Here is a safety report about the Bombardier regional jets - a.k.a. CRJs - that is 20 years late:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...=djemalertNEWS
(may require a subscription).

The report speaks for itself. The only question in my mind is where were the regulators and the industry all that time?
The second question is: does stalling due to ice apply to Embraer products too?

I haven't read the Airworthiness directive (AD) which is not published yet. But, all aircraft are affected by icing. Many, but not all aircraft have anti-icing and de-icing systems. Those that don't are prohibited from flying into known icing conditions. Pilots take icing forecasts, reports and airframe anti-icing capabilities extremely seriously when making a go-no go decision.

The WSJ article discusses an angle of attack indicator and relates that the AOA indicator issue was discovered initially on the Airbus fleet, so this is a part related issue.

The article didn't appear to directly discuss anti-icing systems but does suggest that a faulty AOA indicator may not function when it's most needed: when standard airframe performance numbers do not apply due to airframe ice accumulation.

The article also notes that manufacturer's service bulletins regarding this part have mostly, if not all been complied with. An AD raises the service bulletin to the level of a regulatory compliance issue. For most operators, this will mainly mean an inspection of the airframe logbooks for previous compliance and an additional notation that the AD has been complied with.

As for safety, the AOA gives the pilot additional warning, but sim training addresses failure of stall warning systems. This appears to be a non-issue or at most a very minor issue that likely has been previously addressed.

From the article it doesn't appear to have anything to do with the anti-icing systems on the airframe.

The problem appears to be a result of faulty equipment (Angle of Attack indicators) produced by Thales, per the article.

Can't comment on Embraer products.

Thales is the same company that is alleged to have built faulty anti-ice devices for their pitot tubes & static ports on the Air France A330 that went down over the ITCZ on its Atlantic Crossing. As to whether or not that was the cause of the crash, it is unknown and this thread probably isn't the place for opinion re the AF crash.

I'll add the CRJ appears to be a well-liked aircraft by pilots. I've spoken to veteran pilots who have gone back to regional flying (for a variety of reasons) and they all love the CRJ.

There is a good thread over on the Delta forum (will have to find a link) from W0X0F_2p2 who is a DL 767-300 / 757-200 pilot based at JFK.

Edit: Welcome W0X0F_2p2 to FT with aviation questions - CRJ / 757/767 -- DL 767-300/757-200 pilot -- Fantastic Thread!

This individual used to fly CRJ's for ACA + ACA/Independence Airlines. In fact he was the chief pilot for ACA / Independence at one period of time.

He might be able to comment on ice build up issues being an expert on the airframe.

Nothing really new here. These sorts of directives occur on airplanes of all sizes from time to time as we learn more. That's why we do accident investigations (and why the European trend to move these into the counts is so dangerous), so we can understand what went wrong and how to fix it. Nobody's perfect and we learn from each accident and the improvements that result from each improve the safety of aviation in general.

I'll add one more bit..

I find the CRJ to be a safe aircraft, but severely lacking in comfort unless on a CR7 or CR9 with a FC cabin (with BIS up-front ).

I'm forced to fly on the CRJ on a regular basis and have gotten used to the bird. Ironically, when they first came out I was excited to be flying on them as a new type -- not so much anymore.

Would happily jump on a CRJ this week (1 hr or shorter, please) -- but this week I'm flying mainline only for once, combo of MD-88's and 757-200s.

SDF:
Thanks for the link. I read the W0X0F post. It is neutral.

Nonetheless the statement in the WSJ article:
"Over roughly the last two decades, Bombardier jets have suffered at least eight accidents or serious incidents stemming from loss of lift caused by ice buildup on their wings, according to aviation safety experts." It bothers me.
It is reassuring not to be on one of those 8 CRJs and not involved in those accidents.

Note that the 'experts' said Bombardier jets, which includes the Challenger series as well. I can only find 2* occurrences on ASN relating to the CRJ. Ice on the wings will bring down any airplane, particularly if you don't de-ice first. The AOA indicator doesn't help in such a situation; it's a spectator like the crew .

*And strictly speaking one, of those was a Global Express.

The W0X0F post is neutral because pilots have to be objective in evaluating their mission and equipment to arrive at an objective decision to fly or not.

The WSJ, as with many newspapers, wants to sell newspapers, hence a lack of neutrality and comments like that above. Sensationalism and fear-mongering related to aviation is not uncommon in newspapers, from what I've seen. Bombardier is a relative youngster in the airplane building business, and includes in its line up not only the CRJ, but the DeHavilland DASH-7/8 and Lears.

I went through the entire NTSB list on CRJs. Only one might have involved icing in a flight operation. Details of that are incomplete because it happened in Russia.

Pilots are trained to recognize an incipient stall. There are numerous cockpit indications of an impending stall, of which an AOA indicator is but one.