Jefferson City pilots took plane to maximum altitude

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/plane_crash_investigation

I think this was reported a month ago as well, but there was another
round of news releases today stating that the pilots took their
Bombardier CJR200 to its maximum altitude of 41,000 ft. Afterwards,
both engines failed and they crashed before reaching an airport.

Of course, the pilots should not have experimented around, but is it
dangerous to take a plane to its max altitude? When the engineers
specify a maximum altitude, doesn't it still have to be safe at that
altitude?

On 13 Jun 2005 14:13:27 -0700, "Bucky" wrote in
.com::

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/plane_crash_investigation


Of course, the pilots should not have experimented around,

You sound like this spokesman from the Air Travelers Association:

David Stempler, president of the Air Travelers Association, said
the issue may be reckless pilots rather than inadequate training
or improper recovery procedures.

"This is more a story of pilots having time on their hands and
playing with things in the cockpit that they shouldn't," he said.

Flying, he said, is as boring as truck driving most of the time.

"This was boredom and experimentation, these guys experimenting
with things they had no business doing," Stempler said.

but is it dangerous to take a plane to its max altitude?

If the FAA certified the aircraft for a 'service ceiling' of 41,000',
it should operate nominally at that altitude.

When the engineers specify a maximum altitude, doesn't it still have
to be safe at that altitude?

Without a specific definition of the meaning of 'maximum altitude' in
this case it's difficult to know.

"Bucky" wrote in message
oups.com...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/plane_crash_investigation


Of course, the pilots should not have experimented around, but is it
dangerous to take a plane to its max altitude? When the engineers
specify a maximum altitude, doesn't it still have to be safe at that
altitude?


The head of the Air Travelers Association also blames the pilots. "This is
more a story of pilots having time on their hands and playing with things in
the cockpit that they shouldn't," ... "Flying, is as boring as truck driving
most of the time. This was boredom and experimentation, these guys
experimenting with things they had no business doing," Stempler said.

How is it that pilots have no business flying a plane to it's ceiling? Seems
like pretty reasonable behavior to me.

Michael

Larry Dighera wrote:
You sound like this spokesman from the Air Travelers Association

Yeah, that's because I borrowed his words. I only presented that side
of the argument so that it would be represented and people would not
further bring up that aspect. I just wanted to focus on what "maximum
altitude" means. Do planes carrying passengers ever fly at their
maximum operating altitude? Or is that considered too risky?

Without a specific definition of the meaning of 'maximum altitude' in
this case it's difficult to know.

Straight from the official technical specs:

http://www.bombardier.com/index.jsp?...1_1_1_3_5.html

Ceiling: Maximum operating altitude 41,000 ft

Michael 182 wrote:
The head of the Air Travelers Association also blames the pilots.
How is it that pilots have no business flying a plane to it's ceiling? Seems
like pretty reasonable behavior to me.

I'm not blaming the pilots. I just want to find out if flying a plane
at its maxmimum operating altitude is standard practice, or if it's
considered dangerous.

For example, the top speed of a car could be 120 mph, but it would be
dangerous to drive it at that speed because a sudden movement in the
steering wheel could cause the car to flip over.

Maximum altitude is usually based on pressure differential...the difference
between ambient pressure outside the aircraft vs cabin pressure...the
engines don't come into the equation. I have had a Lear 23 up to FL43, which
is/was its maximum altitude. The Lear's manual contained a restart envelope,
just in case one or both engines failed...it involved gliding down to at
least 12000 feet before a restart was attempted (the atmosphere must contain
enough oxygen to support combustion).

Bob Gardner

"Bucky" wrote in message
oups.com...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/plane_crash_investigation

I think this was reported a month ago as well, but there was another
round of news releases today stating that the pilots took their
Bombardier CJR200 to its maximum altitude of 41,000 ft. Afterwards,
both engines failed and they crashed before reaching an airport.

Of course, the pilots should not have experimented around, but is it
dangerous to take a plane to its max altitude? When the engineers
specify a maximum altitude, doesn't it still have to be safe at that
altitude?

"Bucky" wrote in message
oups.com...
Michael 182 wrote:
The head of the Air Travelers Association also blames the pilots.
How is it that pilots have no business flying a plane to it's ceiling?
Seems
like pretty reasonable behavior to me.

I'm not blaming the pilots. I just want to find out if flying a plane
at its maxmimum operating altitude is standard practice, or if it's
considered dangerous.

For example, the top speed of a car could be 120 mph, but it would be
dangerous to drive it at that speed because a sudden movement in the
steering wheel could cause the car to flip over.


Obviously you have never driven your car 120mph.

Mike
MU-2

Bucky wrote:

Michael 182 wrote:

The head of the Air Travelers Association also blames the pilots.
How is it that pilots have no business flying a plane to it's ceiling? Seems
like pretty reasonable behavior to me.


I'm not blaming the pilots. I just want to find out if flying a plane
at its maxmimum operating altitude is standard practice, or if it's
considered dangerous.

For example, the top speed of a car could be 120 mph, but it would be
dangerous to drive it at that speed because a sudden movement in the
steering wheel could cause the car to flip over.


It is only dangerous if the driver is stupid. Stupidity is always
dangerous.


Matt

Bob Gardner wrote:
Maximum altitude is usually based on pressure differential...the difference
between ambient pressure outside the aircraft vs cabin pressure...the
engines don't come into the equation.

So you're saying that the engines could operate at an even higher
altitude. It's just that the cabin pressure could not be maintained?

In a previous article, "Bucky" said:
I'm not blaming the pilots. I just want to find out if flying a plane
at its maxmimum operating altitude is standard practice, or if it's

It's called "operating" altitude for a reason.


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"An appointment is an engagement to see someone, while a morningstar is a
large lump of metal used for viciously crushing skulls. It is important not
to confuse the two, isn't it, Mr. --?" - Terry Pratchett