Why is no one talking about the impeccable safety record of the Embraer RJ-190 ? It’s by far the safest plane in the skies statistically ?

So reading through Aeroinside, Wikepedia, Crash101 and compiling all incidents, ever. There have been 564 Embraers built; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_E-Jet_family

And a total of 44 human fatalities From Henan Airlines and 33 from LAM Mozambique resulting in only two fatal incidents; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_E-Jet_family

The second incident of 33 fatalities was pilot error, the pilot literally flew the plane into the ground. Now take the other Embraer planes totalling 1,500 jets and over 25m flight hours of the E170/E190/E195 and there have been zero other fatalities; http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/embraer.htm

So as of today with 30m flight hours, there had been one incident classed as a mechanical issue (which could possibly have been human error) killing 44 people.

Now compare this to any other plane. The next safest plane (IMO) is the Boeing 737-800, with 4,991 units delivered; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_ ... Generation

Of the 737-800 range there have been 736 fatalities; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... Boeing_737

This is just the -800, not the Max, -700 etc. The 737-800 is an incredibly safe plane also, nearly all accidents have been put down to reasons outside of the fault of the aircraft.

But the Embraer has one fatal accident across 1,500 units, even if we multiply this by 3, it is still markedly safer than one of the safest planes in the sky; the 737-800.

My question why is this plane so safe when each time I’ve stepped on it, the engines look one third the size of any other comparable jet and the craft shakes around a fair amount ? My second question, is the Embraer 190 safer than the Boeing 737-800 !

These planes have virtually zero fatalities compared to any other plane, especially the A320 family.

So could a pilot compare the safety record of the Embraer RJ 190 to the Boeing 737-800 for me please ?

Maybe it’s because all the Embraer flights are so short ?

Aeromexico use primarily Embraer 190’s and I’ve been on them, they are fairly old averaging 10 years. I literally think there have been almost zero deaths, compare this to the Boeing or the Airbus equivalents, why is this not hugely publicised ??

i would love to know which is the safest aircraft out of the E190 and the 737-800 ? I will repay you for the advice somehow.
thank you
James

Passenger safety is done on a per flight hour or per flight basis (rate per million flights). Standard is a rate < 1 by certification standards.

Rating by rate:
http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm

So yes, doing well. But also not island hopping around Indonesia (the bugaboo of the 738).

A rate if 0.03 vs. 0.07 for the 737NG.
A320 at 0.08 and declining

Lightsaber

Not that I want a lot of discussion, you can see by the rate neither Concorde nor initial MAX made the standard. Some are tilted, for example early 747s were a target of many terrorist attacks.

The Embraer is also newer. Better safety standards (fuel tank innerting). It is a good design.

Late edit:
Compare to cars, but done on a per 100 million miles basis. Air travel is far safer.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_v ... %20rows%20

I suggest you take a good look at the impressive statistics of the ERJ-135/140/145 family. Zero fatality after 23 years and more than 1200 units delivered.

The entire Embraer family of commercial jets (including the 135/140/145) have a sterling record of safety. When you consider the number of cycles they fly and the average age of their pilots, the people who engineered and built them should be acknowledged.

The older turbo-props not so much.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

the average age of their pilots.

Do elaborate

I loved flying the E-Jet. Safe, smart and comfortable plane. I now fly the 737-800. Very different cattle of fish. Yes it’s very safe and efficient but such a high workload in comparison. Much more of a ‘pilots’ plane. System wise, trimming, speeds, operation exposure etc etc. Incredibly robust but much easier to get into trouble with if you let her. You have to really think ahead and plan ahead. The E190 is so automated and has such a low workload. But many (electrical) glitches whereas the 737 is literally a flying ‘tank’. Can’t recall the last time on the 737-800 something big didn’t work or I had to return to stand. Love both aircraft.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

The entire Embraer family of commercial jets (including the 135/140/145) have a sterling record of safety. When you consider the number of cycles they fly and the average age of their pilots, the people who engineered and built them should be acknowledged.

The older turbo-props not so much.

I'm not sure any of the crash numbers are high enough to be meaningful. Couldn't OH 5191 have happened just as easily in an Embraer product, for instance?

digitalcloud wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

the average age of their pilots.

Do elaborate

Regionals tend to be flown by younger and less experienced pilots. They also tend to fly more sectors per day, are paid less and potentially commute more to their base (due to pay).

Jamesmackie wrote:

My question why is this plane so safe when each time I’ve stepped on it, the engines look one third the size of any other comparable jet and the craft shakes around a fair amount ? My second question, is the Embraer 190 safer than the Boeing 737-800 !

Interestingly enough, the E190's CF34-10E engines are closer in size and design to the 737's CFM56 than earlier models of the CF34. When you say it shakes around, were you sitting in the back? E-Jets are notorious for being a rough ride in the back, especially in turbulence. Farther forward, the E190's ride is no rougher than any other similar aircraft.

Maybe it’s because all the Embraer flights are so short ?

I'd think it's because there are far fewer E190s compared to 737s. Most people have probably heard of the ubiquitous 737, but they probably have no idea what an E190 is or what it looks like. The 190 isn't all that common, especially as airlines have been retiring them (AA, AC, B6 in 2025). Hence, little to no discussion of its safety record.

Antarius wrote:

Regionals tend to be flown by younger and less experienced pilots. They also tend to fly more sectors per day, are paid less and potentially commute more to their base (due to pay).

Ugh - the low pay nonsense. Does Spirit's relative low pay give pilots a higher propensity to crash than UA's, for example? Are pilots inattentive or suicidal in operation because the last contract negotiation didn't net them the full extra $20/flight hour they wanted? Don't look to explain this as difference in pay - it's likely difference in pilot experience, trip construction, and aircraft capability.

As for explaining the 738's higher fatality rate because of its more diverse user base... Not sure that's going to be proven in the statistics. The E-190s have a pretty diverse set of operating carriers. Objectively (without descending into racism) we might be able to say that continent xxx has more fatalities than continent yyy per 100 million seat miles, or 1 million flight hours, or some such operating statistic adjusted for size. But to pick the safer aircraft one would need to adjust for competence of air traffic control, pilot experience and skill, weather conditions, competence of aircraft maintenance, runway safety... and those adjustments aren't easy. It's not like saying 'All ten U.S. carriers each operate fleets that are 10% E-190 and 20% 738s with equal pilot experience and equivalent flight distance and conditions, and we see the E-190s produce fewer fatalities.'

MIflyer12 wrote:

Antarius wrote:

Regionals tend to be flown by younger and less experienced pilots. They also tend to fly more sectors per day, are paid less and potentially commute more to their base (due to pay).

Ugh - the low pay nonsense. Does Spirit's relative low pay give pilots a higher propensity to crash than UA's, for example? Are pilots inattentive or suicidal in operation because the last contract negotiation didn't net them the full extra $20/flight hour they wanted? Don't look to explain this as difference in pay - it's likely difference in pilot experience, trip construction, and aircraft capability.

I didn't say it was ONLY because of low pay. That was the 4th thing listed after age, experience and trip construction.

Antarius wrote:

digitalcloud wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

the average age of their pilots.

Do elaborate

Regionals tend to be flown by younger and less experienced pilots. They also tend to fly more sectors per day, are paid less and potentially commute more to their base (due to pay).

Still failing to see your point here...

I’d be careful about attributing safety to a specific type, accidents are very, very rarely attributed to design flaws. Over 90% are crew failures—CRM, training, rare equipment failure which wasn’t properly handled by the crew.

There is a few planes with 100% records, A350, A220, as stated above, the E135 family, A380, CRJ700 series, the list goes on.

I dont think people are ranting about the E190 family because its not that amazing.

The ERJ-135/140/145 has a better safety record than the 170/190.

CaptCoolHand wrote:

Antarius wrote:

digitalcloud wrote:

Do elaborate

Regionals tend to be flown by younger and less experienced pilots. They also tend to fly more sectors per day, are paid less and potentially commute more to their base (due to pay).

Still failing to see your point here...

Perhaps one of the airline pilots on this website could explain how competent they felt when they had 3 years on a ATP ticket vs 10. I would guess military stats would be similar for accidents. Many off the 135/145 jets I flew on in the last 20 years had both flight officers who at least looked under 30.
Don't most accidents occur during takeoff and landing? An aircraft making 6 to 8 cycles a day, sometimes to less equipped airports and flown by more inexperienced crew members should have a higher accident rate than say a A350/B787 which might make at most 2 cycles into JFK or ORD a day.

CaptCoolHand wrote:

Antarius wrote:

digitalcloud wrote:

Do elaborate

Regionals tend to be flown by younger and less experienced pilots. They also tend to fly more sectors per day, are paid less and potentially commute more to their base (due to pay).

Still failing to see your point here...

Experience tends to lead to being a better <insert any profession here>

CaptCoolHand wrote:

Antarius wrote:

digitalcloud wrote:

Do elaborate

Regionals tend to be flown by younger and less experienced pilots. They also tend to fly more sectors per day, are paid less and potentially commute more to their base (due to pay).

Still failing to see your point here...

Less experienced pilots, with more disrupted sleep schedules, longer average duty days, and have the highest rates of commuting further disrupting sleep schedules, and more take offs and landings, so you would expect to see a higher fatality rate per mile

The 717 has never had a hull loss or fatality since it's launch in 1999. Obviously only 156 were built so there's way less hours compared to the ERJ-145/190, but still noteworthy.

So we're all just going to gloss over the fact that the Airbus A340 has been flying for 29 years - just shy of 400 aircraft delivered - without a single passenger fatality?

zkojq wrote:

So we're all just going to gloss over the fact that the Airbus A340 has been flying for 29 years - just shy of 400 aircraft delivered - without a single passenger fatality?

Hmmm.. maybe yes if you consider that the demise of the A340 was cost related, not performance/reliability. It is still a great aircraft.

Note that the author highlighted frames that accumulated a huge amount of planes on a huge amount of flight rotations, though. You could extrapolate that the A340, on the going rate it had, would achieve this but for the issue on economics which downed the plane. We will never know.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

CaptCoolHand wrote:

Antarius wrote:

Regionals tend to be flown by younger and less experienced pilots. They also tend to fly more sectors per day, are paid less and potentially commute more to their base (due to pay).

Still failing to see your point here...

Perhaps one of the airline pilots on this website could explain how competent they felt when they had 3 years on a ATP ticket vs 10. I would guess military stats would be similar for accidents. Many off the 135/145 jets I flew on in the last 20 years had both flight officers who at least looked under 30.
Don't most accidents occur during takeoff and landing? An aircraft making 6 to 8 cycles a day, sometimes to less equipped airports and flown by more inexperienced crew members should have a higher accident rate than say a A350/B787 which might make at most 2 cycles into JFK or ORD a day.

I know Americans find this low hour/big jet concept alien but I felt amazing when I joined a legacy carrier with only 150hr total to fly a 4 engined jet. Manual flying wise I did way better than guys with 20+ years experience. My manual skills and non normal handling skills were on fire. Plus I knew the books back to front. Whereas the experienced Captains would occasionally miss little stuff. Where you ‘lack’ is being able to take a step back and see the big picture and manage it based on countless years of experience.

The roles have now sort of reversed. I’m the experienced Captain who sometimes misses little things but can be ahead by a mile due to past experience.

In the end of the day I started confident due to exceptional training. Total hours doesn’t mean a thing. It’s training and attitude.

Antarius wrote:

CaptCoolHand wrote:

Antarius wrote:

Regionals tend to be flown by younger and less experienced pilots. They also tend to fly more sectors per day, are paid less and potentially commute more to their base (due to pay).

Still failing to see your point here...

Experience tends to lead to being a better <insert any profession here>

Yet some of the worst disasters in aviation history were in command of the most experienced airmen.

Dassault Mercure....safest jet in the world...no crash. Having made only 12 and less than half a million flights, how could they loose. Now that it is retired, it wins. Nuff said..
Mercure, 767-400,a-380, 747-8, 737-600 are some off the top of my head which have not had a crash.

Avgeek21 wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

CaptCoolHand wrote:

I know Americans find this low hour/big jet concept alien but I felt amazing when I joined a legacy carrier with only 150hr total to fly a 4 engined jet. Manual flying wise I did way better than guys with 20+ years experience. My manual skills and non normal handling skills were on fire. Plus I knew the books back to front. Whereas the experienced Captains would occasionally miss little stuff. Where you ‘lack’ is being able to take a step back and see the big picture and manage it based on countless years of experience.

The roles have now sort of reversed. I’m the experienced Captain who sometimes misses little things but can be ahead by a mile due to past experience.

In the end of the day I started confident due to exceptional training. Total hours doesn’t mean a thing. It’s training and attitude.

That's quite amazing. In the States, the FAA requirements are much stricter -
Unless otherwise exempt, you must have 1,500 hours before applying for an ATP certificate, including 500 hours of cross-country time, 100 hours of night time, 50 hours in the class of airplane for the rating, 75 hours of instrument time, and 250 hours of time as pilot in command. Ex-military pilots need 750 hours of military flight time.

Antarius wrote:

digitalcloud wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

the average age of their pilots.

Do elaborate

Regionals tend to be flown by younger and less experienced pilots.

That may be true but your argument is still invalid. You are implying that because the average age of a E145 pilots is lower it is therefore more likely to have a poor safety record.

digitalcloud wrote:

Antarius wrote:

digitalcloud wrote:

Do elaborate

Regionals tend to be flown by younger and less experienced pilots.

That may be true but your argument is still invalid. You are implying that because the average age of a E145 pilots is lower it is therefore more likely to have a poor safety record.

Since it's such a stretch to link age with experience? This isn't Benjamin Button.

thankfully it will become more and more normal that whole aircraft types will exist without fatalities. No one has ever been killed on an:
A-319 (around 1480 built)
Emb145/135 (around 1240 built)
Boeing 787 (around 1030 built)
Emb170/175 (around 860 built)
CRJ700/900/1000 family (around 820 built) Excluding the different CRJ100/200
Airbus 350 (around 440 built)
Airbus 380 (around 245 built)
Boeing 717 (156 built)
CSeries/A220 (around 140 built)
Tu-204/214 (around 75 built)
ARJ-21 (around 50 built)
Il-96 (around 30 built)
Dassault Mercure (around 12 built)
Only the Mercure has stopped flying so that type will remain spotless.

MEA-707 wrote:

thankfully it will become more and more normal that whole aircraft types will exist without fatalities. No one has ever been killed on an:
A-319 (around 1480 built)
Emb145/135 (around 1240 built)
Boeing 787 (around 1030 built)
Emb170/175 (around 860 built)
CRJ700/900/1000 family (around 820 built) Excluding the different CRJ100/200
Airbus 350 (around 440 built)
Airbus 380 (around 245 built)
Boeing 717 (156 built)
CSeries/A220 (around 140 built)
Tu-204/214 (around 75 built)
ARJ-21 (around 50 built)
Il-96 (around 30 built)
Dassault Mercure (around 12 built)
Only the Mercure has stopped flying so that type will remain spotless.

TU204 had a runway overrun that killed five onboard and one on the ground

Looking elsewhere, the G280, G450/550/650, Global series and Challenger 300/350/650 total to about 3,400 deliveries over the past two decades without a fatal hull loss. Aviation has become remarkably safe.

AA757223 wrote:

MEA-707 wrote:

thankfully it will become more and more normal that whole aircraft types will exist without fatalities. No one has ever been killed on an:
A-319 (around 1480 built)
Emb145/135 (around 1240 built)
Boeing 787 (around 1030 built)
Emb170/175 (around 860 built)
CRJ700/900/1000 family (around 820 built) Excluding the different CRJ100/200
Airbus 350 (around 440 built)
Airbus 380 (around 245 built)
Boeing 717 (156 built)
CSeries/A220 (around 140 built)
Tu-204/214 (around 75 built)
ARJ-21 (around 50 built)
Il-96 (around 30 built)
Dassault Mercure (around 12 built)
Only the Mercure has stopped flying so that type will remain spotless.

TU204 had a runway overrun that killed five onboard and one on the ground

That is correct. It was even caught on a dashcam video.

Those flight safety statistics are quite, hmmm, how to put it... complicated.

How would you compare a Mercure to a 737-800? Or an IL9 to a M11? And then again, how would you rate the general structures the aircraft operates in, for example a dissolved Soviet Union in the 1990 versus the US?

When it comes down to safety, statistics in my eyes tell less about a plane than an in depth analysis of the systems, how they are evolved, how the‘re integrated and so on. Statistically the Sukhoi Superjet is bad, but we have a controlled flight into terrain after ignoring all warnings by the aircrafts systems. Then we have the crash landing in SVO, with poor pilots decisions, people taking their suitcases after the fire erupted during evacuation, and a fire unit caught off guard... that is just one example I can come up with.

The T20 is a great plane with good avionics and a robust design. But it crashed twice, both times due to pilot errors. These errors resulted partly from inexperience pared with a higher work load. So how would you value the factor work load in this case, and why wasn‘t anything done to reduce it? Is it now the planes fault?

Or a Tadjik TU5 makes a hole in the ground, being overloaded and out of trim. A Azeri TU3 lows up an engine and (killing all on board) after not being properly maintained for many cycles. Or a Misrair TU5 crashed due to an untrimmed stabilizer, because the crew simply forgot to set a single task - resulting in an automation of this feature in all TU5s after the crash?! The last one would come close to MAXes diving into the ground...

And then, if aircraft are operated mainly in stranger places of this planet, why not factor this into a statistic?

I personally consider myself to understand a bit, and I kind of know which acft I would trust, without statistics...

IlW and IL9s any time, CU maybe not.
Embraers, no problem. EM2s somewhere in Russias Far East, well not so much.
A40 - no thank you.
A48 - not so much either... but greatly improved avionics wise.
T20 - any time
TU5 - any time
DC9 - a NW DC9 any time, an African one, not so sure.
NEO? No problem, even if only with single engine PW ops . MAX: I‘ll let others try first, same with COVID vaccines, hahahah, and NO, I am not saying they are not safe!!! Of course they are....

So statistics are one thing, a deeper insight the other. I do not think that a statistical value can tell something about airliner safety. And if none ever crashed, then let that speak for itself. But I‘d rather go with the Embraers than with a Shanghai Y-10.

Finally, someone who realises that statistics require interpretation.

Ty134A wrote:

Those flight safety statistics are quite, hmmm, how to put it... complicated.

How would you compare a Mercure to a 737-800? Or an IL9 to a M11? And then again, how would you rate the general structures the aircraft operates in, for example a dissolved Soviet Union in the 1990 versus the US?

When it comes down to safety, statistics in my eyes tell less about a plane than an in depth analysis of the systems, how they are evolved, how the‘re integrated and so on.
And then, if aircraft are operated mainly in stranger places of this planet, why not factor this into a statistic?

I personally consider myself to understand a bit, and I kind of know which acft I would trust, without statistics...
IlW and IL9s any time, CU maybe not.
Embraers, no problem. EM2s somewhere in Russias Far East, well not so much.
DC9 - a NW DC9 any time, an African one, not so sure.

So statistics are one thing, a deeper insight the other.

TL:DR - It's not just the aircraft type.
It's the {aircraft type + operator + location + support infrastructure + local culture} + maybe {conducting flights in or over a war zone}

(yeah, several of those are contentious, and at least one could lead to complaints of racism or similar.)

Lightsaber wrote:

....you can see by the rate neither Concorde nor initial MAX made the standard.

Concorde; the perfect example, with a 100% perfect safety record. Right up until 16:44pm 25th July 2000.

digitalcloud wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

the average age of their pilots.

Do elaborate

colgan air 3407 opened a pandora box

Please remember to provide a link to your source when presenting facts or make it clear that your are presenting your opinion. Thanks.

CaptCoolHand wrote:

Antarius wrote:

digitalcloud wrote:

Do elaborate

Regionals tend to be flown by younger and less experienced pilots. They also tend to fly more sectors per day, are paid less and potentially commute more to their base (due to pay).

Still failing to see your point here...

More risk, less experience, higher workload....