NTSB report on PCL 3701

DE727UPS

Well-Known Member
http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2007/070109a.htm

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 9, 2007 SB-07-03

NTSB DETERMINES PILOTS' POOR AIRMANSHIP CAUSED 2004 PINNACLE ACCIDENT IN JEFFERSON CITY, MISSOURI
Washington, DC -- The National Transportation Safety Board determined today that the probable cause of the October 14, 2004 accident of Pinnacle Airlines flight 3701 was the pilots' unprofessional behavior, deviation from standard operating procedures, and poor airmanship, which resulted in an in-flight emergency from which they were unable to recover, in part because of the pilots' inadequate training; the pilots' failure to prepare for an emergency landing in a timely manner, including communicating with air traffic controllers immediately after the emergency about the loss of both engines and the availability of landing sites; and the pilots' failure to achieve and maintain the target airspeed in the double engine failure checklist, which caused the engine cores to stop rotating and resulted in the core lock engine condition.

Contributing to the cause of this accident were the engine core lock condition, which prevented at least one engine from being restarted, and the airplane flight manuals that did not communicate to pilots the importance of maintaining a minimum airspeed to keep the engine cores rotating.

"This accident was caused by the pilots' inappropriate and unprofessional behavior," said NTSB Chairman Mark V. Rosenker. "Simply adhering to standard operating procedures and correctly implementing emergency procedures would have gone a long way to adverting this tragic accident."

On October 14, 2004, a Bombardier CL-600-2B19 (N8396A) operated by Pinnacle Airlines (doing business as Northwest Airlink) departed Little Rock National Airport about 9:21 p.m. central daylight time en route to Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota for a repositioning flight. The flight plan indicated that the planned cruise altitude was 33,000 feet. At about 9:26 p.m., the airplane was at an altitude of about 14,000 feet and the flight crew engaged the autopilot.

A few seconds later, the captain requested and received clearance to climb to the Commuter Regional Jet's maximum operating altitude of 41,000 feet. After the aircraft reached 41,000 feet, the airplane entered several stalls and shortly thereafter had double engine failure. The crew declared an emergency with the tower, informing them of an engine failure. However, they failed to inform the tower that both engines had failed while they made several unsuccessful attempts to restart the engines. The crew also continued to try to restart the engines after the controller asked if they wanted to land.

The flight crew attempted to make an emergency landing at the Jefferson City, Missouri airport but crashed in a residential area about three miles south of the airport. The airplane was destroyed by impact forces and a post crash fire. The two crewmembers were fatally injured. There were no passengers on board and no injuries on the ground.

The Safety Board today issued eleven recommendations to the Federal Aviation Administration, as a result of this accident, dealing with pilots training and high altitude stall recovery techniques.

Also, as a part of its investigation into this accident, on November 20, 2006, the Safety Board issued seven safety recommendations dealing with the phenomenon of "core lock," including the following:

To the Federal Aviation Administration

1. For airplanes equipped with CF34-1 or CF34-3 engines, require manufacturers to perform high power, high altitude sudden engines shutdowns; determine the minimum airspeed required to maintain sufficient core rotation; and demonstrate that all methods of in-flight restart can be accomplished when the airspeed is maintained.

2. Ensure that airplane flight manuals of airplanes equipped with CF34-1 or CF34-3 engines clearly state the minimum airspeed required for core engine rotation and that, if this airspeed is not maintained after a high power, high altitude sudden engine shutdown, a loss of in-flight restart capability as a result of core lock may occur.

3. Require the operators of CRJ-100, -200, and 400 airplanes include in airplane flight manuals the significant performance penalties, such as loss of glide distance and increase descent rate, that can be incurred from maintaining the minimum airspeed required for core rotation and windmill restart attempts.

A synopsis of the Board's report, including the probable cause and recommendations, is available on the Board's website, www.ntsb.gov. The Board's full report will be available on the website in several weeks.



Media Contact: Terry N. Williams williat@ntsb.gov (202) 314-6100
 
After the aircraft reached 41,000 feet, the airplane entered several stalls and shortly thereafter had double engine failure. The crew declared an emergency with the tower, informing them of an engine failure. However, they failed to inform the tower that both engines had failed while they made several unsuccessful attempts to restart the engines.

I guess we can't expect the media to use correct aviation terminology if the NTSB can't even do it.
 
Keep in mind, this isn't the actual report. This is a press release of the board's findings. The actual report will be out in a few weeks. I would hope that that report is accurate as to who they were talking to (among other things).
 
Wow...so if it took two years for a report on that one, I guess I should not be holding my breath to see the Comair report any time soon huh?
 
Keep in mind, this isn't the actual report. This is a press release of the board's findings. The actual report will be out in a few weeks. I would hope that that report is accurate as to who they were talking to (among other things).

That release came straight from the NTSB. Read the contact link at the bottom; its an @ntsb.gov address. It appears to me that thats just a copy/paste job right from the report.
 
Like Bob said, it's a Press Release. Reporters don't understand Enroute Air Traffic Control Center -- they understand "tower."


The hearing was conducted in public, and broadcast on the Web. The exhibits used are all still available at the NTSB website for your review. If you have time and the stomach, you can review the Cockpit Voice Recorder, and the Flight Data Recorder.

Items from the Public Docket



Flight Data Recorder - Factual Report of Group Chairman


This is where you'll see a chronological list of communications:
Cockpit Voice Recorder - Factual Report of Group Chairman

This is where you'll see a more technical breakdown, and see where the Captain and the First Officer were in each other's seats, and when they swapped:
Cockpit Voice Recorder - Specialist's Study


All of the radio transmissions were with Kansas City Center. By the time they confesed the dual engine failure, they should have been talking to tower, but that's another story. I took them almost 14 minutes (13:43 to be exact) to confess dual engine failure after they first verbally acknowledged it in the cockpit.


2155:23 [FONT=Arial,Bold]CAM-? (Undetermined voice on Cockpit Area Microphone) [/FONT]we don’t have any engines.


2156:33 [FONT=Arial,Bold]CAM-1 (First Officer in the left seat) [/FONT]double engine failure. you holding altitude?


2209:06 [FONT=Arial,Bold]RDO-2 (First Officer in the right seat, Radio transmission to ATC) [/FONT]thirty seven zero one we need direct to any airport. we have a double engine failure.


2209:15 [FONT=Arial,Bold]RDO-2 (First Officer in the right seat, Radio transmission to ATC) [/FONT]closest air- air- airport. we’re descending fifteen hundred feet per minute we have ah nine thousand five hundred feet left.


2215:03 [FONT=Arial,Bold]CAM-1 (Captain, sitting in the left seat) [/FONT]aw #. we’re gonna hit houses dude.



:(








.
 
"resulted in an in-flight emergency from which they were unable to recover, in part because of the pilots' inadequate training"

How is this possible - weren't they both Gulfstream grads!?
 
"resulted in an in-flight emergency from which they were unable to recover, in part because of the pilots' inadequate training"

How is this possible - weren't they both Gulfstream grads!?

(from Operations 2 - Factual Report of Group Chairman )

Captain:
  • received a Notice of Disapproval following his FAA checkride for a certified flight instructor (CFI) certificate, airplane multi-engine, in 1995.
  • received a second Notice of Disapproval following his FAA checkride for that same certificate on September 4, 1995.
  • received a Notice of Disapproval following his FAA checkride for a CFI certificate, instrument airplane, on October 29, 1995.
  • failed his initial BA-4100 first officer oral at Trans States Airlines on September 25, 1998.
  • On that same date, ... failed his initial BA-4100 first officer simulator checkride.
  • On May 3, 2000, ... received a termination letter from the flight manager at Trans States Airlines. The reasons listed for termination were: "Excessive abuse of sick leave, unable to contact while on reserve, and attending a training event at another airline while still employed with Trans States Airlines."
  • received a Notice of Disapproval following his FAA checkride for an airline transport certificate (ATP) and BE-1900 type rating on May 16, 2000.
First Officer:
  • received a Notice of Disapproval following his FAA checkride for a commercial pilot certificate, multi-engine land, on March 5, 2003.
If memory serves, they both had Gulfstream in their backgrounds, and the Captain had been at Embry-Riddle, as a student and as a CFI.






.
 

This is my favorite part:

Doug's Cough said:
  • Enjoy Unmatched Benefits
  • *Exciting Lifestyle Like No Other.
  • *Unlimited Flight Benefits. Worldwide. Anytime. Anywhere.
  • *Enjoy a high paying career doing what some only dream about.
  • *As a paid Academy Flight Instructor, you and your family will receive FREE FLIGHT BENEFITS on Delta. Worldwide. Anytime. Anywhere.
 
Yeah that sums it up - however I would not be surprised if more cowboys like this come along. The nice ads in FLYING Magazine and some of the programs are bount to attract the wrong type of people.

There have been people like these in the business from day one. So I agree, it would not be surprising if more cowboys like this come along. It would be surprising if they didn't.
 
Yeah that sums it up - however I would not be surprised if more cowboys like this come along. The nice ads in FLYING Magazine and some of the programs are bount to attract the wrong type of people.

There have been people like these in the business from day one. So I agree, it would not be surprising if more cowboys like this come along. It would be surprising if they didn't.

Cowboys . . .


Would you consider this quality to be a character flaw, or one that was instilled by "the system"? Is it nature, or nurture?


If it's nature, isn't it the job of HR departments to weed these folks out?

If it's nurture, isn't it the job of the Training Department to teach them better?



I can be, and have been, very harsh when speaking of these two gentlemen and their abysmal performance. However, I feel that there are more fingers to be pointed, and more institutional responsibility to spread around for what happened that fateful night.









.
 
Cowboys . . .
Would you consider this quality to be a character flaw, or one that was instilled by "the system"? Is it nature, or nurture?

If it's nature, isn't it the job of HR departments to weed these folks out?

If it's nurture, isn't it the job of the Training Department to teach them better?

I'd guess that there's a fair number of pilots out there that view part 91 flights as a chance to relax and have fun with the airplane, even if they ordinarily fly SOP. I've flown with a couple cautious, conservative captains who seem to get stupid if the plane is empty.

I think most training departments probably do a pretty good job of teaching safe and structured flying, but I think a lot of bad behavior might be learned on the line from other "cowboy" types. Maybe it can be either a learned or inherent character trait.
 
Can't say any of this was much of a suprise. Obviously their behaviors were inexcusable... but there were very few people at the air carrier back then who actually understood why we are to pitch for .70M/240KIAS in a double engine failure situation. Additionally, the double engine failure items were to be done by memory at that point in time- very dumb to have any memory items except fly the dang airplane and read the checklist in a modern jet aircraft. The stab trim was never reengaged, I think possibly due to this fact. THis is why the aircraft held the same indicated speed that it stalled at all the way down.

We finally dumped almost all the memory items except some simplified ones last summer (much of them are "don oxygen mask, establish communication). All engines out training was not accomplished during new hire or upgade (although I did see it due to some extra time left during the final FO sim session and asked the instructor to throw whatever he wanted to at me)... our training is very much reactive instead of proactive- something I would love to see changed. Someone almost hits a mountain in HLN- all of a sudden that airport requires special crew checkout and is now part of the sim profiles.

I do not understand why they tried to execute a stall profile recovery that is based on 10,000 feet. Their engines were already firewalled almost at that altitude. It should have been obvious to simply pitch the aircraft over. Plus, there was a long period with the aircraft slowly dying (speed decayed for several minutes- they leveled indicating around 190 knots). Why this was not reacted upon earlier, I also do not understand.

On top of that, for some reason or another there were a number of captains a few years ago who really did not like to declare an emergency or keep ATC in the loop for some fear of reprecussions from management. Why? I don't know. This accident of course was much more a case of Ticket, Tin, Skin protection, though. You do something dumb... first you try to protect your ticket and keep anyone from knowing. Well crap... we might bend the airplane... lets see if I can do anything to keep from putting any extra pin stripes on the bird. Uh oh... I might get hurt in this. Last minute and too late desperate moves are accomplished long after they actually should have been done.
 
On a side note, repo flights have long brought the worst out in pilots. There is a long standing legend of an NWA DC-10 that was barrel rolled on a repo flight. Of course, a properly executed barrel roll by a well trained and highly experienced pilot is very different than what was done on FLG3701.
 
Yeah that sums it up - however I would not be surprised if more cowboys like this come along. The nice ads in FLYING Magazine and some of the programs are bount to attract the wrong type of people.

Part of me, honestly, agrees with you.

But, if memory serves me correctly you had your chance to try to change the career field, and you have choosen to do something else, correct?

Why not return, and help to stop some of these "cowboys?"
 
Back
Top