Embraers booted out of RVSM airspace
 

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 ?

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!

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

Great another excuse for level capping! :rolleyes:

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

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.

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

Guv

Ask the Canadians @ Bombardier. ;)

Stagnation Point

Who else is on the same "boat"?

[ 13 October 2001: Message edited by: AeroBoero ]

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....

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
;)

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

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:

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).

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 ]

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

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.

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

J. AB

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.

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.

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?