![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
#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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
("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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Palo Alto airport, potential long-term problems... | [email protected] | Piloting | 7 | June 6th 05 11:32 PM |
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | November 1st 03 06:27 AM |
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | October 1st 03 07:27 AM |
Where to soar near Jefferson City - Missouri? | Peter | Soaring | 2 | September 15th 03 03:29 PM |