CRJ-200 Summer Climb Techniques

Baronman said:
Geez...Why would you never want to SE taxi? What negatives does it have to warrant the company specifically saying not to do it?
Click to expand...

Something about increasing the lifespan of the engines, or at least time between the hot section inspection.

Additionally, they found that at heavier weights, you actually burn more gas on a single engine taxi <15 minutes due to the added thrust needed to get the plane moving and keep it moving on one engine.

However, apparently the company doesn't realize pilots can think, and if we pull out onto the taxiway and see 50 aircraft waiting, we aren't smart enough to shut one down and light it up again. They are big into having the engine at idle power 2 or more minutes before t/o thrust, and they don't trust the pilots to start it at the appropriate time.

Additionally...especially at Newark, to have both engines up and the APU for an hour long taxi would be about 900lbs of fuel...For a short taxi it's obviously less but still adds up.
Click to expand...
You're preaching to the choir...it's frustrating working for a company that, in my eyes, has zero initiative. US Air is gonna boot us ASAP. It's like they intentionally burn the most gas they can. They really only care about the things that directly impact them - if they could do something that saves the mainline partner money and it wouldn't help them out too, they won't do it. Talk about out of touch with reality...so frustrating.

Maybe I'm missing the "big picture" here, I seriously hope so.
 
wheelsup said:
Maybe I'm missing the "big picture" here, I seriously hope so.
Click to expand...

Unlikely man. Like you say, it is truly unfortunate that us front line guys are hardly ever listened to.

Back when I was a manager type, I did my best to listen and respond to everyone's ideas. Heck, our flight school succeeded because we listened to everyone. Novel idea heh? :rolleyes:
 
ISA +17 at FL280 today. In-fricking-sane.

Oh, new thing just came out at our company. Apparently, we're no longer allowed to descend faster than 2000 fpm below 10,000AGL. WTF? That's gonna make DTW a challenge when ATC says keep the speed up, descend out of 15,000 for 4,000. What are we gonna say "Unable. We need delaying vectors?" I'm betting it's because of all the retards that bust 250 below 10K (2000 fpm down at idle is about 250 kts in the CRJ-200), so now they're saying no more than 2000 fpm. Guys, if these pilots aren't concerned with busting a FAR I don't think violating the FOM is gonna stop 'em.
 
Try that crap out at JFk and get your ass handed to you when they are using 31's.
ATC(about 90% of the time): XXX descend to 3000 in a hurry.

This is from anywhere 16K-13K.
 
Well as Kellwolf said- Profile for us is 200@1000AGL, 250@3000ASL, 290@10,000. We are then limited to no slower than 250/.70M in the climb. Depending on where I am coming out of depends on which technique I use. Out of hubs/busy airspace I keep it to profile and @10,000 select VS and about 1.0 until 290/then VS of 1.5 or so to hold 290 to FL180 where you hit about 1.0VS for 290, about 700fpm through FL230, and 500fpm through FL250. At 280 I hit Mach transition and about .70 all the way up to alt. FL320 is about the max and you will just hit 250/.70M on a hot day. What I prefer to do is select VS1.0 out of 10,000 and keep it there to FL230, then 500fpm to cruise. It gives you a good bit of momentum and keeps you at 1000fpm to a higher alt. Only issue is your speed goes up to about 320 then bleeds down to about 280 at FL230. ATC normally says nothing when coming out of an outstation and it gives you a bit more power to use. With the higher speed climb you can typically push the throttles up a bit more- not sure why but the FMS given carats show a higher power setting when going fast.
 
kellwolf said:
ISA +17 at FL280 today. In-fricking-sane.

Oh, new thing just came out at our company. Apparently, we're no longer allowed to descend faster than 2000 fpm below 10,000AGL. WTF? That's gonna make DTW a challenge when ATC says keep the speed up, descend out of 15,000 for 4,000. What are we gonna say "Unable. We need delaying vectors?" I'm betting it's because of all the retards that bust 250 below 10K (2000 fpm down at idle is about 250 kts in the CRJ-200), so now they're saying no more than 2000 fpm. Guys, if these pilots aren't concerned with busting a FAR I don't think violating the FOM is gonna stop 'em.
Click to expand...


Amazing...but not unexpected.
 
Brand X said:
higney85 said:
Well as Kellwolf said- Profile for us is 200@1000AGL, 250@3000ASL, 290@10,000. We are then limited to no slower than 250/.70M in the climb.


We go 340/.84M. Get the heck out of my way.
Click to expand...

And I bet you can finish in 10seconds when you get the girl in the bed :bandit:..... Just giving you a hard time....


The -200 could really use another 1000lbs of thrust per engine more, especially during the summer!
Click to expand...
 
What's so special about the CRJ-200. I was just comparing some numbers and it looks like the CRJs should be realtively good performers (at sea level, at least). What's the deal? Does the CRJ engine lose thrust or wing lose efficiency quickly at high mach numbers or high altitudes (Reynolds numbers)?

Code: 
         Thrust/Weight  Wing Loading
CRJ-200      0.336           99.9
CRJ-700      0.338           98.7
CRJ-900      0.316          109.2
A320         0.295          125.7
737-800      0.313          129.6
 
Minuteman said:
What's so special about the CRJ-200. I was just comparing some numbers and it looks like the CRJs should be realtively good performers (at sea level, at least). What's the deal? Does the CRJ engine lose thrust or wing lose efficiency quickly at high mach numbers or high altitudes (Reynolds numbers)?

Code: 
         Thrust/Weight  Wing Loading
CRJ-200      0.336           99.9
CRJ-700      0.338           98.7
CRJ-900      0.316          109.2
A320         0.295          125.7
737-800      0.313          129.6
Click to expand...

The airplane performs great at SL. Usually outclimbs most planes other than the 757 on the initial climb, but once you accelerate to cruise-climb speed at 10k, it's all over. An Airbus, 737, 717, MD-88, etc... will easily hold 1000+fpm all the way up to cruise altitude, but the CRJ is down to 500fpm or less by the time you get into the mid-20s.
 
Yep, it really dogs out about 20k for sure. The 700 climbs like a champ, I know that much. The 900? Couldn't tell ya, and don't want to find out ;)
 
PCL_128 said:
The airplane performs great at SL. Usually outclimbs most planes other than the 757 on the initial climb, but once you accelerate to cruise-climb speed at 10k, it's all over. An Airbus, 737, 717, MD-88, etc... will easily hold 1000+fpm all the way up to cruise altitude, but the CRJ is down to 500fpm or less by the time you get into the mid-20s.
Click to expand...

Lol...you're so much nicer over here! :laff:
 
Max, it's b/c people over here don't see "PCL" and automatically assume you're a spiky haired, iPod wearing, industry destroyer like they do at "that other place." I'd probably post more often (okay, more than ONCE) over there if I knew guys wouldn't automatically make that assumption of me without even knowing my background.

I think it has more to do with the crappy wing on the -200 than the thrust. All the book numbers are computed on a %MAC you'll never see in reality.
 
kellwolf said:
Max, it's b/c people over here don't see "PCL" and automatically assume you're a spiky haired, iPod wearing, industry destroyer like they do at "that other place." I'd probably post more often (okay, more than ONCE) over there if I knew guys wouldn't automatically make that assumption of me without even knowing my background.
Click to expand...

Lol...instructordude and Pocono Pilot really seem to work his nerve though!

:laff:
 
bike21 said:
This takes me to another rant....APU usage. Nowadays we are told to only use the APU (on the ground) when extreme environmental conditions exist. Hmm...so when it is 80 degrees with high humidity it might not quite fit the term 'extreme environmental conditions' however it IS going to be hot in the back. This soon-to-be-captain is gonna do what it takes to keep the passengers happy and return to fly on us. I am all about saving fuel and keeping the company moving - but not at the expense of losing customers :banghead:
Click to expand...

Completely with you here. Many PAX dont like the RJ, especially the 200 and most dislike the EMB 120 even more. (Any small jet or turboprop for that matter.) Keep them comfortable and try to keep the pucker factor low when you fly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top