Type 4 on the upper fusalege of the CRJ...
03-01-2015, 09:58 PM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 1,154
Originally Posted by Papa Bear
Wait wait wait...original poster plz post the memo on here ...this isn't making much sense. I think you read it wrong...the company made an error...or you are taking second hand information as fact...
De-Ice is different than Anti-Ice
I have flown operations that allow up to enough ice that you can clearly identify rivets and letters through the ice...( I always requested full body DEICE type 1) whatever that is...
Now with the unpressurized take off...I don't know because I haven't read this document...
The only thing I can think of is that it's just another way of keeping DEICE fluid out of the packs...but there are better ways of skinning a cat right?
Plz post the letter from company for us.
De-Ice is different than Anti-Ice
I have flown operations that allow up to enough ice that you can clearly identify rivets and letters through the ice...( I always requested full body DEICE type 1) whatever that is...
Now with the unpressurized take off...I don't know because I haven't read this document...
The only thing I can think of is that it's just another way of keeping DEICE fluid out of the packs...but there are better ways of skinning a cat right?
Plz post the letter from company for us.
As it is, the company has just rescinded that memo.
03-01-2015, 10:00 PM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 1,154
Originally Posted by 2StgTurbine
Aircraft are tested for flight into known icing, not taxing into known icing. Snow and ice can build up on the top of a fuselage when the aircraft is on the ground, but a fuselage will not pick up that much ice when the aircraft is in flight. If you really think wings are the only things that matter aerodynamically, then I guess aircraft designers should just stop wind tunnel testing the entire airplane and just worry about the wings. Also, the weight of ice is another factor.
People working the anti-ice guns are trained not to spray APU intakes and our job is not to worry about the life of an APU. And ear drums are not a factor either. ERJ have been doing unpressurized departures for years. If you wait to turn the packs on until 10,000 feet, then that will be an issue, but turning them on just after takeoff really isn't that different than turning them on after closing the cabin door.
People working the anti-ice guns are trained not to spray APU intakes and our job is not to worry about the life of an APU. And ear drums are not a factor either. ERJ have been doing unpressurized departures for years. If you wait to turn the packs on until 10,000 feet, then that will be an issue, but turning them on just after takeoff really isn't that different than turning them on after closing the cabin door.
03-02-2015, 03:57 AM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: Left
Posts: 1,809
We turn off the apu for de/anti ice. Also close all bleeds and turn off packs.
APU is turned back on after. We start a timer for re-opening bleeds and a slightly longer time before turning the packs back on.
All takeoffs after de-ice are done pressurized.
Why in the world would you takeoff unpressurized? This is for CRJ.
APU is turned back on after. We start a timer for re-opening bleeds and a slightly longer time before turning the packs back on.
All takeoffs after de-ice are done pressurized.
Why in the world would you takeoff unpressurized? This is for CRJ.
03-02-2015, 05:46 AM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,231
Originally Posted by pagey
We turn off the apu for de/anti ice. Also close all bleeds and turn off packs.
APU is turned back on after. We start a timer for re-opening bleeds and a slightly longer time before turning the packs back on.
All takeoffs after de-ice are done pressurized.
Why in the world would you takeoff unpressurized? This is for CRJ.
APU is turned back on after. We start a timer for re-opening bleeds and a slightly longer time before turning the packs back on.
All takeoffs after de-ice are done pressurized.
Why in the world would you takeoff unpressurized? This is for CRJ.
If your using your using anti-ice, no bleed avail from engines.
03-02-2015, 05:51 AM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2012
Position: E-175 CA
Posts: 339
Originally Posted by GravyRobber
...but no CRJ200 in that prior experience, so you aren't aware of what a Charlie Foxtrot an unpressurized takeoff really is like. If it were as simple as pushing 2 pack buttons, I don't think anybody would be complaining. Unfortunately for the CRJ pilots, it's a QRH procedure that includes pressing the EMER DEPRESS button (remember to confirm that guarded switch), closing bleeds, turning off packs, and opening the RAM AIR (remember to confirm that guarded switch).
The problem is that it's a heads down procedure for the PM in a very critical phase of flight, that requires the attention of the PF (confirming the guarded buttons) and the use of a clunky, torn up QRH. Sure, it's doable, but it SIGNIFICANTLY reduces the SA of the PM, which reduces overall safety in a critical phase of flight.
The problem is that it's a heads down procedure for the PM in a very critical phase of flight, that requires the attention of the PF (confirming the guarded buttons) and the use of a clunky, torn up QRH. Sure, it's doable, but it SIGNIFICANTLY reduces the SA of the PM, which reduces overall safety in a critical phase of flight.
03-02-2015, 07:07 AM
#49
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Posts: 43
Originally Posted by Bassman1985
Holy crap, who designed that POS? This isn't a DC-9 from the 60s we're talking about, even the Saab from the early 80s made more sense. This reads like a procedure from the good old days when you had the plumber sitting behind you.
I haven't seen much of a problem with the unpressurized takeoff. There is no reason to open the emergency depress valve. The ram air SOV is opened and the packs are off. Climbing at 2500 fpm, the cabin stays well below 1000 fpm, with a bit of a squeeze when the packs come on.
03-02-2015, 07:19 AM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: Left
Posts: 1,809
Originally Posted by trip
Because the FAA was/is/has/will mandate the upper fuselage be treated with type4 as it is a critical surface per Bombardier. Type 4 fluid shears off and slides right into the strategically placed APU intake destroying the APU compressor blades (screaming loud CRJ APU'S?) and contaminating bleed air.
If your using your using anti-ice, no bleed avail from engines.
If your using your using anti-ice, no bleed avail from engines.
It would be nice if the FAA employed PILOTS instead of lawyers.
The CRJ has been around in some variant since the early-mid 90s. NOW we need type 4 on the ENTIRE fuselage? 20 years later?
Common sense would be a welcome change.
Edit: As a side note as annoying as this is, the complaining here is at a savage level....This isn't that complicated of a procedure. Bleeds off, packs off, ram air open....done. The after takeoff doesn't have much more to do than if you took off normally with the APU running. You are actually pressing less buttons.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
