Henan Airlines Embraer 190 crash, China

[SYDCBRWOD]

Originally Posted by SYDCBRWOD

Either the chinese carriers are 'doing it wrong' or there has been a massive worldwide conspiracy to keep all the E-Jet problems hushed up (600 sold). The state run newsagency suddenly tries apportioning blame elsewhere - could it be that the blame could be otherwise pinned on the Chinese authorities that run the airports, the government run weather service, the government run organisation that certifies the pilots and airline?

Well, what do you know eh? The pilot may have falsified his qualifications... You'd think that a 22 year old presenting a resume and logbook with 5000 hours flying DC3's, another 5000 hrs flying Handley Page 42's as well as 20,000 hours flying Concordes would appear a little strange...

[Curtis Malone]

Originally Posted by justLOT787

So what is so mechanically wrong with the E-jets that is so hard to maintain them.

Every
Mechanical
Breakdown
Requires
An
Electrical
Reset

[UALdave]

Originally Posted by Theoddkiwi

Maybe but the doors are copies of the A320 doors and ridiculously complicated and easy to blow the escape slide if you don't know what your doing.

In simple terms it is almost entirely run off the Honeywell Primus EPIC Avionic system and is in simple terms a GA/Business Jet thats been given a larger passenger cabin then asked to be thrashed by busy commercial operators.

You could argue it struggles with the thrashed by commercial operator bit.

Yeah, but couldn't you say that about CRJ's?? That they're all just modified Challengers?? So then, the question becomes one of why CRJ's aren't having this many problems, because I''m sure they get equally thrashed by the airlines that operate them.

[AVION1]

Originally Posted by UALdave

Yeah, but couldn't you say that about CRJ's?? That they're all just modified Challengers?? So then, the question becomes one of why CRJ's aren't having this many problems, because I''m sure they get equally thrashed by the airlines that operate them.

Oh yeah?...you remind me of the guy that said a Boeing 737 is a modified Boeing 707
What about a Piper Cheyenne is a modified Piper Navajo?

[UALdave]

Originally Posted by AVION1

Oh yeah?...you remind me of the guy that said a Boeing 737 is a modified Boeing 707
What about a Piper Cheyenne is a modified Piper Navajo?

Well, either way, my question still remains: do CRJ's have problems like this? Because I haven't heard of any.

[Theoddkiwi]

Originally Posted by UALdave

Well, either way, my question still remains: do CRJ's have problems like this? Because I haven't heard of any.

That depends on how the Challenger was originally developed. If it was originally developed with a commercial aircraft in mind then the move from a corporate jet that MIGHT fly at the most two sectors a day but most likely say 5 sectors a week, to an airliner that WILL do ten sectors a day then you will likely have few problems.

Thats not withstanding what ever modifications were made from the Challenger to the CRJ to make the CRJ a viable commercial airliner.

In the case of Embraer, they have largely of the shelf GA components shoved into a commercial airliner airframe and the results while very good when all is working well is a very glitchy aircraft when even doing the most simplest tasks. But fortunately because they are largely software based aircraft most of the glitches can be programmed out of the aircraft. Its just taking them a while.

[orangehuggy]

Report out. Crashed short of runway because he descended below MDA in fog without visual contact...again. Bet this pilot skipped the 2605 Flying article.

http://avherald.com/h?article=4300bc3c/0009&opt=0

[Gabriel]

Originally Posted by orangehuggy

Report out. Crashed short of runway because he descended below MDA in fog without visual contact...again. Bet this pilot skipped the 2605 Flying article.

http://avherald.com/h?article=4300bc3c/0009&opt=0

Or the Polish president crash.
Iteresting report, especially coming from China where one would expect maybe some political involvement to hide the government's problem.
After blaming the crew for attemping the approach with less visibility than allowed in the company procedures, for descending below the MDA against the China regulations, and for not going arround after receiving aural alerts from the GPWS, they go on with the contributory factors:

The airline's safety management is insufficient
Parent company's Shenzhen Airlines oversight insufficient
No supervision by China's Civil Aviation Authority
China's Civil Aviation Authoritiy safety management loopholes

[Evan]

Originally Posted by Gabriel

Or the Polish president crash.

That was caused by explosive Russian surface-to-air trees. I'm sure the Chinese have knock-offs by now. The truth will come out...