Maybe Jim Lyons can wade in on this one and give us the regulatory intent that seems to be driving some parts of the industry to back-up procedures.
I agree with Spinwing, and I don't know of any pilot that does back up either onshore or offshore. I haven't worked for any employer that endorsed back up procedures as part of their SOP's. The consensus being that you are introducing a hailstorm of real tangible risk for the sake of a statistically improbable engine failure. Like Spinwing, I too have had friends that inadvertently came to grief by letting themselves drift back when coming out of a tight area.
It seems rather pointless to comment now that the offending post has been removed. I did not comment originally because I knew others would!
Clearly, anyone who thinks that a back-up procedure should be used offshore does not understand the helideck environment. It is because there is no deterministic procedure (CAT A) that can address all of the environmental conditions (of which cross wind limits is one) that PC1 is not possible offshore.
I can only suggest that, in order to understand the issues, 'outhouse' re-reads the PC2e thread.
I am not aware of any regulatory push towards PC1 offshore although it is clear from comments (that have been made) that the issues are not well understood by some NAAs (even in Europe).
Does anyone have real time range and speeds for a de-iced corporate / VIP equipped 139? Interior would be four fwd facing and two aft facing swivel seats operating from sea level landing sites in a cool Euro climate? If it helps then forget the de-ice bit! Two pilots and four pax plus 200lbs bags.
Aux tanks? Maybe get the 6800kg increase first. Empty in Corp fit with deice will be close to 5000kg. Add two pilots, 5200. Add 4 stuffed shirts in the back and their 100kg of bags and you are at 5700 kg. 100 kg start and taxi, 200 kg reserve, leaves you one way VFR 400kg fuel, or about 120 miles at 145 knots.
Oh course you spent the big cash on deice so you could go IFR. Two approaches at 75kg, an alternate, and your range is about 20 miles. Go for the 6800 kg gross and you've got a reasonable 170nm. Don't forget all the flight planning limitations with the deice.
You are grossed out before a drop of fuel gets to the aux tank, even at 6800.
Are you sure about those BOW numbers? How much does that Corporate and Anti-Ice kit weights? 1000 kg? A long nose sar version with extra radar, FLIR, double hoists, external rafts , operator console, aux fuel tanks, and A LOT of extra installed equipment and avionics weights around 4400-4500 BOW.
Furia is correct on the Basic wt being approx 4500 for a SAR cab (not sure about with Aux tank). With a crew of 4 and ALL the SAR equipment ready to launch minus any fuel i.e APS wt, you are looking at between 5000-5100kg (less Aux tank).
220 kg sounded high, I had to check in my Agusta information and it says 160 kg, and this should include glass windshield. I have seen a number of different weights on this kit, where did you get your numbers from?
Got the call this morning from Agusta Philly PSE. BT139-265 will supersede BT139-251, and PT I is same , but Pt II will require blade removal at 600 hrs and quarantined until investigation of latest Brazilian crash can determine if TR Blade is an issue. BT to be issued today, and would not be surprised to see AD's immediatly following. Unless you have blades with less than 600 hours, you will be sitting and waiting for replacements for a while I believe
We’ve now received confirmation from Agusta Westland that the Brazil AW139 accident has involved the loss of a tail rotor blade and bears similarities to the blade failures of the 2010 Hong Kong accident and 2011 Qatar blade failure.
As a result an Airworthiness Directive (AD) is being issued by EASA that will restrict use of tail rotor blades to a 700hr life limit. The blades that failed on this and the other accidents were between 1500hrs and 2200 hrs. Because that AD is currently held up in EASA, this email is to be taken as an instruction for Shell operations to , before next flight, confirm the current tail rotor blade flight hour life of contracted AW139 aircraft and, until further notice, restrict all AW139 flight to those aircraft with tail rotor blades below 700hrs.
Further advice may be given on the AD when issued and SAI guidance will be reviewed when that is received.
Agusta Westland is developing further testing methods that may extend the 700hr limit, but until those have been proven, the restriction is likely to stay in place.
Consideration has been given to stopping the use of AW139 helicopters altogether, but with the information known, this limitation is considered appropriate at this time.
I’m aware that this news may not lessen concern amongst our travelling staff, so further briefing material will be prepared for BU use. If you have any questions or specific concerns, please call