Thanks for coming back! I hope you are finding this information on flying and on the CRJ 200 useful. Be sure to sign up for email updates or my RSS feed.

I respect your email privacy. You can unsubscribe at any time!

 

When the CRJ200 was first introduced into the regional airline arena it was a beauty.

It has high-bypass engines (GE CF34-3A1 and -3B1) which generate about 8,729 lbs of thrust per engine but is capable of 9,220 lbs of thrust in an emergency.

It is also quiet and very fuel-efficient compared to the gas hogging MD-80 and Boeing 737s. I’ve had Boeing 777 pilots riding in the jumpseat that are amazed at how low our fuel flow (pounds per hour) is.

However, as it quickly became known, the CRJ200 had a difficult time climbing, especially once it gets into the upper atmospheres, if you are heavy and if the atmosphere is above standard (ISA).

More than once I have had to ask for lower altitudes because the airplane couldn’t climb any faster than 500 feet per minute (fpm).

Since the airplane doesn’t have Full-Authority Digital Engine Controls (FADEC), you have to continuously advice the thrust levers as you climb or risk losing airspeed.

Keep an eye on the airspeed too. As you climb, and as you try to keep your climb rate around 500 fpm, there will come a time when you will want to consider leveling off. Of course you will burn more fuel, but it is not worth stalling the airplane or having the engines flame out.

Click here for the NTSB report on Pinnacle Airlines Flight 3701 that did just that.

As for cruise, once the airplane gets to altitude it has no problem maintaining Mach .74. It may take awhile to get there, but it usually does. If you really want to save fuel though, Mach .70 is your speed. If you need to make up some time though, consider Mach .77, but watch your fuel.

One more thing about the CRJ200. Unlike the CRJ700 that uses FADEC and maintains a higher N2 speed during approach and therefore responds more quickly if there is a need to go-around, the CRJ200 doesn’t have that. There is still a delay as the engines spool up, so just take that into consideration if it looks like you may need to give the approach another try.

One of the features that I really like about the CF34 engines though is that they start very fast. Much faster than the CRJ700 engines.

Be safe…

Do you need an outstanding CRJ200 cockpit reference? You can get one here at Training Crue Graphics! They are the best in the industry and inexpensive too.

DC Service Switch

Controls power to the DC Service Bus which in turn supplies electrical power for lighting in the passenger cabin and for the external navigation lights. It is normally power by the SERV TRU.

In all my time flying the CRJ200, I have never had any instance that I have had to use this switch, so chances are that I will probably never have to either. Most stations or FBO’s will have AC Power which will do the same thing…and more. In fact, I would be very surprised if you could even find a source of DC power these days.

Note: The BATTERY MASTER SWITCH does not have to be on to use DC power.

When the switch is selected ON, the DC Service Bus is powered.

When selected OFF, the DC Service Bus is not powered.

Hope that helps!

To your flying success,

Jeffrey

Want the whole complete story on the CRJ200? Then pick up your copy of the CRJ200 QUICKNOTES STUDY GUIDE here!

Another recommended book: The Turbine Pilot’s Flight Manual – For a great introduction to jets, check out the Turbine Pilot’s Flight Manual. It has everything a pilot is expected to know when transitioning to turbine-powered aircraft. Includes bonus CD-ROM as well.

What good aviation blogger hasn’t written a few words about the US Airways, Flight 1549?

As my wife and I were talking last night, she thought that I should write a few words about it, but from a different perspective. You see, we both agreed that what happened was both unfortunate…and terrific. Unfortunate because it happened. Nobody I know wants to see an accident happen. Terrific, because nobody was hurt.

You can attribute the success of emergency to a lot of different factors though. Yes, the captain did a great job. Yes, the first officer did a great job. Yes, the flight attendants did a great job! None of those are in question. But a lot of other things also went their way too.

Consider where this accident happened. New York. If ever there was an airline accident to happen this is the place for it to happen. New York is so triggered for things like this that their response to the accident was immediate! There is probably no other airport environment, other than D.C., that could have responded so quickly.

Consider the landing sight. The Hudson River. (You can see the flight track here.) As densely populated as New York is and the direction of flight on that particular day, the route of the flight during the emergency offered just about the most perfect place to land, all things considered. Minimum collateral damage if things go wrong. Easy access to the airplane for rescue. Granted, if the captain hadn’t landed the airplane so skillfully, the results might have been different but he landed the airplane in one piece.

If you remember the United Airlines Flight 232 Sioux City crash back in 1989 which had massive hydraulic failure. They landed near a runway, but things went wrong, and as a result there were massive fatalities. Fortunately though, and maybe a bit ironically, just days before, the airport had run an exercise to in the event of just such an accident which probably saved many lives that day.

What else went right?

Consider the weather. The weather was visual flight rules, i.e., VFR. So the crew could visually see out the cockpit window. As it has been so many times this winter with snow and limited visibility, just because they could see out their window greatly improved their chances of success. Now with this in mind, consider the two points above. Landing site. Location.

Finally…consider the experience of the crew. All were veterans. I think I read that the combined experience of the flight attendants was 54 years. I don’t know much about the captain or the first officer but I do know this…the captain had over 40 years experience flying. If he had just 20 years as a captain, that would mean that he had over 40 simulator rides where he had to deal with emergencies like engine failures, hydraulic failures, etc. He would have landed the airplane single engine each and every time and watched as the first officer landed the airplane single engine. The FAA mandates that we do it and the Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) Practical Test Standards states the requirements of the whole simulator ride. He had a lot of practice in emergencies. I dare to say, he probably didn’t have any water landings.

So, with that in mind, and considering the character and experience of the crew, you probably couldn’t have asked for a better crew and environment conditions to deal with such an emergency. If any one of the above had been different; the results might have been different. Thankfully, they weren’t.

My Thoughts

As my wife was dropping off our daughter at pre-school the other day, several of the moms asked my wife, knowing that her husband was a pilot, what she thought about the accident. She said that she really hadn’t thought about it much except that she knew that what I do can be dangerous but typically no more dangerous than driving down the road, usually. She also said she was extremely happy that there were no fatalities and that she hoped that it never happened again. She explained that if I had been the captain of that airplane, based on what she knows about my training and my personality, she thinks (and hopes) that I would have responded similarly. Who knows? I should hope so, but what it comes down to is that you don’t know EXACTLY how you will respond until it happens. I would never second-guess what the captain did because I was not there. I train for such events but again, until it happens, you don’t know if you will deal with it or cry like a little girl.

This I am pretty sure of this though, Captain Sullenberger was not going to give up. He was going to do whatever he and his crew could do until that last nano second of either successfully landing the airplane and saving his passengers or perish in the effort.

I often think, probably because I’ve been programmed through years of flight training, to consider what I would do if an emergency developed at any point in the flight. I’m sure Captain Sullenberger does as well, as well as his first officer. It’s a habit.

A Few More Thoughts

It has been over a week now since the accident and I’ve waited this long to write about it because I didn’t want to jump to any conclusions. If you notice, none of the crew have made comments or appeared in public (as of this writing) and I think that was the right thing to do.

There were a lot of unknowns that had to be answered first, like:

• What was the actual extent of the damage?
• What did the cockpit voice recorder have to say?
• What did the flight data recorder have to say?
• What did the training records of the flight crew have to say?
• What did the maintenance records of the airplane have to say?
• What was the physical condition of the crew?
• And probably many more…

But as it is developing, it seems that everything is in order, which I’m personally very happy about. Now, we can say that they did their job right! Are they heroes? Yes and no. I would bet that the crew, if you asked them, and when they finally speak, will say that they were just doing their jobs!

OK, now they are heroes!!!

Be safe…

Jeffrey

As you know, every six months a captain for an airline is required to do a recurrent simulator (sim) training, whereas the first officer is only required to do recurrent sim once a year.

Though a lot of pilots dread this training event, I view them as an opportunity to learn a few things, identify weaknesses, and basically polish my skills.

 

There are several manuals and regulations that guide you and your company as to what needs to be covered in a simulator checkride:

• Your company’s manuals: SOP, FOM, Ops Specs, etc.
• Aircraft Systems
• FAR 121.439 – Pilot Qualifications: Recent experience
• FAR 121.441 – Proficiency Checks

 And probably a few more…

 

A Normal Simulator Session

 

While in the sim, you are required to perform all maneuvers to the minimum standards as outlined in the
Practical Test Standards: Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) & Type Rating (Airplane) (FAA-S-8081-5D) handbook.

 

And if that wasn’t enough, prior to the checkride, there is a briefing in which you may be quizzed on but not limited to your understanding of the SOP, the FAR’s, the FOM, meteorology, Crew Resource Management (CRM) and aircraft systems.

 

Here is my favorite book ever on weather:

Weather Flying – Robert Buck’s “Weather Flying” is regarded in the aviation industry as the “bible” of weather flying.

If you need to brush up on your CRM, check out this DVD:

Jeppesen CRM – Exploring the Human Element Video (DVD) 

If you need aircraft systems help, I recommend this book:

The Turbine Pilot’s Flight Manual

The ultimate goal is that you perform all the tasks specified within the Area of Operations within the PTS, demonstrate mastery of the aircraft, and execute sound judgment and commandability throughout the checkride.

 

Believe it or not, lack of commandability is one of the most talked about characteristics in the debrief. Most captains have excellent knowledge of the manuals, regulations, and airplane systems, but can not translate that into commanding the airplane. Anyway, that and what a normal simulator checkride entails is a topic for another day.

 

For me, this sim session was to be a little different because it was a Line-Oriented Flight Training (LOFT) session as opposed to a standard or normal simulator checkride.

 

The Line-Oriented Flight Training (LOFT) Simulator Session

 

A LOFT is geared more towards the “normal” operations of a trip and what happens while performing these duties…with a few malfunctions thrown in for good measure.

 

The siminstructor, outsideof being the check airman, judge and jury, wears many hats which include but aren’t limited to being the flight attendant, operations personnel, dispatcher, ATC controller, fueler…you name it.

 

During the pre-brief, we were instructed that we should do everything that we would normally do on-line. His instructions were that if we thought we should do something or would normally do it, then we should do it.

 

Easy enough!

 

LEG 1: Salt Lake City (KSLC) to San Francisco International (KSFO) – Captain’s Leg

 

So here is what basically happened:

 

We were presented with a manifest and flight release with which we figured out our takeoff weight and trim setting. We received the ATIS and clearance as well.

 

On this particular trip we were flying from SLC to SFO with an APU that was deferred, i.e., broken. This means that we had no electrical power or air conditioning, heated or otherwise, available on the ground. Furthermore, since the air from the APU is used to start the engines, we were going to need an Air Cart to start the engine at the gate. (If you remember, I had this exact real-life condition a few weeks back. So I was very well prepared for this scenario.)

 

Once in the simulator, we ran the normal checklist. The “flight attendant” said it was a little cold in the cabin and asked if we could do anything about it. I said that since our APU was broken, we would call for Low Pressure Conditioned Air and I left it at that. However, I never followed up. That would be my first mistake because as it turns out, if the sim instructor, acting with multiple hats on, asks you for something, they are expecting you to act upon what you said you would do. Therefore, I should have “simulated” calling “ops” and asking them for Low Pressure Conditioned Air. Another thing that I was going to find out during the debrief was that I didn’t call “ops” for the Air Cart for the air start in a timely manner. Oh well…

 

At some point I think I was getting into the grove of playing the part of an actual flight even though I was in the simulator. It was difficult to make the transition because we weren’t dealing with actual time lines, that is, we didn’t have a “real” scheduled departure time. Furthermore, all the elements of an “actual” flight were missing which took away some the realism and natural flow of doing a trip. But, we made due and like I said, at some point it became real and I started acting like it.

 

Next, having our “passengers” on board and the door closed, which, by the way, we “simulated” closing the flight deck door. We prepared for the air start. Again, we ran the checklists that we needed to and got the engines started. The whole time during the engine start I was expecting something to happen like having a Hot Start or Hung Start or something that we would have to deal with, but there was nothing.,  The taxi out was uneventful as well. At takeoff, again I was expecting some sort of malfunction or engine failure, but again, nothing. We did have to takeoff unpressurized though because the weather was 5° C (40° F) with fog and therefore required us to use our wing and cowl anti-ice for takeoff. There are a few steps to follow to do this. The air conditioning packs have to be turned off and the ram air open which means that after takeoff, above 1,500 feet above ground level (AGL), the process has to be reversed.

 

During a normal sim checkride, malfunctions and engine failures are a normal occurrence. If you have been to enough of them, you begin to anticipate their occurrence because though sims usually follow a specific pattern, you are never quite sure what will happen next.

 

Free Pilots Tip of the Week from PilotWorkshops.com 

 

Now, if you have ever flown IFR into or out of Salt Lake City (SLC), you would know that the ATC facility there is both a training facility for controllers and has initiated complicated RNAV departures or Standard Instruments Departures (SID) and arrivals with both speed and altitude restrictions. Our clearance was the PECOP 1, Fellows transition off of runway 34L . This departure procedure has multiple climbing and speed restrictions which we had to comply with and did. So, once we had the airplane re-pressurized, we climbed out according to the RNAV departure. No problem.

 

Problem Area: The sim instructor told us after the session that a lot of crews bust the speed and altitudes restrictions because they focus on re-pressurizing the airplane and forget about the crossing restrictions. Be careful.

 

The next hour was shear boredom. Nothing happened. The weather in San Francisco was fine though we would have to prepare for the Precision Radar Monitored (PRM) approaches. The temperature was warm enough that we wouldn’t need wing and cowl anti-ice, thus we wouldn’t have to depressurized the airplane for landing. The only challenging thing about flying in SFO was that we had to brief the LDA DME 28R approach. Again, not tricky but there are a few things to be aware of. SFO is authorized to conduct Precision Radar Monitored (PRM) approaches. Basically a no transgression zone (NTZ) is set up between runway 28L and runway 28R. Their radar is very accurate and an airplane “transgresses” into the “zone,” bells and whistles go off and someone has to perform a hand flown “breakout” maneuver away from the intruding aircraft. However, in order to land while doing a PRM approach, you have to have the airplane you are coupled with insight AND the runway in sight in order to get a clearance to land. Not a big deal once you’ve done it a few times but again I was waiting for it to happen and it never did. We landed and taxied to the gate.

 

Leg 2: San Francisco (KSFO) to Burbank (KBUR), First Officer’s Leg

 

 

Our trip began normally. In SFO, our APU was “fixed” and nothing crazy happened. We departed without incident though we did “fly” through some wake turbulence of a Boeing 777 which caused us the airplane to bank about 90 degrees and kicked off the autopilot.

 

My captain mistake was that I didn’t call back to the FA soon enough to tell her what had happened.

 

Afterwards, I did make a PA about what happened but in hindsight, I not only should have called the FA and told her what had happened but I should have also checked on the passengers to make sure they were fine. Lesson learned.

 

The flight and descent into Burbank went by without incident, but while on final approach to ILS 8 in Burbank, after the first officer called for “Gear Down,” that is when things started to happen.

 

Instead of the normal three green gear down indicators that we normally get when the gear is down and locked, we got a “Gear DN Disagree” warning message and the nose wheel indication was yellow hashed marks.

 

OK, here it is…time to go to work.

 

The first officer executed the missed approach and ATC told us to fly the published missed approach procedure which is climb to 6,000 feet, make a right turn direct to the Van Nyes VOR and hold.

 

Not having to do many missed approaches, the first officer was a little slow to start the climb, not remembering to take off the autopilot and climb. He figured it out soon enough.

 

Next it was his job to call for the Quick Reference Handbook (QRH) for “Gear DN Disagree” again which he was a little slow to do. Then, once established in the hold, I went to work on the problem. Again, no big problem, the procedure was straight forward IF you have the right checklist.

 

Problem Area: The sim instructor told us that this is another big “gotcha” because crews tend to pick the wrong QRH. They run the “Gear UP Disagree” QRH instead of the “Gear DN Disagree” QRH. The results are still the same but regardless, it is the wrong procedure.

 

Back to the story.

 

During this time, as a captain, I am thinking about several things: fuel, the FA, passengers, alternate airport options, weather…to name a few.

 

While the first officer is talking on the radio, I hear “ATC” ask what our intentions are. I tell the first officer we are diverting to LAX. “ATC” tells us they are standing by whenever we are ready to divert.

 

I finish the QRH, talk to the “FA,” talk to the passengers, declare an emergency with ATC, and tell them we are ready to divert to LAX.

 

One thing I think about but don’t act on is that I should call “ops” in Burbank. I decide against it for two reasons:

 

1. Since I’ve declared an emergency, “ops” will find out soon enough that we have diverted and to where.
2. I’m REALLY busy with other matters that talking to “ops” isn’t one of my highest priorities.

During the post flight debriefing, the sim instructor tells us that some captains declare an emergency and some don’t. I declared an emergency because that gives me a lot more options. I get special handling and I get the emergency vehicles at the end of the runway in case something else happens. If nothing happens, so what. If something does happen, then I’m covered. Furthermore, a lot of captains worry that there will be “paper work” after declaring an emergency. That is not necessarily true. You may have to explain your decision to the Chief Pilot and fill out a report, but it shouldn’t be any more than you would normally do in the event of an irregular operation. Captain’s call though!

 

More Work

 

While on our way to LAX, with the gear down, I get the weather, recalculate the landing weight, and run checklists…again. There are a few new variables thrown in. The weather isn’t that great in LAX. The touch down visibility is 1,200 feet RVR or ¼ mile. I hear him say that and all I do is respond, “Roger.” Technically, I need another RVR reading, either rollout or mid to accept the approach but I’m thinking that I’ve already declared an emergency so it doesn’t matter; we are going to do the approach anyway, so why waste my breath.

 

Brief Explanation of CAT II Approaches

 

Now at SkyWest, a CAT II approach is a “captain monitored approach” which means the first officer flies it while I monitor our progress. A normal CAT I approach has us arrive at minimums or the missed approach point (MAP) at around 200 feet AGL at which time if we don’t have the airport environment, we do a missed approach.

 

A CAT II approach allows us to descend to 100 feet AGL. It’s amazing what 100 feet can do.

 

There are CAT III approaches that companies like United and Delta can do which allow you to land 0-0. Zero visibility and zero ceiling. These are auto-land procedures where the airplane does everything like speed control, the landing, AND rollout. I’ve seen it done once while I was sitting in the jumpseat on a mainline United flight. Very cool!

 

Back to the CAT II approach.

 

Now, if when we get down to “minimums” and I have the airport environment in sight, I move his hand off the thrust lever, disconnect the autopilot and land. If, on the other hand, we get to “minimums” and I don’t see the runway, the first officer flies the missed approach. It all happens within a matter of seconds. I’ve only done one CAT II approach in real life. Very fun!

 

The logic on a CAT II, why it is a “monitored” approach, is because at 100 feet AGL moving somewhere between 100 to 140 knots over the ground, it would be too difficult to transition from instruments to landing, thus the first officer flies the approach and the captain monitors it. At 100 feet to the minimum descent altitude, the captain transitions his view from the instruments to the outside. Like I said earlier, if I see the runway, I land. If I don’t see the runway, the first officer flies the missed approach. It’s a very cool procedure.

 

But as you probably guessed, I saw the runway and landed.

 

As soon as we landed though, we got a “Nose [wheel] Steering Inop” caution message. We told tower and then exited the runway.

 

THE END!

 

Some Final Thoughts

 

I thought the whole simulator ride went very well and I thought the first officer did a great job too.  After the de-brief and after I decompressed I thought about a few things that I would probably have done differently:

 

1. I would have asked for the low pressure conditioned air.
2. I would have called for the air cart sooner.
3. I would have set the crossing altitudes on the RNAV departure sooner.
4. Monitored the outside temperature better to insure that I put the cowls on in a timelier manner.
5. Checked my tailwind component better on the takeoff out of SFO.
6. Called the flight attendant sooner to check them and the passengers.
7. Started the APU prior to doing the CAT II approach though it is not called for.

 All in all, it was a worthwhile sim ride. Both my first officer and I took a lot away from it that we can use. I believe that that is the intent of the sim anyway, to make you a better pilot.

 

So the next time you have to do your annual or semi-annual sim ride, take a few moments to review your SOP, FOM, Part 91 FAR’s, Part 121 FAR’s, and your airplane systems. Also, take a moment to “arm chair” fly, reviewing critical procedures and maneuvers like stalls, steep turns, V1 cuts, single-engine approaches, etc.

 

It will make the sim go a lot better for you.

 

And most importantly, try not to be too anxious about your upcoming ride. More often than not, being anxious, causes you to make mistakes that you normally would NEVER make if you were flying the line. But, if you DO make a mistake or two, let it go and continue with your checkride. You will have a chance to review your successes and mistakes in due time and you will probably see that your mistakes weren’t REALLY that bad and that you learned a few things along the way!

 

Till next time…be safe!

 

Jeffrey

 

Jeffrey is a captain at a regional airline and flies the CRJ200, CRJ700, and the CRJ900. He has over 4000 hrs of flying experience in many different airplanes and is a Gold Seal flight instructor to his credit. He has recently written “The CRJ200 Quicknote Study Guide” that simplifies the systems of the CRJ200 into a downloadable eBook. Click here to get your copy today!

P.S. Some cool simulator stuff you will want to check out:

• Microsoft Flight Simulator X Deluxe Edition – Microsoft Flight Simulator X is the culmination of nearly 25 years of the landmark Flight Simulator franchise, the most significant addition to date.
• IP Trainer – IFR Procedures Course – The only IFR simulator that can show you, teach you and then test you on the things you need to know.
• ASA Instrument Refresher: An IPC Simulator – Training platform for instrument-rated pilots to help maintain competency and prepare for the Instrument Proficiency Check (IPC).
• Nolly Successful Simulator Training DVD- On this DVD you’ll learn how to prepare for simulator training ground school so you can get all the benefits it was intended to provide.

Besides weather minimums, the most difficult topic during basic indoctrination at any airline and out on the line is the topic of Flight and Duty Limitations and Rest Requirements.

Quick Note: To research this topic, to insure that I was providing the most accurate information available (but still see the disclaimer at the bottom), I used three sources:

- My personal Jeppesen FAR/AIM Manual
- the AOPA website and
- the Computerized Aviation Reference Library from Summit Aviation

The Computerized Aviation Reference Library IS the definitive source for aviation related documents and comes on a CD. You can search, correlate, and copy/paste all the information you need by just a click of  the mouse. You can check it out here at: http://www.summitaviation.com.

Now, as pilots, we are required to verify compliance with so many different aspects of these rules.

In general, the regulation, FAR 121.471, “Flight Time Limitations and Rest Requirements: All Flight Crewmembers,” reads that no certificate holder, i.e., the owner of the airplane, shall assign and no crewmember shall accept any duty in excess of the following, nor fly more than:

1. 1,000 hours in any calendar year (begins at midnight Jan 1)
2. 100 hours in any calendar month (begins at midnight on 1st day of month)
3. 30 hours in any 7 consecutive days (the day begins at the beginning of the trip and looks forward, or at the end of the trip and looks back)
4. 8 hours between required rest periods for a flight crew of two pilots (a crew may fly more than 8 hours in 24 hours with an intervening rest period)

These regulations place the responsibility for compliance on the pilots but the company you fly for as well. Therefore, we can’t casually assume that crew scheduling or crew support will keep us out of trouble even though they normally mean to.

So, what is stated in the regulations?

Read the rest of this entry »