CRJ Problems

[Van_Hoolio]

What's up with the CRJ?

http://www.reuters.com/article/gover...30971520070829

NEW YORK, Aug 29 (Reuters) - U.S. and Canadian aviation regulators have put tight restrictions on the operation of some Bombardier Inc (BBDb.TO: Quote, Profile, Research) aircraft after citing persistent safety problems, the Wall Street Journal reported in its online edition on Wednesday.
Increasingly frequent instances of stuck or improperly operating flaps on Bombardier CRJ 100, 200 and 440 jets have prompted safety mandates, the Journal said. No fatal accidents have been attributed to flap defects, the report said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/gover...40732420070829

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Operators of some Bombardier Inc (BBDb.TO: Quote, Profile, Research) aircraft have until Friday to comply with new restrictions issued by Canadian and U.S. aviation regulators after detecting safety problems, officials said on Wednesday.
Increasingly frequent instances of stuck or improperly operating flaps on Bombardier CRJ 100, 200 and 440 jets prompted a safety mandate from Transport Canada in July to all operators worldwide. The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration issued its own directive in August.

[Champcar]

Originally Posted by Van_Hoolio

What's up with the CRJ?

http://www.reuters.com/article/gover...30971520070829

You've got guys with gray socks and sandals on building the thing, thats the problem.

[surreal1221]

Originally Posted by Champcar

You've got guys with gray socks and sandals on building the thing, thats the problem.

Eh!?

More like. . .You've got guys with gray socks and sandals buying the damn things.

All the same I suppose.

[falconvalley]

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]

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]

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.

[PeanuckleCRJ]

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.

[MDPilot]

Originally Posted by falconvalley

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.

[kellwolf]

Originally Posted by PeanuckleCRJ

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.

[Jason]

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

[E_Dawg]

Go fly a Brasilia if you want to see some CRAPPY flaps in action!

[WAFlyBoy]

Originally Posted by wheelsup

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?

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.

[wheelsup]

You're probably right, I assumed since the Q400 was made by Bombardier the whole line was...my bad .

[JDMcFly]

Originally Posted by wheelsup

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]

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.

[BobDDuck]

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.

[Nick]

Originally Posted by BobDDuck

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.

This is on page 17 of the September issue of Airline Pilot. The crew got a safety award.

[kellwolf]

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.

[Van_Hoolio]

Wow, check out the AD. Interesting reading.

''1. Flap Extended Diversion
Upon arrival at the destination airport, an approach shall not be commenced, nor shall
the flaps be extended beyond the 0 degree position, unless one of the following
conditions exists:
a. When conducting a precision approach, the reported visibility (or RVR) is confirmed
to be at or above the visibility associated with the landing minima for the approach in
use, and can be reasonably expected to remain at or above this visibility until after
landing; or
8
b. When conducting a non-precision approach, the reported ceiling and visibility (or
RVR) are confirmed to be at or above the ceiling and visibility associated with the
landing minima for the approach in use, and can be reasonably expected to remain at
or above this ceiling and visibility until after landing; or
c. An emergency or abnormal situation occurs that requires landing at the nearest
suitable airport; or
d. The fuel remaining is sufficient to conduct the approach, execute a missed approach,
divert to a suitable airport with the flaps extended to the landing position, conduct an
approach at the airport and land with 1000 lb (454 kg) of fuel remaining.
Note 1: The fuel burn factor (as per AFM TR/165) shall be applied to the normal fuel
consumption for calculation of the flaps extended missed approach, climb, diversion and
approach fuel consumption.
Note 2: Terrain and weather must allow a minimum flight altitude not exceeding 15,000
feet along the diversion route.
Note 3: For the purpose of this AD, a ''suitable airport'' is an airport that has at least one
usable runway, served by an instrument approach if operating under Instrument Flight
Rules (IFR), and the airport is equipped as per the applicable regulations and standards
for marking and lighting. The existing and forecast weather for this airport shall be at or
above landing minima for the approach in use.
2. Flap Failure After Takeoff
When a takeoff alternate is filed, terrain and weather must allow a minimum flight
altitude not exceeding 15,000 feet along the diversion route to that alternate, or other
suitable airport. The fuel at departure shall be sufficient to divert to the takeoff alternate
or other suitable airport with the flaps extended to the takeoff position, conduct and
approach and land with 1000 lb (454 kg) of fuel remaining.
Note: The fuel burn factor (as per AFM TR/165) shall be applied to the normal fuel
consumption for calculation of the flaps extended, climb, diversion and approach fuel
consumption.
3. Flap Zero Landing
Operations where all useable runways at the destination and alternate airports are
forecast to be wet or contaminated (as defined in the AFM) are prohibited during the cold
weather season (December to March inclusive in the northern hemisphere) unless one of
the following conditions exists:
a. The flap actuators have been verified serviceable in accordance with Part C (Low
Temperature Torque Test of the Flap Actuators) of SB 601R-27-150, July 12, 2007,
or
b. The flight is conducted at a cruise altitude where the SAT is -60 deg C or warmer. If
the SAT in flight is colder than -60 deg C, descent to warmer air shall be initiated
within 10 minutes, or
9
c. The Landing Distance Available on a useable runway at the destination airport is at
least equal to the actual landing distance required for flaps zero. This distance shall be
based on Bombardier performance data, and shall take into account forecast weather
and anticipated runway conditions, or
d. The Landing Distance Available on a useable runway at the filed alternate airport, or
other suitable airport is at least equal to the actual landing distance for flaps zero. This
distance shall be based on Bombardier performance data, and shall take into account
forecast weather and anticipated runway conditions.
Note 1: If the forecast destination weather is less than 200 feet above DH or MDA, or
less than 1 mile (1500 meters) above the authorized landing visibility (or equivalent
RVR), as applied to the usable runway at the destination airport, condition 3.a., 3.b., or
3.d. above must be satisfied.
Note 2: When conducting No Alternate IFR (NAIFR) operations, condition 3.a., 3.b., or
3.c. above must be satisfied.''

Hopefully my commute on the CRJ operators isn't shot too often.

[Baronman]

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.

[Van_Hoolio]

It reads to me like "If the weather is crap, have enough fuel to get to your alternate with flaps fully extended."

I could be wrong though. My interpretive skills aren't as good after 4 Boulevard's.

[BobDDuck]

I read it as you can't move the flaps out of zero unless either a) you have the RVR to shoot the approach or b) you have enough gas to shoot the approach and then fly to your alternate with the flaps stuck at 45.

Not really a big deal except in places like Charlotte where they slow you to 180 knots 60 miles away from the airport. A lot can happen with the weather in those 60 miles.

[H46Bubba]

Originally Posted by kellwolf

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.

DIN..DING..DING.DING! We actually had to come up with a new rubber o-ring to intall on the sheath to keep the sheath sealed and keep moisture out.

[pilot602]

Originally Posted by E_Dawg

Go fly a Brasilia if you want to see some CRAPPY flaps in action!

Can you say disagree on a 45 into Arcata?

FUN times.