'Private Eye' returns to the 146
 

This week's 'Private Eye' has returned to the BAe 146 fumes story. According to the magazine an enthusiast overheard a Jersey-Stansted flight (18/4/01) making a pan call to land at Gatwick with fumes in the cabin leading to a shutdown. The CAA confirmed the story saying that thick smoke was reported in the cabin and FD and the crew wore masks. No 3 was shut down and an uneventful landing made.

Yea. Once again Private Eye is correct. It did happen.
Guess once again lots will be in denial.

Was it a Jersey to Stansted flight or an alleged British European, Jersey callsign inbound Stansted flight??. Makes a difference to the story line as 95% of the BE flights into Stansted are operated with the CRJ. Oh but I am sure Private Eye are factually accurate as usual.....not.

According to the magazine the CAA has confirmed the story.

The Aircraft had departed LGW for JER. The Jersey Evening Post reported that number three engine was shut down due to severe vibration & the Aircraft returned to LGW.
To me this sounds like a serious engine problem which must have little bearing on previous incidents.
Whether my analysis is correct or not i note that "the usual suspects" have already leaped onto the bandwagon & we shall be subjected to another tiresome round of 146 Bashing by certain contributors whose obsession with the aircraft is verging on the unhealthy.
The people who i know who either fly or have flown the 146 like so many of its defenders on this forum are unanimous in singing its praises.

Yes, once again the obsessive effendi has seized upon any opportunity, real or imagined, to have a go at the 146. I can only imagine that a 146 once ran over his pet hamster or something, or maybe his favourite homing pigeon went down a 146 intake.

I haven't read the article (private Eye not being amongst my usual sources for factual, technically correct aviation reporting), but if it was a shutdown due to severe engine vibration, it is obvious that you could get smoke in the cabin (as you would with ANY turbine engine that uses bleed air), as the seals break down under the vibration.

Effendi will now try and tell us that only 146 engines fail with severe vibration- he will comprehensively ignore the number of CFM56 engines (for example) that have grenaded themselves (Kegworth springs to mind, for one). He will try and tell us that only ALF engines could allow fumes into the cabin in this situation (wrong again- Kegworth). He will then try and link this incident with the wider issue of fumes (when there is clearly no link).

In all this, he will pretend not to notice the serious defects in other types, which are far more serious and have killed many people.

Such twisted reasoning, flawed logic and foolish presumption lead me to the conclusion that effendi is actually just a plane spotter with a hangup over the 146. In other words, don't take him seriously- he certainly isn't interested in flight safety!

It's a shame that the usually brilliant Private Eye has got it all wrong with this one.

I'm composing a letter to Mr. Hislop.

I'm curious that, whatever the side of the arguement writers on this stand, not one of you has seen fit to include this quote from the CAA regarding this incident.

It might be suggested that some of our correspondents are so intent on fighting their own respective corners that important safety information for airline pilots is being overlooked.

Regards from the Towers
Rob Lloyd
[email protected]

Rob Lloyd,
Very perceptive.
what do you do? Keep the mask on so you're not incapacitated or take it off so you can communicate?
Good point.

Where in his two lines does Effendi set out the twisted reasoning that Raw Data finds so offensive?

Davaar,

Look at the multitude of other threads about the 146, especially the FL260 icing limit one that's current at the moment.

cheers!
foggy.

Thanks, Foghorn. I suppose I should look at earlier contributions. On what I have in front of me, it seemed that Raw Data was alluding specifically to Effendi's most recent posting ("...once again the obsessive effendi....")which contained one affirmation, two statements as of fact, and one speculation. On the first three he must be demonstrably right or wrong. On the fourth, Effendi anticipates denial. On this basis, unless he had other unrevealed sources, Raw Data delves into Effendi's putative or imagined (by Raw Data) hamsters and pigeons; his own not having read an article; forecasts what Effendi will tell us; reveals the linkages Effendi will make and the pretences he will adopt; and warns us to conclude that Effendi is not to be taken seriously. If that constitutes denial, and if in fact Effendi is right on the first three, then he would be right on all four. Just reading what I see.

The article reads:

After reading in the last Eye how toxic fumes have been seeping into the cabins of BAe 146 jets, an aviation enthusiast and radio ham contacted us about a radio message he had intercepted from the pilot of a BAe 146. The plane was flying from Jersey to Stansted on 18 April, and the pilot was heard to ask air traffic control for permission to make an emergency landing at Gatwick because of a problem with one of the engines. The pilot reported "fumes in the cabin" and indicated that he had shut the offending engine down. Asked if any of this could possibly be true, a spokesman for the Civil Aviation Authority sent the following terse formal report.

"At approximately top of climb, master warning system (MWS) was triggered by engine vibration indication. Thick smoke then reported in the passenger cabin and also became evident on the flight deck. Immediate diversion to Gatwick requested, 'Pan' declared and Nr3 engine shut down. Emergency checklist actioned and smoke gradually dissipated. As flight deck communication was impossible using masks, they were removed and normal checklists then completed. Uneventful landing carried out with fire services in attendance."

Reassuring, no?

Perhaps bean or Raw Data might like to point out which parts of the 'offending' article were factually incorrect.

Clearly all this time with their heads stuck firmly in the sand has taught them how to talk out of a quite different part of their anatomy.

Davaar:

Context, as they say, is everything. Yes, you should have read the previous threads. The use of "once again" implies earlier material which must be considered. My riposte in no way constitutes denial as Effendi uses the term.

Now, do you really want to play silly semantic games, are shall we talk about aviation?

Rolling Circle:

At no point have I said or implied that the article is factually incorrect (as I have not read it).

What I DID say was that it wasn't relevant to the discussion on cabin fumes (which it isn't, for the reasons already given). As you have clearly not read what I have written, it would appear to be you who is speaking from your nether regions.

Finally, it would be interesting to know exactly why communication was not possible; I tried that scenario recently in the sim and had no problem communicating. Anyone know more?

No, Raw Data, the context was the one you cited. I do not want to play any games with you, semantic or other, because I cannot match your pomposity nor your authority to speak ex cathedra.

That's the whole point RD.

There are now three incidents to aircraft in the last year or so that have shown expectations from work/training in sims are not reflected in real life when masks are donned.

Whether through equipment shortomings, poor/complex switchery or other reasons regarding realism in training the hard evidence is showing serious communications problems when it happens for real.

Don't care whether the smoke/fumes are organo-phosphates or you're running a 70's retro disco revival in the back, there are real life recorded problems where cockpit communications are simply not working when they're most needed.

------------------
Regards from the Towers
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by PPRuNe Towers (edited 05 May 2001).]

At least one earlier post supposed that engine vibration caused a seal to fail, oil started to leak and fumes entered the fuselage - thus negating links with earlier incidents.

However, could it not be that a seal failed, oil escaped, and engine vibration began due lack of oil?? - (still with smoke / fumes in the cabin!)

Just a thought, "Chicken or egg?"....

PPRuNe Towers, were in the cockpit when it happened?
So anybody else has the reason why no com was possible when wearing the masks?

There is a remote possibility the crew forgot to switch the mikes from boom to mike on the audio panel, thing easy to oversee in the heat of the action.
Point 2 of the checklist "establish communication"...

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

When there has been an incident trained professionals investigate objectively. When that process is complete they publish their findings. Why do others, who have only a fraction of the available information, indulge in this sort of emotive speculation. If they are spotters or wannabes I can understand it. If anyone on this thread is an aviation professional I would ask them to take a step back and consider this question. Which is more important, safety or integrity?

homer j -

No, for a variety of reasons. Low oil pressure doesn't initially cause vibration, and in any case the first thing you do with a genuine low oil pressure warning is shut down the engine. Vibration is caused by a blade failure or something similar, in most cases. The seal that is used in the compressor is a labyrinth seal I believe, apparently they don't tend to fail catastrophically.

PPRuNe Towers-

OK, but the point is that the equipment works fine. The audio quality isn't wonderful, but it is entirely adequate. it sounds (on the face of it, and without all the info) like a switching problem. Of course it is possible the mask mic failed, but the 146 cockpit is fairly quiet, I would have thought communication would be possible with a slightly raised voice (as we routinely do in normal flight). Perhaps you should wait until all the facts are in before jumping to conclusions?

It may be that practice doesn't necessarily pan out in reality, but you can only simulate so much... if the system works well in a simulated emergency, it is surely not unfair to expect it to work for real.

Maybe you can think of a better way to implement communications? Not being facetious at all, I'd be very interested to hear ANY ideas on how we could improve that aspect of the aircrafts systems.

It also occurs to me that the direct-vision system that consists of essentially a large inflatable plastic bag, for ensuring vision in a smoke-filled environment, should be mandatory in all flight decks. THAT could save a few lives...

[This message has been edited by Raw Data (edited 05 May 2001).]