Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Embraer 145 questions

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

  • Embraer 145 questions

    I usually try to avoid smaller jets but with all the recent fly cuts, etc... it is more and more difficult to fly larger jets to certain locations. Such is the case of my next scheduled flight.

    1. What is the story about 500hr pilots flying most of these regional jets...especifically American Eagle? It seems that a few recent accidents were caused by this lack of experience (Colgan Air, etc...).

    2. Is turbulence going to feel worse on a smaller aircract due to weight? In other words, is it true that light turbulence on a B767 would feel like moderate on a ERJ145?

    Thanks.

  • #2
    Statistically, RJ's have an INCREDIBLE safety record, (and yes, the less experienced pilots tend to be the ones operating them). It could be something to do with automation and the fact that jet engines are reliable and get you above a lot more weather.

    RJs will respond a little different to turbulence- a little crisper and yes, more responsive- but nowhere near the whole "order of magnitude" you describe. Frankly, I like a plane that takes a bump solidly...I HATE seeing the wing flopping this way, the engine pylon flopping another....KEEP your jumbo jets- even though it may be slightly smoother.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

    Comment


    • #3
      I fly CRJs (United/Delta/Skywest) and ERJs (Continental/?) whenever I get a choice. I love the convieniece, quick on & off, picking up carry-ons at the gate, and that they operate (often) out of less busy airports

      I've not noticed any significance in turbulent weather comfort between RJs and bigger jets. Small Beach turboprops flying the Front Range bounce around a lot but does not bother me.

      Comment


      • #4
        Thank you both for your answers.

        I was also hoping for Screaming Emu to answer since he is a commuter jet pilot but apparently he got banned. Any idea why?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Apooh View Post
          Thank you both for your answers.

          I was also hoping for Screaming Emu to answer since he is a commuter jet pilot but apparently he got banned. Any idea why?
          Airline pilots get banned from discussion forums a lot.

          Are you Flyboy5248M?
          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by 3WE View Post
            Airline pilots get banned from discussion forums a lot.

            Are you Flyboy5248M?
            Why, because they are the only ones that really know?

            No, I am Apooh.

            Comment


            • #7
              Having flow in RJs 13 times now I can tell you for sure that they're nowhere as rough and as uncomfortable as most people make them out to be. Now if you're over 6' 2" tall or have really long legs, comfort might become an issue on RJ flights longer than an hour.

              Turbulence feels just about the same as in any other airliner, and in fact some of my RJ flights have been smoother in say, heat-thermal induced turbulence than a 737.

              Comment


              • #8
                I just checked and...no fatal accidents due to mechanical problems with the ERJ145....ever. That's a pretty good record.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Foxtrot View Post
                  Having flow in RJs 13 times now I can tell you for sure that they're nowhere as rough and as uncomfortable as most people make them out to be. Now if you're over 6' 2" tall or have really long legs, comfort might become an issue on RJ flights longer than an hour.

                  Turbulence feels just about the same as in any other airliner, and in fact some of my RJ flights have been smoother in say, heat-thermal induced turbulence than a 737.
                  It depends on the airplane and seat pitch- but I will second the comment that some "big jets" are a lot more cramped than some RJ's....

                  I have found most CRJ rides to be pretty comfortable. I don't know what it is with ERJ's...sometimes I feel cramped, sometimes not....I have felt both! But again, I have gone between "real airliners" and "RJ's" on connections and have to say that two wide and limited headroom is a lot better than in the middle of 3 or 5-wide seats, seatback pressed into your knees on some of the tightly-pitched airliners.
                  Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Apooh View Post
                    Why, because they are the only ones that really know?
                    Based on that answer, I think you are Flyboy5248m, a CRJ pilot who has been banned many times.

                    Originally posted by Apooh View Post
                    No, I am Apooh.
                    Short and to the point, I think you are Flyboy5248m, a CRJ pilot who has been banned many times.

                    Plus, that is a most interesting userID, I think you are Flyboy5248m, a CRJ pilot who has been banned many times.
                    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                      Based on that answer, I think you are Flyboy5248m, a CRJ pilot who has been banned many times.



                      Short and to the point, I think you are Flyboy5248m, a CRJ pilot who has been banned many times.

                      Plus, that is a most interesting userID, I think you are Flyboy5248m, a CRJ pilot who has been banned many times.
                      That would be scary if I was a CRJ pilot asking a question about the ERJ145. Either way, you got me confused.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Foxtrot View Post
                        Having flow in RJs 13 times now I can tell you for sure that they're nowhere as rough and as uncomfortable as most people make them out to be. Now if you're over 6' 2" tall or have really long legs, comfort might become an issue on RJ flights longer than an hour.

                        Turbulence feels just about the same as in any other airliner, and in fact some of my RJ flights have been smoother in say, heat-thermal induced turbulence than a 737.
                        Lol - 6' 3" here and I must say that it all depends on the aircraft and layout (as you mentioned...). To be quite honest, I prefer ERJs over CRJs (hands down) normally due to the fact that most ERJ 135/140/145s are configured in 1-aisle-2 configuration. While standing, it is a bit cumbersome (at times), it is not horrible. I prefer that arrangement versus a 3-aisle-3 on most A32Xs and 737s. On most CRJs, (as nice as they are as aircraft), most airlines try to cram too many seats on board (so seat pitch is horrible) and you get a 2-aisle-2 layout (which is still more comfortable that a A32X or 737).

                        As for turbulence, on ERJs, it tends to be a bit more exaggerated than say on a larger aircraft (from what I have experienced), but then again, when an RJ's engines decide to power through a sittutation, you definately feel it.

                        Another issue with RJs is that they often offer little or no amenities (offered on mainline flights) such as powerports, IFE systems, and/or meal services. I understand that those are currently premiums on mainline carriers, but still...it does affect a decision. Case in point, CO employs the ERJ-145XR on some routes that are rather long (for an RJ, in comparison to other RJs usage at other carriers) and it amazes me there are no/little IFE and the like. But then again, with the sad state of our industry (for the past decade it seems...), we have little if anything to complain about...
                        Whatever is necessary, is never unwise.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          These short jumps don't require flying as high, do they? So, does that mean a different type of difficulty for the less-experienced pilots? Most flight like that will not cross a tropical convergence (at least not flights I'd take).

                          To me, flying is not worth doing unless there's some serious distance to the trip or an ocean to be crossed. For instance, I flew to Seattle, but when I wanted to get to Portland from there, I rented a car. Driving to Portland was a breeze (except the first 50 miles or so at rush hour, my departure would have been nicer if I'd toured Seattle for a couple of hours and then headed south).

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by AA 1818 View Post
                            I prefer ERJs over CRJs (hands down) normally due to the fact that most ERJ 135/140/145s are configured in 1-aisle-2 configuration. ...
                            That's a very good point.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by EconomyClass View Post
                              These short jumps don't require flying as high, do they?
                              Bad news EC, you are just as dead if you fall out of the sky from 37,000 feet as 200 feet...

                              Originally posted by EconomyClass View Post
                              So, does that mean a different type of difficulty for the less-experienced pilots? Most flight like that will not cross a tropical convergence (at least not flights I'd take).
                              You mention the ITCZ as though it has single handedly downed a couple of thousand airliners. Here's an idea - don't fly. Take a car (with a much higher risk of being involved in an accident - but don't let logic get in the way here).

                              Exactly what 'different type of difficulty' are you talking about here? Are you thinking that its less difficult to fly at a lower altitude than a higher one? Are you going to disregard the fact that generally speaking the smaller the aircraft in these regional operators the less hours the pilots probably have? I'd say there's your bigger risk factor - but hey, that's just me

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X