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: