'Private Eye' returns to the 146

[Unwell_Raptor]

This week's 'Private Eye' has returned to the BAe 146 fumes story. According to the magazine an enthusiast overheard a Jersey-Stansted flight (18/4/01) making a pan call to land at Gatwick with fumes in the cabin leading to a shutdown. The CAA confirmed the story saying that thick smoke was reported in the cabin and FD and the crew wore masks. No 3 was shut down and an uneventful landing made.

[Effendi]

Yea. Once again Private Eye is correct. It did happen.
Guess once again lots will be in denial.

[Cpt Nil Further]

Was it a Jersey to Stansted flight or an alleged British European, Jersey callsign inbound Stansted flight??. Makes a difference to the story line as 95% of the BE flights into Stansted are operated with the CRJ. Oh but I am sure Private Eye are factually accurate as usual.....not.

[Unwell_Raptor]

According to the magazine the CAA has confirmed the story.

[bean]

The Aircraft had departed LGW for JER. The Jersey Evening Post reported that number three engine was shut down due to severe vibration & the Aircraft returned to LGW.
To me this sounds like a serious engine problem which must have little bearing on previous incidents.
Whether my analysis is correct or not i note that "the usual suspects" have already leaped onto the bandwagon & we shall be subjected to another tiresome round of 146 Bashing by certain contributors whose obsession with the aircraft is verging on the unhealthy.
The people who i know who either fly or have flown the 146 like so many of its defenders on this forum are unanimous in singing its praises.

[Raw Data]

Yes, once again the obsessive effendi has seized upon any opportunity, real or imagined, to have a go at the 146. I can only imagine that a 146 once ran over his pet hamster or something, or maybe his favourite homing pigeon went down a 146 intake.

I haven't read the article (private Eye not being amongst my usual sources for factual, technically correct aviation reporting), but if it was a shutdown due to severe engine vibration, it is obvious that you could get smoke in the cabin (as you would with ANY turbine engine that uses bleed air), as the seals break down under the vibration.

Effendi will now try and tell us that only 146 engines fail with severe vibration- he will comprehensively ignore the number of CFM56 engines (for example) that have grenaded themselves (Kegworth springs to mind, for one). He will try and tell us that only ALF engines could allow fumes into the cabin in this situation (wrong again- Kegworth). He will then try and link this incident with the wider issue of fumes (when there is clearly no link).

In all this, he will pretend not to notice the serious defects in other types, which are far more serious and have killed many people.

Such twisted reasoning, flawed logic and foolish presumption lead me to the conclusion that effendi is actually just a plane spotter with a hangup over the 146. In other words, don't take him seriously- he certainly isn't interested in flight safety!

[foghorn]

It's a shame that the usually brilliant Private Eye has got it all wrong with this one.

I'm composing a letter to Mr. Hislop.

[PPRuNe Towers]

I'm curious that, whatever the side of the arguement writers on this stand, not one of you has seen fit to include this quote from the CAA regarding this incident.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">As flight deck communication was impossible using masks they were removed and normal checklists were completed.</font>

It might be suggested that some of our correspondents are so intent on fighting their own respective corners that important safety information for airline pilots is being overlooked.

Regards from the Towers
Rob Lloyd
[email protected]

[Effendi]

Rob Lloyd,
Very perceptive.
what do you do? Keep the mask on so you're not incapacitated or take it off so you can communicate?
Good point.

[Davaar]

Where in his two lines does Effendi set out the twisted reasoning that Raw Data finds so offensive?

[foghorn]

Davaar,

Look at the multitude of other threads about the 146, especially the FL260 icing limit one that's current at the moment.

cheers!
foggy.

[Davaar]

Thanks, Foghorn. I suppose I should look at earlier contributions. On what I have in front of me, it seemed that Raw Data was alluding specifically to Effendi's most recent posting ("...once again the obsessive effendi....")which contained one affirmation, two statements as of fact, and one speculation. On the first three he must be demonstrably right or wrong. On the fourth, Effendi anticipates denial. On this basis, unless he had other unrevealed sources, Raw Data delves into Effendi's putative or imagined (by Raw Data) hamsters and pigeons; his own not having read an article; forecasts what Effendi will tell us; reveals the linkages Effendi will make and the pretences he will adopt; and warns us to conclude that Effendi is not to be taken seriously. If that constitutes denial, and if in fact Effendi is right on the first three, then he would be right on all four. Just reading what I see.

[rolling circle]

The article reads:

After reading in the last Eye how toxic fumes have been seeping into the cabins of BAe 146 jets, an aviation enthusiast and radio ham contacted us about a radio message he had intercepted from the pilot of a BAe 146. The plane was flying from Jersey to Stansted on 18 April, and the pilot was heard to ask air traffic control for permission to make an emergency landing at Gatwick because of a problem with one of the engines. The pilot reported "fumes in the cabin" and indicated that he had shut the offending engine down. Asked if any of this could possibly be true, a spokesman for the Civil Aviation Authority sent the following terse formal report.

"At approximately top of climb, master warning system (MWS) was triggered by engine vibration indication. Thick smoke then reported in the passenger cabin and also became evident on the flight deck. Immediate diversion to Gatwick requested, 'Pan' declared and Nr3 engine shut down. Emergency checklist actioned and smoke gradually dissipated. As flight deck communication was impossible using masks, they were removed and normal checklists then completed. Uneventful landing carried out with fire services in attendance."

Reassuring, no?

Perhaps bean or Raw Data might like to point out which parts of the 'offending' article were factually incorrect.

Clearly all this time with their heads stuck firmly in the sand has taught them how to talk out of a quite different part of their anatomy.

[Raw Data]

Davaar:

Context, as they say, is everything. Yes, you should have read the previous threads. The use of "once again" implies earlier material which must be considered. My riposte in no way constitutes denial as Effendi uses the term.

Now, do you really want to play silly semantic games, are shall we talk about aviation?

Rolling Circle:

At no point have I said or implied that the article is factually incorrect (as I have not read it).

What I DID say was that it wasn't relevant to the discussion on cabin fumes (which it isn't, for the reasons already given). As you have clearly not read what I have written, it would appear to be you who is speaking from your nether regions.

Finally, it would be interesting to know exactly why communication was not possible; I tried that scenario recently in the sim and had no problem communicating. Anyone know more?

[Davaar]

No, Raw Data, the context was the one you cited. I do not want to play any games with you, semantic or other, because I cannot match your pomposity nor your authority to speak ex cathedra.

[PPRuNe Towers]

That's the whole point RD.

There are now three incidents to aircraft in the last year or so that have shown expectations from work/training in sims are not reflected in real life when masks are donned.

Whether through equipment shortomings, poor/complex switchery or other reasons regarding realism in training the hard evidence is showing serious communications problems when it happens for real.

Don't care whether the smoke/fumes are organo-phosphates or you're running a 70's retro disco revival in the back, there are real life recorded problems where cockpit communications are simply not working when they're most needed.

------------------
Regards from the Towers
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by PPRuNe Towers (edited 05 May 2001).]

[homer j]

At least one earlier post supposed that engine vibration caused a seal to fail, oil started to leak and fumes entered the fuselage - thus negating links with earlier incidents.

However, could it not be that a seal failed, oil escaped, and engine vibration began due lack of oil?? - (still with smoke / fumes in the cabin!)

Just a thought, "Chicken or egg?"....

[fly4fud]

PPRuNe Towers, were in the cockpit when it happened?
So anybody else has the reason why no com was possible when wearing the masks?

There is a remote possibility the crew forgot to switch the mikes from boom to mike on the audio panel, thing easy to oversee in the heat of the action.
Point 2 of the checklist "establish communication"...

------------------
... cut my wings and I'll die ...

[Bash]

When there has been an incident trained professionals investigate objectively. When that process is complete they publish their findings. Why do others, who have only a fraction of the available information, indulge in this sort of emotive speculation. If they are spotters or wannabes I can understand it. If anyone on this thread is an aviation professional I would ask them to take a step back and consider this question. Which is more important, safety or integrity?

[Raw Data]

homer j -

No, for a variety of reasons. Low oil pressure doesn't initially cause vibration, and in any case the first thing you do with a genuine low oil pressure warning is shut down the engine. Vibration is caused by a blade failure or something similar, in most cases. The seal that is used in the compressor is a labyrinth seal I believe, apparently they don't tend to fail catastrophically.

PPRuNe Towers-

OK, but the point is that the equipment works fine. The audio quality isn't wonderful, but it is entirely adequate. it sounds (on the face of it, and without all the info) like a switching problem. Of course it is possible the mask mic failed, but the 146 cockpit is fairly quiet, I would have thought communication would be possible with a slightly raised voice (as we routinely do in normal flight). Perhaps you should wait until all the facts are in before jumping to conclusions?

It may be that practice doesn't necessarily pan out in reality, but you can only simulate so much... if the system works well in a simulated emergency, it is surely not unfair to expect it to work for real.

Maybe you can think of a better way to implement communications? Not being facetious at all, I'd be very interested to hear ANY ideas on how we could improve that aspect of the aircrafts systems.

It also occurs to me that the direct-vision system that consists of essentially a large inflatable plastic bag, for ensuring vision in a smoke-filled environment, should be mandatory in all flight decks. THAT could save a few lives...

[This message has been edited by Raw Data (edited 05 May 2001).]

[Bash]

146 Oxygen masks are positioned perfectly for contamination by coffee and tea. Sometimes the problem is found to be at a very simple level. I know of several cases of masks written off due to this problem.

[OVERTALK]

FAA UNEASY ABOUT NON-STC’D SMOKE SAFETY DEVICES

by Stephen Pope

In a bulletin issued by the FAA’s flight standards office in Washington, the agency is taking issue with pilots’ use of non-approved portable smoke safety devices in the cockpit, namely VisionSafe’s $11,000 Emergency Vision Assurance System (EVAS).

In the bulletin, titled “Portable Equipment and Carry-On Devices Intended for Flight Deck Use,” the agency said non-STC’d smoke safety devices pose “an unacceptable hazard to maintaining safe control” of an aircraft, and pointed to EVAS as potentially presenting “significant safety hazards” if not properly evaluated to meet emergency procedures and training requirements.
What this means is that EVAS in FAR Part 135 and 121 aircraft must now be STC’d and crews must be trained in the proper use of the equipment. The problem, as the FAA sees it, is that EVAS has been placed in a number of business aircraft cockpits via FAA Form 337 because STCs do not exist.

As a result of the bulletin, VisionSafe plans to develop STCs and training programs for those models in which EVAS is installed, said a spokesman. He added that all EVAS equipment sold in the future will be STC’d, even in Part 91 aircraft, and that approved training courses through FlightSafety are coming soon.

According to VisionSafe, STCs for EVAS are currently available in the Hawker 800, 800XP and 1000; Boeing 737; Cessna Citation V Ultra, VII and X; and Dassault Falcon 900, 900EX and 2000. STCs for EVAS in the Hawker 600 and 700; Falcon 50 and 50EX; and Gulfstream III, IV and V have been submitted but are not yet approved. VisionSafe also anticipates submitting STCs for all King Air and Bombardier models, as well as the GII, this month.

http://www.visionsafe.com/

http://www.ainonline.com/03_01/Mar_2001_stcdsmokepg78.html

[Dagger Dirk]

These links (and articles) are informative on EVAS:

http://www.visionsafe.com/evas/htm/in.the.news.htm

http://www.visionsafe.com/evas/2000/index2.html

[Raw Data]

Mr KKBB - OK so what is the answer then?

Overtalk - I wasn't suggesting using unapproved equipment. However, the concept is good and should be developed. Once approved, it should be available.

[TheShadow]

Cockpit fumes check on BA jets
By Heather Tomlinson
06 May 2001
British Airways is making urgent safety checks on 29 of its Boeing 757s after seven recent incidents when engine fumes leaked into cockpits. An Independent on Sunday investigation has uncovered a series of problems with 757s threatening safety, which have been investigated by the Civil Aviation Authority. Most involve planes owned by British Airways but other airlines may be involved.
In one case, says a CAA report, a Boeing 757 had to be withdrawn from service. Others were temporarily taken out of action for modification. The CAA details a "serious incident" that left pilots "partially incapacitated", failing to answer calls from air traffic controllers, after an "oily metallic smell" entered the cockpit.
This was last November, days after pilots in a BAe 146 plane were said to have almost passed out during a flight when fumes entered. A CAA report of another 757 incident said the pilot had developed a "significant headache in and after the flight and an inability to concentrate". In March, a 757 flight crew suffered irritation and the plane made an emergency descent. In February, the flight crew grew dizzy and had to fly wearing their oxygen masks. In January, a plane was withdrawn from service after four similar incidences of fumes in the cockpit.
The Boeing 757's principal user in the UK is BA, which employs the 180-seat aircraft for European flights. The airline says there have been seven incidents in the past six months involving three planes, where oily fumes led to pilots feeling nauseous and dizzy and gave them headaches. The fumes are thought to come from faulty engine seals, which let oil enter the air-conditioning.
CAA reports indicate the problem of cockpit fumes on 757 flights may have affected more than just seven BA flights. But the CAA reports do not specify the airlines involved in each incident but merely the aircraft type.
BA said there were potentially 29 aircraft that could be affected. "Of those, the ones that have a minor oil problem have been modified, and we are modifying all the others," said a spokesman. "We have had a meeting with Boeing and Rolls-Royce [the engine maker] to get to the heart of the problem and come up with modifications."
BA denies safety is threatened. "The flight crew is so highly trained that if there was any inkling that the problems were putting the aircraft in danger then appropriate action would be taken," said the spokesman.
But aviation experts said there could be a risk to passengers. "If the level of contamination is such that one pilot feels dizzy or sick that is a safety issue," said David Learmount, an editor of the industry bible, Flight International.
The British Air Line Pilots Association (Balpa), the pilots' trade union, wants an investigation into the long-term health effects of inhaling organophosphates in the engine oil.
"It's a toxic chemical that affects the neurological system," said Bruce D'Ancey, Balpa assistant technical secretary. "We have been highlighting concerns about possible contamination for the past two years."

[Raw Data]

Well, Effendi? How about it? Withdraw all Boeing 757/767s from service, because it is obviously a very dangerous aircraft?

Oh silly me, I forgot, it is only the 146 that you don't like... nothing like a balanced and objective viewpoint when it comes to flight safety, is there? NOT...

[PPRuNe Towers]

RD,

I'll be up in EDI Sat/Sun 26th and 27th May and available afternoon and early evening. I'd gladly meet up with you and any other folks around for a chat.

I work closely with Bruce D'Ancey as Danny did before me, have access to much of the safety reporting systems such as BASIS and will be happy to brief you on the state of play in smoke/fumes/ air quality investigations.

I have the dubious honour to be able to access more information perhaps than the regular line pilot. However, none of it is secret or purposely buried - just unintentionally difficult to collate from within different companies reporting systems.

Thus the overview becomes vital and it's this data mining that is my special interest. Recent threads other than the fumes issue touch on many of the subjects we gather information on and put to the airlines and the authorities.

Ground facilities at suitable/adequate alternate and diversion airports. Behaviour of Airbus speed protection in RVSM airspace and many other topics discussed here are under active research by various groups. My comments on masks and communications were just a simple example of sifting through different companies data to see if there might be a developing trend.

The 146 isn't being singled out by those researching within the industry but it is the type with most information regarding potential problems that is easily available to those outside.

Hope we can get together later in the month.

------------------
Regards from the Towers
[email protected]

[Raw Data]

Sounds good, hopefully we can make it a date.

We will shortly have BASIS on stream on the company intranet- I do know what you are on about.

I have read all the publically available resources on air quality issues as they relate to the 146, plus others that are not yet in the public domain.

I realise the 146 isn't being singled out per se in industry circles... but it is in threads such as this one, and by people who appear to be unaware of much of the info... which is what I am against- the crude attempts to make the 146 out to be worse than it is.

Anyway, hope we can meet up.

[Effendi]

Pprune Towers,
Didn't know Danny had left but the best of luck to him.
You say you have extra knowledge and access. An oily smell is one thing, pilot incapacitation another - particularly when both pilots are affected. Can you tell me if you know of any other incidents of pilot incapacitation due to cabin/cockpit fumes that have happened to any jet other than the BAe 146?

[texport]

Rolling Circle:
The Eye report is lacking in the facts. The aicraft in question was scheduled from LGW to JER and diverted back to LGW. The CAA quote though is, as per my understanding, quite correct.

Raw Data:
I agree that this instance had nothing to do with the ongoing fumes argument on the 146. Smoke / fumes in this case most likely were from a bearing failure (probably no.'s 1,2 or 9) which subsequently spat oil into pack 2.
I disagree, however, with your comment on oxygen - communication is all very well in the sim but imagine a real environment with engines at proper volume, MWS warnings, checklist being read, communication with cabin crew, pax etc. etc. Somewhat different I'm sure you'll agree.

[Raw Data]

No, I wouldn't agree at all. Everything you mention also happens in the sim, and the engine noise can be increased or decreased at will to enhance realism (as the sim doesn't really simulate wind noise). You can even have real (banana oil) smoke as well if you want. The only thing the sim doesn't do very well is simulate sunshine getting in your eyes.

I think the point might be "why" communication was impossible with masks on in this incident- for example maybe it was because the mask mic was u/s or something. The point is that it could also be because the audio box wasn't selected to "mask". Without an explanation as to why comms wasn't possible, speculation is somewhat meaningless.

[Effendi]

Raw data,
Can you confirm that you're the training captain for British European - the company that had the Birmingham incident.

[Raw Data]

Why?

[Effendi]

Why not?

[Raw Data]

Because a) it is not relevant to the discussion and b) it has nothing to do with you.

Anonymous forums, remember? I have no idea why you chose to reveal your name for all to see. Somewhat foolish I would have thought.

Now if you have a reasonable reason to know (for example you had some info you wanted to share privately) I might consider telling you. However, I doubt your motives are anything other than petty and childish, as you have repeatedly demonstrated in this and other threads. So- continue guessing...

[Effendi]

http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum12/HTML/005466.html
So all now know - including presumably Private Eye - that the main apologist on pprune for the 146 is none other that a training captain for the airline that very nearly lost one, plus crew and passengers.


[This message has been edited by PPRuNe Towers (edited 14 May 2001).]

[kennedy]

Effendi,

I happen to know the crew up the front of the aforementioned 146 in BHX, in fact I stayed at the F.O.'s place 2 days after the incident. Spoke to them about the incident and it seemed to me they did a good job of bringing the aircraft safely back to the field.

They might have been lucky, but remember, we all need a bit of luck to stay out of trouble.

Until the Incident Report is published with all the facts maybe we should stop slagging these aircraft off.

P.S. I don't fly the cockroach!

[This message has been edited by kennedy (edited 14 May 2001).]

[Effendi]

Kennedy,
You get me real wrong on this. No way do I blame the pilots - they did an admirable job.
But I do blame those in authority who by their apathy allowed it to happen. The problem was well known - it had happened several times before. And in my opinion it shouldn't have happened again. But to avoid that it needs a recognition of the dangers and it needs those in a position to do something to do something. This thing stinks of apathy - probably because there is no easy fix - probably no fix full stop.
but that doesn't mean sit back and wring your hands, which is the current option. There's a real safety problem - fix it.
The incident report has been written and has appeared on pprune. The AAIB report - either green or yellow - is many months away. Action not words.

[Raw Data]

Well done Effendi, you figured out what everyone else on PPRuNe already knows. What a clever chap you are.

This must be very satisfying for you. Of course, despite your cleverness, you have no credibility now whatsoever; as you consistently refuse to acknowledge the very same problem that affects the 146 exists on several other types, not to mention far more serious defects on those types than the 146 has. All this has been stated before, but as you are unable to answer these things you choose to ignore them. How infantile.

As you are not consistent, not balanced, and clearly have a grudge against the 146, your diatribes are completely worthless. Keep banging on though, no doubt some of your fellow spotters will be impressed.

Now when you learn the art of debate, do join us again. Until then, do try and develop a sense of objectivity and fair play.

[Effendi]

Pprune,
All yours.

[Effendi]

Pprune,
given your access to knowledge, I think it's fair to pose a question I posed before.
Do you know of any jet that has had incidents of pilot incapacitation due to fumes in the cackpit/cabin apart fron the BAe 146.