They haven't been at the cutting edge of aviation since Concorde and the TSR2. There is no longer enough expertise left to build a complete aircraft in the UK, even if somebody came up with a viable design. Having been a six-monthly visitor to the sim centre at Woodford for quite a few years, it has gone from slightly busy (when the RJX was being built and the Nimrod program was in full swing), to an absolute ghost town.

The 146/RJ/RJX were/are great aircraft for their intended purpose, don't get me wrong. But even when the RJX was flying, it was just an RJ with new engines... still the same basic EFIS, several orders of magnitude less capable than most turbopops of the era.

Personally, I think the UK government should be held accountable for throwing away what was a strong and innovative industry. How the empire has fallen!

But I think we can all agree that this seasexsun clown is a complete dick!

Is CityJet still hiring? Which bases are available?

Not at the moment - there's a bit of a training backlog although the recruiters said they would look at it again in the next 6 months.

Remoak:

Yes I couldnt agree more, sadly BAe is a shadow of its former self, and this is primarily down to one factor.. investment. I can only think that the super might of companies like Lockheed Martin have come to BAe for expertise on issues regarding the F35, as they know we have some of the best aeronautical engineers and innovators worldwide.
My point being If I am to believe that the B737 NG is a better aeroplane than the A320 (which I do):E, it still doesnt detract the fact that the A320 is an amazing piece of engineering, and this is how I regard the 146/RJ. Sad government funding has created this lull in aeronautical engineering, but just look on the roads and see the dominance of the big German car (Merc spend 1mill estimated on development a day.. so I heard ????), think what Jag, Aston Martin and Rolls could have down with that!!!!!!!:D

When inserted into the context of aviation, I find the concept of over-engineering a tad more comforting than what the alternative implies....

Anything less, smacks of risk management, and look where that got BAA last week.

As to reliability, anything, or anyone for that matter, that gets on a bit in years is likely to have a few more reliability issues... sympathy and tlc are the order of the day!

regards from a member of the unofficial rj fan club.

People have flown this machine to inappropriate landing areas ie mountainsides, treetops etc, but the aircraft itself has yet to kill or seriously injure anyone to the best of my knowledge ... not a bad record .:ok:

There is a serious gap in your knowledge so Teddy :ugh:

Never let facts cloud your judgement.........

The BAe-146/Avro RJ has been involved in seven hull-loss accidents with a total of 259 fatalities (courtesy of Aviation Safety network).

* On 7 December 1987 a Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 1771 BAe 146-200 (registration: N350PS) crashed after a disgruntled former USAir employee aimed a .44 Magnum pistol and fired several shots in or near the cockpit area, causing the aircraft to enter a steep nosedive. All of the 43 passengers and crew members on board were killed. At the time airline employees were allowed to bypass security checkpoints.

* On 20 February 1991 a LAN Chile BAe 146-200A (registration: CC-CET) overran runway 8 while landing at Puerto Williams Airport (WPU), Chile, killing 20 of the 73 people on board.

* On 23 July 1993 a China Northwest Airlines BAe 146-300 (registration: B-2716) crashed while attempting to take off from Yinchuan Airport (INC), People's Republic of China. 55 of the 113 passengers and crew were killed.

* On 25 September 1998 a Paukn Air BAe 146-100 (registration: EC-GEO) crashed while on an approach to runway 15 at Melilla Airport (MLN/GEML), Spain. All of the 38 passengers and crew were killed.

* On 24 November 2001 Crossair Flight 3597 Avro RJ-100 (registration: HB-IXM) crashed while on a VOR/DME approach to runway 28 at Zürich-Kloten Airport (ZRH/LSZH), Switzerland. 24 of the 33 passengers and crew were killed.

* On 8 January 2003 Turkish Airlines Flight 634, an Avro RJ-100 (registration: TC-THG) crashed while on a VOR/DME approach to runway 34 at Diyarbakir Airport (DIY/LTCC), Turkey. 75 of the 80 passengers and crew were killed.

* On 10 October 2006 a Atlantic Airways Flight 670 BAe 146-200A (registration OY-CRG) skidded off the runway while landing at Stord Airport, Norway. The spoilers did not deploy when the aircraft landed. 3 passengers and 1 crew member were killed, of the 16 persons on board


After 7 years flying the BAe146/ Avro RJ I will confess to being a big fan of the type - but it is not perfect, it does have many flaws and 'gotchas' and will bite those who are complacent or who don't fully understand the interaction between systems (for example loss of green hyd when stby gen operates). It was most certainly over engineered, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. It's just a pity the RJX never saw production.......

There is a big difference between an aircraft type killing someone vs the crew operating the aircraft killing someone.

banana head:

The man was trying to say that lots of people driving BAe146/RJs have broken them as a result of their actions but that the aeroplane itself has never killed anyone.

At least, that's the way I read it.

tittyjet!!
 

i used to work for wx on the ground way back in the day when they only had two a/c cms and cmy.did 5 or 6 yrs there,cant remember.

it was the mutts nutz to work with the likes on PB and co running the show.

however the current crop of guys (management or mis-management) are indeed delluding themselves if they think that they are running that airline. GOB ****e,the CEO and the fella with the elbow problem Tango Romeo,wake up from that wet dream you are having and you will soon realise it is very dry indeed.

the best thing that ever happened to me was NOT getting the job in the RHS of an obsilite aircraft with tittyjet(a reference to the quality of hostie that wx USED to have),so Tango Romeo i thank you from the bottom of heart,for without you i would not have gone on to do what i have done :ok:

Thank you JW.

Ah...the RJ.... brilliant aircraft.

4 engines, Cat III autoland, easy to land, EFIS, an airbrake that works, what more do you need laddie??

(if you don't know the green hydraulics are lost when the stby gen runs you shouldn't be type rated on it...)

Yes, its needs TLC but it rewards in heaps.

Ah...the RJ...
 

...the one and only jet aircraft prone to bird strikes from behind...

ah the 146!!!
 

Bring
Another
Engine

1 aircraft with
4 engines but it needs
6

the engine anti-ice was famously known as the anti climb device :}

Capt Crilly:

In a word bullsh*t; the engine anti ice system has little effect on the climb performance.

However, the airframe anti/deice system has a dramatic effect on the climb performance.

In almost 20 years, I only had to shut one engine down. I thought that was a pretty good result.

JW

That may be the case - but I've just done a type rating on the thing and we had an engine failure every flight - in some cases two or three. It's making me very scared about flying the actual aircraft!

:uhoh:

you're right!!!
 

ah jw,

tooth sweet mon brov,

you are spot on it was the airframe icing system that "cancelled" the climb that was/is known as the "anti climb device" how silly off me :ugh:

anyway my girlfriend has being using the same HAIRDRYER for 20 yrs also and she hasn't had any problems with it either :}

all my time is on boeings and airbuses and i haven't shut one down which i think is a better result.

layfar,

not only will it happen during the type rating it happens every six months also by some strange coincidence,cant work it out :E

Ah The cockroach ! (BAE 146).

Fly s slow, fly s low, engine roll back, engine failure, gets in everyone's way and poisons you with organo phosphates! wonderful machine.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Bloody things.....

Even the Nigels are breaking them at LCY and shutting the airport :ugh:

In mitigation .. the roll back issue was dealt with several years ago ... the rest may be more or less accurate : a friend in atc once told me the last thing they wanted to see on a busy day was a heavily loaded A340 or a 146 .. BUT it is very very good at descending .. a reason that let us watch an A320 on the same routing sail gracefully overhead in the cruise but be deplaning the first busload as he taxied to stand .. not perfect, but well engineered and overall ..safe.. just a shame about those engines :rolleyes:

The nicest design feature is that it runs out of fuel after about 3½ hours.

After years and years of long haul that made life so much nicer!

Funny I never looked at it that way JW .... an excellent feature indeed ! :)

And So Are BA and so are Ryanair......
 

Many an Airline losing money I would think

ryr????
 

ryr will loose money in the 3rd quarter due to mis-management on fuel hedging,but are still profitable for the full fiscal year!!! somewhere in the region of 85-100m euro,not bad considering the financial landscape!!!

ba on the other hand have had a 1billion swing in fortunes +850m to -150m ouch!!!!

Well we used to fly it at .72, which coincidentally was the same as all the Easy 737s at the time, as they were all busy trying to be economical.

We also used to fly it at FL300/310 (depending on variant), which is hardly "low".

Gets in everyone's way? I lost count of the number of times I got held up by some Nigel, slowing down to 140 kts 20 miles out, while we could easily maintain 250kts to 8 miles.

And organophosphates? That's pretty rich coming from someone who has "757" in their user name, as that particular Boeing has poisoned far more people than the 146 ever has.

Engine failure? Pretty rare these days. Our fleet of 17 only had one in five years, and I drew the short straw on that one... turned out to be a duff overspeed controller, aircraft was back in service an hour after landing.

Rollback? Ancinet history. All engines were modded years ago.

In fact, as others have said, not one has been lost to any failure of the aircraft... all the losses have been crew errors (or deliberate acts). Now how many Boeing/Airbii have speared in over the years after a major airframe or engine malfunction?

But let's not let the truth get in the way of a good story... :ugh::ugh::ugh:

hit a nerve have we remoak?

as to; quote And organophosphates? That's pretty rich coming from someone who has "757" in their user name, as that particular Boeing has poisoned far more people than the 146 ever has.

Utter rubbish, the early version of the 757 had a problem (the ones fitted with the RB211-535-C engine were very prone). I personally know of two ex collegues who have recently DIED from suspected complications re organophosphate poisoning, both flew the 146. Plus there are many ex 146 pilots that i know who have lost their medical through organophosphate poisoning. The 146 always had an old socks smell (organophosphates) i have never noticed this on the 757.

Quote "We also used to fly it at FL300/310 (depending on variant), which is hardly "low".

Hardly a startling max cruise is it! and bet you really struggled to get there, (prob not achieving the min 500ft per min atc requirement in class A airspace), ask any ATC and they will tell you the 146 was a pain in the ass.

quote "Well we used to fly it at .72, which coincidentally was the same as all the Easy 737s at the time, as they were all busy trying to be economical."

Wow .72 , if i remember rightly .73 was max speed on the 146-300, our regular cruise speed was .68, very very slow!! I refer you to the ATC quote earlier.

4 engines that preduce LESS than 7000lb of thrust each. (when they worked). designed for tanks!!

As for 250kts to 8 miles..........very good !! well done!! and probably broke every ATC speed limit required (particularly in germany), isnt the 146 a cat B aircraft (same as most turboprops!), in fact some employers consider 146 time as turboprop time, never was a proper jet.

quote : In fact, as others have said, not one has been lost to any failure of the aircraft... all the losses have been crew errors (or deliberate acts). Now how many Boeing/Airbii have speared in over the years after a major airframe or engine malfunction?

No B757 has ever been lost to airframe or engine malfunction, as with the 146 only losses have been to human error or terrorist activity, but then again there are THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of airbus and boeing pruducts flying compared to a few hundred 146s, hardly a good comparison.

A most dreadful unreliable aircraft that was ever my misfortune to fly.

having flown both types I have to agree with the above post. The B757/767 is built like a brick $hithouse (especially when it comes to reliability) unlike the BAE146/RJ.

Emotively put, but the jury is still out on that one.

It isn't a contest. We flew at the most appropriate level for the route, and the other London-bound traffic - 757's included - was only 3-5 thousand feet above us. Big deal.

I did, which is how I found out the BA shuttle was much more of a problem for ATC than we were (in Scotland).

So you flew at LRC. Not everyone was as tardy as you were!

Are you even a pilot? Obviously we all obey ATC speed restrictions.but not all our destinations had them. Most encouraged us to maintain high speed, pretty common in the UK, and it often saved us (and ATC) a lot of time. There is a lot to be said for versatility.

What does that have to do with anything? It can still fly a greater range of speeds on approach than any Boeing, and to much closer in. Makes no difference what it's approach category is. Perhaps you need to revise how approach categories are defined.

Not quite:

2 October 1996; Aero Peru Boeing 757-200; near Ancon, Peru:The aircraft was on a flight from Lima, Peru to Santiago, Chile. Shortly after takeoff, the crew reported some sort of mechanical failure. Contact was lost with the aircraft and the aircraft crashed at sea. All nine crew members and 61 passengers were killed.

And of course there was the 767 accident - essentially the same aircraft:

26 May 1991; Lauda Air 767-300ER; Suphan Buri Province, Thailand: Aircraft lost control and crashed after an uncommanded deployment of a thrust reverser during climb. All 10 crew and 213 passengers were killed.

A pity your 146 experience didn't agree with you. I flew it for 10 years and rarely went tech. Maybe our engineering was better...

And I did so enjoy doing things that 757s could only dream of. I'd much rather have those years of flying into LCY, than a few extra knots or a slightly higher cruise level.

errr? so is the 319 and 380 a common type rating?

I'm prepared to be enlightened.

And, for what it's worth, remoak has touched a far more nerve than the other way around.

no nerves here, but its great fun winding up these guys :E:E

Is this what is colloquially known as a "willie waving contest" ? :rolleyes:

No mate, it's known as a "let's-have-a bit-of-fun-with-a-(insert favourite pejorative term here) contest.

The point being that posting on a thread for no other reason than to slag off an aircraft type is both puerile and offensive, and as the mods don't seem to mind that sort of post, why not have a little fun? :ok: Speaking of which...

errr... the reason it is a common type rating is because the two aircraft are substantially the same. And do the A319 and the A380 have a common type rating. Not really, no. I wonder why.

Apart from Lufthansa, Swiss, the UAE royal flight, Cityline, Eurowings, Air France, Atlantic Airways, Malmo, SAA Airlink... and that's only a few...

Well, I normally respect them - until they give me a reason not to. Guess you must be one of them... so I'll put you in the same category as mr seasexsun.

Wrong again. Sigh. Ah well, jumping to conclusions seems to be your favourite activity. Knock yourself out!

May I vote this thread for being the dumbest for the first quarter of 2009?
Get a bloody life.

And you just made yourself a part of it! lol

not wishing to burst in on a good cat fight between the girls, but i just thought i would point out that the B757 and the B767 are not substantially the same. Different wing, engines, body etc, the only thing substantially the same is the flight deck. Similar differences between the A320 family and the A330, same rating but different aircraft, I think.

Ok girls seconds out round four!!

(ps should this go to jet blast?)

The 146/RJ and the 757 both have their pros and pitfalls.

The 146 to be honest has not really been exposed to its true niche market. I used to fly the 146 in Europe and that ain't the environment that it excels in. I am now flying the 146 in North Africa now and an auditor asked me what load I could lift from a 2000m runway with 40C OAT. I think I surprised him when I said that we could take a 'full house' with no problems.

Electric start means that a knackered APU means all we need is a GPU and not an airstart unit which are rare in the desert. :} Also the high engines mean we don't chew up lots of sand, unlike the 737 in our fleet!

The 146/RJ does not shine when it is doing mundane city to city flying in Europe!

Hi Mister Geezer,

Check your PMs please.

Thanks

Have VLM F50s been operating some of the LCY to EDI RJ schedules, and if so why?

It could the start of VLM's "cooperation" with Cityjet, or they just got a bit stuck and needed to rejig things to protect EDI pax.

On another note RBS are letting 20,000 staff go worldwide, who do you think were CItyJets main client base on LON EDI....I can see a very bleak summer ahead...