Flg 3701 Audio Tape

[Ty Webb]

Just take one look at Ty's avatar and then read his comments. I don't know why any of you guys are even wasting your time with this guy! Let him rule his little world on his own. He can have it. I'm happy in my world that doesn't include him.

MY Avatar? You've got to be kidding. I have to laugh. My avatar has ranged from Frank Zappa to Salvador Dali to Robert Duvall. . . . . sorry the irony is lost on you. Here, I'll change it for a day, just for you.

 

[Dumbledore]

SIGHHHHHHHHHH. What can I say. You are living, breathing proof that if you can fog a mirror you can be a pilot. Pity it's so easy.

1) You don't know what happened.

Sure I do. They went to FL410 and stalled the plane - several times. Both engines failed almost simultaneoulsy. They glided down for well over 100 miles and many, many minutes and never got the engines re-lit. They crashed. There's no sign that anything was wrong with the engines according to G.E.

That's what happened, genius. Please don't tell me this isn't what happened because it's what the NTSB is saying so far.

4) You don't seem to know the difference between "Airport Analysis Info" and "High Altitude Cruise Charts", but are game to parade your ignorance in front of your peers.

I've explained what I meant twice. There will not be a third time because that would be strike three and you'd be out. We don't want you out, do we?

 

[RJFlyer]

Dumbledore -

Actually, you mentioned airport analysis a few times, and Ty is right, it has nothing to do with this discussion. High Altitude Cruise Charts do. Climb Capability Charts do. The CRJ is certified to FL410. The Climb Capability Charts tell us what altitude we can attain, at 500fpm minimum at a given weight, temp, and mach. If all that matches up (assuming of course that the charts were consulted), then there was no reason for this crew to think that it would be unsafe to climb to FL410. They were not being test pilots (that we know of, again I am assuming the crew consulted the charts and they said that the climb was achievable). They were doing what the manufacturer's test pilots and the FAA determined was achievable and safe.

You inferred that maybe the aircraft was old and couldn't match the performance stated in the AFM. If that's truly the case, then maybe we should all start disregarding our AFMs, for safety's sake, since very few of our aircraft are new.

I don't know how old the accident aircraft was, but the CRJ has only been around for about 10 years. It's a young pup compared to some of the birds hauling pax around the skies. Also, just because the airframe is 10 years old doesn't mean the engines are. Engines are replaced and overhauled on a regular basis. Not to mention, the straightest, best-flying and -performing bird I have seen in the ASA fleet is also one of the oldest, 825AS (820AS is the oldest and granted that one's a POS).

I'm not saying the crew didn't do something stupid. But I don't know that they did. I do know that the CRJ is perfectly capable of cruising at FL410, or it wouldn't be certified for it.

 

[DirkkDiggler]

Throughout all this discussion, nobody has made one good claim as to why they'd want to climb to FL410 in a CRJ other than "to have a little fun." I understand what the crew meant, I've done the same when I flew caravans and took one up to FL200 just to have a little fun. I'd never been that high and to be honest, I wanted to push the Caravan a little harder then I'd ever pushed her before. I didn't die as a result. These guys did. Maybe we can learn a little about why they died, but until we know just exactly why, we shouldn't be trying to replicate their scenario and arguing that going up to FL 410 is a good idea. There's absolutely no reason for it other than to have a little fun, and I'd be shocked to learn than anyone's dispatch filed them that high on their release.

 

[Dumbledore]

Dumbledore -

Actually, you mentioned airport analysis a few times

I mentioned it three times. The first time was as a simile to liken what we all know about certain airplanes versus what the data says the TYPE will do (airport analysis), to what the AFM says that same plane will do. Some planes just don't do what the books say.

I'm not connecting AFM data to airport analysis in any way other than to suggest that we've all flown airplanes that we KNOW won't pass muster if held to the aiport analysis data. The same is true of the climb and cruis data. I never said anything about the accident aircraft being this way nor have I implied it. I have only said these things to demonstrate that just because some book says the plane will do it, it doesn't make it so.

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

...and Ty is right, it (airport analysis data) has nothing to do with this discussion.

And I would agree EXCEPT when airport analysis is used the way I have used it - to demonstrate the point I'm having a lot of trouble getting across to a bunch of guys who are supposed to be smart!

The Climb Capability Charts tell us what altitude we can attain, at 500fpm minimum at a given weight, temp, and mach.

NO THEY DON'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They tell you what the test aircraft were able to do and that, by extension, should be applicable to your plane but again, that's what judgment is for because it doesn't always work that way.

If all that matches up (assuming of course that the charts were consulted), then there was no reason for this crew to think that it would be unsafe to climb to FL410.

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.

They were not being test pilots (that we know of, again I am assuming the crew consulted the charts and they said that the climb was achievable).

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.

They were doing what the manufacturer's test pilots and the FAA determined was achievable and safe.

Right! The FAA said it was okay to do so let's go do it, Okay? What about Eagle 4184? The ATR was certified "safe" in known icing but they crashed because of it. What about Sundance 2415 in Pasco, Washington. That plane was certified safe in known icing conditions with a de-ice boot pressure sensor rigged to indicate normal operation at 10 PSI instead of the 16 PSI that was later found to be required to properly shed ice from the tailplane.

I know we're not talking about an icing accident but the FAA has been wrong in the past and pilots have known it. 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.

Dude! Sometimes it's not okay, ALRIGHT?!? That's what captains are paid for - their best judgment about what's okay and what's not!

You inferred that maybe the aircraft was old and couldn't match the performance stated in the AFM. If that's truly the case, then maybe we should all start disregarding our AFMs, for safety's sake, since very few of our aircraft are new.

Yup, that's exactly right unless you know otherwise. Some airplanes you can count on to do what the book says, and some have AFM performance sections that are the finest work of fiction since "Gone With the Wind." Captains are given the keys with the understanding that they will weigh what they should be able to do against what they observe their particular plane to be capable of.

If your airplane is stalling and you're at FL 410, as the captain, it's your job to recognize that this ain't workin' out too well.

But I don't know that they did.

Yes you do and you KNOW you do. They crashed. Based on what you know at this stage of the game you'd do some things differently if faced with the same thing yourself. I'd bet that represents a change from a few months ago - you'd never really thought about it before that. This accident made you do so.

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

You do this all the time do you? Or are you just basing this statement on the book?

 

[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.