Talk:Embraer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Brazil Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles of Brazil on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.	Aviation Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

OK...SABEMOS QUEM TEM 20%..E OS OUTROS 80%

English is the only language permitted here. No Portuguese,please. Thanks -Joseph (Talk) 03:56, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

IT IS AN ACRONYM, BUT.....For sure Embraer is an acronym, but it has been assimilated as a word for a long time. If you consult the word Petrobras (Petróleo Brasileiro S/A), that is another acronym, you will see such thing. More serious than that it is the fact that, in Portuguese, the word is Petrobrás.The last syllable "bras" is accented because is stressed according to the Portuguese rules. Thus it is treated as a word, not acronym. This "brás" refers to "Brasileiro", which has no accents. Same happens with the local missile producer Avibrás. Scuba and laser are another acronyms as well, assimilated as words. Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica is just a mere formality. Nobody uses that in the streets. Brazilian newspapers - locals and nationals - refer to the company as "Embraer", using that as a normal word and writing in that way. Wall Street Journal and NYT do that as well. Also, in Sao Jose dos Campos, all the traffic indications mention "Embraer". The company calls itself as "Embraer" as youn can see in the site http://www.embraer.com/english/ in the section "The Company". Please watch over the name of the site. Using Embraer gives the article elegance.

Under those circumstances, this and al related articles about the company's specific products should be renamed "Embraer". Gene Nygaard 00:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Move

Many articles with EMBRAER in caps should move to Embraer in normal formatting per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). List of affected pages: EMBRAER, EMBRAER ERJ 135, EMBRAER EMB 120 Brasilia, EMBRAER EMB 110 Bandeirante, EMBRAER EMB 121 Xingú, EMBRAER ERJ 140, EMBRAER E-Jets, EMBRAER R-99, EMBRAER Legacy, EMBRAER Light Jet, EMBRAER Very Light Jet. Dragons flight 05:31, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Concur with move. --Dali-Llama 17:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Yup. If you look at google or their website, "Embraer" is currently the most common usage. Niteowlneils 01:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Move Gene Nygaard 22:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I've gone through and moved them all. I've fixed all the double-redirects, but someone might wish to update the links in the articles to avoid the EMBRAER-->Embraer redirect. violet/riga (t) 22:08, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

I suggest we add a "Safety Record" section (or something similar) to all main articles for manufacturers of midsize-to-large passenger aircraft (currently this would mean Embraer, Boeing & Airbus). It should be a brief section near the end focusing on one statistic. I'm not sure what the best stat would be. Perhaps "Accidental Deaths per Delivered Planes", or maybe "Accidental Deaths Per Million Air Miles"... something that relates raw fatalities to company size and yields a number validly comparing all companies for crash frequency and severity. Of course, fatalities due to purposeful acts should not be included.. I'd do this myself, but it would take a whole lot of work just to acquaint myself with the sources and the industry. Hopefully one of the primary writers of this article will take it upon themselves. This single statistic would be very meaningful to many, many readers. JDG 14:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a tricky one. I assume you're aiming for a single-point statistic that shows how "safe" a given aircraft manufacturer's planes are, but I'm not sure whether such a complex issue can be boiled down so far - the devil is in the "validly". Two Boeing 747s collided in Tenerife in 1977 killing almost 600 people due to human error - should that count as a statistic against the 747? I could imagine that you're imagining a statistic which captures only the "faults" with the aircraft. That's laudable, but aircraft accidents so often involve a fairly complex causative chain (the "swiss cheese" model or "Reason model" after its proponent) that it is hard to pin all the blame on a single cause. Not trying to dismiss the idea out of hand, just pointing out the difficulty in coming up with something reasonable. Ecozeppelin 11:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)