BoilerUP

Why? I can think of plenty of reasons to top convective activity (can also think of plenty to go around it too) and convective activity that can be topped at FL370 isn't really that tall to begin with.

Yes...but as I posted yesterday, TAS from FL310 (very near if not the altitude with the highest TAS) to the airplane's certified service ceiling of FL410 decreases no more than 10-11 knots at a constant mach.

Besides, the airplane could care less what its TAS is or if its a couple knots lower a couple thousand feet higher - IAS/CAS and Mach are what matter at high altitude.

Losing 2-3 knots of true airspeed after climbing to avoid weather/turbulence is a VERY small price to pay for pax comfort...besides, you get paid by the minute, so who cares if you get there 30 seconds later?

Just because you personally wouldn't have done it doesn't make it "experimenting"...especially when you've no idea what their weight, mach, ISA temps or what kind of convective activity they were trying to top.

To me, it sounds like the captain, presumably having more experience in type than the FO and understanding the atmospheric conditions and the limitations of his airplane, made a PIC decision to fly the airplane in the manner he saw fit, resulting in a safer situation for everybody.

------------

Don't mistake what I'm saying, I'm not advocating taking a CRJ-200 to FL370 or higher on all or most flights. What I am advocating is a better understanding of the airplane's very real performance limitations and high-altitude aerodynamics so that professional pilots need not fear operating their airplane 100% within its performance envelope.

alvrb211

I can see you're trying to make a case here. I haven't flown the CRJ in a few years. But, in my 7 + years on the aircraft, I can barely recall being filed anywhere near FL410. More importantly, I can barely recall a time when the aircraft performed well in the upper 30's. And, I wasn't crossing the ITCZ either. It was all North America. The flight plans were filed that way for good reason! Any time we experimented in the sim at FL410, it was clear the aircraft wasn't a performer there.

Understanding high altitude aerodynamics isn't the issue. And, fear doesn't enter into it. The aircraft I fly now performs VERY well at FL410. The CRJ 200 DOES NOT. PERIOD.
I understand that only too well!



AL

Sniper

We're talking about the CRJ-200, right? The picture is a CRJ 900. Just b/c the 900 can do something doesn't mean the 200 can.

Can anyone tell us what the actual window is @ 410 for a CRJ-200 @ ISA and say, 70% of MTOW, or does everyone agree that it's at least 70 KIAS, what most on this thread are referring to as "a pin head"?

Please reference the thread 'Handflying Policy in your Airline' on the Majors forum. Or, simply complete this statement:

"FAR _____ prohibits hand-flying in RVSM airspace."

Now, if Skywest's company operations manual prohibits hand-flying in RVSM . . . then you might be on to something.

BlueMoon

Vmo/Mmo for the CRJ 100/200/700/900 are all the same. BoilerUp got the shaker speed from the PCL 3701 accident report.

Doing the High speed stall demo in the sim I was shocked at how slow you get before the shaker actually goes off.

The limiting factor is not coffin corner (I'm not even sure why this is part of the discussion), the limit of the airplane is the amount of thrust (or lack there of) that the CF34 3a1/3b1 engines produce (especially at ISA +anything). It is engine limited not wing limited.

Now to answer the question. Min Holding at my company is 188 at F410 (36k and below) and that will protect you from low speed buffet at 1.4G.

Max safe Altitude Chart states you can go up to 410 at 37000lbs if at ISA or below (or if ISA +5, you need to weigh 34000 or less BOW is generally like 29k or something there abouts I think).

It is a rare day you are ever that empty to be able to get up there, but on a long ferry flight it is a possibility.

pokey9554

To answer your question Sniper, no, nobody can show us what the window is because nobody has a photo. Nobody has a photo, because nobody has done it.

"A highly trained blah blah blah would go up to FL410". No they wouldn't. A highly trained flight crew knows the plane (200) can't safely get up there. I don't care what the book says.

TonyWilliams

Not quite.... time to study !!

dojetdriver

Actually, it was thinking about this thread that was causing my curiosity. Note the various references that help to contribute to the confusion.;

http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/te...e-fl290-2.html

Yep, thanks, well aware that an airline's FOM can grant them relief from certain FAR's. The two most recent FOM's I've worked under required the AP to be engaged in level flight while operating in RVSM airspace.

Can you (or anybody else) state one way or the other if SKW's FOM has this same requirement?

paxhauler85

What exactly are you shooting for here? Tony admitted to a little slip up and your going nuts about it. Why do you care?

BlueMoon

my mistake the only difference is the Mmo on the 900 is limited to .84 above 34000' instead of .85 like the 70/50. That is the only difference. (I'm sitting here with the charts for both planes side by side)

We only fly one or the other here (it isn't a memory item anyway), so no reason for me to study. Thanks though.

Herb Flemmming

Did i hear you on Roberts around 10am?