJ certified to FL410?
Click to expand...
From an NTSB press release last year:

"The flight data recorder (FDR) data indicate that while the
airplane was at 41,000 feet, the stick shaker and stick
pusher activated several times before the airplane entered
an aerodynamic stall. Almost simultaneously, both engines
shut down. The air-driven generator was automatically
deployed and supplied the backup alternating current power
to the airplane.

"According to the emergency checklist for a dual engine
failure, there are two ways to restart or relight the
engines. One option is to use a windmill restart, which
requires at least 300 knots indicated airspeed and the core
of the engine to be either 12 percent rpm above 15,000 feet
or 9 percent rpm below 15,000 feet. The FDR data show that
the computed airspeed did not get above 300 knots and that
there was no measured rotation of the engine core.

"The second option is to use auxiliary power unit (APU) bleed
air, which has to be accomplished at 13,000 feet or below.
The target best glide speed depends on the weight of the
aircraft and is either 190 knots indicated airspeed or
170 knots indicated airspeed. The FDR data indicate that
the APU was on after the aerodynamic stall and that the
airspeed was sufficient for an APU start. The FDR and CVR
indicated that the flight crew tried to start the engines
several times but were unsuccessful."

I have heard that while the CRJ-200 is certified to FL410, it has to be nearly empty to get there. The description of events in the first paragraph of the NTSB report is consistent with an attempt to reach FL410 while still so heavy that there was insufficient thrust to allow level flight with adequate aerodynamic stall margin for safety.
 
How about them apparently still laughing when the flameout occurred.

Cesarz: "Dude, it's (expletive) losing it.'' (Sound of laughing)
Click to expand...
 
I don't know of course, what the specific manifest was for the particular CRJ, but it was void of passengers and I'd assume void of cargo. That leaves it's empty weight plus fuel. That should have been at or close to the lightest weight the CRJ could be at, and hence I'd tend to think it was loaded in a manner to allow for FL410 operations. Of course, I don't know the actual W&B.

I'm troubled deeply by the fact that the engines could not be restarted, after several attempts. There's no reason that they shouldn't have restarted.

Yes, the pilots were likely screwing around, but not to the point that they had any reason to crash the plane. The engines should have re-lighted somewhere on the way down, otherwise they have no business being on a passenger carrying transport aircraft.

Did they get excited and blow the emergency checklist or did the engines fail in a way to prevent a re-light?

I read the whole transcripts, what's the deal with the oil pressure? Why did they keep getting "no N2?"
 
My other question is if they lost their engines at 41,000', how could they possibly not make it to a runway? I know the jet won't glide that well, but 41,000' is a long way to go...
 
larrysb said:
Did they get excited and blow the emergency checklist or did the engines fail in a way to prevent a re-light?
Click to expand...

Both. The crew moved the power levers to flight idle, but not to the shutoff position (which would stop fuel from flowing to the engine). Since continuous ignition was "ON" on the #2 engine, it began melting down and at that point became a (very heavy) paperweight.
 
Last edited:
Ok, so there's now one engine failure due to misoperation. Assuming that shut-off is part of the emergency checklist, the crew failed to follow procedure for engine out.

What is bugging me is the press characterization that a couple of hotdogs went for a joy ride, flew too high and blew up the airplane. That's not exactly what happened. Sure, they were obviously messing around, but that didn't cause the crash. They crashed because they could not get the engines restarted.
 
larrysb said:
I don't know of course, what the specific manifest was for the particular CRJ, but it was void of passengers and I'd assume void of cargo. That leaves it's empty weight plus fuel. That should have been at or close to the lightest weight the CRJ could be at, and hence I'd tend to think it was loaded in a manner to allow for FL410 operations. Of course, I don't know the actual W&B.

I'm troubled deeply by the fact that the engines could not be restarted, after several attempts. There's no reason that they shouldn't have restarted.

Yes, the pilots were likely screwing around, but not to the point that they had any reason to crash the plane. The engines should have re-lighted somewhere on the way down, otherwise they have no business being on a passenger carrying transport aircraft.

Did they get excited and blow the emergency checklist or did the engines fail in a way to prevent a re-light?

I read the whole transcripts, what's the deal with the oil pressure? Why did they keep getting "no N2?"
Click to expand...


It's an interesting question alright. I wish I had a manual on the plane so I could see how the fuel management system works. It would be nice to know the status of the anti icing systems as well (pitot and static heats for the engine intake pickups). With you, my major question in this matter has always been, "In 41,000 feet, how come they couldn't get the engines relit?" This is big. I still am not sure if it was mechanical or operational. I don't want to think that 2 professional pilots would mess that up, but at CJ pay scale, well, sometimes you get what you pay for. I'm not saying there aren't any good pilots at the commuters, but I know there's a bunch of crap ones there. Read the Raliegh-Durham file for the American Eagle Jetstream that crashed there, and the history of the Captain. Here's a guy that pinks his way out of Com Air (took three) and gets picked up by AE and pinks his first ride there! He doesn't understand the full signifigance or operation of the "Engine Relight" light. On a dark and stormy approach, that light comes on. Whenever the automatic engine relight circuit engages, that light will come on, and will not go out again until the SRL (single red line, a fuel control computer basically) computer is recycled, so even when the engine restarts, that light stays on. Dude doesn't realize this so without verifying a loss of power, he goes ahead and cages it. My buddy Matt Sailor is in the right seat. Last thing on the CVR is my buddy Matt yelling "WRONG FOOT...WRONG FOOT". I'm actually amazed Matt let him do that really, Matt had 1200hrs Multi Instructing, that's what he did every day, ME Ratings. That captain was quitting the next week to be a manager at Wal Mart, unfortunately, this was my buddies first flight with the guy and didn't know about him. Thing is, he wasn't getting fired, he was going for the Wal Mart job for the pay increase.
 
larrysb said:
Ok, so there's now one engine failure due to misoperation. Assuming that shut-off is part of the emergency checklist, the crew failed to follow procedure for engine out.

What is bugging me is the press characterization that a couple of hotdogs went for a joy ride, flew too high and blew up the airplane. That's not exactly what happened. Sure, they were obviously messing around, but that didn't cause the crash. They crashed because they could not get the engines restarted.
Click to expand...

Again, but why couldn't they get a restart. But I agree, they were not being "hotdogs", morons possibly, but not hotdogs. Personnally I have no problems with them taking the plane to the top of the envelope on a repositioning flight, Some envelope exploration is always a good thing and should occur during deadhead flights. But if they were proceeduraly unprepared for the potential situations that may occur, well....
 
larrysb said:
I'm troubled deeply by the fact that the engines could not be restarted, after several attempts. There's no reason that they shouldn't have restarted.
Click to expand...
Yes, there is -- failure to perform the proper procedure at the proper time. They tried the high speed restart procedure while they were too slow, and then tried the APU restart while they were too high, and then gave up.

Did they get excited and blow the emergency checklist or did the engines fail in a way to prevent a re-light?
Click to expand...
Yes and no.
 
This is a human factors accident. "Hazardous attitudes" abound. Sigh. Why is it always the PILOT(s)?
 
Pardon me, too lazy to pull the full NTSB file, but the voice transcripts posted earlier seem to indicate that the pilots were repeatedly hitting FL410 via a yo-yo maneuver (essentially pull hard and climb above an altitude the aircraft cannot maintain). Was that the case?
 
bbchien said:
This is a human factors accident. "Hazardous attitudes" abound. Sigh. Why is it always the PILOT(s)?
Click to expand...

Who else you gonna get to take that responsability for those wages, what's average for an RJ line pilot? $25k? Shoot, if you're good enough to properly run the technology there, you can make 3 times that in your first year at some other industrial application. So, it attracts a lot of dudes who do it for the swagger factor. I'm sorry if anyone takes personal offense, I think of no one specific, but I've worked breifly at commuters and know who I trained with and a miriad of other same same commuter pilots, and this is my opinion. I flew a Jetsteam for 3 months before I decided I couldn't afford to make $18k a year, so I stepped over to the oilfield, got on a boat and did basicaly the same job I do on the airplane and make $80k. If you don't pay people properly, you'll lose your top quality people.
 
Read the NTSB report today; What is so incredible is the "Crew" getting to "FL 41"and the comments they make. Sounds like some sort of teenage drag racing attitude out of the 1950s.:hairraise: They even tell the controller that they "made it". What is even more amazing is that they let the auto pilot tried to fly the plane up there. Not enough power to sustain the flight at that altitude. a big no no. :dunno:

John J
 
It gets a LOT more interesting when you read the rest of the information.

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

Of note, read the exhibits that cover "core lock".

It seems that there are conditions where a flameout or shutdown in flight can actually result in a stiction condition, such that the engine core will NOT rotate from a windmilling startup attempt.

The GE information covers a case of testing where the engine is brought down to idle, allowed to cool, then shut off in flight. There's one case of a flameout at FL340 mentioned.

Now the picture is starting become a little more together. They went up and had a flame out. The engines core-locked, and would not indicate any N2 rotation. It may not have been entirely pilot error that failed to restart them.

Like all good accidents, this is a chain of events that led to the demise of the airframe. I find it troubling that two engines of a transport category aircraft could not be restarted in 41000 feet of descent, despite multiple attempts.
 
Hmmm....

GE says there was no core lock.

We'll wait for the final findings on this.
 
John J said:
Read the NTSB report today; What is so incredible is the "Crew" getting to "FL 41"and the comments they make. Sounds like some sort of teenage drag racing attitude out of the 1950s.:hairraise: They even tell the controller that they "made it". What is even more amazing is that they let the auto pilot tried to fly the plane up there. Not enough power to sustain the flight at that altitude. a big no no. :dunno:

John J
Click to expand...

I just finished reading that whole transcript:hairraise: . I think they were hypoxic. The CRM going on there, sad, I hope that's not how they are taught to handle it.
 
bbchien said:
This is a human factors accident. "Hazardous attitudes" abound. Sigh. Why is it always the PILOT(s)?
Click to expand...

I think if you read the NTSB Human Factors/Performance report you will see that this Captain had some problems with decision making and judgement during upgrade training. Both pilots were "products" of a Pay For Training deal with GIA. I believe at the time of the accident the FO had approximately 790 hours of total flight time. A sad day for sure, but with such a lack of professionalism that is what happens. Complex machines in the hands of people who do not respect their power equals a very deadly end.
 
Not very knowledgeable in these things so excuse my questions if the answers seem obvious to you.

1) When they say "flame out" do they mean the engines shut down or actually caught fire?

2) What would cause this, the altitude and lack of oxygen to keep the engines ignited?

I recall once many moons ago on a Peoples Express flight from EWR to BDL we flew right through a TS. I have never been bounced around so bad. at one point the plane pitched forward and bank left very severely. I think we lost about 10,000' ( no exaggeration). At some point we heard three loud bangs from the rear of the 727. Pilot explained when we picked the stews up off the floor that the bangs were the engines restarting and on the ground told us we had a pressure stall which I understand is not enough air or perhaps dense enough air flowing trough the engine. Is that akin to what happened on the CRJ?
 
mikea said:
How about them apparently still laughing when the flameout occurred.
Click to expand...

What concerned me much more than that was the statement to the effect "Dude, look at the cabin altitude..." The conversation even seems hypoxic, and they took their sweet time getting O2 on.
 
AdamZ said:
Not very knowledgeable in these things so excuse my questions if the answers seem obvious to you.

1) When they say "flame out" do they mean the engines shut down or actually caught fire?
Click to expand...

Engines quit (the flame goes out).

2) What would cause this, the altitude and lack of oxygen to keep the engines ignited?
Click to expand...

Insufficient airflow (mass) through the engine to sustain combustion. Precipitated by the thin air and low IAS.

I recall once many moons ago on a Peoples Express flight from EWR to BDL we flew right through a TS. I have never been bounced around so bad. at one point the plane pitched forward and bank left very severely. I think we lost about 10,000' ( no exaggeration). At some point we heard three loud bangs from the rear of the 727. Pilot explained when we picked the stews up off the floor that the bangs were the engines restarting and on the ground told us we had a pressure stall which I understand is not enough air or perhaps dense enough air flowing trough the engine. Is that akin to what happened on the CRJ?
Click to expand...

That was a compressor stall which IIRC is where the airflow through the engine actually reverses and can be caused by excessive AOA and the resulting loss of airflow into the engine. I don't think this would occur simply because the plane was operated at high altitude.
 
Ryan Ferguson said:
Both. The crew moved the power levers to flight idle, but not to the shutoff position (which would stop fuel from flowing to the engine). Since continuous ignition was "ON" on the #2 engine, it began melting down and at that point became a (very heavy) paperweight.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised the FADEC would allow that. The CRJ's do have FADEC's don't they?
 
Henning said:
Again, but why couldn't they get a restart. But I agree, they were not being "hotdogs", morons possibly, but not hotdogs. Personnally I have no problems with them taking the plane to the top of the envelope on a repositioning flight, Some envelope exploration is always a good thing and should occur during deadhead flights. But if they were proceeduraly unprepared for the potential situations that may occur, well....
Click to expand...

The report I read said they used improper procedures, too slow when they tried to airstart, and too high when they tried the APU start.
 
wsuffa said:
Hmmm....

GE says there was no core lock.

We'll wait for the final findings on this.
Click to expand...


Of course they did. What are they going to say?

Look at the FDR graphs - looks like at least one engine was registering 0% N2 rotation.
 
lancefisher said:
The report I read said they used improper procedures, too slow when they tried to airstart, and too high when they tried the APU start.
Click to expand...


I was looking at the FDR graphs and I don't think that the data necessarily supports that conclusion. There has been no ruling or finding of fact that the crew failed to follow the restart procedure. According to the FDR, they attempted several times. There's also a blackout in the FDR time line between the engine stall and when the APG started working.

There is definitely more to this story and I smell an AD coming.

The bad part is the press has latched on to the "hot-doggin joyrider" story. It sells the papers and to the uninformed, sounds like what happened.
 
larrysb said:
Of course they did. What are they going to say?

Look at the FDR graphs - looks like at least one engine was registering 0% N2 rotation.
Click to expand...

Well, if you'd looked at the graphs and the rest of the reports, you'd see that 1) they didn't get enough airspeed to do the air restart above 13K - 300 kts are required (Bombardier note: "300 kts or greater is requried to achive N2 for restart"), 2) that both GE and Bombardier say that any corelock can be overcome with the ATS, and 3) that at least one engine had evidence of severe overheating and melting of some of the blades (with the metal splattered through the engine).

Hard to restart when you've basically destroyed the engine....

Then again, these pilots never should have gotten into the situation where a dual failure would occur.
 
larrysb said:
Of course they did. What are they going to say?

Look at the FDR graphs - looks like at least one engine was registering 0% N2 rotation.
Click to expand...

Where is the FDR and CVR transcript available online?
 
AdamZ said:
Not very knowledgeable in these things so excuse my questions if the answers seem obvious to you.
Click to expand...
There are no dumb questions -- only unasked questions and dumb answers.

1) When they say "flame out" do they mean the engines shut down or actually caught fire?
Click to expand...
As Lance noted, that means the fire in the combustor stage went out. This could be due to lack of sufficient high pressure air or interruption of fuel supply.

2) What would cause this, the altitude and lack of oxygen to keep the engines ignited?
Click to expand...
In this particular case, almost certainly interruption of the air flow into the combustor stage due to flow disturbance in the compressor stages caused by the high angle of attack. If the AOA gets high enough, the flow can't make the turn around the inlet lip into the face of the engine, and this usually results in a "compressor stall." That's what happens when the angle of attack on the blades of at least one stage of the compressor exceeds critical, and the compressor blades stall just like a wing that exceeds critical AOA.

This can happen due to excessive maneuvering, or inappropriate throttle movement (say, jamming the throttles forward at low speed on an engine with less advanced engine controls -- more of a problem with Century-series fighters than with modern FADEC-equipped engines -- the TF30-P9 in the F-111D was notorious for compressor stalling if afterburner was selected much below 300 KIAS in flight above about FL200). Other causes may include FOD (I can attest to the fact that ingestion of a buzzard will cause a compressor stall in an F-111 engine), or a control system malfunction (I can attest to the fact that nozzle pump control failure causing the exhaust nozzle of an F-111 engine to stay closed as the afterburner lights will cause a compressor stall).

Once a compressor stall happens, flow into the engine stops and, since the pressure at the back end of the engine is now higher than the inlet pressure, even reverses. You get a great BANG and a fireball shoots out the inlet -- it will DEFINITELY get your undivided attention. The only way to clear a compressor stall is to slow the compressor to a rotational speed that allows the airflow to straighten out again so the compressor can get back below critical AOA and with the reduced drag, accelerate back to operational RPM. The FADEC's in modern engines usually take care of this, but there are limits, and if you don't put then airplane in an attitude/AOA/speed that allows it to recover, it won't. On older planes, sometimes the only solution was to completely shut down the engine, reduce AOA and pick up enough speed to windmill it up to starting RPM, and then relight.

I recall once many moons ago on a Peoples Express flight from EWR to BDL we flew right through a TS. I have never been bounced around so bad. at one point the plane pitched forward and bank left very severely. I think we lost about 10,000' ( no exaggeration). At some point we heard three loud bangs from the rear of the 727. Pilot explained when we picked the stews up off the floor that the bangs were the engines restarting and on the ground told us we had a pressure stall which I understand is not enough air or perhaps dense enough air flowing trough the engine. Is that akin to what happened on the CRJ?
Click to expand...
That does sound like a compressor stall, and in very heavy rain, the JT8D engines used in a 727 were prone to that. That's what killed both JT8D's on Southern 242, which deadsticked onto a road in Georgia after losing both engines during penetration of a Level 6 TRW in 1977. See http://amelia.db.erau.edu/reports/ntsb/aar/AAR78-03.pdf for the full report, and look especially at the testing they did at the FAA Propulsion Test Center in Trenton NJ discussed in paragraph 1.16 on page 25, et seq. In that accident, the back pressure was so strong it pushed the compressor blades into the preceding stage stators, and the impingement of the spinning and non-spinning blades did so much blade/stator damage that the engines could not recover.
 
larrysb said:
I was looking at the FDR graphs and I don't think that the data necessarily supports that conclusion. There has been no ruling or finding of fact that the crew failed to follow the restart procedure. According to the FDR, they attempted several times. There's also a blackout in the FDR time line between the engine stall and when the APG started working.

There is definitely more to this story and I smell an AD coming.

The bad part is the press has latched on to the "hot-doggin joyrider" story. It sells the papers and to the uninformed, sounds like what happened.
Click to expand...

Larry, there may well be more to the story as you suggest. However, as I noted elsewhere the graphs do show that airspeed was insufficient for a high-altitude windmill restart. The engine teardown report shows melted and heat damaged parts on one of the two engines. That is supported in the graphs by the high temperature reached on the #2 engine - well above redline.

There is also plenty of evidence in the human factors sections of the data that suggest that there may have been a pattern of issues over time with the PIC in this case. Also, there were deficiencies noted in Pinnacle's training program.

We'll see what the final report says, but there is plenty of data to support a finding of irresponsible actions on the part of the pilot. Starting with the decision to climb to 410 when the flight was planned, filed, and dispached for a much lower altitude.... something about the allure of being able to say they'd done that.

Most accidents result from a chain of events. I'd suggest that there were a number of links in that chain that were directly under the control of the pilots. Maybe not. Maybe the plane could have landed successfully if the one engine had restarted.

It sounds like you have an axe to grind on this one. I'd suggest we wait for a final decision as to the cause from the NTSB before we second guess or start to assess blame.
 
I don't have an axe to grind. The thing that gets me is the press-play this story has gotten and the angle that is being proffered - "hot-doggin joy-riders".

I also do NOT see the engine tear down report. Nor does the position of the engine controls that supposedly melted the engines seem to appear. Perhaps I don't see it because I don't know what I'm looking at, but I don't see it.

From the data recorder, they did establish at FL410, and held altitude for several minutes, although the airspeed slowly decayed to stay there. That should have been clue one - can't hold altitude and airspeed, time to descend.

There have been a lot of statements about cause which are not supported by the available facts in the exhibits list or reports and no ruling has been made.

Henning has a point though - the CVR may indicate hypoxia.
 
larrysb said:
I don't have an axe to grind. The thing that gets me is the press-play this story has gotten and the angle that is being proffered - "hot-doggin joy-riders".

I also do NOT see the engine tear down report. Nor does the position of the engine controls that supposedly melted the engines seem to appear. Perhaps I don't see it because I don't know what I'm looking at, but I don't see it.
Click to expand...

See pages 11-15 here:
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2005/Pinnacle/exhibits/314920.pdf

Also, if you look carefully at the FDR graphs, you will see the Engine 2 ITT overtemp occur just before the FDR shut down.

From the data recorder, they did establish at FL410, and held altitude for several minutes, although the airspeed slowly decayed to stay there. That should have been clue one - can't hold altitude and airspeed, time to descend.

There have been a lot of statements about cause which are not supported by the available facts in the exhibits list or reports and no ruling has been made.

Henning has a point though - the CVR may indicate hypoxia.
Click to expand...
 
larrysb said:
I don't have an axe to grind. The thing that gets me is the press-play this story has gotten and the angle that is being proffered - "hot-doggin joy-riders".

From the data recorder, they did establish at FL410, and held altitude for several minutes, although the airspeed slowly decayed to stay there. That should have been clue one - can't hold altitude and airspeed, time to descend.
Click to expand...

What's your definition of "hot-doggin joy-riders"? After establishing that baseline, look at the airspeed, altitude, and AOA graphs on the FDR. They did not ever "establish at FL410", they repeatedly, ballistically launched the aircraft toward FL410. In one such ballistic launch the apogee touched FL410 and the pilots attempted to defy gravity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top