Joyride blame in air crash,

[Sulako]

Anybody else have whacko SOPs like that? Is that for an F-18?.

We would pull into the ramp and the C/F-18 drivers would stare at us and stick their fingers in their ears with envy, cause we were faster and louder than they could ever imagine

Those SOP's worked fine, whacko or not. Noone at that company has ever died as a result of using them, and the niche of aviation the planes service isn't exactly low-risk.


As far as the crash, I'm still leaning toward premature failure of some critical system or systems. It may have been brought on by the stress of flying that high, but it's stress that the airplane was certified to take. If it wasn't safe to take the plane up that high, the certified limits should be a lot lower.

[bizjet_mania]

The aircraft was is certified for FL410 within limits. So if there are only 5 passengers on board, they would probably be within limits and therefore the aircraft must be capable of safetly transporting passenger at that flight level. We don't know yet exactly what maneuvers they were doing up there but the engines should have never quit.

[talkinghead]

This is from one of the other threads.
Core lock, never heard of it, but it sounds scary to me.


From minni-me,
OK, obviously time for some fact checks on this board.

1. I fly for this company, and I WAS PART of the initial investigation as I had flown with the Captain 2 weeks before the accident.

2. Poor pilot decision making and poor judgement were in fact what brought this SCENARIO on.

3. The procedures and checklist run once both engines were lost were RUN PROPERLY (to the extent possible) AND QUICKLY.

4. Though the engine failures were in turn brought on by pilot error, the crash IS NOT ALL PILOT ERROR, an engine flaw, as well as improper training technique on behalf of my employer are at fault as well, and are documented by the FAA and NTSB.

5. The reason the checklists were run but not fully completed is because to run either type of in-flight restart, or any start for that matter, you need N2. You cannot have a CF-34 turbine engine running without N2.

the engines on this aircraft encountered what has been labaled Core lock. The N2 Fan literally expanded into the cowl that surround the engine due to expansion. It was TECHNICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to relight the engines, thus mechanical error is also to blame, and this is also documented by the FAA and NTSB.

with better situational awareness/judgement, they might have made an airport which was right below them. Though it still would have been a dead stick landing.

This is not just pilot error, it is mechanical as well, and Bombardier, Pinnacle airlines, and GE are going to feel/have some major repercussions.

Not to metion that 2 people have lost their lives, no matter what kind of profesionals they were, or weren't.

[Mitch Cronin]

The N2 Fan literally expanded into the cowl that surround the engine due to expansion.

I'm not familiar withh those little engines, but I've never yet met any turbine that had an "N2 Fan" ... I don't think so. .... I'm thinking he meant to say N2 rotor or turbine... maybe that's a language translation error?

[talkinghead]

hi Mitch,
Just read what you wrote on the other forum.
Some-day I hope to learn more about jet engines. Put for now all I can do is read about them.
I thought I would repost that just to try and turn some of the blame away from the two dead guys.

T

[fougapilot]

If the aircraft is certified to fly at FL 410, then you shouldn't die as a result of flying it at 410. If flying the aircraft at FL 410 kills you, then maybe it should only be certified to 390

I never flew RJ. But I can tell you a little bit about the impact this issue had on the Challenger fleet. A couple of week after the crash, Bombardier came up with and emergency info bulletin advising crews to not rely on the performances section of the FMS for altitudes above FL360. The FMS will usualy know your weight status, OAT, bla, bla, bla and calculate the maximum ceiling the airplane can fly under those conditions. This "performance ceiling" calculated by the FMS sometimes varies quite a lot from the one published in the QRH/AFM. In my 601 for example, the AFM/QRH will say we can maintain M,80 at FL390 while the FMS will bitch and laugh at us for going there. It thinks we wont be able to go higher then FL379. In my case, the FMS is more conservative then the AFM/QRH, but it is not always the case.

I was told by the instructor on my last reccurent training that this Bulletin was the direct result from this RJ crew taking their information as to wether the airplane could go to 410 from the FMS instead of the AFM/QRH.

[Mitch Cronin]

Howdy Talkinghead... We obviously still don't know if there's any truth at all to that notion, but here (in that post you quoted above) is the second time I saw mention of it... The other place it was posted with no detail whatsoever in a very guarded manner... as if the poster was worried about giving out any information too soon.

If there's truth to it, it certainly does explain the lack of a re-light... which is hard to understand otherwise... Surely in-flight restarts are something they would have practiced in the sim?, and they'd be aware they needed some decent airspeed to get N2 turning... It seems quite reasonable to me to believe there might have been some other reason they were unable... To me, that's more believable than the idea that they might have just spent all that time in a glide, never once remembering the right way to do it.

"Core Lock" is not something I've ever seen (except in an engine that had come apart), but I recall being told back in tech school about the possibilities.... We were led to believe the most likely places for it to happen was in turbine powered, rotory wing aircraft, where lots of power is applied to land - getting the engine all hot and bothered - and then Cap'n cool, trying to impress an audience, shuts down immediately after plunking the bird on terra-firma, for effect.... The result being the case cools too quick while the core is still very hot... and then screeeeeetch = locked turbine.

In any case, like everyone else, and as in all such cases of these sorts of tragedy's, we'll have to wait to know for sure... for now, I'm giving the crew the benefit of any doubt... and that they made sure nobody else was hurt earns them huge respect in my mind.

Cheers,

[fougapilot]

I know the AFM/QRH for the CHallenger 601 requires the crew to do an emergency descent to relight altitude following a double engine failure Vs a drift down on a single engine failure scenario. On my initial training, I was told this was to prevent the engine from loosing all its heat before a rilight was attempted.

D

[Jaques Strappe]

This is from one of the other threads.
Core lock, never heard of it, but it sounds scary to me.


From minni-me,
OK, obviously time for some fact checks on this board.

1. I fly for this company, and I WAS PART of the initial investigation as I had flown with the Captain 2 weeks before the accident.

2. Poor pilot decision making and poor judgement were in fact what brought this SCENARIO on.

3. The procedures and checklist run once both engines were lost were RUN PROPERLY (to the extent possible) AND QUICKLY.

4. Though the engine failures were in turn brought on by pilot error, the crash IS NOT ALL PILOT ERROR, an engine flaw, as well as improper training technique on behalf of my employer are at fault as well, and are documented by the FAA and NTSB.

5. The reason the checklists were run but not fully completed is because to run either type of in-flight restart, or any start for that matter, you need N2. You cannot have a CF-34 turbine engine running without N2.

the engines on this aircraft encountered what has been labaled Core lock. The N2 Fan literally expanded into the cowl that surround the engine due to expansion. It was TECHNICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to relight the engines, thus mechanical error is also to blame, and this is also documented by the FAA and NTSB.

with better situational awareness/judgement, they might have made an airport which was right below them. Though it still would have been a dead stick landing.

This is not just pilot error, it is mechanical as well, and Bombardier, Pinnacle airlines, and GE are going to feel/have some major repercussions.

Not to metion that 2 people have lost their lives, no matter what kind of profesionals they were, or weren't.

I have to call BS on this minnie me guy.

First off, if he was part of the investigation he would not be spouting off findings on an internet forum. He claims the engine failures were brought on by pilot error, what error?

If the N2 portion of the turbine did indeed have the problem he states then there would be an AD issued for every aircraft operating with that engine. I asked our RJ training guys and there is no such problem.

The FMS predictions and performance manual numbers not being the same, as someone else posted, is not just limited to the RJ. I haven't flown a plane yet where the FMS and performance section agree.

We could armchair quarterback this thing forever, the fact remains, some jackass labled these guys as cowboys and has assigned blame when he had no right to. I hope the families sue that ass for slander.

[Mitch Cronin]

If the N2 portion of the turbine did indeed have the problem he states then there would be an AD issued for every aircraft operating with that engine.

Perhaps not if they couldn't yet identify the cause for it? Without a known cause, what would they say? Liability issues could be HUGE!

[Jaques Strappe]

I just remembered an incident at Air Nova where the guys were flying back from Fort Lauderdale, empty in a BAe 146, cruising at FL310, which is its' maximum certified ceiling, when all four engines quit.

As it turns out, the aircraft flew into a very warm air mass which overtemped the cores faster than the crew could cope with. All 4 engines quit and they managed to get one re-lit on the way down.

I flew with this Captain many times. A very competant guy. He did not get slammed with poor judgement calls, pilot error and all the rest of the business by some idiot who has never flown. ( autor of the original article ) Now we have proffesional pilots saying it is wrong to fly at Max speed or Max altitude? What if you lose one on takeoff? Heaven forbid you actually go to Max Continuous on the remaining engine.

I think it is disgusting when someone slams a guy who can't even defend himself because he is dead.

[Jaques Strappe]

If the N2 portion of the turbine did indeed have the problem he states then there would be an AD issued for every aircraft operating with that engine.

Perhaps not if they couldn't yet identify the cause for it? Without a known cause, what would they say? Liability issues could be HUGE!

Operators would be made aware of the issue, if not with an AD then some other sort of bulletin. GE would be very interested in limiting its liability before 50 pax go down, if indeed there is a problem with the engine.

[Mitch Cronin]

if indeed there is a problem with the engine.

Bingo. If, on the other hand, the condition that resulted was due to ops beyond some kind of already stated limitations, no need for any such additional warnings. Though you could expect a reminder of some sort once all is known.

...and that's just it... we know squat! We don't know if they were siezed or not, we only know they never got them re-lit... I'm inclined toward the belief that they would have known how to re-light, so something they didn't know, or couldn't change, may have been the reason.

[bizjet_mania]

I'm thinking these guys who lost their lives, might have uncovered a flaw in the CRJ. The whole FMS thing makes sense.

[balls]

Coupla questions.

Where does this guy from the Air Travellers Association get off making comments about the operation of an aircraft, or an accident that has not posted NTSB findings, based on a transcript that could be read multiple ways?

Sulako:

You operate a barber pole to "a few miles from the airport"? Not sure what the operational message is there, but my impression, based on what I inferred from your post is "Holy crap! No concern for 250knots indicated in descent below 10,000, or a speed limit of 200kts below 3000 agl within 10nm of an airport." ( that does not mean the airport that may be your destination either, so in an area like YYZ, or YVR, and many other places there are other controlled airports, or zones to think about.)

If you in the USA, the speed limit is a bit less restrictive on distance in with respect to zones, but still... Surely CARs or FARs supercede ANY SOP!

[Sulako]

For the airplane I operated (and bede still Captains) the barberpole was set at 250kts, so we never busted the 250kt limit

Most of the time we were medevac, so ATC would tend to give us some leeway on speed near a control zone. At least I assume they did; the speed issue never came up in the 18 months I flew it.

The SOP's certainly didn't say to break the law, and I don't want you to think that was encouraged at all; it certainly wasn't. My main point was that we operated the aircraft right at the limits every time we flew it, and as far as I can tell, it never killed me.

[Bede]

Perhaps by "few miles to the airport", Sulako meant 10 miles. We run at 95% Tq, 640 EGT max is 650. On the other airplane with out an SRL computer, we run at max temp depending on OAT. Our engines pretty much make their 7000 hr TBO all the time. Its not the tigh temp, tq, but many power changes that will decrease your time until overhaul.

xsbank: sorry , I don't have my SOPs on computer, so I can't post them, but I just had my ride today so I think I know them pretty well. PS. Have you ever flown anyhting with Tq or temp limits, because you kind of seem like the instructor type.

[xsbank]

A personal attack (ad hominem?)? That always works in an argument! 2 turbines, 2 jets. I learned waaaay back flying floats that only a fool flies with no 'outs.'

Balls to the wall is possible, obviously, but to a large degree, pointless. Yes, I have instructed on 2 high-performance jets.

Every RJ is tested to max altitude and then one engine is shut down and an in-flight re-light is accomplished, then the a/c climbs again and the other engine is shut down and re-lit.
In the descent, 12 percent N2 is easily accomplished, book value (as I recall) for a windmill relight. No 'corelock.'

The BAE example is exactly what I'm talking about. In order to fly that thing at its max ceiling, you would have to be flying at the red line. In this case they flew into an area of warmer air and 'all four engines flamed out.' Is this the a/c's fault? W/out FADEC, the crew had no time to react because they had nowhere to go. Were they wrong to be at max ceiling? Obviously no. Was it an error in judgement that resulted in 4 toasted engines? Obviously yes.

So my point is that routinely flying on the edge, unless you are in an F-18 or that ilk, is an error in judgement and might I add, poor airmanship.

I have flown medevacs too, and the temptation to fly with your hair on fire is strong, but I would like to submit that a short delay will most likely not not harm your patient, but crashing will. Likewise firebombing: I've done that too. Some of my friends died fighting fires, and I would like to humbly submit that only a very few of us remember what fires they died on even while we remember their loss.

Know that you can fly at the limits if you have to, but just don't do it if you don't have to, and I think that 99% of the time you don't.

[minni-me]

Jaques Strappe,


You are more than free to PM me so we can "talk"

I can spout off whatever I like now, as all I said are in fact now public FACTS/Information. Be my guest to armchair quarterback this all you like, and continue looking in the mirror and telling yourself how "right" and smart you are.

Do you acutually think that I like the fact that I was part of this investigation, do you acutually think I like having to read how my friend acted during this scneraio. Do you actually think I enjoyed telling the FAA my friend was a responsible pilot, and then reading the transcript.

Who in their right mind would actually WANT to be part of this SH^T, and then lie about it for fun.




And the CF 34 has an N2 rotor, sorry I said fan. A litte more about the N2: a 14 stage axial flow compressor that connects through a shaft to a 2 stage high pressure turbine. Infact on the CF 34, the thrust levers at low thrust settings control N2, not N1 (all this from our manuals)

[JohnnyHotRocks]

So my point is that routinely flying on the edge, unless you are in an F-18 or that ilk, is an error in judgement and might I add, poor airmanship.

Definitely sounds like someone with no operational experience...bizjets are routinely flown at barber pole when fuel and tbc is not an issue (the pax rarely complain about the extra fuel costs, unlike airline managers).
Bizjets also spend time up at their max alt (some even up at 51000')...in most cases the engines are not at red line at the max alt...but of course you have to check your weight and temp first. So I guess bizjet pilots all exhibit poor judgement, as do the instructors at FSI, Simuflite, Bombardier, etc...

Airline guys don't fly to the limits not because it is hazardous, but because it saves fuel (ie MONEY).

John