View Single Post
Old 04-20-2008, 05:50 PM
  #8  
higney85
Property of Scheduling
 
higney85's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: Bus driver
Posts: 2,529
Default

Originally Posted by schone View Post
A very interesting topic indeed. However, I only have one little problem with your numbers.... Our limitation calls for a min climb speed of 250KIAS to the point where it marries .70M. That only occurs at roughly FL320.

So for all our tight captains that seem to see you climb at 250 and .67M at some odd level (say.... 290...) and then get all antsy and tell you to speed up to .70 because that's what our book says.... NEWSFLASH!

That only occurs at FL320 and only on the longer flights the mach becomes a limiter for our climb speeds.
I don't know about that one... What alt will you indicate (roughly) .74M and 290IAS... about FL280. I was up at FL340 and FL360 this past week and we were just below the 250IAS but we were doing well above .70M. I never was below 250IAS or .70M in the climb up to FL360 although our initial level off was FL300 and we let it accelerate before climbing and climbed at 500fpm for a healthy margin above .70. I will keep looking but keep in mind mach transition is actually different depending on temp and the aircraft (at least how I understand it). The CRJ transitions at 31,600 where our planning is FL280 and higher a .74M cruise. I may be wrong and this is the point of discussion so keep the comments coming. I am debating on making a formal proposal to Flight Standards about this. This would be fun to deal with in addition to the new checklists... yea we are getting another checklist revision (a few actually). I personally like the changes...


I also have no problem bringing out documentation to prove a CA wrong. Safety is first but keep in mind many of the crusty guys only flew tprops before the RJ. I have flown with some guys who want to stay low just so they have a "margin". I am not condoning anyone go outside the aircraft's operation envelope, yet utilizing the aircraft to max efficiency should not be a topic of contention. I will do some more research myself but the RJ does have a large operation envelope. I just wish it had another 1000lbs of thrust per side and fadec. I guess I will need to fly the -900....

Last edited by higney85; 04-20-2008 at 05:56 PM.
higney85 is online now