BAe LIMIT THE 146 TO FL260 DUE ENGINE ICING.

[Propellerhead]

In the daily telegraph this morning, small article saying that older generation 146's are being limited to 26000' after an aircraft's engines 'iced up' on a recent Marseille-Stansted flight.

Anyone know anymore about this? Guess this would be a BUZZ flight?

Seems strange, as on the 737 you can turn the engine anti-ice OFF in the climb/cruise above about 26000, as the SAT drops below
-40 and icing can no longer form.

[Mister Geezer]

I jumpseated on a 146 recently and there was a clear placard stating that '26000ft altitude limit applies in icing conditions'.

However we were not in icing conditions and were at FL310.

Does this rule now mean that all 146 operations have to be at 260 and below no matter what the conditions are?

I am sure some 146 drivers will keep us right! :)

MG

------------------
Don't land in a field or the sheep will eat the aircraft.

[tech...again]

Pretty sure it was Buzz 146-300 G-UKAC engine #4 - read it somewhere recently. One of the older ones around I believe.

[Flap40]

See http://www.open.gov.uk/aaib/apr01htm/gukac.htm

[GJB]

I spoke to pilots who select engine anti-ice off where-ever possible as it saps too much power from the already under-powered engines.

(they also turn all cabin lights off for departure ;) )

[This message has been edited by GJB (edited 16 April 2001).]

[146LUKE]

The 146 has been limited to FL260 in icing for sometime, if we go higher and encounter icing we have to descend. Since the routes we fly are never that far, it doesn't hinder the flight too much. It does slow the climb when we have all the anti ice on, this gives extra time to eat those lovely crew meals!

[Raw Data]

Nope, sorry, you're all wrong! :)

The ONLY 146 aircraft that are limited to FL260 or below in icing conditions, are those that DO NOT have the engine mod that prevents rollback in icing conditions. If your aircraft has three or more modded engines, the aircraft can go above FL260 in icing conditons.

Many companies choose to impose the limit in a blanket fashion, in the belief that pilots, renowned for their stupidity, might inadvertently go above FL260 in an aircraft with less than the requisite number of modded engines... ;) However the MANUFACTURERS limit is as stated above.

In my company, most engines are now modded. We can breathe easily again!!

Oh, by the way, this is VERY, VERY OLD news!!!!

[Edited for typo]

[This message has been edited by Raw Data (edited 16 April 2001).]

[tech...again]

As far as dimming the cabin lights for take off is concerned, whilst I realise that this will no doubt improve power somewhat, is this not simply a (UK?) regulation that operators of all a/c types adhere to for safety reasons?

[146LUKE]

RAW DATA of course you are right. Unfortunately in my company we don't have the mod and can't see us getting it.

[DeltaTango]

Hey RD http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gifor anyone else)
Could you please ellaborate on "modded" engines?

cheers

DT

[faq]

What is 'rollback', why does it happen?

[Deep Cover Gecko]

TECH...AGAIN I've always been told that the reason cabin lights are dimmed for take off (and landing) is so that if an evacuation were to be necessary and the lights were to fail, then the pax eyesight would already have adjusted to the ambient light conditions outside the aircraft. However, I've only ever been told that this needs doing "during the hours of darkness".

[DeltaTango]

hey faq:
"The term ‘Rollback’ is used to describe a particular uncommanded thrust reduction on the Lycoming ALF-502R engine. It manifests itself as a slow reduction in the high pressure spool speed (N1) associated with an increasing Turbine Gas Temperature (TGT) and a failure of the engine to respond to the pilot thrust lever. Following considerable research and analysis complemented by flight tests conducted by the airframe and engine manufacturers, the cause of roll-back was determined to be due to the build up of ice on the engine core super charger exit guide vanes in very specific meteorological conditions. The build up of ice on the guide vanes progressively ‘chokes’ the engine core. A modification (30437A) was devised to improve the anti-icing efficiency and is in the process of fleet embodiment. In the interim, following a study of the pattern of roll-back occurrences, an operational limitation was introduced for aircraft with unmodified ALF 502R engines by the issue of a Temporary Revision to the Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM)."

make any sense!?!?!?

:) :) :)

[Raw Data]

146LUKE- as far as I know, the mod is mandatory, so yes you WILL be getting it! Lycoming mode every engine that goes through their workshops, apparently. The final compliance date isn't too far away either...

[tilii]

Methinks Raw Data is totally correct in what he says here -- it is indeed very old news and I seem to recall it was first imposed back in the early nineties due to a four engine flameout on an Ansett Western Australia 146 that very nearly ploughed in. I think the crew managed to get just two relit at extremely low altitude.

I'm somewhat surprised to see it posted here as 'news or rumour' some 10 years later. Is it possible that some operators of the type are not aware of this problem? Surely not.

[A and C]

BAe are very up front about the rollback problem and even issued a jepp sized page to remind you about it if you could miss all the plackards in the aircraft and fell asleep for most of the training.
To quote raw data "very very old news"

[146LUKE]

Raw Data, unfortunately our contract ends fairly soon!

[tech...again]

DCG,

That's just what I thought - cheers for the post.

TA

[Propellerhead]

Interesting. As I said, I'm just posting what was reported in the 'Daily Telegraph' yesterday, so I don't know where they got that from.

Raw Data, or other 146 drivers :
Do you turn the engine anti-ice off below a certain temperature (-40 SAT in the 737)? This equates to 27500 ft. in ISA conditions.

Of course, the Telegraph hates BAe because they support Europe and the big 'satan' that is Airbus (which they fail to realise supports thousands of UK jobs), so could be part of their 'campaign'.

[Sagittarius Rising]

Not necessarily LUKE737 - well not according to big Stu!!!!!!!!

[alterego]

So Sagi' you're the one that believes everything you read from the company, you probably voted yes to the payrise then.

[Raw Data]

In our mob it's on if in visible moisture below 10C. There is no bottom limit, well if there is I have comprehensively missed it!

Not sure what Hogg is on about, we cruise it at M0.70 or thereabouts, not much different to the fuel economy cruise of certain Boeings, and of course the Jungle Jet.
We usually cruise it at FL270-FL290. I guess Hogg must have been a "low and slow" specialist!

Also, Hogg is factually incorrect in what he says... selecting of anti-ice on does not require a thrust lever adjustment (certainly not a forward one), and the extra fuel burn is negligible.

Sure you ever flew the 146, Hogg?

[This message has been edited by Raw Data (edited 17 April 2001).]

[Deep Stall]

Well now RawData, in fairness to Hogg, a thrust lever movement is required after selection of anti-ice if you want to keep the TGT's back!! For info: our company policy is to cruise at M.67, thats what they use for calculating the burn, and recently we were prohiited to fly above FL260 regardless of met conditions.

[Raw Data]

Deep Stall: Exactly, he was talking about moving them forward. Glad we don't operate to your limits.

Hogg: No idea who you are. Sorry. Never flown the routes you mention. We fly long sectors in the 146 (ie over 2.5 hours) and because our fuel is calculated for the speeds we fly, we never dip into our diversion fuel. We call that "flight planning".

Glad to hear that speed turns you on. Me, I prefer those tricky Cat C airports that you can only dream about. Steep approaches, tight manouvering, hands-on flying. Who cares about cruise speed? Makes no difference to a pilot.

The rest of your post is just drivel.

[Hung start]

Ouchh, take that Hogg. http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/tongue.gif http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/tongue.gif you immature... well never mind.

Good on ya´ Raw Data

[tarjet fixated]

146?
Probably the most not user friendly, underpowered and always AOG "jet" ever built.
Steep approaches and manual flying?
Yes sure but apart from London city,Florence and a couple of other places when do you need them?For the manual flying you are right especially since intercepting the ILS on autopilot would make half the pax throw up.

:)

[Hung start]

Hogg,

I usually don´t butt in on a discussion when I have nothing to add to the subject.. But children that you let go too far, end up taking control. Just my way of trying to reel in the line a bit. http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/tongue.gif

Hung start, ( and no, I wouldn´t have choosen that name if I didn´t know what it is...doooh!!

[Raw Data]

tarjet- sounds like you have never flown it either. I haven't been AOG in more than a year. User friendly? It's OLD! No more or less user friendly than any other four-engine jet of its' era.

From my base, we operate to four destinations this summer and they are all Cat C, so the answer is that we need the performance of the 146 ALL THE TIME!

It intercepts the ILS fine at normal speeds and angles, it only makes a mess of it if you let the autopilot intercept at 250kts and 5 miles or less (something your average Boeing pilot couldn't even attempt).

Hogg - not sure why I am wasting my time, but anyway... you can measure Mach at any altitude. It is more useful in the higher levels. Why do you think that ATC ask us for Mach numbers at our cruise levels? Because it makes their job easier! We cruise at M0.70 or thereabouts- unless of course you are now going to claim that our Mach meters are strangely innacurate..

Don't worry, PPRuNe stuff never gets to me, if I took it seriously I'd be a nervous wreck...

[tarjet fixated]

Raw Data,
i think the 146 was born OLD, correct me if i'm wrong but the first 146-100 flew in 1981 just about at the same time as the 737-300 series did its rollout...i think we can all agree that systems-wise there is a decade of difference between the technologies used on the 2 aircraft.
And what's your opinion about doors that fall off the hinges and get stuck closed if not opened correctly (just imagine an evac..)?And your opinion about an autopilot that doesn't capture the selected ALT if vertical mode changed or sync pressed during ALT acquisition?And about altimeters that change +/- 200ft at altitude according to speed?And about pitch angle changes of +/- 10 degrees according to flap selection or GS interception?And what about those PA's done when the flaps are moved to or from the 18 position trying to cover that scary aerodynamic noise?And about the rain flooding the cabin floor just above the E&E bay when the FWD main door is left open?
Rollback and autopilot problrms are just a few bugs....
It's true that the 146 has excellent STOL capabilities but it's also true that it is underpowered(but hourly fuel consumption is just slightly less than a 73/3)....Meridiana pilots know it very well that if they want to get off the ground from Florence when the summer comes they have to hop to Pisa to uplift fuel on their run to Paris.
Anyway it's fun to fly, just like a 172.
Did i ever fly it?Guess....

Peace

[tarjet fixated]

Ops...did i forget to mention the extra care that has to be taken when moving that flap lever?I'm sure you don't want your flaps to get stuck....

:)

[Belgique]

from PE:
THE FLYING GAS CHAMBER.

The dangers of noxious fumes and organophosphates being pumped into the cabin and cockpit of British Aerospace 146 jetliners (Eyes passim) has at last been officially recognised. After years of denial – including a recent whitewash by a House of Lords Committee - the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and BAE Systems, as British Aerospace is now called, have at last admitted that the fumes pose a danger to both passengers and crew.
On 26th March, the CAA suddenly and unexpectedly issued an Airworthiness Directive (AD) about the fumes. By definition this is safety related and mandatory. The AD orders operators of the 146 to report any fume incidents to both the authorities and the manufacturer and to carry out a full and thorough investigation. Despite reports of crew incapacitation, and both long and short-term effects on the health of over 100 aircrew, of 800+ incidents to date only one has produced an official (and damning) report, while two others – one in Sweden and one in Britain – are currently being investigated.
Close inspection of the AD reveals a vague reference to a previously unreported “recent crew incapacitation incident in the UK”. Private Eye can now exclusively reveal the horrific details of that incident.
On 5th November last year, a British European 146 was on a flight from Paris to Birmingham carrying 5 crew and 42 passengers. Shortly after take-off an oily smell was reported in the rear cabin, but this soon dissipated. 20 minutes before landing, the captain left the flight deck to go to the toilet. The co-pilot did likewise on the captain’s return. 5 minutes later the captain felt nauseous and had difficulty concentrating. Simultaneously, the co-pilot became unwell with highly dilated pupils. He required assistance to put on his oxygen mask, his hands were trembling, and he had difficulty communicating. The captain then noticed that his own depth of vision was impaired. The landing had to be made automatically which the captain managed to achieve despite increasing nausea. Both pilots were taken to hospital on arrival.
The incident is now being investigated by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) at Farnborough. The urgency attached can be gauged by the fact that while such investigations commonly take two years, this report will be rushed through in weeks. While the investigators, Peter Claiden and Eddie Trimble, are among the most experienced and most respected in the world, their task is hardly enviable. The cause is easy enough to identify – a broken or damaged engine oil seal which allows organophosphates from the engine oil to enter the cabin via the air conditioning system. But this is a design deficiency and what to do about it is quite another matter. Previous modifications have already proved inadequate. Nor can an order be made to change the engines. Quite apart from the financial implications, the engines simply don’t exist. Another suggested solution is that 146 crew – both flight and cabin – should wear masks. But that would hardly be popular with passengers.
But many experts round the world believe the only safe solution is to call time on this troubled aircraft. Another file in Dr. Trimble’s in-tray concerns a rollback to a KLMUK 146 last year. Rollbacks – another quirk unique to the 146 – occur when all engine power is lost at altitude and are also caused by the same design deficiency. The fumes incidents are likely to get worse as the aircraft age and get more leaky. This probably prompted the issue of the AD but – welcome though it is – that AD would not have prevented the Birmingham incident. Nor will it stop the same thing happening again.
Dr. Chris Winder, Head of Safety Sciences at Sydney University, has made a special study of 146 cabin contamination. He’s one of a growing band of engineers and scientists who believe that the 207 BAe 146’s flying world-wide should be grounded. “We call it The Flying Gas Chamber”, he says. “I really can’t understand why the authorities let it keep flying. It’s an accident looking for a place to happen”. It very nearly did at Birmingham.

[Effendi]

Wow! If that article is correct then that is very serious indeed. As far as I remember thats the third incident of double pilot incapacitation due to fumes. What does it take for the authorities to act? Blood on the runway?

[GJB]

I don't consider 'Private Eye' to be a reliable or accurate source of information.

I offer no comment.

[Effendi]

GJB,
As an AAIB report will in course be issued if Private Eye are correct, they will indeed be found to be a reliable source. I think their article is too fine in detail to be wrong. I'm sure that authorities and manufacturers - of the plane, the engines, and the oil - monitor pprune and so far there's been no denial. And if Private Eye is correct, the authorities should be taking action now. This post is there for all to read........

[Dagger Dirk]

Obviously the reason why the UK CAA is moving so fast on this is that they'd be in a very poor position - were there to be a repeat. There have been enough instances of this in Australia where about 70 BAe 146 aircrew have symptoms and many have been permanently grounded due to sensitivity and greater susceptibility. Some have permanent disabilities.

Possible incapacitation of both pilots is one emergency that cannot be ignored. It will be interesting to see what sort of "fix", short of withdrawing the aircraft's type certificate, can be made - that won't simply be lip-service.

[GJB]

Effendi,

Perhaps so - but I prefer to let the facts speak for themselves and through the official channels. P.E. and other such publications have varying slants of 'sensationalism' as that is what makes their publications interesting and attractive. How many non-aviation individuals would pick up a copy of AAIB bulletins from the newsagent?

They are nothing more than a 'News of the World' that happens to be written a little more creatively and intelligently.

Garbage I wouldn't eat my chips out of!

[Effendi]

GJB,
I've jusr re-read both the AD and the Private Eye article posted earlier. Both mention "a recent crew incapacitation incident in the UK". To me that tends to lend credence to the PE report - let's hope they've got their research right. If they have, they need thanks for placing a matter of great importance into the public domain.
As for getting AAIB reports from the newsagent. Well I don't know how many my local stocks but I'll ask tomorrow.

[GJB]

Effendi

The point I am trying to make is that journalists are only good for one thing - selling a story. Often they will mis-quote, usually misinterpret the situation and frequently get the facts wrong. And why? Perhaps the un-adulterated truth isn't that exciting.........so let's add a few bits here and there.

When aviation makes the headlines - it is usually for the wrong reasons, whether commercial, military or general. Plane accidents and incidents make for good headlines and unfortunately they public are only too happy to buy and believe the bu***hit that journo's write.

My original comment was that I would not comment on this situation until I had read an official line; my position has not changed.

Finally - don't expect to pick up an AAIB at your newsagent ;)


[This message has been edited by GJB (edited 19 April 2001).]

[callsign Metman]

You can get them here though!!

http://www.aaib.detr.gov.uk/index/index.htm


regards

Metman

[Effendi]

Metman,
Absolutely right - but at present this incident5 doesn't feature. Must have occurred otherwise it wouldn't be included in the AD
Dagger Dirk,
Ignoring the attempted diversions and getting back to the point of this thread, I absolutely agree with you. There is obviously a problem with this aircarft. What is needed is a solution. Forgive me if I surf the web for a little bit - I will the get back. Seems very tricky to me.

[Raw Data]

Tarjet: Is that all you could think up?

What about:

737's that roll inverted and dive into the ground, all by themselves

747's that mysteriously explode in flight

Embraer 145s that break in half on landing

Fokker 100s that lose their mainwheels

Any Airbus having a bad computer day

The list goes on...

Funny, I have been flying it for a couple of years now and have never had a flap fault, or water in the E&E bay, or a door "fall" of its hinges, or had the AP fail to capture. Like any aircraft, it has its idiosyncrasies. Just had a mate on the phone last night complaining about the "idiosyncrasies" of the 737 he flies, which frankly make the 146 look quite clever. Oh, and another point... try comparing accident rates between the two types (look at hull loss for example). 146 wins that argument too.

Belgique:

The PE article is CRAP.

For example:

>> The landing had to be made automatically <<

Really? No autoland in this baby.

>> The cause is easy enough to identify – a broken or damaged engine oil seal which allows organophosphates from the engine oil to enter the cabin via the air conditioning system. <<

WRONG. The oil companies tell us that the organophosphates only separate out from the oil at very high temperatures, typically 400C if memory serves correctly. Not likely in an AC pack. I am told that extensive testing carried out in the UK failed to find any trace of organophosphates in the blood of those affected by fumes incidents.

>> Rollbacks – another quirk unique to the 146 – occur when all engine power is lost at altitude <<

NONSENSE. It might be one engine, it might be all four, and the situation is easily recoverable. If you read the report on the one serious incident of rollback, you will find some serious crew errors in the way in which that flight was handled- their "recovery" actually made the problem worse, and was not the action recommended in the SOPs.

>> ...and are also caused by the same design deficiency. <<

Rollbacks are caused by fumes in cabin? BULL! The two problems are COMPLETELY unrelated. Rollback is caused by ICING!!!

>>The fumes incidents are likely to get worse as the aircraft age and get more leaky. <<

RUBBISH! The age of the engine has NOTHING to do with the age of the airframe- we have some 20 year old airframes with one or more new engines! Also, any leaking seals and the engine is immediately pulled.

>> He’s one of a growing band of engineers and scientists who believe that the 207 BAe 146’s flying world-wide should be grounded. <<

Hope he wants to ground 757/767 and MD80 aircraft as well, because they have also had several documented fumes incidents!!!

You should all know better than to believe this stuff!

[GJB]

RAWDATA

Thankyou for pointing out those errors in the article. Your post adds some substance to my claims, regarding journalists attitude towards aviation.

[Croqueteer]

RD, verbose as usual. Two words to describe the PE article - Utter Bollocks.

[Effendi]

RD,
When I first read the title - the Flying Gas Chamber - I though it was all going to be about you.
To me the article scans well. But its credibility - and in turn yours - depends on:
1. Whether the Birmingham incident ever really happened.
2. Whether it was reported correctly by PE.

If it did happen it must have been the subject of a CAA incident report which must have been circulated to all operators. So if anyone has seen one or has a copy, could they please post here.

[Raw Data]

Effendi

Thank you, I don't think much of you, either.

You miss the point. There have been incident(s), but the point I was making was that the PE article is innacurrate. I have pointed the errors out, they are easily verifiable and they cast serious doubt on the credibility of the reporting. My credibility is not established (or otherwise) by any incidents that have occurred. What I have provided is some facts- check them for yourself.

But then, maybe you would rather not let the facts get in the way of a good story???

As is often the case with journos, a kernel of truth is used to construct an outrageous lie.

[EDDNHopper]

Facts or no facts - at least the rollback issue seems to be a fact. This, now, might be a stupid question, but just to clarify things for me: Is that only a problem with the 146 or does it also apply to the RJ85/100?
Thanks.

[CaptSensible]

Talking of design deficiencies in the 14sick, don't forget the wunnerful 'pitch oscillation' charecteristics which BAe tried to engineer out, and having failed simply gave up!

[OVERTALK]

Some raw data for RAW DATA
>> The landing had to be made automatically <<
Really? No autoland in this baby. but see the CAA report (below) for specifics
>> The cause is easy enough to identify - a broken or damaged engine oil seal which allows organophosphates from the engine oil to enter the cabin via the air conditioning system. <<
WRONG. The oil companies tell us that the organophosphates only separate out from the oil at very high temperatures, typically 400C if memory serves correctly. Not likely in an AC pack. I am told that extensive testing carried out in the UK failed to find any trace of organophosphates in the blood of those affected by fumes incidents. (vol 3 senate data-Mobil-see below at bottom) Mon- ortho & di-ortho are 10 & 5 times more toxic than tri-ortho (TOCP) respectv. & in much larger quantities as you can see (below at bottom). The oil's OPs are in a synthesis mixture and not a compound requiring high-temps to separate out. Apart from the fact that the OP's don't have to separate out before you breathe them in, the oil temperature reached before passing via the leaky seals is actually quite sufficient to provide OP-laden mist into the cabin. Your individual metabolism does the rest. That's been established - as has the need to correct the situation. It's not attacks of mass hysteria occurring to flight-crews. It's a reaction to airborne toxins (inhibitors), but admittedly some people are more allergic than others. The oil companies can also tell you that their QC is such that no contaminants can find their way into AVGAS either. Yeah, right.
>> Rollbacks - another quirk unique to the 146 - occur when all engine power is lost at altitude <<
NONSENSE. It might be one engine, it might be all four, and the situation is easily recoverable. If you read the report on the one serious incident of rollback, you will find some serious crew errors in the way in which that flight was handled- their "recovery" actually made the problem worse, and was not the action recommended in the SOPs. There's been many more than one "serious" roll-back incident and that is despite the altitude restrictions having been in for quite some time and many (if not most) engines being modded.
>> ...and are also caused by the same design deficiency. << I think that he's here talking generally about the wisdom of putting a Chinook engine core on an airliner, changing the intake, increasing the fan-speeds and throughflow, whacking on an aircon and additional bleeds and running it in the non-designed high altitude environment, glossing over the TC testing and then optimistically expecting no systematic glitches when you run it in a different speed regime.
Rollbacks are caused by fumes in cabin? BULL! The two problems are COMPLETELY unrelated. Rollback is caused by ICING!!! He didn't really say that (see above)
>>The fumes incidents are likely to get worse as the aircraft age and get more leaky. << I think he may be referring to the ducting here. The oily contamination residues in the ducting should be cleaned after a cabin-air contamination incident - but it isn't. Anyway I don't think anyone would claim that tolerances tighten, nor that aircraft improve, with age
RUBBISH! The age of the engine has NOTHING to do with the age of the airframe- we have some 20 year old airframes with one or more new engines! Also, any leaking seals and the engine is immediately pulled.
>> He's one of a growing band of engineers and scientists who believe that the 207 BAe 146's flying world-wide should be grounded. <<
Hope he wants to ground 757/767 and MD80 aircraft as well, because they have also had several documented fumes incidents!!! Nothing to the extent of the BAe146 - despite attempts not to acknowledge the problem.
You should all know better than to believe this stuff! Well perhaps they'd prefer this stuff:

Date: 05.11.2000
A/C Type: BAE146
Location Occ Num 200008340
Flt Phase FLIGHT Location Info

Occ Classification Serious Incidents

Event(s) Smoke / Fumes (not engine)
Crew Illness / Incapacitation

SERIOUS INCIDENT: P2 incapacitated by noxious fumes. P1 performance also impaired.

Passengers and positioning crew reported oily/petrol smell in rear cabin after take-off which soon dissipated.
20mins prior to landing, P1 left the flight deck to go to the toilet. P2 did likewise on P1's return. 5mins later, P1 felt nauseous and had difficulty concentrating. Simultaneously, P2 became unwell with highly dilated pupils. P2 required assistance applying oxygen mask, his hands were trembling and he had difficulty communicating. P1 then noticed his depth of vision was impaired. Autopilot remained selected for landing which P1 managed to control despite nausea increasing. Both flight crew hospitalised on arrival. Subject to AAIB Field investigation..
____________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________

Number Of Records: 1

****** End of Report ******

TCP SUMMARY

· TCP is a necessary component in jet engine oils. It is used as an antiwear additive to increase load-carrying capacity and tolerance to increasing speed of rotating or sliding motion. The antiwear properties of TCP for this critical application are unique and no replacement has been identified that will meet the stringent performance requirements for jet turbine oil. For many years, it was also thought that reducing the number and variety of compounds in the TCP would also reduce its performance.1-3

· The TCP used in jet engine oil is a very complex mixture. The conventional TCP used in Mobil Jet II is a complex mixture prepared primarily from m and p cresol. However, other substituted phenols as well as xylenols are present in the synthesis mixture. We have identified 10 phenols and xylenols, as well as low levels of ortho cresol and phenol, in hydrolyzed in conventional TCP4. Ortho cresol was present at about 0.16%, m + p cresol combined at 80% and other phenols at 17%. Thus the number of triaryl phosphate in TCP is very high and is not limited to the ten that can be formed from ortho, meta and para cresol.

It is not practical to measure all of the triaryl phosphate compounds present because standards do not exist for most of them. However, their concentrations can be computed by statistical procedures from the compounds present in hydrolysates. The various phenols and xylenols have virtually the same reactivity. This procedure has been used for many years5. In the TCP additive, TOCP levels are calculated to be < 5ppb, mono ortho cresyl phosphate ~ 3070 ppm, and diortho cresyl phosphate ~ 6 ppm. These values are reduced by 33 fold after dilution in the oil.

In JEO 291, a recently developed low toxicity TCP4 is used. The hydrolysates of this TCP are ~ 99% m and p cresol and ortho cresol is only ~ 0.06%4; virtually all of the ortho substituted phenols and xylenols are eliminated. TOCP is calculated to be < 1 ppb, mono ortho cresol TCP ~ 1760 ppm, and diortho cresyl TCP ~ 1.1 ppm. Even though molecular diversity is reduced in this TCP, its anti-wear performance is excellent, thus dispelling some concerns raised years ago.3

TCP is an organo phosphate that is very different from those used as insecticides. Both TCP and the organo phosphate insecticides can inhibit cholinesterase enzymes in blood plasma, red blood cells and the nervous system. The blood cell enzymes have no known function in the body, and inhibition of these enzymes is indicative of exposure to an inhibitor but not of toxicity. In general, the plasma enzyme is inhibited the most - and nervous system enzyme (including brain) the least. The insecticides owe their killing power to the inhibition of cholinesterase (specifically acetyl cholinesterase) in the nervous system of target insects as well as in non-target animals, including people, and these toxicants are far more potent in this behavior than is TCP. For example, parathion is more than 2500 times as acutely toxic (eg. rat oral LD5O) than is TCP6. The insecticides have recently been characterized as being capable, in people, of causing lasting neurological/psychological effects on intellect, mood,

[Effendi]

Overtalk,
Nice to see some believable raw data at last.
So the Private Eye reporting of events was correct - as I suspected. Maybe now that PE have informed RD of events that as a 146 captain he should have known about, he will stop prevaricating an address the issue. 3 incidents of two incapacitated pilots. Both aircrew and passengers put at risk. Who knows, he could be next.
The industry must accept the dangers and urgently seek a solution. If there isn't one, the lives of aircrew and passengers must NOT be further endangered and the planes should be retired.

[Dagger Dirk]

Funny thing about nerve poisons like organo-phosphates, oxygenating the victim once they've been exposed doesn't help alleviate the effects of the exposure. It may even hinder recovery because of the red-cell stimulus (increased metabolic rate due to the increased oxygen partial pressures throughout the body).

It's a bit like spraying an electrical fire with kero - or so I've been told. But I'm no clinician so I'd tend to go with the traditional treatment (oxygen, stretcher and body-bag).

[Croqueteer]

Effendi, PE is believable because that is what you want to believe. In essence RD is correct, and I can back this with 14 years on type. Some people with nothing much to do, and not much up top to do it with just seem to love to knock a British product be it aircraft, car or whatever.

[Effendi]

Croqueteer,
PE is believeable because its backed up by the CAA incident report. Nothing to do with what I WANT to believe. Did the incident happen? Yes
Should the problem be addressed? Yes.
Is it a safety issue? Yes.
Have there been 3 incidents of multiple pilot incapacitation? Yes.
Is the safety of passengers and crew an issue? Yes.
Can the captain of a a BAe 146 guarantee that he can fly himself, his crew and his passengers to their destination without being overcome by fumes? NO.

[Raw Data]

Well, I don't have the time or inclination to play "my expert vs your expert" with Overtalk. Suffice it to say that not every expert agrees with the Australian paper he so glibly quotes, and the oil companies (who are not bandits as he implies) also have a different take on the situation. If it were that clear-cut, the 146 would not be flying today. If the evidence was there, and was not debateable, it'd be grounded.

Just to correct a couple of points:

>> There's been many more than one "serious" roll-back incident and that is despite the altitude restrictions having been in for quite some time and many (if not most) engines being modded. <<

No modded engine has rolled back, and there have been few serious incidents. Feel free to quote the incidents that you are thinking of.

>> The oily contamination residues in the ducting should be cleaned after a cabin-air contamination incident - but it isn't. <<

Oh yes it is!! Our aircraft are rejected for service if there is ANY oil contamination in the ducts. They are inspected regularly.

>> Anyway I don't think anyone would claim that tolerances tighten, nor that aircraft improve, with age <<

If a twenty year old airframe has new engines fitted, have tolerances improved or worsened?

>>Autopilot remained selected for landing <<

I say again for those who might be unsure, the 146 is not equipped with autoland. The 146 that is the subject of this report DEFINITELY does not have it! The pilot landed it. If the autopilot was engaged all the way to the ground, there would have been a large smoking hole in the ground.

Maybe I'll get all my files on this out of the attic tommorrow. Or maybe I'll just go biking.

Effendi, you just don't get it, do you. Statistically, there are many, many more likely causes of death in an aircraft than a fumes incident (which has never killed anyone). But you are strangely silent on the other killers I have mentioned, such as 737 rudders and 747 fuel tanks. That you are so keen to put down the 146, which has to my knowledge never killed a passenger, tells me that your motivation is not safety.

I'll believe you are interested in safety when you apply the same effort to bashing the 737 and 747.

EDDNHopper: 146 only, RJ is immune.

Finally, let me just reverse Effendis argument:

Did the (737 rudder/747 fuel tank) incident happen? Yes
Should the problem be addressed? Yes.
Is it a safety issue? Yes.
Have there been (more than) 3 incidents of (737 rudder hardover)? Yes.
Is the safety of passengers and crew an issue? Yes.
Can the captain of a (737) guarantee that he can fly himself, his crew and his passengers to their destination (if he has a rudder hardover)? NO.

What a silly game...

[tarjet fixated]

raw data,
if it's not boeing (or airbus) i'm not going.....
I flew "the baby" as you call it and i can assure you that the 73 is a jewel compared to the kid you talk about.
No offence but one day you will fly something better and you will understand.
happy landings!

[tarjet fixated]

Raw Data,
all i said about your little "baby" is true (and you know it)and frankly things like doors falling off hinges should not have been certified in the first place.
When you have the fortune of flying a 737 you will understand what i mean by "user friendly,logical,safe,reliable and so on..."
Rudder hardovers?At least Boeing is doing something about something which has never even been proved wrong!

[flightsim]

RD- Check your facts.
<<the Australian paper he so glibly quotes, and the oil companies (who are not bandits as he implies) also have a different take on the situation.>>
I have followed some of this debate & the paper you refer to appears to be (and indicated in overtalk's post) in part data provided by Mobil to Government Senate Inquiry in Australia.

[Raw Data]

Thanks tarjet, but I have already experienced the 737-300 from the left seat.

Very nice, docile, easy to fly. Doesn't land particularly well, but not bad if you get it right. Simple panels and switchery. Compared to a 146, very limited in what it can do. Very good at straight and level though.

The problem with doors you mention must be a very old problem. I have never heard of it happening, and it wasn't mentioned in the conversion a few years ago. Exactly when DID this happen, how many times, and was anyone hurt?

Still, I'd rather have a door dismount (on the ground) than the roof and most of the forward fuselage peel off in flight. Oh, but that's different, right?

Boeing did NOTHING about hardovers (simply blamed the pilots or wake turbulence for each incident) until forced to do so. As far as I know, the rudder actuator HAS been shown to be at fault (and has been re-designed). You should know that! BAe are far more compliant when it comes to
safety- they have done an enormous amount of work on this long before they were compelled to do so.

Finally, as some Boeings have had fumes incidents, and as the potential for disaster is far higher if a 757/767 crew becomes incapacitated (more pax), presumably you would like to see that fleet grounded?

flightsim- Yes, you are correct, he was quoting from the Aussie Senate enquiry. My point was that the info that came to light in that enquiry is not exhaustive or definitive, and not everyone agrees with their findings. If it were so clear-cut, the aircraft would be gathering cobwebs in a hangar.

Simply issuing a report on Government letterhead does not guarantee accuracy or a correct conclusion!

[barcode]

Raw Data <<I have already experienced the 737-300 from the left seat. Exactly when DID this happen, how many times, and was anyone hurt?>>

[Bash]

It's a shame this has deteriorated into a slanging match. I'm sure all parties are correct to a certain extent. My understanding is that roll back is a very real but also rare phenomenon occurring in very specific conditions. The RJ is not effected by it. The information is readily available from BAe and all companies should give extensive training in avoiding the conditions that can cause it. engine mods remove the problem all together. Similarly the pitch oscillation problem is an ice related condition which is real but rare and not as deadly as the ATR control reversal problem for example. Not deadly at all in fact and a fix has been found. The air quality issue is again quite openly publicised and the All Operators Memos from BAe cover the causes and the solution in detail. Incidentally they have also just discovered a possible problem with nose wheel centring on landing related to incorrect oleo charge. The information relating to all these problems, including a list and analyisis of all incidents is readily available so why not do some sensible research instead of wild speculation? By the way you might not be aware that some ERJ 145 operators have experienced air contamination problems. That aircraft also has a pitch trim problem. Name any aircraft that does not carry some mods to compensate for post production problems and someone will pop up to correct you. What matters is that the Manufacturer works with the Authority and the Operators to get them fixed, either by modification,operating procedure or both.

[Raw Data]

I absolutely agree.

[flightsim]

RD- The quotes came from Mobil.
Are you trying to say that an aircraft is safe because it has not had fatal accidents? as that is what you appear to be saying.

[fly4fud]

hee, flightsim, give us a break and go play with your toys, thanks :)

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

[Raw Data]

Yes flightsim, pretty much, except that what you are talking about is a safety RECORD. Obviously, an aircraft could be unsafe, having never killed anyone (case in point; Concorde. Well, maybe). All aircraft have started out with a perfect safety record.

If you ARE talking about safety records as opposed to safety, how else do you measure a safety record? You can either do what the Americans do, and go down the product liability road, or you can assess the safety of an aircraft by the number of accidents it has had, and the number of resulting fatalities over the life of the fleet.

Either way, the 146 comes up smelling pretty sweet compared to any Boeing of its era.

By the way, the oil data was supplied by Mobil but quoted in the Aussie Senate report.

[UNCTUOUS]

I can see clearly where BAe is coming from:

1. "a number of isolated cabin air incidents"
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/index.htm

Air safety & cabin air quality in the BAe 146 aircraft-12 October 2000

2.50- "The committee received evidence that Ansett has, in addition to the above occasions recorded reported fume occurrences of 1 per 131 flights. This appears to average one incident of fume contamination on an Ansett flight per week"
2.54- "Ansett Australia advised the committee that: ........in 1992 engineering log reports showed an odour was reported once in every 66 flights. In the first half of this year, by contrast, engineering log reports recorded one odour occurrence in every 160 flights. (Ansett Australia Evidence, 2 November, 1999 P55)"- 12 aircraft

6.18 "By contrast the committee also notes the strong evidence of a tendency of pilots to under-report incidents of this nature"

BAe- 2 November, 1999 P 80/85
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/s-rrat.htm
Mr Black , BAe- " Yes- In the early 1990's ,we had a problem which was that our aircraft did have oil leaks which were greater than the industry standard. That is a matter of public record as well. What we have done...... introduce modifications to overcome those problems. That has been done and the aircraft is now in a position where it does not leak oil at a frequency any greater than other aircraft.
" As recently as 1996-97 we continued to improve the sealing properties of the bearings and seals."
Mr. Williams-BAe- 10 April ,2000
" We all acknowledge....... that the modifications will not solve the problem completely. They are to reduce the number of events, and that is what is important."



2. BAe " One of the safest commercial aircraft in operation today"
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/s-rrat.htm
10April 2000- BAe- p 232/3
Senator Forshaw- " ....You state that you are proud of the outstanding safety record of the BAe 146.... you refer to to the fact that that this aircraft has never suffered a fatal accident due to a technical failure.....What are you using as your criteria for saying it has an outstanding safety record?"......
Mr. Jones- BAe " It has not had a fatality due to a technical problem, and that is the criterion."





Note what BAe sees as definition of safety (& rest of industry I would say) & how rare incidents really are.
By the way- Mick Toller's press conference of 10April , 01 on Ansett stated that the meeting of the regulations was the minimum standard to operate to- This was the safety requirement & that is correct.

[GJB]

On a similar note, just how many fume incidents have their been on the B777?

[blusky]

From the 2 posts above doubt tthat any other aircraft could come near reports every 66 or 131 flights or whatever the numbers are. That would be a little too often for comfort.

[Effendi]

Blusky,
They're in denial.
This is life threatening - to crews and to passengers.

[Raw Data]

Yeah right Effendi. Who is really in denial, those of us who fly a SAFE aircraft, which has never killed anyone, or those that fly an aircraft that either loses its' roof, rolls on its back and dives into the ground, or spontaneously explodes?

I know which I'd rather travel in...

[flightsim]

RD << Safe aircraft that has never killed anyone>>
From Australian senate Inquiry-Final report-12 october, 2000
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/index.htm

2.3 British Aerospace told the inquiry on 10 April 2000 that the company was
… proud of the fact that after 5.2 million flight hours the 146 fleet has
never suffered a fatal accident due to technical failure, which makes it one
of the safest aircraft in operation today.
2.4 The Committee also notes that, according to accident reports carried in the aviation Safety Network, as set out on their internet site, there have been four fatal accidents involving BAe 146 aircraft since 1987 and that 156 people in total were killed as a
result of those accidents. The Committee notes British Aerospace’s evidence that there have been no fatal accidents involving the
BAe 146 arising from the ‘technical standard’
of the aircraft.
2.5 The Committee also notes that, according to the publicly available information on the Aviation Safety Network, one of these accidents was attributed to a ‘technical problem’. A China Northwest Airlines BAe 146
300 series aircraft crashed into an earth bank while attempting to take off
from Yinchuan airport in China on 23 July 1993 killing 55 people. An investigation established that although takeoff flaps had been selected on the aircraft for takeoff they did not extend resulting in the aircraft crashing.
2.6 An accident in 1998, which occurred in Morocco in which all 38 passengers and crew on board died, is still the subject of investigation by air safety authorities in Morocco.
-------------------
RD-oops
Maybe hasn't killed too many but fumes are incidents that could lead to acidents & the above numbers show every 131 flights in a 12 fleet airline is a little too often. Safety & the regulations do rely on more than just fatal accidents- but obviously not in your book.

[Checkboard]

Accident synopsis for the two accidents mentioned above:

China Northwest (http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi_bin/view_details.cgi?date=07231993&airline=China+Northwest+Airlines)

Just before rotation on takeoff, the right-side flap actuator failed causing the flaps to retract. Unable to get the aircraft into the air, the crew had no other option but to abort the takeoff. The aircraft overran the runway and crashed into a lake.

Morocco (http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi_bin/view_details.cgi?date=09251998&airline=Paukn+Air)

The aircraft crashed into a hill in a forest 20 miles north of Nador. Cause unknown.

RD - the door drops on its hinges if someone (ie not a crew member, but a caterer or some such) fails to close it properly. If you rotate the handle before the door is fully closed, the door will lower itself outside the door frame, and it is too heavy to lift up using the door handle. The solution is to have someone on the ground push the door up from outside, while pressing the door plunger (inside the frame) and rotating the hadle. It usually happens without causing damage.

I flew the 146 for nearly six years, and liked it much better than the 737 I am on now in all respects except grunt. Never had a problem with fumes on the flightdeck - even when they were reported in the cabin.

[This message has been edited by Checkboard (edited 28 April 2001).]

[spagiola]

No report was ever published on the China Northwest crash. But a failure to extend the flaps seems much more likely an explanation than an actuator failure.

There has also not yet been an official report on the Paukn crash, but all indications are that this is a case of CFIT. See http://www.smiliner.com/features/paukn/crash.shtml

[Raw Data]

flightsim - Spagiola is correct. The China crash is 99% certain to be a failure to extend the flaps for takeoff. Not only was there no investigation, but the Chinese would not allow examination of the allegedly failed part. Highly smelly. As also stated, the Morocco accident looks like CFIT, and there was another fatality when a pilot committed suicide by diving a 146 into the ground.

The door problem must be fixed then, as I haven't heard of this happening in the time I have been flying it.

>> but fumes are incidents that could lead to acidents & the above numbers show every 131 flights in a 12 fleet airline is a little too often. Safety & the regulations do rely on more than just fatal accidents- but obviously not in your book.<<

Most of the reason for the high reported incidence of cabin fumes is that 146 crews are being asked to report even the slightest instance of cabin fumes. Much of the time the cause isn't leaky engine seals, but any number of other causes, for example oven fumes, in some cases fumes from toilet fluid, de-icing fluid getting into the APU, etc.

Safety and regulation comes from many sources. Mostly it is about the analysis of risk. I'd be curious to know why you think that the 146, that has never killed anyone, should be singled out while the 737 (which has killed hundreds due to mechanical failure) should be exempt from such scrutiny. That is a serious double standard that has far more implications for safety.

BAe were exactly right in what they told the Aussies- you can't legislate effectively for "possible" risks to flight safety, if you take that approach, you'd have to ground all aircraft everywhere and never fly again.

[edited for shoddy grammar]

[This message has been edited by Raw Data (edited 28 April 2001).]

[Avro'ansome]

Hey RD,
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">there was another fatality when a pilot committed suicide by diving a 146 into the ground.</font>
Please elaborate - the only such incident I can think of was PSA in Watsonville California, where a disgruntled employee boarded the aircraft, shot his boss during the cruise, shot the Senior cabin attendant, then the Captain and First Officer. He then disconnected the A/P, and dived the aircraft. That much is very clear from the CVR. 38 fatalities, no survivors if I recall correctly ??
Certinally not suicide.
Tut Tut my friend!!

P.S. I refuse to become involved in another 146 cockpit fumes/ rollback thread. All old news. The 'door' problem mentioned is an old one too - Always open the door by turning the handle fully, then pushing - Always close the door by pulling fully home, then turning the handle. Attempting to push and turn can cause a door to jam ( been there ), and pulling a door closed while turning the handle will result in the previously mentioned problem of the door slipping below its guides, which in the worst case can require maintenance.
If this ever happens to you, rotate the handle to the fully OPEN position. Push the door back out. Go outside and push the door from the bottom ( you may need help with this one) while someone inside draws it closed.

[Raw Data]

Avro'ansome -

I had heard that the disgruntled employee was in fact a pilot. Also, if diving an aircraft at the ground isn't suicide, what is?

I haven't really studied the incident, and it isn't relevant to the discussion in any case- except that I believe the aircraft exceeded Mach 1 in the dive, and the subsequent investigation revealed that nothing important departed the airframe prior to impact. Unlike a 737 that disintegrates in the cruise!

Ah well, enough 737 bashing. I hope all 737 drivers realise I was only using their workplace to highlight the flawed logic of Effendi and co. It's a good plane really, for all its faults.

The 146 door problem appears to be hardly worthy of the title "problem" at all. Many aircraft will suffer similar "problems" if you fail to operate them in accordance with the manufacturers instructions.

[1 of many]

Raw

The CNWA was two captains who hated each other's guts trying to operate the same aircraft. They'd had one attempt and aborted and (I believe) tripped the Config Warning c/b 'cos it kept shouting at them.

Carbon brakes are good, but they're not that good!

[Effendi]

RD,
I know which which airline you fly for. I will avoid it like the plague and I will tell all friends and acquaintances to do likewise. I couldn't possibly trust flying on an airline where the captain is - to me - dodgy. I would spend all the flight wondering if I would get to the destination. No' perhaps not wondering but flapping.
far better to fly safe.

[actjag]

Amazing how old this is, yet people think its news?

Every type has its "unusual" side, you only have to look at some of the ADs that are issued.

Effendi, I hope you have hard facts to back up your last post? There has been far too much people bashing lately, dragging this site down to the gutter!!!

Time to close this thread?

[Raw Data]

It is the hallmark of a very second-rate mind that, having comprehensively lost the debate in this (and other) thread(s), and having no answer to the points made, Effendi should stoop to personal abuse and unfounded allegations.

Effendi, I'll leave your juvenile rantings for others to comment on. You will no doubt be unsurprised to learn that I view your threats with nothing more than bored amusement.

Far safer to fly on a 146 than on what you fly (if in fact you fly at all).

[GJB]

Effendi

I hope you do the right thing and appologise to Rawdata for that slanderous last post of yours.

[146LUKE]

Effendi
I hope you do boycott every airline you don't like. It means we'll never have to put up with you!

Avro'
Hope the team at WX are well, must get back over there sometime.

[storm-front]

http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/s-rrat.htm

Submission 11-summary-
" Reports of cabin odours have been received from time to time and have
predominantly been determined to be due to minor systems failures such as leaks from oil seals ....."

[Raw Data]

Note the words "such as"...

[Avro'ansome]

Cheers 146Luke - I'll pass on your regards to all the girlies!!
Pints here in Dub sometime ?? Bring ol' skinback with you!

[barcode]

Worse than that, should you be in a 146 (or an Avro RJ) and a fire breaks out in a hold, the first thing you will know are as the flames start licking your ankles - as it has 1). No hold fire detection, and worse still 2). No hold fire suppression. Give me a 737 any day.

[Raw Data]

He's right, of course. The 737 is better because as it either a) rolls on its back and dives into the ground, or b) loses most of its forward fuselage, or c) spontaneously explodes, your death will be a lot quicker. Good point, hadn't thought of that.

[OVERTALK]

http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/s-rrat.htm
2/11/99- p 54-
" the source of the odours has been identified as predominantly Mobil
Jet Oil 2 leaking past oil seals in the engines and/or auxiliary power
unit into the air conditioning system"
Submission 11- Volume 1- summary-
" Reports of cabin odours have been received from time to time and have
predominantly been determined to be due to minor systems failures such
as leaks from oil seals ....."

[foghorn]

Effendi,

What is your real motivation in your great battle against the 146/ARJ? Are you associated with Messrs. Bombardier or Embraer? Given your regular rantings in this thread and others against Raw Data and anybody else who attempts to bring a little perspective into your bizarre obsession with the idiosyncracies of the 146, real or imaginary, this would not surprise me.

Everyone has their favourite and least favourite aircraft, but your war against the the 146 has turned into an unhealthy obsession, and your Ad Hominem against RD in your post above is the clearest evidence of an argument lost.

Sh*t or get off the pot, man. What's your real beef with the 146 (and I don't mean your disproportionate and disproven line on 'safety' that is rapidly becoming very boring)?

cheers,
foggy.

[edited for poor punctuation]

[This message has been edited by foghorn (edited 03 May 2001).]

[Checkboard]

I fly a 737 and it has no cargo fire detection or suppression system.

[Raw Data]

Overtalk (and others)- still missing the point with the selective quotes from Hansard.

First of all, the identification of what an odour is can be complex- it requires either a chemical analysis of the cabin air at the time, or an analysis of the blood of the people exposed to it. Both these methods were used in the UK investigation of this problem. How did the Aussies do it?

Secondly, this problem is not confined to the 146, it has happened on other types as well, so singling out the 146 is disengenuous to say the least.

Thirdly, the problem is essentially solved by taking simple precautions. For our company, this includes weekly examination of the air conditioning ducts for any sign of oil contamination, and careful monitoring of engine and APU condition. We change either if there is any sign of contamination.

As others have said, it is the way in which manufacturers and regulators work together to solve problems that is important. Virtually every type flown has a worse safety record than the 146- for example just look at Boeings (as there are more of them than anything else). 747's have experienced a range of airframe failures, one of the worst being the United Airlines aircraft that lost one of its pax doors and quite a bit of fuselage over the Pacific (as well as a few pax through the hole). There have been several instances of 747 flaps detaching in flight. The 767 has suffered problems such as thrust reverser deployment in flight (Lauda Air wasn't it?)- all killed. The 737 we have discussed... and on it goes...

The point? All aircraft have design flaws and problems... many share the same problem (as in the case of the 146 and cabin fumes). To claim that the 146- which has never killed a passenger in the twenty-odd years it has been flying- is inherently unsafe is ridiculous. Yes, it has had a problem with cabin fumes- but it isn't the only one, and the problem is essentially fixed. What more is there to say?

[fly4fud]

barcode, I guess the equipment you're talking about is optional, as it is on all aircraft equipped with this type of compartment.

foghorn, you just put my thoughts about Effendi into words, thanks ;)

Effendi, no, I will no get into another Email debate of the pros or cons of the design, you're not what I call "open minded" http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif

As for Raw Data, the more I read you, the more I admire your tenaciousness. What about The Knight of the BA146 for a new handle :)
Well done!

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

[blusky]

denial is a troublesome quality in crew.
some more so than others.

[Raw Data]

Thanks f4f, but I just happen to enjoy having a go at the woolly thinking and one-sided nonsense espoused by people such as effendi. I also love a good argument!

As for "denial", oh please, do me a favour. I know my aircraft, including all its faults. As I have a vested interest in getting home alive, I pay particular attention to this stuff. However, unlike many, I can put problems in context. I can also judge the relative risk of operating an aircraft. The reality is that the 146 is both statistically, and practically, a very safe aircraft. Most of the recent publicity is nothing more than scaremongering, and is in any case completely out of date. It is as much driven by the hope of seriously large litigation payouts as anything else. Some of the investigations are flawed, and you have to wonder at the real motives behind them.

When posters here give equal consideration to the faults of other types, I will believe they are actually concerned with safety. However, the diatribes of people like Effendi are so obviously biased, that it is clear that safety is not the issue. I am STILL waiting for someone to admit that the faults of the 737 are far more serious than anything yet found on the 146...

[Expedite your backtrack!]

I have to say that I have never found RawData to be dodgy!

When I ask him to expedite his backtrack at City, he does - unlike others I could mention.

Another quick question.

How many American wanabee coca-cola cans manage to operate into LCY? (by american I do not include Canadian - which is really still part of the empire!).

When I watch the landings these poor 146 airframes have to put up with I can only admire them.

Good British overengineering.

No wonder Boeing pilots are jealous!

[Burger Thing]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">How many American wanabee coca-cola cans manage to operate into LCY? (by american I do not include Canadian - which is really still part of the empire!).</font>

A pearl of wisdom by EYB.... http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/confused.gif

[Expedite your backtrack!]

Sorry!

I should act like a grown up if I wish to be taken seriously http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/redface.gif

I am sorry if I offended any Americans, or Canadians. No harm was meant.

Sorry again!

ps. most hummbly appologetic!

pps. won't happen again - promise

[Raw Data]

EYB - So what is it exactly that you are trying to say about my landings???? ;)

[gaunty]

Raw Data me old

ROTFLMAO

"Damned with faint praise" comes to mind.

Thanks have enjoyed the joust so far.

We have some 'interesting' times down here in ISA+25 being fairly routine with an aircraft that was designed for short haul relatively low level European routes being routinely operated over 900nm sectors.

Our friend Checkboard would be the authority for dunnunda observations.

[KADS]

Just a quick word....
Rawdata - the 146 diving to the ground was not a pilot suicide, but an employee that had been caught stealing, been fired because of it, and then shot the 2 pilots as to make the a/c crash because his boss (who fired him) was also onboard.

As for the fumes, I used to work at one of the airlines which had the pilot incapaction situation and I for one am very troubled every time there is a suspicious smell in the cabin. My new company calls for immediate donning of O2 masks for all crew whenever there is a suspicious smell, but everyone who has flown the 146 knows that these "strange smells" do occur pretty frequently, usually from the APU air in conjuction with de-icing fluid. That means should we follow intructions we would more often than seldom fly around with masks donned. Not an ideal situation. This will lead to complacency of the problem, since crew is reluctant to don the masks. "Probably just the Apu air again".
Therefore I think there is a problem to be taken seriously and not only by O2 mask donning in case of suspected air contamination, but investigation of each and every reported case until the reason/problem is found and solved. Does that mean grounding every suspected individual a/c , so be it.
After having learnt that folks down in Australia have actually lost there medicals due to this, that is serious enough for me. I love flying the 146 but wouldn't exchange my future career for it

...just my personal opinion

[InFinRetirement]

I don't normally get involved in subjects (146) that I have no knowledge of, but I am going to ask of RD, who I know pretty well, and who is not at all dodgy, just a couple of points.

1. IF....there is a known problem - or not known - but occurrences have caused cabin air problems. What was the cause and the resolve?

2. IF....someone says "oh it must be APU air!" what can be done about that?

3. IF....there is a fault that causes the system to suck in foul air, from apparently different scources, what can or has been done about it?

In all my years in flying I have known many cases of the cabin becoming a bit iffy but it was never anything serious. Is that the case here RD?

Interesting subject though.....but not as serious as some would have us believe I think!

[Expedite your backtrack!]

RD,

Wobbling in over the bridge on a 10 day with a 15kt xwind from the south, every 146 landing looks like a controlled crash to me :)

But you will have to try harder if you want to match the disasters that Aer Fungus call landings, and then of course blame it on the windshear.

They have taken at least 10 years off my life.

Oh well, only another 25 years until retirement!

Nothing to do with the thread, apart from once more pointing out that 146s do take, and laugh fimly in the face of, a lot of punishment (unlike any other American or European jet airliner).

Having said that your first EGPH flight went tech this morning, and was still behind the 28 LOC when I left!

[Raw Data]

KADS- thanks for that. I was probably getting confused with the FEDEX (I think) attack a few years ago. As I said, I haven't researched it, I was just going on my (admittedly dodgy) memory! Regarding the fumes thing, see my response to InFin below. However, I would just add this: yes it is a serious problem (well I take it seriously), but it is NOT confined to the 146. Secondly, it is true that some people in Oz have lost medicals, but whether or not the cause is fumes (and I understand the insurance copmpanies remain to be convinced) is another story. Personally, I believe that the paranoia surrounding the word "organophosphate" is being used to generate an unreasonable reputation for the 146, and it wouldn't surprise me at all to find that some people are trying to demonise the aircraft in pursuit of large compensation claims- not the first time that has happened. I have seen the BAe and other research and the aircraft does come out looking pretty good. My company ran trials on an aircraft with a known oil problem- the crew flew the empty aircraft and were then blood-tested. The traces of contaminants in their bloodstreams was apparently virtually indetectable (and I know these people).

gaunty - yes, I think you just about summed it up!

InFin -

1. There is a known problem, well documented and exhaustively researched. The cause of the DANGEROUS contamination is engine oil that gets past leaky seals and contaminates the AC packs and ducting. When heated to high temps, the oil can release organophosphate compounds and can lead to impaired function in anyone who breathes it- some are more sensitive than others. The answer is to ensure that leaky seals are changed quickly and any oil contamination is rectified quickly. As you can see from this and other threads, the problem is by no means confined to the 146. Other less dangerous air contaminants include de-icing fluid getting into APU air systems, burnt crew meals, etc.

2. Education, basically. It probably IS APU air, but it MIGHT be the nasty stuff in the APU air. Our lot have very stringent reporting and checking procedures to prevent it happening again.

3. Mainly, tight control on engine/APU seal condition. When this happened to us, we pulled all suspicious engines and APUs for maintenance (very, very expensive). We inspect all AC packs and ducts weekly for contamination, and we have a strict reporting system that requires reports for ANY cabin odours that are not normal.

The problem is that seals can fail on any engine with little warning (see the BA 757 fumes article elsewhere).

Normally, the standard 146 smells are NOT dangerous- just a bit "wiffy"!

[Raw Data]

EYB- apparently Aer Lingus limit their skippers to only one LCY landing a day, more than that apparently being too stressful to the poor chaps!

I'm still waiting to see how close I can get to the runway before getting sent around for a tardy departure. Record so far ( a few days back) is less than .5 nm! Good work folks.

10 is definitely the harder end- very odd air currents, even on a day with light winds.

I saw our dead 146 yesterday... I did the early 755 (although I am actually on leave just now- see, can't live without my daily LCY fix). Best (legal) fun in aviation, doing a visual approach into LCY 10, 2000 feet over Westminster, hang a left down the Thames and land, avoiding sundry helicopters, radio traffic spotters and lost PPLs. Wonderful fun.

[backbeat]

Raw Data- are you tired of telling us all how much you know about everything yet?
Your defense is getting stale.
Not sure I would come to you as the source of all wisdom.
-Please just go back to being the pilot ace you obviously think you are.

[InFinRetirement]

Backbeat.

That was completely unnecessary! Abuse in whatever form is way out of the way. Do you actually know RD's background? Doesn't look much like it. However, a little respect never costs and is infinitely better than sidweways abuse. It also avoids you looking like someone with no other means of communication.