Is service bulletin for BAe 146 series valid for AVRO RJ as well?

[zweifelkeks]

I am doing some research regarding the cabin air quality issue and I have come across the BAe service bulletin ISB.21-150 revision 2 from October 10th, 2002. The paper says it's effectiv for all BAe 146 aircraft and it describes the work to be done after an oil fume event. Do these procedures also apply for AVRO RJ aircraft? If yes, is that because of this ISB? If not, why?
Your help is very much appreciated.

Edit: clarity

[glhcarl]

I am doing some research regarding the cabin air quality issue and I have come across the BAe service bulletin ISB.21-150 revision 2 from October 10th, 2002. The paper says it's effectiv for all BAe 146 aircraft and it describes the work to be done after an oil fume event. Do these procedures also apply for AVRO RJ aircraft? If yes, is that because of this ISB? If not, why?

The service bulletin will list the serial numbers of the effected airframes. If the service bulletin is a "for sale" service bulletin, a service bulletin that not safety related, the owner/operator of the airframe has to pay the OEM to add the serial number to the effectivity.

However, I would assume that any service bulletin effective on the BAe 146 would have been incorporated during production on the Avro RJ's.

[zweifelkeks]

Thanks for your reply but I am not very much wiser yet.

I found the ISB here (http://www.aopis.org/SB%20156-%202002.html) and the AD here (http://www.aopis.org/AD003-10-2002-CAA.htm).

It doesn't say AVRO RJ anywhere. Does that mean that nothing has to be done after a fume event on an AVRO RJ?

[spannersatKL]

1) What paper/TV company are you working for?
2) I assume you are looking at if there is any difference in the two engine configuratuions on the 146 to RJ? The ALF502 and 507?
3) Read the SB that you are trying to interpret with clearly no technical training. As stated above, it will specify the Serial Numbers of the affected aircraft OR as in this case ALL BAe 146 aircraft.
4 As its an ISB its an INSPECTION SB so no doubt a follow up will be required and possible repeat inspections. I assume its the inspect the Air Conditioning Ducting for oil contamination inspection?

[Spitoon]

Minor point, but from what little I know of such things when considered from a technical - i.e. design authority and maintenance - perspective the BAe 146 and AVRO RJ are different aircraft. Despite the fact that they might look a bit similar.

But if you are a journo all the evidence suggests that things like that don't matter much.

[zweifelkeks]

I am not a journalist, check my profile. Furthermore it would be helpful if everybody who hasn't got a clue would stay away from this thread. Thanks.

I would be very grateful if somebody with an engineering background could shed some light on this matter. For me it looks like the ISB and the AD are valid for the BAe 146 only. So where is the regulation regarding oil fumes on the AVRO RJ?

[acebaxter]

I am not a journalist, check my profile.We can put whatever we want in our public profiles.:D

If you truly are a Captain on the RJ/AVRO and have a fume event, put it in the tech log and let a licensed engineer deal with it. That's what he's trained for.

[zweifelkeks]

@acebaxter
/quote
If you ... have a fume event, put it in the tech log and let a licensed engineer deal with it.
/unquote
Life must be wonderful and very easy in your company. In ours you better think yourself and don't rely to much on others. "Checked on ground found OK" springs to mind. Fact is that the company wants the birds in the air in the first place.

So still useful information on the subject would be highly appreciated.

[safetypee]

The aircraft type certification uses the generic BAe146 designation; the Avro RJ is a subtype.

Re: INSPECTION SERVICE BULLETIN ISB.21-1156, this is titled “BAe 146 SERIES/AVRO 146 RJ SERIES AIRCRAFT” and therefore applies to all BAe 146 Series and Avro RJ aircraft.

Re: Airworthiness Directive 003-10-2002, this is titled as “Applicability British Aerospace BAe 146-100, -200 and -300 Series aircraft”, thus only applies to BAe146 aircraft.

The difference in the two documents in their applicability is probably that the service bulletin is published as a generic procedure that might be called-up either as a specific check or used in a scheduled maintenance program, and details how the check is to be carried out; whereas the AD specifically requires a check of all BAe146.
Incidents may have been identified in the BAe146 only, and if oil was found in the ducts and if it was judged that this might have contributed to air conditioning problems a mandated check is call for. The frequency of the check suggests the abjective was to avoid repeat incidents from any failure to clean out the ducts after an initial incident.

The mechanism of the check is maintenance good housekeeping, which IMHO suggests that some operators were not checking this area after reported oil leak events. It had also been reported elsewhere that many oil leaks originated from overfilled (over serviced) APUs, and thus the AD (CAA lacking hard evidence) took a side swipe at tardy operators to improve servicing standards and ensure that a good clean up of the Air Cond system was undertaken to prevent repeat occurrences.

[zweifelkeks]

@safetypee

Thank you very much for your elaborate answer.

[glhcarl]

The difference in the two documents in their applicability is probably that the service bulletin is published as a generic procedure that might be called-up either as a specific check or used in a scheduled maintenance program, and details how the check is to be carried out; whereas the AD specifically requires a check of all BAe146.



The difference between an AD and a Service Bulletin is:

An AD has been issued by the FAA (or other reguatority agency) and has been published in the Federal Registrar which means it is now a law and must be accomplished. The AD does not provide repair or inspection instructions, that is still found in a Service Bulletin, but since the AD calls out the Service Bulletin it too now has to be accomplished. An AD can be issued for one aircraft of a entire fleet, but normally it will be issued against all already delivered, and must be accomplished at a specific time, either calander time of aircraft time or a combination of both. Aircraft still in production can have the requirements of the AD incorporated prior to
delivery.

A Service Bulletin is issued as a product improvment. The operator can choose to or to not incorporate the Service Bulletin. Again Service Bulletins can be issued for one aircraft of the entire fleet. Normally these product improvements are incorporated during production and the Service Bulletin would be effective on all previously delivered aircraft.

[zweifelkeks]

@glhcarl

Thank you very much for your answer.

Still it remains unclear for me whether the mentioned ISB is mandatory for the AVRO RJ or not.
In line #1 of the document "BAe 146 SERIES/AVRO 146‑RJ SERIES AIRCRAFT" are adressed and in in line #3 it says the action is "mandatory" but in section "A" it says "Aircraft affected by this inspection are ... ALL BAe 146 100, 200, 300 Series". I might be not the sharpest knife in the drawer but it's still not clear for me.

[Evanelpus]

zweifelkeks

Pilots are paid to fly and maintenance personnel are paid to maintain (that includes whether an SB/AD is applicable to a certain type of aircraft).

Simple!

[Mach E Avelli]

Zweifelkeks, your question is reasonable and should be of interest to all who fly or. who have flown, the fruitbat.
Seeing as you are getting nowhere with some of the unhelpful replies here, why not try an engineering thread dedicated to engineers? When you get an answer from someone who knows what they are talking about, please post here for those of us who DO care.

[safetypee]

zweifelkeks for clarification, and the edification of others:

The BAe 146 has 3 series, 146-100, 146-200, and 146-300.

The Avro RJ has the same generic Type Certificate (ease of certification, basically the RJ is a 146 with mods) and thus is known by the CAA/FAA/EASA as the BAe146/RJ.
The RJ has 3 variants, RJ70, RJ85, and RJ100.

The industry, and the manufacturer’s sales team, treats the 146 and RJ as separate aircraft as they have different capabilities; don't confuse this with the certification regulation definition above.

Service bulletins (SB) are issued by the manufacturer for a variety of reasons; the one you refer to is an Inspection SB (ISB).
A National Authority (CAA/FAA/EASA) can issue a mandate, in this instance the UK CAA via an Airworthiness Directive (AD). The one that you refer to only applies to the BAe146 series and calls for an inspection using the content of the ISB. The fact that the ISB can be used on either the BAe146 or the Avro RJ is irrelevant as far as the AD is concerned, as the AD only applies to the BAe146.

If a crew of an RJ have a cabin odour event and suspect that the APU was over filled (post #9), then maintenance action using the SB would be a good idea. However, some tact might be required in putting this suggestion to maintenance; you fly, they maintain.

Odours in the Air Con system can come from other sources, e.g. de icing fluid through the APU intake, or directly into the cabin via recirc (hydraulic leak, galley/toilet smells). If any of these substances has remained in the Air Cond ducts then the smell can reoccur; thus, using the SB to clear the ducts is also a good idea for any odour event.

If you report an event, provide the maintenance team with a clear description of when the event occurred (the stage of flight / power setting), what the cabin air source was (APU or engine), and what the temperature settings were on the Air Con Packs – these effect the air flow, particularly if selected to a maximum value just after selecting APU air / first flight of the day.
Describe the smell as this can help identify the source; a ‘sweet smell’ could be de-icing fluid, ‘sweaty socks’ is usually old oil, new oil might be more ‘caramel’ and may cause some smoke.
Fixing the cause of the problem should prevent any new events; cleaning the ducts prevents a reoccurrence (reactivation) of any old contaminant.
Do the job once and do it right first time, this will keep the crew happy and the cabin clean.

[john_tullamarine]

After posting I note safetypee's preceding post and suggest that the two be read in conjunction ...

zweifelkeks should make a phone call to the CAA to get authoritative information.

However, a quick net search provides copies of

(a) BAe ISB.21-150 which indicates applicability to the 146 series only

(b) UK CAA CAP476 and 477 which indicate that the ISB has the status of an AD

(b) UK TCDS BA 16 which relates to both the 146 and RJ and distinguish between the 146 and RJ series.

Questions arising - are there any material differences between

(a) the engine types
(b) the aircon systems

on the two series ?

I note that there are other net references which appear to indicate that some operators lump the two series together in respect to smoke and fumes crew guidance.

I'll put a link on the engineers forum and see if we can attract some Type specific knowledge to this thread.

[glhcarl]

Still it remains unclear for me whether the mentioned ISB is mandatory for the AVRO RJ or not.
In line #1 of the document "BAe 146 SERIES/AVRO 146‑RJ SERIES AIRCRAFT" are adressed and in in line #3 it says the action is "mandatory" but in section "A" it says "Aircraft affected by this inspection are ... ALL BAe 146 100, 200, 300 Series". I might be not the sharpest knife in the drawer but it's still not clear for me.


The only way to verify what aircraft the service bulletin is applicable too is to read item 1. Planning Information, A. Effectivity section.

The AD mentions only BAe 146 series aircraft.

[Big Bad D]

It is not clear as the copy of the SB being referenced is unformatted; but if memory serves me correctly, as I am no longer working on the BAe 146, the "BAe 146 / Avro RJ" title at the top of the page is just a generic header for the aircraft family of the SB publications.

The actual effectivity is detailed further in the SB and only refers to BAe 146 (and so not Avro RJ). But as other posts have well stated, the clear effectivity can be determined by reading the actual SB itself, and not the summary, against the aircraft serial numbers. Hope this helps.

[Conan The Barber]

When asking a question it is useful to possess the basic knowledge required to understand the answer.

[Evanelpus]

As an ex Tech Author, who used to write aircraft service bulletins, I can say that the ones I wrote included c/n's, which made for no doubt as to which aircraft the bulletin was applicable.

As someone previously eluded to, if the bulletin says all BAe146 aircraft and yours is an RJ type, the SB does NOT apply to you. All of the mandatory SB's would have been incorporated prior to certification as an RJ series aircraft unless the item/system/whatever had been changed beforehand.

[glhcarl]

It is not clear as the copy of the SB being referenced is unformatted; but if memory serves me correctly, as I am no longer working on the BAe 146, the "BAe 146 / Avro RJ" title at the top of the page is just a generic header for the aircraft family of the SB publications.

The actual effectivity is detailed further in the SB and only refers to BAe 146 (and so not Avro RJ). But as other posts have well stated, the clear effectivity can be determined by reading the actual SB itself, and not the summary, against the aircraft serial numbers. Hope this helps


I think you will find that only the "Effectivity" section and the "Accomplishment Instructions" of service bulletins are FAA (regulatorty agency) approved. So even if is says "BAe146 / Avro RJ on the service bulletin header you have to go by the "Effectivity" section.

That is how Lockheed Service Bulletins were written and I can only assume the other OEM used the same procedures.

[Blue50]

What an interesting discussion, not the question of which aircraft is involved, but the fact that fumes in the ac system is still an issue. I flew the 146 in the mid 80's (BAE stood for 'bring another engine'). One of the more annoying traits was oil fumes in the ac ducts. Sort of traced it to blow by from the APU. We had a time where we didn't use APUs in order to troubleshoot the issue. Can't quite remember the final outcome, I know our airline and BAE were hard at work. Seems as though not much has changed.

[zweifelkeks]

@safetypee

If a crew of an RJ have a cabin odour event and suspect that the APU was over filled (post #9), then maintenance action using the SB would be a good idea. However, some tact might be required in putting this suggestion to maintenance; you fly, they maintain.Problem: They maintain, I breath.

If you report an event, provide the maintenance team with a clear description of when the event occurred (the stage of flight / power setting), what the cabin air source was (APU or engine), and what the temperature settings were on the Air Con Packs – these effect the air flow, particularly if selected to a maximum value just after selecting APU air / first flight of the day.
Describe the smell as this can help identify the source; a ‘sweet smell’ could be de-icing fluid, ‘sweaty socks’ is usually old oil, new oil might be more ‘caramel’ and may cause some smoke.
Fixing the cause of the problem should prevent any new events; cleaning the ducts prevents a reoccurrence (reactivation) of any old contaminant.
Do the job once and do it right first time, this will keep the crew happy and the cabin clean. You are right, that's the way it should be done. I am flying that aircraft for many many years now and we have that oil contamination problem every other day. Poor maintenance is one of the reasons, that's why I am looking for information about the proper procedures here. Reporting only doesn't help as long as the airline is mainly interested in having the aircraft in the air rather than taking care of the health of crew and passengers.

Anyway thanks a lot for your answer and the information given.


@ Mach E Avelli

...why not try an engineering thread dedicated to engineers? When you get an answer from someone who knows what they are talking about, please post here for those of us who DO care.Thanks for your kind advice. Obviously an excellent idea. Another contributor was faster than me an posted a link to this thread in the Engineers & Technicians forum already.


@john_tullamarine

zweifelkeks should make a phone call to the CAA to get authoritative informationI tried our local airworthiness authorities and they were not very interested.

Questions arising - are there any material differences between

(a) the engine types
(b) the aircon systems

on the two series ?I never flew the BAe 146 but as far as I know the there is not much difference between the ARJ and the former regarding the air contamination issue. The oil we use is Mobil Jet II and it's as toxic as the one being used on the 146.

Thanks for your response and for posting in the engineering forum.


@glhcarl

Thanks for useful response.


@Big Bad D

Thanks for your response. I am searching for the original document but couldnt't get my hand on it yet.


@Evanelpus

Thanks for your helpful information.


@Blue50

Same problem still. It's a nightmare. This aircraft is crap as far as the airconditioning system is concerned and flight crews are worrying about their health quite a lot.
I am glad to hear that you are still alive twenty years later though. It raises my hopes to live to see my grandchildren.

[Riccardo]

From an engineering point of view having worked for an operator of both 146 and RJ100's I can tell you there exists a mandatory inspection bulletin for both. Whether it's the same bulletin I can't remember (I left that company 2 years ago) but I have done these inspections on both 146 and RJ.

I think you need to look at the hard copy of the bulletin from Bae instead of some selected text pasted onto a page as you seem to have found.

Ric

[zweifelkeks]

@Riccardo

Thanks a lot for your answer. I am trying to find some original documentation but it's difficult as I don't have any access to engineering data.

[spannersatKL]

ISB 21-150 as you state is for ALL BAe 146 aircraft.
If you look at ISB 21-155 it applies to ALL BAe 146 aircraft and ALL BAe 146/rj Aircraft....so.....in which case ISB 21-150 only applies to the 146 not the 146/RJ!!! Al is clar....

[Vortechs Jenerator]

I currently work on a mixed fleet of 146's and RJ's as a certifying engineer.

We do the ISB on both types but I'm not sure if it's mandatory on the RJ (operators can chose to embody non mandatory SB's if they perceive a cost/performance or safety improvement). I can check the book when next at work.

As to the APU's causing the problem was that the Garret or Honeywell? We have both.

As to the poor maintenance comment....I'd say it was more a poor design issue given the age of the equipment we are discussing.

Cranfield University are currently investigating Fume (in 146/rj's and B757) events in a year long program to investigate the causes and health impacts. Look forward to the report.

All jet aircraft will put tricresylphosphates into the cabin air (if that's what is found to be the cause in varying amounts not just 146's.

[Evanelpus]

All jet aircraft will put tricresylphosphates that's easy for you to say!

Sorry couldn't resist, having a mad five minutes.

[zweifelkeks]

@spannersatKL

That's why I am looking for the regulation regarding the AVRO.


@Vortechs Jenerator

Thanks for your contribution. Any information regarding the regulations regarding oil fumes on the ARJ is highly appreciated.
Obviously you are right about the poor design but there are different kinds of tackling the problem and there is good maintenance and bad maintenance.

I am aware of the Edward Furlong studies at Cranfield University and like many others I do hope for some clear evidence.

Thanks again.

[spannersatKL]

What 'regulation' might that be? .....
Do you not mean a certification 'requirement'....
Or if the ISB is 'mandated' to be carried out on the RJ as well as the 146?

[zweifelkeks]

Or if the ISB is 'mandated' to be carried out on the RJ as well as the 146?

That was my original question.

[spannersatKL]

From the replies above....no it dosen't......
Just carried out another type of inspection on an RJ today....Mandatory, and the AD states BAe 146 and RJ, 70, 85 and 100....check the AD for the aircaft on the EASA website...

[safetypee]

UK CAA document CAP 467 (www.caa.co.uk/cap476) page 66, states that the AD is only applicable to the 146. Also see the background info on UK CAA ADs. (www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1443&pagetype=90)

See EASA ADs (http://ad.easa.europa.eu/) for the more recent ‘BAE146’ and for the ‘AVRO146RJ’ ADs. The search function (keyword) may not work with Firefox Browser.
I could not find any airconditoning AD for the AVRO RJ.
Also see the background info on EASA ADs. ( www.easa.eu.int/ws_prod/c/c_awdir.php)

[Vortechs Jenerator]

I performed sb 21-150 (check of the regeneration airduct internals and Air cycle machine mainly) on an rj100 tonight as part of an A check. It is only mandatory (as has been said) on 146's so I'll check with planning next time I'm on day shift as to why it is called on the rj too.

There is also an sb 21 - 156 for further (mandatory on the 146) inspection of the sound attenuation ducts performed at C check.

There is a whole bunch of preamble about how engineering should take crew reports of air contamination seriously, inspect the ducts and replace the entire ECS pack if found to be contaminated. There is however an expected and acceptable amount of "normal" accumulations allowed in the ducts (they're hanging inside:)).The inspection is for oil "wetness" which is defined as easily transfered from surface to a metal or plastic implement! I'd suggest if the inspection showed oil wetness, the cabin would already be smokey!

There is the SIL 21 45 too which gives similar advice but with SIL's there is the caveat that they are not to supplant any other official maintenance documents (so they are purely for advice)