Flg 3701 Audio Tape

[FL000]

How is that germane to the accident or audio recordings in any way whatsoever?

Probably because of what I posted above. And that information (LIT), which I didn't know or had forgotten, made my assessment moot and worthless. My apologies.

 

[172driver]

Your assessment of distance to climb may be worthless but we already have seen more telling data anyway. FLG 3701 departed at 9:21 pm and checked in level FL410 at 9:52 pm. Just about 30 minutes to climb to 410.

None of us knows what kind of profile they used but I can guarantee you they were pretty slow when they got up there. I've never seen the CRJ hold much more than 500fpm above FL300, even empty. That gives you 22 min. from 300 to 410 alone. You can work the numbers however you like, but any way I look at it, they were up there very quickly.

Of course our company has a limitation of 250/.70M in the climb so my perception may be skewed. I know the airplane won't get to 410 in 31 minutes under that limitation.

 

[RJFlyer]

I've been to FL410 in the CRJ twice - once when we had NO business being there (I was very new and the CA was a hotshot who always has to go as high as possible). The other time we (different CA) were light, maybe 4 pax, and it was about ISA or below. We were filed to FL370, and were climbing 800fpm at .75 mach when we were approaching FL370. We consulted the climb capability charts and determined we should easily make FL410. We got there at .75 mach/800 fpm. Accelerated to .77 mach when we got there.

Point is, if you're light and it's cold enough, the airplane can do it.

 

[Mel Sharples]

I've been to FL410 in the CRJ twice - once when we had NO business being there (I was very new and the CA was a hotshot who always has to go as high as possible). The other time we (different CA) were light, maybe 4 pax, and it was about ISA or below. We were filed to FL370, and were climbing 800fpm at .75 mach when we were approaching FL370. We consulted the climb capability charts and determined we should easily make FL410. We got there at .75 mach/800 fpm. Accelerated to .77 mach when we got there.

Point is, if you're light and it's cold enough, the airplane can do it.

It CAN do it, but why? I can stick a needle in my eye, but why would I want to do that?

I'm certainly not pointing the finger at you, or anyone else in particular. God knows I've done my share of dumb stuff.

My point is that just because the plane CAN do it, it is not a defense if they shouldn't have been there. Doing something to have fun is different from doing it for fuel, safety, etc.

Keep in mind I'm not judging this crew. I just know that the NTSB and the public are going to be harsh on this one.

 

[Ty Webb]

It CAN do it, but why? I can stick a needle in my eye, but why would I want to do that?

.

Boy, you ladies sound stupider than those FlightSim2000 weenies over on airliners.net talking about this.

"Having some fun" doesn't mean anything more than "good afternoon" or "beautiful night" unless you are looking for something sensational to report. If the high-altitude cruise chart data showed they could expect to cruise at FL410 and maintain a 1.3 or 1.4G margin at the prevailing temperature, then there was no reason not to go up there, and you clowns that are Monday-morning quarterbacking them are a sorry bunch of idiots.

Those of us who have had the benefit of hand-flying older, under-powered junk in the upper corners of the cruise charts may have recognized the situation they got into, but that is the benefit of having had that experience, and to use the innocent remark of "having fun" against that crew, while understandable from the news media, is unforgiveable from pilots who should know better, and if that shoe stinks, it's probably yours.

Over and out.

 

[Dodge]

As Mel said, we all prolly got into this racket because it is actually fun. However, airline (all commercial for that matter) pilots are viewed in the eyes of the public as a very professional group. The shock on everyone's face after I tell them I make what their high school daughter makes at Sonic is proof of it. Having some fun is not what pax want to hear.

To use the afore mentioned doctor scenario, just imagine a surgeon doing a bypass on your father saying to the rest of the staff, "this isn't something I normally do, but let's have some fun today."

All these posts have been excellent food for thought, or should be, for all our future flights.

 

[shamrock]

I've been to FL410 in the CRJ twice - once when we had NO business being there (I was very new and the CA was a hotshot who always has to go as high as possible).

Boy does that scenario sound familiar! I had the same experience a few years ago, but we only made it to 370. We were "hanging on the prop" so to speak and the Captain didn't want to hear anything about what the book said.

Thinking about how stupid it was still scares me.

 

[flyhard]

I really hate to agree with Ty but he is right (this time). The fact remains that these guys died doing what they loved. "Having fun" enjoying their job. Not doing anything dangerous. The media spins things to what sells. Period. The same guy that writes that is the one with the scanner on the other side of the fence wishing.

 

[capt. megadeth]

This got me thinking...I've said some stuff that could be taken waaaay out of context if someone was listening to the CVR.
Here's one that I'm sure more than a few of us have said, "What's it doing now?!" The headlines would read, "Pilots don't know how to fly their plane."

.

That is the honest to God truth, ain't it?

This article pretty much made me sick to my stomach.

 

[capt. megadeth]

To use the afore mentioned doctor scenario, just imagine a surgeon doing a bypass on your father saying to the rest of the staff, "this isn't something I normally do, but let's have some fun today."

.

Would it bother you if the surgeon was listening to Megadeth during the surgery?