Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 71

Thread: Embraer 145 questions

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    71

    Default 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. #2
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,986

    Default

    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.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    at 1,600 metres
    Posts
    1,313

    Default

    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.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    71

    Default

    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?

  5. #5
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,986

    Default

    Quote 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.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    71

    Default

    Quote 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.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Foxtrot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    OK
    Posts
    3,331

    Default

    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.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    71

    Default

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

  9. #9
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,986

    Default

    Quote 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.

  10. #10
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,986

    Default

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    71

    Default

    Quote 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.

  12. #12
    Senior Member AA 1818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    On the beach, under the sun, smiling...
    Posts
    4,831

    Default

    Quote 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.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    1,427

    Default

    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).

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    71

    Default

    Quote 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.

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,004

    Default

    Quote 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...

    Quote 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

  16. #16
    Senior Member TeeVee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    1,997

    Default

    Quote 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....

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    1,427

    Default

    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.

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,004

    Default

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

  19. #19
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,986

    Default

    Quote 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.

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Fort Thomas, Kentucky
    Posts
    1,519

    Default

    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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •