Embraer 170/ 190

[Trent Shoemaker 918456]

Just wanted to give controllers a heads-up about the Embraer 170/190.

 

I flew my first flight online with an Embraer 170 last night, and my final approach vectors were real short. The controller, seeing this was an Embraer aircraft, thought that I was flying one of the smaller Embraer aircraft. The length of the 170 is 98ft., 1in., and the 190 is 118ft, 11in. This aircraft is very similar in size to the Airbus A319. Although it might not be in the skies that much (only 4 North American airlines operate either or both airframes), it is possible to see them from time to time. I thought it would be a good idea to relay what I know about these airframes to the controllers, so that they can increase the effectiveness of providing approach vectors, etc.

 

Thanks for all the great work each of the VATUSA controllers do everyday......you guys make flying a great experience.

 

 

Trent Shoemaker

[Andreas Fuchs]

Hi Trent!

 

What do you mean by "real short"? Can you give us more detail? How many miles from touchdown and at what altitude did you intercept the localizer?

[Trent Shoemaker 918456]

Well.....I was at 2500 and descending when intercepting the localizer, which just happened to be about 2.5 miles out from touchdown. He did say to me that he expected a tighter turning radius from an ERJ, not knowing the 170 was as big as a 319. It was understandable, because prior to yesterday, I really didn't know that much about the 170/190.

[Michael Pedde 918614]

Good point there Trent, you are correct. My VA (Eastern VA) operates 170's and a few of our Vatsim pilots fly them online. The 170's definately do not perform anything like the 145's ect. Good comparison to the handling capabilities of the 319.

[Nicholas Bartolotta 912967]

It may also develop to be a problem with the actual vectors for it. Like Trent says, the controller brought him in on a tight final, but I know as a controller the smaller the aircraft, the more I imagine they can turn quicker. For example, a Cessna 172 can make a 40 degree turn plenty faster then a 747 will Thanks for the pointer Trent, I'll keep my eyes open at KIND (I think CHQ operates them)

[Craig Moulton]

Sorry to have to ask, but were you being vectored for a visual approach or an ILS, VOR, LOC, etc? The reason I ask is that if on something other than a visual approach, the controller should not be vectoring you to join the approach course any closer than 2 nm (if memory serves) from the FAF. Anything closer is not "legal", at least in the U.S.

[Brad Littlejohn]

Ahh.. others that fly the E170. Glad I'm not alone!

 

I liken the 170 more to the A318 and not the 319, mainly because of the size. However, it's more like the A320, for the range. Standard range on an E170 is 2500nm, which is only 150 short of the A320. There's no reason why an E170 couldn't do new York/Dublin! It's a great plane, and a NICE ride!

 

BL.

[Trent Shoemaker 918456]

The approach I was doing was an ILS into Ottowa, so there may be a little bit of a difference between FAA and CAA regulations. Seeing as this is a very new airframe (first flight was February 2002), and most VA's don't fly this airframe (yet), a lot of people might not be familiar with it's handling.

[Ryan Justesen 890220]

it is indeed a very nice aircraft! My family is involved with them @ KIND and they are good airplanes. Most of the faults so far have involved nothing more complex than rebooting the affected computer. My last flight in a 170 was about this time last year and was coupled approach all the way down to just above mins at Indy (200-1/2), wind was 10 gusting to about 17 and it handled it all like a champ.

 

Some little trivia:

Early on when the mechanics would boot up the aircraft in prep for a flight, the flight control computers would refuse to validate and would 'no-go' the airplane. Turns out the gates at a particular airport had the aircraft's tail facing into the area's prevailing winds. Wind would move the elevators every so slightly and the FCCs would pick this up during their "power on self test" sequence and would report it as a bad sensor or the like. Not an easy problem to diagnose in the hanger he he. Solution, position the plane into the wind when booting the FCCs.

 

Also, did you know that each of the 170s primary flight computers is connected to the others via what amounts to a LAN inside the airplane, and each of them has their own IP address!

 

Just some useless facts for your Tuesday.

 

Cheers.

[Jeffery Williams 849847]

Sounds like the controller goofed up to me. A standard rate turn (3 degrees per second) is expected when being vectored for an approach. This is the same whether you're flying a Learjet or a B747. [Mod - Happy Thoughts]uming that both aircraft are flying at the same speed when being vectored for the approach, there should be no noticable difference in the turning radius at all. I realize the roll rate of heavier aircraft may be slower, but that still should not create a major difference. I don't fly 170's, but I know that the 135/145 has a low bank button on the flight guidance panel...make sure you don't have that selected when being vectored for an approach, as it limits the aircraft to only 15 degrees of bank. You will have a few unhappy controllers if that button is left on.

[Marc Sykes 852946]

This one's definitely on the controller. I am quite familiar with both FAA and NavCanada rules for vectoring to final approach course, and they differ somewhat but not on this point: at no time can you vector an aircraft to intercept the final approach course any closer than the Final Approach Fix. In Canada the FAF is usually located between 4-6 NM from the runway threshold, so if you intercepted final at 2.5 NM from touchdown, you were way inside it. As well, per the Canadian MANOPS you must intercept final in such a way that you have at least 2 miles to run before commencing descent; this can be reduced to 1 mile if you intercept at 3,000 feet AGL or higher. So you should be straight and level when you intercept the localizer and join the glideslope from below, none of this descending as you intercept stuff.

 

It doesn't surprise me that the controller thought your aircraft was RJ-sized rather than 737-sized, but this kind of vectoring technique wouldn't be acceptable even if you were driving a C172 or a Piper Warrior, so I doubt that was the primary reason for your problems.