Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Embraer 145 questions

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by SYDCBRWOD View Post
    Bad news EC, you are just as dead if you fall out of the sky from 37,000 feet as 200 feet...
    and here i thought....

    Comment


    • #17
      What's the relevance of that observation. You didn't even wait to learn what the question was about.

      I'm just saying that atmospheric conditions vary as you climb to different altitudes. That Colgan flight probably wasn't flying in the same conditions as AF447. Which probably explains the "unprofessional behavior". They obviously didn't perceive that they were doing a job full of the same hazard as an international flight.

      As for danger at altitude, how about the crash in the Canary Islands. One plane sitting on the runway, the other one laboring to achieve enough height not to ram it. But, then, that was another human error, wasn't it? A guy who wasn't cleared who decided to do it anyway. I mean, if that's going to happen, the passengers are screwed. No amount of safety engineering is of any use when universally-known procedures are simply bypassed. I don't know what the total errors made in that crash were, but I'd call them "unforced" in the sense they use in tennnis.

      Amazing how few crashes occur considering the same human brain capacity and training is involved. Hell, who knows, maybe most of those pilots aren't ready to die. That could induce some care and patience.

      Hmm. Occurs to me we're all lucky that its not so easy to launch an ICBM attack as it is to launch an aircraft.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by EconomyClass View Post
        What's the relevance of that observation. You didn't even wait to learn what the question was about.
        I read the entire thing first - and still struggled to understand why altidude is such a risk.

        Originally posted by EconomyClass View Post
        I'm just saying that atmospheric conditions vary as you climb to different altitudes. That Colgan flight probably wasn't flying in the same conditions as AF447. Which probably explains the "unprofessional behavior". They obviously didn't perceive that they were doing a job full of the same hazard as an international flight.
        A Bombardier Q400 has a maximum altitude of 27,000 feet according to that tome of knowledge, Wikipedia. An A330-200 has a service ceiling of 41,500 feet (figure from KC330-200 MRTT). I'd hazard a guess that you'd be safer in an A330 at 35,000 feet than a Q400 at 26,900 feet. You have again jumped in and assumed something that may not be correct. That being the higher you are the more risk you will be in. It very much depends on the aircraft as to the degree of risk or even whether the plane can achieve that altitude. Quite a few aircraft fly a stepped flight profile - as the aircraft burns off fuel it can ascend to higher altitudes. Also, there is a trade off in terms of the length of a flight leg and which altitude it can be operated most economically at. Generally speaking the higher a plane flys the more efficient it becomes, however it would be patently stupid to plan a cruising altitude of 38,000 feet if you were only going 200nm. Air traffic control will also have a large influence over what altitudes can be flown.

        Ask a few basic questions and you would have had the answers to your questions.

        Originally posted by EconomyClass View Post
        As for danger at altitude, how about the crash in the Canary Islands. One plane sitting on the runway, the other one laboring to achieve enough height not to ram it. But, then, that was another human error, wasn't it? A guy who wasn't cleared who decided to do it anyway. I mean, if that's going to happen, the passengers are screwed. No amount of safety engineering is of any use when universally-known procedures are simply bypassed. I don't know what the total errors made in that crash were, but I'd call them "unforced" in the sense they use in tennnis.
        You are correct and incorrect in what you say here. Sure, human error largely caused the horrific crash, but from that lessons were learned - primarily in Cockpit Resouce Management. The PIC (also the captain) was known to be very overbearing and critical of the junior pilots - he didn't like his decisions being questioned. Nowadays there is supposed to be a very different dynamic in a cockpit that probably would have prevented that incident from occurring in the first place. The copilot would have spoken up and the pilot should now listen and the KLM takeoff either would not have started or would have been aborted.

        Originally posted by EconomyClass View Post
        Amazing how few crashes occur considering the same human brain capacity and training is involved. Hell, who knows, maybe most of those pilots aren't ready to die. That could induce some care and patience.
        I don't think anybody on here has told you that pilots or any link in the chain from maintenance, to baggage screening to ATC is infalible. However it is an industry that whilst flawed, does practise the teachings of Demming and strives for continual improvement in most safety areas (some areas seem to be in regression though - crew fatigue for instance). The reason crashes are investigated is to find the reason why and to put into place fixes for the problem. I believe that on the whole the system works well and have no doubt that flying now is safer that in any other decade in the past (backed by statistics).

        Considering the figures, 4.874 Billion passengers moved in 2008, compared with 577 deaths in 32 crashes - the odds are miniscule of losing your life.

        http://www.aci.aero/cda/aci_common/d...p=1-5-54_666_2__

        http://www.aviation-safety.net/stati...ats.php?cat=A1

        But you go ahead and keep pointing out how obviously stupid you consider pilots to be "that could induce some care and patience". Incidentally if you were again alluding to the Canary Islands incident, the 'impatience' wasn't due to the KLM pilot wanting to get on the turps early - it was because he was restricted in the flight hours he could do in any one period - you know, one of those pesky safety rules.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by SYDCBRWOD View Post
          ...almost as much stuff as Gabriel posts...
          Having fun yet?

          (Make no mistake- a good effort to explain things, and excellent explanations too.)

          While you are at it- I've always worried about DC-9/MD-80 and ERJ aircraft- that uneven, left-to-right seating arrangement must put a lot of extra strain on the right wing- I'm always scared that it will fail if we were to encouter turbulence at a middle altitude.
          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

          Comment


          • #20
            Getting back to the Embraer, it is constantly ranked higher in comfort ratings than the CRJ. It has bigger windows and has a 2-1 configuration, where CRJ's have a 2-2 Configuration.

            In general, turbulence will be felt more on a smaller airplane than a large one, but it's not a big deal. They won't fly you through anything too crazy.

            They may be young pilots, but that doesn't mean their less professional. Most graduates of my school end up at ExpressJet flying the ERJ-145 and I can tell you not only do we have top notch flight training with the degree and college courses to back it up, ExpressJet has one of the best training regiments for their new hires.



            If you want to know anything specific about the 145 PM me, I am currently in a college course specifically tailored to the systems on the ERJ-145 so I have a ton of information and the flight manuals on my desk.
            Tanner Johnson - Owner
            twenty53 Photography

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Tanner_J View Post
              They may be young pilots, but that doesn't mean their less professional. Most graduates of my school end up at ExpressJet flying the ERJ-145 and I can tell you not only do we have top notch flight training with the degree and college courses to back it up, ExpressJet has one of the best training regiments for their new hires.
              I'm very glad to hear that.

              However, I need to understand how young pilots can sit at FL410 with a 20 degree nose up angle, watching their airpseed decay over a period of a minute or two until the stick shaker starts going off, but then LET the plane stall itself.

              I also need to understand how a different young, less experienced dude's response to a stick shaker is to pull up "as hard as you can" to a 30 degree nose up attitude.

              What is the screening procedure that separates your pilots from these others, and how, as a passenger, do I know that I will get one of your pilots?
              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                I also need to understand how a different young, less experienced dude's response to a stick shaker is to pull up "as hard as you can" to a 30 degree nose up attitude.
                That Colgan Air? Easy...the dude got scared when the plane stalled and he pulled up.

                Kind of like when a car starts to hydroplane during rain and people hit the brakes as hard as they can.

                But he should have relied on his co-pilot for guidance. Wait, er, no, the copilot was scared because she had never seen icing like that.

                HOWEVER, I am hoping that American Eagle pilots (the airline I am flying) are better than that.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                  Having fun yet?

                  (Make no mistake- a good effort to explain things, and excellent explanations too.)

                  While you are at it- I've always worried about DC-9/MD-80 and ERJ aircraft- that uneven, left-to-right seating arrangement must put a lot of extra strain on the right wing- I'm always scared that it will fail if we were to encouter turbulence at a middle altitude.
                  LOL, solved by ensuring an extra fat pilot or copilot (depending on layout obviously) ATSB directive AA-34/324?re3^)(

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Tanner_J View Post
                    They may be young pilots, but that doesn't mean their less professional. Most graduates of my school end up at ExpressJet flying the ERJ-145 and I can tell you not only do we have top notch flight training with the degree and college courses to back it up, ExpressJet has one of the best training regiments for their new hires.
                    Didn't comment on their professionalism, but the experience they have had is most likely going to be less than somebody in command of a heavy. Experience does breed a number of things including occasionally complacency and contempt, but it also does give a pilot a chance to experience far more situations and conditions than somebody straight out of training. Generally speaking, a skilled pilot with more hours will be safer than a skilled pilot pretty much straight out of training.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Apooh View Post
                      That Colgan Air? Easy...the dude got scared when the plane stalled and he pulled up.

                      Kind of like when a car starts to hydroplane during rain and people hit the brakes as hard as they can.
                      But I like to think that Greyhound bus drivers, who are professionals and have extra training, would know that slamming on the brakes is the worst thing to do. However, you are correct that that is likely the explanation.

                      As to your other smart-assed comment about the FO (I'm being complimentary), I would ask: Are you Putt-4-Par?
                      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by 3WE View Post

                        I also need to understand how a different young, less experienced dude's response to a stick shaker is to pull up "as hard as you can" to a 30 degree nose up attitude.
                        wasn't he fresh out of flying a saab or some of a/c where the correct procedure for a tail stall WAS yanking back on the stick? not positive but i think i read that somewhere...

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          When an aircraft is stalling...why in the world would you yank back, no matter the aircraft. Maybe I'm wrong (I only have 230 hours) but it just doesn't make sense.

                          In the days leading up to the crash (no joke) I heard from a captain at another airline who flew on Colgan as a non-rev and said he would never put his family on them because their training is shady and it was an overall bad experience. This was literally a day before the flight went down in Buffalo.

                          If you let an airplane stall at 41,000 feet, you retarded to begin with. Is this referring to the CRJ that went down in Missouri? If so, that was pushing the envelope of the airplane with no one on board. I don't think you need to worry.

                          I feel professionalism and experience will depend on the training. Did they come from Part 61 or Part 141. Did they go through a College Part 61 program or the one at the grass strip in the hills of Kentucky? Did they go through a College Part 141 program or the Part 141 program at your typical GA airport? It depends on the person and the training they received.

                          Sure, at my school (Part 141 university) we have some pilots who I would consider not professional, and they are quickly weeded out. To make it through our program at the university you need to be dedicated to making it through the academics as well as the flying. If the grades don't meet a standard, you can't fly. I'm at the airport 5 days a week for 3 hours, either flying or in ground school. The rest of my classes are all aviation related dealing with aerodynamics, systems, air traffic control, human factors, or theories based on the course we're in.
                          Tanner Johnson - Owner
                          twenty53 Photography

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                            As to your other smart-assed comment about the FO (I'm being complimentary), I would ask: Are you Putt-4-Par?
                            You know, I really wish that the other forum was available so that I could go and read the posts of these people that you think are me. I could pick and choose the best and then claim that it is me.

                            If I was a refuge from the other forum I would have probably used the same name. So no, it is not me.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              But you go ahead and keep pointing out how obviously stupid you consider pilots to be "that could induce some care and patience". Incidentally if you were again alluding to the Canary Islands incident, the 'impatience' wasn't due to the KLM pilot wanting to get on the turps early - it was because he was restricted in the flight hours he could do in any one period - you know, one of those pesky safety rules.
                              I don't know about the "stupidity" of pilots. It seems to me that I'm not the one using that word. It seems to me there's an overpopulation of overly-emotional people here. I wonder what attracts them.

                              If I'm the KLM pilot, by that time I'd have called the corporate office and told them "I'm too close to my limit on flying hours. This plane is going nowhere till you put a rested pilot down here." I read that airline managements "intimidate" pilots into breaking rules. But I ask myself how can they intimidate a guy at his age? Does he have 3 kids in college or something? In any case, I don't care what their threats may be, my life is more important than anything they can take away, so I lay it on the line and then go curl up with whatever there is to read, knowing my passengers are going to get a fresh pilot.

                              Complaining passengers? Ha! Better for them to be irritated than dead.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                                wasn't he fresh out of flying a saab or some of a/c where the correct procedure for a tail stall WAS yanking back on the stick? not positive but i think i read that somewhere...
                                The correct procedure for a tail stall is to pull back as needed to counteract the aerodynamic "push down" force caused by the tail stall, and to restore the level 1G flight, and definitely NOT yanking back on the stick and keep it back to the stops all the time while the aiprlane pitches up to 30 degrees under 1.5Gs, loses lateral control and spirals to the ground.

                                --- 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

                                Working...
                                X