Some do my friend, some do. I wish for your sake your 145s did.

I think we should take all RJs and make static displays out of them. Then we can stick them in the lawns of Legacy management and let them roll around in the huge mess they created when they brought these stupid things into the picture.

Or you could take them to the MEC's HQ of every legacy that didn't want them on their property. It would probably be more effective.

Combining a few of the responses here would make the CRJ WAY better!!!

Auto-throttles are available....that is another beancounter thing.

Sure...........why not................I'm a free spirit! LOL! :D

I'm not sure if it was just us, or if other airlines were seeing it too. Here's an excerpt from a technical notice we received in april:

"Rolls Royce reported that this mechanical anomaly had been observed on Engines manufactured after July ‘04. These newer Engines incorporated a ‘cool front sump’ oil system, which was originally designed to increase Engine life. However, the new sump system also presented a different problem that caused oil to leak through the #4 carbon seal and into the compressor section, thus causing a cabin odor or the appearance of a
“fine mist / haze” in the cabin.

Rolls Royce developed a solution to oil leaking into the bleed system and [we have] proactively retrofitted the
remaining 44 suspect Engines with a new and improved carbon seal. To date, no Engine in the worldwide fleet has experienced an odor event with the new seal installed. This does not mean that the possibility has been
completely eliminated, simply greatly reduced. Rolls Royce has stated that an amount of just 2 drops of oil is enough to present the “fine mist / haze” in the cabin. This “fine mist / haze” has a musty clothes odor to it and
is uncharacteristic of smoke associated with electrical or other fire. However, this type of event may trigger a LAV SMOKE warning, which requires the crew to follow the appropriate AOM procedures."


Haven't seen or heard of any problems since then.

Leaving the packs on during an icing takeoff would make us take a greater MATOW penalty with the engine bleeds powering both the packs and anti-ice at the same time. Once we hit accel height we turn them back on to pressurize the cabin. It's a little bit more uncomfortable with the cabin descending a few hundred feet once you kick the packs back on, but we aren't nearly as weight limited as if we'd kept the packs on.

I'm sure this is SOP at most airlines when APU bleed air is not provided to the packs during takeoff...

Why not just use the APU to run the packs for takeoff? That's standard practice in the CRJ

Ooh, or you could just use the CF-34-8C5. It can do it all!

That's SOP for non-icing takeoffs in the ERJ as well. The APU just isn't capable of handling anti-ice duties for an icing takeoff, however.