BAe LIMIT THE 146 TO FL260 DUE ENGINE ICING.
Guest
Posts: n/a
In our mob it's on if in visible moisture below 10C. There is no bottom limit, well if there is I have comprehensively missed it!
Not sure what Hogg is on about, we cruise it at M0.70 or thereabouts, not much different to the fuel economy cruise of certain Boeings, and of course the Jungle Jet.
We usually cruise it at FL270-FL290. I guess Hogg must have been a "low and slow" specialist!
Also, Hogg is factually incorrect in what he says... selecting of anti-ice on does not require a thrust lever adjustment (certainly not a forward one), and the extra fuel burn is negligible.
Sure you ever flew the 146, Hogg?
[This message has been edited by Raw Data (edited 17 April 2001).]
Not sure what Hogg is on about, we cruise it at M0.70 or thereabouts, not much different to the fuel economy cruise of certain Boeings, and of course the Jungle Jet.
We usually cruise it at FL270-FL290. I guess Hogg must have been a "low and slow" specialist!
Also, Hogg is factually incorrect in what he says... selecting of anti-ice on does not require a thrust lever adjustment (certainly not a forward one), and the extra fuel burn is negligible.
Sure you ever flew the 146, Hogg?
[This message has been edited by Raw Data (edited 17 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well now RawData, in fairness to Hogg, a thrust lever movement is required after selection of anti-ice if you want to keep the TGT's back!! For info: our company policy is to cruise at M.67, thats what they use for calculating the burn, and recently we were prohiited to fly above FL260 regardless of met conditions.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Deep Stall: Exactly, he was talking about moving them forward. Glad we don't operate to your limits.
Hogg: No idea who you are. Sorry. Never flown the routes you mention. We fly long sectors in the 146 (ie over 2.5 hours) and because our fuel is calculated for the speeds we fly, we never dip into our diversion fuel. We call that "flight planning".
Glad to hear that speed turns you on. Me, I prefer those tricky Cat C airports that you can only dream about. Steep approaches, tight manouvering, hands-on flying. Who cares about cruise speed? Makes no difference to a pilot.
The rest of your post is just drivel.
Hogg: No idea who you are. Sorry. Never flown the routes you mention. We fly long sectors in the 146 (ie over 2.5 hours) and because our fuel is calculated for the speeds we fly, we never dip into our diversion fuel. We call that "flight planning".
Glad to hear that speed turns you on. Me, I prefer those tricky Cat C airports that you can only dream about. Steep approaches, tight manouvering, hands-on flying. Who cares about cruise speed? Makes no difference to a pilot.
The rest of your post is just drivel.
Guest
Posts: n/a
146?
Probably the most not user friendly, underpowered and always AOG "jet" ever built.
Steep approaches and manual flying?
Yes sure but apart from London city,Florence and a couple of other places when do you need them?For the manual flying you are right especially since intercepting the ILS on autopilot would make half the pax throw up.
Probably the most not user friendly, underpowered and always AOG "jet" ever built.
Steep approaches and manual flying?
Yes sure but apart from London city,Florence and a couple of other places when do you need them?For the manual flying you are right especially since intercepting the ILS on autopilot would make half the pax throw up.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hogg,
I usually donŽt butt in on a discussion when I have nothing to add to the subject.. But children that you let go too far, end up taking control. Just my way of trying to reel in the line a bit.
Hung start, ( and no, I wouldnŽt have choosen that name if I didnŽt know what it is...doooh!!
I usually donŽt butt in on a discussion when I have nothing to add to the subject.. But children that you let go too far, end up taking control. Just my way of trying to reel in the line a bit.
Hung start, ( and no, I wouldnŽt have choosen that name if I didnŽt know what it is...doooh!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
tarjet- sounds like you have never flown it either. I haven't been AOG in more than a year. User friendly? It's OLD! No more or less user friendly than any other four-engine jet of its' era.
From my base, we operate to four destinations this summer and they are all Cat C, so the answer is that we need the performance of the 146 ALL THE TIME!
It intercepts the ILS fine at normal speeds and angles, it only makes a mess of it if you let the autopilot intercept at 250kts and 5 miles or less (something your average Boeing pilot couldn't even attempt).
Hogg - not sure why I am wasting my time, but anyway... you can measure Mach at any altitude. It is more useful in the higher levels. Why do you think that ATC ask us for Mach numbers at our cruise levels? Because it makes their job easier! We cruise at M0.70 or thereabouts- unless of course you are now going to claim that our Mach meters are strangely innacurate..
Don't worry, PPRuNe stuff never gets to me, if I took it seriously I'd be a nervous wreck...
From my base, we operate to four destinations this summer and they are all Cat C, so the answer is that we need the performance of the 146 ALL THE TIME!
It intercepts the ILS fine at normal speeds and angles, it only makes a mess of it if you let the autopilot intercept at 250kts and 5 miles or less (something your average Boeing pilot couldn't even attempt).
Hogg - not sure why I am wasting my time, but anyway... you can measure Mach at any altitude. It is more useful in the higher levels. Why do you think that ATC ask us for Mach numbers at our cruise levels? Because it makes their job easier! We cruise at M0.70 or thereabouts- unless of course you are now going to claim that our Mach meters are strangely innacurate..
Don't worry, PPRuNe stuff never gets to me, if I took it seriously I'd be a nervous wreck...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Raw Data,
i think the 146 was born OLD, correct me if i'm wrong but the first 146-100 flew in 1981 just about at the same time as the 737-300 series did its rollout...i think we can all agree that systems-wise there is a decade of difference between the technologies used on the 2 aircraft.
And what's your opinion about doors that fall off the hinges and get stuck closed if not opened correctly (just imagine an evac..)?And your opinion about an autopilot that doesn't capture the selected ALT if vertical mode changed or sync pressed during ALT acquisition?And about altimeters that change +/- 200ft at altitude according to speed?And about pitch angle changes of +/- 10 degrees according to flap selection or GS interception?And what about those PA's done when the flaps are moved to or from the 18 position trying to cover that scary aerodynamic noise?And about the rain flooding the cabin floor just above the E&E bay when the FWD main door is left open?
Rollback and autopilot problrms are just a few bugs....
It's true that the 146 has excellent STOL capabilities but it's also true that it is underpowered(but hourly fuel consumption is just slightly less than a 73/3)....Meridiana pilots know it very well that if they want to get off the ground from Florence when the summer comes they have to hop to Pisa to uplift fuel on their run to Paris.
Anyway it's fun to fly, just like a 172.
Did i ever fly it?Guess....
Peace
i think the 146 was born OLD, correct me if i'm wrong but the first 146-100 flew in 1981 just about at the same time as the 737-300 series did its rollout...i think we can all agree that systems-wise there is a decade of difference between the technologies used on the 2 aircraft.
And what's your opinion about doors that fall off the hinges and get stuck closed if not opened correctly (just imagine an evac..)?And your opinion about an autopilot that doesn't capture the selected ALT if vertical mode changed or sync pressed during ALT acquisition?And about altimeters that change +/- 200ft at altitude according to speed?And about pitch angle changes of +/- 10 degrees according to flap selection or GS interception?And what about those PA's done when the flaps are moved to or from the 18 position trying to cover that scary aerodynamic noise?And about the rain flooding the cabin floor just above the E&E bay when the FWD main door is left open?
Rollback and autopilot problrms are just a few bugs....
It's true that the 146 has excellent STOL capabilities but it's also true that it is underpowered(but hourly fuel consumption is just slightly less than a 73/3)....Meridiana pilots know it very well that if they want to get off the ground from Florence when the summer comes they have to hop to Pisa to uplift fuel on their run to Paris.
Anyway it's fun to fly, just like a 172.
Did i ever fly it?Guess....
Peace
Guest
Posts: n/a
from PE:
THE FLYING GAS CHAMBER.
The dangers of noxious fumes and organophosphates being pumped into the cabin and cockpit of British Aerospace 146 jetliners (Eyes passim) has at last been officially recognised. After years of denial – including a recent whitewash by a House of Lords Committee - the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and BAE Systems, as British Aerospace is now called, have at last admitted that the fumes pose a danger to both passengers and crew.
On 26th March, the CAA suddenly and unexpectedly issued an Airworthiness Directive (AD) about the fumes. By definition this is safety related and mandatory. The AD orders operators of the 146 to report any fume incidents to both the authorities and the manufacturer and to carry out a full and thorough investigation. Despite reports of crew incapacitation, and both long and short-term effects on the health of over 100 aircrew, of 800+ incidents to date only one has produced an official (and damning) report, while two others – one in Sweden and one in Britain – are currently being investigated.
Close inspection of the AD reveals a vague reference to a previously unreported “recent crew incapacitation incident in the UK”. Private Eye can now exclusively reveal the horrific details of that incident.
On 5th November last year, a British European 146 was on a flight from Paris to Birmingham carrying 5 crew and 42 passengers. Shortly after take-off an oily smell was reported in the rear cabin, but this soon dissipated. 20 minutes before landing, the captain left the flight deck to go to the toilet. The co-pilot did likewise on the captain’s return. 5 minutes later the captain felt nauseous and had difficulty concentrating. Simultaneously, the co-pilot became unwell with highly dilated pupils. He required assistance to put on his oxygen mask, his hands were trembling, and he had difficulty communicating. The captain then noticed that his own depth of vision was impaired. The landing had to be made automatically which the captain managed to achieve despite increasing nausea. Both pilots were taken to hospital on arrival.
The incident is now being investigated by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) at Farnborough. The urgency attached can be gauged by the fact that while such investigations commonly take two years, this report will be rushed through in weeks. While the investigators, Peter Claiden and Eddie Trimble, are among the most experienced and most respected in the world, their task is hardly enviable. The cause is easy enough to identify – a broken or damaged engine oil seal which allows organophosphates from the engine oil to enter the cabin via the air conditioning system. But this is a design deficiency and what to do about it is quite another matter. Previous modifications have already proved inadequate. Nor can an order be made to change the engines. Quite apart from the financial implications, the engines simply don’t exist. Another suggested solution is that 146 crew – both flight and cabin – should wear masks. But that would hardly be popular with passengers.
But many experts round the world believe the only safe solution is to call time on this troubled aircraft. Another file in Dr. Trimble’s in-tray concerns a rollback to a KLMUK 146 last year. Rollbacks – another quirk unique to the 146 – occur when all engine power is lost at altitude and are also caused by the same design deficiency. The fumes incidents are likely to get worse as the aircraft age and get more leaky. This probably prompted the issue of the AD but – welcome though it is – that AD would not have prevented the Birmingham incident. Nor will it stop the same thing happening again.
Dr. Chris Winder, Head of Safety Sciences at Sydney University, has made a special study of 146 cabin contamination. He’s one of a growing band of engineers and scientists who believe that the 207 BAe 146’s flying world-wide should be grounded. “We call it The Flying Gas Chamber”, he says. “I really can’t understand why the authorities let it keep flying. It’s an accident looking for a place to happen”. It very nearly did at Birmingham.
THE FLYING GAS CHAMBER.
The dangers of noxious fumes and organophosphates being pumped into the cabin and cockpit of British Aerospace 146 jetliners (Eyes passim) has at last been officially recognised. After years of denial – including a recent whitewash by a House of Lords Committee - the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and BAE Systems, as British Aerospace is now called, have at last admitted that the fumes pose a danger to both passengers and crew.
On 26th March, the CAA suddenly and unexpectedly issued an Airworthiness Directive (AD) about the fumes. By definition this is safety related and mandatory. The AD orders operators of the 146 to report any fume incidents to both the authorities and the manufacturer and to carry out a full and thorough investigation. Despite reports of crew incapacitation, and both long and short-term effects on the health of over 100 aircrew, of 800+ incidents to date only one has produced an official (and damning) report, while two others – one in Sweden and one in Britain – are currently being investigated.
Close inspection of the AD reveals a vague reference to a previously unreported “recent crew incapacitation incident in the UK”. Private Eye can now exclusively reveal the horrific details of that incident.
On 5th November last year, a British European 146 was on a flight from Paris to Birmingham carrying 5 crew and 42 passengers. Shortly after take-off an oily smell was reported in the rear cabin, but this soon dissipated. 20 minutes before landing, the captain left the flight deck to go to the toilet. The co-pilot did likewise on the captain’s return. 5 minutes later the captain felt nauseous and had difficulty concentrating. Simultaneously, the co-pilot became unwell with highly dilated pupils. He required assistance to put on his oxygen mask, his hands were trembling, and he had difficulty communicating. The captain then noticed that his own depth of vision was impaired. The landing had to be made automatically which the captain managed to achieve despite increasing nausea. Both pilots were taken to hospital on arrival.
The incident is now being investigated by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) at Farnborough. The urgency attached can be gauged by the fact that while such investigations commonly take two years, this report will be rushed through in weeks. While the investigators, Peter Claiden and Eddie Trimble, are among the most experienced and most respected in the world, their task is hardly enviable. The cause is easy enough to identify – a broken or damaged engine oil seal which allows organophosphates from the engine oil to enter the cabin via the air conditioning system. But this is a design deficiency and what to do about it is quite another matter. Previous modifications have already proved inadequate. Nor can an order be made to change the engines. Quite apart from the financial implications, the engines simply don’t exist. Another suggested solution is that 146 crew – both flight and cabin – should wear masks. But that would hardly be popular with passengers.
But many experts round the world believe the only safe solution is to call time on this troubled aircraft. Another file in Dr. Trimble’s in-tray concerns a rollback to a KLMUK 146 last year. Rollbacks – another quirk unique to the 146 – occur when all engine power is lost at altitude and are also caused by the same design deficiency. The fumes incidents are likely to get worse as the aircraft age and get more leaky. This probably prompted the issue of the AD but – welcome though it is – that AD would not have prevented the Birmingham incident. Nor will it stop the same thing happening again.
Dr. Chris Winder, Head of Safety Sciences at Sydney University, has made a special study of 146 cabin contamination. He’s one of a growing band of engineers and scientists who believe that the 207 BAe 146’s flying world-wide should be grounded. “We call it The Flying Gas Chamber”, he says. “I really can’t understand why the authorities let it keep flying. It’s an accident looking for a place to happen”. It very nearly did at Birmingham.
Guest
Posts: n/a
GJB,
As an AAIB report will in course be issued if Private Eye are correct, they will indeed be found to be a reliable source. I think their article is too fine in detail to be wrong. I'm sure that authorities and manufacturers - of the plane, the engines, and the oil - monitor pprune and so far there's been no denial. And if Private Eye is correct, the authorities should be taking action now. This post is there for all to read........
As an AAIB report will in course be issued if Private Eye are correct, they will indeed be found to be a reliable source. I think their article is too fine in detail to be wrong. I'm sure that authorities and manufacturers - of the plane, the engines, and the oil - monitor pprune and so far there's been no denial. And if Private Eye is correct, the authorities should be taking action now. This post is there for all to read........
Guest
Posts: n/a
Obviously the reason why the UK CAA is moving so fast on this is that they'd be in a very poor position - were there to be a repeat. There have been enough instances of this in Australia where about 70 BAe 146 aircrew have symptoms and many have been permanently grounded due to sensitivity and greater susceptibility. Some have permanent disabilities.
Possible incapacitation of both pilots is one emergency that cannot be ignored. It will be interesting to see what sort of "fix", short of withdrawing the aircraft's type certificate, can be made - that won't simply be lip-service.
Possible incapacitation of both pilots is one emergency that cannot be ignored. It will be interesting to see what sort of "fix", short of withdrawing the aircraft's type certificate, can be made - that won't simply be lip-service.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Effendi,
Perhaps so - but I prefer to let the facts speak for themselves and through the official channels. P.E. and other such publications have varying slants of 'sensationalism' as that is what makes their publications interesting and attractive. How many non-aviation individuals would pick up a copy of AAIB bulletins from the newsagent?
They are nothing more than a 'News of the World' that happens to be written a little more creatively and intelligently.
Garbage I wouldn't eat my chips out of!
Perhaps so - but I prefer to let the facts speak for themselves and through the official channels. P.E. and other such publications have varying slants of 'sensationalism' as that is what makes their publications interesting and attractive. How many non-aviation individuals would pick up a copy of AAIB bulletins from the newsagent?
They are nothing more than a 'News of the World' that happens to be written a little more creatively and intelligently.
Garbage I wouldn't eat my chips out of!
Guest
Posts: n/a
GJB,
I've jusr re-read both the AD and the Private Eye article posted earlier. Both mention "a recent crew incapacitation incident in the UK". To me that tends to lend credence to the PE report - let's hope they've got their research right. If they have, they need thanks for placing a matter of great importance into the public domain.
As for getting AAIB reports from the newsagent. Well I don't know how many my local stocks but I'll ask tomorrow.
I've jusr re-read both the AD and the Private Eye article posted earlier. Both mention "a recent crew incapacitation incident in the UK". To me that tends to lend credence to the PE report - let's hope they've got their research right. If they have, they need thanks for placing a matter of great importance into the public domain.
As for getting AAIB reports from the newsagent. Well I don't know how many my local stocks but I'll ask tomorrow.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Effendi
The point I am trying to make is that journalists are only good for one thing - selling a story. Often they will mis-quote, usually misinterpret the situation and frequently get the facts wrong. And why? Perhaps the un-adulterated truth isn't that exciting.........so let's add a few bits here and there.
When aviation makes the headlines - it is usually for the wrong reasons, whether commercial, military or general. Plane accidents and incidents make for good headlines and unfortunately they public are only too happy to buy and believe the bu***hit that journo's write.
My original comment was that I would not comment on this situation until I had read an official line; my position has not changed.
Finally - don't expect to pick up an AAIB at your newsagent
[This message has been edited by GJB (edited 19 April 2001).]
The point I am trying to make is that journalists are only good for one thing - selling a story. Often they will mis-quote, usually misinterpret the situation and frequently get the facts wrong. And why? Perhaps the un-adulterated truth isn't that exciting.........so let's add a few bits here and there.
When aviation makes the headlines - it is usually for the wrong reasons, whether commercial, military or general. Plane accidents and incidents make for good headlines and unfortunately they public are only too happy to buy and believe the bu***hit that journo's write.
My original comment was that I would not comment on this situation until I had read an official line; my position has not changed.
Finally - don't expect to pick up an AAIB at your newsagent
[This message has been edited by GJB (edited 19 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Guest
Posts: n/a
Metman,
Absolutely right - but at present this incident5 doesn't feature. Must have occurred otherwise it wouldn't be included in the AD
Dagger Dirk,
Ignoring the attempted diversions and getting back to the point of this thread, I absolutely agree with you. There is obviously a problem with this aircarft. What is needed is a solution. Forgive me if I surf the web for a little bit - I will the get back. Seems very tricky to me.
Absolutely right - but at present this incident5 doesn't feature. Must have occurred otherwise it wouldn't be included in the AD
Dagger Dirk,
Ignoring the attempted diversions and getting back to the point of this thread, I absolutely agree with you. There is obviously a problem with this aircarft. What is needed is a solution. Forgive me if I surf the web for a little bit - I will the get back. Seems very tricky to me.