Flg 3701 Audio Tape

[Airpiraterob]

paraphrased...

[deleted....]

i give up.

 

[Ty Webb]

Hey, Dumb-as-a-doorknob, or whatever your board name is:

I don;t know what kind of junk you're flying, but the book data we have seems to be right on. Maybe it's a problem with your technique.

In a past life, I have flown ancient junk to the limits of its certification, and found the tab data to still be reasonably accurate; don't know about your beloved RJ, but one thing is for sure-

you haven't learned not to speculate about accident causes like a breathless anchorwoman. Give it up and wait for the NTSB. If something comes up during the investigation, they will issue a bulletin or an AD, or an Emergency AD . . . that'll be the one for you . . . . . Attention, Doorknob.

 

[DirkkDiggler]

I do know that the CRJ is perfectly capable of cruising at FL410, or it wouldn't be certified for it.

I haven't flown one yet that could make it to FL410 (based on the performance charts). Even in the dead of winter with a light load. There is a margin for error in the performance charts, but none of ours go up that high (even before we changed the company ceiling from FL410 to FL370) I'd say you've never flown a CRJ or you've never actually studied the performance charts carefully enough to make an accurate assesment.

 

[SKYW Pilot]

The bottom line is that you either have the airspeed or you don't. The charts are to be used as a guide. Pilot judgement is the final deciding factor. I've flown many aircraft that have indicated they could perform to a certain limit and didn't. That's just the way it is. Manufacturer's work their numbers to the greatest extent they can so they can SELL airplanes!

 

[RJFlyer]

I'd say you've never flown a CRJ or you've never actually studied the performance charts carefully enough to make an accurate assesment.

How about you read the thread before posting?

I've been to FL410 in the CRJ twice.

I do fly the RJ, I have studied the performance charts, and I have been to FL410. Do I do it every day? No. I did it once, where the conditions were right. Why? Because it was a long leg, and the captain wanted to save fuel. NOT to "have a little fun." We consulted the charts, they charts said we could do it, and we were climbing REALLY well at a good airpseed. The other time we did not belong there - I was new (i.e., I did not have experience, see below) and the captain was an idiot.

That's what experience is for - doing more than blindly following what the book says.

1ex·pe·ri·ence [url="http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif"]http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif[/url]
Pronunciation: ik-'spir-E-&n(t)s
1 a : direct observation of or participation in events as a basis of knowledge b : the fact or state of having been affected by or gained knowledge through direct observation or participation

2 a : practical knowledge, skill, or practice derived from direct observation of or participation in events or in a particular activity b : the length of such participation <has 10 years experience in the job>
...
4 : something personally encountered, undergone, or lived through
...

By definition, the only way to get experience in something is to actually do it.

You don't know that. But I would remind you that the airplane DID stall, experience a double engine failure and crash as a result....
You don't know that either and I would again remind you that the airplane DID stall, experience a double engine failure and crash as a result.

As a result of WHAT? That is what we don't know, because we weren't there. We haven't heard the CVR, and we haven't seen the FDR data. You are assuming that the aircraft stalled simply because it was at FL410. This could have just as easily have happened at FL370. It all depends on many other factors that we don't know about yet. Was the crew inattentive? Did they hit severe, unexpected turbulence that cause the aircraft to stall? Or was it simply that the aircraft could not maintain airspeed at that altitude because of a combination of conditions (temp, engines, etc)? We don't know. We'll have to wait and see what the NTSB says.

I do know that the aircraft is capable of getting there and maintaining a safe airspeed. The charts say it can be done, and I have personally experienced it.

Yes you do and you KNOW you do. They crashed.

So using your logic, every time an aircraft crashes, it was pilot stupidity that caused it? Nice. Personally I'll reserve judgement until I see the NTSB final report. Something you are apparently unwilling to do.

 

[RJFlyer]

Everyone here (except Ty) says that it's a not-so-hot idea to take a CRJ to FL410 - books or not. Why are you fighting tooth and nail to say that it's okay.

You are saying it is unsafe to go to FL410 in an RJ. I am saying it CAN be safe, but isn't always. It also CAN be unsafe to go to FL350. So since it CAN be unsafe to go to FL350, we should never do it, right? No? How do we make the determination? Oh, that's right, we have CLIMB CAPABILITY CHARTS.

 

[DirkkDiggler]

So using your logic, every time an aircraft crashes, it was pilot stupidity that caused it? Nice. Personally I'll reserve judgement until I see the NTSB final report. Something you are apparently unwilling to do.

Yeah, it would be pure stupidity to modify the way we fly as a result of an accident before the official NTSB report is published! How could we be so blatantly careful. Shame on us.

 

[RJFlyer]

Yeah, it would be pure stupidity to modify the way we fly as a result of an accident before the official NTSB report is published! How could we be so blatantly careful. Shame on us.

My statement had nothing to do with modifying the way we fly, or not. Dumbledore apparently is ready to hang the crew simply because they were at FL410 and ended up crashing (and apparently any other crew that crashes an airplane, just by virtue of the fact that they crashed). My point is that contrary to some of the opinions on this board, the aircraft is certified to fly at FL410 and absolutely is capable of it. Is it always the best idea? No. I think with my own experiences at FL410, I have demonstrated that.

The accident may well have been pilot error, but I'm not going to point fingers without having all the info.

 

[405]

End this thread now.