http://www.pprune.org/african-aviation/ ... eased.html
http://www.pprune.org/african-aviation/ ... night.html
http://www.flyafrica.info/forums/showthread.php?t=24571
This ban applies to the J41. Apparently the same design feature exists on the J31 and J32. They should also be grounded until the problem is solved.
Has TCCA taken any action?
Has Contrail approval been withdrawn from Jetstream operators?
Unsafe BAe Jetstream fleet grounded
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
-
ScudRunner
- Rank 11
- Posts: 3239
- Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:58 am
Re: Unsafe BAe Jetstream fleet grounded
I'm confused the findings indicate the crew shut down the working engine on a Jetstream 41, and you propose grounding the entire Jetstream 31, 32. Does anyone even operate the 41's here?
The South African Airline that operates Jetstream 41's who's aircraft was involved in this accident fleet has been grounded. Jetstream 31/32 have been operating here and around the world for quite some time, there not been a history of accidents like the Jetstream 41
http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/jetstrm.htm
The South African Airline that operates Jetstream 41's who's aircraft was involved in this accident fleet has been grounded. Jetstream 31/32 have been operating here and around the world for quite some time, there not been a history of accidents like the Jetstream 41
http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/jetstrm.htm
Last edited by ScudRunner on Sat Dec 26, 2009 5:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Unsafe BAe Jetstream fleet grounded
Is this supposed to be a problem with all TPE331s or just the -14? Having read the posted report, it sounds like what should have been a "non-event" (rejected takeoff due to engine failure before V1) turned into a fatal accident thanks to a series of mistakes, the least of which was the failure of the engine.
Re: Unsafe BAe Jetstream fleet grounded
Posted by legalbeagle on Africa Aviation:
"I concede that the training of the pilots is crucial, and that the pilots correct reaction to the emgergency is paramount to a succesful recovery, where a single engine fails. But these aircraft have not been grounded because of pilot/s error.
The a/c has been grounded because the SACAA believe that the failure of the rim seals at a point in their service lives well below that which would be expected, is an unacceptable risk. In the Durban accident, the No 1 engine which was perfectly serviceable on impact, was stripped and assessed, and it was found that the rim seal on this engine was worn beyond limits. In other words an 'accident' waiting to happen.
The SACAA, decided in the light of the evidence in this accident, and given the history of previous failures of this component, that there is a real risk of further failures with this type of engine. I suppose they are affraid of the worst case scenario of both engines failing. The chances of this are remote, but possible.
The question is, are they correct in taking, a rather safe than sorry approach, or are they overreacting?"
Post No. 18 here: http://www.flyafrica.info/forums/showthread.php?t=24571
Since the J31 and J32 engines apparently have the same design feature perhaps they also suffer from the same weakness. Note from the report that this weakness seems to be occurring on the J41 at ever shorter intervals as the fleet ages. It is a fair and reasonable assumption that the intervals are also decreasing on the J31 and J32. At the very least the whole J31 and J32 fleets should be examined on an emergency priority basis.
"I concede that the training of the pilots is crucial, and that the pilots correct reaction to the emgergency is paramount to a succesful recovery, where a single engine fails. But these aircraft have not been grounded because of pilot/s error.
The a/c has been grounded because the SACAA believe that the failure of the rim seals at a point in their service lives well below that which would be expected, is an unacceptable risk. In the Durban accident, the No 1 engine which was perfectly serviceable on impact, was stripped and assessed, and it was found that the rim seal on this engine was worn beyond limits. In other words an 'accident' waiting to happen.
The SACAA, decided in the light of the evidence in this accident, and given the history of previous failures of this component, that there is a real risk of further failures with this type of engine. I suppose they are affraid of the worst case scenario of both engines failing. The chances of this are remote, but possible.
The question is, are they correct in taking, a rather safe than sorry approach, or are they overreacting?"
Post No. 18 here: http://www.flyafrica.info/forums/showthread.php?t=24571
Since the J31 and J32 engines apparently have the same design feature perhaps they also suffer from the same weakness. Note from the report that this weakness seems to be occurring on the J41 at ever shorter intervals as the fleet ages. It is a fair and reasonable assumption that the intervals are also decreasing on the J31 and J32. At the very least the whole J31 and J32 fleets should be examined on an emergency priority basis.
-
chancellor
- Rank 2
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 11:11 am
- Location: Saskaberia
Re: Unsafe BAe Jetstream fleet grounded
Carrier,
Using that kind of assumption then all metro's, mu2's and Jetstreams should be grounded. The -14 seems to be the culprit here. Having flown metro's and j31's through engine overhaul intervals I don't think any operator has come across these problems. Or if they have the manufacturer and the company have done a good job of keeping quiet about it.
Using that kind of assumption then all metro's, mu2's and Jetstreams should be grounded. The -14 seems to be the culprit here. Having flown metro's and j31's through engine overhaul intervals I don't think any operator has come across these problems. Or if they have the manufacturer and the company have done a good job of keeping quiet about it.
