Differences between RJ100 and BAE 146
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No difference at all.
They are both a nasty, scruffy, slow regional heaps of crap and the ones in BA colours are an embarrassment to the company.
Still look on the bright side. At least you can fit a laptop into an overhead locker unlike the impressive 145 or Dash 8.
They are both a nasty, scruffy, slow regional heaps of crap and the ones in BA colours are an embarrassment to the company.
Still look on the bright side. At least you can fit a laptop into an overhead locker unlike the impressive 145 or Dash 8.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Costa Del Solent
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey! The 146/RJ is a great a/c, one of a kind and a classic british aircraft! It might be a bit slower than other jets but t/o performance beats many others hands down! But I'm biased!!
Any Avro/146 fans check out http://www.smiliner.com/
Any Avro/146 fans check out http://www.smiliner.com/
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Costa Del Solent
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, not pax, or fly them (yet!) but am an ATPL student who also works as cabin crew on them and have many mates who are pilots on them who love it! even ex-737 drivers and the like. Just your opinion I guess!!
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: England
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NN
Actually NN, if you read the thread title you will see that speedfreek asked a question. I, amongst others, answered it, in an ON TOPIC manner.
Whereas your 'answer' did not add anything to the factual purpose of the thread. It was off topic, and in fact nothing less than a cheap pop at the regional / franchise operators.
....and apparently I'm the one with the chip.
You don't need my permission to post, but likewise if you are going to take cheap shots rest assured someone is going to call you on it.
CPB
Well who asked yours?
Whereas your 'answer' did not add anything to the factual purpose of the thread. It was off topic, and in fact nothing less than a cheap pop at the regional / franchise operators.
....and apparently I'm the one with the chip.
You don't need my permission to post, but likewise if you are going to take cheap shots rest assured someone is going to call you on it.
CPB
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A cheap pop?
Actually an accurate (IMHO) pop at a crap bit of equipment running services that used to be from a proud BA base.
Its not the crew's fault they fly a substandard bit of kit for a substandard part of "BA". Its just a sad fact of life.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves.
The former large thriving BA base at MAN will soon be reduced to some sort of sub 50 seat subsiduary bullsh1t.
Or can't you see the wood for the trees?
Actually an accurate (IMHO) pop at a crap bit of equipment running services that used to be from a proud BA base.
Its not the crew's fault they fly a substandard bit of kit for a substandard part of "BA". Its just a sad fact of life.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves.
The former large thriving BA base at MAN will soon be reduced to some sort of sub 50 seat subsiduary bullsh1t.
Or can't you see the wood for the trees?
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: England
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, the point of the thread was the aircraft.
There is only really one area of 'crap'ness about the RJ-100, and that is APU reliability.
The rest of it is horses for courses.
If they look scruffy and are operated on unsuitable routes (re: your slowness comment) then thats a problem with how BA have chosen to emply them.
The basic aircraft is sound, built like a brick outhouse and sweet to fly.
CPB
There is only really one area of 'crap'ness about the RJ-100, and that is APU reliability.
The rest of it is horses for courses.
If they look scruffy and are operated on unsuitable routes (re: your slowness comment) then thats a problem with how BA have chosen to emply them.
The basic aircraft is sound, built like a brick outhouse and sweet to fly.
CPB
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Costa Del Solent
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigel,
I think the underlying situation here is that you have issues with your employer and their management methods and are using a vaguely-related thread to vent your frustration.
What do you fly anyway that's so superior to the RJ?!?
I think the underlying situation here is that you have issues with your employer and their management methods and are using a vaguely-related thread to vent your frustration.
What do you fly anyway that's so superior to the RJ?!?
anyone other 146/RJ operators out there having trouble with Type 4 de-icing fluid , only when type 4 is misapplied or misused!
The problems with thickened de-icing fluids (type 2 & 4) have been discussed elsewhere in Pprune. Many aircraft with manual controls are susceptible to ‘gelling’ or dry out problems with these fluids, the 146/RJ perhaps particularly so due to its servo-tab control system (also the MD-80 series of aircraft). Solution; wash off all traces of previous de-icing fluids, don’t over apply thickened anti-icing fluids, do not use as an over-night defrosting agent.
The 146/RJ should have a ‘same’ type rating; the process started with the 146 EFIS variant (3163 onwards) where initial approval was gained from the FAA under AC120-53; this was transferred / accepted by the UK CAA pending new European rules. The Avro RJ has a type certification of “BAe146 – Avro RJ”, i.e. a variant, look at the AFM title.
The RJ EFIS/avionics systems uses digital sensors connections whereas the 146 EFIS retained as far as possible kept the analogue sensors and connections. Thus with an ADC the RJ has airspeed speed on the PFD. The EFIS formats were deliberately made to ‘look alike’ the analogue instruments. Whilst this arrangement may not have all of the bells and whistles of newer systems, it does provide all of the essential features, although with new regulation some RNAV systems lack capability, but most of these problems were by operator choice. Overall this decision has stood the test of time re crew error/mistakes, and in many countries around the world.
Thus the RJ and146 are ‘horses for a courses’; what other type can fly steep approaches, operate to 3000 ft runways, and fly Cat3b (RJ - 150m RVR) auto lands?
Most pilots enjoyed their time on the 146/RJ. It takes you to places not often seen before, many lessons learned, experiences gained, and it is real flying. It is not a type that will bite you – very forgiving. On the down side; it does the industry a great disservice with the super soft landings, now all pilots try to follow this in other aircraft types with the risk of long ‘floaty’ landings, or the ‘crunch’ of a steep approach!
The problems with thickened de-icing fluids (type 2 & 4) have been discussed elsewhere in Pprune. Many aircraft with manual controls are susceptible to ‘gelling’ or dry out problems with these fluids, the 146/RJ perhaps particularly so due to its servo-tab control system (also the MD-80 series of aircraft). Solution; wash off all traces of previous de-icing fluids, don’t over apply thickened anti-icing fluids, do not use as an over-night defrosting agent.
The 146/RJ should have a ‘same’ type rating; the process started with the 146 EFIS variant (3163 onwards) where initial approval was gained from the FAA under AC120-53; this was transferred / accepted by the UK CAA pending new European rules. The Avro RJ has a type certification of “BAe146 – Avro RJ”, i.e. a variant, look at the AFM title.
The RJ EFIS/avionics systems uses digital sensors connections whereas the 146 EFIS retained as far as possible kept the analogue sensors and connections. Thus with an ADC the RJ has airspeed speed on the PFD. The EFIS formats were deliberately made to ‘look alike’ the analogue instruments. Whilst this arrangement may not have all of the bells and whistles of newer systems, it does provide all of the essential features, although with new regulation some RNAV systems lack capability, but most of these problems were by operator choice. Overall this decision has stood the test of time re crew error/mistakes, and in many countries around the world.
Thus the RJ and146 are ‘horses for a courses’; what other type can fly steep approaches, operate to 3000 ft runways, and fly Cat3b (RJ - 150m RVR) auto lands?
Most pilots enjoyed their time on the 146/RJ. It takes you to places not often seen before, many lessons learned, experiences gained, and it is real flying. It is not a type that will bite you – very forgiving. On the down side; it does the industry a great disservice with the super soft landings, now all pilots try to follow this in other aircraft types with the risk of long ‘floaty’ landings, or the ‘crunch’ of a steep approach!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In "BIG SKY".
Age: 84
Posts: 418
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BAE-146/AVR-146
Safetypee, has it correct on the type 4 fluid. Why people are applying it the night before and not washing it off properly must be due to ignorance. The stuff changes its form into a gel and will stick on any surface and not shear off, as it should, before rotation. Control balance then becomes a serious issue.
I have been trying to get the FAA to understand this problem for the past 3 years and finally they have recognised the problem. Our neihbours to the North have know about it for ever but then the "not invented here" syndrome come into play every time.
As for the 146 type rating issue the FAA certificate that I have in my back pocket shows both BAE-146 and AVR-146. A minor issue as all you have to do is a differences course. I was a training captain on the things for a few years and found it to be a great airplane with some UK idiosycosies!!
Speedbird 48.
I have been trying to get the FAA to understand this problem for the past 3 years and finally they have recognised the problem. Our neihbours to the North have know about it for ever but then the "not invented here" syndrome come into play every time.
As for the 146 type rating issue the FAA certificate that I have in my back pocket shows both BAE-146 and AVR-146. A minor issue as all you have to do is a differences course. I was a training captain on the things for a few years and found it to be a great airplane with some UK idiosycosies!!
Speedbird 48.
Thanks Speedbird48, however don’t confuse control unbalance with the fluid gel problem. Gel or particularly the residual ‘thickener’ powders are not normally a problem until they get wet. Then they quickly absorb water, up to 10 x their own volume, and above the freezing layer are a major hazard for control jams / block. Rare instances of problems with control balance have been encountered in sever icing conditions not necessarily associated with fluid problems.
Of interest my ‘same type’ rating is worded BAe146 series 100, 200 & 300 and Regional Jet RJ70, RJ85, RJ100, & RJ115. Interesting as the RJ115 was never certificated!
Of interest my ‘same type’ rating is worded BAe146 series 100, 200 & 300 and Regional Jet RJ70, RJ85, RJ100, & RJ115. Interesting as the RJ115 was never certificated!
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Mahlangeni
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I know, the only interchangeable panels are in/on the Avro RJ series simulators, i.e. things like digital pressurisation (vs. manual press), FMS (vs. GNS-X), and EGPWS (no separate panel).
I doubt that an RJ sim can be changed into a 146 sim by interchanging panels as the one has DFGS's, TRP, MCP etc. vs. older systems which are somewhat different.
I might be wrong.
I doubt that an RJ sim can be changed into a 146 sim by interchanging panels as the one has DFGS's, TRP, MCP etc. vs. older systems which are somewhat different.
I might be wrong.
