Interesting RJ Event

[mnalpha]

hey retards let it be. Those who pretend that they know more than the men in that aircraft with out being there are the same dorks that where playing msflightsim when the rst of us had lives (getting laid) SO SHUT UP!

 

[Godvek]

Does the -700 series have auto slat-extend protection in the event of a stick shaker?

 

[Ty Webb]

hey retards let it be. Those who pretend that they know more than the men in that aircraft with out being there are the same dorks that where playing msflightsim when the rst of us had lives (getting laid) SO SHUT UP!

Sorry, Chief, but you are way out of line.

If you are referring to the Pinnacle disaster- then you need to read the transcripts. That flight was an abomination to professional aviation.

If you are talking about the Jazz flight- I don't think anyone was slamming them, but they sure don;t need you and all of your aviation experience (ppppffff!) coming to their defense.

Regardless, from reading your post and reading your profile, it is clear that you don't have enough experience to be in command of a frigging weedwacker, so maybe you ought to just shut yer **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** pie hole.

 

[EagleRJ]

Well, not to be a MMQB, but if these guys had 62 people and their bags on board, with fuel for Calgary, they were probably too heavy for FL410. The CRJ-700 has more power than the 50-seater, but it still has limits.
Cruising at .70 is abnormally slow, too. If you're light enough to reach FL410 legally, you should have enough power to cruise at .78 at least. There's no reason to cruise at .70 for fuel burn, so the plane must have been maxed out. The lower allowable Mach number even at middle weights at 410 is around .75 anyway- .70 would only be allowable at very light weights to maintain a 1.3G buffet boundary.

I've never seen a "downdraft" at FL410 either. If it was turbulence, the crew should have been on the turbulence numbers in their initial buffet boundary charts, which would have required even higher Mach numbers.
I'm going to go ahead and say that they were too heavy!

Does the -700 series have auto slat-extend protection in the event of a stick shaker?

Slats are not intended for use at high Mach numbers. If anything, a few degrees of flap would help for more wing area, but the first notch on the CRJ-700 gets you slats. There was a near-accident with a B-727 involving this issue several decades ago.
Once turbulence has upset the wing after you have out-flown it, the only remedy is to reduce alpha and attempt cruise flight at a lower altitude.

 

[JetPilot_Mike]

Is the CL-600-2D15 the CRJ-705? The 90 seater with 70 seats? I don't know much about the performance of that aircraft.

 

[Godvek]

Slats are not intended for use at high Mach numbers. If anything, a few degrees of flap would help for more wing area, but the first notch on the CRJ-700 gets you slats. There was a near-accident with a B-727 involving this issue several decades ago.
Once turbulence has upset the wing after you have out-flown it, the only remedy is to reduce alpha and attempt cruise flight at a lower altitude.

I realize slats are not for high Mach numbers, but if you are getting a stick shaker, you are not flying very fast. Throwing Slats out at .82 by the FE pushing the CB's back in is very different than an airplane about to stall. I take it the CRJ does not have auto extend slats in case of a stall. Some planes do.

 

[propjockey]

Coffin Corner Depiction and Trends

Somebody asked if the coffin corner is clearly depicted in the CRJ. The answer is YES. As you get into the coffin corner, the low-speed and high-speed checkerboards come closer and closer together. It's pretty hard to miss. We also enjoy one of man's greatest inventions, the trend vector. For those unfamiliar, it's a little magenta (pink), bracket-shaped line that extends above or below your current speed. It indicates where your speed will be in 10 seconds if there are no changes.

Speaking of the trend vector, one thing that may have contributed to this Jazz incident is the fact that the CRJ is a VERY trend-based aircraft. The stick shaker will activate when the airplane THINKS you're going to stall if you continue the present trend. The faster the trend, the quicker the airplane reacts with stall warning/pusher. Turbulent air (mountain wave) most certainly could have created a slowing trend that would cause the airplane to react the way it did. I've seen some pretty long trend vectors in mountain wave at cruise altitude.

Those who have done stalls in the sim can attest to the "trendy" nature of this airplane. If you're nice and smooth on the controls, it works out good. If you jerk the controls around (fast trends), the airplane goes into "panic mode" and may go straight to shaker/pusher with the accompanying very distracting "alien spaceship" noise. When you understand this and fly it as a trend-based airplane, it all works out much better.

 

[propjockey]

...but if you are getting a stick shaker, you are not flying very fast. ...

This statement is incorrect. Stick shaker has nothing to do with speed. It's all about angle of attack. You can be doing 320 kts and get the shaker, especially in the RJ (reference my post above).

 

[Dave Benjamin]

I don't have a type rating in the RJ so definitely not qualified to comment on specifics. However I was working out of DEN that day and temps were above ISA.

 

[Wasted]

I realize slats are not for high Mach numbers, but if you are getting a stick shaker, you are not flying very fast.

Even if you are not going very fast, as registered by your IAS, at high altitude, that IAS can still translate into a higher than acceptable mach number.