'Private Eye' returns to the 146
Guest
Posts: n/a
FAA UNEASY ABOUT NON-STC’D SMOKE SAFETY DEVICES
by Stephen Pope
In a bulletin issued by the FAA’s flight standards office in Washington, the agency is taking issue with pilots’ use of non-approved portable smoke safety devices in the cockpit, namely VisionSafe’s $11,000 Emergency Vision Assurance System (EVAS).
In the bulletin, titled “Portable Equipment and Carry-On Devices Intended for Flight Deck Use,” the agency said non-STC’d smoke safety devices pose “an unacceptable hazard to maintaining safe control” of an aircraft, and pointed to EVAS as potentially presenting “significant safety hazards” if not properly evaluated to meet emergency procedures and training requirements.
What this means is that EVAS in FAR Part 135 and 121 aircraft must now be STC’d and crews must be trained in the proper use of the equipment. The problem, as the FAA sees it, is that EVAS has been placed in a number of business aircraft cockpits via FAA Form 337 because STCs do not exist.
As a result of the bulletin, VisionSafe plans to develop STCs and training programs for those models in which EVAS is installed, said a spokesman. He added that all EVAS equipment sold in the future will be STC’d, even in Part 91 aircraft, and that approved training courses through FlightSafety are coming soon.
According to VisionSafe, STCs for EVAS are currently available in the Hawker 800, 800XP and 1000; Boeing 737; Cessna Citation V Ultra, VII and X; and Dassault Falcon 900, 900EX and 2000. STCs for EVAS in the Hawker 600 and 700; Falcon 50 and 50EX; and Gulfstream III, IV and V have been submitted but are not yet approved. VisionSafe also anticipates submitting STCs for all King Air and Bombardier models, as well as the GII, this month.
http://www.visionsafe.com/
http://www.ainonline.com/03_01/Mar_2...smokepg78.html
by Stephen Pope
In a bulletin issued by the FAA’s flight standards office in Washington, the agency is taking issue with pilots’ use of non-approved portable smoke safety devices in the cockpit, namely VisionSafe’s $11,000 Emergency Vision Assurance System (EVAS).
In the bulletin, titled “Portable Equipment and Carry-On Devices Intended for Flight Deck Use,” the agency said non-STC’d smoke safety devices pose “an unacceptable hazard to maintaining safe control” of an aircraft, and pointed to EVAS as potentially presenting “significant safety hazards” if not properly evaluated to meet emergency procedures and training requirements.
What this means is that EVAS in FAR Part 135 and 121 aircraft must now be STC’d and crews must be trained in the proper use of the equipment. The problem, as the FAA sees it, is that EVAS has been placed in a number of business aircraft cockpits via FAA Form 337 because STCs do not exist.
As a result of the bulletin, VisionSafe plans to develop STCs and training programs for those models in which EVAS is installed, said a spokesman. He added that all EVAS equipment sold in the future will be STC’d, even in Part 91 aircraft, and that approved training courses through FlightSafety are coming soon.
According to VisionSafe, STCs for EVAS are currently available in the Hawker 800, 800XP and 1000; Boeing 737; Cessna Citation V Ultra, VII and X; and Dassault Falcon 900, 900EX and 2000. STCs for EVAS in the Hawker 600 and 700; Falcon 50 and 50EX; and Gulfstream III, IV and V have been submitted but are not yet approved. VisionSafe also anticipates submitting STCs for all King Air and Bombardier models, as well as the GII, this month.
http://www.visionsafe.com/
http://www.ainonline.com/03_01/Mar_2...smokepg78.html
Guest
Posts: n/a
These links (and articles) are informative on EVAS:
http://www.visionsafe.com/evas/htm/in.the.news.htm
http://www.visionsafe.com/evas/2000/index2.html
http://www.visionsafe.com/evas/htm/in.the.news.htm
http://www.visionsafe.com/evas/2000/index2.html
Guest
Posts: n/a
Cockpit fumes check on BA jets
By Heather Tomlinson
06 May 2001
British Airways is making urgent safety checks on 29 of its Boeing 757s after seven recent incidents when engine fumes leaked into cockpits. An Independent on Sunday investigation has uncovered a series of problems with 757s threatening safety, which have been investigated by the Civil Aviation Authority. Most involve planes owned by British Airways but other airlines may be involved.
In one case, says a CAA report, a Boeing 757 had to be withdrawn from service. Others were temporarily taken out of action for modification. The CAA details a "serious incident" that left pilots "partially incapacitated", failing to answer calls from air traffic controllers, after an "oily metallic smell" entered the cockpit.
This was last November, days after pilots in a BAe 146 plane were said to have almost passed out during a flight when fumes entered. A CAA report of another 757 incident said the pilot had developed a "significant headache in and after the flight and an inability to concentrate". In March, a 757 flight crew suffered irritation and the plane made an emergency descent. In February, the flight crew grew dizzy and had to fly wearing their oxygen masks. In January, a plane was withdrawn from service after four similar incidences of fumes in the cockpit.
The Boeing 757's principal user in the UK is BA, which employs the 180-seat aircraft for European flights. The airline says there have been seven incidents in the past six months involving three planes, where oily fumes led to pilots feeling nauseous and dizzy and gave them headaches. The fumes are thought to come from faulty engine seals, which let oil enter the air-conditioning.
CAA reports indicate the problem of cockpit fumes on 757 flights may have affected more than just seven BA flights. But the CAA reports do not specify the airlines involved in each incident but merely the aircraft type.
BA said there were potentially 29 aircraft that could be affected. "Of those, the ones that have a minor oil problem have been modified, and we are modifying all the others," said a spokesman. "We have had a meeting with Boeing and Rolls-Royce [the engine maker] to get to the heart of the problem and come up with modifications."
BA denies safety is threatened. "The flight crew is so highly trained that if there was any inkling that the problems were putting the aircraft in danger then appropriate action would be taken," said the spokesman.
But aviation experts said there could be a risk to passengers. "If the level of contamination is such that one pilot feels dizzy or sick that is a safety issue," said David Learmount, an editor of the industry bible, Flight International.
The British Air Line Pilots Association (Balpa), the pilots' trade union, wants an investigation into the long-term health effects of inhaling organophosphates in the engine oil.
"It's a toxic chemical that affects the neurological system," said Bruce D'Ancey, Balpa assistant technical secretary. "We have been highlighting concerns about possible contamination for the past two years."
By Heather Tomlinson
06 May 2001
British Airways is making urgent safety checks on 29 of its Boeing 757s after seven recent incidents when engine fumes leaked into cockpits. An Independent on Sunday investigation has uncovered a series of problems with 757s threatening safety, which have been investigated by the Civil Aviation Authority. Most involve planes owned by British Airways but other airlines may be involved.
In one case, says a CAA report, a Boeing 757 had to be withdrawn from service. Others were temporarily taken out of action for modification. The CAA details a "serious incident" that left pilots "partially incapacitated", failing to answer calls from air traffic controllers, after an "oily metallic smell" entered the cockpit.
This was last November, days after pilots in a BAe 146 plane were said to have almost passed out during a flight when fumes entered. A CAA report of another 757 incident said the pilot had developed a "significant headache in and after the flight and an inability to concentrate". In March, a 757 flight crew suffered irritation and the plane made an emergency descent. In February, the flight crew grew dizzy and had to fly wearing their oxygen masks. In January, a plane was withdrawn from service after four similar incidences of fumes in the cockpit.
The Boeing 757's principal user in the UK is BA, which employs the 180-seat aircraft for European flights. The airline says there have been seven incidents in the past six months involving three planes, where oily fumes led to pilots feeling nauseous and dizzy and gave them headaches. The fumes are thought to come from faulty engine seals, which let oil enter the air-conditioning.
CAA reports indicate the problem of cockpit fumes on 757 flights may have affected more than just seven BA flights. But the CAA reports do not specify the airlines involved in each incident but merely the aircraft type.
BA said there were potentially 29 aircraft that could be affected. "Of those, the ones that have a minor oil problem have been modified, and we are modifying all the others," said a spokesman. "We have had a meeting with Boeing and Rolls-Royce [the engine maker] to get to the heart of the problem and come up with modifications."
BA denies safety is threatened. "The flight crew is so highly trained that if there was any inkling that the problems were putting the aircraft in danger then appropriate action would be taken," said the spokesman.
But aviation experts said there could be a risk to passengers. "If the level of contamination is such that one pilot feels dizzy or sick that is a safety issue," said David Learmount, an editor of the industry bible, Flight International.
The British Air Line Pilots Association (Balpa), the pilots' trade union, wants an investigation into the long-term health effects of inhaling organophosphates in the engine oil.
"It's a toxic chemical that affects the neurological system," said Bruce D'Ancey, Balpa assistant technical secretary. "We have been highlighting concerns about possible contamination for the past two years."
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well, Effendi? How about it? Withdraw all Boeing 757/767s from service, because it is obviously a very dangerous aircraft?
Oh silly me, I forgot, it is only the 146 that you don't like... nothing like a balanced and objective viewpoint when it comes to flight safety, is there? NOT...
Oh silly me, I forgot, it is only the 146 that you don't like... nothing like a balanced and objective viewpoint when it comes to flight safety, is there? NOT...
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: UK
Posts: 7,737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RD,
I'll be up in EDI Sat/Sun 26th and 27th May and available afternoon and early evening. I'd gladly meet up with you and any other folks around for a chat.
I work closely with Bruce D'Ancey as Danny did before me, have access to much of the safety reporting systems such as BASIS and will be happy to brief you on the state of play in smoke/fumes/ air quality investigations.
I have the dubious honour to be able to access more information perhaps than the regular line pilot. However, none of it is secret or purposely buried - just unintentionally difficult to collate from within different companies reporting systems.
Thus the overview becomes vital and it's this data mining that is my special interest. Recent threads other than the fumes issue touch on many of the subjects we gather information on and put to the airlines and the authorities.
Ground facilities at suitable/adequate alternate and diversion airports. Behaviour of Airbus speed protection in RVSM airspace and many other topics discussed here are under active research by various groups. My comments on masks and communications were just a simple example of sifting through different companies data to see if there might be a developing trend.
The 146 isn't being singled out by those researching within the industry but it is the type with most information regarding potential problems that is easily available to those outside.
Hope we can get together later in the month.
------------------
Regards from the Towers
[email protected]
I'll be up in EDI Sat/Sun 26th and 27th May and available afternoon and early evening. I'd gladly meet up with you and any other folks around for a chat.
I work closely with Bruce D'Ancey as Danny did before me, have access to much of the safety reporting systems such as BASIS and will be happy to brief you on the state of play in smoke/fumes/ air quality investigations.
I have the dubious honour to be able to access more information perhaps than the regular line pilot. However, none of it is secret or purposely buried - just unintentionally difficult to collate from within different companies reporting systems.
Thus the overview becomes vital and it's this data mining that is my special interest. Recent threads other than the fumes issue touch on many of the subjects we gather information on and put to the airlines and the authorities.
Ground facilities at suitable/adequate alternate and diversion airports. Behaviour of Airbus speed protection in RVSM airspace and many other topics discussed here are under active research by various groups. My comments on masks and communications were just a simple example of sifting through different companies data to see if there might be a developing trend.
The 146 isn't being singled out by those researching within the industry but it is the type with most information regarding potential problems that is easily available to those outside.
Hope we can get together later in the month.
------------------
Regards from the Towers
[email protected]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sounds good, hopefully we can make it a date.
We will shortly have BASIS on stream on the company intranet- I do know what you are on about.
I have read all the publically available resources on air quality issues as they relate to the 146, plus others that are not yet in the public domain.
I realise the 146 isn't being singled out per se in industry circles... but it is in threads such as this one, and by people who appear to be unaware of much of the info... which is what I am against- the crude attempts to make the 146 out to be worse than it is.
Anyway, hope we can meet up.
We will shortly have BASIS on stream on the company intranet- I do know what you are on about.
I have read all the publically available resources on air quality issues as they relate to the 146, plus others that are not yet in the public domain.
I realise the 146 isn't being singled out per se in industry circles... but it is in threads such as this one, and by people who appear to be unaware of much of the info... which is what I am against- the crude attempts to make the 146 out to be worse than it is.
Anyway, hope we can meet up.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Pprune Towers,
Didn't know Danny had left but the best of luck to him.
You say you have extra knowledge and access. An oily smell is one thing, pilot incapacitation another - particularly when both pilots are affected. Can you tell me if you know of any other incidents of pilot incapacitation due to cabin/cockpit fumes that have happened to any jet other than the BAe 146?
Didn't know Danny had left but the best of luck to him.
You say you have extra knowledge and access. An oily smell is one thing, pilot incapacitation another - particularly when both pilots are affected. Can you tell me if you know of any other incidents of pilot incapacitation due to cabin/cockpit fumes that have happened to any jet other than the BAe 146?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Rolling Circle:
The Eye report is lacking in the facts. The aicraft in question was scheduled from LGW to JER and diverted back to LGW. The CAA quote though is, as per my understanding, quite correct.
Raw Data:
I agree that this instance had nothing to do with the ongoing fumes argument on the 146. Smoke / fumes in this case most likely were from a bearing failure (probably no.'s 1,2 or 9) which subsequently spat oil into pack 2.
I disagree, however, with your comment on oxygen - communication is all very well in the sim but imagine a real environment with engines at proper volume, MWS warnings, checklist being read, communication with cabin crew, pax etc. etc. Somewhat different I'm sure you'll agree.
The Eye report is lacking in the facts. The aicraft in question was scheduled from LGW to JER and diverted back to LGW. The CAA quote though is, as per my understanding, quite correct.
Raw Data:
I agree that this instance had nothing to do with the ongoing fumes argument on the 146. Smoke / fumes in this case most likely were from a bearing failure (probably no.'s 1,2 or 9) which subsequently spat oil into pack 2.
I disagree, however, with your comment on oxygen - communication is all very well in the sim but imagine a real environment with engines at proper volume, MWS warnings, checklist being read, communication with cabin crew, pax etc. etc. Somewhat different I'm sure you'll agree.
Guest
Posts: n/a
No, I wouldn't agree at all. Everything you mention also happens in the sim, and the engine noise can be increased or decreased at will to enhance realism (as the sim doesn't really simulate wind noise). You can even have real (banana oil) smoke as well if you want. The only thing the sim doesn't do very well is simulate sunshine getting in your eyes.
I think the point might be "why" communication was impossible with masks on in this incident- for example maybe it was because the mask mic was u/s or something. The point is that it could also be because the audio box wasn't selected to "mask". Without an explanation as to why comms wasn't possible, speculation is somewhat meaningless.
I think the point might be "why" communication was impossible with masks on in this incident- for example maybe it was because the mask mic was u/s or something. The point is that it could also be because the audio box wasn't selected to "mask". Without an explanation as to why comms wasn't possible, speculation is somewhat meaningless.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Because a) it is not relevant to the discussion and b) it has nothing to do with you.
Anonymous forums, remember? I have no idea why you chose to reveal your name for all to see. Somewhat foolish I would have thought.
Now if you have a reasonable reason to know (for example you had some info you wanted to share privately) I might consider telling you. However, I doubt your motives are anything other than petty and childish, as you have repeatedly demonstrated in this and other threads. So- continue guessing...
Anonymous forums, remember? I have no idea why you chose to reveal your name for all to see. Somewhat foolish I would have thought.
Now if you have a reasonable reason to know (for example you had some info you wanted to share privately) I might consider telling you. However, I doubt your motives are anything other than petty and childish, as you have repeatedly demonstrated in this and other threads. So- continue guessing...
Guest
Posts: n/a
http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/For...ML/005466.html
So all now know - including presumably Private Eye - that the main apologist on pprune for the 146 is none other that a training captain for the airline that very nearly lost one, plus crew and passengers.
[This message has been edited by PPRuNe Towers (edited 14 May 2001).]
So all now know - including presumably Private Eye - that the main apologist on pprune for the 146 is none other that a training captain for the airline that very nearly lost one, plus crew and passengers.
[This message has been edited by PPRuNe Towers (edited 14 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Effendi,
I happen to know the crew up the front of the aforementioned 146 in BHX, in fact I stayed at the F.O.'s place 2 days after the incident. Spoke to them about the incident and it seemed to me they did a good job of bringing the aircraft safely back to the field.
They might have been lucky, but remember, we all need a bit of luck to stay out of trouble.
Until the Incident Report is published with all the facts maybe we should stop slagging these aircraft off.
P.S. I don't fly the cockroach!
[This message has been edited by kennedy (edited 14 May 2001).]
I happen to know the crew up the front of the aforementioned 146 in BHX, in fact I stayed at the F.O.'s place 2 days after the incident. Spoke to them about the incident and it seemed to me they did a good job of bringing the aircraft safely back to the field.
They might have been lucky, but remember, we all need a bit of luck to stay out of trouble.
Until the Incident Report is published with all the facts maybe we should stop slagging these aircraft off.
P.S. I don't fly the cockroach!
[This message has been edited by kennedy (edited 14 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Kennedy,
You get me real wrong on this. No way do I blame the pilots - they did an admirable job.
But I do blame those in authority who by their apathy allowed it to happen. The problem was well known - it had happened several times before. And in my opinion it shouldn't have happened again. But to avoid that it needs a recognition of the dangers and it needs those in a position to do something to do something. This thing stinks of apathy - probably because there is no easy fix - probably no fix full stop.
but that doesn't mean sit back and wring your hands, which is the current option. There's a real safety problem - fix it.
The incident report has been written and has appeared on pprune. The AAIB report - either green or yellow - is many months away. Action not words.
You get me real wrong on this. No way do I blame the pilots - they did an admirable job.
But I do blame those in authority who by their apathy allowed it to happen. The problem was well known - it had happened several times before. And in my opinion it shouldn't have happened again. But to avoid that it needs a recognition of the dangers and it needs those in a position to do something to do something. This thing stinks of apathy - probably because there is no easy fix - probably no fix full stop.
but that doesn't mean sit back and wring your hands, which is the current option. There's a real safety problem - fix it.
The incident report has been written and has appeared on pprune. The AAIB report - either green or yellow - is many months away. Action not words.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well done Effendi, you figured out what everyone else on PPRuNe already knows. What a clever chap you are.
This must be very satisfying for you. Of course, despite your cleverness, you have no credibility now whatsoever; as you consistently refuse to acknowledge the very same problem that affects the 146 exists on several other types, not to mention far more serious defects on those types than the 146 has. All this has been stated before, but as you are unable to answer these things you choose to ignore them. How infantile.
As you are not consistent, not balanced, and clearly have a grudge against the 146, your diatribes are completely worthless. Keep banging on though, no doubt some of your fellow spotters will be impressed.
Now when you learn the art of debate, do join us again. Until then, do try and develop a sense of objectivity and fair play.
This must be very satisfying for you. Of course, despite your cleverness, you have no credibility now whatsoever; as you consistently refuse to acknowledge the very same problem that affects the 146 exists on several other types, not to mention far more serious defects on those types than the 146 has. All this has been stated before, but as you are unable to answer these things you choose to ignore them. How infantile.
As you are not consistent, not balanced, and clearly have a grudge against the 146, your diatribes are completely worthless. Keep banging on though, no doubt some of your fellow spotters will be impressed.
Now when you learn the art of debate, do join us again. Until then, do try and develop a sense of objectivity and fair play.
