Originally Posted by rickair7777

Yes the press release contained obvious weasel language. No idea what the real story is but I think it's more involved than just being administratively added and then removed from the list.

Originally Posted by Meme In Command

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the captain thing was debunked. Apparently when you flow and they hold you back a few months you get a seniority number for a few months while he was still at Endeavor. I believe he was offered the flow and then didn't actually follow through in the end so he was "on the list" for 3 months but never physically on property. So he didn't fail out of training, he chose to stay.

That's how I understood the story from the Ex endeavor guys I've flown with recently

Originally Posted by joepilot50

Prelim is out.

Short and sweet of it is approach speed was set appropriately at 149 knots per EDV guidance, power was at 64%, 175' airspeed got a bit slow at 144 knots, power remained the same, 150' airspeed spiked to 154 knots, PF brought power back to idle and remained there until touchdown. They lost the gust and the airspeed began to bleed off from there. Sink rate GPWS went off and airspeed decreased to 134 knots at touchdown where the right gear felt 3G's of force at 1098 FPM.

Sounds like a screw up all around. If going to idle is what it takes to arrest an increase in airspeed especially at 150', they should have went around. Or at the very least, only reduce power, but never go to idle and anticipate bringing it back in once the gust is lost. But go around would be the preferable and desirable course of action obviously vs trying to save it.

150' was plenty of time for the captain to intervene and either say something or take control. Both were at fault in this accident just going off the prelim.

Originally Posted by CBreezy

That's exactly how I understand it



Do we know power was idle? Also, where was the PM/PIC?! A sink rate and 10 knots slow should be an immediate GA.

Originally Posted by joepilot50

43% N1 was the official engine speed it was pulled back to and stayed there all the way to touchdown. Either way a low power setting and never brought it back once the gust was lost.

Originally Posted by CBreezy

Yes. But it didn't say it was idle. No use drawing conclusions that aren't in the report

Originally Posted by CBreezy

Yes. But it didn't say it was idle. No use drawing conclusions that aren't in the report

Originally Posted by CBreezy

Yes. But it didn't say it was idle. No use drawing conclusions that aren't in the report

Originally Posted by dera

This was the first video that came out. And due to the pivotal angle, it's easier to see in this video how drastic that V/S was at touchdown.

4 seconds from threshold to touchdown is average 12.5fps. The vertical rate seems to increase as the nose drops closer to touchdown, and the right roll movement will increase the load on the landing gear.

I wouldn't be surprised if they find figures closer to 20fps on the RMLG at touchdown.

Originally Posted by dera

Looks like I was pretty damn close to actual values. 18.6fps Touchdown, add a little more because of the ongoing right roll so probably bang on the money at 20fps for the RMLG. And no flare whatsoever to arrest the sink, touchdown at 1 degrees pitch up, where it had been for the last few seconds of the flight. (per the TSB, normal is between 3 and 8 degrees).

For the CRJ guys, is VREF+5 really the correct speed? You don't add a gust factor?

Originally Posted by sailingfun

43% N1 has to be idle or extremily close.