RJ-70, safety record

[BIANCA]

RJ-70s landing in SE Turkey during past month had trouble lowering undercarriage, 1 did successful emergency landing (Diyarbakir, no/no casualties); one managed to lower undercarriage after 1 hr circling to use up fuel in prep 4 emerg. landing. (Istanbul -Van, 27.12) comments on RJ-70 safety record? (note below freezing temp. even at ground level)

[anawanahuanana]

Maybe you should be concentrating more on the Turkish aviation procedures and maintenance standards, than the aircraft itself. The turks have lost 3 RJ`s since 1998, and it appears none of these was due to a defect with the aircraft.

If there`s been occurances of the undercarriage failing to come down, it`s more likely to be an incorrectly folowed procedure during maintenance. Unless of course it`s happening to different operators.......

Just my 2p`s worth........

[Tex]

Gee, seems like Comair has operated the CL-65 since December 1992 without a single hull loss.

My friends still there tell me they haven't had any problems with the '70.

Maybe, just maybe, there is something wrong in Turkey.

[White Knight]

The Avro RJ 70 et al are VERY robust and - apart from the APU - VERY reliable. I flew the RJ 100 for three years and have to say always felt safe as houses !!!
Look at the above comments:hmm:

[320DRIVER]

Whiteknight... when speaking about the APU I guess you mean the 4 LF507s? :-> ... apart from the atrocious engine failure rate we experienced I think the RJ is a robust aircraft.

Had some problems with pitch oscillations due water ingress in the tailplane which was solved by extra drain holes and amended preflight control checks and also a few cases of frozen thrust lever which always freed themselves when descending into warmer air. Guess it could be a problem if the ground temperature is well below freezing.

[Tex]

Are we talking about the CRJ-70 or the Avro-70?

I can't think of any engine failures on the CRJ, but the Avro...that's another story.

[White Knight]

Talking Avro....

With the 16 aircraft we operated I think only one actual engine failure that I can remember, possibly one pitch oscillation event - no, very benign aeroplane:cool:

[A Nonny Mouse]

If you want to see how robust the RJs/146s are, just come along to London City and watch them bury themselves into the tarmac every day a la aircraft carrier (very little in the way of flaring before touchdown).

I defy any one to name another jet aircraft which can operate into City (or anywhere else with a steep approach) land in the most heartstopping conditions (20kt gusting 30kt crosswinds), and do this up to 3 times a day per aircraft 7 days a week.

If they are so unreliable, how come the apron at LCY isn't cluttered up with tech aircraft?

[viking737]

How long is the runway at LCY?

[turbynetrip]

I always smile when I get to fly on a -146/RJ/Avro as a pax. Built like a tank...shame that they don't make them any more...

TT.

[Out Of Trim]

Viking737

LCY is a very small strip in central London Docklands area -

Airfield Data
Emergency Services: Airport Fire Service
Navigational Aids: DME, NDB, Automated Weather System
Airfield Restrictions: 5½° Approach operational hours
Runway 1: Heading 10/28, 1,199m (3,933ft), PCN 30/R/C/X/T, ICAO Cat. 2C, Aircraft size max: AVRO 20100, ILS, Lighting: Approximates to CAT I

[spacecowbhoy]

I understand that The BAe 146 , and consequently by heritage its derivatives , was originally designed as a military transport .

I think that the three hull losses mentioned above in Turkey (all operated by Turkish Airways )were not attributed to technical failures of the airframe or systems but due to weather or pilot error. It is indeed very fortunate that the casualty rates were not higher.

[jau]

Hiya,
when you mention the CL-70, I take it that you mean the CL-700, whats a CL-65?

Also, whats the difference between the BAe146 and the RJ series? Are they not the same plane?

[spagiola]

Turkish airlines has, in the last 10 years, lost not only 3 Avro RJs (fortunately, two did not involve fatalities) but also 2 Boeing 737s:

THY hull losses since 1994 (fatalities):
29-DEC-1994 Boeing 737-400 TC-JES (57)
11-JAN-1998 Avro RJ TC-THF (0)
07-APR-1999 Boeing 737-400 TC-JEP (6)
22-APR-2000 Avro RJ TC-THL (0)
08-JAN-2003 Avro RJ TC-THG (75)
(info is from safety.net (http://aviation-safety.net/index.shtml) )

So my first inclination in hearing of problems with THY's Avro RJs would not be to suspect the aircraft....

[Dani]

BAe 146 is the old model, while Avro RJ the newer one, with improved cockpit (partially CRTs), but also various modifications in engines (Fadecs), flight controls and basic construction. BAe 146-100 corresponds to RJ-70, -200 to 85 and -300 to RJ-100.

[Ivan Taclue]

Spacecowboy

The Avro/BAe 146 RJ Series was never designed as a military transport. Its origin lies in the HS146 design and was intended as a replacement for the DC3 !!! and older turboprops, mainly in remote, unsophisticated areas. Surprisingly it actually never sold well in these regions.

It came as a bit of a shock to the sales teams in the mid 80's that the aircraft made such an impact in the American market. E.g. 24 to PSA and 6 to Aircal etc.

[alf5071h]

None of the RJ accidents involved the aircraft - airframe, systems, etc..
11-JAN-1998 was Airmanship, CRM, etc. 3 Capts on board! NPA. Fog, ice, over run; minor damage but uneconomic recovery site in N turkey.
22-APR-2000 was an over run on a wet muddy runway. The ‘hull loss’ was due to an uneconomic recovery from a remote airfield in SE of Turkey although the damage was minor.
08-JAN-2003 is still under investigation, but appears to be CFIT during NPA in fog.

A good solid aircraft – no fatalities in two and, unusually, survivors in the CFIT accident. One should not immediately blame the operator; in more hospitable country two of the airframes would be back in service without affecting the safety statistics.


Ivan Taclue, what about the STA version 146-100? Side loading door; it never sold to the military, but as -200 and -300 freighters the concept was very successful.

[Mostly Harmless]

"I defy any one to name another jet aircraft which can operate into City (or anywhere else with a steep approach) land in the most heartstopping conditions (20kt gusting 30kt crosswinds), and do this up to 3 times a day per aircraft 7 days a week."

The Dash 7

[ITCZ]

Dash 7?!?!?! What did you do with the props? Else we could include C206 with an allison turbine!

Should have said...

What aircraft can take 100 pax in and out of a 1200m/3700' airport, with a 5.5 degree ILS glidepath, AND cruise at 0.72/400kt, AND serve everyone a hot breakfast?

Damned shame the RJX was cancelled. Would have been a great aeroplane.

[JamesT73J]

Those 146's are my daily soundtrack at Southampton. One of the departures takes them right over my flat on the high street, and I usually get woken up by the 0640 to Malaga (when it isn't late!).

My work at the college also sees them whining overhead on their way in and out as well. It's amazing how you can get used to the sound and know exactly where they are. It starts with a gentle 'zing' when they're approaching, then changes to a harmonic 'mwahhhhh' when they're overhead and finally ends in a throaty whistle. I think they're great.

[ICT_SLB]

Ivan,
Spacecowboy is correct. The origin of the 146 was the HS681 - a VSTOL transport with twin Pegasus intended to support the P1154 force. It was axed along with the P1154 and subsequently redesigned to delete the aft ramp and re-engined with the four Allisons.

Another aircraft that can fly into LCV? - the Dash 8-400 - and much lower seat mile costs too!

[A Nonny Mouse]

Since the thread started talking about reliability, It is quite apt to bring the Dash 8-400 into it:O

As well as this they need to be pushed onto stand with the aid of a tug, can't 180 on the runway (apart from the very end) and as far as I was aware, still has spinny things attached to the turbine.

Any one who saw some of the 146s land this morning (especially the Swiss RJ100 at around 11:00) would never say another word against this marvelous piece of British (over)engineering.

[DesignerChappie]

Both the THY RJ's that ended up in ditches in remote parts of Turkey where badly damaged and would have required major repairs. Both where declared write-offs because it was considered to dangerous and difficult to repair at the site. The cost of temporary repairs and ferry flights pushed the cost of repair higher and became uneconomic. The damage caused was very similar to the TQF 146 that hit a wall in the Sottish Islands but UK tax payers footed the bill for that and Charlie, who was flying it, spent several weeks in the sim at Woodford being re-trained.

The HS681 was a four engined STOL freighter similar in looks to the 146 but much larger with a rear loading ramp. The 146 STA ( the only 146-100QT built) actually served with the Austrian Air Force for a while, it's with National Jet in Australia now.

[Groundbased]

Going back to LCY I did understand that an Irish operator gets an ERJ145 in there.

Also read that Embraer were trying to get the 170 certified for LCY by adding a lift dumper similar to the 146's. Although that may be complete fiction.

Always had good rides on the Avro's when I've been on them.

[RRAAMJET]

I've taken the 146 into a 4500' (really) dirt strip in Ethiopia (7000'msl) and into a 13 000' msl field in Bolivia....try doing that in a Dash-8 400....I don't think so. I've crossed the Atlantic in it many times (with a stop), the Indian Ocean, the Sahara, the Soviet Union's horrendous runways, and flown into some truly crummy weather in Sondrestrom and Churchill - all without a snag.

Also been to several war zones in it, "phasers on stun", as it were, and it never let me down. Even had fun against F-4's doing fighter-affil in the S. Atlantic...

Flew it in the airlines, had more fun...;)

Great jet :ok:

[Mostly Harmless]

"jet"

That's what I get for speed reading, I miss one little word and...

[Tex]

The CL-65 is the type designator for the CRJ-200 and 700. In the US, we refer to the 700 as the CRJ-70, and the Avro as the ARJ-70. That's why I was a bit confused at the beginning of this thread when the mention was only RJ-70.

Seeing that I don't have a clue about the Avro (except I love riding in it as a passenger), I'll butt-out.

Now, if you want to know about the Canadair Reset Jet (CRJ), I have expertise on that subject.

[rotornut]

Tex-
Now, if you want to know about the Canadair Reset Jet (CRJ), I have expertise on that subject.
That might not be a bad idea. I have an engineer friend at Air Canada who has told me a few things about them so it would interesting to compare notes, so to speak. But you might want to start a new topic as it could be a bit confusing if you continued in this thread.
:)

[Skunkie]

viking 737

runway lenght in Lcy is 4327 ft

Skunkie

[Latte tester]

Okay Tex, I'll bite...tell me about the CRJ...and don't tell me that the Brazilian piece of s*** is better