Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Embraer RJ 190 safest commercial jet in the world? Safest E190 Vs 737-800 please?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Embraer RJ 190 safest commercial jet in the world? Safest E190 Vs 737-800 please?

    Why is no one talking about the impeccable safety record of the Embraer RJ-190 ? It’s by far the safest plane in the skies statistically ?

    So reading through Aeroinside, Wikepedia, Crash101 and compiling all incidents, ever. There have been 564 Embraers built, and 44 human fatalities involving only a couple of fatal incidents. 33 of these fatalities were due to criminal activity. Now compare this to any other plane. The next safest plane (IMO) is the Boeing 737-800, with 4,500 units built and approximately 500 fatalities. Obviously this is just the -800, not the Max, -700 etc.

    Why is this plane so safe when each time I’ve stepped on it, the engines look one third the size of any other comparable jet and the craft shakes around a fair amount ? These planes have virtually zero fatalities compared to any other plane, especially the A320 family.

    So could a pilot compare the safety record of the Embraer RJ 190 to the Boeing 737-800 for me please ?

    Maybe it’s because all the Embraer flights are so short ?

    Aeromexico use primarily Embraer 190’s and I’ve been on them, they are fairly old averaging 10 years. I literally think there have been almost zero deaths, compare this to the Boeing or the Airbus equivalents, why is this not hugely publicised ??

    i would love to know which is the safest aircraft out of the E190 and the 737-800 ? I will repay you for the advice somehow.
    thank you
    James

  • #2
    All commercial jets have an excellent (almost unbelievable good) safety record WHEN OPERATED BY AIRLINES THAT HAVE THE RIGHT SAFETY CULTURE.

    https://aviation-safety.net/database...ode&var=103-8%
    https://aviation-safety.net/database...ecode&var=023%
    https://aviation-safety.net/database...ecode&var=107%
    https://aviation-safety.net/database...ecode&var=10C%
    https://aviation-safety.net/database...ecode&var=105%
    https://aviation-safety.net/database...ode&var=223-9%

    Did I say ALL commercial jets? Even the MAX? (read the part in ALL CAPS)

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
      Did I say ALL commercial jets? Even the MAX? (read the part in ALL CAPS)
      No longer grounded as of today.
      Soon to be back in service OPERATED BY AIRLINES THAT DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT SAFETY CULTURE.

      Comment


      • #4
        Like Gabriel's post, it's more about the operator's safety culture. The vast majority of accidents are human error. With that said - there are several aircraft families and subvariants that have over 1,000 aircraft built, with zero fatal accidents.

        ERJ145 series ~1200 built - introduced 1997 - 8 hull loss accidents with 0 fatal accidents.
        Airbus A319 ~1500 built - introduced 1995 - 1 hull loss accident with 0 fatal accidents.

        I'm curious if anyone has estimates on how many flight hours these 2 types have accumulated - I'm guessing 20+ million for the E145 and 25+ million for the A319?

        The CRJ700 series and the 777-300ER also have near perfect safety records - though these have less than 1000 built and are younger.

        It's also notable that no aircraft designed in the 21st century has had a fatal accident - with 2 exceptions - a testament to the engineering of manufactures, as well as improvements in airline safety culture.

        Regarding OP's question - according to Boeing's statistical summary, the E-jet family has a rate of 0.05 per million, the 737NG has a rate of 0.08 per million. Hope this helps! Source: ( see page 7 - note it's from 2018 ) https://www.boeing.com/resources/boe...df/statsum.pdf
        Last edited by hongmng; 2020-11-18, 17:14. Reason: Added last paragraph to answer OP's question.

        Comment


        • #5
          I talk about it a couple of times a year.

          There are very very few crashes of airplanes named RJ. Doesn’t matter if it’s ERJ or CRJ.

          AND SUPPOSEDLY THEY ARE OPERATED BY LESS EXPERIENCED PILOTS, FLY TO SLIGHTLY TOUGHER LOCATIONS MORE CYCLES, SHORTER FLUGHTS AND SOMETIMES ARE A BIT LESS AUTOMATED.

          I have no idea what leads to this exceptionally good record.

          I dismiss Gabriel’s comment that all airliners are safe...Yes, they are all safe, but the crash counts on RJXYZ is extremely low compared to big iron.
          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

          Comment


          • #6
            Hongmng as of 2017 the Embraer 145/170/190 had 25m flight hours cumulatively, so I would guess 30m hours by now.

            page 71; https://assets.publishing.service.go...015_G-EUOE.pdf

            “The aircraft manufacturer (Boeing) estimated that, up to the end of 2002, the in-service fleet of A320-family aircraft had accumulated a total of 15.3 million flight cycles since 1992.”

            I also read the A320 family has had 117 million flight hours but can’t confirm this source.

            you mentioned no aircraft designed in the 21st century has had a fatal crash, but I take it you don’t just mean variants, but variant updates ? Eg the A320 was launched in 1987 and has had fatal accidents, one this year...

            and yes thank you that rate does help ! 0.03 for the Embraer Vs 0.08 for the Boeing but wanted to understand why this is when the jets are much less powerful, and when the plane feels like you’re shaking for the whole ride ???

            Gabriel how would you confirm which airlines have the correct safety culture ? I have a subscription to Airline Ratings, I’m guessing any airline with a 7/7 for safety ? Or would you accept 6/7 (usually unaudited) ?

            thanks 3WE totally agree with all your comments. There are 73 operators that fly the Embraer; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...-Jet_operators

            most I can see are reputable I wonder if that is it. Thanks again.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Jamesmackie View Post
              Hongmng as of 2017 the Embraer 145/170/190 had 25m flight hours cumulatively, so I would guess 30m hours by now.

              page 71; https://assets.publishing.service.go...015_G-EUOE.pdf

              “The aircraft manufacturer (Boeing) estimated that, up to the end of 2002, the in-service fleet of A320-family aircraft had accumulated a total of 15.3 million flight cycles since 1992.”

              I also read the A320 family has had 117 million flight hours but can’t confirm this source.

              you mentioned no aircraft designed in the 21st century has had a fatal crash, but I take it you don’t just mean variants, but variant updates ? Eg the A320 was launched in 1987 and has had fatal accidents, one this year...

              and yes thank you that rate does help ! 0.03 for the Embraer Vs 0.08 for the Boeing but wanted to understand why this is when the jets are much less powerful, and when the plane feels like you’re shaking for the whole ride ???

              Gabriel how would you confirm which airlines have the correct safety culture ? I have a subscription to Airline Ratings, I’m guessing any airline with a 7/7 for safety ? Or would you accept 6/7 (usually unaudited) ?

              thanks 3WE totally agree with all your comments. There are 73 operators that fly the Embraer; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...-Jet_operators

              most I can see are reputable I wonder if that is it. Thanks again.
              Jamesmackie, commercial airline crashes are not driven by type. Certainly, there have been instances where a design flaw or vulnerability has led to a fatal incident but these are profoundly rare today. On the other hand, there are countless system failures occurring across every type on a fairly regular basis which do not result in crashes or fatalities. We have standards, regulations and procedures to thank for this. When an airline doesn't comply with standards and regulations and/or fails to ingrain procedures within its pilots, that amounts to a poor safety culture. On such airlines you are lucky to survive any given flight, regardless of the type of aircraft you are riding on.

              That said, there have been aircraft designed in a way that made them more challenging to fly and theoretically less safe in general. Usually these design aspects are soon identified and corrected by design changes and retroactive airworthiness directives. The 767 initailly had a cargo latch weakness that caused a fatal crash. The MD-11 had buggy longitudinal stability augmentation software (to allow a smaller, lighter empennage for greater range) and was reportedly tricky in the flare but the only fatal passenger crash was due to a poorly integrated in-flight entertainment system that led to a fire in the insulation. Older aircraft have circuit breakers that can fail to detect the arcing that caused that fire. Newer designs have integrated arc-fault circuit breakers and some older aircraft have been upgraded as well. The 737 had weaknesses in its complicated and outdated flight control mechanics that probably led to two crashes before being redesigned. The 787 had battery issues that could potentially lead to a catastrophic fire. Corrections were made. The 737Max had a very poorly designed system that could disorient pilots and lead to fatal outcomes. Now this, too, has been redesigned.

              The only parallel I can imagine between type and safety over time relates to how they are assigned to pilots. Regional jets like the ERJ's are typically assigned to less experienced pilots who, if they have been trained properly, might be freshly disciplined in procedures and more cautious of things like weather threats and approach stability. Pilots with many years of experience, who are typically assigned to command larger aircraft, can become over-confident and complacent. This is the biggest threat to aviation safety and the cause of almost every plane crash (fatal or nonfatal) of the past three decades. Ironically, high hours can be a risk factor in certain pilots, particularly within airlines with cockpit gradients and poor safety cultures.

              The only way to know if an airline has a weak safety culture is to closely follow aviation incident reports. Often the threat is revealed in minor indidents rather than fatal crashes. Look for non-standard pilot actions, missed or skipped procedures, non-stable approaches, landings continued in dangerous weather conditions, discoveries of maintenance shortcomings or improvisations, things like that.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Jamesmackie View Post
                0.03 for the Embraer Vs 0.08 for the Boeing but wanted to understand why this is when the jets are much less powerful, and when the plane feels like you’re shaking for the whole ride ???
                Because:
                a) The Embraer is NOT underpowered compared with the Boeing. Engine is less powerful, but it also weights less (because it is smaller, carries less passenger and cargo, and has a shorter range so less fuel weight too). Both airplanes meet the same certification requirement of climb gradient after an engine failure.
                b) Ride comfort and smoothness (or lack thereof) doesn't bring planes down or kill people.

                What you are asking is more or less like asking "why is this car A faster than car B if car B is pained much nicer". The paint of the car is irrelevant to it's speed. The absolute engine power and the ride quality is irrelevant to an airplane's safety.

                --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Evan View Post

                  The 767 initailly had a cargo latch weakness that caused a fatal crash.
                  Did it really?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Kind of a stupid thread all together. Subjective at best.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post

                      Did it really?
                      Um, no. That was meant to be the DC-10. Have to stop posting in the early hours.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I do have a theory as to why RJs are safer: The non-traditional yoke shape.
                        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                          I do have a theory as to why RJs are safer: The non-traditional yoke shape.

                          Um, only the EMB's have those, but by all means carry on.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post


                            Um, only the EMB's have those, but by all means carry on.
                            Well, the A220 have the sidestick.
                            (This fact can be used to support 3WE's claim by saying "here you have another RJ with a non-traditional yoke" or against him by saying "this one doesn't even have a yoke, let alone a non-traditional one")

                            --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                            --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post

                              Um, only the EMB's have those, but by all means carry on.
                              Indeed, two really noteworthy CRJ crashes come to mind vs zero for ERJs and their funny yokes.
                              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X