If you wish to contribute or participate in the discussions about articles you are invited to join SKYbrary as a registered user

 Actions

EMBRAER ERJ-145

From SKYbrary Wiki

E145
Aircraft
Name ERJ-145
Manufacturer EMBRAER
Body Narrow
Wing Fixed Wing
Position Low wing
Tail T-tail
WTC Medium
APC C
Type code L2J
Engine Jet
Engine count Multi
Position Both sides of rear fuselage
Landing gear Tricycle retractable
Mass group 3


Manufacturered as:

EMBRAER EMB-145RS
EMBRAER EMB-145SA
EMBRAER ERJ-145EP
EMBRAER ERJ-145ER
EMBRAER ERJ-145EU
EMBRAER ERJ-145LR
EMBRAER ERJ-145MP
EMBRAER P-99
EMBRAER R-99
EMBRAER EMB-145LR
EMBRAER EMB-145MP/ASW
EMBRAER ERJ-145LU
EMBRAER EMB-145MP
EMBRAER EMB-145AEW
EMBRAER EMB-145EP
EMBRAER EMB-145ER
EMBRAER EMB-145EU
EMBRAER EMB-145LU
EMBRAER C-99
HARBIN EMBRAER EMB-145LI
HARBIN EMBRAER ERJ-145LI


EMBRAER ERJ-145

EMBRAER ERJ-145 EMBRAER ERJ-145 3D

Description

Regional airliner. In service since 1996. Renamed from EMB-145 to signify its regional jet role. Based on stretched jet-powered studies of the EMB-120 Brasilia. Built as ER, standard version and LR slightly more powerful extended range version with additional fuel tank. Also developed into a shorter ERJ-140 version. Military surveillance versions EMB-145SA and EMB-145RS for Brazil Air Force. The E145 is a member of the ERJ Family of aircraft.

Technical Data

Wing span 20.04 m65.748 ft
Length 29.87 m97.999 ft
Height 6.76 m22.178 ft
Powerplant ER: 2 x 31,3 kN Allison AE-3007A turbofans.

LR: 2 x 30,0 kN Allison AE-3007A1 turbofans.

Engine model

Performance Data

Take-Off Initial Climb
(to 5000 ft)
Initial Climb
(to FL150)
Initial Climb
(to FL240)
MACH Climb Cruise Initial Descent
(to FL240)
Descent
(to FL100)
Descent (FL100
& below)
Approach
V2 (IAS) kts IAS kts IAS kts IAS kts MACH TAS 450 kts MACH IAS kts IAS kts Vapp (IAS) kts
Distance 1410 m ROC ft/min ROC ft/min ROC ft/min ROC ft/min MACH 0.78 ROD ft/min ROD ft/min MCS kts Distance 1400 m
MTOW 2099020,990 kg
20.99 tonnes
kg
Ceiling FL370 ROD ft/min APC C
WTC M Range 12001,200 nm
2,222,400 m
2,222.4 km
7,291,338.588 ft
NM

Accidents & Serious Incidents involving E145

  • DHC6 / E145, Glasgow UK, 2006 (On 29 August 2006, a Loganair DHC-6 began to taxi onto an intersecting active runway at Glasgow just an Embraer 145 was about to touch down on it but after a late sighting had reverse taxied clear so that there was no actual collision risk. It was found that the incursion had been contrary to the accepted ATC clearance and indirectly attributable to distraction. It was also noted that TWR controllers did not have an adequate understanding of the installed RIMCAS system with the result that the inappropriate mode set had not provided an alert at the point of incursion.)
  • E145 / DH8B, Cleveland USA, 2009 (On 26 June 2009 a Bombardier DHC8-200 being operated by Commutair on a scheduled Continental Express passenger flight from Cleveland to Port Columbus was cleared for take off when an Embraer 145 being operated by Jetlink on another scheduled Continental Express passenger flight from Cleveland to Kansas City was about to cross the same runway in accordance with its ATC clearance in normal daylight visibility. The conflicting clearances were resolved by flight crew awareness and action rather than ATC intervention and once satisfied that the 145 was holding position clear of the runway, the DHC8 took off as already cleared.)
  • E145, Dayton OH USA, 2011 (On 31 January 2011, an Embraer 145LR being operated by Expressjet Airlines on a scheduled passenger flight from Cleveland OH to Dayton left landing runway 06R during a night landing in normal ground visibility and light winds and ended up on intersecting active runway 36. None of the 32 occupants were injured and only minor damage was caused to ground installations and the aircraft. No conflict with other aircraft resulted from the incursion onto runway 36 and after establishing that there was no major damage to the aircraft and after the taxiway route had been ‘sanded’ the aircraft was taxied in to the gate for passenger disembarkation.)
  • E145, Hannover Germany, 2005 (On 14 August 2005, a British Airways Regional Embraer 145 overran Runway 27L at Hannover by 160 metes after flying a stable approach in daylight but then making a soft and late touchdown on a water covered runway. Dynamic aquaplaning began and this was followed by reverted rubber aquaplaning towards the end of the paved surface when the emergency brake was applied. The aircraft suffered only minor damage and only one of the 49 occupants was slightly injured.)
  • E145, Kemi-Tornio Finland 2008 (On 11 December 2008 an EMB 145 being operated by Finnish Commuter Airlines on a scheduled passenger flight caught fire during the taxi in after a night landing after the APU failed to start and a major electrical power failure occurred simultaneously. The fire was not detected until after the aircraft arrived on stand when, with the passengers still on board, a member of the ground crew saw signs of fire at the back of the aircraft. The aircraft’s own fire suppression system was successfully used to extinguish the fire, the passengers left the aircraft and there were no injuries and only minor damage to the aircraft.)
  • E145, Ljubljana Slovenia, 2010 (On 24 May 2010 the crew of a Regional Embraer 145 operating for Air France continued an unstable visual approach at Ljubljana despite breaching mandatory go-around SOPs and ignoring a continuous EGPWS ‘PULL UP’ Warning. The subsequent touchdown was bounced and involved ground contact estimated to have been at 1300fpm with a resultant vertical acceleration of 4g. Substantial damage was caused to the landing gear and adjacent fuselage. It was concluded that the type-experienced crew had mis-judged a visual approach and then continued an unstabilised approach to a touchdown with the aircraft not properly under control.)
  • E145, New York JFK USA, 2007 (On 17 December 2007, an Embraer 145 being operated by Chautauqua Airlines on a Delta Connection passenger flight departing New York JFK runway 31L for an unrecorded destination carried out a high speed rejected take off in normal day visibility when the response to elevator control input at rotation was abnormal.)
  • E145, Nuremberg Germany, 2005 (On 18 July 2005, an Embraer 145 being operated by Swiss Air Lines on a scheduled passenger flight from Zurich to Nuremberg left the 2700 metre runway during the landing roll at destination in normal daylight visibility by means of an intentional high speed attempt to turn to one side when it became apparent that the aircraft would not stop before the end of the runway. The aircraft departed the runway tail first during a ground loop of approximately 200 degrees to the left and eventually came to a stop 30 metres from the centreline with the main landing gear on the grass. None of the 19 occupants was injured and there was only slight damage to the aircraft.)
  • E145, Stuttgart Germany, 2009 (On 5 January 2009, a Flybe Embraer 145 made a late touchdown with slight snow falling on a runway pre-notified as affected by slush deposits and failed to stop until it had overrun into the RESA where it finally stopped on a heading 25º off the runway alignment. The Investigation concluded that although the airport operator process for determining braking action was flawed and two Safety Recommendations were made in that respect, the overrun of the 3045metres LDA was attributable to flight crew action and that operator guidance was deficient.)
  • E145, en-route, near London ON Canada, 2014 (On 5 September 2014, the crew of an Embraer 145 encountered a more continuous area of convective activity en-route than expected. When it became impossible to see a way to continue through it, the aircraft commander requested, received and actioned flight path advice from the Company flight-following function. This led to the penetration of a mature thunderstorm and several minutes of severe turbulence with aircraft control lost and only regained upon exit from the storm. The Investigation found that the weather avoidance advice was based on an inappropriate source and that following it was an inappropriate command decision.)
  • E145, en-route, north east of Madrid Spain, 2011 (On 4 August 2011, a Luxair Embraer 145 flying a STAR into Madrid incorrectly read back a descent clearance to altitude 10,000 feet as being to 5,000 feet and the error was not detected by the controller. The aircraft was transferred to the next sector where the controller failed to notice that the incorrect clearance had been repeated. Shortly afterwards, the aircraft received a Hard EGPWS ‘Pull Up’ Warning and responded to it with no injury to the 47 occupants during the manoeuvre. The Investigation noted that an MSAW system was installed in the ACC concerned but was not active.)
  • E145, vicinity Manchester UK, 2001 (On 25 September 2001, an Embraer 145 in descent to Manchester sustained a low power lightning strike which was followed, within a few seconds, by the left engine stopping without failure annunciation. A successful single engine landing followed. The Investigation concluded that the cause of failure of the FADEC-controlled AE3007 engine (which has no surge recovery logic) was the aero-thermal effects of the strike to which all aircraft with relatively small diameter fuselages and close mounted engines are vulnerable. It was considered that there was a risk of simultaneous double engine flameout in such circumstances which was impossible to quantify.)
  • E145/C172, Gulfport MS USA, 2011 (On 19 June 2011, an Embraer ERJ145 being operated by Expressjet AL on a scheduled passenger flight departing Gulfport in day VMC came into close proximity with a privately operated Cessna 172 which had just departed another runway at the same airport which had an extended centreline which passed through the centreline of the runway used by the 145. There was no manoeuvring by either aircraft and no injuries to any occupants.)
  • E145/E135, Chicago O’Hare USA, 2011 (On 8 August 2011, an Embraer 145 was given take off clearance from runway 32L at O’Hare in day VMC without the controller making the required check for potentially conflicting arrivals to runway 09R which pass over the runway. When the controller realised that the departing aircraft would conflict with an Embraer 135 approaching 09R, he told his aircraft to “stay low” and the runway 09R controller to send his aircraft around. Radar data indicated that the 135 on go around had crossed runway 32L about 125 feet above and just over 100 metres in front of the departing 145.)
  • F15 / E145, en-route, Bedford UK, 2005 (On 27 January 2005, two USAF-operated McDonnell Douglas F15E fighter aircraft, both continued to climb and both passed through the level of an Embraer 145 being operated by British Airways Regional on a scheduled passenger flight from Birmingham to Hannover, one seen at an estimated range of 100 feet.)
  • SF34 / E145, Stockholm Sweden, 2002 (Description On 16 December 2002, a Saab 340 being operated by Swedish airline Skyways and arriving at Stockholm on a scheduled domestic passenger flight and an Embraer 145 being operated by Swiss on a scheduled passenger flight from Stockholm to Basel almost collided at the intersection between taxiways ‘Z’ and ‘A’ in normal night visibility. Upon seeing the Saab approaching on a conflicting track, the Embraer 145 was stopped very suddenly and the other aircraft passed within an estimated 3 metres. No persons were injured and neither aircraft was damaged. The diagram below taken from the official report shows the intersection involved.)