BAe LIMIT THE 146 TO FL260 DUE ENGINE ICING.
Guest
Posts: n/a
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate...tee/s-rrat.htm
Submission 11-summary-
" Reports of cabin odours have been received from time to time and have
predominantly been determined to be due to minor systems failures such as leaks from oil seals ....."
Submission 11-summary-
" Reports of cabin odours have been received from time to time and have
predominantly been determined to be due to minor systems failures such as leaks from oil seals ....."
Guest
Posts: n/a
Worse than that, should you be in a 146 (or an Avro RJ) and a fire breaks out in a hold, the first thing you will know are as the flames start licking your ankles - as it has 1). No hold fire detection, and worse still 2). No hold fire suppression. Give me a 737 any day.
Guest
Posts: n/a
He's right, of course. The 737 is better because as it either a) rolls on its back and dives into the ground, or b) loses most of its forward fuselage, or c) spontaneously explodes, your death will be a lot quicker. Good point, hadn't thought of that.
Guest
Posts: n/a
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate...tee/s-rrat.htm
2/11/99- p 54-
" the source of the odours has been identified as predominantly Mobil
Jet Oil 2 leaking past oil seals in the engines and/or auxiliary power
unit into the air conditioning system"
Submission 11- Volume 1- summary-
" Reports of cabin odours have been received from time to time and have
predominantly been determined to be due to minor systems failures such
as leaks from oil seals ....."
2/11/99- p 54-
" the source of the odours has been identified as predominantly Mobil
Jet Oil 2 leaking past oil seals in the engines and/or auxiliary power
unit into the air conditioning system"
Submission 11- Volume 1- summary-
" Reports of cabin odours have been received from time to time and have
predominantly been determined to be due to minor systems failures such
as leaks from oil seals ....."
Guest
Posts: n/a
Effendi,
What is your real motivation in your great battle against the 146/ARJ? Are you associated with Messrs. Bombardier or Embraer? Given your regular rantings in this thread and others against Raw Data and anybody else who attempts to bring a little perspective into your bizarre obsession with the idiosyncracies of the 146, real or imaginary, this would not surprise me.
Everyone has their favourite and least favourite aircraft, but your war against the the 146 has turned into an unhealthy obsession, and your Ad Hominem against RD in your post above is the clearest evidence of an argument lost.
Sh*t or get off the pot, man. What's your real beef with the 146 (and I don't mean your disproportionate and disproven line on 'safety' that is rapidly becoming very boring)?
cheers,
foggy.
[edited for poor punctuation]
[This message has been edited by foghorn (edited 03 May 2001).]
What is your real motivation in your great battle against the 146/ARJ? Are you associated with Messrs. Bombardier or Embraer? Given your regular rantings in this thread and others against Raw Data and anybody else who attempts to bring a little perspective into your bizarre obsession with the idiosyncracies of the 146, real or imaginary, this would not surprise me.
Everyone has their favourite and least favourite aircraft, but your war against the the 146 has turned into an unhealthy obsession, and your Ad Hominem against RD in your post above is the clearest evidence of an argument lost.
Sh*t or get off the pot, man. What's your real beef with the 146 (and I don't mean your disproportionate and disproven line on 'safety' that is rapidly becoming very boring)?
cheers,
foggy.
[edited for poor punctuation]
[This message has been edited by foghorn (edited 03 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Overtalk (and others)- still missing the point with the selective quotes from Hansard.
First of all, the identification of what an odour is can be complex- it requires either a chemical analysis of the cabin air at the time, or an analysis of the blood of the people exposed to it. Both these methods were used in the UK investigation of this problem. How did the Aussies do it?
Secondly, this problem is not confined to the 146, it has happened on other types as well, so singling out the 146 is disengenuous to say the least.
Thirdly, the problem is essentially solved by taking simple precautions. For our company, this includes weekly examination of the air conditioning ducts for any sign of oil contamination, and careful monitoring of engine and APU condition. We change either if there is any sign of contamination.
As others have said, it is the way in which manufacturers and regulators work together to solve problems that is important. Virtually every type flown has a worse safety record than the 146- for example just look at Boeings (as there are more of them than anything else). 747's have experienced a range of airframe failures, one of the worst being the United Airlines aircraft that lost one of its pax doors and quite a bit of fuselage over the Pacific (as well as a few pax through the hole). There have been several instances of 747 flaps detaching in flight. The 767 has suffered problems such as thrust reverser deployment in flight (Lauda Air wasn't it?)- all killed. The 737 we have discussed... and on it goes...
The point? All aircraft have design flaws and problems... many share the same problem (as in the case of the 146 and cabin fumes). To claim that the 146- which has never killed a passenger in the twenty-odd years it has been flying- is inherently unsafe is ridiculous. Yes, it has had a problem with cabin fumes- but it isn't the only one, and the problem is essentially fixed. What more is there to say?
First of all, the identification of what an odour is can be complex- it requires either a chemical analysis of the cabin air at the time, or an analysis of the blood of the people exposed to it. Both these methods were used in the UK investigation of this problem. How did the Aussies do it?
Secondly, this problem is not confined to the 146, it has happened on other types as well, so singling out the 146 is disengenuous to say the least.
Thirdly, the problem is essentially solved by taking simple precautions. For our company, this includes weekly examination of the air conditioning ducts for any sign of oil contamination, and careful monitoring of engine and APU condition. We change either if there is any sign of contamination.
As others have said, it is the way in which manufacturers and regulators work together to solve problems that is important. Virtually every type flown has a worse safety record than the 146- for example just look at Boeings (as there are more of them than anything else). 747's have experienced a range of airframe failures, one of the worst being the United Airlines aircraft that lost one of its pax doors and quite a bit of fuselage over the Pacific (as well as a few pax through the hole). There have been several instances of 747 flaps detaching in flight. The 767 has suffered problems such as thrust reverser deployment in flight (Lauda Air wasn't it?)- all killed. The 737 we have discussed... and on it goes...
The point? All aircraft have design flaws and problems... many share the same problem (as in the case of the 146 and cabin fumes). To claim that the 146- which has never killed a passenger in the twenty-odd years it has been flying- is inherently unsafe is ridiculous. Yes, it has had a problem with cabin fumes- but it isn't the only one, and the problem is essentially fixed. What more is there to say?
Guest
Posts: n/a
barcode, I guess the equipment you're talking about is optional, as it is on all aircraft equipped with this type of compartment.
foghorn, you just put my thoughts about Effendi into words, thanks
Effendi, no, I will no get into another Email debate of the pros or cons of the design, you're not what I call "open minded"
As for Raw Data, the more I read you, the more I admire your tenaciousness. What about The Knight of the BA146 for a new handle
Well done!
------------------
... cut my wings and I'll die ...
foghorn, you just put my thoughts about Effendi into words, thanks
Effendi, no, I will no get into another Email debate of the pros or cons of the design, you're not what I call "open minded"
As for Raw Data, the more I read you, the more I admire your tenaciousness. What about The Knight of the BA146 for a new handle
Well done!
------------------
... cut my wings and I'll die ...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanks f4f, but I just happen to enjoy having a go at the woolly thinking and one-sided nonsense espoused by people such as effendi. I also love a good argument!
As for "denial", oh please, do me a favour. I know my aircraft, including all its faults. As I have a vested interest in getting home alive, I pay particular attention to this stuff. However, unlike many, I can put problems in context. I can also judge the relative risk of operating an aircraft. The reality is that the 146 is both statistically, and practically, a very safe aircraft. Most of the recent publicity is nothing more than scaremongering, and is in any case completely out of date. It is as much driven by the hope of seriously large litigation payouts as anything else. Some of the investigations are flawed, and you have to wonder at the real motives behind them.
When posters here give equal consideration to the faults of other types, I will believe they are actually concerned with safety. However, the diatribes of people like Effendi are so obviously biased, that it is clear that safety is not the issue. I am STILL waiting for someone to admit that the faults of the 737 are far more serious than anything yet found on the 146...
As for "denial", oh please, do me a favour. I know my aircraft, including all its faults. As I have a vested interest in getting home alive, I pay particular attention to this stuff. However, unlike many, I can put problems in context. I can also judge the relative risk of operating an aircraft. The reality is that the 146 is both statistically, and practically, a very safe aircraft. Most of the recent publicity is nothing more than scaremongering, and is in any case completely out of date. It is as much driven by the hope of seriously large litigation payouts as anything else. Some of the investigations are flawed, and you have to wonder at the real motives behind them.
When posters here give equal consideration to the faults of other types, I will believe they are actually concerned with safety. However, the diatribes of people like Effendi are so obviously biased, that it is clear that safety is not the issue. I am STILL waiting for someone to admit that the faults of the 737 are far more serious than anything yet found on the 146...
Guest
Posts: n/a
I have to say that I have never found RawData to be dodgy!
When I ask him to expedite his backtrack at City, he does - unlike others I could mention.
Another quick question.
How many American wanabee coca-cola cans manage to operate into LCY? (by american I do not include Canadian - which is really still part of the empire!).
When I watch the landings these poor 146 airframes have to put up with I can only admire them.
Good British overengineering.
No wonder Boeing pilots are jealous!
When I ask him to expedite his backtrack at City, he does - unlike others I could mention.
Another quick question.
How many American wanabee coca-cola cans manage to operate into LCY? (by american I do not include Canadian - which is really still part of the empire!).
When I watch the landings these poor 146 airframes have to put up with I can only admire them.
Good British overengineering.
No wonder Boeing pilots are jealous!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Raw Data me old
ROTFLMAO
"Damned with faint praise" comes to mind.
Thanks have enjoyed the joust so far.
We have some 'interesting' times down here in ISA+25 being fairly routine with an aircraft that was designed for short haul relatively low level European routes being routinely operated over 900nm sectors.
Our friend Checkboard would be the authority for dunnunda observations.
ROTFLMAO
"Damned with faint praise" comes to mind.
Thanks have enjoyed the joust so far.
We have some 'interesting' times down here in ISA+25 being fairly routine with an aircraft that was designed for short haul relatively low level European routes being routinely operated over 900nm sectors.
Our friend Checkboard would be the authority for dunnunda observations.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just a quick word....
Rawdata - the 146 diving to the ground was not a pilot suicide, but an employee that had been caught stealing, been fired because of it, and then shot the 2 pilots as to make the a/c crash because his boss (who fired him) was also onboard.
As for the fumes, I used to work at one of the airlines which had the pilot incapaction situation and I for one am very troubled every time there is a suspicious smell in the cabin. My new company calls for immediate donning of O2 masks for all crew whenever there is a suspicious smell, but everyone who has flown the 146 knows that these "strange smells" do occur pretty frequently, usually from the APU air in conjuction with de-icing fluid. That means should we follow intructions we would more often than seldom fly around with masks donned. Not an ideal situation. This will lead to complacency of the problem, since crew is reluctant to don the masks. "Probably just the Apu air again".
Therefore I think there is a problem to be taken seriously and not only by O2 mask donning in case of suspected air contamination, but investigation of each and every reported case until the reason/problem is found and solved. Does that mean grounding every suspected individual a/c , so be it.
After having learnt that folks down in Australia have actually lost there medicals due to this, that is serious enough for me. I love flying the 146 but wouldn't exchange my future career for it
...just my personal opinion
Rawdata - the 146 diving to the ground was not a pilot suicide, but an employee that had been caught stealing, been fired because of it, and then shot the 2 pilots as to make the a/c crash because his boss (who fired him) was also onboard.
As for the fumes, I used to work at one of the airlines which had the pilot incapaction situation and I for one am very troubled every time there is a suspicious smell in the cabin. My new company calls for immediate donning of O2 masks for all crew whenever there is a suspicious smell, but everyone who has flown the 146 knows that these "strange smells" do occur pretty frequently, usually from the APU air in conjuction with de-icing fluid. That means should we follow intructions we would more often than seldom fly around with masks donned. Not an ideal situation. This will lead to complacency of the problem, since crew is reluctant to don the masks. "Probably just the Apu air again".
Therefore I think there is a problem to be taken seriously and not only by O2 mask donning in case of suspected air contamination, but investigation of each and every reported case until the reason/problem is found and solved. Does that mean grounding every suspected individual a/c , so be it.
After having learnt that folks down in Australia have actually lost there medicals due to this, that is serious enough for me. I love flying the 146 but wouldn't exchange my future career for it
...just my personal opinion
Guest
Posts: n/a
I don't normally get involved in subjects (146) that I have no knowledge of, but I am going to ask of RD, who I know pretty well, and who is not at all dodgy, just a couple of points.
1. IF....there is a known problem - or not known - but occurrences have caused cabin air problems. What was the cause and the resolve?
2. IF....someone says "oh it must be APU air!" what can be done about that?
3. IF....there is a fault that causes the system to suck in foul air, from apparently different scources, what can or has been done about it?
In all my years in flying I have known many cases of the cabin becoming a bit iffy but it was never anything serious. Is that the case here RD?
Interesting subject though.....but not as serious as some would have us believe I think!
Guest
Posts: n/a
RD,
Wobbling in over the bridge on a 10 day with a 15kt xwind from the south, every 146 landing looks like a controlled crash to me
But you will have to try harder if you want to match the disasters that Aer Fungus call landings, and then of course blame it on the windshear.
They have taken at least 10 years off my life.
Oh well, only another 25 years until retirement!
Nothing to do with the thread, apart from once more pointing out that 146s do take, and laugh fimly in the face of, a lot of punishment (unlike any other American or European jet airliner).
Having said that your first EGPH flight went tech this morning, and was still behind the 28 LOC when I left!
Wobbling in over the bridge on a 10 day with a 15kt xwind from the south, every 146 landing looks like a controlled crash to me
But you will have to try harder if you want to match the disasters that Aer Fungus call landings, and then of course blame it on the windshear.
They have taken at least 10 years off my life.
Oh well, only another 25 years until retirement!
Nothing to do with the thread, apart from once more pointing out that 146s do take, and laugh fimly in the face of, a lot of punishment (unlike any other American or European jet airliner).
Having said that your first EGPH flight went tech this morning, and was still behind the 28 LOC when I left!