Geoffers
As normal your approach to this is exemplary, your vast flying and management experience out shines most of us Rotorheads, and I hope you know that I for one respect your views enormously.
After some lively debate we boil this issue down to your four points.
Iron out misunderstandings
Correct misconceptions
Identify and correct procedures that are inappropriate
Ensure the documentation supports the above in a timely fashion.
I agree this is the way forward. But… Isn’t there just always a but?
Seemingly you can’t, after a year of pushing at your end, solve a check list problem which could ”kill a bunch of people”. Failure against three out of four of your own criteria.
And, we are doing things, which some perceive, are unwise and which may or may not have come about by a misconception or misunderstanding.
Add to that a list of short comings from an operators point of view, such as; the AVAD or not, the Gear up warning system (No air speed function just rad alt, not the best system for operating to high helipads.). TCAS/Radar interface problems which means the MFD picture zooms out to 150 miles just when you need a close range image. The list goes on.
Now we have all been banging on, for over a year, about such issues. Yet, no one seems to be making any headway. We must ask why are we failling?
It strikes me that where this whole process falls down is a lack of both action and feedback from the manufacturer. Maybe there is a greater focus on getting machines out the factory gates, and not on getting to grips with issues like these. After all these issues cost money to solve rather than adding to the bottom line, like selling and building another ten airframes.
Of course the real cost of issues like this will have an impact on the bottom line at some stage, to a greater or lesser extent. I guess the bean counters would prefer to stave the costs off as long as possible.
Yes, we should all keep shining a light in the right direction. We are and we have been vocal too. But how do we get the folks that can change things to look in the same direction, and motivate them to act in a timely fashion? Now that is a whole different problem.
Just some thoughts.
Anyway, here’s another question. I was always taught that if you have a full authority AFCS/Autopilot, that to protect anyone under the disc from the dangers of a control hard-over, you disengage it while on the ground. But we don’t in the 139. Why?
And, I still don't know what the ventilation limitation is all about.
ATB
Red