I think you will find that only the "Effectivity" section and the "Accomplishment Instructions" of service bulletins are FAA (regulatorty agency) approved. So even if is says "BAe146 / Avro RJ on the service bulletin header you have to go by the "Effectivity" section.

That is how Lockheed Service Bulletins were written and I can only assume the other OEM used the same procedures.

What an interesting discussion, not the question of which aircraft is involved, but the fact that fumes in the ac system is still an issue. I flew the 146 in the mid 80's (BAE stood for 'bring another engine'). One of the more annoying traits was oil fumes in the ac ducts. Sort of traced it to blow by from the APU. We had a time where we didn't use APUs in order to troubleshoot the issue. Can't quite remember the final outcome, I know our airline and BAE were hard at work. Seems as though not much has changed.

@safetypee

Problem: They maintain, I breath.

You are right, that's the way it should be done. I am flying that aircraft for many many years now and we have that oil contamination problem every other day. Poor maintenance is one of the reasons, that's why I am looking for information about the proper procedures here. Reporting only doesn't help as long as the airline is mainly interested in having the aircraft in the air rather than taking care of the health of crew and passengers.

Anyway thanks a lot for your answer and the information given.


@ Mach E Avelli

Thanks for your kind advice. Obviously an excellent idea. Another contributor was faster than me an posted a link to this thread in the Engineers & Technicians forum already.


@john_tullamarine

I tried our local airworthiness authorities and they were not very interested.

I never flew the BAe 146 but as far as I know the there is not much difference between the ARJ and the former regarding the air contamination issue. The oil we use is Mobil Jet II and it's as toxic as the one being used on the 146.

Thanks for your response and for posting in the engineering forum.


@glhcarl

Thanks for useful response.


@Big Bad D

Thanks for your response. I am searching for the original document but couldnt't get my hand on it yet.


@Evanelpus

Thanks for your helpful information.


@Blue50

Same problem still. It's a nightmare. This aircraft is crap as far as the airconditioning system is concerned and flight crews are worrying about their health quite a lot.
I am glad to hear that you are still alive twenty years later though. It raises my hopes to live to see my grandchildren.

From an engineering point of view having worked for an operator of both 146 and RJ100's I can tell you there exists a mandatory inspection bulletin for both. Whether it's the same bulletin I can't remember (I left that company 2 years ago) but I have done these inspections on both 146 and RJ.

I think you need to look at the hard copy of the bulletin from Bae instead of some selected text pasted onto a page as you seem to have found.

Ric

@Riccardo

Thanks a lot for your answer. I am trying to find some original documentation but it's difficult as I don't have any access to engineering data.

ISB 21-150 as you state is for ALL BAe 146 aircraft.
If you look at ISB 21-155 it applies to ALL BAe 146 aircraft and ALL BAe 146/rj Aircraft....so.....in which case ISB 21-150 only applies to the 146 not the 146/RJ!!! Al is clar....

I currently work on a mixed fleet of 146's and RJ's as a certifying engineer.

We do the ISB on both types but I'm not sure if it's mandatory on the RJ (operators can chose to embody non mandatory SB's if they perceive a cost/performance or safety improvement). I can check the book when next at work.

As to the APU's causing the problem was that the Garret or Honeywell? We have both.

As to the poor maintenance comment....I'd say it was more a poor design issue given the age of the equipment we are discussing.

Cranfield University are currently investigating Fume (in 146/rj's and B757) events in a year long program to investigate the causes and health impacts. Look forward to the report.

All jet aircraft will put tricresylphosphates into the cabin air (if that's what is found to be the cause in varying amounts not just 146's.

All jet aircraft will put tricresylphosphates that's easy for you to say!

Sorry couldn't resist, having a mad five minutes.

@spannersatKL

That's why I am looking for the regulation regarding the AVRO.


@Vortechs Jenerator

Thanks for your contribution. Any information regarding the regulations regarding oil fumes on the ARJ is highly appreciated.
Obviously you are right about the poor design but there are different kinds of tackling the problem and there is good maintenance and bad maintenance.

I am aware of the Edward Furlong studies at Cranfield University and like many others I do hope for some clear evidence.

Thanks again.

What 'regulation' might that be? .....
Do you not mean a certification 'requirement'....
Or if the ISB is 'mandated' to be carried out on the RJ as well as the 146?

That was my original question.

From the replies above....no it dosen't......
Just carried out another type of inspection on an RJ today....Mandatory, and the AD states BAe 146 and RJ, 70, 85 and 100....check the AD for the aircaft on the EASA website...

UK CAA document CAP 467 page 66, states that the AD is only applicable to the 146. Also see the background info on UK CAA ADs.

See EASA ADs for the more recent ‘BAE146’ and for the ‘AVRO146RJ’ ADs. The search function (keyword) may not work with Firefox Browser.
I could not find any airconditoning AD for the AVRO RJ.
Also see the background info on EASA ADs.

I performed sb 21-150 (check of the regeneration airduct internals and Air cycle machine mainly) on an rj100 tonight as part of an A check. It is only mandatory (as has been said) on 146's so I'll check with planning next time I'm on day shift as to why it is called on the rj too.

There is also an sb 21 - 156 for further (mandatory on the 146) inspection of the sound attenuation ducts performed at C check.

There is a whole bunch of preamble about how engineering should take crew reports of air contamination seriously, inspect the ducts and replace the entire ECS pack if found to be contaminated. There is however an expected and acceptable amount of "normal" accumulations allowed in the ducts (they're hanging inside:)).The inspection is for oil "wetness" which is defined as easily transfered from surface to a metal or plastic implement! I'd suggest if the inspection showed oil wetness, the cabin would already be smokey!

There is the SIL 21 45 too which gives similar advice but with SIL's there is the caveat that they are not to supplant any other official maintenance documents (so they are purely for advice)