Embraers booted out of RVSM airspace

[160to4DME]

Just been told this morning that RVSM airspace in Europe is to be closed to Embraer jets due to poor level keeping.

Anyone have any more news on this ?

[The Guvnor]

If that's correct, it will make them even more expensive to operate ... can't understand why anyone wants the JungleJets anyway; incredibly claustrophobic things!

[Hap Hazard]

:mad: OH GOD NOT HIM AGAIN. PLEASE GUVNOR WHY DONT YOU JUST DO US ALL A FAVOUR?

[MACC 29 all the time!!!!]

Great another excuse for level capping! :rolleyes:

[swede-basher]

SAAB BOY, the simple answer is a hell of a lot more people than want crapped out L1011's

[PaulDeGearup]

ARINC have the Eurocontrol contract to monitor altitude maintenance; someone has to sit on your jumpseat with a very state of the art GPS system and make regular logs of which autoiplot is engaged and what the altimetry is doing vs what the GPS says. You then get the tick if it is within limits on all autpilts and altimeters. If one particular airline or type doesn't meet the criteria then no approval until it is fixed.

[Stagnation Point]

According to the company propoganda it is only a temporary exclusion from RVSM and it doesn't only affect the Embraer.

[AeroBoero]

Guv

Ask the Canadians @ Bombardier. ;)

Stagnation Point

Who else is on the same "boat"?

[ 13 October 2001: Message edited by: AeroBoero ]

[ATC Watcher]

Embrajets are the latests one of a very long list unfortunately... 44 types still on the last time I saw the lsit. it includes all the Russian types and the jurassics , icluding the DC9s. But surprisingly almost all the Citations and the Bae146s...
Fix is easy but (very) expensive....half a million $ in some cases...
270 and 280 are going to be popular levels next January....

[Niaga Dessip]

Guvnor,
"can't understand why anyone wants the JungleJets anyway; incredibly claustrophobic things!"

If it means that, or a slower turboprop, then I do.

If it means that, or no flight at all because the route cannot sustain a larger aircraft, then again, I do.

I would feel that it is a claustrophobic beast if we were talking long haul, which we obviosly are not, but for a short hour or so then I am more than happy with it. I use one regularly out of Manchester. But then I am only a passenger.

Do I sense a touch of "mine's bigger that yours" in your comments, Guv?

Regards,
ND
;)

[Elliot Moose]

I think the Guv is mainly referring to the fact that the interior of the junglejet is somewhat reminiscent of the Texas lawn dart (aka the San Antonio Sewer pipe, death tube, etc). Most turboprops have a more spacious cabin!
Of course I must admit a biased opinion--I'm a "Skidoo" man myself! :D

[The Guvnor]

Yep, Elliot Moose is right - the JungleJet is like the Metroliner! Its narrow cross-section means that headroom is limited as well - when I recently flew on one it was almost a hands-and-knees job! :D :D :D

Perception, especially on the part of the great travelling public, is somewhat curious. As we all know, on the shorter hops of 250 - 350nm or so the advantages of a jet are minimal and they cost a great deal more to operate (up to 50% more in some cases - comparing say the F50 or ATR72 with the CRJ or the EMB145) ... and on top of that are a lot less comfortable!

Strange, really! :eek: :rolleyes: :eek:

[Fizze]

Guvnor, Why do you think Embraer i so successful, if what you say is right. Look at the people next time they are bording your turboprop (their facial expression).

[nitefiter]

This thread has turned into Embraer bashing again.The Guv`s statement,"makes them even more expensive to operate" implies that they are expensive to operate in the first place,what is he comparing it to?I fly them i like them, the passengers generally like them.Passengers want to see a jet not a turbo prop.This little jet is also going to keep me employed when all around are failing.I passengered recently on a turbo prop and a 50 min 145 route was like long haul!Any way back to the RVSM the 145 is within the tollerance band(set by the jar opps) albeit at the top end, but so are other types,Yes 270/290 are going to get busy if this does happen, but on the routes i fly it makes jack all difference!!
;)

[ 15 October 2001: Message edited by: nitefiter ]

[Airprox]

Listen, I now fly a B757 and I can tell you all that I enjoyed flying the Embraer 145 at lot more. Yes its a bit smaller but a lot more advanced.

From pax comments about the Embraer, yes its small (but so are most turbo-prop, which it has replaced) but it also extremelty quiet, unless you sit in the back two rows where you can hear the engines. I used to fly SAABs and they where bl00dy noisey.

I'd love to fly a barbie het again.

;) :p

[Stagnation Point]

Pauldegearup

I'd be interested to know how this super accurate GPS works. DO they have the code from the US military to get the real accurate 3D position, and does it monitor the surface pressure beneath the aircraft, since FL's are pressure levels their actual heights will vary with change in surface pressure.

Guv

I guess you haven't flown with Airtours, their acft are definitely claustrophobis with the seat pitch that they run. The "Junglejet" as you so eloqently put it is fast, quiet, comfortable for the passengers, quick to turn around, and can be operated for about the same cost as a medium sized turbo-prop. Which is why it is so popular with commuter airlines. There are props to re-condition. Having flown Metros, SAABS and the Embraer, they were all designed for a purpose and suit that purpose well. Metros were cheap to buy and run and a great plane to fly, albeit a bit cramped. They were easy to make a profit from. The SAAB was/is a logical step up and in some parts of the world will around for quite a while, it a bit of a modern day HS748.

Long may the Embraer reign.

[Justin Abeaver]

Barbie Jet - Small but perfectly formed. Shame about all those Recall Drills!

J. AB

[MASOR Monkey]

Stagnation Point, the US military took away selective availability (the code) about 6 months ago. Mind you, wouldn't be surprised if they had put it back in, in light of current affairs.

[Greg Baddeley]

At the risk of returning to the original thread...........certain aircraft have had their RVSM approval suspended pending further investigation - the 146-RJ included. The 146 was pulled in on this by association only (CAA AD004-09-2001)since it doesn't do RVSM anyway.

[QNH1013]

What about the older generation aircraft like the 737-200's? I guess they'll have to get the fancy GPS equipment installed if they don't have it already in order to become compliant?

[GeofJ]

Lets see - would I rather suffer in the small, quiet, smooth flying, leather seated baby jet or in the spacious luxurious brain addling noise filled turboprop - particularly the Beech 1900D rear seat center, hmmm thats a hard choice isn't it. It is no secret why several of the US regionals are going all jet - the customers love them. Having spent many an hour in the J31, J41, 1900C & D, Dash 8 and even Twin Otter I can say that I'll take the jet everytime - except for Twin Otter - a better small workhorse has not been seen since this gem from deHavilland.

The Guv can have all of the rattletrap clapped out turboprops - more baby jets for the rest of us

[Saab 2000 Driver]

---------------------------------------
Happyness is a warm Saab 2000 ! :D

[Denti]

QNH1013, you don't need GPS to be RVSM-certified. There are lots of planes around without GPS which are certified so far. You need to have an airplane which has the required vertical navigation performance capability required for RVSM operations in compliance with the MASPS. But that should be in your RVSM-Training/Ops-Manual. The main things are two independent altimeter systems, an automatic altitude control system (aka autopilot) and at least TCAS/ACAS version 7.0.

[ATC Watcher]

nitefiter : for your info 290 is an RVSM level so it will be 250-270 easbound....
and at 250 on an RJ or an Embrajet is not so nice....
For the others on GPS : not only GPS is not necessary for RVSM but you do not even need to carry the GMU suitcase ( GPS Monitoring Unit) to get approval : just overfly one of the HMU a couple of time using your good old VOR and if your altimetry is according what your mode C says, you,re on ( providing you carry the additional hardware as mentiooned already )

[Direct HALIFAX]

As an air traffiker let's clarify what this means.

In UK airspace the E145 and E135 will still be allowed access to RVSM airspace but will require 2,000 vertical separation from other traffic, or 5nm lateral separation.

So, depending on the traffic situation, they may still operate at levels above FL280.

It appears that only the UK CAA has acted so far so the ban applies to all UK-registered E145 / E135. European operators are still RVSM approved.

It's a crazy world !!

[Stagnation Point]

I believe it has something to do with Euro Control having changed the accuracy limits for RVSM and the E145 falls just outside it. Anyone know what the limits are.

Since Mode C gets its info from the acfts Altimeter then it should compare all the time. Unless the test box you mention can measure pressure out side the acft I can't see how it can test the accuracy of the Altimetry. All the altimeters would have been bench tested and can also be tested on the acft.

[Smudge's Lot]

I was reading the NOTAM yesterday on the A1 UK Notams which does say that due to poor height keeping, the EMB 135/145 and the 146/RJ family are not approved to fly above FL290 and operators should plan accordingly.(A1871/01). How come BAeSystems haven't done anything about it especially when RVSM has long been planned and most of the 146/RJ's are in the UK.What are (ex)Flyer and British European going to do now? It's not exactly the best time to start increasing fuel burn? Or am I talking totally out of tune-do most of these flights ever operate above 290? :confused: