Flg 3701 Audio Tape

[Dumbledore]

I refuse to listen to any criticism regarding the events of 14 october 2004.

So if I may may I respectfully ask, will you say the same thing if the NTSB says the same things in their final report?

I don't see any pilot bashing here. I see people duscussing facts and how the media does or does not correctly report them.

Simmer down. This seems to me to be a very civilized thread - all things considered.

 

[Dumbledore]

Let's see, on my last four-day pairing, I am sure I was at FL410 several times.

Pretty much everyone here who flies the thing says the plane won't go to 410 well and yet you claim this. That's nice but count me out if you want to be running experiments in aerodynamics with your customers in back.

Explain this to me again - WHO'S the moron????

 

[Dodge]

Ty has to be the best pilot in the world. Numerous times up to FL410. Congrats, dude. I have a feeling that his routine trips to FL410 were in a Boeing not a Canadair.

 

[Mel Sharples]

Thank god nothing happened on the next leg where one of you douchebags could sit here and say that I had no business at 410 (I did) or that my comment indicated a disregard for safety (it doesn't).

You are so right, Ty. I routinely fly in severe ice because I have yet to have a problem, so obviously the plane can handle it. I also like to get up tight behind 757's, because I did it five times last week and nothing bad happened, so obviously it is not that big a deal.

You are right, man. Too many pansies here. Thank God guys like you and me are here to prove just because something can be done, it obviously should be.

Yep.

 

[DigMyKungFuGrip]

So if I may may I respectfully ask, will you say the same thing if the NTSB says the same things in their final report?

I don't see any pilot bashing here. I see people duscussing facts and how the media does or does not correctly report them.

Simmer down. This seems to me to be a very civilized thread - all things considered.

My quote more is targeted more to the media than this particualr thread. It has been fairly civilized. I just get a little tight about the media tearing up their names using information they twisted to make a story. I know that if something like that happened to me or anyone of us, they'd do the same thing. If the NTSB comes back and put it on them, well, thats something we're all gonna have to deal with. Anyway, again, I didnt mean to come over the top so quickly, just a knee jerk reaction... thats all..

 

[FL000]

Nope, and neither do you. That is why the appropriate thing to do is to sit back, wait for more info,and keep your big yapper shut until then. Is that really so hard to do?

So we're not allowed to discuss what might or might not have happened to get them in that position? Get over yourself. Discussing this incident could prevent a crew from pushing the envelope on their next trip. For those of us who actually fly the RJ, it's pretty obvious what started this chain of events. You can keep your head in the sand if you want to, but if you pull it out, you might actually learn something.

 

[Ty Webb]

Pretty much everyone here who flies the thing says the plane won't go to 410 well and yet you claim this. That's nice but count me out if you want to be running experiments in aerodynamics with your customers in back.

Explain this to me again - WHO'S the moron????

Apparently, it's you, Chief. Look at my profile. I didn't say I flew a CRJ, I said that someone could couple up an off-hand statement and a cruise flight at MAX FL and make anyone look like a risk-taker.

And, after re-reading this string, apparently, you don't seem to even know the difference between "airport analysis" and "High-altitude cruise" data, so I can see spending any more time in a discussion with you is like wrestling with a pig.

Oink, Oink and AMF.

 

[Dumbledore]

Look at my profile.

I see now. The profile is required reading so that implications made by posters are not taken the wrong way. Sorry dude but you said what you said and it implied that you'd had the RJ up there and that's that. And if you aren't flying the RJ then what exactly do you have to say about cruising at FL410 that's of ANY relevance whatsoever to the subject? What's being discussed (in part) here is whether this crew had any business taking a Canadair Regional Jet to that altitude that night, not a 737!

So that it's clear, here's a reminder of what you wrote:

Let's see, on my last four-day pairing, I am sure I was at FL410 several times.

Perhaps a better way to have said it (if you want to be perfectly clear about it) would have been to add "...in my 737 - (or whatever)."

I didn't say I flew a CRJ, I said that someone could couple up an off-hand statement and a cruise flight at MAX FL and make anyone look like a risk-taker.

I don't quite get that either from what you wrote. Again, here is what you really wrote:

I am sure that, after shutting down the engines at the gate and the Parking Check was run, I probably said something like "Well, we cheated death again" or something similar. Thank god nothing happened on the next leg where one of you douchebags could sit here and say that I had no business at 410 (I did) or that my comment indicated a disregard for safety (it doesn't).

I just don't see the same theme in your original post as you are trying claim is there in your response to me. But, to be fair, I can honestly say that if you jsut barely got yourself up there, stalled the airplane reapeatedly, and then failed to make proper command decisions on the way down with your double flameout and crashed as a result, I'd be an equal opportunity critic of your actions!

And, after re-reading this string, apparently, you don't seem to even know the difference between "airport analysis" and "High-altitude cruise" data, so I can see spending any more time in a discussion with you is like wrestling with a pig.

Too bad you had to be the pig though huh?

Here's the deal with the Airport analysis comment. Here's what I wote in regard to aircraft perfromance in general, using airport analysis in particular as an example.

Sorry dude but that won't fly. It won't fly for the same reason that, as EVERYONE here who has ever ACTUALLY flown an airliner knows, there are times when you just can't have the faith in the airport analysis that it's supposed to inspire - your airplane is just too whooped and the engines are just too tired. Sometimes the airplane you have in your possession just won't do what it would have done the day it rolled out green from the factory.

That's what I wrote. Now let me translate it for you because although you claim to have read it you are clearly unable to undestand it.

Sometimes when you fly airliners of a common type they have a book in the cockpit called an airport analysis binder. In it you can find takeoff and landing data for each airport the crew might need to use boiled down to just one thing - weight. This is a nice thing to have on hand because it makes quick work of calculating takeoff performance in a way that is quite usable to the crew as far as their bottom line goes.

There are times though, when you've been handed the keys to SN 5 or 6 of that type and she's and old lady now. Her engines run a little warm and she needs a few units of trim that weren't needed when she was part of the manufacturer's certification test flight program. When you've got old Bessie, it is often wise to not quite believe what the airport analysis tells you about what she'll do.

Similarly, there are times when you can look at the cruise performance charts all day long and it won't improve old Bessie's chances of making it where you (foolishly) wanna try taking her.

What was that about a yapper? You might consider taking your own advice!

 

[Ty Webb]

Sorry dude but you said what you said and it implied that you'd had the RJ up there and that's that. And if you aren't flying the RJ then what exactly do you have to say about cruising at FL410 that's of ANY relevance whatsoever to the subject?

You write a lot, but little of it is of any relevance.

Let me boil it down for you, Chief, since you seem to have so much trouble understanding a simple, little concept:

1) You don't know what happened.

2) Comments were taken out of context by the press, and

3) People who should presumably know better (ie, pilots) are doing the same stupid thing the news media did.

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.

Thank you, come again.

 

[DirkkDiggler]

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.

 

[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?