CRJ Problems
- Thread starter Van_Hoolio
- Start date
Champcar
Well-Known Member
You've got guys with gray socks and sandals on building the thing, thats the problem.
surreal1221
Well-Known Member
Eh!?
More like. . .You've got guys with gray socks and sandals buying the damn things.
All the same I suppose.
falconvalley
Absentee Dad of the OOTSK, Runner, Cat Frustrator
Someone tell Bombardier to make a regional jet that is actually based on a jet intended to withstand 120,000 cycles instead of building one that is based on a jet designed to carry executives a few days a week.
wheelsup
Well-Known Member
I read somewhere that the CRJ life was put at 60,000 hours and 40,000 cycles. I think it was over on FI. The CRJ is actually built pretty well. Bombardier seems to churn out decent stuff, take a look at the Dash 8 line. Plus, those CRJ's are OLD...how long has Embraer been producing their line of 30-50 seat aircraft?
bike21
9-5 Ruins Lives
Ehhh....no worries. Most of the flap issues were on the older ones, I believe it is the FECU that was the issue. I have had a few flap failures, but nothing big. More often than not, it ends up being a 'Halfspeed' issue, which really is no big deal. They still work, but a little slower.
Bombardier seems to have a lot of it figured out now.
Bombardier seems to have a lot of it figured out now.
PeanuckleCRJ
Poodle Wrangler
I flew the thing for 3000 hours and had 4 flaps failures.... 2 at 20, and 2 at 0.
Both my 0 flaps landings were in one day. We had that checklist done in 30 seconds on the second one... normal ops!
It's not if you're going to have a flaps failure during your CRJ career.. it's when and how many, haha.
Both my 0 flaps landings were in one day. We had that checklist done in 30 seconds on the second one... normal ops!
It's not if you're going to have a flaps failure during your CRJ career.. it's when and how many, haha.
MDPilot
Well-Known Member
kellwolf
Piece of Trash
I flew the thing for 3000 hours and had 4 flaps failures.... 2 at 20, and 2 at 0.
Both my 0 flaps landings were in one day. We had that checklist done in 30 seconds on the second one... normal ops!
It's not if you're going to have a flaps failure during your CRJ career.. it's when and how many, haha.
Bingo. For some reason, they think that waiting until you're below 200 kts before calling for flaps is gonna fix the problem. Part of it is the FECU. Part of it is the flaps system is just poorly designed. The sheath that houses the cable that moves the flaps doesn't seal very well. Water (or de-icing fluid) winds up getting in there and freezing. As you can see, this causes some issues in the winter. DTW was....intersting last winter. I think we were averaging at least 1 flaps fail a DAY at the time. I had one a couple of weeks ago going into IND, but is was b/c of a bad FECU.
I've flown the CL600, 601, 604, and CRJ and my 2 flap fails in a "CL" airframe were in a Challenger so it happens on that side of the house as well. I have absolutley zero data to support this but my gut feeling is that if you look at the number of flap fails in the Challenger vs. the CRJ it's going to be roughly the same frequency per hour it's jus that the CRJ fleet flies way more hours than the Challenger fleet - but like I said, pure speculation.
There is also a difference of how the airplanes are typically flown profile-wise - having been in both communities, I can tell you that the corporate guys tend to extend the flaps at lower airspeeds whereas the CRJ guys tend to call for flaps at faster airspeeds closer to the flap limit speeds...it shouldn't make a difference but maybe it does? I dunno...
Jason
There is also a difference of how the airplanes are typically flown profile-wise - having been in both communities, I can tell you that the corporate guys tend to extend the flaps at lower airspeeds whereas the CRJ guys tend to call for flaps at faster airspeeds closer to the flap limit speeds...it shouldn't make a difference but maybe it does? I dunno...
Jason
WAFlyBoy
Well-Known Member
Ahem.... Who told you the Dash-8 is a Bombardier product? DeHavilland gets the credit for that one in my book. Ok, so the Q400 did come off Bombardier's drawing board, but not without it's share of problems.
JDMcFly
New Member
You're probably right, I assumed since the Q400 was made by Bombardier the whole line was...my bad
Dehavilland Canada originally built and designed the Dash-8, then continued it as Dehavilland (owned by Boeing) through the early 90s. Bombardier bought Dehavilland from Boeing, and so the story goes.
drummerboy
Well-Known Member
Have any of you guys had a scary flap failure?
I've been flying on a few occasions where an RJ had flap problems.
On one of them the flaps were stuck down on a missed approach. Because of lower altitude and airspeed the airplane was running on fumes by the time it got to the alternate.
On another the flaps would not go down and the runway condition was not the best for braking. I think they ended up using almost every foot of that runway.
Some flap problems are no big deal (i've had to fly the odd flight at slow speed with flaps frozen down) but some can turn into a not so nice situation.
I've been flying on a few occasions where an RJ had flap problems.
On one of them the flaps were stuck down on a missed approach. Because of lower altitude and airspeed the airplane was running on fumes by the time it got to the alternate.
On another the flaps would not go down and the runway condition was not the best for braking. I think they ended up using almost every foot of that runway.
Some flap problems are no big deal (i've had to fly the odd flight at slow speed with flaps frozen down) but some can turn into a not so nice situation.
BobDDuck
Island Bus Driver
Two separate things... The problem with the flaps on the CRJ is mostly related to the early versions. They fixed the problem (mostly) in the new air frames. I've had 1 failure at 20 early on and nothing since then. The worst one I've heard of was a Air Canada Jazz 200 that went missed on an ILS and couldn't get the flaps out of 45. They had to fly something like 150 miles with the flaps out to get to another airport with an ILS. They ended up landing with something like 10 minutes in the tanks.
The second issue is that the CRJ was designed for more flight time then cycles, but the way it is often flown, the cycles pile up much faster then the flight time. It will be interesting to see how it shakes out when the earlier models start getting pulled off line.
The second issue is that the CRJ was designed for more flight time then cycles, but the way it is often flown, the cycles pile up much faster then the flight time. It will be interesting to see how it shakes out when the earlier models start getting pulled off line.
Nick
Well-Known Member
This is on page 17 of the September issue of Airline Pilot. The crew got a safety award.
kellwolf
Piece of Trash
I've had it fail at 0 twice. Once was during the winter coming into CLE with a freshly plowed runway. Nice and long, so that was good. The second one was coming into IND at night. Once again, nice and long. I've had it fail at 42 on short final into DTW, too.
I know with PCL our flaps 20/8 speed is a LOT lower than the actual speed. I think the placard says something in the 235 range, and our flaps extension for flaps 20/8 is 215 kts. I think it has more to do with MX inspections and saving a buck there than anything else, though.
I know with PCL our flaps 20/8 speed is a LOT lower than the actual speed. I think the placard says something in the 235 range, and our flaps extension for flaps 20/8 is 215 kts. I think it has more to do with MX inspections and saving a buck there than anything else, though.
Van_Hoolio
Well-Known Member
Wow, check out the AD. Interesting reading.
Hopefully my commute on the CRJ operators isn't shot too often.
Baronman
Well-Known Member
This AD doesn't look like it will affect the dispatching of flights too much.
It says you can't move the flaps without one of the following, one of them being the visibility above the approach minimums. It's pretty rare that we're being vectored for an approach, presumably extending flaps while the visibility is still below minimums for the approach.
The only reason you'd need the fuel to get to your alternate with flaps extended is if you planned on moving the flaps while the visibility is below mins for the approach.
That's the way I read it at least....doesn't matter, luckily the ERJ flaps work.
It says you can't move the flaps without one of the following, one of them being the visibility above the approach minimums. It's pretty rare that we're being vectored for an approach, presumably extending flaps while the visibility is still below minimums for the approach.
The only reason you'd need the fuel to get to your alternate with flaps extended is if you planned on moving the flaps while the visibility is below mins for the approach.
That's the way I read it at least....doesn't matter, luckily the ERJ flaps work.