"1 engine out on a 146 is no problem. Just an inconvenience. We can even do a CAT IIIB autoland on 3 engines!"

Dutchbird, you sure are a clever dude, you sure it's a "146" you are doing CAT 111B on? Best get the Captain to check the Tech Log next time you want to do a Cat 111!!

quote "Dutchbird, you sure are a clever dude, you sure it's a "146" you are doing CAT 111B on? Best get the Captain to check the Tech Log next time you want to do a Cat 111!!"

i can assure you we have been doing CAT3B AWOPS for the past 6 years. 146 is CAT2. RJ 146 series is CAT3B and that is with one engine out.

The new embraer is only CAT3A due to lack off rollout guidence.

Search is your friend

http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-167487.html

being pedantic, thats with an RJ, not a 146.

CATIIIA or CATIIIB
 

Just to make things a tad more precise, Swiss operates the RJ100 as CATIIIA, but with a lower RVR minimum, 150m instead of 200m. Well, except in UK where they impose 200m RVR. Don't ask why...

All this means: 50ft DH but autoland and roll out until 60kts where the aircraft has to be steered manually.

So, in reality, the RJ has some kind of hybrid CATIIIA/CATIIIB capability.

As for the climb performance, well... Enough has been said. Why don't we talk about its descent performance??? :) Amazing what you can do with it: -3000 fpm and decelerating. The controllers love us for that one !

By the way, I fly the RJ100 in case you wondered. :ok:

Cat 3A vs 3B, 200m / 150m, just highlights the confusion from using dated terminology, it does little to explain the basis of an operation.
The Avro RJ is equipped with a 3 axis fail passive autoland system. The post certification tests and in-service operations with Crossair (Swiss) confirmed that the approach and landing performance was very good and the system was highly reliable. BAE SYSTEMS proposed to the UK CAA that the aircraft could be certificated for lower minima, below the then 200m limit. The rationale being good performance, high reliability, good flight deck view, and relatively low landing speed; lower take off minima were also proposed.

A further period of evaluation was required which Crossair conducted (3000 documented landings), together with further BAE SYSTEMS validation. The aircraft (equipment) was ‘type’ certificated, which was accepted by the Swiss operational authorities. This in turn, enabled JAR operators to apply for reduced minima although there was no operational regulatory basis for such an approval.
Subsequently both JAR-AWO (CS-AWO) and JAR-OPS (EU-OPS) were amended to allow this operation, which at the time was categorised as ‘Super Fail-Passive’.
IIRC the aircraft mod cost about £10K per aircraft, but only involved changing a page in the AFM. Crossair probably had the mod for free, but paid in kind with the flap 33 takeoff changes.

Engine failures / aircraft handling:
A 146QF departing Rome suffered a multiple bird strike with the loss of power on 2.5 engines, similar landing problem as that at Campeche (#22) which actually had power on two but indications only on one – apart for the loss of hydraulics and pitch trim, a fuel leak, and a small fire in the cabin.
The 146 / RJ were certificated for two engine failure operations based on the three engine ferry case. The all-engine-out scenario was considered during certification and demonstrated in the simulator;- as being feasible to land on an airfield, not necessarily the runway. Of course there has been at least one operator who managed to stop all four engines in-flight; they all relit.

Aye
 

Tis a fine machine, not without limitations, not without detractors, but well engineered and safe.
To date no rudder hard-overs, no tail-fins falling off ... shame Airbus killed the RJX before it left the cradle. :8

E-jet 3B Autoland 2 is in certification with full rollout guidance.

PEI 3721:

It was a BAe146QT and it was departing from Genoa (at night).

Other BAe/RJ diversion
 

Daz211, last week:
I was on it... "the" BA8754 from Madrid. We were told that we had a "technical problem" and that we were diverting to STN instead of LCY. Upon arrival, I think the Captain referred to our landing gear, but that's all I know.

As you'd hope, it was handled so well by the crew that there was scarcely a murmur in the cabin. I'm not qualified to offer commendations, but absolutely sure that it was a good job. Except that, in all the excitement, I left a book on the plane. Anyone got it? :}