premobrimo
Posts: 283
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 4:36 am

Bombardier, GE Sued Over 2004 NW Crash

Wed Jan 11, 2006 8:22 am

Bombardier, General Electric sued over 2004 plane crash that killed two


http://www.cbc.ca/cp/business/060110/b011070.html
Now You're Flying Smart.
 
Newark777
Posts: 8284
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 6:23 am

RE: Bombardier, GE Sued Over 2004 NW Crash

Wed Jan 11, 2006 8:29 am

often employ foreign-built jets that may not receive the same level of scrutiny as a major carrier aircraft,

This statement just baffles me. Are they saying the plane was poorly designed in the first place? If it was maintenance, as mentioned here, it would be NW/Pinnacle's fault, not Borbardier. Very strange.

alleging the fatal crash was due to defective parts and a badly maintained aircraft.

Harry
Why grab a Heine when you can grab a Busch?
 
apodino
Posts: 3027
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:11 am

RE: Bombardier, GE Sued Over 2004 NW Crash

Wed Jan 11, 2006 8:33 am

This is a frivolous lawsuit in my opinion. The investigation hasn't even been completed yet, and we don't know the exact cause of the crash.

The foreign built provision is the most ridiculous arguement. If what they are saying is true, and they win this (Highly unlikely), that would open up pandoras box, and all of a sudden the victims of the American A300 that went down in rockaway, could sue Airbus, and all hell will break loose.

One thing I did find interesting. Pinnacle was not named as a defendant, but Northwest was. If Pinnacle was operating the flight, why were they not named?
 
bennett123
Posts: 7442
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Bombardier, GE Sued Over 2004 NW Crash

Wed Jan 11, 2006 8:34 am

Perhaps they think that Bombardier/GE have deeper pockets.

I am also puzzled that the certification authorities were not included.
 
Lrockeagle
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 1:40 am

RE: Bombardier, GE Sued Over 2004 NW Crash

Wed Jan 11, 2006 8:35 am

I thought the investigation had already determined that this acident was caused by the pilots not doing a textbook climb. correct me if i'm wrong. some people will sue for anything. this is just like Little Rock National being sued by the captains widow. (AA 1420)

[Edited 2006-01-11 00:36:31]
 
LMP737
Posts: 4810
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Bombardier, GE Sued Over 2004 NW Crash

Wed Jan 11, 2006 8:41 am

If the claim made by Motley Rice LLC that they are one of the biggest aviation litigation firms in the USA it also means they are probably one of the must unscrupulous. If they have any knowledge of aircraft certification they would know that any aircraft being flown under part 121 in the USA has to meet standards set by the FAA. Whether it be a regional jet or a mainline jet.

There was a recent article in Popular Mechanics about this crash. It basicially confirmed what most knew. The reason the plane crashed was some very poor decision making in the cockpit.

What the sad truth is this law firm has pretty good chance convincing enough people on a jury that Bombardier and GE are guilty of something.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
isitsafenow
Posts: 3413
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2004 9:22 am

RE: Bombardier, GE Sued Over 2004 NW Crash

Wed Jan 11, 2006 8:46 am

Mary, Mary....now we know where you ended up. We might have figured ...
safe
If two people agree on EVERYTHING, then one isn't necessary.
 
727forever
Posts: 304
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 12:50 pm

RE: Bombardier, GE Sued Over 2004 NW Crash

Wed Jan 11, 2006 8:50 am

I tend to agree with everyone on this. This lawsuit is bull squat. I'll admit I am sometimes a little too quick to defend pilot actions, but on this one it would appear that these guys screwed up 8 ways to sunday.

Unfortunately, these people will probably win their lawsuit. Bombardier/GE knew about the corelock problem but didn't make it well known to operators that this particular scenario could happen. If they're smart they will settle out of court to stop a flood of lawsuits like this from coming in the future.

727forever
727forever
 
bennett123
Posts: 7442
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Bombardier, GE Sued Over 2004 NW Crash

Wed Jan 11, 2006 8:58 am

How will settling stop this.
 
APFPilot1985
Posts: 1840
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 12:51 pm

RE: Bombardier, GE Sued Over 2004 NW Crash

Wed Jan 11, 2006 9:10 am

After all that Scary Mary has said (including this) and what her profession is now, how can anyone (ahem NIKV) take her seriously? Should we ground all airbuses too? How about boeings with foreign components? Surely all RR engined planes are unsafe as well.... right?
Stand Up and Be Counted Visit Site Related to Voice your opinion
 
EMBQA
Posts: 7797
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:52 am

RE: Bombardier, GE Sued Over 2004 NW Crash

Wed Jan 11, 2006 9:10 am

Let see.... they knowingly took the aircraft above it's maximum approved altitude, they allowed the aircraft to get too slowed and pitched the nose up causing a compressor stall, they failed to follow engine out procedures and by the time they were at the proper altitude to attempt a 're-light' they had drained the batteries and had no power left to even try a start.... and it's someone else's fault...?

[Edited 2006-01-11 01:12:12]
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
 
ACYWG
Posts: 259
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 7:20 am

RE: Bombardier, GE Sued Over 2004 NW Crash

Wed Jan 11, 2006 12:14 pm

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 10):
Let see.... they knowingly took the aircraft above it's maximum approved altitude, they allowed the aircraft to get too slowed and pitched the nose up causing a compressor stall, they failed to follow engine out procedures and by the time they were at the proper altitude to attempt a 're-light' they had drained the batteries and had no power left to even try a start.... and it's someone else's fault...?

Thank you! Welcome to my respected users list.
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: Bombardier, GE Sued Over 2004 NW Crash

Wed Jan 11, 2006 12:23 pm

Mary Schiavo is pure shyster through and through. She should have never been appointed to serve in the DOT. Her allegation about foreign aircraft being less safe and not properly regulated is manure. Although she should probably be censured for making a frivolous argument, unfortunately most judges probably would probably hard pressed to see it because of the seemingly technical nature of the claim.
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: Bombardier, GE Sued Over 2004 NW Crash

Wed Jan 11, 2006 12:27 pm

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 10):
Let see.... they knowingly took the aircraft above it's maximum approved altitude, they allowed the aircraft to get too slowed and pitched the nose up causing a compressor stall, they failed to follow engine out procedures and by the time they were at the proper altitude to attempt a 're-light' they had drained the batteries and had no power left to even try a start.... and it's someone else's fault...?

I hope that Schiavo and her clients are crushed in court.
 
wjcandee
Posts: 5157
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

RE: Bombardier, GE Sued Over 2004 NW Crash

Wed Jan 11, 2006 12:38 pm

There is plenty of blame to go around in this crash. There are indeed design issues, checklist issues, manufacturing issues, engine choice and design issues, etc., that probably bear litigating. Had passengers been killed, the two defendants here would certainly be defendants in suits by their relatives.

HOWEVER, I would pay for the privilege of defending this suit, which was brought on behalf of the two pilots by Mary Schiavo, Esq. Their families have, unfortunately, by filing this suit and hiring this lawyer and approving this strategy, set them up to be absolutely pilloried in court, dragged through the mud in excrutiating detail. They will be scapegoated to the nth degree, and as their incredibly unprofessional conduct likely was more than 50% responsible for their deaths, it'll be a joy for the defense laywers to defend.

It takes a gigantic set for an attorney to bring this suit on behalf of these plaintiffs, but even more to say that this has anything to do with crappy regulation of *Canadian* companies. That was just a chance for Mary to send a message that she's gonna bring down the whole regional airline industry if they don't settle up with her. It's a ham-fisted, amateurish attempt, and I hope that everyone in aviation rises up and crushes her and her clients. Personally, I think it's a crappy PR strategy for a crappy case, and telegraphs more than anything that she doesn't want a trial in court, just in the media. By doing what she did, she probably also now has set herself up for a motion to transfer venue to a more favorable forum for the defendants. Idiot.

The absolutely wonderful thing about this, however, is that as plaintiffs' counsel in a case like this, she has basically disqualified herself as a guest commentator, because she is now squarely an advocate. Thank goodness. Of course, I know that some networks, mercifully, don't want anything to do with her anymore, anyway.

Silver lining. Yippee.

[Edited 2006-01-11 04:50:40]
 
galapagapop
Posts: 861
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 2:15 pm

RE: Bombardier, GE Sued Over 2004 NW Crash

Wed Jan 11, 2006 12:51 pm

Surprise, surprise Schiavo was quoted in this one with another absolutely statement of brilliance. What's next a lawsuit on Airbus quality? She should find something useful for information, instead of spewing out more pro-American ignorance, maybe she could clean those AF planes? Those A320's aren't made with American standards so that dirt just seems to gravitate towards them..... Yeah sure
 
wjcandee
Posts: 5157
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

RE: Bombardier, GE Sued Over 2004 NW Crash

Wed Jan 11, 2006 12:59 pm

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 10):
Let see.... they knowingly took the aircraft above it's maximum approved altitude, they allowed the aircraft to get too slowed and pitched the nose up causing a compressor stall, they failed to follow engine out procedures and by the time they were at the proper altitude to attempt a 're-light' they had drained the batteries and had no power left to even try a start.... and it's someone else's fault...?

You know what, while most of that is correct, it's not even the key fact, in my view. The key fact is that the number one thing that they should have done is declare an emergency and pick an airport to land at. They had many airports at which they could land deadstick once they got control of the aircraft after the engine failure. Instead, they apparently lied to ATC about their condition (arguably in order to avoid discipline for their screw up) and by the time they realized that they were not going to get the engine restarted, they were too low and too far to get to a safe place to land. This puts enough of the proximate cause of the accident squarely on them to make this whole suit a nonstarter.
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: Bombardier, GE Sued Over 2004 NW Crash

Wed Jan 11, 2006 1:41 pm

The fact that other CRJs of various versions have been flown to 410 safely and brought back down with both engines still running, completely under the pilot's control should settle this issue. If anyone needs to be scrutinized here, it is the PCL training dept for not teaching the importance of climb profiles and minimum climb speeds.

All together now: "If you operated an aircraft in a manner other than what the manufacterer specifies, you are on your own with respect the results of your willful actions."
Proud OOTSK member
 
777STL
Posts: 2770
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 8:22 am

RE: Bombardier, GE Sued Over 2004 NW Crash

Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:02 pm

Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 16):
Instead, they apparently lied to ATC about their condition (arguably in order to avoid discipline for their screw up) and by the time they realized that they were not going to get the engine restarted, they were too low and too far to get to a safe place to land. This puts enough of the proximate cause of the accident squarely on them to make this whole suit a nonstarter.

Very true. At that altitude they very easily could have dead sticked inbound to KCOU or KJEF.

Typical American society, blame someone else, it's never YOUR OWN fault.
PHX based
 
wjcandee
Posts: 5157
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

RE: Bombardier, GE Sued Over 2004 NW Crash

Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:30 pm

Quoting 777STL (Reply 18):
Typical American society, blame someone else, it's never YOUR OWN fault.

Well, the families can't be expected to know legal and PR strategy. And they are doubtless hurting. They probably can't and don't want to believe that their loved ones did what they did.

Both guys were, by all accounts, good guys in the sense of everyone liked them. Curiously, the reports I have read all seem to indicate that the people who knew them were shocked that (a) they'd behave so irresponsibly and (b) they'd behave so incompetently. You know, sometimes personalities just mesh and ignite something in both people that nobody else realized was there. Who knows.

So the families went out and hired a famous lady, who said "Trust me, I know how to get you guys a settlement, because you sure as hell don't want a trial." And her strategy is to try to enflame the media into looking hard at these companies. She thinks that if she causes them (and the industry) enough pain in the media, they'll settle regardless of the merits. And so we see this stupid press coverage of a stupid PR strategy. The funniest part to me is that the press release title tries to make the story about the FIRM rather than the CLIENTS. That suggests a dual, self-promoting agenda to me, and a muddled agenda is going, in my view, to yield a muddled result.

BTW, I'm guessing that the reason that they didn't sue Pinnacle is that Pinnacle is their employer, and this is probably covered by workman's comp. The insurance companies are rational (unlike the executives who probably want these families' scalps for perpetrating this lunacy) and they'll probably kick in a little money to make it go away. Hopefully, Mary will know when enough is enough, take her cut, and go away. Sadly, I suspect that she's going to want to ride this flawed strategy out for a while, so we might see more. Curiously, nobody seems yet to have written anything off the press release other than the indignant Canadian press. That may change tomorrow. Any newspaper folks who want me on background, give me a call.  

[Edited 2006-01-11 06:35:22]
 
Cactus739
Posts: 2245
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2004 6:41 am

RE: Bombardier, GE Sued Over 2004 NW Crash

Wed Jan 11, 2006 3:48 pm

Quoting Lrockeagle (Reply 4):
this is just like Little Rock National being sued by the captains widow. (AA 1420)

huh?
You can't fix stupid.... - Ron White
 
wjcandee
Posts: 5157
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

RE: Bombardier, GE Sued Over 2004 NW Crash

Wed Jan 11, 2006 5:33 pm

You know, I was thinking tonight about this case and how sad it is that these poor pilots are going to be destroyed in the media and in court in front of their families if this thing ever were to go to trial.

And I was thinking, were this my case, one of the things that I would do is interview everybody that these two pilots TAUGHT. I'm pretty sure that at least one was an instructor pilot in some class of aircraft, and of course a captain is constantly called upon to nurture first officers. Given that there were some basic airmanship (judgment) failures as well as some basic stick-and-rudder failures involved, I will bet that not only did these guys violate what they were TOLD to do, they probably violated rules that they TAUGHT OTHERS and enforced against others. If you paraded twenty students of the captain in front of a jury to testify that he had taught them not to do exactly what he did, or at least to repeat aviation maxims and principles that he taught them, things that he violated here, it would be painful and persuasive.

I am just really sad that the family has chosen to go this way, and to ride this particular horse.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13831
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Bombardier, GE Sued Over 2004 NW Crash

Wed Jan 11, 2006 10:23 pm

I read the transcript of the cockpit voice recorder, and I hate to say it, but the crew sounded more like teenagers on a joy ride instead of professional pilots. I'm glad they didn't kill anyone else. Out of all the things I read, the one that startled me the most was that they ignored the stick shaker. How one could press on with the stick shaker going off is beyond me.

Quoting 727forever (Reply 7):
Unfortunately, these people will probably win their lawsuit. Bombardier/GE knew about the corelock problem but didn't make it well known to operators that this particular scenario could happen. If they're smart they will settle out of court to stop a flood of lawsuits like this from coming in the future.

Yes, despite everything I just wrote, I do agree with this. The aircrew did a lot of stupid things, but in the end, they did find one issue that the lawyers can make hay over.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
AvFan4ever
Posts: 80
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2005 7:07 pm

RE: Bombardier, GE Sued Over 2004 NW Crash

Wed Jan 11, 2006 11:07 pm

Quoting 777STL (Reply 18):
Typical American society, blame someone else, it's never YOUR OWN fault.

Very true. US culture does not emphasize personal responsibility . . . idiot-proofing everything so that individuals cannot harm themselves or others seems to be regarded as a societal entitlement.

Rule #1 in filing frivolous lawsuits: name the entities with deepest pockets (and/or the most insurance coverage) as defendants. Pockets don't get much deeper than GE and Bombardier. Of course, they went ahead and named Honeywell, NWA, Parker-Hannifin and others. Don't see Pinnacle Airways listed among the defendants, or individuals involved with the training and certification of the deceased pilots, etc. The lawsuit will likely be settled out of court, the lawyers filing the lawsuit (who proudly proclaim they are involved in lots of aviation-related litigation) will make plenty of money.
 
LUVRSW
Posts: 481
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 11:15 pm

RE: Bombardier, GE Sued Over 2004 NW Crash

Wed Jan 11, 2006 11:34 pm

Hi, what is the stick shaker, and what does it warn?
Thanks
 
727forever
Posts: 304
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 12:50 pm

RE: Bombardier, GE Sued Over 2004 NW Crash

Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:19 am

The stick shaker is a device on the control wheel that vibrates (quite a lot) when the air data computers sense that you are nearing a stall. It is always a factor of angle of attack but usually occurs when the airplane is too slow for the pitch attitude.

The CRJ usually gets the shaker somewhere between 8-12 knots before actually stalling. When you get less than 8 knots above a stall, the shaker reverts to a push and the control wheel is hydraulically pushed to the max forward position in an attempt to break the stall.

The CRJ can be taken to FL410. I've done it a few times myself. You must be very light (like to payload at all), not have excessive fuel on board, and you must step climb. Even then it's not the most comfortable thing in the world. I did two steps leveling off at FL330 & FL370 to build speed up to around M.78 or greater. When you make the climb from FL370 up to 410 the trick was to keep the vertical rate low and the speed up. If you get slower than M.72 you'll never get your speed back. The air is just too thin and the CF-34s are dialed down too much on the power. These guys were trying to set a new company record on getting to FL410 fastest.

Settling this will not end frivolous lawsuits. Settling it will keep in out of court. If they loose in court the flood gates will have finally been opened for Mary and her band of thieves.
727forever
 
swissy
Posts: 1481
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:12 pm

RE: Bombardier, GE Sued Over 2004 NW Crash

Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:43 am

727forever, excellent explanation, thank you very much.

That is why we in Europe say, " in the USA you are not getting rich because
you are working hard and using your brain, no no, be stupid (irresponsible) sue
everyone and waist some good old tax money........ oh boy...

Cheers,
 
MattRB
Posts: 1358
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 4:49 am

RE: Bombardier, GE Sued Over 2004 NW Crash

Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:44 am

Here's hoping BBD and GE don't settle and put Mary in her place.
Aviation is proof that given, the will, we have the capacity to achieve the impossible.
 
aogdesk
Posts: 748
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 2:26 am

RE: Bombardier, GE Sued Over 2004 NW Crash

Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:52 am

Not to defend the suit, but didn't that particular tail number have a mx history that somehow affected the possibility of relighting? I thought I just saw a post suggesting that was possibly a contributing factor...

If we can't kill all the lawyers....can we just maim the vast majority of them?  Wink
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 15254
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: Bombardier, GE Sued Over 2004 NW Crash

Thu Jan 12, 2006 1:09 am

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 3):
Perhaps they think that Bombardier/GE have deeper pockets.

Bingo. That's the only reason.
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
User avatar
yowza
Posts: 4275
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:01 am

RE: Bombardier, GE Sued Over 2004 NW Crash

Thu Jan 12, 2006 1:11 am

Quoting Aogdesk (Reply 28):
Not to defend the suit, but didn't that particular tail number have a mx history that somehow affected the possibility of relighting? I thought I just saw a post suggesting that was possibly a contributing factor...

Does this not make it a NW MX issue rather than a Bombarider/GE issue?

YOWza
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 15254
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: Bombardier, GE Sued Over 2004 NW Crash

Thu Jan 12, 2006 1:15 am

Quoting YOWza (Reply 30):
Does this not make it a NW MX issue rather than a Bombarider/GE issue?

NW doesn't have any money right now, so why would they want to sue them?
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
Okie
Posts: 3551
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 11:30 am

RE: Bombardier, GE Sued Over 2004 NW Crash

Thu Jan 12, 2006 2:48 am

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 31):
NW doesn't have any money right now, so why would they want to sue them?

The case was filed in Florida which is a little short on tort reform. Clue one.

The idea is to get the defendants to settle out of court for less than the cost of researching and defending the court action whether or not they had any contributing factor or not in the accident. You notice the list of defendants is long. Clue two.

The basic "shotgun" effect looking for manufacturers with a deep pocket not willing to take a chance on a jury trial or the cost of litigation. If the manufacturer of the plastic for the seatbelt sign or the screw that holds on lav door could be remotely implemented or has deep pocket then they would be listed also.

I would not be surprised to see some lawyer sue Juan Valdez and his donkey over spilled coffee.

Okie
 
swissy
Posts: 1481
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:12 pm

RE: Bombardier, GE Sued Over 2004 NW Crash

Thu Jan 12, 2006 2:57 am

Well spoken and explained Okie,

My question is "are you guys not sick and tiered wasting hard earned tax money on sh.. like that"?

Sorry for my "stupid" question, I just can understand it........

Cheers,
 
FlyMeToTheMoon
Posts: 189
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 9:01 am

RE: Bombardier, GE Sued Over 2004 NW Crash

Thu Jan 12, 2006 4:18 am

And there we have it again - call it extortion, highway robbery, prostitution, anything you want. This is just another bunch of lawyers working on contingency fleecing companies and ultimately each one of us - taxpayers (we pay for the courts); shareholders (diminished returns due to payout); passengers (higher fares due to higher costs) and human (where did personal responsibility go).

Someone who is wronged should have their day in court, but if you are dumb and/or make poor decisions (remember the CVR from the Pinnacle flight?) you should assume responsibility and the consequences that come with it not cry wolf and run to the courts.

All in all I find this disgusting.
Fly me to the moon... but not through LHR!
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 15254
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: Bombardier, GE Sued Over 2004 NW Crash

Thu Jan 12, 2006 4:26 am

Quoting FlyMeToTheMoon (Reply 34):
This is just another bunch of lawyers working on contingency fleecing companies and ultimately each one of us - taxpayers (we pay for the courts); shareholders (diminished returns due to payout); passengers (higher fares due to higher costs) and human (where did personal responsibility go).

Don't forget insurance! Insurance will probably pay out any award or compensation, and that trickles down to other clients of those insurers, right down to your average Joe.
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
wjcandee
Posts: 5157
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

RE: Bombardier, GE Sued Over 2004 NW Crash

Thu Jan 12, 2006 6:59 am

Well, here we are at Day Two and nothing in the press other than a Canadian article and Mary's press release. Guess nobody was interested. Only readers of aviation bulletin boards and press release sites will know anything about this suit. A couple of years from now, if it doesn't settle, I propose that we all buy some popcorn and go watch Mary get her tail kicked. However, I'm confident that this thing is intended to settle. Mary's clients can't afford to go anywhere near the courtroom.

There are a couple of posts on here that bear a couple of thoughts: (1) It isn't so much the CVR that's an issue to me as much as the NTSB report on the goofing around that they did from the moment of takeoff, including lots of high-G stuff, switching seats wherein the co-pilot was flying from the captain's seat, captain leaving the cockpit to get a soda when the friggin' thing was nose-high as crap because they had arrived at FL41 behind the power curve and were about to stall and they didn't recognize the warning signs of an impending stall from the manner in which the aircraft was behaving; although they weren't intoxicated, they were acting like they were: "Dude!"; (2) The core-lock hasn't been shown to be a definitive issue here, as this engine had been ground down, and the other engine was fried by high temps, I think the operative theory is that the core froze from overheat on both engines, which isn't a "core lock" problem like the kind these engines have experienced, but rather is something common to many engines that would experience this kind of overheat; one of the engines was free to rotate but would not relight, it may have cooled just enough by the time of impact to rotate; (3) the issue wasn't loss of battery power: here's what happened with the relight: they first tried to windmill relight, but screwed up the checklist apparently because they were trying not to do anything too drastic as they continued to lie to ATC about what the problem was; to do a windmill relight they would have had to exceed a certain airspeed, as clearly stated in the checklist, and lose a crapload of altitude in the process of getting that airspeed, which isn't as clear from the checklist; they never ever got to the proper airspeed (which is kind of high, because of the design of the intake of these engines); they then tried to use the bleed air from the APU to relight, which should have worked on at least one of the engines; unclear why it didn't.
 
MissedApproach
Posts: 678
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:12 am

RE: Bombardier, GE Sued Over 2004 NW Crash

Thu Jan 12, 2006 7:47 am

Quoting 727forever (Reply 25):
The CRJ usually gets the shaker somewhere between 8-12 knots before actually stalling.

The CRJ also incorporates a stick-push as well, doesn't it? I remember reading that in the 1997 AC CRJ crash at YFC, the pilots were surprised that the pusher didn't activate before the plane entered an aerodynamic stall (probably just as well since it would likely have killed them).
Can you hear me now?
 
wjcandee
Posts: 5157
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

RE: Bombardier, GE Sued Over 2004 NW Crash

Thu Jan 12, 2006 8:11 am

Quoting MissedApproach (Reply 37):
The CRJ also incorporates a stick-push as well, doesn't it?

Yup. These guys in the Pinnacle crash not only got the shaker, they got the pusher. The NTSB public docket from the public hearing details how they handled all this. (Hint: Not in an exemplary manner.)

[Edited 2006-01-12 00:12:17]
 
APFPilot1985
Posts: 1840
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 12:51 pm

RE: Bombardier, GE Sued Over 2004 NW Crash

Thu Jan 12, 2006 8:12 am

Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 38):
Yup. These guys in the Pinnacle crash not only got the shaker, they got the pusher. The NTSB report details how they handled all this. (Hint: Not in an exemplary manner.)

Could you link to the report, I couldn't seem to find it on the NTSB website last night.
Stand Up and Be Counted Visit Site Related to Voice your opinion
 
Type-Rated
Posts: 3901
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 1999 5:18 am

RE: Bombardier, GE Sued Over 2004 NW Crash

Thu Jan 12, 2006 8:36 am

Wasn't the Captain fired from a previous airline job for his inability to follow check lists properly? And isn't it also a fact that he didn't follow the relight check list so therefore the engines wouldn't start once they did reach denser air? From what I remember he kept the aircraft at a slow speed (180kts?) all the way down and the checklist indicated that you need 380kts to restart the engine.

And let's not forget the co-pilot who actually started his flight training in 2001.

What were these two yah-hoos doing in the cockpit together, is my question!
Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
 
User avatar
yowza
Posts: 4275
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:01 am

RE: Bombardier, GE Sued Over 2004 NW Crash

Thu Jan 12, 2006 8:50 am

Quoting Okie (Reply 32):
Okie

Nice thinking Okie.

YOWza
 
radarbeam
Posts: 998
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2002 9:00 am

RE: Bombardier, GE Sued Over 2004 NW Crash

Thu Jan 12, 2006 8:51 am

I will, most of the time, side with the pilots too. But in this case, what these guys did is beyond comprehension. Here's the link to a description of the incident http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinnacle_Airlines_Flight_3701.

And don't get me started on Schiavo. Good thing she got sacked after her fiasco!
 
EMBQA
Posts: 7797
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:52 am

RE: Bombardier, GE Sued Over 2004 NW Crash

Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:01 am

Quoting APFPilot1985 (Reply 39):
Could you link to the report, I couldn't seem to find it on the NTSB website last night.

The information on the NTSB site is very vague at this point. Your best source is a google search for news reports and other sites.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
 
mika
Posts: 2810
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2000 7:53 am

RE: Bombardier, GE Sued Over 2004 NW Crash

Thu Jan 12, 2006 6:26 pm

Despicable, just despicable.
 
wjcandee
Posts: 5157
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

RE: Bombardier, GE Sued Over 2004 NW Crash

Thu Jan 12, 2006 7:21 pm

Quoting APFPilot1985 (Reply 39):
Could you link to the report, I couldn't seem to find it on the NTSB website last night.

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

This is the public docket from the public hearing. Look at the group chairmen's reports for some interesting detail. But everything is, frankly, interesting. They also have the video from the public hearing.
 
727forever
Posts: 304
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 12:50 pm

RE: Bombardier, GE Sued Over 2004 NW Crash

Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:17 pm

Quoting Type-Rated (Reply 40):
Wasn't the Captain fired from a previous airline job for his inability to follow check lists properly? And isn't it also a fact that he didn't follow the relight check list so therefore the engines wouldn't start once they did reach denser air? From what I remember he kept the aircraft at a slow speed (180kts?) all the way down and the checklist indicated that you need 380kts to restart the engine.

Vmo on the CRJ is 335 knots. You are correct on the merits of the procedure. I'm going off of memory from recurrent like 4 years ago, but it went a little like this:

1. Descend to FL200 using drift down procedure or if both engines failed at min. flaps 0 manuevering speed (which would be around 180 if you're really light).

2. Affected thrust lever(s) to cutoff.

3. Once reaching FL200 increase airspeed to a minimum of 300 knots.

4. Continuous Ignition on.

5. At 20% N2 and ITT of 90 deg or less thrust lever to idle.

6. If no light off, you'll be low enough at this point to try an APU assited engine start.



727forever
727forever
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13831
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Bombardier, GE Sued Over 2004 NW Crash

Thu Jan 12, 2006 10:08 pm

Some interesting things from the Wikipedia article referenced above:

Quote:
The anti-stall devices activated while they were at altitude, but the pilots overrode the automatic nose down that would increase speed to prevent stall. After four overrides, both engines experienced flameout, and shutdown.

I had forgotten that they overrode the nose down four times.

Quote:
The NTSB has determined that the turbofan jet engines (General Electric CF34-3B1) were operating at 600F above maximum redline temperature (1600F) at 41,000ft, and that the high speed compressor blades melted, which then dripped onto the low speed compressor. After the flameout, the low speed compressor became welded to the rest of the engine. Intially, it was thought that a core lock had occurred in the engines, however this more serious condition in fact occurred.

I didn't know about this part, so I am really wondering what they can be suing B and GE over.

The rest of the article is very interesting so I recommend reading it.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
daveflys0509
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 10:15 pm

RE: Bombardier, GE Sued Over 2004 NW Crash

Fri Jan 13, 2006 1:45 am

Here's some info I found about this crash.. Don't know how serious you can take it, but it seems to sum up the crash overall.

Jesse, 31, was captain of Pinnacle Airlines Flight 3701, and Peter, 23, was the co-pilot. They were transporting an empty plane from Little Rock, Arkansas to Minneapolis, where it was needed for a morning flight. They decided to see what that baby could do, "forty-one it," take the jet to 41,000 feet--eight miles--the maximum altitude the plane was designed to fly. The thrust of the engines pressed them into their seats with 2.3 times the force of gravity as they soared ever higher.

A woman air traffic controller's voice crackled over the radio: "3701, are you an RJ-200?"

"That's affirmative."

"I've never seen you guys up at 41 there."

The boys laughed. "Yeah, we're actually a, there's ah, we don't have any passengers on board, so we decided to have a little fun and come on up here."

Little did they know that their fun was doomed when they set the auto-pilot for the impressive climb. They had specified the rate of climb rather than the speed of the climb. The higher the plane soared, the slower it flew. The plane was in danger of stalling when it reached 41,000 feet, as the autopilot vainly tried to maintain altitude by pointing the nose up.

"Dude, it's losing it," said one of the pilots, swearing.

"Yeah," said the other.

Our two flying aces could have saved themselves at that point. An automatic override began to pitch the nose down to gain speed and prevent a stall. Unfortunately, Jesse and Peter chose to overrule the override. Oops. The plane stalled.

"We don't have any engines," said one.

"You gotta be kidding me," said the other.

Jesse and Peter could still have saved themselves. They were within gliding range of five suitable airports. Unfortunately, they were too embarrassed to ask for help, reporting to the controller that they had lost only one of the two engines. They glided past all the airports. After gliding for 14 full minutes, drifting closer and closer to the ground at high speed, still unable to get the engines restarted, they finally asked for assistance: "We need direct to any airport. We have a double engine failure."

Unfortunately, it was too late. "We're going to hit houses, dude," one of pilots said, as they desperately tried to reach an airport in Jefferson City.

They missed the houses and the runway, crashing two and a half miles from the airport. Both men died in the crash.

"It's beyond belief that a professional air crew would act in that manner," said a former manager of Pinnacle's training program for the Bombardier CRJ200.
 
ThePinnacleKid
Posts: 497
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 9:47 am

RE: Bombardier, GE Sued Over 2004 NW Crash

Fri Jan 13, 2006 1:50 am

Quoting Type-Rated (Reply 40):
Wasn't the Captain fired from a previous airline job for his inability to follow check lists properly? And isn't it also a fact that he didn't follow the relight check list so therefore the engines wouldn't start once they did reach denser air? From what I remember he kept the aircraft at a slow speed (180kts?) all the way down and the checklist indicated that you need 380kts to restart the engine.

And let's not forget the co-pilot who actually started his flight training in 2001.

What were these two yah-hoos doing in the cockpit together, is my question!

Man, have some sympathy for them... These men weren't jerks. They weren't evil people. They were just two guys.... on a FERRY flight... and yeah, they totally screwed up. I personally don't agree with the manner that they operated that flight. They did stuff not appropriate but you know what... they paid the absolute ultimate thing they could for their mistakes.... Let them rest in peace man.

I personally worked on the aircraft involved all of 6 days prior to that crash... and i had met both the captain and first officer before... they were good guys... and the way they acted that night is not something i would say was their standard operating practice... from what i had seen.

In addition....what is so wrong with the F/O starting his training in 2001? A measure of a pilot is not when they start their training... I started mine in 2000... yet i have my CFI/CFII/MEI... so while the gov has found me competent enough to train people to fly, you think that me starting in 2000 means that i'm too green that I shouldn't be allowed to fly people in an airline setting?
"Sonny, did we land? or were we shot down?"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], behramjee, Bostrom, deltacto, Geoff1947, gr8slvrflt, jm079, KarelXWB, kzba, Polot, qf789, Rmjhjr, SpoonNZ, StTim, SuperSix2, SyeaphanR and 267 guests