I don't trust the CRJ-900, and here is why...
08-03-2016, 03:49 AM
#13
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2016
Posts: 49
Clearly less than a plumber?
08-03-2016, 03:54 AM
#14
Line Holder
Joined APC: Nov 2015
Posts: 68
That's right....it is dangerous. Dangerous and foolish. That's because every time it flies, it's unsafe....Oh nevermind, back to ironing my shirt so I can go live life on the edge in my 900.
Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk
Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk
08-03-2016, 04:06 AM
#16
Tier 3 Candidate
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Canadair Gosh
Posts: 609
So what do you suggest pilots who are obligated to fly the CRJ-900 by thier company do about it?
The A321 is prone to tail strikes.
The 747 is prone to engine strikes.
The Dash-8 is old as dirt.
The MD-80 series is old as dirt.
Flying is inherently dangerous. If it scares you get a desk job.
The A321 is prone to tail strikes.
The 747 is prone to engine strikes.
The Dash-8 is old as dirt.
The MD-80 series is old as dirt.
Flying is inherently dangerous. If it scares you get a desk job.
08-03-2016, 04:21 AM
#19
Happy at PDT
Joined APC: Jan 2014
Position: EMB-145 CA
Posts: 983
Are you more afraid of the aircraft or the people that fly it? Your aircraft argument seems heavily flawed. Ever look up the specs on the MD-90/ER? Almost twice as heavy, wingspan only 15-20 feet more. There has been quite the advancement in the part of the airplane that makes it fly...they call it a wing.
08-03-2016, 04:31 AM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2013
Posts: 287
I hate when I get into Mach Tuck in my Cessna 172... I mean seriously *** Cessna...uggg.... lol
