Flybe Emergency BHD
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Just becoming established 25
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flybe Emergency BHD
Reports suggest the Aircraft experienced a severe uncommanded movement whilst approaching BHD.
First reports suggest that four persons, including two cabin crew have been injured.
Injuries believed to include a broken leg.
Aircraft landed normally and taxied to stand.
First reports suggest that four persons, including two cabin crew have been injured.
Injuries believed to include a broken leg.
Aircraft landed normally and taxied to stand.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the beeb says...
Thursday, 12 December, 2002, 16:58 GMT
Four injured in air emergency
The flight was bound for Belfast City airport
Four people have been injured during an emergency on a flight from Birmingham to Belfast.
The crew of the Flybe aircraft, formerly British European, reported an emergency situation on Thursday after the plane had undergone a severe and unexpected movement during the flight to Belfast City Airport.
A male flight attendant suffered a broken leg when he was knocked to the ground while a female crew member sprained her ankle.
Another crew member suffered head injuries and all three were taken to hospital.
A passenger also suffered minor head injuries but did not need hospital treatment.
One passenger on the plane said the aircraft shuddered violently before going into a brief nosedive.
Safe landing
He said the pilot quickly brought it under control and circled a few times before landing at Belfast.
Belfast City Airport put its emergency plan into action but the plane landed safely and on time.
In a statement, Flybe said the BAe 146-200 aircraft was carrying 36 passengers and five crew.
It said: "The flight-deck crew immediately controlled the situation but unfortunately as a consequence of this incident, two members of cabin crew and a number of passengers incurred minor injuries."
A full investigation into the incident by the airline and the Department of Transport has been launched.
crew shaken but ok in hospital
Four injured in air emergency
The flight was bound for Belfast City airport
Four people have been injured during an emergency on a flight from Birmingham to Belfast.
The crew of the Flybe aircraft, formerly British European, reported an emergency situation on Thursday after the plane had undergone a severe and unexpected movement during the flight to Belfast City Airport.
A male flight attendant suffered a broken leg when he was knocked to the ground while a female crew member sprained her ankle.
Another crew member suffered head injuries and all three were taken to hospital.
A passenger also suffered minor head injuries but did not need hospital treatment.
One passenger on the plane said the aircraft shuddered violently before going into a brief nosedive.
Safe landing
He said the pilot quickly brought it under control and circled a few times before landing at Belfast.
Belfast City Airport put its emergency plan into action but the plane landed safely and on time.
In a statement, Flybe said the BAe 146-200 aircraft was carrying 36 passengers and five crew.
It said: "The flight-deck crew immediately controlled the situation but unfortunately as a consequence of this incident, two members of cabin crew and a number of passengers incurred minor injuries."
A full investigation into the incident by the airline and the Department of Transport has been launched.
crew shaken but ok in hospital
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: EGKK
Age: 42
Posts: 599
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't usually pay too much attention to the media hype but:
"One passenger on the plane said the aircraft shuddered violently before going into a brief nosedive."
Sounds to me (rather frighteningly) like the onset of heavy buffet followed by a stall recovery?
Don't fly the 146 and don't want to speculate, but for what other reason would the crew push the nose forward so violently?
This is the BBC News Online story.
"One passenger on the plane said the aircraft shuddered violently before going into a brief nosedive."
Sounds to me (rather frighteningly) like the onset of heavy buffet followed by a stall recovery?
Don't fly the 146 and don't want to speculate, but for what other reason would the crew push the nose forward so violently?
This is the BBC News Online story.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Localiser Green
If you don't want to speculate... why did you just speculate? 
It could be anything... CAT... wake... rotor... let the investigators do their job.
Do you have any idea how hard it is to accidentally stall a 146? Nope, didn't think so...
How do you know the crew pushed the nose down?
Not a journo, are you...???
It could be anything... CAT... wake... rotor... let the investigators do their job.
Do you have any idea how hard it is to accidentally stall a 146? Nope, didn't think so...
How do you know the crew pushed the nose down?
Not a journo, are you...???
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A male flight attendant suffered a broken leg when he was knocked to the ground
Dunno the alt of the a/c, but seems to me the FA was fortunate indeed to suffer nothing worse than a broken leg after getting knocked to the ground.
Dunno the alt of the a/c, but seems to me the FA was fortunate indeed to suffer nothing worse than a broken leg after getting knocked to the ground.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: EGKK
Age: 42
Posts: 599
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOR
"Do you have any idea how hard it is to accidentally stall a 146? Nope, didn't think so...
How do you know the crew pushed the nose down?"
Well I don't know... i suppose that's why I asked the question.... hence the question mark
If you read my post you would see that I never suggested the crew accidently stalled the aircraft. Neither will my contribution have any impact whatsoever in allowing an investigative team "do their job".
Sheesh, pilots! May not have been doing this very long mate but I do hope sometimes I won't turn out like half of you lot.
How do you know the crew pushed the nose down?"
Well I don't know... i suppose that's why I asked the question.... hence the question mark
If you read my post you would see that I never suggested the crew accidently stalled the aircraft. Neither will my contribution have any impact whatsoever in allowing an investigative team "do their job".
Sheesh, pilots! May not have been doing this very long mate but I do hope sometimes I won't turn out like half of you lot.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: north- ish
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EGOS
Being relatively new to the PRUNE FORUMS, i cant help but to
notice the amount of bickering and 'ego jousting' between pilots.
Being a musician/entertainer i thought 'us lot' had cornered that
market......but i see we have competition........
HAPPY LANDINGS AND CHRISTMAS TO ALL
notice the amount of bickering and 'ego jousting' between pilots.
Being a musician/entertainer i thought 'us lot' had cornered that
market......but i see we have competition........
HAPPY LANDINGS AND CHRISTMAS TO ALL
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, do please grow up. you said:
... which clearly implies the crew did so.
Meaning they did it on purpose?
for what other reason would the crew push the nose forward so violently?
never suggested the crew accidently stalled the aircraft
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bootlegger,
I thought my business had that title. DJs have the biggest ego, but I see where your going. All we want is the facts, nothing else. The fact of the matter is, is that a few of the 'pilots' here are handbag swinging bee-atchs who just want to PUSH their point across no matter what!
I thought my business had that title. DJs have the biggest ego, but I see where your going. All we want is the facts, nothing else. The fact of the matter is, is that a few of the 'pilots' here are handbag swinging bee-atchs who just want to PUSH their point across no matter what!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Just becoming established 25
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Getting back to the original topic, it seems that good airmanship and altitude enabled the crew to recover the AC. What is really scary here is if the aircraft had of been over Kinnegar or Connswater when this event occurred.
Watchdog Delta Hotel
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: here but there in 6 years
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
spoke to this aircraft today on it's departue
cruising level was FL240 i seem to recall
if that helps but no reports over the irish sea of turb
cruising level was FL240 i seem to recall
if that helps but no reports over the irish sea of turb
Neither will my contribution have any impact whatsoever in allowing an investigative team "do their job".
An investigator
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Snowdonia
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
READ THIS AND DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSION
The BAe 146 has long been regarded as one of the world’s slowest commercial jets. And it just got a lot slower.
Several recent severe pitch oscillation events in Europe caused G-loadings so great that the manufacturer is now worried that a misbehaving autopilot might induce forces so severe that they would cause a catastrophic airframe failure – likely to be fatal for all on board.
The cause of the violent pitch oscillations is believed to be the aircraft’s ageing single-channel analog autopilot system – a system that has been out of production for fifteen years.
In accordance with advice from the manufacturer, categorised as “critical to flight safety”, BAe 146 aircraft not fitted with the latest version “elevator damper” are now restricted to a maximum speed of 225 knots - 80 knots slower than their normal maximum speed.
It is not known how many of the Australian fleet of BAe 146s are fitted with the “elevator damper”.
The speed restriction is the latest in a series of safety scares relating to the British-built short-haul jet. Previous concerns focussed on cabin air quality after dozens of pilots and flight attendants found themselves suffering long-term detrimental health effects after flying on the BAe 146.
Several recent severe pitch oscillation events in Europe caused G-loadings so great that the manufacturer is now worried that a misbehaving autopilot might induce forces so severe that they would cause a catastrophic airframe failure – likely to be fatal for all on board.
The cause of the violent pitch oscillations is believed to be the aircraft’s ageing single-channel analog autopilot system – a system that has been out of production for fifteen years.
In accordance with advice from the manufacturer, categorised as “critical to flight safety”, BAe 146 aircraft not fitted with the latest version “elevator damper” are now restricted to a maximum speed of 225 knots - 80 knots slower than their normal maximum speed.
It is not known how many of the Australian fleet of BAe 146s are fitted with the “elevator damper”.
The speed restriction is the latest in a series of safety scares relating to the British-built short-haul jet. Previous concerns focussed on cabin air quality after dozens of pilots and flight attendants found themselves suffering long-term detrimental health effects after flying on the BAe 146.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There seems to be a little scaremongering going on here.
The (very rare) pitch oscillation is not as violent as this event seems to have been, particularly in the cabin- it is at its most severe at either end of the aircraft. The few events to date have not been violent enough to toss cabin crew about- it isn't that sort of motion- more a rapid oscillation of a few inches.
BA addressed the issue by issuing a variable speed limit, to aircraft not equipped with a very simple damper mod, to address the theoretical possibility of structural damage if an oscillation event occurs at high speed. It is not 225 knots, in fact it varies with weight and fuel mass. It is only limited to 225 knots if wing tank fuel falls below about 2200 kg for a -300 series, or around 2700 for a -200 series- in other words, not much fuel at all (you typically land with 2200 or more if you take plog fuel).
In normal flying, the limit usually falls around 275-280 kts which is not far off Vmo anyway.
Most aircraft will be modded within the next few months, its a simple fix.
And- 2 BE or not 2BE- if you really think this is the "latest in a series of safety scares" (I realise you were quoting), I for one would much rather by tooling about in my 146 than most aircraft- there has never been a fatality due to an aircraft structural or mechanical problem on the 146- unlike 737s that roll over and dive into the ground or lose their roofs... (sorry 737 drivers, not picking on you, just making the point). Also, more people have been affected by fumes on 757s than the 146...
The (very rare) pitch oscillation is not as violent as this event seems to have been, particularly in the cabin- it is at its most severe at either end of the aircraft. The few events to date have not been violent enough to toss cabin crew about- it isn't that sort of motion- more a rapid oscillation of a few inches.
BA addressed the issue by issuing a variable speed limit, to aircraft not equipped with a very simple damper mod, to address the theoretical possibility of structural damage if an oscillation event occurs at high speed. It is not 225 knots, in fact it varies with weight and fuel mass. It is only limited to 225 knots if wing tank fuel falls below about 2200 kg for a -300 series, or around 2700 for a -200 series- in other words, not much fuel at all (you typically land with 2200 or more if you take plog fuel).
In normal flying, the limit usually falls around 275-280 kts which is not far off Vmo anyway.
Most aircraft will be modded within the next few months, its a simple fix.
And- 2 BE or not 2BE- if you really think this is the "latest in a series of safety scares" (I realise you were quoting), I for one would much rather by tooling about in my 146 than most aircraft- there has never been a fatality due to an aircraft structural or mechanical problem on the 146- unlike 737s that roll over and dive into the ground or lose their roofs... (sorry 737 drivers, not picking on you, just making the point). Also, more people have been affected by fumes on 757s than the 146...
I have read with interest posts on this and other forums.I would like, please, an attributable bona fide reference to substantiate the statement made by 2BE or not 2BE that pitch oscillation is attributable to 'a misbehaving autopilot'.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
soddit , I think s/he was quoting a poorly researched piece of journalism.
None of the reasons put forward thus far for pitch oscillation include an autopilot- although it may be possible that a misbehaving autopilot might exacerbate an event, if left connected. As the memory drill calls for immediate disconnection of the autopilot, it is unlikely to be a factor.
None of the reasons put forward thus far for pitch oscillation include an autopilot- although it may be possible that a misbehaving autopilot might exacerbate an event, if left connected. As the memory drill calls for immediate disconnection of the autopilot, it is unlikely to be a factor.