BAe 146 at low level
 

The bean counters are forcing our company to consider exchanging our pressent aircraft for a BAe146 for experimental flying. Our current multi-engined turboprop aircraft spends a lot of time below 1000ft agl, and is cleared to opperate at 100ft over the sea in good VMC for extended periods. The company offering the BAe146 has said that it can meet this requirement. Any body wish to comment on the ability of a pure jet to operate at these heights without the back up of a Martin Baker let down system, if it all goes pear shaped?
On the same note, any one know of any successful 146 ditchings? Our current aircraft type has been known to float, and has top hatches to get out without letting more water in!

Sounds like the best use I've heard of yet for a 146. No problems with rollback. No problems with cabin fumes( no aircon/pressn reqd at that alt) and four engines for added security at low level. The a/c handles like an overgrown Cessna 152 rather than like any other jet I've flown. Sounds ideal!

Ops below 1000' agl! yippee, the donks 'll think they're back on a chinook. :)

WhatHeight, on a serious note roll back isn't going to be a problem so Martin Baker will probably be overkill. I don't know of an overhead hatch for water egress after ditching.

------------------
Clarrie

Our current flight ops involve descent to 50, that is fifty, feet radalt at the base of descents over the open sea in good VMC, with 100ft being the lowest we opperate for any length of time (has been upto several hours!) At the other end, we do fly in the FL260 to FL330 band and in cloud for extended periods.
On a good day we have gone to FL350. The company offering the BAe146-300 has said that it will opperate happily at these heights. We are not sure, by the time we start hanging sensor pods below the wings, and various probes along the fuselage, the drag is going to be substantially increased. This aircraft has apparntly not had the engine mods done, as mentioned in the Rumour and News forum. Any 146 drivers like to comment on its ability to reach FL350, with a heavy payload, and increased drag index with the "old" engines? The roll back and fumes are another issue.....

I think that you will find that the aircraft in question has 507 engines as on the Avro RJ. Getting to FL350 should not present a problem as you are not carrying 100 pax.

Apart from the occasional smelly air conditionig pack I personally have had no problems with fumes over the last four years.

As to the requirement to fly at 50' that is more a pilot handling problem than. Having flown both the C130 and the 146 the handling qualities of the latter are certainly no worse than the environment that you describe.

As to the prospect of ditching. I spent thousands of hours over the water in the Herc safe in the knowledge that only one ditcing had ever been successful. Even under ideal conditions the aircraft went straight under. Ask to watch the US video.

Oops. Sorry about those grammatical errors. They let me fly aeroplanes. Frightening is it not?

Although we are not carring 100pax, we will be at or near the max AUW due to the amount of additional kit we will carry.

I currently fly the -300,-200 and -100 in Aus and cannot envisage a way to drag an empty one to FL350.They're only certified to 310 down here and that is an alt rarely seen even on 3 hr sectors. If you turn on the climb repellant forget it and how can the suppliers state that it will do the job at those altitudes when Bae in concert with various regulatory agencies say no to flight in IMC above FL260.

As far as the handling qualities go , they are ponderous compared to other jets I've flown,due mainly to non powered ailerons/elevator(servo tab operated).

I've spent my share of time below 100' and can think of better a/c to do it in .If your talking a/c of similar age/cost why not Fokker 28-4000 ,70 or 100,now they handle beautifully and will climb to 350 without much drama , not to mention the greatly simplified systems ,the 146 is far more complicated than a jet of its size/speed/range needs to be .The 507 engine is fitted as previously stated but to relatively few -300s amd I think we have most of them(2),502s are more common and in any case there the similarity to the RJ ends.The RJ's engines are run by FADEC and are fitted as far as I know to the RJ-70 which is a -100 airframe with its attendant weight limits hence its superior performance,and even then it only matches the F-28 not surpasses.

The cabin fumes problem is a lot more prevalent than anybody wants to admit and at our company is a regular occurence , I've personnaly lost count and have never experienced it on any of the other transport cat a/c I've flown.The joke jet is not a bad aeroplane , there's just lots of better ones around .

CC.



[This message has been edited by Chimbu chuckles (edited 09 June 2000).]

Have a read of 'Air Disaster' Vol 1. There is a detailed account of a successful ditching by a ALM DC-9 in 1970. The aircraft ran out of fuel on route to the Leeward Islands (St Croix)and ditched with 65 people on board. The aircraft (Still in one piece)sank in ten minutes even though the fuel tanks were empty.The only reason that any people were lost was through the conditions at the time.
My advise - don't run out of fuel

Small4
Thanks for the additional info!
There has been a lot of disinformation and rumours our end, and your extra gen has put a few of these to bed. Thanks.

There is still a feeling that we are being forced into change for political (small p) not financial reasons. If the same money could be channeled into our present aircraft, then arguably we would have a more flexible aircraft with a longer range/duration and slightly better payload.
However, that is for the bean counters to fight over! At least it looks as if some of us will keep flying. Just a pitty about the vast experience in our present team that will be forced to go fly elsewhere.
Will a 2 person crew be able to fly the aircraft, and deal with requests from the boffins down the back wishing to alter plan A ??

These A/C have been flown through big storms during testing and come out the other side and there is a good rumour that one was landed on an American A/C carrier so I think it is strong enough.

What Height

I think you will find that the aircraft will do most, if not all that you ask.

I would certainly agree that Snoopy has the edge on mission capability in most areas. However the question may be how mission over capable it may be. Again only time will tell.

As to the pilots. I think you will find that almost all are ex-military and are required do demonstrate considerable flexibility in their current tasks.

Finally, as to landing on carriers that was most definitely the C-130 and NOT the 146. You can buy a commercial video showing two US Marine Corps pilots flying a series of landings and take-offs from a carrier. They did a quick course on the Herc from their normal fast jets and were probably not told of thr ramifications of a "pitch-lock" induced by selecting reverse thrust in the air during landing!

What Height,

I've operated jet ac @ 200' over the sea for the last 12 years without snags. The good old Spey is a solid engine though, I don't know what a modern engine would be like?

As an aside, we on the Kipper fleet are never told where you are operating. Are you ACN (ed) or NOTAMed. If not a quick call to Nothwood might save us bumping into each other one day!!!

Safe flying.

TACCO
Yes we speak to Northwood, and if we are up to anything unusual we are NOTAMed.
We are very aware of the Kipper Fleet, and always try and find out your plans during our sortie briefs.
Happy Flying.

You would not answer to the name of MRF by any chance?

At that height, you have to consider the possibility of multiple sea-bird strikes and the effect on the engines. Nimrod out of Kinloss a few years ago!! Moreover, what are the potential effects of salt water contamination on the airframe and engines, will you have a wash-down facility ready for your post landing checks?

What are the handling characteristics of a 146 over long periods at such low altitudes, ie Phugoid Oscillation. Does the 146 aircraft have a rad alt? Will it need extensive modification to meet your requirements?

Frankly, stick with what you have, you know its capabilities, you know what works and all your kit has been designed for that aircraft. It is amazing how costs suddenly escalate once a contract to transfer to another airframe has been agreed.

Sorry that I appear to be a little late in replying to this thread, I am a very recent arrival to the site.

[This message has been edited by lightningmate (edited 07 October 2000).]

Good day Lightningmate.
Havn't replied before, as have been in foreign parts with Sn***y, then a spot of leave.
Wish we could keep her, BUT, looks like the bean counters are in control, and common sense is out!

Watch out for details of the wake later this year!

Welcome home. Just out of general interest, which particular bunch of bean counters is seeking to bin your current flying lab?

[This message has been edited by lightningmate (edited 14 October 2000).]