CRJ first trip @ FL410
#11
Post-pinnacle, SKW and most other US operators limited the 700/900 to FL390 to provide a buffer for poorly trained regional pilots.
#12
As far as being high, check around. I've seen similar displays of Cessna Citation Xs at FL510.
And another thing.... I have talked to many folks who were at FL410 in the -200 before the FL370 restriction went into place and most of them said it was a bad idea. The margins are very tight there on the -200 and even the brave ones said the airplane just didn't belong up there. My personal record is FL390 before the restriction went into place and the check airman I was flying with (on a ferry flight) said, "Now you've seen it, don't do it again". We stayed on profile the whole time.
#13
I'm gonna preface this with "I've never had the CRJ-200 to FL410".
That said, I don't see any reason why it would be a "bad idea" provided the aircraft weight/ISA temps allowed for climb and all appropriate climb/cruise speeds were maintained. Doing MCO-DCA one night on the go-home leg we were at FL370, riding a tailwind, doing .81M. Sure we were fairly light but the airplane performed just fine and aerodynamically speaking there's no reason why 4,000ft higher wouldn't be a safe altitude in that plane **IF** the crew did their job.
Then again, that's the rub with everything...now isn't it?
(perhaps taking the CJ to FL450 on every trip over 400nm has me a bit 'meh' about the novelty of flying high)
That said, I don't see any reason why it would be a "bad idea" provided the aircraft weight/ISA temps allowed for climb and all appropriate climb/cruise speeds were maintained. Doing MCO-DCA one night on the go-home leg we were at FL370, riding a tailwind, doing .81M. Sure we were fairly light but the airplane performed just fine and aerodynamically speaking there's no reason why 4,000ft higher wouldn't be a safe altitude in that plane **IF** the crew did their job.
Then again, that's the rub with everything...now isn't it?
(perhaps taking the CJ to FL450 on every trip over 400nm has me a bit 'meh' about the novelty of flying high)
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Posts: 420
I have to chime in . . .
I find the comments about the CRJ-200 really interesting, especially from pilots, who have never flown one - or who have never flown one at a high altitude.
I have over 3,500 hours in CRJ-200/700's and I can tell you from personal experience the -200 in not a safe airplane at high altitudes. I have never flown the -900, perhaps TonyWilliams can share his impressions. I don't care what the CRJ salespeople told to regional airline management, or what management at any given regional requires their pilots to do, the -200 airplane is not safe at FL390 and above. Period. It is NOT about lacking pilot skills. It is NOT about inadequate regional airline pilot training.
The airplane simply does not have the performance with any sort of fuel load on board with pax and baggage. In addition there are issues with the aircraft, that in my personal opinion are not totally resolved by operators, the FAA, or Bombardier, when operating the -200 at OATs of -60 C for extended periods of time. As far as I know the -700/900 do not suffer from the same issues at these cold temperatures.
If anybody wants to go rent one by the hour and fly it without pax, or baggage and a light fuel load, in the middle of winter over Fargo, go for it - have fun. Please just make sure you leave your friends and loved ones back on the ground. They don't deserve to take that risk with you.
Rant over.
I have over 3,500 hours in CRJ-200/700's and I can tell you from personal experience the -200 in not a safe airplane at high altitudes. I have never flown the -900, perhaps TonyWilliams can share his impressions. I don't care what the CRJ salespeople told to regional airline management, or what management at any given regional requires their pilots to do, the -200 airplane is not safe at FL390 and above. Period. It is NOT about lacking pilot skills. It is NOT about inadequate regional airline pilot training.
The airplane simply does not have the performance with any sort of fuel load on board with pax and baggage. In addition there are issues with the aircraft, that in my personal opinion are not totally resolved by operators, the FAA, or Bombardier, when operating the -200 at OATs of -60 C for extended periods of time. As far as I know the -700/900 do not suffer from the same issues at these cold temperatures.
If anybody wants to go rent one by the hour and fly it without pax, or baggage and a light fuel load, in the middle of winter over Fargo, go for it - have fun. Please just make sure you leave your friends and loved ones back on the ground. They don't deserve to take that risk with you.
Rant over.
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: CRJ, CR7, A320, B737
Posts: 229
In my 6,000+ hours (thumps chest) in the CRJ-200, I would not say it is unsafe at 40 or 41. I would say you need to have some experience in determining if it is going to make it up there by the mid-30's, so you don't put yourself in a bad situation above 390. That said, I think I made it to 40 one time in 9 years. Unless it is very cold and a lite load, forget about it.
#16
Comair was doing a JFK-AUS (1320 miles) in the CRJ 900. Nobody should have to sit in the back of a CRJ for that long! And even worse, Pinnacle is doing a ATL-STX flight (1638 miles according to DAL, 1423 great circle miles as per Airnav) a couple times a week, block 3:55! Insane!
FlightAware > Mesaba Airlines D/B/A Northwest Airlink #3515 > 11-Oct-2009 > KDTW-KSLC
Distance was 1416nm. In the air for 4.3 and blocked 5.5, had to kick some people off due to 170kt headwinds.
#17
I have over 3,500 hours in CRJ-200/700's and I can tell you from personal experience the -200 in not a safe airplane at high altitudes.
The airplane simply does not have the performance with any sort of fuel load on board with pax and baggage.
That's the only point I'm trying to make - if a knowledgeable, well-trained flight crew is driving a -200 series stretch Challenger and understands the limitations of the airplanes and basic high-altitude aerodynamics then the airplane can get up there every day and twice on Sunday (although it will take all day Saturday to get there)
#18
Mesaba doesn't limit the 900s. I have been at 41 a few times in it. It does just fine if you respect the weights, temps, speed, and turbulence. These aren't Learjets. You can't take off at max weight and climb right on up in any Challenger/CRJ.
#19
That's the only point I'm trying to make - if a knowledgeable, well-trained flight crew is driving a -200 series stretch Challenger and understands the limitations of the airplanes and basic high-altitude aerodynamics then the airplane can get up there every day and twice on Sunday (although it will take all day Saturday to get there)
I'm at over 4000 hours in the CRJ-200 and know it's limitations. What it'll do on paper and what it'll do in reality are two vastly different things. Yeah, a 3-hour flight in ISA+0 and a relatively light airplane you might safely do it. Why anyone would want to is beyond me, but you might safely do it. I've been told the window between overspeed and underspeed is about 15-20 knots at FL410 in the CRJ-200.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post