+1 on reading comprehension.

Certified ceiling doesn't mean you can't go higher from a regulatory standpoint (but you probably can't performance-wise), as far as I understand. Bit like max demonstrated crosswind - you can legally land in more. Only max ceiling is regulatory.

Where is max ceiling regulatory?

Where is max ceiling regulatory?

If Maximum Operating Altitude is in the Limitations section of the AFM, it is regulatory.

Depends what section of the AFM it appears.

Unless modified by STC, as was the case here. The Sierra STC increased the max operating altitude to FL430.

"Service ceiling" is the max altitude the plane can achieve where there is still 100 FPM climb left (or 50 FPM for one engine inoperative service ceiling). A single published number implies it is at gross weight. Sometimes there is a chart of service ceiling versus weight.

"Absolute ceiling" is the max ceiling the plane can achieve in level flight, that is, 0 FPM climb.

"Max operating altitude" is a regulatory limitation. The plane cannot legally be flown above that altitude.

"Certified ceiling" is an ambiguous term, not often used by the FAA. Sometimes it means max operating altitude, other times it means service ceiling. An example of the ambiguity is the DA-62 brochure which uses it both ways in the same document:

https://www.diamondaircraft.com/wp-cont ... ressed.pdf

Ceiling
Certified Ceiling, Normal Ops: 20,000 ft
Certified Ceiling, Single Engine: 13,000 ft

The first number is the max operating altitude and is labeled as such in the TCDS and AFM. The plane can climb higher than that performance wise (the AFM charts indicate about 500 FPM climb all engines at FL200).

The second number is an OEI service ceiling. The plane can just barely achieve 50 FPM at that altitude one engine out, and this is indicated in the AFM charts.

A more precise statement would have been:

Ceiling
Max operating altitude: 20,000 ft
Single engine service ceiling: 13,000 ft

Service ceiling can be higher or lower than max operating altitude. When higher, as in the DA-62 case, it means your altitude is limited by regulatory reasons and not performance. When lower, like some jets, it means you can go higher but only at lighter weights, that is, you need a step climb if you start at a heavy weight.

Mike C.

If so, my apologies to Allen. Sorry Allen, because you quoted me, I thought you were referring to me.

+1 on reading comprehension.

[quote=

With all the talk of cruising in the high flight levels, speeds of more than 400 knots, pages of checklists, it could lead the non jet pilot to think that it must be really difficult to fly a jet, requiring superior skills.

The jet pilots know that isn't true at all. Once the pilot adapts to the speed and climb/descent rates, the jet is much more simple and easy to fly than a twin recip. It has has fewer engine controls to manipulate, and because of a higher wing loading is much more stable in flight, and most jets have more capable autopilots than the twin recip fleet. They also have an enormous advantage in engine-out performance, requiring less precision to keep it flying on one engine.[/quote]


This, while true, is highly misleading. The flying part itself is mostly much easier,and the engines are far easier to manage. However, faster airplanes with more complex systems have failure chains that cause bad outcomes a lot more quickly and are moving at two to three times the speed. I don't think they require superior skills, but there's much more machine, operating parameters, and operating environment hazard to to know.

I think a surgeon might say that the particular cut on your exposed organ is no big deal, but what you need to know and do to get to (and back from) that point is a whole additional story, and probably not for a first year med student.

Thurman Munson was the perfect example.... by all accounts a star student on the jet, very conscientious...but at jet speeds simple errors borne of inexperience are far likelier to have bad outcomes.

EDIT: BTW, go read the thread in Crash Talk about the Citation that went in over Lake Erie.... perfect example of what I am referring to.

Steve,

Flying the jets takes a pilot with good instrument flying skills, just as does flying a twin recip in instrument conditions, but I sure don't see any increased complexity in jets over recips. I see less as far as pilot work load goes including emergencies, but that's a matter of view point.

I would say flying your Cheyenne is more demanding than the light jets are. If I could have a turbo prop, it would be the Cheyenne 400LS.

I would certainly agree with you - if you can fly a pressurized turbocharged piston twin and do it with precision, flying a jet is generally less demanding once you get used to the speeds.

A 400LS would be a hoot for sure!

Jets themselves are easier to fly but ATC asks a lot more from them than piston twins. Getting assigned a multi-step-down STAR with speed restrictions rarely happens in a piston. Slowing down in a jet isn’t as easy as a piston either.

Single pilot in a jet (250+ hours in) is a handful for me sometimes, most flights are cake but sometimes I get pretty busy.

Staying ahead of jet can certainly be demanding, as well as slowing down as you point out. This was a real challenge in the DC-8 70 series that had no flight spoilers. Instead of flight spoilers to steepen a descent the two inboard engines (CFM 56's) are capable of reverse thrust in flight, but pilots are reluctant to use them; especially when they see how much the engines move around on their pylons using reverse thrust.

In the CJ4, out of 11 descending, if you maintain the descent rate and go to idle thrust it will be at 250 at 10. The same company had an EMB135, those guys said it ain't like the CJ... more weight, more inertia... take a little more planning.

I can imagine your Boeings were even more demanding of planning.

Great gouge Jeff. That's really the secret of staying ahead of the jet's speed and acceleration; known pitch attitude targets to achieve what you want. I forgotten many of them for the planes I flew, but the takeoff rotation target pitch is pre calculated to give you V2, then 10 degrees clean gets 250 knots, the 5 degrees 300 knots, and 2 1/2 for level cruise flight, for the 747.

Most new jet trainees blow right though all of the speeds on the first flight. I know I did in the Lear 23 coming from flying 402 commuters. No simulator, first takeoff at 100% power. Before I knew it, we were doing 300 knots at the other end of the runway, with the instructor having got the gear and flaps before I could blast through those speed too.That's where you realy apply the principle of pitch and power.

The Boeings can get down a lot better than the old DC-8's could having flight spoilers. But I have a rule on the use of flight spoilers. If you have to use them because of an ATC screw up, fine; but if you have to use them because of your own screw up, the next round at the bar is on you.