Aldo BidiniLocationRoma Leonardo da Vinci/Fiumicino - LIRF, ItalyAircraft typeBritish Aerospace BAe 146-300OperatorWDL AviationTypePhotographDate25 July 2010Source. Gallery page. PhotoConstruction numberE3134Licensing This file comes from the Aldo Bidini collection and is copyrighted.Note: This permission only extends to photos taken by Aldo Bidini at and, in addition to files which may be provided via email. It does not include any other content from those sites which has not been provided by Aldo Bidini.Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the, Version 1.2 only as published by the; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
A copy of the license is included in the section entitled.1.2 only GFDL 1.2 GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 true true. This work is and may be used by anyone for any purpose. If you wish to, you do not need to request permission as long as you follow any licensing requirements mentioned on this page.Wikimedia has received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder has approved publication under the terms mentioned on this page. This correspondence has been reviewed by an and stored in our. The correspondence is available to trusted volunteers as.If you have questions about the archived correspondence, please use the.Ticket link:File history. This file contains additional information, probably added from the digital camera or scanner used to create or digitize it.If the file has been modified from its original state, some details may not fully reflect the modified file.
Smoke Fumes in Aircraft Air and CrewSource:British Aerospace - All Operator Message Ref 00/030V ©10th April 2008by Susan MichaelisFODCOM 17/2000 was followed in early 2001 by a BritishAerospace, All Operator Message (AOM) Ref 00/030V. AOMs contain safetyrelated information and the one issued by British Aerospace on 5 January2001 was entitled: Smoke and Fumes (Smells).
The relevant extracts ofthe AOM are shown below:All Operator Message Ref 00/030VSUBJECT:Smoke and Fumes (Smells)Aircraft Type: BAe 146 and Avro 146-RJDistribution: Flight Operations, All Flight Crew and AllCabin / Operations StaffDate: 5 January 2001IntroductionDuring the last year there have been several reportsof the appearance of smoke or fumes originating from theair-conditioning system. Investigation has identified most of the rootcauses of these incidents:.Technical (the majority), rectification of whichprevented further occurrences.Self-inflicted, such as ingestion of de-icing fluidthrough the APU intake and into the cabin air supply.Perceived, due to condensation in the air supply.This may occur if an inappropriate cabin temperature is selected,causing the air conditioning system to overcool the cabin air.Incident reports from other aircraft manufacturerscontinue to identify flight crews' sensitivity to the issue of smokeand fumes. This is understandable, given the recent aviationindustry's history of tragic accidents that resulted from fire withinthe aircraft structure. The following information is given forguidance and in particular to avoid any possibility of crewincapacitation from any air related cause, however rare an event thatmay be.General.If smoke or fumes (smells) do appear from the airconditioning system, follow the appropriate abnormal crew procedure- Smoke from Air Conditioning System - and don the oxygen masks.If at any time the crew is unsure as to the airquality they should don oxygen masks.If at any time a crew member appears to be unwelland uses oxygen all crew members should use oxygen as a precautionagainst any unidentified contaminant. Cabin crew should beencouraged to remind the flight crew of this requirement - followcrew resource management (CRM) principles.There are many technical reasons why aircraft havesmells or minor appearances of smoke from air conditioning systemsincluding, for example, inappropriate temperature settings relative toambient conditions or inadvertent ingestion of hydraulic fluid orde-icing fluids. Recently, the main focus of attention has been on thepossibility of oil from either the main power plant or APUcontaminating the cabin air via these systems. The air supply isprotected from contamination by seals, which achieve maximumefficiency during steady state operation.
Thanks for the replys gentleman.I agree hoss the 146 would indeed look even worse with dihedral. So im sure that being a high wing with limited sweep that lame was correct once again with anhedral being incorpated into the 146 to reduce lateral stability.Beers all round for those that replyed.Just as an interesting story on the side. I would have asked one of the 146 drivers the same question but last time I asked the NJ boys a question relating to their machines ie 'whats it like to fly a jet with hair dryers for engines' the response was something like 'it has quite good one engine inop performance you will find, my good chap'Snapper. Hmm, safetypee, interesting.The BAe Hatfield manufacturer's operations manual first paragraph introduces the aeroplane as.' The BAe 146 is a short range subsonic transport monoplane, powered by four Avco Lycoming turbofan engines, pylon mounted, below a high swept wing.' The BAe produced AV presentation for pilot groundschools describes the wing as having 15degree sweepback and 3 degrees anhedral.Sweep:Maybe not the degree of sweep found on a Mirage or B747, but swept.
The manufacturer's directions on aircraft handling are also those influenced by swept wing characteristics.
Bae 146 Manufacturers Manual Download
Thanks for the replys gentleman.I agree hoss the 146 would indeed look even worse with dihedral. So im sure that being a high wing with limited sweep that lame was correct once again with anhedral being incorpated into the 146 to reduce lateral stability.Beers all round for those that replyed.Just as an interesting story on the side. I would have asked one of the 146 drivers the same question but last time I asked the NJ boys a question relating to their machines ie 'whats it like to fly a jet with hair dryers for engines' the response was something like 'it has quite good one engine inop performance you will find, my good chap'Snapper. Hmm, safetypee, interesting.The BAe Hatfield manufacturer's operations manual first paragraph introduces the aeroplane as.'
The BAe 146 is a short range subsonic transport monoplane, powered by four Avco Lycoming turbofan engines, pylon mounted, below a high swept wing.' The BAe produced AV presentation for pilot groundschools describes the wing as having 15degree sweepback and 3 degrees anhedral.Sweep:Maybe not the degree of sweep found on a Mirage or B747, but swept. The manufacturer's directions on aircraft handling are also those influenced by swept wing characteristics.
On 28 July 2004, a British Aerospace PLC, BAe 146 aircraft,registered VH-NJA, was in cruise flight at flight level (FL) 280,on a scheduled passenger service from Brisbane to Adelaide. At 1245EST, the flight crew (crew) felt and heard a light to moderaterumbling and grinding noise.A check of the aircraft and engine instruments indicated thatthe number-4 engine had a rapidly decreasing N1 RPM and an N2 RPM of less than 10%. Skyrim war against thalmor mod. The turbine gastemperature (TGT) for that engine appeared to indicate zero and thethrust management system (TMS) showed an error message and a 'TestFail' indication.The crew shut the engine down in accordance with the operator'sabnormal checklist procedures and turned off the TMS.
A fire bottlewas discharged into the number-4 engine cowling area as aprecaution.The crew informed the cabin crew of the engine failure, with oneof the flight attendants reporting having seen sparks coming fromthe engine.The crew contacted air traffic control (ATC) requesting adescent to FL150 to start the auxiliary power unit (APU). Thepassengers were also advised that a generator failure had occurred.The air traffic controller later contacted the crew asking ifoperations were normal. At that time they informed ATC that theengine had failed and that they were continuing to Adelaide. Thecrew advised that they would not be declaring an emergency.After starting the APU, the crew climbed the aircraft to FL240and continued to Adelaide.The failed ALF502R-5(-103A) engine, serial number LF05932, wasremoved from the aircraft and forwarded by the Australian TransportSafety Bureau (ATSB) to the engine manufacturer in the US.
Aninvestigation of the failed engine was carried out by the engine'smanufacturer in August 2004, with a representative of the USNational Transportation Safety Board present on behalf of theATSB.The investigation found that the engine failure resulted fromthe failure of the high pressure compressor rotor, number-1bearing, due to high temperature damage resulting from insufficientlubrication. The number-1 bearing was located in the stub framemount in the engine's gas producer module (see diagram).Lubricating and cooling oil was supplied to the bearing via twojets; one each for the front and rear of the bearing.Oil was ported to the two oil jets through galleries located inthe number-3 bearing support assembly. The oil supply galleries andjets were sealed by two 'O' ring packings that were positioned onthe outside diameter of the number-3 bearing support assembly.Examination of the number-3 bearing package support assemblyfound that both 'O' rings on the outside diameter of the supporthad multiple 'nibbles' (small missing pieces) around theircircumference. The forward 'O' ring had also been cut completelythrough. Sectioning of the number-3 bearing support found that theoil jet that supplied lubrication to the front of the number-1bearing was also blocked with 'O' ring material.
Analysis of thatmaterial found it was consistent with the missing pieces of 'O'ring from the outside of the number-3 bearing package support.The engine manufacturer estimated that leakage past the damaged'O' ring and the blocked oil jet had reduced the lubricating andcooling oil supply to the number-1 bearing by approximately 50 to60 percent. The report further indicated that all other enginedamage noted had resulted from the failure of the number-1bearing.The ATSB determined that the number-3 bearing package supportwas last removed from the engine by the aircraft operator duringmaintenance on 24 December 2003. The bearing package support hadbeen removed to facilitate the fitment of new carbon seals to thenumber-1 and number-3 bearings. During that maintenance, both 'O'rings on the support were replaced.
At the time of the enginefailure, the engine had completed 975 hours and 706 cycles sincethat maintenance. Information from the operator indicated thatthere had been no history of excessive oil usage or excessivevibration on the trend graphs for the engine.
N1 (NL)engine low pressure turbine and fan RPM. N2 (NH)engine high pressure compressor and turbine RPM. The number-4 engine in-flight failure was the result of thefailure of the high pressure compressor rotor, number-1 bearing,due to insufficient lubrication. The lack of lubrication was theresult of leakage past the two damaged 'O' rings on the perimeterof the number-3 bearing package support assembly, and the blockageof an oil jet in the package support that supplied oil to the frontside of the number-1 bearing.It is probable that the two 'O' rings were damaged duringinstallation while the new carbon seals were being fitted on 24December 2003.
Bae 146 200
The following safety actions have been carried out by the enginemanufacturer following this failure:. The engine manufacturer introduced Temporary Revision 72-937,dated 11 February 2005 for the engine maintenance manual. Thistemporary revision introduced a modified procedure for theinstallation of the number-3 bearing package 'O' rings to reducethe risk of damaging the 'O' rings during installation. Thetemporary revision is scheduled to be incorporated into the nextfull revision of the engine maintenance manual. The manufacturer also evaluated changing the current 32 to 28degree chamfer on the engine's gas producer module stub frame mountsurface to 15 to 20 degrees.
![]()
However, after performing severalinstallation and removal trials, it was felt that this change wasnot necessary. No further changes or corrective actions areanticipated.
Comments are closed.
|
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |