Regional Jet CL65; Undifferentiated or Other Model
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Workload; Distraction; Fatigue
Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Human Factors; Procedure
Left spoilers out below 1;000 feet; momentarily received stick shaker in the landing flair.Fatigue; task saturation. Distractions due to ATC keeping us at higher altitude approaching the airport. Unusual airport environment; distractions from non-standard runway information needed to enter into the FMS. No glide path information available for the runway in use; I was visually focused on the final approach and glide path required adjusting for gusty wind. Spoilers were still partially deployed and omitted from our cross check by both the flying and monitoring pilot.ATC left us high inbound to CRW. We queried ATC for lower altitude several times. I was flying pilot and had to use spoilers to descend and meet profile for Runway 5 at CRW. During the expedited descent the monitoring pilot was entering runway data into FMS to get landing data. FMS repeatedly sent back 'No landing data for the selected runway.' I was distracted; and only partially stowed the spoilers.We had earlier discussed the displaced threshold and I had suggested to check the release for a non-standard runway entry for the FMS. This was accomplished and the FMS returned correct landing data for Runway 5.Approaching the airport both the glide slope and VASI were inoperative for Runway 5. The runway is unusual and perched atop mountainous terrain and my first time landing there. The new displaced threshold decreased available runway length and also changed the glide path perspective. We were task saturated as a crew and both omitted the spoilers from our scan. Spoilers were still partially deployed as we descended below 1;000 feet. We continued the visual approach configured and on speed. In the landing flair we momentarily received the stick shaker and the Captain retracted the partial spoilers that were deployed. Event was uneventful; normal landing. Incorporating a 'spoilers stowed' into the 'before landing checklist' would prevent this type of distracted event from happening.
Queried ATC several times about descent into CRW. Indianapolis Center left us high (outside a 3 degree descent leading to a 4 degree descent into CRW). Continued descent into CRW having to use flight spoilers to get back on profile for the approach into Runway 5 at Yeager airport. The VASI and glideslope were both inoperative. In addition; the landing distance was decreased due to a new displaced threshold on Runway 5. Spoilers were still deployed going through 1;000 feet while descending to the runway on approach speed. In the flare received momentary stick shaker and retracted the partial spoilers that were deployed.Fatigue and task saturated. ATC left us high going into CRW that lead to the use of spoilers to get back on profile during our descent to the airport. As a result; we were task saturated as a crew given all surrounding circumstances that led us to keep the flight spoilers out of our cross check between both the pilot monitoring as well as the pilot flying. Landing continued since we were in the flare and about to touchdown. Retracted spoilers; event was uneventful.After using the spoilers always check to make sure they are retracted when you no longer need them. At 1;000 feet always check spoilers as a final safety check.
CRJ flight crew experienced a late descent clearance from ATC. As a result the spoilers were used to get back on a proper glide path and never fully retracted prior to the flare. Stick shaker is activated in the flare and the Captain quickly retracts the spoilers. Glideslope and VASI were both out of service due recent runway modifications.