Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Excerpts From Pilots' Recording [before crash]- Just Damn!
Yahoo news ^

Posted on 06/15/2005 4:48:00 PM PDT by Capt. Canuck

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. Investigators say the crash occurred after the pilots took the plane to 41,000 feet, an altitude where engine problems can develop.

9:48:44 p.m.

Cesarz: "Man we can do it. Forty-one it."

9:48:46

Rhodes: "(Unintelligible) baby."

9:48:57

Cesarz: "Hundred and eighty knots, still cruising at Mach point six four."

9:51:51

Cesarz: "There's four-one-oh, my man."

9:51:53

Cesarz: "Made it, man."

9:54:19

Rhodes: "Yeah, that's funny, we got up here, it won't stay up here."

9:54:22

Cesarz: "Dude, it's (expletive) losing it." (Sound of laughing)

10:14:36

Cesarz: "We're not gonna make it, man, we're not gonna make it."

10:14:38

Rhodes: "Is there a road? Tell her we're not gonna make this runway."

10:14:46

Rhodes: "Let's keep the gear up. (Expletive) I don't want to go into houses here."

10:14:51

Cesarz: (Expletive) "road right there."

10:14:52

Rhodes: "Where?"

10:14:52

Cesarz: "Turn, turn..."

10:14:53

Rhodes: "Turn where?"

10:14:53

Cesarz: "Turn to your left, turn to your left."

10:14:56

Rhodes: Either: "I see it" or "I can't."

10:14:58

Warning signal in cockpit: "Too low, terrain, terrain."

10:14:59

Rhodes: "Can't make it."

10:15:03

Rhodes: "Aw (expletive). We're gonna hit houses, dude."

Source: National Transportation Safety Board


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: damn
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-95 next last

1 posted on 06/15/2005 4:48:00 PM PDT by Capt. Canuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Capt. Canuck

Beavis and Butthead fly a jet. These guys need to be nominated for the Darwin Award.


2 posted on 06/15/2005 4:52:32 PM PDT by DGray (http://nicanfhilidh.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Capt. Canuck

Whoa.


3 posted on 06/15/2005 4:53:27 PM PDT by Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator

Could you please pull the editorials out of this article's title? The pilots who died in this crash didn't do anything that makes them "idiots", despite what some who don't understand the issues might think, and there's no reason anyone needs to edit an article title to make fun of the dead.


4 posted on 06/15/2005 4:54:07 PM PDT by Turbopilot (Viva la Reagan Revolucion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Capt. Canuck

These guys have been nominated for a Darwin Award, right?


5 posted on 06/15/2005 4:54:44 PM PDT by upchuck (If our nation be destroyed, it would be from the judiciary." ~ Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Turbopilot; Admin Moderator

I second that motion.


6 posted on 06/15/2005 4:56:23 PM PDT by Michael Goldsberry (an enemy of islam -- Joe Boucher; Leapfrog; Dr.Zoidberg; Lazamataz; ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: upchuck
These guys have been nominated for a Darwin Award, right?

No more than we'd nominate you for one if your brakes failed after you "recklessly" took your car all the way to the speed limit.
7 posted on 06/15/2005 4:57:36 PM PDT by Turbopilot (Viva la Reagan Revolucion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Turbopilot

Well, they sound like idiots.


8 posted on 06/15/2005 4:57:42 PM PDT by anton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Capt. Canuck
Investigators say the crash occurred after the pilots took the plane to 41,000 feet, an altitude where engine problems can develop.

Funny... the story on this last week said that 41,000 ft. was the upper limit of the aircraft. Now, it's past the limit and at the point where engine troubles occur.

9 posted on 06/15/2005 4:57:48 PM PDT by mwyounce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anton

That recording must just be horrible for their families. No matter what one's opinion of their actions, I feel so badly for their families hearing that recording.


10 posted on 06/15/2005 4:59:03 PM PDT by GraceCoolidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Turbopilot

I agree


11 posted on 06/15/2005 4:59:06 PM PDT by mel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Turbopilot

I don't think you read the whole transcript of this incident. These guys purposely broke several FAA and company regulations during this one trip. Yes, they are dead, but that is often the result when you purposely break rules put in place to keep you from dying.


12 posted on 06/15/2005 4:59:53 PM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: anton

I bet if you were assigned to a work project where you were locked into a small room with little to do except talk to your lone coworker locked in with you for hours on end, and tape-recorded constantly, you might deliver something less than Ciceran oratory at some point too.


13 posted on 06/15/2005 5:01:17 PM PDT by Turbopilot (Viva la Reagan Revolucion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
These guys purposely broke several FAA and company regulations during this one trip.

Which FARs and company regs were broken?
14 posted on 06/15/2005 5:02:03 PM PDT by Turbopilot (Viva la Reagan Revolucion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GraceCoolidge
All of those CVRs (Cockpit Voice Recordings) are awful; at least all of the ones I've heard/read.

If you've got the stomach, check out Delta 1141 recording on this page. Haunting.

15 posted on 06/15/2005 5:04:21 PM PDT by Textide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Turbopilot

Well, for starters they swapped seats after takeoff, and only reswapped after descending below 10,000ft. The list is pretty long if you'd like me to continue.


16 posted on 06/15/2005 5:04:26 PM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Capt. Canuck

I'm not a pilot, but I had heard that the FAA assigns planes to a particular altitude. Were these pilots breaking any rules and/or laws in deciding on their own what altitude they would go to?


17 posted on 06/15/2005 5:05:32 PM PDT by wideminded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Textide

I don't know if I could listen to one. I remember too there was some kind of recording from the Challenger disaster. If I recall correctly, one of the astronauts said to another (one of the last things said), "Take my hand." I think one of the speakers might have been Judith Resnick? I don't recall all of it. Haunting is the right word for it.


18 posted on 06/15/2005 5:06:26 PM PDT by GraceCoolidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Rokke

Is this NTSB investigation NTSB ID:
DCA05MA003?


19 posted on 06/15/2005 5:06:44 PM PDT by anton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: anton

Nevermind, that's the one.


20 posted on 06/15/2005 5:08:38 PM PDT by anton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: wideminded

Everything above 18000 ft is controlled airspace all of the time. They'd be cleared for a certain altitude, but could then request another once enroute from ATC. They wouldn't be breaking any rules unless they deviated without requesting permission from ATC (at which point they'd hear from them).


21 posted on 06/15/2005 5:09:44 PM PDT by Textide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Turbopilot
True, but he couldn't crash the small room into a neighborhood full of homes.

"Rhodes: "Aw (expletive). We're gonna hit houses, dude."


and they did, too .. The plane crashed into a residential neighborhood of Jefferson City, Mo. Through the Grace of God, in this instance, no one on the ground was injured but it doesn't take much to imagine how easily the result could have been devastatingly different.

I understand how tedious flying can be at times, but this sort of 'fooling around' over populated areas is beyond reckless ~ it is downright irresponsible.

22 posted on 06/15/2005 5:09:56 PM PDT by Zacs Mom (Proud wife of a Marine! ... and purveyor of "rampant, unedited dialogue")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: wideminded

They'd have been cleared to FL410 (41,000 feet) by ATC before they left their previously assigned altitude. Asking for, and receiving, a different altitude, is very routine; pilots do it on many if not most flights to find turbulence-free altitudes, favorable tailwinds, etc.


23 posted on 06/15/2005 5:10:01 PM PDT by Turbopilot (Viva la Reagan Revolucion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Turbopilot

I totally agree with you, The pilots took it up to FL410 which is max altitude with passengers. No reason to fault the pilots who really did nothing wrong except fail to restart for whatever reason.
Thankfully there were no passengers.


24 posted on 06/15/2005 5:10:10 PM PDT by southland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: anton
"Is this NTSB investigation NTSB ID: DCA05MA003?"

Yes.

25 posted on 06/15/2005 5:12:03 PM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Capt. Canuck

These two idiots decided to have a little fun since they were ferrying the jet to another location and had no passengers. Since they crashed in a residential area, it's just lucky these two JERKS didn't kill some innocent people.


26 posted on 06/15/2005 5:12:37 PM PDT by jimboster (Vitajex, whatcha doin' to me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Turbopilot
I bet if you were assigned to a work project where you were locked into a small room with little to do except talk to your lone coworker locked in with you for hours on end, and tape-recorded constantly, you might deliver something less than Ciceran oratory at some point too.

Get off your high horse.

No one locked them into a room. They were flying because that was their chosen profession. If they didn't like the conditions they could've walked away at any time.

27 posted on 06/15/2005 5:13:38 PM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker ("There ought to be limits to freedom" --George W. Bush, May 26, 1999)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Zacs Mom
I have yet to hear how they "fooled around." I can understand that, to a non-pilot, maybe going to the "maximum" altitude sounds risky, but that maximum is not the physical limit of the aircraft, it's the lower of either the certified limit of the aircraft or the company's limit (which carries the force of law). It's designed to be a safe limit. Exceeding it is physically possible, just not considered safe. And a pilot would have no reason not to go to the maximum safe altitude limit.
28 posted on 06/15/2005 5:14:09 PM PDT by Turbopilot (Viva la Reagan Revolucion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Rokke

If you have any sort of evidence for that, I'd like to see it - that's not sarcastic; I just haven't heard that anywhere and it seems like something that'd be heavily reported. Likewise for any other violations. Also, I'm not even sure that swapping seats violates regs. I've got my FAR/AIM right here, perhaps you could quote me chapter and verse?


29 posted on 06/15/2005 5:15:51 PM PDT by Turbopilot (Viva la Reagan Revolucion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Turbopilot

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.


30 posted on 06/15/2005 5:17:27 PM PDT by anton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Comment #31 Removed by Moderator

To: Ol' Dan Tucker
Get off your high horse.

Read for comprehension.

Now that the insults are out of the way, my point was that even people who are highly trained professionals can joke around on the job without compromising their work. If a surgeon puts on some rock music or tells a nurse a joke, and his patient later dies because the life support machine fails, is the surgeon an "idiot" or unprofessional?
32 posted on 06/15/2005 5:18:10 PM PDT by Turbopilot (Viva la Reagan Revolucion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: anton

It's rare because the aircraft usually doesn't fly that high; in fact, it may require a light load (like they had, with no passengers) to get that high while maintaining safety. They still had to get permission to get up there, probably from a different controller; when they got handed off to the controller in Kansas City he commented on the fact that he rarely saw commercial jets at FL410. Trust me, if he didn't have permission to be at that altitude, the controller's comments would have been far sterner.


33 posted on 06/15/2005 5:21:00 PM PDT by Turbopilot (Viva la Reagan Revolucion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

Comment #34 Removed by Moderator

To: Turbopilot
My comments are based on this account of the incident NTSB to Study What Led to Mo. Plane Crash


Here is an excerpt:

"... There were no passengers on the jet and no one on the ground was injured by the Oct. 14 crash in a residential neighborhood of Jefferson City, Mo.

According to FAA transcripts of air-to-ground conversations, an air traffic controller in Kansas City told the 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 Capt. Jesse Rhodes or First Officer Richard Peter Cesarz made the statement.

~snip~

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.

35 posted on 06/15/2005 5:22:54 PM PDT by Zacs Mom (Proud wife of a Marine! ... and purveyor of "rampant, unedited dialogue")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Turbopilot

I don't know. It sure looked like they were on their own until questioned by KC controllers.


36 posted on 06/15/2005 5:23:29 PM PDT by anton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Turbopilot
"If you have any sort of evidence for that, I'd like to see it - that's not sarcastic; "

You need to read the NTSB report. It includes the full CVR transcript. It will turn your stomach. If you read it and don't think these guys did anything wrong, you really need to question your aviation skills. I'm not trying to be rude here, but do you have an ATP?

37 posted on 06/15/2005 5:26:52 PM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

Comment #38 Removed by Moderator

To: anton

Well, either take my word for it or find someone you trust who's a pilot. They were not at any altitude that they didn't previously get permission to be at. But as they flew they'd get transferred from controller to controller as they enter airspace controlled by different controllers, and one of them commented on the rarity of seeing commercial traffic of that altitude. He'd already gotten a "strip" with all the flight's information, including their cleared altitude, on it. If the plane hadn't been at the altitude it had been previously assigned, the controller would have been much more concerned, as that would have been against regulations and potentially dangerous.


39 posted on 06/15/2005 5:32:17 PM PDT by Turbopilot (Viva la Reagan Revolucion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Zacs Mom
That link was to a Yahoo article, not an actual NTSB report. In general, reporters know nothing more (and in many cases less) about aviation than the general public, and when writing about aviation they seem to want to prove it. They seem to believe that flying causes crashes the same way they believe that guns cause murders.

And I have no idea who David Stempler is, or what the Air Travelers Association is, but the name doesn't sound like a group with professional knowledge of aviation, regulation, air traffic control, crash investigation, or any other relevant specialty. It sounds like a "special interest group" along the lines of the Brady Campaign.
40 posted on 06/15/2005 5:37:49 PM PDT by Turbopilot (Viva la Reagan Revolucion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Turbopilot
Read for comprehension.

Let's examine what you wrote and what it means:

I bet if you were assigned to a work project where you were locked into a small room with little to do except talk to your lone coworker locked in with you for hours on end, and tape-recorded constantly, you might deliver something less than Ciceran oratory at some point too.

Who locked them into the small room against their will? Who forced them to do the job? Are they working under these conditions against their will, or did they knowingly accept these conditions as a part of the job? Are their conversations being secretly recorded or are they aware that everything they say will be recorded for posterity?

Now that the insults are out of the way, my point was that even people who are highly trained professionals can joke around on the job without compromising their work. If a surgeon puts on some rock music or tells a nurse a joke, and his patient later dies because the life support machine fails, is the surgeon an "idiot" or unprofessional?

People like you always resort to insults, so it doesn't surprise me to read them here.

Non-sequitor. I said nothing about jokes, nor did I insult them. I only pointed out that no one forced them to be sitting in the cockpit, just like no one forces you to be there.

If they didn't like the conditions, they could've walked away from the job and there would've been a hundred more in line to replace them. If you really are a pilot, you'd know this to be the case.

41 posted on 06/15/2005 5:37:57 PM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker ("There ought to be limits to freedom" --George W. Bush, May 26, 1999)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Skylus

Have a look at this.


42 posted on 06/15/2005 5:44:54 PM PDT by Sundog (Cheers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Turbopilot
You'll get no argument from me about the accuracy (or inaccuracies) of reporters! My personal experience with them has been that they make most of it up as they go along ~ with that acknowledgment stated and meant I back off any claims that these men acted irresponsibly based upon the inform available to me at this time.

Fair enough?

43 posted on 06/15/2005 5:46:50 PM PDT by Zacs Mom (Proud wife of a Marine! ... and purveyor of "rampant, unedited dialogue")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
The only thing the NTSB website shows is here. It contains only the briefest description of the crash, as preliminary reports commonly do. If you have a link to more information or a complete report, please post it.

And I'm not sure why you think the question would be rude, I don't have an ATP. I'd like to, one day (maybe get the ATP-AMEL simultaneously with a type rating in something cool like a DC-3) but as I don't really want to be a professional pilot it's not a priority. I'm not sure how that relates to my reading of the current publicly available information, however. Again, if you have information not posted here, I'd like to see it.
44 posted on 06/15/2005 5:48:02 PM PDT by Turbopilot (Viva la Reagan Revolucion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Turbopilot
Here is a link to the NTSB report. If anything good can come from this it will be for pilots to read this report and understand how easy it is to put yourself into a square corner.

NTSB Report

45 posted on 06/15/2005 5:48:54 PM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Zacs Mom
Fair enough?

Very fair. I've been told by another poster that there is information that has yet to be publicly posted (at least not posted here or in any other account of this crash I've read) that indicates that the pilots did make significant errors. If that's the case then they deserve blame for what they did. But based on the information in this thread, in links posted to this thread, and in other articles I've read thus far about the accident, there isn't anything indicating the pilots acted in an unsafe, illegal, or unintelligent manner. Thanks for contributing.
46 posted on 06/15/2005 5:50:41 PM PDT by Turbopilot (Viva la Reagan Revolucion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker
I'll make one more run at this before I'll assume it's your intention to miss the point. They were actually locked in by the TSA when they instituted the secure cockpit rules. However, I recognize your point that no one forced them to be there, which is completely true and correct. You're also absolutely correct that at that level of aviation career there are literally tens if not hundreds of pilots vying for each job who would love to replace them.

None of that, however, has any bearing on the point I was trying to make, which was that making a joking comment in the work environment doesn't mean you're taking unsafe or illegal actions. They obviously thought it would be neat to take their aircraft to the highest altitude they had been trained was safe to fly at, because they normally didn't get the chance to do it. They were obviously excited about that chance. I still see no reason that being excited about that chance, and joking around about it, is a reason to insult the deceased.
47 posted on 06/15/2005 5:55:30 PM PDT by Turbopilot (Viva la Reagan Revolucion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Turbopilot
"And I'm not sure why you think the question would be rude, I don't have an ATP."

It could be taken as rude if you thought I was questioning your credibility. Based on your first posts to this thread I thought you had some practical knowledge of commercial flying. But then it became clear (to me) that you didn't. You've confirmed you don't have an ATP. Frankly, I'm glad to hear that because if you did I would be very surprised at your defense of these pilots. What they did on this flight was a series of intentional violations of basic airmanship and flight regulations. There is no excuse, ever, for doing that. That doesn't make this any less a tragedy. But it helps explain why it happened.

48 posted on 06/15/2005 5:59:04 PM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Capt. Canuck

Why nothing on tape for 20 minutes from when they figured out they had a problem?


49 posted on 06/15/2005 6:00:16 PM PDT by listenhillary (Socialists have only killed 100 million. We'll never learn will we?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Capt. Canuck
Always SEARCH before you post.

Already posted Here

50 posted on 06/15/2005 6:01:42 PM PDT by Babu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-95 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson