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

 Actions

RJ Family

From SKYbrary Wiki

Article Information
Category: Aircraft Family Aircraft Family
Content source: SKYbrary About SKYbrary
Content control: EUROCONTROL EUROCONTROL


Description

Short to medium range narrow body airliner. The RJX family includes the following variants:

Aircraft Family Members
ICAO Type Designator Name Length (m)
BAE SYSTEMS AVRO RJ-100 BAE SYSTEMS AVRO RJ-100 31 m
BAE SYSTEMS AVRO RJ-70 BAE SYSTEMS AVRO RJ-70 26.16 m
BAE SYSTEMS AVRO RJ-85 BAE SYSTEMS AVRO RJ-85 28.55 m

Note: The Avro RJ comes in -70, -85 and -100 models. The corresponding variants of the earlier and structurally similar BAe 146 versions are designated BRITISH AEROSPACE BAe-146-100, BRITISH AEROSPACE BAe-146-200, and BRITISH AEROSPACE BAe-146-300.

Accidents & Serious Incidents involving RJ Family

  • A332 / RJ1H, vicinity Zurich Switzerland, 2004 (On 31 October 2004, a Loss of Separation occurred between an A330-200, on a low go-around from Rwy 14 at Zurich Switzerland, and an Avro RJ100 which had been cleared for take-off on Rwy 10 and was on a convergent flight path.)
  • A343 / RJ1H, Copenhagen Denmark, 2016 (On 26 December 2016, the wing of an Airbus A340-300 being repositioned by towing at Copenhagen as cleared hit an Avro RJ100 which had stopped short of its stand when taxiing due to the absence of the expected ground crew. The RJ100 had been there for twelve minutes at the time of the collision. The Investigation attributed the collision to differing expectations of the tug driver, the Apron controller and the RJ100 flight crew within an overall context of complacency on the part of the tug driver whilst carrying out what would have been regarded as a routine, non-stressful task.)
  • RJ1H, Zurich Switzerland, 2006 (On 26 January 2006, when fixed ground electrical power was connected to an Avro RJ100 which had just reached its destination parking gate at Zurich, a flash fire occurred which was visible in the flight deck and an emergency evacuation was ordered. As the air bridge was by this time attached to door 1L,the cabin crew deplaned the passengers that way and no slides were deployed. The Investigation concluded that the fire had been caused by contamination of the ground power connector with ramp de icing fluid and found that there has been similar previous events.)
  • RJ1H, en-route, South West of Stockholm Sweden, 2007 (On 22 March 2007, climbing out of Stockholm Sweden, the crew of a Malmö Aviation Avro RJ100 failed to notice that the aircraft was not pressurised until cabin crew advised them of automatic cabin oxygen mask deployment.)
  • RJ1H, vicinity Gothenburg Sweden, 2016 (On 7 November 2016, severe airframe vibrations occurred to an Avro RJ-100 which, following ground de icing, was accelerating in the climb a few minutes after departing from Gothenburg. The crew were able to stop the vibrations by reducing speed but they declared an emergency and returned to land where significant quantities of ice were found and considered to have been the cause of the vibrations. The Investigation concluded that the failure of the de icing operation in this case had multiple origins which were unlikely to be location specific and generic safety recommendations were therefore made.)
  • RJ1H, vicinity Zurich Switzerland, 2001 (On 24 November 2001, a Crossair Avro RJ100 making a night non precision approach to Zurich violated approach minima and subsequently impacted terrain whilst making a delayed attempt to initiate a go around. The aircraft was destroyed by the impact and post crash fire and 24 of the 33 occupants were killed. The Investigation attributed the crash to the crew deliberately continuing descent below MDA without having acquired the prescribed visual reference. Both crew pairing and aspects of the crew as individuals were identified as the context.)
  • RJ1H, vicinity Zurich Switzerland, 2011 (On 20 July 2011, the flight crew of a Swiss European Avro RJ-100 on a positioning flight from Nuremburg to Zurich responded inappropriately to an unexpected ‘bank angle’ alert in IMC. Near loss of control followed during which a PAN was eventually declared. The situation was resolved by a belated actioning of the QRH checklist applicable to the failure symptoms experienced. The subsequent investigation attributed the event to inappropriate crew response to a failure of a single IRU and poor manual flying skill whilst the situation was resolved.)
  • RJ1H/UNKN, vicinity Malmo Sweden, 2009 (On 13 October 2009, an Avro RJ100 being operated by Malmo Aviation on a scheduled passenger flight from Stockholm Bromma to Malmo in day VMC came into proximity with a unseen light aircraft crossing below which activated a TCAS RA which was followed. The flight crew were unaware that they were outside controlled airspace at the time. No abrupt manoeuvring occurred and none of the 85 occupants were injured.)
  • RJ85 / RJ1H, London City Airport, London UK, 2008 (On 21 April 2008, an Avro RJ85 aircraft was parked on Stand 10 at London City Airport, with an Avro RJ100 parked to its left, on the adjacent Stand 11. After being repositioned by a tug, the RJ85 taxied forward and to the right, its tail contacting the tail of the RJ100 and causing minor damage to the RJ100’s right elevator.)
  • RJ85 / RJ1H, London City Airport, London UK, 2008 (On 21 April 2008, an Avro RJ85 aircraft was parked on Stand 10 at London City Airport, with an Avro RJ100 parked to its left, on the adjacent Stand 11. After being repositioned by a tug, the RJ85 taxied forward and to the right, its tail contacting the tail of the RJ100 and causing minor damage to the RJ100’s right elevator.)
  • RJ85 / Vehicle, Gothenburg Sweden, 2011 (On 8 September 2011, a Brussels Airlines Avro RJ85 on the take off roll at Gothenburg came close to collision with a vehicle which the subsequent investigation found had been issued with clearance to enter the same runway as a result of controller error in the context of non-essential conversation. The vehicle saw the approaching aircraft just before entering the runway and stopped just clear of the runway approximately 40 metres ahead of the point at which it became airborne.)
  • RJ85, Helsinki Finland 2010 (On 12 June 2010, a requested 22R runway inspection at Helsinki in normal daylight visibility carried out after a severe engine failure during the take off roll had led an Avro RJ85 being operated by Finnish Airline Blue1 on a scheduled passenger flight to Copenhagen to reject that take off at high speed. This inspection had not detected significant debris deposited on the runway during the sudden and severe engine failure. Two passenger aircraft, one being operated by Finnair to Dubrovnik, Croatia and the other being operated by Swedish airline TUIfly Nordic to Rhodes, Greece then departed the same runway before a re-inspection disclosed the debris and it was removed. Neither of the aircraft which used the runway prior to debris removal were subsequently found to have suffered any damage but both were advised of the situation en route.)
  • RJ85, en-route, north of Tampere Finland 2009 (On 17 December 2009, a Blue 1 Avro RJ85 experienced progressive fuel starvation during continued flight after the crew had failed to carry out the QRH drill for an abnormal fuel system indication caused by fuel icing. Although hindsight was able to confirm that complete fuel starvation had not been likely, a failure to recognise the risk to fuel system function arising from routine operations in very cold conditions was identified by the subsequent investigation.)
  • RJ85, vicinity Medellín International (Rionegro) Colombia, 2016 (On 29 November 2016, a BAe Avro RJ85 failed to complete its night charter flight to Medellín (Rionegro) when all engines stopped due to fuel exhaustion and it crashed in mountainous terrain 10 nm from its intended destination killing almost all occupants. The Investigation noted the complete disregard by the aircraft commander of procedures essential for safe flight by knowingly departing with significantly less fuel onboard than required for the intended flight and with no apparent intention to refuel en route. It found that this situation arose in a context of a generally unsafe operation subject to inadequate regulatory oversight.)