Posted on 06/13/2005 8:45:15 AM PDT by TheOtherOne
Joking Pilots in Commuter Jet Crash Wanted to 'have a Little Fun' by Climbing to 41,000 Feet
Published: Jun 13, 2005 WASHINGTON (AP) - Two pilots, in a jovial mood as they flew an empty commuter jet, wanted to "have a little fun" by taking the plane to an unusually high altitude last October, only to realize as the engines failed that they were not going to make it, according to transcripts released Monday.
The plane, which the two were ferrying from Little Rock, Ark. to Minneapolis, crashed and both Capt. Jesse Rhodes and First Officer Peter Cesarz perished.
The cockpit voice recording, released by the National Transportation Safety Board at the start of a three-day hearing into the Oct. 14, 2004 accident, revealed how the pilots cracked jokes and decided to "have a little fun" and fly to 41,000 feet - the maximum altitude for their 50-seat plane. Most commuter jets fly at lower altitudes.
"Man, we can do it, 41-it," said Cesarz at 9:48 p.m. A minute later, Rhodes said, "40 thousand, baby."
Two minutes later, "There's 41-0, my man," Cesarz said. "Made it, man."
At 9:52 p.m., one of the pilots popped a can of Pepsi and they joked about drinking beer. A minute later, Cesarz said, "This is the greatest thing, no way."
But at 10:03 p.m., the pilots reported their engine had failed. Five minutes later, they said both engines had failed and they wanted a direct route to any airport.
The transcript recounts their increasingly desperate efforts to restart the engines and regain altitude. They tried to land at the Jefferson City, Mo., airport but by 10:14 p.m., it was obvious they wouldn't reach it.
"We're not going to make it, man. We're not going to make it," Cesarz said. The plane crashed in a residential neighborhood of Jefferson City. No one was injured on the ground.
Accident investigators are examining how well the pilots were trained - a key safety question as the number of regional jets keeps growing.
The crash involved a Bombardier regional jet plane operated by Pinnacle Airlines, an affiliate of Northwest Airlines. Like many regional carriers, Pinnacle is growing rapidly as it teams up with a traditional network airline looking to offer more seats to more places.
Memphis, Tenn.-based Pinnacle grew by 700 percent in the past five years, according to Phil Reed, its marketing vice president. During that time, it switched its fleet from propeller-driven planes to small turbojets, known as regional jets, or RJs.
The number of regional jets rose to 1,630 last year from 570 in 2000, the Federal Aviation Administration says. The question of whether government safety inspectors can keep up with such rapid changes in the airline industry was raised last week in a Transportation Department inspector general's report.
Jet engines work differently at higher altitudes, and it's unclear whether the relatively inexperienced Pinnacle pilots were aware that they had to be more careful in the thin air at 41,000 feet, the maximum altitude for their plane.
According to FAA transcripts of air-to-ground conversations, an air traffic controller in Kansas City told the two pilots it was rare to see the plane flying that high.
"Yeah, we're actually ... we don't have any passengers on board, so we decided to have a little fun and come up here," one of the pilots said. The transcripts don't identify whether Jesse Rhodes or Cesarz made the statement.
First one, then the other engine shut down. The last contact that controllers had with the crew was at 9,000 feet, when the pilot reported an airport beacon in sight.
At the hearing, NTSB investigators plan to delve into the plane's flight limits and the proper recovery techniques when engines fail. They also want to know if the pilots knew those procedures and to learn the engine's performance characteristics at high altitudes.
On June 2, the FAA issued a special bulletin clarifying what steps pilots need to take to restart an engine when there's a dual engine failure, agency spokeswoman Laura Brown said.
David Stempler, president of the Air Travelers Association, said the issue may be reckless pilots rather than inadequate training or improper recovery procedures.
"This is more a story of pilots having time on their hands and playing with things in the cockpit that they shouldn't," he said.
Flying, he said, is as boring as truck driving most of the time.
"This was boredom and experimentation, these guys experimenting with things they had no business doing," Stempler said.
---
On the Net:
National Transportation Safety Board: http://www.ntsb.gov
AP-ES-06-13-05 1117EDT
Great thread.
I am reading in an attempt to overcome my fear of flying.
I rountinely fly a 2 propreller regional plane, a Beechcraft I think, and find it be scary.
Maybe you all can help answer a question from a recent flight?
We were approaching the landing. Maybe about 15 minutes out. Clear skies, no turbulence. Out of nowhere, we make a sudden, sharp dive. The plane makes an alarm like noise when the proprellers start up. Well, it made that noise in the air during the dive. Felt like a five minute dive, but was probably only a few seconds. Rest of the flight was routine.
Any ideas on what it was? I think someone said the pilot told her it was wake or wash from a big jet.
Is there an aviation section I can post this in? Thanks.
Can't say for certain based upon your description whether the incident you experienced in the Beechcraft was wake turbulence from a big jet, but if that's what the pilot said, it's certainly possible. Most planes carrying passengers follow specific published routes that are controlled by Air Traffic Control, so your plane could have been behind a 747 that flew the exact route a few minutes earlier. Here's an FAA brochure on the subject.
It's unsettling, and I'm not going to say that the pilots of your plane weren't white-knuckled on their controls, but unless you're close to the ground or above/below certain speeds, it's usually recoverable.
I would say all 3 are a factor. The pilots should not have had the skylark attitude that they did, but why couldn't they get a restart when they were descending? I would say that training and recovery procedures are an issue here. The airline is more than happy to label it pilot error, which absolves them of liability and they won't have to fight the aircraft manufacturer on any issues, but that doesn't tell the full story.
Forrest Gump time: "stupid is as stupid does."
Ping.
btw, Mike, you keep doing it right on TV!!:)
ok, wait a sec... you have a wtf ping list??
I'm also wondering if the pilot's manual had proper cautions and warnings published for flying that high. And what about that max altitude of 41,000 feet? Is that the max given in the flight manual, a rumor among pilots, or what some veteran test pilot got it up to?
It's Bush's fault.
8 miles high and glided almost 100 miles, what's that about 12 to 1? That seems like a very good ratio to me, to bad nothing was closer then 102 miles out.
yes but I put it on hold for a bit because of N.O. and the disaster
Ok XA, this sounds like a Ping list I must be added to... : )
Dave
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.