Slow climb?

NJA_Capt · July 2nd, 2005, 08:17

You have just taken off from KBOS for a max endurance flight to KSJC. You are planned to arrive at your destination with legal reserves of fuel, plus a few extra pounds. In order for your fuel planning to work, you must fly at or above FL430. Your flight planning has you at cruise altitude within :40 min of departure from KBOS.

Your typical climb rate is 4000 fpm initially and 1500 fpm til the top of the climb. However, soon after takeoff, ATC places you behind several CRJs climbing at 500 fpm to FL350. You will now not be at FL430 nowhere near :40.

You also haven't eaten in 7hours, your crew food is in the cabinet, and you can't eat with the O2 mask on. You are climbing in wx, with moderate chop until you reach cruise altitude.

Kingairer · July 4th, 2005, 00:38

Thats funny that you threw that in there about RJs and 500FPM, you dont miss an oppurtunity do ya!

If this were me, and plug it into the FMS and compare the info based on FL430 cruise and the new altitude. If it look ugly then maybe plug in LRC and look to see if that makes a prettier number. In any event im required to call dispatch in a situation such as this and it will be somewhat of a joint decision on what to do from there.

Doug Taylor · July 4th, 2005, 02:15

I'll probably catch some slack for this, but I'm also in the school of thought that 500 fpm to cruise altitude ought to be reason enough to keep that aircraft in the lower flight levels until everyone else with better performance has climb to cruise.

I wish Bombardier had installed beefier engines on the CRJ's so they could climb.

Mr_Creepy · July 4th, 2005, 06:41

[ QUOTE ]
I'll probably catch some slack for this, but I'm also in the school of thought that 500 fpm to cruise altitude ought to be reason enough to keep that aircraft in the lower flight levels until everyone else with better performance has climb to cruise.

I wish Bombardier had installed beefier engines on the CRJ's so they could climb.

[/ QUOTE ]

I jumpseated home from Berlin with a Bombardier design engineer. He explained that the big problem was not the engines but the wing. The CRJ has the same wing as the Challenger, which he called a "cruise wing" - good for long haul fuel economy. He said in afterthought that there is no way that should have been put on a "regional jet."

Supposedly the 700 and 900 were to have a "climb wing." I got out of the rat race before I found out.

JAM · July 7th, 2005, 22:26

[ QUOTE ]
I'll probably catch some slack for this, but I'm also in the school of thought that 500 fpm to cruise altitude ought to be reason enough to keep that aircraft in the lower flight levels until everyone else with better performance has climb to cruise.

I wish Bombardier had installed beefier engines on the CRJ's so they could climb.

[/ QUOTE ]

Man, don't we all!

C650CPT · July 8th, 2005, 08:23

[ QUOTE ]
500 fpm to cruise altitude ought to be reason enough to keep that aircraft in the lower flight levels.

[/ QUOTE ]

It just depends. For us, if ISA is + our climb can slow down to less than 1000 fpm in the upper 30's enroute to the low 40's. I rationalize that if I'm climbing slower it's a good chance others are also, and also by the time my climb slows down I'm usually above most other's cruise altitudes. Even with the reduced performance I can still steam up to .80+ once level. Temp at altitude really effects our performance.

Jim

brandonv · July 20th, 2005, 23:44

[ QUOTE ]
You have just taken off from KBOS for a max endurance flight to KSJC. You are planned to arrive at your destination with legal reserves of fuel, plus a few extra pounds. In order for your fuel planning to work, you must fly at or above FL430. Your flight planning has you at cruise altitude within :40 min of departure from KBOS.

Your typical climb rate is 4000 fpm initially and 1500 fpm til the top of the climb. However, soon after takeoff, ATC places you behind several CRJs climbing at 500 fpm to FL350. You will now not be at FL430 nowhere near :40.

You also haven't eaten in 7hours, your crew food is in the cabinet, and you can't eat with the O2 mask on. You are climbing in wx, with moderate chop until you reach cruise altitude.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd keep going. You've got a reserve just for this reason. Of course, keep an eye on your fuel and maybe tell ATC that you need to climb for better fuel rates.

Doug Taylor · July 21st, 2005, 14:40

Not exactly. At least not in my opinion. This is an assumption, but I bet the FAA would probably want the pilot to arrive at the airport with bare minimum IFR reserves unless there was an emergency situation.

MikeD · July 21st, 2005, 14:46

You mean the FAA doesn't subscribe to "if the minimums weren't good enough, they wouldn't be the minimums" theory?

Doug Taylor · July 21st, 2005, 14:52

All I know is that if I was PIC, I'd do what I had to do in order to land at my destination with no less than minimum IFR reserves. If that meant telling ATC that we'd have to land short if we stay at the altitude for another 15 to 20 minutes, so be it.

I know a guy that did a diversion into another airport because if he held until the EFC time, which they were rapidly approaching, they'd land at their original destination with less than minimum IFR reserves.

If you bring in a dry aircraft, "that's what the reserves are for" isn't going to cut it with the inspector.

MikeD · July 21st, 2005, 15:02

[ QUOTE ]
All I know is that if I was PIC, I'd do what I had to do in order to land at my destination with no less than minimum IFR reserves. If that meant telling ATC that we'd have to land short if we stay at the altitude for another 15 to 20 minutes, so be it.

I know a guy that did a diversion into another airport because if he held until the EFC time, which they were rapidly approaching, they'd land at their original destination with less than minimum IFR reserves.

If you bring in a dry aircraft, "that's what the reserves are for" isn't going to cut it with the inspector.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. I'm pretty conservative when it comes to fuel (aside from combat, when that was the first time I'd seen both fuel-low lights on at the same time while in hard IMC feeling for the tanker). Fuel is just one of those things you don't mess with. And the reserve isn't there for "a little extra"; it's there for a legitimate bind such as an emergency, not as a stretch to normal ops.

You think people would learn from Avianca 052 in Cove Neck, New York, the danger of cutting into reserves (among other problems with that flight).

But people still stretch fuel.

Matt777 · August 18th, 2005, 20:26

[ QUOTE ]

I jumpseated home from Berlin with a Bombardier design engineer. He explained that the big problem was not the engines but the wing. The CRJ has the same wing as the Challenger, which he called a "cruise wing" - good for long haul fuel economy. He said in afterthought that there is no way that should have been put on a "regional jet."

Supposedly the 700 and 900 were to have a "climb wing." I got out of the rat race before I found out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi everyone- I'm pretty new here and have only posted in the ATP forum since I plan to go there... I just got my PPL yesterday. I do enjoy flying jets on flightsim, but I have never flown anything bigger than a 172!

What the CRJ engineer said makes me wonder what Vfe is for the CRJ and what the first notch of flaps is on a CRJ.

Hard to believe that they used a wing that they shouldn't have but you would think that they could have made a "patch" for it by making the flaps strong enough that you could deploy them by 1 or 2 degrees for climb and in effect make it more of a climb wing without adding too much drag.

Several years back Singapore Airlines was not happy with the Airbus A340s they had because the high wing loading caused by having too little wing area reduced the climb rate so much.

While other airline's 777s were climbing above thunderstorms out of Singapore their A340s were stuck going under and burning more fuel.

I can't remember where I read that because it was several years ago... I think it is probably accurate since Singapore ended up trading A340s into Boeing for 777s.

As I mentioned earlier, in terms of real jet flying, I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about!

Vfe for CRJ?
First detent of flaps?

thanks!

Kingairer · August 18th, 2005, 21:11

Why dont we just delete this forum since no new threads can be added...All of these have run their course.

Kristie · August 18th, 2005, 21:27

and how would that be useful?

Matt777 · August 19th, 2005, 00:41

[ QUOTE ]
Why dont we just delete this forum since no new threads can be added...All of these have run their course.

[/ QUOTE ]

Was my post really that bad?

Seriously though, I realize that the CRJ's Vfe is probably not any higher than the 757's Vfe of 240 for flaps 1- so my idea would obviously not be useful for a high speed climb.

But If Canadair had recognized the limitation of the Challenger wing being used on the heavier CRJ and made Vfe higher it would have worked.

I was just thinking out loud I guess.

B767Driver · August 30th, 2005, 18:51

[ QUOTE ]
All I know is that if I was PIC, I'd do what I had to do in order to land at my destination with no less than minimum IFR reserves. If that meant telling ATC that we'd have to land short if we stay at the altitude for another 15 to 20 minutes, so be it.

I know a guy that did a diversion into another airport because if he held until the EFC time, which they were rapidly approaching, they'd land at their original destination with less than minimum IFR reserves.

If you bring in a dry aircraft, "that's what the reserves are for" isn't going to cut it with the inspector.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand your decision and have no problem with it. It is conservative, safe and as your first officer I would not try to convice you to alter your decision.

Personally, I would continue to destination at a more favorable altitude while keeping an eagle on the fuel gage and alternates available. Taking into account all factors....and assuming the weather was very good...I would plan to land with less than planned reserves...this would include less than legal reserves (this is a legal requirement for preflight only).

If at any time during the continuation of the flight I felt that the fuel on board was not safe...I would then make the decision to divert.

By the way....been there....done that....got the t-shirt.

Doug Taylor · August 30th, 2005, 20:00

[ QUOTE ]
Why dont we just delete this forum since no new threads can be added...All of these have run their course.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, new posts are restricted to people who are professional pilots, as requested due to a high level of "Hey d00d, you're the captain and you like the flight attendant alot but she's attracted to FO!!!!"-type posts.

ComplexHiAv8r · August 30th, 2005, 20:59

While I understand trying to keep this to potential and actual type events, I am not yet a professional pilot but have had some "interesting" flight experiences over the years (I have posted a few of them already), but now cannot. Can the new software allow a review process for non-professional to be checked by a mod or someone before actual posting?

Kingairer · August 31st, 2005, 01:08

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why dont we just delete this forum since no new threads can be added...All of these have run their course.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, new posts are restricted to people who are professional pilots, as requested due to a high level of "Hey d00d, you're the captain and you like the flight attendant alot but she's attracted to FO!!!!"-type posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I knew there was a reason I couldnt post.

MikeD · August 31st, 2005, 04:40

[ QUOTE ]
While I understand trying to keep this to potential and actual type events, I am not yet a professional pilot but have had some "interesting" flight experiences over the years (I have posted a few of them already), but now cannot. Can the new software allow a review process for non-professional to be checked by a mod or someone before actual posting?

[/ QUOTE ]

From above. "Well, new posts are restricted to people who are professional pilots"

ComplexHiAv8r · August 31st, 2005, 08:44

Yes, that is why I asked about a feature in the new software. I believe that there are good questions from non professionals also.

Are we going to limit posts in the CFI section to only CFI's?

MikeD · August 31st, 2005, 10:06

[ QUOTE ]

Are we going to limit posts in the CFI section to only CFI's?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. But that wouldn't fit the intent of what the CFI forum is for.

Your answer to the exact question you asked was one post above yours. I simply pointed you back to it. That's all.

This particular forum is one we chose to limit thread starters with, in order to keep the queep factor to a very minimum.

You can always post your question in the general or tech forums.......would likely get more exposure there anyway.

Mr_Creepy · September 1st, 2005, 05:54

I notice I am not allowed to Post a new thread.

Am I no longer considered a "Pro Pilot" ??

MikeD · September 1st, 2005, 05:58

[ QUOTE ]
I notice I am not allowed to Post a new thread.

Am I no longer considered a "Pro Pilot" ??

[/ QUOTE ]

Not as Mr Creepy.

Mr_Creepy · September 1st, 2005, 05:59

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I notice I am not allowed to Post a new thread.

Am I no longer considered a "Pro Pilot" ??

[/ QUOTE ]

Not as Mr Creepy.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL!

July 2nd, 2005, 08:17	#1
NJA_Capt Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,292	Slow climb? You have just taken off from KBOS for a max endurance flight to KSJC. You are planned to arrive at your destination with legal reserves of fuel, plus a few extra pounds. In order for your fuel planning to work, you must fly at or above FL430. Your flight planning has you at cruise altitude within :40 min of departure from KBOS. Your typical climb rate is 4000 fpm initially and 1500 fpm til the top of the climb. However, soon after takeoff, ATC places you behind several CRJs climbing at 500 fpm to FL350. You will now not be at FL430 nowhere near :40. You also haven't eaten in 7hours, your crew food is in the cabinet, and you can't eat with the O2 mask on. You are climbing in wx, with moderate chop until you reach cruise altitude.

July 4th, 2005, 00:38	#2
Kingairer Old Skool Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Nomadic...World Wide Boobie Bungalow Bouncer Posts: 3,166	Re: Slow climb? Thats funny that you threw that in there about RJs and 500FPM, you dont miss an oppurtunity do ya! If this were me, and plug it into the FMS and compare the info based on FL430 cruise and the new altitude. If it look ugly then maybe plug in LRC and look to see if that makes a prettier number. In any event im required to call dispatch in a situation such as this and it will be somewhat of a joint decision on what to do from there.

July 4th, 2005, 02:15	#3
Doug Taylor Agent Smith Join Date: Dec 1969 Location: KSDL Posts: 39,830 Blog Entries: 1	Re: Slow climb? I'll probably catch some slack for this, but I'm also in the school of thought that 500 fpm to cruise altitude ought to be reason enough to keep that aircraft in the lower flight levels until everyone else with better performance has climb to cruise. I wish Bombardier had installed beefier engines on the CRJ's so they could climb.

July 4th, 2005, 06:41	#4
Mr_Creepy Old Skool Join Date: May 2003 Location: In the O-zone Posts: 5,807	Re: Slow climb? [ QUOTE ] I'll probably catch some slack for this, but I'm also in the school of thought that 500 fpm to cruise altitude ought to be reason enough to keep that aircraft in the lower flight levels until everyone else with better performance has climb to cruise. I wish Bombardier had installed beefier engines on the CRJ's so they could climb. [/ QUOTE ] I jumpseated home from Berlin with a Bombardier design engineer. He explained that the big problem was not the engines but the wing. The CRJ has the same wing as the Challenger, which he called a "cruise wing" - good for long haul fuel economy. He said in afterthought that there is no way that should have been put on a "regional jet." Supposedly the 700 and 900 were to have a "climb wing." I got out of the rat race before I found out.

July 7th, 2005, 22:26	#5
JAM Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 246	Re: Slow climb? [ QUOTE ] I'll probably catch some slack for this, but I'm also in the school of thought that 500 fpm to cruise altitude ought to be reason enough to keep that aircraft in the lower flight levels until everyone else with better performance has climb to cruise. I wish Bombardier had installed beefier engines on the CRJ's so they could climb. [/ QUOTE ] Man, don't we all!

July 8th, 2005, 08:23	#6
C650CPT Senior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Home Sweet Home! Posts: 957	Re: Slow climb? [ QUOTE ] 500 fpm to cruise altitude ought to be reason enough to keep that aircraft in the lower flight levels. [/ QUOTE ] It just depends. For us, if ISA is + our climb can slow down to less than 1000 fpm in the upper 30's enroute to the low 40's. I rationalize that if I'm climbing slower it's a good chance others are also, and also by the time my climb slows down I'm usually above most other's cruise altitudes. Even with the reduced performance I can still steam up to .80+ once level. Temp at altitude really effects our performance. Jim

July 20th, 2005, 23:44	#7
brandonv Newbie Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: KSLN Posts: 25	Re: Slow climb? [ QUOTE ] You have just taken off from KBOS for a max endurance flight to KSJC. You are planned to arrive at your destination with legal reserves of fuel, plus a few extra pounds. In order for your fuel planning to work, you must fly at or above FL430. Your flight planning has you at cruise altitude within :40 min of departure from KBOS. Your typical climb rate is 4000 fpm initially and 1500 fpm til the top of the climb. However, soon after takeoff, ATC places you behind several CRJs climbing at 500 fpm to FL350. You will now not be at FL430 nowhere near :40. You also haven't eaten in 7hours, your crew food is in the cabinet, and you can't eat with the O2 mask on. You are climbing in wx, with moderate chop until you reach cruise altitude. [/ QUOTE ] I'd keep going. You've got a reserve just for this reason. Of course, keep an eye on your fuel and maybe tell ATC that you need to climb for better fuel rates.

July 21st, 2005, 14:40	#8
Doug Taylor Agent Smith Join Date: Dec 1969 Location: KSDL Posts: 39,830 Blog Entries: 1	Re: Slow climb? Not exactly. At least not in my opinion. This is an assumption, but I bet the FAA would probably want the pilot to arrive at the airport with bare minimum IFR reserves unless there was an emergency situation.

July 21st, 2005, 14:46	#9
MikeD Administrator Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Pinal Airpark Posts: 6,897	Re: Slow climb? You mean the FAA doesn't subscribe to "if the minimums weren't good enough, they wouldn't be the minimums" theory?

July 21st, 2005, 14:52	#10
Doug Taylor Agent Smith Join Date: Dec 1969 Location: KSDL Posts: 39,830 Blog Entries: 1	Re: Slow climb? All I know is that if I was PIC, I'd do what I had to do in order to land at my destination with no less than minimum IFR reserves. If that meant telling ATC that we'd have to land short if we stay at the altitude for another 15 to 20 minutes, so be it. I know a guy that did a diversion into another airport because if he held until the EFC time, which they were rapidly approaching, they'd land at their original destination with less than minimum IFR reserves. If you bring in a dry aircraft, "that's what the reserves are for" isn't going to cut it with the inspector.

July 21st, 2005, 15:02	#11
MikeD Administrator Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Pinal Airpark Posts: 6,897	Re: Slow climb? [ QUOTE ] All I know is that if I was PIC, I'd do what I had to do in order to land at my destination with no less than minimum IFR reserves. If that meant telling ATC that we'd have to land short if we stay at the altitude for another 15 to 20 minutes, so be it. I know a guy that did a diversion into another airport because if he held until the EFC time, which they were rapidly approaching, they'd land at their original destination with less than minimum IFR reserves. If you bring in a dry aircraft, "that's what the reserves are for" isn't going to cut it with the inspector. [/ QUOTE ] Agree. I'm pretty conservative when it comes to fuel (aside from combat, when that was the first time I'd seen both fuel-low lights on at the same time while in hard IMC feeling for the tanker). Fuel is just one of those things you don't mess with. And the reserve isn't there for "a little extra"; it's there for a legitimate bind such as an emergency, not as a stretch to normal ops. You think people would learn from Avianca 052 in Cove Neck, New York, the danger of cutting into reserves (among other problems with that flight). But people still stretch fuel.

August 18th, 2005, 20:26	#12
Matt777 Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Seattle, Washington, U.S. Posts: 125	Re: Slow climb? [ QUOTE ] I jumpseated home from Berlin with a Bombardier design engineer. He explained that the big problem was not the engines but the wing. The CRJ has the same wing as the Challenger, which he called a "cruise wing" - good for long haul fuel economy. He said in afterthought that there is no way that should have been put on a "regional jet." Supposedly the 700 and 900 were to have a "climb wing." I got out of the rat race before I found out. [/ QUOTE ] Hi everyone- I'm pretty new here and have only posted in the ATP forum since I plan to go there... I just got my PPL yesterday. I do enjoy flying jets on flightsim, but I have never flown anything bigger than a 172! What the CRJ engineer said makes me wonder what Vfe is for the CRJ and what the first notch of flaps is on a CRJ. Hard to believe that they used a wing that they shouldn't have but you would think that they could have made a "patch" for it by making the flaps strong enough that you could deploy them by 1 or 2 degrees for climb and in effect make it more of a climb wing without adding too much drag. Several years back Singapore Airlines was not happy with the Airbus A340s they had because the high wing loading caused by having too little wing area reduced the climb rate so much. While other airline's 777s were climbing above thunderstorms out of Singapore their A340s were stuck going under and burning more fuel. I can't remember where I read that because it was several years ago... I think it is probably accurate since Singapore ended up trading A340s into Boeing for 777s. As I mentioned earlier, in terms of real jet flying, I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about! Vfe for CRJ? First detent of flaps? thanks!

August 18th, 2005, 21:11	#13
Kingairer Old Skool Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Nomadic...World Wide Boobie Bungalow Bouncer Posts: 3,166	Re: Slow climb? Why dont we just delete this forum since no new threads can be added...All of these have run their course.

August 18th, 2005, 21:27	#14
Kristie Big Chief's Woman Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Scottsdale, Arizona Posts: 17,709 Blog Entries: 3	Re: Slow climb? and how would that be useful?

August 19th, 2005, 00:41	#15
Matt777 Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Seattle, Washington, U.S. Posts: 125	Re: Slow climb? [ QUOTE ] Why dont we just delete this forum since no new threads can be added...All of these have run their course. [/ QUOTE ] Was my post really that bad? Seriously though, I realize that the CRJ's Vfe is probably not any higher than the 757's Vfe of 240 for flaps 1- so my idea would obviously not be useful for a high speed climb. But If Canadair had recognized the limitation of the Challenger wing being used on the heavier CRJ and made Vfe higher it would have worked. I was just thinking out loud I guess.

August 30th, 2005, 18:51	#16
B767Driver Old Skool Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,841	Re: Slow climb? [ QUOTE ] All I know is that if I was PIC, I'd do what I had to do in order to land at my destination with no less than minimum IFR reserves. If that meant telling ATC that we'd have to land short if we stay at the altitude for another 15 to 20 minutes, so be it. I know a guy that did a diversion into another airport because if he held until the EFC time, which they were rapidly approaching, they'd land at their original destination with less than minimum IFR reserves. If you bring in a dry aircraft, "that's what the reserves are for" isn't going to cut it with the inspector. [/ QUOTE ] I understand your decision and have no problem with it. It is conservative, safe and as your first officer I would not try to convice you to alter your decision. Personally, I would continue to destination at a more favorable altitude while keeping an eagle on the fuel gage and alternates available. Taking into account all factors....and assuming the weather was very good...I would plan to land with less than planned reserves...this would include less than legal reserves (this is a legal requirement for preflight only). If at any time during the continuation of the flight I felt that the fuel on board was not safe...I would then make the decision to divert. By the way....been there....done that....got the t-shirt.

August 30th, 2005, 20:00	#17
Doug Taylor Agent Smith Join Date: Dec 1969 Location: KSDL Posts: 39,830 Blog Entries: 1	Re: Slow climb? [ QUOTE ] Why dont we just delete this forum since no new threads can be added...All of these have run their course. [/ QUOTE ] Well, new posts are restricted to people who are professional pilots, as requested due to a high level of "Hey d00d, you're the captain and you like the flight attendant alot but she's attracted to FO!!!!"-type posts.

August 30th, 2005, 20:59	#18
ComplexHiAv8r Old Skool Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: OH or is it MX?? Posts: 4,509	Re: Slow climb? While I understand trying to keep this to potential and actual type events, I am not yet a professional pilot but have had some "interesting" flight experiences over the years (I have posted a few of them already), but now cannot. Can the new software allow a review process for non-professional to be checked by a mod or someone before actual posting?

August 31st, 2005, 01:08	#19
Kingairer Old Skool Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Nomadic...World Wide Boobie Bungalow Bouncer Posts: 3,166	Re: Slow climb? [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Why dont we just delete this forum since no new threads can be added...All of these have run their course. [/ QUOTE ] Well, new posts are restricted to people who are professional pilots, as requested due to a high level of "Hey d00d, you're the captain and you like the flight attendant alot but she's attracted to FO!!!!"-type posts. [/ QUOTE ] I knew there was a reason I couldnt post.

August 31st, 2005, 04:40	#20
MikeD Administrator Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Pinal Airpark Posts: 6,897	Re: Slow climb? [ QUOTE ] While I understand trying to keep this to potential and actual type events, I am not yet a professional pilot but have had some "interesting" flight experiences over the years (I have posted a few of them already), but now cannot. Can the new software allow a review process for non-professional to be checked by a mod or someone before actual posting? [/ QUOTE ] From above. "Well, new posts are restricted to people who are professional pilots"

August 31st, 2005, 08:44	#21
ComplexHiAv8r Old Skool Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: OH or is it MX?? Posts: 4,509	Re: Slow climb? Yes, that is why I asked about a feature in the new software. I believe that there are good questions from non professionals also. Are we going to limit posts in the CFI section to only CFI's?

August 31st, 2005, 10:06	#22
MikeD Administrator Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Pinal Airpark Posts: 6,897	Re: Slow climb? [ QUOTE ] Are we going to limit posts in the CFI section to only CFI's? [/ QUOTE ] No. But that wouldn't fit the intent of what the CFI forum is for. Your answer to the exact question you asked was one post above yours. I simply pointed you back to it. That's all. This particular forum is one we chose to limit thread starters with, in order to keep the queep factor to a very minimum. You can always post your question in the general or tech forums.......would likely get more exposure there anyway.

September 1st, 2005, 05:54	#23
Mr_Creepy Old Skool Join Date: May 2003 Location: In the O-zone Posts: 5,807	Re: Slow climb? I notice I am not allowed to Post a new thread. Am I no longer considered a "Pro Pilot" ??

September 1st, 2005, 05:58	#24
MikeD Administrator Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Pinal Airpark Posts: 6,897	Re: Slow climb? [ QUOTE ] I notice I am not allowed to Post a new thread. Am I no longer considered a "Pro Pilot" ?? [/ QUOTE ] Not as Mr Creepy.

September 1st, 2005, 05:59	#25
Mr_Creepy Old Skool Join Date: May 2003 Location: In the O-zone Posts: 5,807	Re: Slow climb? [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I notice I am not allowed to Post a new thread. Am I no longer considered a "Pro Pilot" ?? [/ QUOTE ] Not as Mr Creepy. [/ QUOTE ] LOL!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode