View Full Version : 146 evacuated at BHD

1st Aug 2003, 17:57
BBC are reporting a BA 146 evacuated at BHD.
Apparently, some smoke was seen inside the aircraft.


BAe 146-100
1st Aug 2003, 18:58

It looks like it was BAe 146-200 G-MANS (http://www.airliners.net/open.file/268457/M/).

BAe 146-100

Tower Ranger
1st Aug 2003, 19:16
Smoke in cabin on pushback full evacuation slides etc no serious injuries.

1st Aug 2003, 19:36
Blue smoke sounds like the real thing! On Monday on another BA 146, the CC were quick to announce that the 'smoke' seen at the a/c vents was normal!! As we were pushing back, the a/c flow was condensing briefly at the vents but was pure white.

1st Aug 2003, 19:38
The B146 has a long history of oil fumes in the cabin. This one must have been more severe than usual.

1st Aug 2003, 21:27
More on cabin fumes issue can be found here:


2nd Aug 2003, 07:49
Quote "Apparently, some smoke was seen inside the aircraft."
When you see it coming out of the outflow valves as it taxi's in you know the A/C if "Full".

White Knight
2nd Aug 2003, 12:00
I believe all 146's now have modded oil-seals and there have been very few problems recently, if any with fumes from the engines coming into the cabin. Remember smoke can come from many different sources...

BAe 146-100
3rd Aug 2003, 00:44

When do you think the aircraft will be serviceable?

BAe 146-100

3rd Aug 2003, 05:25
BAE 146-100,

'NS was at Manchester today, I don't know if that was the aircraft involved in this incident however.


BAe 146-100
3rd Aug 2003, 05:37

I'm sure that it was G-MANS because on the BBC link at the top you can see the registration. British Airways titles are also smaller then usual so it must be G-MANS.

BAe 146-100

3rd Aug 2003, 17:50
Hi All,

Yes it was G-MANS, It was positioned back from BHD to MAN with a u/s APU. It arrived back at 1740z on the 01/08/03. I was told by an engineer that it would be released to service on arrival (although it does need a new APU, thermal shock apparantly).

Hope that clears it up for you all, best wishes,


CarltonBrowne the FO
3rd Aug 2003, 18:07
At the risk of going slightly off topic... AFAIK, a large proportion of the 146 fumes incidents have happened in Australia. Is there any link between the failure of oil seals, and the oil provider? After the fuel-contamination event that happened to many Australian GA aircraft a few years back, it struck me as an interesting coincidence...

Life On Mars
4th Aug 2003, 17:37
The oils contain a number of toxic chemicals, including Organophosphates and PAN a known cancer agent. The 146 and B757 have a big history of problems but neither is completely fixed yet.

White Knight is partly correct as the BAe 146 is on version 10 of the engine seal but NJS here in Australia still having problems. In Australia we changed to Mobil 2380 oil but still as bad a Mobil Jet oil II just a different smell, sweeter.

CarltonBrowne the FO is on the right track and if you go to


which was set up by crews from around the world who no longer fly due to repeated oil contamination exposure you can see this is a big problem.

If in doubt USE oxygen!

4th Aug 2003, 18:37
Sounds like the boys weren't paying too much attention to the cabin temps during the first flight of the day/saftey checks.

The 146 is notoriously fickle in that department.
If you don't monitor the temps, then sods law says that the temps will increase rapidly and quite often will overtemp causing the packs to over heat.

This will almost certainly fill the cabin with "Blue Smoke".

5th Aug 2003, 03:36

It was not the first flight of the day, they were departing on the return leg. I also know the crew concerned, both are experienced on type and we all look out for the runaway duct temps. The engineers still suspect an APU fault so you may need to reconsider your verdict.



BAe 146-100
5th Aug 2003, 03:56

Is has G-MANS been operating passenger services since the incident happened?

BAe 146-100