BAe LIMIT THE 146 TO FL260 DUE ENGINE ICING.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yes flightsim, pretty much, except that what you are talking about is a safety RECORD. Obviously, an aircraft could be unsafe, having never killed anyone (case in point; Concorde. Well, maybe). All aircraft have started out with a perfect safety record.
If you ARE talking about safety records as opposed to safety, how else do you measure a safety record? You can either do what the Americans do, and go down the product liability road, or you can assess the safety of an aircraft by the number of accidents it has had, and the number of resulting fatalities over the life of the fleet.
Either way, the 146 comes up smelling pretty sweet compared to any Boeing of its era.
By the way, the oil data was supplied by Mobil but quoted in the Aussie Senate report.
If you ARE talking about safety records as opposed to safety, how else do you measure a safety record? You can either do what the Americans do, and go down the product liability road, or you can assess the safety of an aircraft by the number of accidents it has had, and the number of resulting fatalities over the life of the fleet.
Either way, the 146 comes up smelling pretty sweet compared to any Boeing of its era.
By the way, the oil data was supplied by Mobil but quoted in the Aussie Senate report.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I can see clearly where BAe is coming from:
1. "a number of isolated cabin air incidents"
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committ...ctte/index.htm
Air safety & cabin air quality in the BAe 146 aircraft-12 October 2000
2.50- "The committee received evidence that Ansett has, in addition to the above occasions recorded reported fume occurrences of 1 per 131 flights. This appears to average one incident of fume contamination on an Ansett flight per week"
2.54- "Ansett Australia advised the committee that: ........in 1992 engineering log reports showed an odour was reported once in every 66 flights. In the first half of this year, by contrast, engineering log reports recorded one odour occurrence in every 160 flights. (Ansett Australia Evidence, 2 November, 1999 P55)"- 12 aircraft
6.18 "By contrast the committee also notes the strong evidence of a tendency of pilots to under-report incidents of this nature"
BAe- 2 November, 1999 P 80/85
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate...tee/s-rrat.htm
Mr Black , BAe- " Yes- In the early 1990's ,we had a problem which was that our aircraft did have oil leaks which were greater than the industry standard. That is a matter of public record as well. What we have done...... introduce modifications to overcome those problems. That has been done and the aircraft is now in a position where it does not leak oil at a frequency any greater than other aircraft.
" As recently as 1996-97 we continued to improve the sealing properties of the bearings and seals."
Mr. Williams-BAe- 10 April ,2000
" We all acknowledge....... that the modifications will not solve the problem completely. They are to reduce the number of events, and that is what is important."
2. BAe " One of the safest commercial aircraft in operation today"
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate...tee/s-rrat.htm
10April 2000- BAe- p 232/3
Senator Forshaw- " ....You state that you are proud of the outstanding safety record of the BAe 146.... you refer to to the fact that that this aircraft has never suffered a fatal accident due to a technical failure.....What are you using as your criteria for saying it has an outstanding safety record?"......
Mr. Jones- BAe " It has not had a fatality due to a technical problem, and that is the criterion."
Note what BAe sees as definition of safety (& rest of industry I would say) & how rare incidents really are.
By the way- Mick Toller's press conference of 10April , 01 on Ansett stated that the meeting of the regulations was the minimum standard to operate to- This was the safety requirement & that is correct.
1. "a number of isolated cabin air incidents"
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committ...ctte/index.htm
Air safety & cabin air quality in the BAe 146 aircraft-12 October 2000
2.50- "The committee received evidence that Ansett has, in addition to the above occasions recorded reported fume occurrences of 1 per 131 flights. This appears to average one incident of fume contamination on an Ansett flight per week"
2.54- "Ansett Australia advised the committee that: ........in 1992 engineering log reports showed an odour was reported once in every 66 flights. In the first half of this year, by contrast, engineering log reports recorded one odour occurrence in every 160 flights. (Ansett Australia Evidence, 2 November, 1999 P55)"- 12 aircraft
6.18 "By contrast the committee also notes the strong evidence of a tendency of pilots to under-report incidents of this nature"
BAe- 2 November, 1999 P 80/85
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate...tee/s-rrat.htm
Mr Black , BAe- " Yes- In the early 1990's ,we had a problem which was that our aircraft did have oil leaks which were greater than the industry standard. That is a matter of public record as well. What we have done...... introduce modifications to overcome those problems. That has been done and the aircraft is now in a position where it does not leak oil at a frequency any greater than other aircraft.
" As recently as 1996-97 we continued to improve the sealing properties of the bearings and seals."
Mr. Williams-BAe- 10 April ,2000
" We all acknowledge....... that the modifications will not solve the problem completely. They are to reduce the number of events, and that is what is important."
2. BAe " One of the safest commercial aircraft in operation today"
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate...tee/s-rrat.htm
10April 2000- BAe- p 232/3
Senator Forshaw- " ....You state that you are proud of the outstanding safety record of the BAe 146.... you refer to to the fact that that this aircraft has never suffered a fatal accident due to a technical failure.....What are you using as your criteria for saying it has an outstanding safety record?"......
Mr. Jones- BAe " It has not had a fatality due to a technical problem, and that is the criterion."
Note what BAe sees as definition of safety (& rest of industry I would say) & how rare incidents really are.
By the way- Mick Toller's press conference of 10April , 01 on Ansett stated that the meeting of the regulations was the minimum standard to operate to- This was the safety requirement & that is correct.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yeah right Effendi. Who is really in denial, those of us who fly a SAFE aircraft, which has never killed anyone, or those that fly an aircraft that either loses its' roof, rolls on its back and dives into the ground, or spontaneously explodes?
I know which I'd rather travel in...
I know which I'd rather travel in...
Guest
Posts: n/a
RD << Safe aircraft that has never killed anyone>>
From Australian senate Inquiry-Final report-12 october, 2000
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committ...ctte/index.htm
2.3 British Aerospace told the inquiry on 10 April 2000 that the company was
… proud of the fact that after 5.2 million flight hours the 146 fleet has
never suffered a fatal accident due to technical failure, which makes it one
of the safest aircraft in operation today.
2.4 The Committee also notes that, according to accident reports carried in the aviation Safety Network, as set out on their internet site, there have been four fatal accidents involving BAe 146 aircraft since 1987 and that 156 people in total were killed as a
result of those accidents. The Committee notes British Aerospace’s evidence that there have been no fatal accidents involving the
BAe 146 arising from the ‘technical standard’
of the aircraft.
2.5 The Committee also notes that, according to the publicly available information on the Aviation Safety Network, one of these accidents was attributed to a ‘technical problem’. A China Northwest Airlines BAe 146
300 series aircraft crashed into an earth bank while attempting to take off
from Yinchuan airport in China on 23 July 1993 killing 55 people. An investigation established that although takeoff flaps had been selected on the aircraft for takeoff they did not extend resulting in the aircraft crashing.
2.6 An accident in 1998, which occurred in Morocco in which all 38 passengers and crew on board died, is still the subject of investigation by air safety authorities in Morocco.
-------------------
RD-oops
Maybe hasn't killed too many but fumes are incidents that could lead to acidents & the above numbers show every 131 flights in a 12 fleet airline is a little too often. Safety & the regulations do rely on more than just fatal accidents- but obviously not in your book.
From Australian senate Inquiry-Final report-12 october, 2000
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committ...ctte/index.htm
2.3 British Aerospace told the inquiry on 10 April 2000 that the company was
… proud of the fact that after 5.2 million flight hours the 146 fleet has
never suffered a fatal accident due to technical failure, which makes it one
of the safest aircraft in operation today.
2.4 The Committee also notes that, according to accident reports carried in the aviation Safety Network, as set out on their internet site, there have been four fatal accidents involving BAe 146 aircraft since 1987 and that 156 people in total were killed as a
result of those accidents. The Committee notes British Aerospace’s evidence that there have been no fatal accidents involving the
BAe 146 arising from the ‘technical standard’
of the aircraft.
2.5 The Committee also notes that, according to the publicly available information on the Aviation Safety Network, one of these accidents was attributed to a ‘technical problem’. A China Northwest Airlines BAe 146
300 series aircraft crashed into an earth bank while attempting to take off
from Yinchuan airport in China on 23 July 1993 killing 55 people. An investigation established that although takeoff flaps had been selected on the aircraft for takeoff they did not extend resulting in the aircraft crashing.
2.6 An accident in 1998, which occurred in Morocco in which all 38 passengers and crew on board died, is still the subject of investigation by air safety authorities in Morocco.
-------------------
RD-oops
Maybe hasn't killed too many but fumes are incidents that could lead to acidents & the above numbers show every 131 flights in a 12 fleet airline is a little too often. Safety & the regulations do rely on more than just fatal accidents- but obviously not in your book.
Accident synopsis for the two accidents mentioned above:
China Northwest
Just before rotation on takeoff, the right-side flap actuator failed causing the flaps to retract. Unable to get the aircraft into the air, the crew had no other option but to abort the takeoff. The aircraft overran the runway and crashed into a lake.
Morocco
The aircraft crashed into a hill in a forest 20 miles north of Nador. Cause unknown.
RD - the door drops on its hinges if someone (ie not a crew member, but a caterer or some such) fails to close it properly. If you rotate the handle before the door is fully closed, the door will lower itself outside the door frame, and it is too heavy to lift up using the door handle. The solution is to have someone on the ground push the door up from outside, while pressing the door plunger (inside the frame) and rotating the hadle. It usually happens without causing damage.
I flew the 146 for nearly six years, and liked it much better than the 737 I am on now in all respects except grunt. Never had a problem with fumes on the flightdeck - even when they were reported in the cabin.
[This message has been edited by Checkboard (edited 28 April 2001).]
China Northwest
Just before rotation on takeoff, the right-side flap actuator failed causing the flaps to retract. Unable to get the aircraft into the air, the crew had no other option but to abort the takeoff. The aircraft overran the runway and crashed into a lake.
Morocco
The aircraft crashed into a hill in a forest 20 miles north of Nador. Cause unknown.
RD - the door drops on its hinges if someone (ie not a crew member, but a caterer or some such) fails to close it properly. If you rotate the handle before the door is fully closed, the door will lower itself outside the door frame, and it is too heavy to lift up using the door handle. The solution is to have someone on the ground push the door up from outside, while pressing the door plunger (inside the frame) and rotating the hadle. It usually happens without causing damage.
I flew the 146 for nearly six years, and liked it much better than the 737 I am on now in all respects except grunt. Never had a problem with fumes on the flightdeck - even when they were reported in the cabin.
[This message has been edited by Checkboard (edited 28 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
No report was ever published on the China Northwest crash. But a failure to extend the flaps seems much more likely an explanation than an actuator failure.
There has also not yet been an official report on the Paukn crash, but all indications are that this is a case of CFIT. See http://www.smiliner.com/features/paukn/crash.shtml
There has also not yet been an official report on the Paukn crash, but all indications are that this is a case of CFIT. See http://www.smiliner.com/features/paukn/crash.shtml
Guest
Posts: n/a
flightsim - Spagiola is correct. The China crash is 99% certain to be a failure to extend the flaps for takeoff. Not only was there no investigation, but the Chinese would not allow examination of the allegedly failed part. Highly smelly. As also stated, the Morocco accident looks like CFIT, and there was another fatality when a pilot committed suicide by diving a 146 into the ground.
The door problem must be fixed then, as I haven't heard of this happening in the time I have been flying it.
>> but fumes are incidents that could lead to acidents & the above numbers show every 131 flights in a 12 fleet airline is a little too often. Safety & the regulations do rely on more than just fatal accidents- but obviously not in your book.<<
Most of the reason for the high reported incidence of cabin fumes is that 146 crews are being asked to report even the slightest instance of cabin fumes. Much of the time the cause isn't leaky engine seals, but any number of other causes, for example oven fumes, in some cases fumes from toilet fluid, de-icing fluid getting into the APU, etc.
Safety and regulation comes from many sources. Mostly it is about the analysis of risk. I'd be curious to know why you think that the 146, that has never killed anyone, should be singled out while the 737 (which has killed hundreds due to mechanical failure) should be exempt from such scrutiny. That is a serious double standard that has far more implications for safety.
BAe were exactly right in what they told the Aussies- you can't legislate effectively for "possible" risks to flight safety, if you take that approach, you'd have to ground all aircraft everywhere and never fly again.
[edited for shoddy grammar]
[This message has been edited by Raw Data (edited 28 April 2001).]
The door problem must be fixed then, as I haven't heard of this happening in the time I have been flying it.
>> but fumes are incidents that could lead to acidents & the above numbers show every 131 flights in a 12 fleet airline is a little too often. Safety & the regulations do rely on more than just fatal accidents- but obviously not in your book.<<
Most of the reason for the high reported incidence of cabin fumes is that 146 crews are being asked to report even the slightest instance of cabin fumes. Much of the time the cause isn't leaky engine seals, but any number of other causes, for example oven fumes, in some cases fumes from toilet fluid, de-icing fluid getting into the APU, etc.
Safety and regulation comes from many sources. Mostly it is about the analysis of risk. I'd be curious to know why you think that the 146, that has never killed anyone, should be singled out while the 737 (which has killed hundreds due to mechanical failure) should be exempt from such scrutiny. That is a serious double standard that has far more implications for safety.
BAe were exactly right in what they told the Aussies- you can't legislate effectively for "possible" risks to flight safety, if you take that approach, you'd have to ground all aircraft everywhere and never fly again.
[edited for shoddy grammar]
[This message has been edited by Raw Data (edited 28 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hey RD,
Please elaborate - the only such incident I can think of was PSA in Watsonville California, where a disgruntled employee boarded the aircraft, shot his boss during the cruise, shot the Senior cabin attendant, then the Captain and First Officer. He then disconnected the A/P, and dived the aircraft. That much is very clear from the CVR. 38 fatalities, no survivors if I recall correctly ??
Certinally not suicide.
Tut Tut my friend!!
P.S. I refuse to become involved in another 146 cockpit fumes/ rollback thread. All old news. The 'door' problem mentioned is an old one too - Always open the door by turning the handle fully, then pushing - Always close the door by pulling fully home, then turning the handle. Attempting to push and turn can cause a door to jam ( been there ), and pulling a door closed while turning the handle will result in the previously mentioned problem of the door slipping below its guides, which in the worst case can require maintenance.
If this ever happens to you, rotate the handle to the fully OPEN position. Push the door back out. Go outside and push the door from the bottom ( you may need help with this one) while someone inside draws it closed.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">there was another fatality when a pilot committed suicide by diving a 146 into the ground.</font>
Certinally not suicide.
Tut Tut my friend!!
P.S. I refuse to become involved in another 146 cockpit fumes/ rollback thread. All old news. The 'door' problem mentioned is an old one too - Always open the door by turning the handle fully, then pushing - Always close the door by pulling fully home, then turning the handle. Attempting to push and turn can cause a door to jam ( been there ), and pulling a door closed while turning the handle will result in the previously mentioned problem of the door slipping below its guides, which in the worst case can require maintenance.
If this ever happens to you, rotate the handle to the fully OPEN position. Push the door back out. Go outside and push the door from the bottom ( you may need help with this one) while someone inside draws it closed.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Avro'ansome -
I had heard that the disgruntled employee was in fact a pilot. Also, if diving an aircraft at the ground isn't suicide, what is?
I haven't really studied the incident, and it isn't relevant to the discussion in any case- except that I believe the aircraft exceeded Mach 1 in the dive, and the subsequent investigation revealed that nothing important departed the airframe prior to impact. Unlike a 737 that disintegrates in the cruise!
Ah well, enough 737 bashing. I hope all 737 drivers realise I was only using their workplace to highlight the flawed logic of Effendi and co. It's a good plane really, for all its faults.
The 146 door problem appears to be hardly worthy of the title "problem" at all. Many aircraft will suffer similar "problems" if you fail to operate them in accordance with the manufacturers instructions.
I had heard that the disgruntled employee was in fact a pilot. Also, if diving an aircraft at the ground isn't suicide, what is?
I haven't really studied the incident, and it isn't relevant to the discussion in any case- except that I believe the aircraft exceeded Mach 1 in the dive, and the subsequent investigation revealed that nothing important departed the airframe prior to impact. Unlike a 737 that disintegrates in the cruise!
Ah well, enough 737 bashing. I hope all 737 drivers realise I was only using their workplace to highlight the flawed logic of Effendi and co. It's a good plane really, for all its faults.
The 146 door problem appears to be hardly worthy of the title "problem" at all. Many aircraft will suffer similar "problems" if you fail to operate them in accordance with the manufacturers instructions.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Raw
The CNWA was two captains who hated each other's guts trying to operate the same aircraft. They'd had one attempt and aborted and (I believe) tripped the Config Warning c/b 'cos it kept shouting at them.
Carbon brakes are good, but they're not that good!
The CNWA was two captains who hated each other's guts trying to operate the same aircraft. They'd had one attempt and aborted and (I believe) tripped the Config Warning c/b 'cos it kept shouting at them.
Carbon brakes are good, but they're not that good!
Guest
Posts: n/a
RD,
I know which which airline you fly for. I will avoid it like the plague and I will tell all friends and acquaintances to do likewise. I couldn't possibly trust flying on an airline where the captain is - to me - dodgy. I would spend all the flight wondering if I would get to the destination. No' perhaps not wondering but flapping.
far better to fly safe.
I know which which airline you fly for. I will avoid it like the plague and I will tell all friends and acquaintances to do likewise. I couldn't possibly trust flying on an airline where the captain is - to me - dodgy. I would spend all the flight wondering if I would get to the destination. No' perhaps not wondering but flapping.
far better to fly safe.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Amazing how old this is, yet people think its news?
Every type has its "unusual" side, you only have to look at some of the ADs that are issued.
Effendi, I hope you have hard facts to back up your last post? There has been far too much people bashing lately, dragging this site down to the gutter!!!
Time to close this thread?
Every type has its "unusual" side, you only have to look at some of the ADs that are issued.
Effendi, I hope you have hard facts to back up your last post? There has been far too much people bashing lately, dragging this site down to the gutter!!!
Time to close this thread?
Guest
Posts: n/a
It is the hallmark of a very second-rate mind that, having comprehensively lost the debate in this (and other) thread(s), and having no answer to the points made, Effendi should stoop to personal abuse and unfounded allegations.
Effendi, I'll leave your juvenile rantings for others to comment on. You will no doubt be unsurprised to learn that I view your threats with nothing more than bored amusement.
Far safer to fly on a 146 than on what you fly (if in fact you fly at all).
Effendi, I'll leave your juvenile rantings for others to comment on. You will no doubt be unsurprised to learn that I view your threats with nothing more than bored amusement.
Far safer to fly on a 146 than on what you fly (if in fact you fly at all).
