Talk:Bombardier CRJ

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Note to anyone intending on splitting off a section[edit]

This page has been processed by N-Bot, which, for browsing convenience, changes links to redirects to lists to links to the relevant list sections: e.g. [[Canadair CRJ-700]] is changed to [[Bombardier Canadair Regional Jet#CRJ-700|Canadair CRJ-700]].

As a result, anyone who intends to split a section out of this page should be aware that, as of 15 August 2006, the following sections were linked to from the following pages:

~~ N-Bot (t/c) 00:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assembly[edit]

It would be nice to have a note as to where the aircraft is assembled. If anyone knows, please post.Bcirker 03:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 25th January 2007 a CRJ suffered a number one engine failure that reslted in the complete loss of the LP fan system and Fan cowl, plus the nose cowl. Here is a link to the picture, http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/2762/mvc017scr8.jpg (thought it is interesting that there is very little in the press about this)Expatrep 07:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some more on the above

Mesa CRJ200 looses fan blade in mid-flight uncontained engine failure

A Mesa Airlines Bombardier CRJ200LR returned to Denver yesterday after an uncontained engine failure disabled the General Electric (GE) CF34-3B1 engine on the aircraft’s left wing. One fan blade was shed and part of the engine’s cowling was displaced in the incident, which occurred about 60mi (95km) into flight 2985’s service between Denver and Phoenix, says the FAA in a preliminary report. This is the first such engine failure, says GE. The captain declared an emergency about 17:30, and returned to Denver where the aircraft landed safely. No evacuation was necessary and no injuries are reported among the three crew and 50 passengers, says a Mesa spokesman. The service was being operated as a Mesa Airlines scheduled flight. GE has sent three representatives to support a US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigation, says a company spokesman, who notes that more than 2,000 CF34-3s have entered service since its entry in 1992. Bombardier is declining comment, saying it will have to wait until the NTSB concludes its investigation. ATI sister product ACAS’s database shows that the aircraft, N17337, has not been damaged since it was delivered new to Mesa on September 22 1999.

Pieces sought in probe of Mesa CRJ200 uncontained engine failure John Croft, Washington DC (31Jan07, 22:50 GMT, 185 words) US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) officials are asking the public for help in finding pieces of a General Electric (GE) CF34-3B1 engine involved in an uncontained failure during flight last week over Colorado. “In an effort to determine the cause of this event, the NTSB is seeking the engine components that fell from the airplane, and informing the public of how to assist,” says the NTSB in a statement. “These parts could cause injuries if not handled with proper precautions, therefore, should not be handled by members of the public.” According to investigators, the Mesa Airlines Bombardier CRJ200LR, operating as America West Express Flight 2985, was climbing through 24,000ft (7,315m) en route from Denver to Phoenix when the left engine failed, shedding the engine cowling, fan and other forward components over “sparsely populated mountainous terrain” in Colorado. The crew declared an emergency, and returned to Denver, where the aircraft landed safely. No injuries were reported among the 50 passengers plus crewmembers onboard the flight. Investigators say the aircraft sustained minor damage to the fuselage, left engine pylon and tail section during the engine separation. Expatrep 02:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page not displaying correctly[edit]

There is a lot of information after 'incidents and accidents' that is not being displayed at the bottom of the page.

I discovered this when clicking 'edit this page' to add an external link, but it was already there. I don't know how to fix this problem.

Someone please help! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.13.144.164 (talk) 10:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for spotting that! IP User:24.65.185.131 added an non-notable incident to the list 3 days ago (01:01, March 20, 2007). The user provided a cite, but did not add a < /ref > tag at the end of the quote. This caused the remainder of the page to be blanked. If there had been a < /ref > tag later in the article, the text would have been blanked up to that tag, then the article would have continued as normal. I've run into (even caused!) the problem before, it is easy to do!

However, as I consider the incident to be non-notable, I have removed the entire entry, rather than fixing the entry. - BillCJ 16:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

Simple. Boeing 737 isn't at Boeing 737 family, so I don't see why this article should be titled as such. --Phoenix 03:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - If you don't like the title with "family", then propose a move it to Bombardier CRJ. But Bombardier Canadair Regional Jet is too long, and really unnecessary, as all the variants are officialy known as CRJs. - BillCJ 04:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why the page was moved when then was stated opposition to moving. I have reverted it back. Please allow the move process to play out, and I will abide by the consensus at that point. Thanks. - BillCJ 06:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I found out why: It was listed as an uncontroversial move, and I didn't catch that mistake. Please be aware that if an article was moved recently, as this one was, moving it again so soon will probably be controversial. - BillCJ 06:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am now proposing a move to Bombardier CRJ, placing a poll section, and posting the move as controversial on the Requested moves page. Thanks. - BillCJ 04:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

Bombardier CRJ family → Bombardier CRJ — Simplest name in line with WP:AIR/PC naming conventions, as "family" has been noted to be unnecessary; much shorter name than the original Bombardier Canadair Regional Jet —BillCJ 04:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been renamed from Bombardier CRJ family to Bombardier CRJ as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 07:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 2007 taxiing accident[edit]

For future reference, this recent incident was removed as being non-notable.

On May 20, 2007, a CRJ-100 operated by Air Canada Jazz experienced a main landing gear collapse while taxiing after a successful landing at Toronto Pearson International Airport. There were no injuries.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/05/20/aircanada-landinggear.html | title=Landing gear collapses after flight touches down in Toronto | date=May 20, 2007 | publisher=CBC}}</ref>

It's a ground incident and is minor compared to the accidents listed in the article already. -Fnlayson 01:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split Suggestion[edit]

I suggeset that someone make a seperate article for the CRJ-700 and -900 series as they are very different than the one and two hundered series Planes&mustangs510 03:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have considered suggesting that myself, perhaps leaving this page as an overview article, and splitting off the others as the Bombardier CRJ 100/200 and the Bombardier CRJ 700/900 pages, including the CRJ 1000 in the second article for now. We'll see if there's any other support for it, and perhaps take a poll on splitting it up. I can do the split work (except for the tables), as I enjoy that kind of work. - BillCJ 04:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be out of touch for a few weeks but when I get back I will be glad to help with the articles. I feel that there is enough information on the different planes to easily write decently long articles about them. Planes&mustangs510 19:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've got several other projects going on right now, but I'll set up a couple of sandboxes for each article on my userspace, and work on them as I can. Anyone is welcome to work on them too, and when they are ready, we'll move them to the mainspace. - BillCJ 20:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Bombardier CRJ - overview page

User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Bombardier CRJ 100/200

User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Bombardier CRJ 700/900

~~- BillCJ 20:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Perhaps we should use the current page as the overview with links to entirely new pages for the respected models. 72.83.117.107 20:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added the specs for both articles Planes&mustangs510 02:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's best to use the aircraft specifications template or a table. I was going to copy the Spec table from this article to the other articles and remove unrelated columns. -Fnlayson 02:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Tables work best for multiple airliner variants. - BillCJ 02:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would've made a table but I don't know how, thanks for the help. Planes&mustangs510 02:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't either, that's why I asked Jeff (Fnlayson) if he would do it :) - BillCJ 03:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I added a table to Bombardier CRJ100/200. I added crew data and left some data below the table. -Fnlayson 03:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the back half of CRJ-700/-900? Planes&mustangs510 03:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should be OK now. I messed up the hidden formatting . The -900 image was in the article twice. I hid the 2nd one. -Fnlayson 03:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be okay now, wow, we managed to complete two whole articles in one day, great job everyone!!Planes&mustangs510 03:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operators lists[edit]

Now that we have the separate articles for the CRJ100/200 and CRJ700/900, we need to split up the operators lists, and add them to the correct pages. I've left them here for now, but in time, we'll need to check which operators have which versions, and update the correct articles. - BillCJ 04:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

anybody know how to change the redirects so CRJ-700 gets you to the CRJ700/900 page?? Planes&mustangs510 17:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, i figured it out Planes&mustangs510 17:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DAB conversion[edit]

I think the spin-off pages have been here long enough that we don't need this one as a full page any longer. The only real hold up on conversion is the "Operators list", which does not deliniate between the CRJ100/200 and 700/900 models. I'm moving the operators lists to the variant pages, and adding an appropriate tag and hidden note. - BillCJ 18:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overview article[edit]

This should be rebuilt as an overview article, since the entire CRJ line is derived from the Challenger. 70.55.84.123 (talk) 06:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic eludes me. The only reason we left the overview here was because of the airline info, and the fact that many links for the CRJ pointed here. There is no need for an overview article, as, there are only two articles on the CRJs, but you are welcome to state your case here, and try to gain a concensus to reinstate the overview page. - BillCJ (talk) 06:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]