Talk:Pinnacle Airlines Flight 3701

message: ==needs redirects==
* This article requires redirects from
**FLG3701
**9E3701
**N8396A
* Pinnacle Airlines requires redirects from
** FLG (ICAO code)
** 9E (IATA code)
* 132.205.45.148 18:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was arrogant recklessness of the 2nd worst kind (1st worst kind would be if they done it with innocent passengers on board). They were not certified test pilots on a certified test flight, so they had no business operating the plane in that manner, which was outside of the SOP boundaries.  Had they survived, they would have lost their jobs and licenses.  Sad  that they had to pay the ultimate price for such stupidity, but many other stupid pilots have ended up the same way, too often with innocent victims on board going down with them. 66.81.52.150 (talk) 08:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

text: I think it is also important to note that they did not just "scientifcally" gain experience with the aircraft but actually appeared at least partially oblivious to the natural consequences of their doing, or in other words they brought them self into a situation which they did not understand. Which is strange since the problems of minimum and maximum possible i.a. speed becoming the same at maximum altitude are no secret at all. Intentionally bringing your aircaft into a state that your knowledge does not nearly cover ... how would you call that ? Having written all this - if pilots had never risked their neck ... but the pioneering decades are long past and it was not their aircraft to risk (not to mention the people and property below them).  JB. --92.193.129.35 (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

text: I actually found this in the full accident report (p. 11/23).  Apparently, the original crew of the plane noticed a warning that said, "R 14TH DUCT".  It was ultimately determined that there was chafing in a air duct sensing loop, so it had to be replaced. Superm401 - Talk 10:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your link repaired to http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2007/aar0701.pdf.  NTSB moved it. 71.198.81.105 (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: * This article requires redirects from
**FLG3701
**9E3701
**N8396A
* Pinnacle Airlines requires redirects from
** FLG (ICAO code)
** 9E (IATA code)
* 132.205.45.148 18:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: needs redirects

message: In the attempt to reach FL410, the plane was pushed at over 1.2g, 
How was this aircraft pushed at 1.2g, and what's bad with 1.2g to an aircraft?
Aircraft in a level turns regularly experience much higher than 1.2g.
Unless it's engaged in some form of ballistic flight, my understanding of an aircraft climbing to it's max flight level would be a standard 1g climb, that is, an aircraft basically in straight and level flight, with engines maxed out.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.39.78.68 (talk) 18:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does "pushed at 1.2g" mean? 

message: Could a pilot or two express their opinion? Was this high spirits, or recklessness, or normal "pushing the envelope" to test aircraft capability? What was going on? Piano non troppo (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was arrogant recklessness of the 2nd worst kind (1st worst kind would be if they done it with innocent passengers on board). They were not certified test pilots on a certified test flight, so they had no business operating the plane in that manner, which was outside of the SOP boundaries.  Had they survived, they would have lost their jobs and licenses.  Sad  that they had to pay the ultimate price for such stupidity, but many other stupid pilots have ended up the same way, too often with innocent victims on board going down with them. 66.81.52.150 (talk) 08:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

text: I think it is also important to note that they did not just "scientifcally" gain experience with the aircraft but actually appeared at least partially oblivious to the natural consequences of their doing, or in other words they brought them self into a situation which they did not understand. Which is strange since the problems of minimum and maximum possible i.a. speed becoming the same at maximum altitude are no secret at all. Intentionally bringing your aircaft into a state that your knowledge does not nearly cover ... how would you call that ? Having written all this - if pilots had never risked their neck ... but the pioneering decades are long past and it was not their aircraft to risk (not to mention the people and property below them).  JB. --92.193.129.35 (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Could a pilot express their opinion?

message: What is "urgent but routine maintenance" supposed to mean?  My best guess is that it actually means someone discovered the morning of October 14 that some annual required maintenance was due at noon.  But I don't know. Superm401 - Talk 06:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually found this in the full accident report (p. 11/23).  Apparently, the original crew of the plane noticed a warning that said, "R 14TH DUCT".  It was ultimately determined that there was chafing in a air duct sensing loop, so it had to be replaced. Superm401 - Talk 10:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your link repaired to http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2007/aar0701.pdf.  NTSB moved it. 71.198.81.105 (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urgent but routine?