RJ Crash Prelim

[T-Gates]

I have a hard time believing the CRJ-200 can ever make it up to FL410 especially without leveling off to keep your speed.

Well...It Did....As many others have said and done. So your point is??

 

[jetflyer]

No need to be a smart a@@ t-gates.

If you read my post I said I can't see the CRJ climbing to FL410 especially without leveling off to keep your speed. As others have said it can be done. I personally can't believe it but like you said t-gates others have done it.

The plane should always be flown above the green line.

If these guys did make it up to FL410 in practically record time I'm betting the results will show that their speed was somewhere near or below the green line.

I'm basically saying I think a lack of speed at that FL will be found to have caused the double engine failure.

THIS IS ONLY MY OPINION, and if the company had no policy to keep the speed above a certain level in a climb, the company nor the pilots can be faulted.

 

[hmmm]

Thats what the airline in questions lower airspeed LIMIT is also. Just like Comair. Listed on page PER-51 of the FCOM 2 as 250/.70 and a 300 FPM climb.

Doesn't mean you have to climb at .70. It only means the lowest limit is 250/.70 and a 300 FPM climb.

If you can make it all the way to the altitude shown on the chart for your temp and weight and can do it at 500 FPM and .74 on a good cold day so be it.

Just a couple days ago we were FILED for 370 and climbed all the way there after transitioning to Mach at .74 and 500 FPM at ISA +2 with a weight of 45000 when we got there.

If we had to we COULD have asked ATC for a 300 FPM climb as a lower climb speed limit for the last thousand feet or so in accordance with the PER-51 chart and then put the nose over to 400 FPM and then maybe later to 300 FPM to maintain .70 and then leveling off keep in climb power till we reached the FILED .76 MACH and then set CRZ power in acoordance with the cruise power charts above FL360 per the limitation.

And I back Lear 70. He has quite a bit more real experience than most.

 

[Freddie Spencer]

They stalled it at FL410 (at least according to MY source in the investigation).

 

[T-Gates]

No need to be a smart a@@ t-gates.

If you read my post I said I can't see the CRJ climbing to FL410 especially without leveling off to keep your speed. As others have said it can be done. I personally can't believe it but like you said t-gates others have done it.

I read the post, and no smart-ass comment was meant. I'm just not sure what you're getting at. You say you can't see it, but then you concede that you believe the rest of us that it can be done. I'm just trying to make sense of it....

Peace Bro...

 

[Lear70]

Then you come on here spouting off about what you found without even an inkling as to the reason behind it, until Singlecoil informed you of something these other guys have been trying to say all along.

Ummm... excuse me *cough* BULLSH*T. All this was started by my failure to remember that TAS decreases with altitude assuming a constant mach #. NO ONE was trying to say that TAS had nothing to do with it, which is what I've been trying to say from the start. If you think I don't understand something as basic as keeping an adequate stall margin, you need to seek help. Guys don't make Captain at as many places as I have without that understanding.

My question to you is what is your company's published minimum climb speed? If none, what min speed would you feel comfortable climbing at?

We have none, other than our low-speed climb profile of 250 to M.70. As to your other question, any speed that keeps me with a comfortable buffer between my IAS and the low-speed cue (as in I'd prefer not to see it on the speed tape at all) and without a decreasing trend vector. That said, this aircraft (and just about every other swept-wing jet) performs better at higher speeds, that whole Lift and L/D Max thing which I'm sure you're familiar with, so I prefer to fly this aircraft at 320 to Mach. 77 in the climb (our high-speed climb profile), especially when heavy, slower is fine when lighter.

You already stated that you would be lucky to get .70 out of the CRJ at 410, implying that you have flown it at speeds lower than that.

No, that is not my "Implication", that is your "ASSumption". The only thing that can be implied with that statement is that I've had the aircraft at 41,0 and that M.70 was the best speed on more than one occasion that I was able to maintain, sometimes being unable to maintain it and having to choose a lower altitude.

Yeah, they feel comfortable at low altitude flying at 200 or less clean, as do I, because there is a lot of excess thrust available at those altitudes.

If you believe you need that much "excess thrust" to keep your butt out of a pickle, then maybe you ought to concentrate on keeping up with the aircraft enough to INSTANTLY notice changes that could get you in trouble. Even at 41,0 there's enough time to notice the IAS trending slower or the low-speed cue creeping upwards; unless the turbulence is moderate or worse or the temperature change is 10 deg in a second, you're going to have time if you recognize it IMMEDIATELY.

I have already stated that your experience is more vast than mine. For you to continue to assert that your experience has made you more knowledgable than others is ridiculous. Experience and knowledge do not always go hand in hand. I fly the CRJ and I'm knowledgable about the CRJ and its limitations.

You're correct, experience and knowledge do NOT always go hand in hand. In the same token, someone "knowledgable" isn't always "experienced". I never asserted that my experience made me more knowledgable than you; quite the opposite, I very specifically pointed out that I had forgotten that information. What I asserted is that, given my experience, I more than likely have a much better grasp on what this aircraft can or cannot safely do and will CONTINUE to maintain that this aircraft will fly just fine at 41,0.

 

[JetCapt69]

Time will tell.....give it a rest.

Raise your hand if you are an armchair NTSB Investigator!

 

[PCL_128]

.....

 

[surplus1]

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, I gotta tell ya your "experience" may be everything you say it is (thruthfully I don't care) but your attitude is cause for serious concern.

Maybe 172driver can't match your alleged expertise or your "command" exposure but, if I had to choose I think I'd prefer to ride with him. When a professional pilot has to remind his peers with such frequency of his "experience", in my book he has demonstrated a remarkable lack of it.

Regardless of what names you choose to call me after you've read this, I still recommend that before you slide into that left seat you should remember to select the Pride switch to the OFF position. You'll have many more uneventful arrivals over the life of your career if you do so.

 

[Airpiraterob]

it dosen't matter what anyone here ASSUMES to be the real cause.
whatever you may think it is (and i mean this to everyone here) its still ASSUMPTION.
the NTSB will make a final report when theryre done investigating. you will know then.

if they stalled it for real, the flight recorder will tell. the voice recorder will tell. they will know. and then you will know.

have patience. you will find out.
enough of this "who knows more" crap about the specific and minute flight characteristics of the CRJ in question. Two unfortunate pilots died.

give it a rest and wait and find out when the REAL information comes out.

 

[Formula 1]

I have gotten the RJ to FL 410 five times. A couple of time from SFO-BIO, early in the morning with only 5-8 people onboard at .75-.77. Once from YVR-SLC at .78 and once OKC-SLC .75. The last time was a reposition from FAT-BOI and at .82 mach with only the crew on board (Captain, FO, and Flight Attendant). All the times with B engines. I wonder if they had A engines. At FL410 you lose your N1 settings (carrots), so you have to use Vol 1 performance guide. I wonder also if you lose the N1 performace data at FL410, you also lose your engine performance information for your Flight Data Recorder and thats why the NTSB dosn't have that information. Also the the RJ has only one oil pump and at high altitudes it has been know to cavitate. At Skywest, we have had crews shutdown engine for low oil pressure who have flown in the high flight levels (not a good thing) and all you have to do is to desend to warmer air.

 

[hmmm]

Read that more closely. The FCOM doesn't list it as a limitation at all. It lists it as one set of RECOMMENDED climb speeds. Three different speeds are listed, but the book says they are only recommended, and you can fly at different speeds if you feel necessary. We do NOT have a minimum climb speed listed in the FCOM.

QUOTE]

No you need to read it more carefully. I have been using climb charts my whole carreer. You need to read them like a lawyer.

The PER-51 chart are the limits of climb in feet per minute and speed in the climb and the speed you can maintain when you get there at the weight and ambient temp. Re-read the page before and the last sentence of the first paragraph.

It does not mean you have to climb all the way up to the altitude listed for the weight and temp when you get there at a set vertical speed of 300 FPM and 250 until you transition to .70

If you were to do that you would have to have the power way back in the lower altitudes.

What since it says you can use the climb speed of 250/.70 listed on MAN-7 determined by operational requirements you are going to set vertical speed of 300 FPM and 250kts till you transition to .70 with the power all the way back in order to do it. I know you didn't mean that right?

No your not and you know this. You will do the normal climb as listed 290/.74 until you have to set vertical speed 500 while the speed is coming back to no more than .70 Mach and then if you have to you would request a lower climb rate to be in accordance in accordance with PER-51 to no lower a limit of 300 FPM in order to maintain .70 to the listed altitude.

I'm sure you don't mean you would let the Mach speed or airspeed ever to get below 250/.70 above 10,000 right.

Again if you can climb at .74 Mach up to the climb limited altitude listed for your temp and weight when you get there on PER-51 and maintain 800 FPM while doing .74 at rated climb power predicted byt the carats and then above FL360 using a climb power paper chart in the Performance section as predicated by the limitations section you can.

Although most undoubtebly you would be holding 500 FPM or less to the lower limit of 300 FPM in order to hold .70 MACH in the last 1000 feet of altitude climb or so.

Now go back again and read carefully what I just said before you say anything else. Because the implication we are not speed limited is pretty irritating.

We ARE LIMITED by our climb performance charts.

 

[PCL_128]

.....

 

[DiverDriver]

Also, please dont assume to much with the pinnacle crash. Let the ntsb do the research. These two guys probally had a tough fight with the airplane and did all they can do. God Bless them and thier families.

No shyte. I was sitting with the guy who gave me my type ride on the CL-65 3.5 year ago and we were thinking about what things might have been going on during this accident. Night, went to 410 after being filed for 330, dual flame out, ADG deploy (loud), lost electronics (dark), clackers and shakers (maybe), depressurization, unfamiliar territory (at night), 20 minutes to think about what you need to be doing in a forced landing.

Having been in 3 forced landings I can kind of understand what might have been going through their minds but putting that into a CRJ situation.....<shiver> not good.

 

[hmmm]

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.

You'd better copy what I just wrote and take it back to Lear 70 and ask him to read it and see what he says next time you fly with him so you guys can talk about the implications at length. You might have misunderstood what he was teaching.

If you want to maintain a lower speed down to flaps 0 manuevering speed and adjusted by the altitudes listed at the very bottom of the speed cards in the airplane below 10,000 and have the flaps out as listed in the profile. You can.

But you are paid to do your job as expected and trained. Follow the profile and your performance charts while you are getting paid to fly the company aircraft. If you want to do things outside what is listed by the performance charts and profiles you can do so at your own airline where you can write your own books.

THOSE CLIMB CHARTS ARE LIMITING. NO EXCUSE TO BE OUTSIDE THE CHARTS.

If you don't like it start your own airline.

Again, I'm sure you were not implying that you ever fly below 250 or .70 in the CLIMB after transitioning above 10,000. Even when complying with ATC who may be requesting a faster rate of climb.

And when complying with ATC level flight speed adjustments I know you are looking at those flap vref speeds and adding your manuevering speed of 10 knots for the weight you are at. And although some do not like it, it does say in the approach profiles to go to flaps 20 when speed reduction is desired below 200.

I know you are doing this and were just wanting to shout without thinking of the implications they lead to.