CRJ 200 Flap AD

BobDDuck

Island Bus Driver
Bombardier and the FAA continue to amaze me with how they are handling this issue.

Brief history:

The CRJ 200 is basically a stretch version of the Challenger Business Jet. This jet was designed for only a few cycles each day and the massive amount of use it gets daily operating as a CRJ tends to wear out some parts. One of these is the flap drive system. Basically the flaps are driven by two electric motors that sit in the central gear bay. They drive plastic flexshafts out to the actual flaps. There are skew sensors on the flaps and if they sense either side of the flap moving faster than the other OR 2%-3% differential between the flaps (there are two panels per wing) they apply a brake and stop the whole operation. The problem is the flexshafts break with alarming regularity due to a number of issues and it is laughably common to get a flap failure.

The other side of the equation is the fact that the CRJ200 has no leading edge devices so the approach speeds are on the high side. Couple this with a no or low flap approach and your Ref speeds can be very close to your max tire speed.

This issue came to a head when an Air Canada Jazz flight went missed out of some airport in BC (I think) and couldn't get the flaps to come out of 45 degrees (full flaps) during the go around. They then had to fly some 200 miles to their alternate with the flaps at 45 degrees and when they landed were about 5 minutes from fuel starvation.

The FAA implemented an AD at this point in time which basically says you can ONLY take the flaps out of 0 for an approach if you KNOW you are going to have the weather to land (like that is even possible) OR you have enough fuel to divert to your alternate with the flaps stuck at 45 degrees.

And then I find this in my company email

The FAA has issued a revision to the Flap AD on the CRJ-200. The latest
revsion (AD 2009-06-12) allows an on-ground flap system reset following an
in-flight flap failure.

A sucessful reset and systems check will allow the airplane to be dispatched
for 10 additional flight cycles.

The on-ground flap system reset must be coordinated with Maintenance
Control, and can be done on or off the gate.

The system reset procedure is documented in the administrative procedures
section of the CRJ-200 MEL (90-10-02) (latest revsion). A summary of the
procedure follows:

Flap system circuit breakers are reset.
Flaps are cycled up and down 5 times, prior to the first flight after the reset.

Prior to each flight after the reset, the flight crew must verify operation of the thrust reversers, ground spoilers and brakes.

Takeoffs or landings cannot occur on a contaminated runway.

Landing distance available at destination (and alternate, if required) must be equal to landing distance required for a flaps zero landing.

So, now the FAA has said that if the flaps break, it's ok to fix them by pulling breakers (remember most of the time the flap failure is simply the skew sensor activating the flap brake). And then it's ok to fly the thing 10 more times ASSUMING all conditions are met for a flapless landing where you are going (all your stopping and lift duming has to work, the runway can't be contminated and the runway is long enough for a flapless landing). Sounds like planning to fail to me.

/rant
 
Bombardier and the FAA continue to amaze me with how they are handling this issue.

Brief history:

The CRJ 200 is basically a stretch version of the Challenger Business Jet. This jet was designed for only a few cycles each day and the massive amount of use it gets daily operating as a CRJ tends to wear out some parts. One of these is the flap drive system. Basically the flaps are driven by two electric motors that sit in the central gear bay. They drive plastic flexshafts out to the actual flaps. There are skew sensors on the flaps and if they sense either side of the flap moving faster than the other OR 2%-3% differential between the flaps (there are two panels per wing) they apply a brake and stop the whole operation. The problem is the flexshafts break with alarming regularity due to a number of issues and it is laughably common to get a flap failure.

The other side of the equation is the fact that the CRJ200 has no leading edge devices so the approach speeds are on the high side. Couple this with a no or low flap approach and your Ref speeds can be very close to your max tire speed.

This issue came to a head when an Air Canada Jazz flight went missed out of some airport in BC (I think) and couldn't get the flaps to come out of 45 degrees (full flaps) during the go around. They then had to fly some 200 miles to their alternate with the flaps at 45 degrees and when they landed were about 5 minutes from fuel starvation.

The FAA implemented an AD at this point in time which basically says you can ONLY take the flaps out of 0 for an approach if you KNOW you are going to have the weather to land (like that is even possible) OR you have enough fuel to divert to your alternate with the flaps stuck at 45 degrees.

And then I find this in my company email



So, now the FAA has said that if the flaps break, it's ok to fix them by pulling breakers (remember most of the time the flap failure is simply the skew sensor activating the flap brake). And then it's ok to fly the thing 10 more times ASSUMING all conditions are met for a flapless landing where you are going (all your stopping and lift duming has to work, the runway can't be contminated and the runway is long enough for a flapless landing). Sounds like planning to fail to me.

/rant
Amazing . . . the part I found most . . .comical? . . . is where you activate the flaps 5 times during the procedure! That is just expediting the failure LOL:banghead:
 
I love these AD's!:rolleyes: If we can't get a reset then we ferry to a mx base. We just happen to have enough aircraft sitting around that we can repo one to cover.
 
And then I refuse the ferry because my manual says ENROUTE USE OF FLAPS PROHIBITED and then I have to talk to both CPs and our DO to explain WHY it's a bad idea (not to mention against my FOM) and then they finally (after three hours) agree with me and send in a bunch of mechanics to fix it at the outstation.

:p
 
I can see it now. They took the liberal interpretation of the FA duty times so they would all quit. Next, PSA will hire a whole new batch of FA's who also have their A&P.

So, did they modify the takeoff alternate distance requirements OEI, normal cruise, flaps 20?
 
I heard they're going to remove the flaps in the 200 and the AD will involve pretending to cycle the flaps 27 times before each flight. When the temperature is below 5 degrees C the FO will have to turn the windshield heat on HIGH and balance the QRH on their head for at least 14 seconds in the final 2 minutes prior to takeoff.
 
I heard they're going to remove the flaps in the 200 and the AD will involve pretending to cycle the flaps 27 times before each flight. When the temperature is below 5 degrees C the FO will have to turn the windshield heat on HIGH and balance the QRH on their head for at least 14 seconds in the final 2 minutes prior to takeoff.

And the way some Captain's taxi, that will be the hard part! :D
 
And then I refuse the ferry because my manual says ENROUTE USE OF FLAPS PROHIBITED and then I have to talk to both CPs and our DO to explain WHY it's a bad idea (not to mention against my FOM) and then they finally (after three hours) agree with me and send in a bunch of mechanics to fix it at the outstation.

:p

I'm with you there. It's right there under LIMITATIONS. Well, if I'm gonna fly with the flaps down en route, why not just do it single engine while I'm at it?

We also got a new part in our limitations that said we couldn't take the flaps out of 0 unless the vis for the approach was above the mins and was trending to stay that way. Well, I don't plan on attempting an approach I don't think is gonna be successful anyway. Then they went and added things like "must be forecast in the TAF to remain above mins." It took about 5 seconds for me and another CA to say "Um....what about 3585?" Guess what? We're not able to use 3585 now until that gets changed. They also said IN OUR BOOKS, that "Accuweather.com" was a valid source of WX reporting. They've since decided that was a Bad Idea, and a revision is forthcoming.

Dear Bombardier: JUST FIX THE DAMN FLAPS.
 
Bombardier and the FAA continue to amaze me with how they are handling this issue.

Brief history:

The CRJ 200 is basically a stretch version of the Challenger Business Jet. This jet was designed for only a few cycles each day and the massive amount of use it gets daily operating as a CRJ tends to wear out some parts. One of these is the flap drive system. Basically the flaps are driven by two electric motors that sit in the central gear bay. They drive plastic flexshafts out to the actual flaps. There are skew sensors on the flaps and if they sense either side of the flap moving faster than the other OR 2%-3% differential between the flaps (there are two panels per wing) they apply a brake and stop the whole operation. The problem is the flexshafts break with alarming regularity due to a number of issues and it is laughably common to get a flap failure.

The other side of the equation is the fact that the CRJ200 has no leading edge devices so the approach speeds are on the high side. Couple this with a no or low flap approach and your Ref speeds can be very close to your max tire speed.

This issue came to a head when an Air Canada Jazz flight went missed out of some airport in BC (I think) and couldn't get the flaps to come out of 45 degrees (full flaps) during the go around. They then had to fly some 200 miles to their alternate with the flaps at 45 degrees and when they landed were about 5 minutes from fuel starvation.

The FAA implemented an AD at this point in time which basically says you can ONLY take the flaps out of 0 for an approach if you KNOW you are going to have the weather to land (like that is even possible) OR you have enough fuel to divert to your alternate with the flaps stuck at 45 degrees.

And then I find this in my company email



So, now the FAA has said that if the flaps break, it's ok to fix them by pulling breakers (remember most of the time the flap failure is simply the skew sensor activating the flap brake). And then it's ok to fly the thing 10 more times ASSUMING all conditions are met for a flapless landing where you are going (all your stopping and lift duming has to work, the runway can't be contminated and the runway is long enough for a flapless landing). Sounds like planning to fail to me.

/rant
How did Bombardier end up fixing this issue (assuming they did)? Do you have any other operational data on the CRJ200 you can share? Fuel burn? Was the aircraft generally reliable? Any thoughts on the ERJ145, ATR or Saabs?
 
How did Bombardier end up fixing this issue (assuming they did)? Do you have any other operational data on the CRJ200 you can share? Fuel burn? Was the aircraft generally reliable? Any thoughts on the ERJ145, ATR or Saabs?

At my shop (the same as the OPs) they decreased the Vfo to 200 knots.

Still have the same limitations regarding weather and must have 4600 pounds of fuel onboard if a TO Alternate is required in case the flaps don't come up in the climbout.

Have not had any major flap issues myself, probably due to the much reduced speed required to use them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
At my shop (the same as the OPs) they decreased the Vfo to 200 knots.

Still have the same limitations regarding weather and must have 4600 pounds of fuel onboard if a TO Alternate is required in case the flaps don't come up in the climbout.

Have not had any major flap issues myself, probably due to the much reduced speed required to use them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Was this persistent flap problem fixed in the 700/900 planes?
 
Bombardier and the FAA continue to amaze me with how they are handling this issue.

Brief history:

The CRJ 200 is basically a stretch version of the Challenger Business Jet. This jet was designed for only a few cycles each day and the massive amount of use it gets daily operating as a CRJ tends to wear out some parts. One of these is the flap drive system. Basically the flaps are driven by two electric motors that sit in the central gear bay. They drive plastic flexshafts out to the actual flaps. There are skew sensors on the flaps and if they sense either side of the flap moving faster than the other OR 2%-3% differential between the flaps (there are two panels per wing) they apply a brake and stop the whole operation. The problem is the flexshafts break with alarming regularity due to a number of issues and it is laughably common to get a flap failure.

The other side of the equation is the fact that the CRJ200 has no leading edge devices so the approach speeds are on the high side. Couple this with a no or low flap approach and your Ref speeds can be very close to your max tire speed.

This issue came to a head when an Air Canada Jazz flight went missed out of some airport in BC (I think) and couldn't get the flaps to come out of 45 degrees (full flaps) during the go around. They then had to fly some 200 miles to their alternate with the flaps at 45 degrees and when they landed were about 5 minutes from fuel starvation.

The FAA implemented an AD at this point in time which basically says you can ONLY take the flaps out of 0 for an approach if you KNOW you are going to have the weather to land (like that is even possible) OR you have enough fuel to divert to your alternate with the flaps stuck at 45 degrees.

And then I find this in my company email



So, now the FAA has said that if the flaps break, it's ok to fix them by pulling breakers (remember most of the time the flap failure is simply the skew sensor activating the flap brake). And then it's ok to fly the thing 10 more times ASSUMING all conditions are met for a flapless landing where you are going (all your stopping and lift duming has to work, the runway can't be contminated and the runway is long enough for a flapless landing). Sounds like planning to fail to me.

/rant
Yeah, the hell with all that.

*glances at date of the thread*
 
Was this persistent flap problem fixed in the 700/900 planes?
Yes. There's no flap AD on those planes. When I was on the 200, one of the limitations due to the flap AD was we needed at least 5000 pounds of gas if a TO alternate was on the release. We did a lot of short hops like JFK-PHL so we usually didn't carry a lot of gas. Sometimes dispatch would give us like 4700 or 4800 pounds with a TO alternate. Legally we weren't able to to take the plane without at least 5000 pounds of gas when a TO alternate was listed so we'd have to tell dispatch to either remove the takeoff alternate or give us more gas and a new release.
 
Huh. Our whip has one of those, and a similar drive setup to the CL600/CRJs. Although it's behind a "Maintenance access panel" that's hard to reach in the cockpit and slightly oddly named because both SIMCOM and manufacturer manuals tell you-the pilot- to access it if the flaps caution shows up on the ground.
 
Bombardier and the FAA continue to amaze me with how they are handling this issue.

Brief history:

The CRJ 200 is basically a stretch version of the Challenger Business Jet. This jet was designed for only a few cycles each day and the massive amount of use it gets daily operating as a CRJ tends to wear out some parts. One of these is the flap drive system. Basically the flaps are driven by two electric motors that sit in the central gear bay. They drive plastic flexshafts out to the actual flaps. There are skew sensors on the flaps and if they sense either side of the flap moving faster than the other OR 2%-3% differential between the flaps (there are two panels per wing) they apply a brake and stop the whole operation. The problem is the flexshafts break with alarming regularity due to a number of issues and it is laughably common to get a flap failure.

The other side of the equation is the fact that the CRJ200 has no leading edge devices so the approach speeds are on the high side. Couple this with a no or low flap approach and your Ref speeds can be very close to your max tire speed.

This issue came to a head when an Air Canada Jazz flight went missed out of some airport in BC (I think) and couldn't get the flaps to come out of 45 degrees (full flaps) during the go around. They then had to fly some 200 miles to their alternate with the flaps at 45 degrees and when they landed were about 5 minutes from fuel starvation.

The FAA implemented an AD at this point in time which basically says you can ONLY take the flaps out of 0 for an approach if you KNOW you are going to have the weather to land (like that is even possible) OR you have enough fuel to divert to your alternate with the flaps stuck at 45 degrees.

And then I find this in my company email



So, now the FAA has said that if the flaps break, it's ok to fix them by pulling breakers (remember most of the time the flap failure is simply the skew sensor activating the flap brake). And then it's ok to fly the thing 10 more times ASSUMING all conditions are met for a flapless landing where you are going (all your stopping and lift duming has to work, the runway can't be contminated and the runway is long enough for a flapless landing). Sounds like planning to fail to me.

/rant

I've had flaps fail on the 200 outta slc. Had to shoot an approach to minimums at flaps 0 ref speed. Flared so long over the runway I had to go missed. Got it the second time around.

I had to divert once to CDC in the 700 because slc was going below mins. While on downwind the flaps failed and we diverted from our diversion airport to Las Vegas. Not much can be done in CDC.
 
Back
Top