Most idiotic "story" I've seen lately on MSM (CBS) (fun before plane crash

[karlrschneider]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/05/national/main678341.shtml

There is nothing in this fluff that makes a particle of sense.
You around, Mac?

good grief

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Canuckistanian]

2. My God, what a stupid thing to do, if true

One uneducated question, though. Don't pilots have to request their flight levels from whichever airport space they're flying through?
And wouldn't it seem odd to an ATC to authorize a flight altitude of over 8 miles?

[mn9driver]

3. I'm fairly familiar with the specifics of what happened here.

The CRJ is rated to fly at this altitude, but only when it's very light, in smooth, cold air. These guys thought they had the conditions to do it. They were wrong.

The problem arose when they failed to recognize the impending aerodynamic stall and DO something about it (which would have involved an immediate descent and a declaration of emergency to ATC). So they stalled. So the engines flamed out.

With a dual engine failure, the APU would not start electrically, so now they're on emergency battery power at night in a "glass" cockpit. Very dark, not much to look at, no computers to help out. They needed to windmill start the engines or the APU. Oh, and they lost all of their cabin pressurization when the engines quit, just to make it more interesting.

Windmill start for these engines requires a LOT of speed. Much higher than the "best glide" speed. They never got there, so the engines never started. They had a choice to be a glider and dead stick it in, which was very do-able but not something they were trained for; or they could be a bullet and try to get a light on one or both engines.

I think they had a hard time in the dark, depressurized, making a firm choice and going for it. And the clock and their altitude ran out. No second chances. Sad.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. A really sad thing -- it was the high altitude itself

that caused the stall. They were at the very top of that airplane's service ceiling. Also, I think I heard that one of them passed out when the second engine flamed out and the airplane lost pressurization (didn't get the O2 mask on?). If that's true, the remaining pilot would have had an even tougher time dealing with the situation. I'm not familiar with the CRJ's systems -- is it like the DC-9, which won't let you start the APU on emergency power? (mn9driver -- you fly DC-9s?)

[mn9driver]

5. I 've heard the rumor that the FO lost consciousness.

I imagine we will know for sure once the CVR transcripts are released. The news stories are based on the ATC tapes. The CRJ is designed to protect the battery in an emergency power situation--just like the DC9 (and yes, I'm a 9 driver :-) ).

[DemoTex]

7. delete (doubled)

delete

[DemoTex]

8. I hold a DC-9 type also.

But I only flew the MD-80s. Never flew the straight 9's.

[mn9driver]

11. I liked the 80 better than the 9

but we got rid of all of them years ago. It was a great airplane.

[DemoTex]

6. "So they stalled. So the engines flamed out."

Hmmm. A stall doesn't necessarily result in a double flame-out. However, a stall deep enough to blanket-out the aft-mounted CF-54 fan-jets to the point of flame-out would probably blanket-out the horizontal stabilizer and elevator. The Canadair series has had two crashes in the test flight program from stab/elevator blanketing in deep stalls. Spin chutes were ineffective. Good test pilots died.

I've flown Canadair Challengers (600, 601) for magazine articles and I have done high altitude stalls with test pilots. I don't remember 41,000' being near coffin-corner for a CL-601, but it's been a long time. I can't imagine that a fairly light RJ would get into a problem at that altitude.

As a former ALPA accident investigator, I'd have to see the report on this one. I have not been following it. This press report, as Karl says, is pure fluff.

:hi: Karl

[mn9driver]

9. My understanding is that they had some pretty significant post-stall

gyrations, hence the dual flame out.

[DemoTex]

10. Probably nose-up, tail down.

Just like the test pilots died.

[mn9driver]

13. From talking "informally" with contacts at Pinnacle,

I think they got it back to controlled flight eventually--just never got a relight and ran out of altitude several miles from the airport they finally picked (Jefferson City, I think).

[karlrschneider]

12. I didn't know this was at night, so there may be a bit more to it than I'm

seeing but excluding a flat spin or some kind of inexplicable unusual attitude, it's awfully hard for me to imagine the situation as described in that piece. Disclaimer: I have zero experience in these particular a/c...but it's tough for me to imagine any certified plane that couldn't be reasonably controllable under these conditions, however I have flown a few craft that probably should have never gotten an airworthiness certificate (other stories)...

:hi: Mac
:D