RJ Crash Prelim

[DiverDriver]

Sorry Hmmm, you're wrong. The speeds listed on those charts are not limiting. If the manufacturer wanted to put in place a minimum climb speed, they would have made it a limitation. They wouldn't have buried it in a climb chart. The climb charts are used as a reference to determine what altitude you can get to and your time to get there. They do not give us a minimum climb speed.

Well, by virtue of their being a "profile" listed with those climb numbers it does kind of make it a "limitation". If you don't climb at that profile (speed) then you won't make these numbers work. Kind of backdoor way of approach it but...

 

[Lear70]

Lear70, You worry me. It has nothing to do with this unfortunate accident and I'm not interested in agreeing or disagreeing with you various theories. You're jumping all over 172driver and reminding him of all your experience, and the number of jets you've flown as captain.

Well Surplus, you "worry", or more to the point, ANNOY and IRRITATE pretty much everyone on this board depending on the thread you choose to invade, so forgive me if your post doesn't upset me too terribly much.

If you look more closely at the way this entire divergence of the thread started, you will plainly see that it began with a few people starting to question my ability to command based on whether I had forgotten that TAS decreased with altitude at a constant Mach. The bashing began THERE, I simply replied in kind and pointed out that with their experience they could keep their opinions to themselves, as can you.

Hmmm, don't be sayin' I'm teachin' people to fly anything OTHER than the PUBLISHED PROFILES, 128 didn't say that. I agree with you that the speed profiles are limiting, simply because I talked with Terry and Parker a few years ago about those speeds, specifically that when we're heavy climbing at 290 to .74 and we're heavy, the speed will bleed off, but if you keep your speed up at 320 to .77 it does a much better job.

They told me I could fly any published profile I liked, but it better be ONE of the three profiles. If it wasn't and something happened, it could be the basis for company job action and as some in the Association present pointed out, there would be no MEC recourse to get someone's job back if they were operating outside the published profiles and something happened.

 

[hmmm]

Lear70 My dear fellow poster. I did not say you were teaching him wrong. Read my post more clearly and slowly. I know you may be reading these posts on one of those mobile internet cards between flights.

I said he should go back and talk to you since he may have misunderstood you when he (PCL128) said that we have no speed limitation.

I agree with what you just said and had the same talks with some of the good ol boys. And you know what the flight plan is based on in that it is written on the front page of the release. It says "Flight Plan Based on: Best Burn".

Leave that up to the beholder to interpret which "climb profile" determined by "oprational requirements" meets the requirements of "Best Burn" that the Flight Plan is based on.

 

[Lear70]

You might have misunderstood what he was teaching.

That's where I got that... and despite popular opinion I'm not so big a computer geek as to have one of those mobile internet cards, I leave that to "Arive".

 

[PCL_128]

After having a conversation with Hmmm on a few PMs, I wanted to clarify a few things. Hmmm seems to think that I was implying it was normal and OK to fly outside of profile. That's not what I meant at all. Anyone that has flown with me knows that I always fly profile unless ATC requests something different. Profiles are there for a reason and should be followed.

Hmmm was also worried that I was implying that the pilots of the crashed aircraft were flying below .70. I never said that, and I want to make that perfectly clear. I don't have any idea what speed they were flying and neither does anyone else outside of the investigation.

My point has always been that there is nothing in the limitations section of our FCOM that states a minimum climb speed. I stand by that statement. I'm not saying that you should fly slower than profile, I'm just saying that we don't have a specific minimum climb speed listed as a limitation that some other RJ operators have in their books.

I hope that clears things up.

 

[hmmm]

Good job the way you wrote that 128


Mean Old Son of a Bia'tch.

 

[J Dawg]

We have a limitation in our CRJs that states we need to have at least one pack on (10th stage) or cowl anti-ice (14th stage) on at those altitudes. The reason is by having a demand on the 10th or 14th stage pneumatic systems, a vacuum is created as air is drawn into the appropriate duct work. This vacuum helps draw air into the engines at high altitudes (and its resulting high angle of attack), which in turn helps them operate normally.

The fact that the engines need this kind of help from the pneumatic system at FL410 scares me.

As far as fuel efficiency goes, according to my textbooks, the most efficient altitude for a turbofan is about 36,000. Above this altitude, the RATE of decrease in density is far more greater than the rate of temperature decrease. Therefore an engine's thrust will decrease with an increase in altitude. To maintain thrust, more power (fuel) must be added.

Also, any fuel savings created by having a longer flight idle descent are negated by having the engines firewalled for the longer climb.

As far as the CRJ being a climb pig at high altitudes, it is more because of the wing than the engines. The highly swept wing was designed to go fast (low drag), not generate a lot of lift (high drag).

We all have our own personal quirks about flying. For the above reasons, one of mine is to never go above FL370 in a CRJ. No reason to.

 

[tin kicker]

We have a limitation in our CRJs that states we need to have at least one pack on (10th stage) or cowl anti-ice (14th stage) on at those altitudes.

Is this in the Pinnacle FCOM? I have not been able to find it. Could someone point me to the right page?

Thanks

 

[another cfii]

As far as I know, 1 pack in operation above FL 250, nothing about the cowl anti-ice.

 

[J Dawg]

Is this in the Pinnacle FCOM? I have not been able to find it. Could someone point me to the right page?

Thanks

The limitation I quoted comes from the Atlantic Coast (operating as FLYi) CL-65 FSM.