Flaps Failing is no fun

Who told you to flare at 175 kts? In the DC-9 and 737, flaring with no flaps really extends your float.

While, I'm not a CRJ puke, I'll bet if you just hold your attitude and let the beast land, you wouldn't have plopped down so hard at the end...the flare caused that.
 
Velo, that won't work in the CRJ. The thing will hit really dang hard, and it'll probably be enough to require a hard landing inspection. Doing that in the sim will get you the "red screen of death." You need to flare, but just barely.
 
mrivc211 said:
You just tell them only what they need to know. First speak to your FA to get them in the loop. Then, just be honest, but only tell them what they need to know. Or your gonna get a guy in the back trying to quarterback the whole thing till you get there.
Click to expand...

Ah yes...the dreaded flaps faile at zero in the 200. I had it last winter during a snowstorm in GRR with not enough fuel to get anywhere else. Nothing like 175kts in 1 mile blowing snow to a contaminated runway to pucker you up a little bit. I had to go to the Cantina after that and get some of those $3 pitchers of PBR!!!!


It's funny how you talk to folks and the flaps NEVER seem to fail when the weather is good.

The other right of passage in the CRJ is having a window shatter on you. Can't wait for that one.
 
BobDDuck said:
Actually the flaps are a huge problem on the CR2. I don't think the JungleJet or the bigger Canadian Specials have that problem.

The CR2 flaps are driven by two electric motors that sit in the main landing gear bays. They drive "flex shafts" which drive the individual flaps on each side down. There are about a hundred things that can go wrong with the system and if any of them do, it freezes the flaps right there.
Click to expand...

PDU's (Power Drive Units). This week has not been kind to us with flap fails. The problem is the flap actuators. They're real P.O.S.! Water gets into the actuator via the shaft that conects to the flap, and freezes at altitude or if the OAT is less than 32 degrees. Can't be duplicated on the ground. Just one of those things. We used to leave the flaps at 20 during turns, but now the new thing is they have to be up during de-icing and are lowered just before takeoff.
 
Maximillian_Jenius said:
...I never heard about Airbus or Boeing jets having flaps fail.
Click to expand...



It happens Max, but perhaps not as often as a CRJ. I had a 737-700 flaps up landing in Tucson a few months ago. A news helicopter was just off the final approach path trying to catch the impending carnage live. Unfortunately for them, it was uneventful.
 
calcapt said:
It happens Max, but perhaps not as often as a CRJ. I had a 737-700 flaps up landing in Tucson a few months ago. A news helicopter was just off the final approach path trying to catch the impending carnage live. Unfortunately for them, it was uneventful.
Click to expand...

Wow, so you mean to tell me that mainline aircraft still fly into my home town?

Being semi sarcastic, but geez, when I was last there (Christmas) that airport was RJ heaven.

A stark contrast from the 80.

When it was all 727, 737, MD-80's and DC 9's!
 
Velocipede said:
Who told you to flare at 175 kts? In the DC-9 and 737, flaring with no flaps really extends your float.

While, I'm not a CRJ puke, I'll bet if you just hold your attitude and let the beast land, you wouldn't have plopped down so hard at the end...the flare caused that.
Click to expand...

Did a 0 flaps landing on my type ride for the Guppy, it's a completely different approach and landing.
 
H46Bubba said:
We used to leave the flaps at 20 during turns, but now the new thing is they have to be up during de-icing and are lowered just before takeoff.
Click to expand...


We've got something similar. We leave 'em up for type 1, the put them down for type 4. Not sure if it helps. The good news is my two flaps fails back to back were both on days when it was clear and a million. It was just $*&$ing cold.

IMO, instead of all the guesswork involved in stopping the "flaps fail" messages, Bombardier needs to work on a design fix. If it were just one operator, you could say it was a MX dept issue. But this happens every year at every operator that flies the -200. At the very least, if I were an airline, I'd be looking at some $$$ from Bombardier to compensate for the increased MX costs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top