It's an aviation site, not a pilot site. Views from different perspectives are always welcome.NK_FA said:I know this is a pilot site, but I couldnt help but post about his......This saddens me very much... I could have been any of us
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's an aviation site, not a pilot site. Views from different perspectives are always welcome.NK_FA said:I know this is a pilot site, but I couldnt help but post about his......This saddens me very much... I could have been any of us
What is the certified ceiling of the CRJ? I have a buddy who interned at Independence and he said the 50 seater didn't like much above the high 20s unless it was cool and light, and even then it was kind of a pig. This part of the article sounds like BS to me... "They flew too high, so the engines quit."chperplt said:Carmody said preliminary data from the flight data recorder showed the jet was flying at its maximum altitude of 41,000 at 9:51 p.m., when it was about 100 miles south of Jefferson City. Both engines lost power about four minutes later, she said.
Carmody said there was no clear indication of why the engines failed. She also said there was no evidence of an in-flight fire.
Carmody said exceeding maximum altitude could cause engine failure, and that investigators did not know why the plane had been flying at 41,000 feet.
"That's the most interesting thing," Carmody said.
I think you might be confused a bit, I think this crash was one of the global express during flight testing during about '93-'95. CRJ's were already flying and certified. Heard the stall spin chute was not packed properly.Airboss said:No, there was a fatal CRJ crash when the aircraft was flight testing.
My understanding is that the pilots were doing full stall tests.
The aircraft was fitted with a drag (anti spin) chute.
There are 2 levers for the chute: one to deploy the drag chute (to get out of the spin/stall), and one to releast the chute from the airplane.
The story I heard was that after the crew entered the stall, one of the pilots pulled the release handle instead of the deploy handle.
He's not confused at all....It was the RJ100 prototype doing post certification testing. 1993.Crossky said:I think you might be confused a bit, I think this crash was one of the global express ...
Its not like its a brand new airplane and no one knows what it will do. It has been certified for F410 and has been there MANY times. The chalanger has been there MANY times. I doubt altitude alone was the problem. A 2 engine flame out on this airplane has to be 1:1,000,000. These engines are just too good to just shut down.Lear70 said:41,0 must have something to do with it... or at least the NTSB or FAA must think so.
The company just put out a bulletin on every flight release system-wide that ops above FL 37,0 are prohibited until further notice.
The media wasn't speculating. The article was quoting the NTSB spokesman, and their job involves a process of educated speculation to form avenues of investigation. All the NTSB guy said regarding the a/c being at FL410 was that "it was the most interesting thing". I'm sure that it's always noticed and they become interested (and it therefore becomes one of those avenues of investigation) if any accident a/c is operating at the limit of it's certified perf envelope just before things go wrong.BoilerUP said:Geez...More speculation on the part of the media.
.