Bombardier sued over Pinnacle CRJ crash
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't the airplane companies have periodic All Operators Conferences? It ssems to me this information should be shared at this level if nothing else. I have seen much great info passed around at All Ops.
Sem. Sam - While I'm pleased to see an autopilot so stable in V/S mode, I'm not sure all autopilots are this way; Some may be better in other modes.
Sem. Sam - While I'm pleased to see an autopilot so stable in V/S mode, I'm not sure all autopilots are this way; Some may be better in other modes.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Eagan, MN
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Barit1
Absolutely! On the glass heavies I flew, v/s was more stable when temps/turbulence caused fluctuations (747-400), and the small Falcon 900. Also, it worked on 747 classic models, and L1011 (when not climbing to max ceilings, it made little difference, although v/s was smoother). If different modes are more stable on other equipment, well, you go with that. Whatever works. It's just that outlawing the v/s mode, arbitrarily, takes away its possible advantages. Salutations, Sam.
Absolutely! On the glass heavies I flew, v/s was more stable when temps/turbulence caused fluctuations (747-400), and the small Falcon 900. Also, it worked on 747 classic models, and L1011 (when not climbing to max ceilings, it made little difference, although v/s was smoother). If different modes are more stable on other equipment, well, you go with that. Whatever works. It's just that outlawing the v/s mode, arbitrarily, takes away its possible advantages. Salutations, Sam.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jondc9
alycidon:
sadly air florida didn't know about this.
I'm sure you all remember how they got a little low and sucked some trees (lucky for them, they were in an MD80 and not a 737).
jon
[email protected]
sadly air florida didn't know about this.
I'm sure you all remember how they got a little low and sucked some trees (lucky for them, they were in an MD80 and not a 737).
jon
[email protected]
Air Florida did not follow procedures outlined within their cold weather operations manual. They neglected to turn on EAI as requried, and exceeded there de-icing holderhover time before takeoff.
Do you know why the American Airlines MD-80 "sucked some trees" as you put it?
Read the accident reports which are both available on the NTSB web site.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
facts straight.
ok, sure Air Florida didn't turn on engine anti ice...but my point was that they didn't use a flap setting which the british found to be more advantageous in contaminated operations. (ice). the british knew and others either knew, or didn't choose to use the info
American "sucked trees" for a number of reasons...trees grow and haven't been measured for charts, but also a rapidly changing barometric situation. this became an altimetry problem too.
one could also argue that all runways should have ILS approaches. obstacles would prohibit it at bdl on that runway.
if you really want to discuss more, that's fine, but we should open a new thread...veiled threats of thread hijacking.
the point to be made is to share information.
ok, sure Air Florida didn't turn on engine anti ice...but my point was that they didn't use a flap setting which the british found to be more advantageous in contaminated operations. (ice). the british knew and others either knew, or didn't choose to use the info
American "sucked trees" for a number of reasons...trees grow and haven't been measured for charts, but also a rapidly changing barometric situation. this became an altimetry problem too.
one could also argue that all runways should have ILS approaches. obstacles would prohibit it at bdl on that runway.
if you really want to discuss more, that's fine, but we should open a new thread...veiled threats of thread hijacking.
the point to be made is to share information.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jondc9, it's been a little over a month since you posted your thread... "if I were King..."
Thank God no one paid much attention to that line, obviously you're not King and never will be, especially with that closed mind of yours.
You obviously didn't read or remember reading the explanation as to why 41,000" is the service ceiling.
If your moniker is any indication of the equipment you fly or flew, then I can understand your ignorance.
GV, GEX are two aircraft certified for 51,000', how many times do they fly that high? Not many, and if at all, it is after a very long flight, they are light and the ISA is in agreement.
Read the book!
Thank God no one paid much attention to that line, obviously you're not King and never will be, especially with that closed mind of yours.
You obviously didn't read or remember reading the explanation as to why 41,000" is the service ceiling.
If your moniker is any indication of the equipment you fly or flew, then I can understand your ignorance.
GV, GEX are two aircraft certified for 51,000', how many times do they fly that high? Not many, and if at all, it is after a very long flight, they are light and the ISA is in agreement.
Read the book!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
latte tester:
are you saying the CRJ's service ceiling is FL410 or it's certfied maximum altitude is FL410? There is a difference.
many planes can go to 510, some even higher ( in the civilian world). and of course conditions must be present to allow that.
But why go that high? And please, let's not talk about fuel efficency or economics. If you are flying that type of plane, your boss has money.
There are more and more dangers the higher you go. Even other than aerodynamic. Even now some pilots are buying and using radiation dosemeters.
Wanting to stay closer to the middle of the envelope doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.
by the way, what do you fly?
jon
are you saying the CRJ's service ceiling is FL410 or it's certfied maximum altitude is FL410? There is a difference.
many planes can go to 510, some even higher ( in the civilian world). and of course conditions must be present to allow that.
But why go that high? And please, let's not talk about fuel efficency or economics. If you are flying that type of plane, your boss has money.
There are more and more dangers the higher you go. Even other than aerodynamic. Even now some pilots are buying and using radiation dosemeters.
Wanting to stay closer to the middle of the envelope doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.
by the way, what do you fly?
jon
Red Mud and others, I could apologise for having assisted in thread creep (not hijacking, which would have to be purposeful) but I don't feel I should, really.
Coming back to the issue, most comments on here have condemned the two pilots' conduction of the repositioning flight. When I read that CVR transcript I was stunned, wouldn't dare to comment. 20-20 hindsight. On re-reading, though, editing all the expletives and substituting all the Dudes by actual names, it seems pretty humdrum at the beginning. At least superficially and, I'd wager, if you'd read only the beginning of the transcript (again, all expletives and idiowhatevers deleted), there'd be a twinge of envy amongst those who don't normally have the opportunity to take the machine to its limits. A clear night, smooth, empty aircraft, "C'mon, let's see what this baby can really do!"
Then that rapid succession of problems they were obviously unprepared for, never even considered; the absence of what should have been instinctive reactions, almost denial. You can talk all night about the merits or otherwise of bringing back the CAB but it would be avoiding the issue of what sort of training/corporate selection/etc allowed that combination of overconfidence and lack of foresight to develop.
Coming back to the issue, most comments on here have condemned the two pilots' conduction of the repositioning flight. When I read that CVR transcript I was stunned, wouldn't dare to comment. 20-20 hindsight. On re-reading, though, editing all the expletives and substituting all the Dudes by actual names, it seems pretty humdrum at the beginning. At least superficially and, I'd wager, if you'd read only the beginning of the transcript (again, all expletives and idiowhatevers deleted), there'd be a twinge of envy amongst those who don't normally have the opportunity to take the machine to its limits. A clear night, smooth, empty aircraft, "C'mon, let's see what this baby can really do!"
Then that rapid succession of problems they were obviously unprepared for, never even considered; the absence of what should have been instinctive reactions, almost denial. You can talk all night about the merits or otherwise of bringing back the CAB but it would be avoiding the issue of what sort of training/corporate selection/etc allowed that combination of overconfidence and lack of foresight to develop.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[/QUOTE]but it would be avoiding the issue of what sort of training/corporate selection/etc allowed that combination of overconfidence and lack of foresight to develop.
[/QUOTE]
Ok, let's get back to the subject and I am sorry for any creep.
Pilots should be well trained, motivated to keep "sharp" at their skills. More frequent and demanding simulator sessions might be one solution. Bonuses for excellence in flight techniques might be helpful too.
Perhaps airline's should actually judge pilot candidates by their skills at flying rather than so many other things. Perhaps there is something wrong with hiring people that have just paid some $70,000 dollars to your flight school division. Perhaps finding people with really solid real world experience and paying them for their knowledge might help.
I've heard that you can get a job as a CRJ copilot for some 20k a year...but you have to put up some 70k for training.
The passengers get a low time copilot who will actually believe everything the "company" says about flying.
While I do not know the experience level of the pilots in questiong, the idea of furthering the skills of all pilots in commercial operations is important.
In my 30 years in aviation I have seen pilots in command of transport catagory aircraft who didn't know that:
you can go below DH if you have the approach light flashers in sight to TDZE plus 100 feet.
that the big white rectangles painted on the runway actually mean something.
that it is good to fly stable approaches.
that using mach hold in the autopilot controls can make the airplane climb in an uncomfortable fashion for the passengers.
etc.
It used to be that pilots were well paid with lots of time off. Properly used, the time off would assure a rested pilot reporting for duty. Good pay meant they wanted to be good at what they did so they could hold the job.
things have changed.
jon
[/QUOTE]
Ok, let's get back to the subject and I am sorry for any creep.
Pilots should be well trained, motivated to keep "sharp" at their skills. More frequent and demanding simulator sessions might be one solution. Bonuses for excellence in flight techniques might be helpful too.
Perhaps airline's should actually judge pilot candidates by their skills at flying rather than so many other things. Perhaps there is something wrong with hiring people that have just paid some $70,000 dollars to your flight school division. Perhaps finding people with really solid real world experience and paying them for their knowledge might help.
I've heard that you can get a job as a CRJ copilot for some 20k a year...but you have to put up some 70k for training.
The passengers get a low time copilot who will actually believe everything the "company" says about flying.
While I do not know the experience level of the pilots in questiong, the idea of furthering the skills of all pilots in commercial operations is important.
In my 30 years in aviation I have seen pilots in command of transport catagory aircraft who didn't know that:
you can go below DH if you have the approach light flashers in sight to TDZE plus 100 feet.
that the big white rectangles painted on the runway actually mean something.
that it is good to fly stable approaches.
that using mach hold in the autopilot controls can make the airplane climb in an uncomfortable fashion for the passengers.
etc.
It used to be that pilots were well paid with lots of time off. Properly used, the time off would assure a rested pilot reporting for duty. Good pay meant they wanted to be good at what they did so they could hold the job.
things have changed.
jon
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In other words, you pay peanuts - you get monkeys.
By the way, 1000 hours in the 50 seat CRJ, and my climb technique was thus: 250 to 10k, then pitch over to 5 degrees nose up and engage pitch hold.
Speed would creep up above profile, then creep back below, but you would make it very comfortable for the pax and the FA, who had to muscle the cart up and down the aisle.
No danger of stalling - not if you "fly the airplane," a little trick I learned long ago that still serves me well in this world of glass....
By the way, 1000 hours in the 50 seat CRJ, and my climb technique was thus: 250 to 10k, then pitch over to 5 degrees nose up and engage pitch hold.
Speed would creep up above profile, then creep back below, but you would make it very comfortable for the pax and the FA, who had to muscle the cart up and down the aisle.
No danger of stalling - not if you "fly the airplane," a little trick I learned long ago that still serves me well in this world of glass....
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Huck
I think the pitch method is quite fine as long as you are actively involved in monitoring things. very comfortable for all concerned.
there are those who speak of a flight path that climbs, minimal time level, and then descends to destination. they brag of fuel conservation.
but in passenger operations with a f/a food service, it is nice to give them a little longer in level flight on the shorter legs. so climb and level off a bit sooner at a lower altitude (other conditions considered).
jon
I think the pitch method is quite fine as long as you are actively involved in monitoring things. very comfortable for all concerned.
there are those who speak of a flight path that climbs, minimal time level, and then descends to destination. they brag of fuel conservation.
but in passenger operations with a f/a food service, it is nice to give them a little longer in level flight on the shorter legs. so climb and level off a bit sooner at a lower altitude (other conditions considered).
jon
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Portland, OR USA
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Elliot Moose
Let me ask you: What altitude does a loaded 747 go to initially? It sure as hell ain't the published ceiling!!
To get there, you have to be light, and on a loooonnnnnggg leg. Guess what? The same goes for a CRJ!
To get there, you have to be light, and on a loooonnnnnggg leg. Guess what? The same goes for a CRJ!Actually, that's not necessarily true, depending on the CRJ in question. I have climbed the -700 to FL410 directly (on a revenue leg).
