Talk:Embraer Phenom 300

Prodigy avionics
The Embraer web-site describes the Embraer Prodigy(TM) flight deck which is based on Garmin's G1000 avionics system. The "Prodigy" name does not relate directly to the G1000 and does not appear on the Garmin web-site. I have modified the avionics record in an attempt to reflect this, but I'm not sure if this is the best way of presenting the information ..... --Romney yw (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

To merge
Any consideration of merging the article with Embraer Phenom 100 since it is a variant of Phenom 100? ---Now wiki (talk) 19:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I support this proposition --Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

wrong title
According Naming conventions (aircraft) the title should be "Embraer EMB 505.

The TCDS no. A60CE state at note 6:

''The EMB-505 is often referred to in Embraer marketing literature as the “PHENOM 300”. ''' This name is strictly marketing designation and is not part of the official model designation. '

The same problem exists in the article EMB-500 (Phenom 100)--Ifixplanes (talk) 08:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * See replies at Talk:Embraer Phenom 100, in order to keep the discussions together. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 10:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

main photo change
The current picture is of the plane grounded; the proposed one is contrasty and is of the plane airborne, left-pointing and climbing.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Embraer Phenom 300. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160807193838/https://www.gama.aero/files/GAMA_2015_Databook_LoRes%20updated%203-29-2016.pdf to https://www.gama.aero/files/GAMA_2015_Databook_LoRes%20updated%203-29-2016.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Embraer EMB-505 Phenom 300, Embraer AN2068976.jpg

Runway Excursion deletion
The deleted table and reference to runway overruns is notable and bold. The large number of the same type of accidents/incidents on this type of aircraft is certainly notable and similar to the Ford Pinto fuel tank hazards and the B737 Max MCAS (737) system. Both the Ford Pinto and B737 max have extensive wiki articles on those subjects. I would like the previous addition reverted. JimBob2u (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The citations were invalid, they pointed to blank FAA and NTSB search forms. Aircraft types can't be blamed for gross pilot error. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  22:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the citations… The FAA and NTSB websites would not allow a direct links to the specific accident. The FAA and NTSB links were to the search forms that allowed entry of the tail number that was provided in the table. These were more “official” links and that is the reason they were noted. This link https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/dblist.php?AcType=E55P includes six of the incidents contained in the original table and could be substituted for the FAA and NTSB links. I am open to other suggestions regrading high quality citations.

Regarding listing accidents and incidents in the table. Most wiki aircraft articles have a section for accidents and incidents. All the events in the table qualified as accidents and incidents under NTSB rules. If it qualifies as an accident or incident why not list it?

Moreover, the type of accidents and incidents are not normal for the size and type of operation for the Phenom 300 which makes the listing notable. The Citation Excel, which is similar in size and types of operations, has zero incidents of runway incursions in the same databases. Additionally, the Citation Excel has a longer operating period than the Phenom 300. There have been 543 deliveries of Phenom aircraft and there have been at least eleven documented runways excursions. That means at least 2 percent of the fleet has been involved in this kind of accident. I believe that makes the table noteworthy.

It is correct that “pilot error” -due to unstable approaches- has been noted as a basis for many of these excursions. However, pilots in similar aircraft (Excel and other aircraft) have suffered fewer or no excursions when they have presumably flown similar unstable approaches. This is likely due to specific design characteristics in the Phenom 300. The aircraft does not contain reverse thrust which is normally required for jet aircraft over 12,500 pounds which also requires certification under CFR part 25. In fact, the Phenom received a waiver to be certified under the less stringent part 23 which also allowed it to be certified without reverse thrust. JimBob2u (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * See WP:AIRCRASH for guidance : Accidents involving light aircraft ... are mostly non-prominent. Accidents are notable if they resulted in a significant change to the aircraft design or aviation operations. If your "high propensity to be involved in runway excursion" is serious, aviation authorities would open a case, or at least news would emerge. Wikipedians are not here to judge if it is a notable repetition (see WP:synthesis), we are here to report reports.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)