Skywest Enroute Stall

According to the link, they called it a "Slow Speed Event" (LOL).

Fearless, what do you think is the FAA's rub?
 
it's possible the plane was not stalled , behind the drag curve at very high altitudes it can be quite challenging to gain airspeed any other way then going into a dive , A true high-altitude stall can easily take 10,000 feet to recover from ..... I wonder if this was some sort of major screwup or those guys were trying to get over some weather etc.
 
Last edited:
Fearless Tower said:
I like SkyWest's retort: "our airplane did not really stall.....it just got too slow and lost 4000 feet of altitude".

Somehow, I don't think the FAA's problem with the event was directly related to whether or not the airplane was truly stalled....
Click to expand...

I thought that was interesting too. But unless it was shown that other airplanes in Skywest's fleet have come close to having "slow speed events" due to something universal to the airline like an item missed in training, it's a knee jerk reaction. If it has something to do with the airplane itself then it should apply to all airlines.
 
I'm not crashing, I'm just experiencing a negative rate of climb.
 
When I first heard the story on TV, they made it sound like the engines quit then later it sounded like an aerodynamic stall. When I first understood or misunderstood that the engines quit and they dived, all I could think of was Pinnacle 3701. That occurred at 41,000' which is the service ceiling and just 2,000' higher than this flight. Funny where one's mind goes at times when you here a snippet of news which may or may not be factual.
 
taters said:
it's possible the plane was not stalled , behind the drag curve at very high altitudes it can be quite challenging to gain airspeed any other way then going into a dive , A true high-altitude stall can easily take 10,000 feet to recover from ..... I wonder if this was some sort of major screwup or those guys were trying to get over some weather etc.
Click to expand...

"...the crew responded with a 4000' descent". Sounds like it was not a stall, they intentionally used the descent to gain speed.

But how does the airplane get slow to begin with?
 
Jaybird180 said:
Fearless, what do you think is the FAA's rub?
Click to expand...
Seems fairly clear that they got too slow during cruise flight (possibly from trying to cruise at 39K) that they had to lose 4000' to recover. Whether or not the airplane was actually stalled is semantics. They got slow enough in cruise to get an alarm regardless - not good.

I suspect that FAA is particularly concerned about this because it sounds similar to other RJ high altitude speed issues that have occurred in the past (Pinnacle 3701 and another CRJ experienced a similar inflight engine failure - Loren was talking about that in a recent thread).
 
Number one rule of Journalism, Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
 
The CRJ also doesn't have an autothrottle right?
 
Fearless Tower said:
Seems fairly clear that they got too slow during cruise flight (possibly from trying to cruise at 39K) that they had to lose 4000' to recover. Whether or not the airplane was actually stalled is semantics. They got slow enough in cruise to get an alarm regardless - not good.

I suspect that FAA is particularly concerned about this because it sounds similar to other RJ high altitude speed issues that have occurred in the past (Pinnacle 3701 and another CRJ experienced a similar inflight engine failure - Loren was talking about that in a recent thread).
Click to expand...

Sounds like a fleet problem, not an airline problem.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Sounds like a fleet problem, not an airline problem.
Click to expand...
Maybe a little of both? It does seem strange to impose the speed/altitude limitations on a single carrier, other than it is coming right on the heels of the other fine against SkyWest.
 
By advanced calculus, I've come up with an 12000' descent. 39000 - 27000 = 12000. Skywest says only 4000' slow speed event. Someone's missing 8000' of altitude somewhere. Wonder if there were any pilots in back. That could have been Mr Toads wild ride depending on how it was flown. Also wonder if they could have gotten stuck in some other jets wake for a period of time. unlikely I guess.
 
bflynn said:
"...the crew responded with a 4000' descent". Sounds like it was not a stall, they intentionally used the descent to gain speed.

But how does the airplane get slow to begin with?
Click to expand...

Lots of reasons , but It is not hard at all if you are pushing too hard to climb up high , ou SOP on this plane is no less than M74 above FL350... Bad turbulence in the climb can also rob your airspeed well below what will keep you climbing , a throttle mishap could also be to blame ...but inclined to not believe that's what happened here .
 
taters said:
Lots of reasons , but It is not hard at all if you are pushing too hard to climb up high , ou SOP on this plane is no less than M74 above FL350... Bad turbulence in the climb can also rob your airspeed well below what will keep you climbing , a throttle mishap could also be to blame ...but inclined to not believe that's what happened here .
Click to expand...
Jaybird did bring up a valid question: why the restrictions on the carrier? Seems like it would be more appropriate to limit ALL CRJ operators...unless there is something else going on.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Jaybird did bring up a valid question: why the restrictions on the carrier? Seems like it would be more appropriate to limit ALL CRJ operators...unless there is something else going on.
Click to expand...

The credit was misplaced, but thank you. I amplified Everskyward's response.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Jaybird did bring up a valid question: why the restrictions on the carrier? Seems like it would be more appropriate to limit ALL CRJ operators...unless there is something else going on.
Click to expand...

This likely comes from the POI of the certificate , really doesn't sound like anything that's really the CRJ,s fault any jet will be quick to misbehave up high and slow . A lot of FSDO's are under audit right now from Washington so it could be a " hey look how much we do here " kind of thing ....
 
taters said:
This likely comes from the POI of the certificate , really doesn't sound like anything that's really the CRJ,s fault any jet will be quick to misbehave up high and slow . A lot of FSDO's are under audit right now from Washington so it could be a " hey look how much we do here " kind of thing ....
Click to expand...

I suppose that makes some sense. I don't believe it is the aircrafts fault. On the surface it seems more like some folks not respecting the aircraft's limitations.
 
I think Jonsey addressed this from his sim training. Hopefully we will be along shortly to address if he can. I thought SkyWest had limited some aircraft in it's fleet to a max altitude because of high altitude stalls. Then again I could have dreamed this.
 
Fearless Tower said:
I like SkyWest's retort: "our airplane did not really stall.....it just got too slow and lost 4000 feet of altitude".

Somehow, I don't think the FAA's problem with the event was directly related to whether or not the airplane was truly stalled....
Click to expand...

I heard a radio report that they restarted the engines during recovery (!!!?)

Bob Gardner
 
Loss of engine(s) would explain 12,000' drop.
 
bflynn said:
"...the crew responded with a 4000' descent". Sounds like it was not a stall, they intentionally used the descent to gain speed.

But how does the airplane get slow to begin with?
Click to expand...

By trying to gain altitude close to the service ceiling.
 
tmyers said:
I think Jonsey addressed this from his sim training. Hopefully we will be along shortly to address if he can. I thought SkyWest had limited some aircraft in it's fleet to a max altitude because of high altitude stalls. Then again I could have dreamed this.
Click to expand...

High altitude low speed events have been a special area of focus for awhile now. We did them in the sim. You lose several thousand feet just recovering from the stick shaker (which, to my knowledge) has been the extent of these events....not that that is acceptable, but I'm not aware of any full aerodynamic stalls.

That said, the cause boils down to lack of paying attention. You can't be flying these up high and reading the paper....or have any other distraction.
 
LDJones said:
High altitude low speed events have been a special area of focus for awhile now. We did them in the sim. You lose several thousand feet just recovering from the stick shaker (which, to my knowledge) has been the extent of these events....not that that is acceptable, but I'm not aware of any full aerodynamic stalls.

That said, the cause boils down to lack of paying attention. You can't be flying these up high and reading the paper....or have any other distraction.
Click to expand...

Isnt there a requirement to use an AP at those altitudes, no handflying allowed?
 
I like the "slow speed alert systems." In other words, the stall warning systems? As in, the stickshaker?
 
It's a pretty easy trap to get into - lets go up to get out of these bumps but then they don't stop to realize what that does to their coffin corner positioning. Now if it happens to be bumpy up high as well they're in trouble because the bumps can easily take them thru the red on the top or the yellow on the bottom of the speed tape.

Sometimes it's better to go "under" the bumps where you've got more margin for airspeed excursions. Burns more fuel but that never trumps safer.
 
Were there any PIREPS on this flight? Is it possible for us to lookup the data on some site?
 
bflynn said:
"...the crew responded with a 4000' descent". Sounds like it was not a stall, they intentionally used the descent to gain speed.

But how does the airplane get slow to begin with?
Click to expand...

It runs out of supportable air as it gets higher. It cannot support itself in the thin air. Airliners fly on the verge of a stall a lot. Thinner air, less fuel burn.
 
Some have commented that unless there is a pattern of stalls then this is FAA overreach.

Others have commented that it sounds like an airplane issue rather than an airline issue.

One possibility is that the FAA is just sick of Skywest playing safety games. That would explain why they haven't issued blanket restrictions for everyone else also.

As evidence, remember that they recently fined Skywest over a million dollars for flying 15,969 flights in airplanes that hadn't been properly inspected.

So, while this might be the first stall, it could be argued that it's the 15,970th overall event and that the FAA sees a pattern of not carrying about safety at Skywest. Dunno. I don't work at the FAA.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top