CAT II’s tomorrow

Indulge me in some simple math for a moment and I promise this esoteric crap will be over in about 2 more weeks when I finish sims at which time I’ll return to mostly pictures of neat things.

A CRJ200 at a max landing weight of 47,000lbs flies a Vref (approach speed) of 142 knots (nautical miles per hour a.k.a., 163 mph).  That means you’re covering 2.36 nautical miles per minute. There are 6076 feet in a nautical mile which means 2.36 nautical miles equals 14,379 feet. A Category 2 Instrument Landing System (CATII ILS) approach is typically good down to a runway visual range (RVR) of 1200, meaning a horizontal visibility of 1200 feet, and a decision height (DH) of 100 feet. That means you can follow the electronic glideslope all the way down to 100 feet above the ground without seeing a thing, and only then do you need to be able to see at least 1200 feet in front of you. It takes exactly 5 seconds to go 1200 feet at 142 knots.

So basically what all that means is you’re traveling 163 mph, 100 feet off the ground, and can only see 5 seconds or less ahead of you.

In a completely unrelated but awesome note, I shot a visual approach to a landing with a 30 knot crosswind (well, several, because the first couple were…a struggle). Fun fact, 27 knots is the maximum demonstrated crosswind component for the CRJ200, but that’s not considered a limitation. Though I don’t know if I feel particularly like starting my career as a test pilot with 50 paying customers in the back.

huskerdont asked: How is the transition from the Q400 to the CRJ? Other than the differences between prop and jet controls and whatnot, is the cockpit layout the same (or very similar), as both are made by Bombardier?

This is the best way I can explain it: All of the problems with the Q400 stem from the fact that it’s a common type rating with the 100-300 series. Therefore a lot of the systems were originally designed for a much smaller airplane and just aren’t robust enough to handle the size that airplane. All of the problems with the CRJ stem from it being rushed into production so Bombardier could corner the regional jet market. Therefore most of the problems are fixed in the 700/900, which are great airplanes. The 200, however, is a bit of of a hog.

The CRJ is incredibly easy to fly compared to the Q400. The hardest thing for me to get used to thus far is that the CRJ has entirely hydraulic flight controls whereas the Q400 has a combination of hydraulic and mechanically linked controls. The result is that the Q400 has a much heaver control feel and the CRJ is unbelievably touchy in comparison. They say the roll rate of the CRJ is equal to that of the F-16 (and I believe it). I’ve done a couple 1 G rolls in the way of inadvertent spoiler deployment at altitude as well as wake turbulence upset. You blink and you’re upside down; it literally happens that fast. It’s pretty amazing. Though honestly the biggest difference between the two is the complete lack of necessity for any rudder input in the CRJ. You fly with your feet on the floor. Any minute pitch or power change in the Q400 means an enormous change in rudder input due to the gyroscopic precession of those 13.5 ft discs of co-rotating metal on the wings. I swear you use the rudder trim in that airplane more than any other switch and the yaw dampers are essentially for show. The only time I’m even vaguely aware of the rudder in the CRJ is during a crosswind landing or a V1 cut, and then it’s still fairly docile.

The cockpit layouts are fairly similar in the ways that most transport category aircraft are. They fly similar speeds below 10,000ft (though the CRJ can climb faster and has about an extra 50 knots of play downhill). They have similar electrical systems, though the CRJ is slightly more complicated. The autopilot in the CRJ is vastly superior. The autopilot in the Q400 had some of the most ridiculous limitations. The FMS in the CRJ is superior (I think) but I’m still getting used to it. The hydraulics and pneumatics in the CRJ are superior, though the bleeds were easier to work in the Q400 compared to the CRJ200. The environmental controls in both are awful. Seriously, prepare to be either burning up or freezing and there’s probably nothing we can do about it. Landing the CRJ…oh man. Lets just say trailing link landing gear fix many mistakes. If you can’t get a greaser in a CRJ200 you should probably just go drive a cab. Landing the Q400 was like landing a shopping cart. A good landing was one where your teeth didn’t hurt afterwards from the impact.

I’m making a lot of assumptions from just the simulator though. I’ll be able to confirm all this when I actually get in a real one next month.

Just when I already thought these million dollar full motion simulators where as realistic as they come…

…fake smoke comes pouring out of the circuit breakers to simulate an electrical fire. Thick, relentless smoke that smelled like a bad frat party fog machine.  I did not see that coming.

mk1civilian asked: What's your take on cockpit automation? Where do you trust it, where for you find it helpful, where don't you? (P.S. Have fun in the idiot box. If you turn up the ICS volume, you can hear the circus music!)

Oh man, this is a great question. I’ve got a fancy sounding degree in Aviation Human Factors which is buzzwork-speak for making the man and machine work together. Truthfully I skipped those classes a lot because they were dreadful. I think some pilot’s fear automation. For new pilots it’s easy to get behind an automated airplane because it might be moving faster than your brain is. But mostly I think a lot of pilots fear it because, as I’m sure you know, engineers would probably just as soon kick us out of the cockpit and replace us with Otto (as they already are in your former arena of aviation). Surely you’ve heard about the new plane that’s crewed by just a man and a dog; The man to mind the automation and the dog to bite him if he touches anything.

I think technology in general has elevated aviation to unprecedented levels of safety, which is great. As far as automation goes, I’m a big fan of the aspects which makes a pilot’s life easier during the most busy times, i.e., emergencies. Autofeather, automatically firing Halon bottles, air return pressurization memory, etc. I think there are quite literally too many of those to list. I think some of the best automation is that which still keeps the pilot very much in the loop. Something like TCAS or EGPWS is so successful because it realizes it’s limitations and relies on the human stick and rudder input to save the day. Then of course there’s the less stressful times where good automation just makes the plane more effecient and easier to fly. FADEC, for example, does both (I already miss it in the CRJ200 but I’m looking forward to it again in the 700/900). Along those same lines, the hold feature in my FMS makes holding so easy it’s a joke. You spend ALL that time in your primary instrument training learning about proper holding entries and timing and how to determine inbound and outbound courses…now I just push about 6 buttons and the airplane flies a far more perfect hold than I ever could. It’s amazing really what we have compared to what guys like Lindbergh worked with. It makes me feel soft sometimes, though if I really cared I’d go fly the bush. There are so many little things though that I surely take for granted. It’s so helpful that it blends into the background and becomes so fundamental that I ignore it at this point. Unobtrusive yet effective. That’s good automation.

Obviously there are downsides. I’m a pretty young guy, fairly receptive to technology, but even I get a little irked by the stuff that reduces the pilot to simply a voting member in the cockpit. I’m finding a lot of the switchology on the CRJ series is like that. The position of certain valves or pumps are governed not by the switches but a combination of switch position and system logic. My instructor tells me constantly, “Don’t look at the switch, look at the screen. The switch is fiction, the screen is fact.” It’s not always as simple as this switch on means this turns on. This will turn on if the switch is on AND the whatever logic is satisfied. Granted some of it is to keep pilots from doing anything stupid, but there’s something disconcerting about it. The autothrottles on the Airbus freak me out. You lock them in the rating detent and the engines roll up and down all day without the thrust levers moving an inch. I don’t like that. That’s probably one of the worst ones to me.

Thanks for the question. I’ll keep an ear open for the music tomorrow but generally between the fire bells, stall warbler, and my own cursing it gets hard to hear much of anything.

Teelar

The second biggest misconception I always get after telling people what I do for a living is, “Oh you must be good at math.” (The first, and even more wildly inaccurate, is “You must make a lot of money.” HA!) The truth is most of the math that takes place on a flight deck is fairly simple mental estimation. Distance = rate x time type stuff. The CRJ travels upwards of 8 miles per minute, meaning if you aren’t thinking 50+ miles ahead of the airplane then you’re already behind. A big part of learning any new airplane is learning the general rules of thumb regarding performance. In a jet, namely descent planning.

For example, in a CRJ200, a flight idle descent at 320 knots will give you a 3200 foot per minute descent rate. 250 knots will give you 2000 fpm. 210 knots will give you 1500 fpm. To slow from 320 to 250 you need 2000 feet descending at 1200 fpm OR level flight and 7 miles (10 knots per mile). There’s no calculation involved in any of this, you just have to know them and be able to hack out the simple math involved in applying them to your flight path. Very little of what you do in a jet is guesswork. There are almost always procedures and hard numbers to accompany everything. Almost. 

Me: “So what’s the gouge with the flight spoilers? Like percentage deployed vs. airspeed or altitude loss? Anything like that?
Instructor: “Teelar. Just watch the trend vector.”
Me: “Ah, okay.” (pause) “Uhhh, I’m sorry, teelar is…?”
Instructor: Teelar! T-L-A-R. You know, That Looks About Right.

See also: PFM.

caelumipsum asked: where did you go to college and receive your flight training?

The University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. I graduated from their Institute of Aviation in 2008.