|
Reliabilty Question
I ride around quite a bit on the ERJ 170/175 190/195; and a number of times I've been delayed due to a maintance issues of various sorts. Some of these minor and others that have cancelled flights. Out of curiosity, for those of you who fly the jet, how do you find the reliabity of these airplanes at your various carriers?
Thanks |
It's junk... another throwaway plane from a well known maker of throwaway airplanes. Rub the paint off the side... it says "Goya" underneath....
|
170 and 190 averaged together is 180.... which is precisely how many degrees there are in the turn you'll be making when you go back to the gate for a mx cancellation.
|
Its cuz the Ejet uses Windows Millennium. They should have stuck with Windows 98 of the ERJ.
|
surprising cause the 145/135 is crazy reliable.
|
in just about a year and a half on the 170 i have never cancelled a flight due to mx. things might break but its a rather redundant airplane and can be mel'd rather quickly and still operated in a safe way. 99% of the time its just a computer issue that needs to be restarted and it works fine.
|
3 years on the E170/175 and I've had ONE cancellation due to a MX issue. This OP is flamebait at best. It was called the 180 for the first few months after intro, yet some clowns still like to try and be comical and label it that because their ONE commuter experience resulted in a CX. Typical pilot dramatics.
|
I think Bombardier has more reliability issues than embraer. This could turn into a ford vs. chevy thread when its all said and done.
|
Part of that reliability depends on which airline is operating the aircraft as well.
|
Originally Posted by Herbie
(Post 777600)
Part of that reliability depends on which airline is operating the aircraft as well.
|
Originally Posted by logic1
(Post 777624)
Ahhhhh...isnt there only one?
|
I've been on the 170/75s for over four years with only two cancellations for maintenance. I'd wager that that is as reliable as any other platform out there. Sure it had teething pains like any new platform. Pretty minor compared to others such as catastrophic uncommanded rudder displacements on the 737s. As a coast to coast commuter, I've been delayed on every type of jet imaginable for maintenance. Still, I'd rather be flying a Boeing. Best built transport planes flying.
|
As far as airplanes go its not bad. In over 4 years I have had 2 cxls for maintaince. I have never had to bump a passenger or deny a jumpseat for weight and balance.
|
Originally Posted by Herbie
(Post 777600)
Part of that reliability depends on which airline is operating the aircraft as well.
|
It's noticeably less reliable than the Airbus, at least in JetBlue's fleet. Overall dispatch rate varies, sometimes nearly the same and sometimes 1-2 percentage points lower. I haven't personally had a jet be completely unflyable in 3 years here (other than an air turn-back for hydraulic failure), but the percentage of nuisance faults and glitches that cause delays and headaches is plenty high.
I like the jet well enough when it works, and customers generally rave about it (except when the Tvs break, which is also at a higher rate than Fifi). I just wish Embraer had done a better job engineering the thing, and whoever designed the seats should be shot. |
And the immature dude has shown up. Don't worry, you'll get the chance to fly one out of PHL or PIT.
|
Uh, you sure about that? He sure touted his Catholicism when I worked there.
|
From a MX viewpoint
WEll i hope the E170s/190 anti ice loops are more reliable then the CRJ700/900s. I always hated dealing with those "Duct Mon Faults" on the CRJ700/900s. It's a big issue with that plane. I never worked on the E-jets. But the E-145s seem to be reliable. |
I flew E145s for about 5 years, and other than the APUs they seemed pretty bulletproof. I haven't seen any ice system issues with the 190; lots of issues with brake faults, and slat harnesses that are wearing out after about 2 years of service (had a neat presentation from our Tech Ops guys at recurrent about why that happens).
|
The E170/190 series has been very reliable since mid 2006 from my experience. The first two years yielded a lot of bugs, any many of those were a result of excessively tight software tolerances (too narrow of a window of time for the multiple computers to report back and agree). Flight Control No Dispatch was the big whammy, but spurious versions of that message are really just something to look back fondly on.
I can't speak for the other E-jet operators, but at Republic there may be a few reasons that the OP may have noticed poor reliability. One is lack of familiarity with the type. There has been a fair amount of inter-certificate movement lately, and a good number of 145 and CRJ guys from CHQ are just coming onto the E170 now. The E-jet needs the pilots to do things in order, or else it can freak out. Older airplanes are generally more forgiving, and allow pilots to develop "techniques" for things like start up. The E-jet doesn't take kindly to pilots inventing their own flows or techniques. I have observed many pilots unknowingly create a list of EICAS messages early on in their 170 experience. Another contributing factor may be the 190 and its relative youth in terms of software development. The E190 basically started with the original E170 software, and E190 operators have had to go through many of the early teething problems the 170 had. The 170 is further along in software revisions than the 190. Also, the 190 introduced a few new software features that needed some reworking. One final reason you may see more return to gates on the 170 these days at RAH is you have more unhappy pilots who are less willing to troubleshoot a minor problem over the phone with maintenance while off the gate. i am not advocating using a personal cell phone for company business, but I am saying that over time, you learn what EICAS messages are real no brainers, and can be solved with a 2 minute phone call to MX rather than taking a 45 minute delay or worse. It is all preference, but more pilots are fed up with management and really don't feel like helping anyone out by making that quick phone call. The plane has treated me well, and the MX cancellations have been less than one per year for me. That seems to be the rule, rather than the exception. |
Originally Posted by CrippleHawk
(Post 777926)
From a MX viewpoint
WEll i hope the E170s/190 anti ice loops are more reliable then the CRJ700/900s. I always hated dealing with those "Duct Mon Faults" on the CRJ700/900s. It's a big issue with that plane. I never worked on the E-jets. But the E-145s seem to be reliable. I don't know that the loops are more dependable on the Airbus either. Recently, our company's A340 had one loop fail on engine #3, then the second loop failed on the return trip. During maintenance to repair, the fire bottle blew :confused: The CRJ-7/9 duct mon fault is a nuisance, and does not preclude dispatch. But, there are plenty of other faults that are a big deal, but the crews have learned which CB's will reset it, therefore maintenance may never be aware. |
Originally Posted by Rightseat Ballast
(Post 777958)
The E170/190 series has been very reliable since mid 2006 from my experience. The first two years yielded a lot of bugs, any many of those were a result of excessively tight software tolerances (too narrow of a window of time for the multiple computers to report back and agree). Flight Control No Dispatch was the big whammy, but spurious versions of that message are really just something to look back fondly on.
I can't speak for the other E-jet operators, but at Republic there may be a few reasons that the OP may have noticed poor reliability. One is lack of familiarity with the type. There has been a fair amount of inter-certificate movement lately, and a good number of 145 and CRJ guys from CHQ are just coming onto the E170 now. The E-jet needs the pilots to do things in order, or else it can freak out. Older airplanes are generally more forgiving, and allow pilots to develop "techniques" for things like start up. The E-jet doesn't take kindly to pilots inventing their own flows or techniques. I have observed many pilots unknowingly create a list of EICAS messages early on in their 170 experience. Another contributing factor may be the 190 and its relative youth in terms of software development. The E190 basically started with the original E170 software, and E190 operators have had to go through many of the early teething problems the 170 had. The 170 is further along in software revisions than the 190. Also, the 190 introduced a few new software features that needed some reworking. One final reason you may see more return to gates on the 170 these days at RAH is you have more unhappy pilots who are less willing to troubleshoot a minor problem over the phone with maintenance while off the gate. i am not advocating using a personal cell phone for company business, but I am saying that over time, you learn what EICAS messages are real no brainers, and can be solved with a 2 minute phone call to MX rather than taking a 45 minute delay or worse. It is all preference, but more pilots are fed up with management and really don't feel like helping anyone out by making that quick phone call. The plane has treated me well, and the MX cancellations have been less than one per year for me. That seems to be the rule, rather than the exception. Very impressive, if only the rest of the industry was as professional.... |
Originally Posted by TonyWilliams
(Post 778199)
I don't know that the loops are more dependable on the Airbus either. Recently, our company's A340 had one loop fail on engine #3, then the second loop failed on the return trip. During maintenance to repair, the fire bottle blew :confused:
The CRJ-7/9 duct mon fault is a nuisance, and does not preclude dispatch. But, there are plenty of other faults that are a big deal, but the crews have learned which CB's will reset it, therefore maintenance may never be aware. We are well aware of that but thanks. But most of the time it is a no fix. Basically the loops have a crappy resistance to it (They go off when it is around 110 ohms). However I believe Bomba put a SB on it. Basically you have to replace the loops which are more ohm resistance (Bomba will do it from what I here). But Most companies are too cheap to do it. It is very costly. |
Compass allows station personnel to power-up aircraft at some outstations. I haven't taken a scientific survey, but I'm pretty sure the odds of a nuisance EICAS message is pretty close to 1 to 1 when the station powers it up. CNTRL-ALT-Delete solves the problem, but it's a waste of time when you have to shut the airplane down before you power it up.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:06 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands