Are the CRJ-550s Really Coming?

Reply Subscribe

Page 25 of 53

« First

Last »

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

08-09-2019, 05:13 AM

#241

gojo

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Sep 2010

Posts: 2,648

Quote:

Originally Posted by flydiamond

I hear they want to derate the engines as well. Knowing that, it’s 100% understandable why the airplane would need to undergo certification. It’s not simply seats being removed.

Anytime seats are added, removed, cabin configuration is changed etc. it requires a change in BOW and CG at a minimum. And yes, D rating the engines would require recertification and manual changes would need approval

08-09-2019, 05:15 AM

#242

Meow1215

On Guard!

Joined APC: Mar 2019

Posts: 1,181

Quote:

Originally Posted by DL31082

According to the FAA website this aircraft is still certified as a CL-600-2C10, which is a CRJ-700. Looks like they did the interior and re-painted it but didn’t actually re-certify it as an actual CRJ-550 yet.

So it’s type will still be CL-600-2C10, that’s driven by the engine code. The series will be a 550, the conversion facility will add a second supplemental data plate near the aft equipment bay stating it’s been converted to a 550 series.

A good example is N8886A, depending on what database you check it’s will say CRJ-440 or CRJ-200, it was manufactured as a 440, and converted to a 100. In either case the FAA says it’s a CL-600-2B19.

08-09-2019, 05:17 AM

#243

Meow1215

On Guard!

Joined APC: Mar 2019

Posts: 1,181

Quote:

Originally Posted by gojo

Also it has to get certificated in Canada first, then the US. The original airworthiness certificate came from Canada, the supplemental will need to do the same.

08-09-2019, 05:21 AM

#244

FlyingKat

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Oct 2011

Position: Taco Rocket Operator

Posts: 2,485

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyinlynn

Why would the feds require 2 FA’s for 50 pax? Not required by regs

FAs required are what the Feds certify. I heard it has something to do with the evacuations and the Feds feel that two are needed for the size of the aircraft. What you cited are the minimums. Doesn't mean the Feds can't ask for more if safety requires it.

08-09-2019, 05:47 AM

#245

DMI116

On Reserve

Joined APC: Mar 2019

Posts: 15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meow1215

Also it has to get certificated in Canada first, then the US. The original airworthiness certificate came from Canada, the supplemental will need to do the same.

It is already certified in Canada. Transport Canada has already signed off on it. Just waiting for the FAA

08-09-2019, 08:55 AM

#246

Flyinlynn

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Jan 2016

Position: Cessna 172 CFI

Posts: 271

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingKat

Well that would be good for the FA’s employment wise and trying to run the show in the back solo doesn't sound like a good time with pax getting up to go to the self serve beverages.

08-09-2019, 10:30 AM

#247

LadyJustice

Line Holder

Joined APC: Sep 2018

Posts: 68

6 to 8 months is what the FAA is looking at. Probably be less if no problems come up.

08-09-2019, 10:30 AM

#248

pangolin

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Jul 2017

Position: CRJ9 CA

Posts: 4,083

I don’t disagree at all. The question is - has the exercise been done?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excargodog

Absolutely, but seriously, how hard is it to get something that is already certified to be flown at a weight that INCLUDES that lower weight to be certified at NO MORE than that reduced gross weight.

Increasing an aircraft max TOW is an ENGINEERING ISSUE. Lowering it - at least lowering it to within its currently allowable TOW within the CG envelope, is a paperwork exercise.