BAE 146 Whisper Jet, what an antiquated piece of crap!

There are actually a number of things on it that are well thought out. For instance there is one circuit breaker panel in the cockpit, it is at the rear of the overhead panel. The circuit breakers are grouped with others from the same system, so if you’re looking for a circuit breaker for a hydraulic pump it will be in a section labelled “hydraulics”. The label at the top of each circuit breaker says what bus it comes from and the label below the circuit breaker says what item it powers. The Dash 8 (the only other largish aircraft I have for comparison) has circuit breakers grouped into the electrical busses they live on and there are circuit breakers behind each pilot. So if you’re looking for a circuit breaker for a hydraulic pump you need to remember what bus it’s powered from and you need to remember if it’s powered from any other busses as well, then you need to find that bus on the correct panel. The latter way is much easier from an engineering point of view, the circuit breaker panels are essentially the electrical busses, but it can be a real pain finding the one you want.

The systems switches and dials themselves are all grouped together on the overhead panel, so everything to do with the air conditioning will be in one place. This is a good thing and reflects modern cockpit design.

On the other hand some design philosophy kind of makes sense but is quite different to what I’m used to. On the Dash 8 switches are forwards on the overhead panel or up on vertical panels when on and backwards or down for off. This makes it easy to remember which way to switch a switch if you want to turn something on or off. On the 146 they are mainly rocker switches and are almost all on when pushed toward the rear EXCEPT for one or two that are OFF when pushed toward the rear. I can only guess this is because they are normally OFF and so under normal conditions all of the switches are lined up.

The Dash 8 has the same EFIS (electronic flight instrument system) as the 146 (the ones that actually have EFIS), but on the Dash 8 you turn the EFIS on by turning the dim knob for each screen up to bright. At the full dim position there is a detent that turns the screen off. The 146 has the same dim/bright knobs with the same detent that turns the screen off, but it also has avionics master switches that must be on, and EFIS master switches that must be on. Why? I don’t know. Bombardier didn’t think that kind of overengineering was necessary on the Dash 8 and it works perfectly well.

To test the VOR on the 146 you have to select a non-local VOR frequency, set the course bar to 180 and push the test switch, the course bar will show on course and the bearing pointers will point to 180 degrees on the RMI and HSI. Every other aeroplane I’ve flown you can test the VOR just by tuning a local frequency and noting that there are no flags on the HSI.

I think what’s happened on the master warning panel (MWP) is that someone has decided you should be able to set the brightness of the warning lights, so there is a dim knob, but if the dimming circuitry fails you need to be able to override the dimming circuitry and set it to full bright so you can see the lights. You also then need a caution light to tell you the dimming circuitry has failed, so you now have an override switch and a couple of caution lights that bypass the dimming circuitry. It is also important that when a caution light first comes on, it should be full bright and not dimmed so it gets your attention. Once you’ve seen the caution light you push the master warning cancel button which stops the master warning from flashing and dims the cautions back down

Now to test that all this works you need to dim everything down to check the dimming circuitry is working, you then push the test button to see that all of the lights in each caution caption is working and that they all come on bright initially, you then need to push the warning cancel button to see that they all go dim EXCEPT the cautions for the dimming circuitry which should bypass the dimming circuitry and remain bright. You then let go of the test button and everything that is on should be dim, then you check the dim override switch is working so the lights come on bright again, and then you set the override back to normal and the dim knob to whatever brightness you desire for the flight.

The Dash 8 has a dim/bright switch that controls all warnings, cautions, and advisory lights in the cockpit. You have it dim at night and bright during the day, if it fails to dim, well it doesn’t really matter, they’re not so dim that you can’t see them. So the only test required is to check that all of the lights are working, push one test switch and you’re done in a couple of seconds.

There is some logic there on the 146, it just seems unnecessarily complicated.

Part of the problem is not so much the aeroplane design, but that the company I’m working for have a vast range of aeroplanes of different ages. We have the second and third 146s off the production line with manual passenger oxygen deployment, analogue flight instruments, and GPS added as an after thought, and we have the modern version called the Avro RJ with automatic chemically generated passenger oxygen, computer controlled engines, glass cockpit and fully integrated flight management computers with GPS. There is everything in between as well. Every aeroplane is different. The Dash 8s I’d been flying were damn near close to identical to each other in the cockpit and when a new one came on the line it was modified to the same standard as all of the others. It didn’t matter which one you flew, they were all the same.

Yeah, these Whisper Jets are genuinely quiet. The company does charter, mainly specialising in flying mining workers to and from work under contracts to the mining companies. They also have a night freight contract that they will probably keep for ever because they are the only 146 operators in the country and the 146 is the only aeroplane quiet enough to be able to land at Sydney at night during the curfew. They are so quiet that when I first flew with them as a passenger with Ansett New Zealand 20 years ago part of the pre-take-off brief warned that the flaps make a lot of noise when retracting. It’s not so much that the flaps make a lot of noise but the engines are so quiet that you can hear all the little bumps, wooshes, and grinds coming from the wing.

True, however the view for many passengers on a low wing aircraft such as the various Boeings is of the wing.

Edit: The BAe 146 and the Dash 8 were first produced at about the same time. The differences seem to be related to design philosophy rather than age.

Oh, so that’s what happened to PSA. What a shame - they were great. I remember flying from LAX to SFO for $12 way back in the old days. It was practically a city bus line from LA to the Bay Area.

(Pour fuel on the ground and ignite it with an incorrect starting procedure)

Well you can write an operating manual with the correct procedure and train pilots to follow it, and it costs almost nothing, weighs nothing, takes up no space, uses no power, and has nothing to fail except that which you can blame on pilot error.

Or you can create a microprocessor controlled module that automates the procedure. Then you have to FAA certify the hardware, and possibly pay for an audit on the software, and if you ever find a bug it may be easier to live with it than to re-certify it. It is not cheap because all the wiring had to be FAA certified silver plated teflon insulated and shielded. The connectors had to be heavy, bulky FAA certified things, and you will have to stock spares because the aircraft will be grounded if it fails.

Because light weight and simplicity are great virtues in aviation, requiring better skilled and trained pilots is often a good trade-off. It is not like cars where you can’t sell them if you don’t offer an automatic transmission, and you count count on the driver to ever check the oil.

Air Wisconsin used to fly 146’s into the 2000’s when they were still operating under the United Express guise. I remember being amazed that a plane that modest needed four engines. Air Wisconsin also flew ATR prop planes, so getting a flight on a 146 was always the option I felt less nervous about…

I see nowadays Air Wisconsin operates under contract to US Air and is strictly a CRJ200 fleet now. Oh well, times change.

To be clear, the closure of PSA was probably not due to the acts of the disgruntled employee. According to the Wiki article, the merger of PSA with USAir was agreed to an hour after the merger of Western and AirCal in 1986. The deal was completed in 1987. The killings took place in December, 1987, after the deal was done or virtually done. (I’m just making the statement in case anyone read my post and assumed the killings were the reason for the closure.)

I remember I was about 6 to 8 years old, going out to Lindbergh Field and climbing up the tail stairs of a 727 for a flight to see my grandmother in Anaheim.

I always liked the smiles pained on the ‘chin’ of the aircraft. (But I liked the Hughes Air West jingle better than PSA’s smiles. :wink: )

Engine geek here. For anyone who cares: The ALF502 engines on the 146 (which was originally a Hawker-Siddeley design, hence the HS-series number) are much quieter than their contemporaries because they have more than twice as many fan stators as fan rotor blades. The way the physics work, if you have more stators than rotor blades, the base tone from the blade passing frequency is cut off. You still get harmonics, but they have much less acoustic power than the base tone. The ALF502 fan has more than twice as many stators as fan blades, so it cuts off both the base tone and the first harmonic from the blade passing frequency, but it comes at some weight and performance penalty.

Also, the engine has a low-RPM fan because it’s geared down, instead of being direct-drive from the low turbine. Low tip speed means weak shock wave formation at the blade tips, reducing that other primary source of fan noise.

Unfortunately, the old Lycoming gearbox is such a pile of crap that the aircraft needs 4 engines to have a reasonable chance of completing the flight. :slight_smile:

Yes, but they will have been fitted with hushkits. Originally the 727s (and DC9s) were incredibly noisy. In the early '70s the city I was living in had an airport terminal which was basically an old hanger, completely open to the tarmac (this was pre any airport security). When a 727 taxied in, the scream of the engines was amazing - you had to cover your ears or go deaf.

Ansett Australia used to give that warning prior to landing. There was something about the design that meant there was quite a significant wind noise as the flaps were deploying.

Which in turn led to the joke about the 146 being the only aircraft with 5 APUs.

I loved flying in the 146s as a passenger and I miss them. I don’t think I ever had anything other than a smooth as silk landing in one. No thrust reversers either, so nice and quiet even after landing. But yes, they certainly had a reputation for being overengineered in a way that only the British can manage, and being quite a handful for a pilot learning all the systems.

Yeah, I looked at that wiki article later and it looks like the deal was already at least in progress when that happened.

My very first unaccompanied trip was on my 7th birthday. No special treatment for kids flying alone back then, except I did get a pair of wings which were awesome and which I still have. I’m glad I was able to experience air travel before it got all weird.

I recall that Ansett New Zealand operated BAe 146s back when New Zealand had more than one domestic airline. The actual design idea seemed good, but apparently propjets were cheaper to run and performed more or less as well in the role.

I remember flying from Cleveland to Chicago as a college student, the plane had wicker seats!

Yeah, Ansett NZ was my first experience with them. I don’t think it was turboprops that finished the 146 in NZ, Air NZ still fly B737 and A320 jets on the same old routes after all. Ansett had some industrial problems as well as a crash and there had been a couple of changes of ownership before they went into liquidation. I don’t think the NZ market will ever fully support two airlines. Before Ansett there was Newmans who were unprofitable and more recently Pacific Blue have had a go at the domestic market and given it away. All that’s left now is Jet Connect and I think Jetstar do a bit of domestic stuff as well, both of them are owned by Qantas and neither of them compete with Air NZ on the short sector turbo prop routes.

Edit: Air NZ have been absolutely ruthless in getting rid of competition. When Kiwi Air started doing trans-Tasman flights between secondary ports such as Cairns, Dunedin, and Hamilton, Air NZ started their own low cost airline, Freedom Air, for the specific purpose of undercutting Kiwi Air. Kiwi didn’t last long against the relative giant of Air NZ.

So, looking through the Wikipedia page on the BAe 146 and I found an interesting tidbit:

(Here’s the reference.) You’d think it would be a mite difficult to get FAA approval for an aircraft that poisons its crew and most frequent passengers.

They traced it to a fault in one of the bearing seals and subsequent mods have fixed the problem. Having said that, ALL passenger jets/turbo props that use engine bleed air for pressurisation and airconditioning are susceptible to getting oil contamination, it’s just that the 146 was worse than others. The only aircraft that won’t suffer from this, because it has electric aircon, will be the B787 when it finally gets certified.

In my last job we had ongoing problems with the Dash 8s airconditioning systems getting contaminated with engine oil, and I regularly smell engine oil in the air conditioning on various other passenger aircraft.

could that be partly because the engine was converted from a helicopter turboshaft engine, and they didn’t have bleed air designed in from the start? AIUI it was built off of the Lycoming T55 turboshaft, which still sees some use in hydroplane racing (as well as the Chinook helicopters which are still in service.)

Yeah quite possibly. It would’ve been nice if the design had been tested to the point that this weakness was revealed, but it wasn’t. There have been a number of Australian pilots who gave up flying because of the oil contamination problem. My first question on this ground course was “has this bleed air problem actually been fixed?” Apparently it has. I certainly hope so.

Of course 12 went a lot farther in those days. Remember a gallon of gas costing .60? And we thought that was expensive in 1976, because we remembered when it cost $.30.

I miss the simplicity of it; you could just walk up to the counter and buy a ticket, and be on your way inside of an hour. I usually made a reservation anyway, but I probably didn’t need to. Of all the things that were simpler and easier way back when, flying has to be at the top of the list.

I once read an article regarding the MiG 29; about their design philosophies an engineer said something like “the best and safest system on an airplane is the one it lacks, since it cannot fail”. In particular I think they were refering to the lack of hydraulics on the MiG-29.

I think you disqualified yourself from making comments on ergonomics. :wink:

I don’t know much about later model Soviet aircraft, but I know the MiG-15 had no hydraulics. There were several good reasons for this - savings in weight, complexity and maintenance. Remember, their aircraft were designed to operated in places like Siberia, and maintained by illiterate conscripts. It had to simple.

Equivalent American aircraft of the time, such as the F-86 Sabre, could be made considerably more complex because they were flown from better bases and our people were well educated and trained. It also cost a great deal more to build a Sabre, as I recall. So while the Sabre had hydraulically boosted flight controls, the MiG simply had a longer stick so the pilot gained mechanical advantage.

The first time Americans got a close look at a MiG-25 their first thought was, “What a piece of crap!” It was made of plate steel, there were exposed rivets and it only got off the ground because it had two ungodly sized engines. But they later realized these were quite shrewd design decisions by the Soviets, although overall the plane wasn’t the threat they had come to believe.

My dad used to work for an airline that bought a bunch of 146s (or RJs, if you like). It was part of his job to go to England, accept the aircraft on behalf of the company, and fly it back. When you’re buying something worth millions of dollars, the level of hospitality is pretty sweet.

To bring it back to the states, they had to overnight in Reykjavic. If the winds turned against them too much, there was a place they could refuel in Greenland but the landing fee after dark was pretty steep.

I wonder if my dad flew one of the same planes that the OP is in now.

In the late-'80s my g/f and I went to the air show at (then-)NAS Miramar. As we made our way to the flightline, I saw a tail that looked different from the rest. I pointed it out to her, and said it looked like a VC-10K. She’d been in England a few years before and had made friends with 101 Squadron, which flew VC-10Ks. She agreed it was a VC-10K and we went over. It was from 101 Squadron. And she knew some of the crew. They weren’t supposed to be there, but they decided to make the Miramar show since they were going to other airshows in the U.S. and had time to go there. They invited us to come aboard after the airshow.

We attended the party. The onboard urns that usually held coffee or tea now held vodka and gin and orange juice. For more people came aboard, and I recognised a woman. I went to her and said, ‘Edwards Air Force Base?’ She said yes. ‘Ridley Mission Control?’ She said, ‘Yes. Yellow Porsche?’ I said yes. She’d worked in the same building I did. She didn’t intend to go to Miramar, but her friends invited her and she didn’t have anything better to do so she came.

So: My g/f had to have visited England, else neither of us would have known what a VC-10K was. A VC-10K wasn’t scheduled to be at Miramar, but they showed up anyway. Coincidentally the VC-10K was from 101 Squadron. Coincidentally, 101 Squadron was the one my g/f had made friends with. Coincidentally, she knew this crew and they invited us to their party. Coincidentally, I’d worked at EAFB and was at the Miramar airshow on the same day that someone who worked in my building, who hadn’t planned on coming, came – and was invited to the same party. Weird, eh? Now here’s the reply to Robot Arm.

A gentleman and his wife joined the party. He was very excited and was leading her by the hand, eager to show her what a VC-10 is. He’d flown VC-10s for South African Airlines. He looked at a form that was affixed to a bulkhead, which listed the aircraft’s operators. He’d flown that aircraft when it was in commercial service.

So to add to the list of coincidences, a guy from South Africa had been a VC-10 pilot, he moved to San Diego, decided to go to the airshow on a day when a VC-10K made an unscheduled visit, was invited aboard for a party, and discovered that he’d flown that particular aircraft. :cool: