E190 poor design

I would be curious to see a MX downtime for Boeing/Airbus/Embraer/Canada (eh) RJ/etc per hour or flight or some measurable standard.
 
My favorite E-180 "ding" happened in ORD late at night. After snowing all day we get into ORD late offload/load the pax and push back. 1/2 way to the runway we get (IIRC) PBIT EXPIRED for the flight controls. Call the gate and company. No gate to go back to, the agents have left. They finally get a hold of mx who drive out to the penalty box, throw up a ladder and climb aboard. They shutdown the airplane with pax on board and then bring everything back up. Finally about 2am we get to depart.

The plane was so picky we had a memo at the time that only mx was allowed to totally power or depower the aircraft.
 
Bandit_Driver said:
My favorite E-180 "ding" happened in ORD late at night. After snowing all day we get into ORD late offload/load the pax and push back. 1/2 way to the runway we get (IIRC) PBIT EXPIRED for the flight controls. Call the gate and company. No gate to go back to, the agents have left. They finally get a hold of mx who drive out to the penalty box, throw up a ladder and climb aboard. They shutdown the airplane with pax on board and then bring everything back up. Finally about 2am we get to depart.

The plane was so picky we had a memo at the time that only mx was allowed to totally power or depower the aircraft.
Click to expand...
Well, nothing's changed from the 145 then.

E1 SHORT DISP message that appears only intermittently. "It's okay, good for another 150 hours!" "Right on, we're outta here."
 
Autothrust Blue said:
Since the airplane is derisively called many things involving food (ironically most of it Latin American as opposed to south American), that fits I suppose.

Actually, I like the noises the 145 makes. You can tell things are happening. The PTU on the Airbus 320 series is far more obnoxious than most anything the airplane makes.


Sent from Seat 3D
Click to expand...

RUU..RUU.RUU...RUUU.RUU.....RUU...RUU...RUU.........RUU...................RUU...........RUU..................................RUU

:)
 
What if each strobe flash was synchronized to clown horn sounds with random tones? Now that would make flying actually fun again, right? At least for me it would. :)
 
Dan208B said:
Embraer 170/190. I'm not sure about the MMEL. But on that note, the FARs have no definition for "anti-collision light." In my personal opinion that would be beacons and strobes. Would you agree? It could be the opinion of the individual inspector you're dealing with.

That brings to mind the 737. On the overhead panel, the beacon light switch is labeled "anti-collision."
Click to expand...

Actually, I don't have much of an opinion. I've wondered about this subject. The words mean different things to different people. I've heard the beacon light called a Grimes light. Then I came across "Grimes light" in a checklist and they were talking about what I would call a map light. People often swap the words beacon, position, navigation, anticollision, and Grimes around. I have a gut level understanding of what each means, but that isn't everyone's understanding.

In FAR Part 23 there is a standard for "position lights" and a standard for "anticollision lights" and they are not the same thing. Then in 14 CFR 23.1401 there is a requirement for the aircraft to have an anticollision light system. In that same regulation, there is a requirement that the anticollision light system must be located so that their light will not impair the flight crewmembers' vision. Following that logic, it would be difficult to make a claim to the FAA that the lights were interfering when the FAA that certified the aircraft said they were placed so that they wouldn't do that.

Please understand, I'm not taking any position on this. I'm just presenting a hodgepodge of thoughts on the subject. I want to take a little time to digest some related regulations and look at the MMEL along with some other MMELs and combine that with the thoughts anyone might have on the subject. However, I will say that "ask the inspector" has a lot of flaws. An inspector's opinion of the regulations is not binding (and they don't all have the same opinion on every subject). But, the bigger problem is that it isn't the inspector on the jump seat that is the worry. That will come from another source.
 
Clouds, Haze, and Fog all can greatly reflect the wing tip stobes and the read beacon stobes. The brighter they are the more they reflect and interfer with cockpit duties. No FAA jumpseater worth their weight would question a crew for turning them off if they were distracting the crew.
 
I have several good friends in the FAA. They don't have the power we think they have. It is very hard for them to take certificates, medicals, etc. They also have to go through a lot hoops even to violate a pilot.
 
1. Beware of the "Threat and Error" Matrix.

2. All behold the ASAP program.

I've got a great story for that that I'll tell over beers and offline! :)

(Folks, that means if you send me a PM/Conversation about it on the forum, I'm going to ignore you)
 
Bandit_Driver said:
It was a no go message on the 180
Click to expand...
No its not actually, you may be thiking of FLT CTRL NO DISP, which is more of a kiss of death.... The '180' stuff is really over, and was like every other new plane that has come out in the past few decades as far as bugs. The 170 has as high a dispatch rate as anything else. The strobe thing is a PITA and I cant understand why no one has been able to do anything about it or why it wasnt completly obvious during testing. The windows being off centered is a PITA as well, but I think that goes along the lines of many other airplanes, and isnt helped by numerous configuration changes. Cockpit seats are terrible, cockpit is somewhat small, plane is louder then it should be, etc....

I'm going to put on my grammar Nazi hat. Come on. Proof read.
Click to expand...

I really enjoy any proofreading comments and grammar nazi stuff, but please forward corrections, comments, and grade to my inbox! Make sure you write in red ink and use lots of !!!
 
Bandit_Driver said:
Clouds, Haze, and Fog all can greatly reflect the wing tip stobes and the read beacon stobes. The brighter they are the more they reflect and interfer with cockpit duties. No FAA jumpseater worth their weight would question a crew for turning them off if they were distracting the crew.
Click to expand...

if they were distracting the crew

........ but are you sure no lawyer would ever bring it up in court should something go wrong?
 
Houston said:
if they were distracting the crew

........ but are you sure no lawyer would ever bring it up in court should something go wrong?
Click to expand...


So if they are so critical to safety then why are they allowed to be MEL'd and why are they allowed to be deactivated and removed from aircraft?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top