Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

More Power

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

Swass

So long, America.....
Joined
Jan 10, 2003
Posts
2,014
In light of the tragedy that befell the RJ last Sunday I would like to throw out this:

Why aren't turbines de-rated to normal procedural operations with the option(in case of emergencies or situations where stalls are eminent at low altitudes) where the engine could make morethan full rated power above and beyond the usual operating parameters for short periods of time without coming apart. Theoretically, all the pilots would have to do is put the throttles into a "max performance" detent and hopefully they would be rated for enough thrust to keep them climbing in a positive rate. Obviously I don't fly RJ's or similar equipment but I think in some cases this might be agreat tool to have. It might not have made any difference in the RJ accident but it would sure be a great tool in the event of a very last second go-around or similar low altitude situation where you gotta $hit and git. I know that the old Lears had power to spare and then some.

Just a thought.
 
Swass said:
In light of the tragedy that befell the RJ last Sunday I would like to throw out this:

Why aren't turbines de-rated to normal procedural operations with the option(in case of emergencies or situations where stalls are eminent at low altitudes) where the engine could make morethan full rated power above and beyond the usual operating parameters for short periods of time without coming apart. Theoretically, all the pilots would have to do is put the throttles into a "max performance" detent and hopefully they would be rated for enough thrust to keep them climbing in a positive rate. Obviously I don't fly RJ's or similar equipment but I think in some cases this might be agreat tool to have. It might not have made any difference in the RJ accident but it would sure be a great tool in the event of a very last second go-around or similar low altitude situation where you gotta $hit and git. I know that the old Lears had power to spare and then some.

Just a thought.

In one word: cost.
 
in the 717 you can go through the throttle gate and get extra power - from 18,000 pounds of thrust (normal) to around 24,000 pounds of thrust (emergency). To be used during windshear/microburst recovery or stalls, etc...

don't quote me on the exact numbers - it's early and i'm still hung over..
 
They could firewall the throttles in the jet.

We have an emergency power setting.

B1900D
Max power: 3950 ft. lbs.
Transient power: 5000 lbs.

I have used transient to get out of a lot of hairy situations.
 
You know, I was thinking about that too.

My understanding is that Comair uses reduced thrust first flight of the day. We at ASA uss full thrust first flight (not sure why). The point is, if they had been at 100% thrust they might have made it. I heard on the radio this morning that the NTSB says their max speed was 137kt. That seems like enough to get airborne with flaps 20, which Comair uses. It sounds like they almost made it. I wonder if they ever went to full power? If only it was flat land.
 
Took off heavy this morning from a 6000' foot rwy w/flaps 20 and used about 5000' of it. Seems like a static takeoff should be utilized more. If we had flexed, we would have used ALL OF IT. V1 looked absurd to me today.
 
According to the NTSB investigators, the Load manifest said they weighed 40,987lbs. She is quoted at saying they needed at least 3,539 feet (not sure if that is with static t/o or not, and i'm sure that is ground roll only)

Here is the article fromm Cnn.com


NTSB: Pilots rolled on despite unlit runway

POSTED: 9:30 a.m. EDT, August 29, 2006


var clickExpire = "-1";
Adjust font size:
icon.minus.dim.gif
icon.minus.gif

icon.plus.gif
icon.plus.dim.gif


LEXINGTON, Kentucky (CNN) -- As Comair Flight 5191 sped down the runway before dawn Sunday, the pilots commented that the runway lights were off but continued with their takeoff, a preliminary investigation has revealed.
Twenty-nine seconds later the cockpit voice recorder stopped as the plane crashed in a patch of woods near Lexington's Blue Grass Airport, killing 49 of the 50 people on board, the National Transportation Safety Board's probe has found.
Co-pilot and sole survivor James Polehinke was flying the plane when it crashed, according to the NTSB's Debbie Hersman. NTSB investigators have not been able to interview Polehinke, who is in critical condition at a Lexington hospital, she said.
Investigators are trying to find out why Flight 5191 took off from a general aviation runway which was unlit and only 3,500 feet long, rather than the runway normally used for commercial flights, which was 7,000 feet long and lit. (Watch what pilots may have seen -- 2:09)
Hersman said the manifest for the Canadair CRJ-100 jet showed its weight was 40,987 pounds -- requiring at least 3,539 feet of runway to get airborne.
Tire marks indicate that the plane's wheels crossed into the grass beyond the runway, and it became airborne after hitting an earthen berm, she said. The jet then clipped a perimeter fence and hit a stand of trees before crashing, Hersman said.
During the acceleration, the pilot and co-pilot noted that lights on the runway were not turned on, Hersman said. There were no indications Polehinke tried to stop the plane, she said.
The data recorder recovered from the crash site showed that plane reached a top speed of 137 knots, or about 158 mph, she said.
During the takeoff, there were no communications to the plane from the control tower, which, at the time, was staffed by a single air traffic controller, she said. Investigators planned to interview the controller Tuesday.
The airport's tower manager has told investigators that having a single controller on duty early on a Sunday morning was "not inconsistent with their staffing levels over the last 10 years" and met Federal Aviation Administration requirements, Hersman said.
The Comair flight, as well as two other commercial flights that took off without incident earlier Sunday morning, had all been cleared to use the lit commercial runway, not the smaller runway, she said. (Map of airport layout)
An employee for another airline, who watched the Comair jet accelerate on the unlit runway and crash, told investigators the longer runway, and its taxiways, were illuminated, Hersman said.
However, only the lights along the sides of the commercial runway were lit on Sunday morning. Because of a repaving project, lights down the center of the runway were not operational -- but those were not required, Hersman said.
The lights on the smaller, general aviation runway at Blue Grass have not been operational for more than two years, and airport officials had alerted pilots in bulletins that the runway was to be used only in daylight, she said.
Did repaving project play a role?

One factor being explored by investigators is what role, if any, the repaving project may have played in the disaster. The commercial runway had been closed for three days last week to be repaved and have its markings repainted, Hersman said.
The airport's director told The Associated Press Monday the taxi route for commercial jets using Blue Grass Airport's main runway was altered a week before the crash.
Both the old and new taxiways cross over the shorter general aviation runway where the commuter jet tried to take off early Sunday, Blue Grass Airport Executive Director Michael Gobb told AP.
The runway repaving was completed August 20, Gobb said, according to AP. It wasn't clear if the pilots aboard Flight 5191 had been there since the work.
Monday night, investigators went out to the airport to try to determine what the pilots might have seen, or not seen, in the darkness that might have contributed to the crash, she said. (Watch NTSB describe early findings -- 8:23)
Investigators probe crew's workload

Crash investigators have also obtained records that will shed light on the workload of the Comair pilots, including how much rest they had between their flights Saturday night and Sunday morning, Hersman said.
Comair president Don Bornhorst said Sunday that before the crash, the crew had been "on a legal rest period far beyond what is required."
Hersman said the NTSB investigation would look at the crew's training and experience, as well as how they had spent the previous 72 hours, and whether they got enough rest. She said toxicology tests were routine, to check for alcohol and drugs.
Comair Flight 5191 was en route from Lexington to Atlanta when it crashed. The plane was carrying 47 passengers and three crew members. (Honeymooners among victims)
Comair has not released the names of the victims, other than the crew -- pilot Capt. Jeffrey Clay, co-pilot Polehinke and flight attendant Kelly Heyer.
 
The_Russian said:
They could firewall the throttles in the jet.

We have an emergency power setting.

B1900D
Max power: 3950 ft. lbs.
Transient power: 5000 lbs.

I have used transient to get out of a lot of hairy situations.
You have used transient? Geez man you have to get in a real pickle to use that. For myself I had flown the 1900 for 8 years and never had to use it.
 
Last edited:
"Hersman said the manifest for the Canadair CRJ-100 jet showed its weight was 40,987 pounds -- requiring at least 3,539 feet of runway to get airborne."

That does not sound right unless it was ZFW.

What is MTOW on the 100? Is it less than the 200?
 
wmuflyguy said:
According to the NTSB investigators, the Load manifest said they weighed 40,987lbs. She is quoted at saying they needed at least 3,539 feet (not sure if that is with static t/o or not, and i'm sure that is ground roll only)

Here is the article fromm Cnn.com

That's not correct. NTSB said it was 49,987.
 
taken from above...

"the pilot and co-pilot noted that lights on the runway were not turned on, Hersman said. There were no indications Polehinke tried to stop the plane, she said."

This really bothers me. What could have had them so distracted that both the Captain and the FO decided to continue, especially with the lights out. I don't know of any circumstance where a take-off would be commenced on an unlit runway.

I'm certainly not pointing fingers, but I just feel very very horrible that these two guys were that oblivious. What was going on in their minds that day?
 
What if it was early and the crew came around the corner and did a rolling takeoff?

Had the crew locked up the brakes and popped the reversers they would have slid off the runway into what looks like wet grass. Most likely a better option.

What if we mounted 900 engines on the CRJ 100. With a "Get out of $h!t" button. That when pused would give you max power.

What if they threw out more flaps at the last minute?

Or how about this. Two professional pilots took a commercial jet to a 3500 foot runway and tried to take off. We all make mistakes and all of life is sorowful (spell). You want to prevent this accident. Don't put jato packs on every RJ. Brief the takeoff and pull your head out of your butt and pay attention at 4 in the morning.
 
B1900FO said:
taken from above...

"the pilot and co-pilot noted that lights on the runway were not turned on, Hersman said. There were no indications Polehinke tried to stop the plane, she said."

This really bothers me. What could have had them so distracted that both the Captain and the FO decided to continue, especially with the lights out. I don't know of any circumstance where a take-off would be commenced on an unlit runway.

I'm certainly not pointing fingers, but I just feel very very horrible that these two guys were that oblivious. What was going on in their minds that day?

Having a mindset is a powerful thing. When someone decides they're correct, the mind has a tendency to ignore or rationalize anything that conflicts with the mental picture. Kind of like when you get the "leans" in IMC. You'd swear you're right and your instruments are lying.
 
Crash Pad said:
Or how about this. Two professional pilots took a commercial jet to a 3500 foot runway and tried to take off. We all make mistakes and all of life is sorowful (spell). You want to prevent this accident. Don't put jato packs on every RJ. Brief the takeoff and pull your head out of your but and pay attention at 4 in the morning.

Because you've never done anything stupid or rushed. You've never had your head up you butt, right?
 
Just a guess, but that looks too light

With 47 pax:
passengers 8648
Empty weight 32000 +/-?
Fuel 5000 +/-?
bags 1000+/-? light
= 46,648

3539 feet. NO way
 
crashpad go get a book called aerodynamics for naval aviators. read it and maybe your comments won't sound so damn stupid. Your flap comment scares the sh!t out of me.

PS it's required reading at most aviation schools.
 
John Pennekamp said:
Because you've never done anything stupid or rushed. You've never had your head up you butt, right?

Wrong I do stupid stuff and have been less than attentive on my flights on more than one occasion. That isn't my point.

My point is this. We have one job in the world and that is to provide safe air travel. If you take the wrong runway and it results in an accident you have failed at your job.

I can sit here and make excuses like everyone else. It was early. It was day 5 of a three day. It was rainy. The runway signs were confusing. They were running late. Company policy for flex takeoffs. It was the 20th time that month at that airport and they were complacent. blah blah blah

I don't give a rats a$$. 47 people are dead because of the pilots negligence. Now call a moderator I'm telling you like it is. Step away from being a pilot and try being one of the victims families. There is no reason they should have to go to a funeral this week.
 
Crash Pad said:
Wrong I do stupid stuff and have been less than attentive on my flights on more than one occasion. That isn't my point.

My point is this. We have one job in the world and that is to provide safe air travel. If you take the wrong runway and it results in an accident you have failed at your job.

I can sit here and make excuses like everyone else. It was early. It was day 5 of a three day. It was rainy. The runway signs were confusing. They were running late. Company policy for flex takeoffs. It was the 20th time that month at that airport and they were complacent. blah blah blah

I don't give a rats a$$. 47 people are dead because of the pilots negligence. Now call a moderator I'm telling you like it is. Step away from being a pilot and try being one of the victims families. There is no reason they should have to go to a funeral this week.


You should become a lawyer. You'll fit right in.
 
xjgearbtch said:
crashpad go get a book called aerodynamics for naval aviators. read it and maybe your comments won't sound so dang stupid. Your flap comment scares the sh!t out of me.

PS it's required reading at most aviation schools.

Yeah, but the flaps would have probably helped. Do it in the sim sometime, just when it gets off the ground, push that nose over real quick.
 
xjgearbtch said:
crashpad go get a book called aerodynamics for naval aviators. read it and maybe your comments won't sound so dang stupid. Your flap comment scares the sh!t out of me.

PS it's required reading at most aviation schools.


Do a thread search. Some guy tossed that one out yesterday as a last ditch plan. My big plan was to take the 7000 foot strip. This thread had a guy using Transient torque on a 1900. I don't know about his 1900's but the ones I used to fly were old. I think if you don't grenade the engine doing that the next guy will get a fun V1 cut.

Read the book the point of my post was that all these smoke filled bar suggestions are crap. The right answer is to take off from a runway you have takeoff data for. The APG book I looked at didn't have a thing for the 3500 foot stip in LEX.

Oh and one more thing. Flaps have been known to shorten takeoff roll... Going from say flaps 8 to say flaps 20. It worked that way on every model I've flown.
 
Using Areodata on RWY22, as RWY26 has no performance data, I've come up with the following using a -200:

Shortening the length of RWY22 from the brake release point to 3500ft, at 20 Celsius, standard pressure 29.92, Wet RWY, Flaps 20, Bleeds Closed, APU On, Anti-Ice off, APR Armed, Standing T/O, with CF-34-3A1 Engines....

MRTW = 37,340

This doesn't take into account any headwind or the obstacle clearance of trees at the end of the RWY that RWY26 would have had.

In order to t/o at 41000, the RWY needed to be at least 4200ft. long.

In order to t/o at 50000, the RWY needed to be at least 6220ft. long.

Does this help?
 
John Pennekamp said:
You should become a lawyer. You'll fit right in.

You should be the one to address the friends and family of the newlywed couple going on there honeymoon. You can walk up and say something like "I'm very sorry for your loss but sometimes pilots just make mistakes. We put two in front for redundancy but you know it was early in the morning and..."

You may not like lawyers but any safety that is included in aviation comes from lawyers. Lawyers show up and start sueing and then if they run up the cost high enough... policy changes.
 
You have used transient? Geez man you have to get in a real pickle to use that. For myself I had flown the 1900 for 8 years and never had to use it.

To make a long story short:

Yeppers. I had an FO rotate at 80 knots in New Bight. We were at max gross with 19 pax, flaps 17. The plane tried to fly but it didnt. Transient only helped me clear the trees. Tried to get the guy fired. Not just because I was pi$$ed, but for the safety of the flying public.

(lots of other stuff happened and he was permanent with 1100 hours!)

Now he is at Skywest in training. GOOD LUCK GUYS! This guy doesnt need to be flying airplanes. Even model ones.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom