Flying and fun do not mix, heres proof

[I.P. Freley]

In fact, I never said they were "stupid to find going to max fun." Please read my post.

I've been flying since '87 and I still love just about every minute of it...and at some point I actually thought walk-arounds were "fun." I grew up. They should have as well.

If you want to split hairs over the precise wording of my post, go right ahead. You know exactly what I meant, and you reiterated your point at the end of this post... I'm sorry, but going for the airplane's maximum altitude if you've never been up there IS NOT foolish, if done properly. You don't appear to object to the method they used to get up there, you appear to object to the very thought that such an endeavor is "fun" in the first place, and that they needed to grow up. You've made the same basic point twice now.

I think you are wrong. Period. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[1-tacan-rule]

Once again....

I.P., since you seem to be much more dense than I thought.

You seem to keep attributing the words "stupid" and "foolish" to me....I never did used those words (GD you sound like my wife).

We will disagree on this issue. However, whether these pilots were stupid, foolish, or immature....doesn't really matter since they are dead.

That fact can't be minced. I wish they hadn't thought it would be "cool" to get the plane to 410 on that day. Wheter their actions turn out to be stupid or foolish is yet to be determined.

 

[I.P. Freley]

I.P., since you seem to be much more dense than I thought.

Cool! Mission accomplished.

 

[Ty Webb]

Avbug is right on.

Once again, a few pilots on this board have jumped at the opportunity to be judge and jury based on a frigging newspaper article. All you have proven so far is that our village has a few new idiots.

Wait until the facts are out before you start your freaking "Church Lady" Superiority Strut, please. Sheesh!

 

[x402]

Avbug is right on.

Once again, a few pilots on this board have jumped at the opportunity to be judge and jury based on a frigging newspaper article. All you have proven so far is that our village has a few new idiots.

Wait until the facts are out before you start your freaking "Church Lady" Superiority Strut, please. Sheesh!

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. We will bend over backwards to 'excuse' the departed pilots, or most likely pilot, for their (his) fatal mistake. The NTSB preliminary report talks about the failure to restart and the envelopes needed to make it happen.
I'm sorry for loss of the crew and the pain for their loved ones.

 

[avbug]

Failure to restart has nothing to do with a higher altitude. One cannot achieve a restart until descending to the altitude where the relight or restart altitude may be accomplished, and cannot occur until the airspeed is within the relight envelope, as well. We all cruise above our relight envelope, which isn't particularly relevant, as we arent' trying to relight.

If for whatever reason we shut one down or one flames out, then we are going to descend to relight the engine, if that is our desire.

Therefore, operating above that envelope, and failure to relight the engines, has nothing at all to do with cruising or attempted cruise at a higher altitude.

If the crew failed the basic task of flying the airplane and got too slow or operated at too high an angle of attack by an attempt to climb above their ceiling limits for their weight and temperature that day, then that's another matter.

 

[x402]

If the crew failed the basic task of flying the airplane and got too slow or operated at too high an angle of attack by an attempt to climb above their ceiling limits for their weight and temperature that day, then that's another matter.

It's clear that the crew did fail the basic task of flying the airplane. They also failed the recovery of the airplane once the engines shut down.

You can wait for the final report to learn and apply lessons from this crash but I'll leap to conclusions and be a bit more attentive should the need arise to fly my plane to service ceiling.

 

[avbug]

Whatever

 

[Ty Webb]

You can wait for the final report to learn and apply lessons from this crash but I'll leap to conclusions and be a bit more attentive should the need arise to fly my plane to service ceiling.

You go right ahead and do that, Church Lady. . . but the rest of us have been doing that already. Maybe if you give that reporter a call, they can give you some other great tips- like unhook the towbar before taxiing. . . . and make sure not to leave any garment bags draped over the wing when you're loading your exterior baggage compartment.

 

[x402]

I don't need to call the reporter nor do I care how you manage your flights. Here was an experienced PIC with a responsiblity for an aircraft and a new FO. He f**ked up.
You can call me whatever you like Ty, I always liked Dana Carvey.

 

[Bryan D]

It's all fun and games until someone get's a eye put out.

 

[Hung Start]

Yup,,, one thing absolutely true about this flying thing of ours:


You go from beng a hero to a zero in a milisecond.

 

[BritishGuy]

Correct me if I'm wrong - I'm not too sure about this but being up at that altitude, doesn't it push you further into that 'coffin corner' making the aircraft less manouverable??

Either way - hope they rest in peace.

 

[avbug]

Coffin corner is a point where one is trapped in a narrow range between aerodynamic machbuffet, and aerodynamic stall. Most typical civil aircraft can't ever get there.

 

[Flex]

1. You can fly at a 121 carrier for years and only fly an empty plane a half-dozen times.

2. "supercritical wing" + "have a little fun" = bad ju-ju.

3. The word I heard was one of the engines had "melted" before impact.

We're still getting the info, but the whole thing stinks.

 

[Ultra Grump]

The CRJ is incapable of reaching its coffin corner. Theoretically, that is.

 

[AA717driver]

For someone who drives around all day in the 20's or low 30's being at FL410 probably is a real thrill.

I always got a little kick out of dragging a 717 or -80 up to 370 because it so rarely got there. They just got bit that time.TC

 

[comander]

If I could take my c172 to fl410 I would try to and would love to and would do it!

 

[avbug]

When I was a kid, spraying in Kansas, I borrowed my bosses Cessna 150 one afternoon, for an experiment. I wanted to know how high it could go, and wanted to know if it would go beyond the published service ceiling based on thermalling. Locally convective activity was building, I knew there was rising air, and I wanted to see if the engine would compensate for the inefficient wings while thermalling.

I managed to make almost seventeen five before coming back down, and it took a little over three hours. I don't know that I'd try it again. At the time I was desperately hungry to learn evrything I could about flying and aviation, in any way I could.

I still am.

I don't know that I can fault or blame folks who decide to fly the airplane within the published limitations. There's nothing magic about flying at 410. If someone is trying to get there and the aircraft obviously won't make it or isn't getting there, it's time to request an intermediate altitude and stop the climb. Lots of critics and crucifiers here who believe that the fact that these folks are dead is automatic condemnation of their selection of a flight level...that wasn't outside the published envelope. That makes no sense.

Several folks have droned on about being above the relight envelope, but that's also a stupid and nonsensical arguement. Is there anybody here that regularly cruises at 410 in an aircraft that's capable of achieving a relight at that altitude...or are you all flying equipment that has a published relight envelope ceiling closer to say, 20,000? Hands?

If the crew pushed the temperature limits of the engines trying to get up there, this had nothing to do with altitude, but improper engine operation. If the crew exceeded their climb angle and began either aerodynamically stalling or getting compressor stalls, then again, this is a pilot issue, and nothing to do with "fun" and altitude. It's a crew that merey quit flying the airplane responsibly.

The decision to attempt a higher altitude is not of it's own accord irresponsible. Being cleared to that altitude is not irresponsible. Accepting that clearance is not irresponsible. Enjoying the opportunity is not irresponsible.

If the crew thus engaged elects to ignore engine parameters, airspeed limitations, or angle of attack, that may be presumed irresponsible, but upon that I may not comment, nor is anybody else here particularly qualified to comment...on an ongoing and active investigation.

 

[NJA Capt]

Is there anybody here that regularly cruises at 410 in an aircraft that's capable of achieving a relight at that altitude...or are you all flying equipment that has a published relight envelope ceiling closer to say, 20,000? Hands?

The Citation X is certified to FL510. It's airstart envelope begins at FL350.