CHC find S92 & AW139 "Unacceptable"

[roundwego]

So far this year the Sikorsky S92 and AgustaWestland AW139 have had a combined availability rate of 75%. Even though it is normal that new aircraft types have a lower rate of availability during the introduction period, the current performance of the S92 and AW139 is unacceptable. The Company is currently in discussions with the manufacturers to remedy this situation as soon as possible by increasing spare parts production and improving technical support and aircraft design.
The above text is taken from the CHC Q3 financial report. What are the problems with these aircraft? CHC CEO says they are teathing issues but do the guys who operate and maintain these aircraft agree. Seems to me it must be serious for CHC to have to acknowledge this to the financial world.

Full webcast of above report available at
http://www.newswire.ca/en/webcast/viewEvent.cgi?eventID=1751860
Select "Click to listen" at top left hand corner of page.

[MightyGem]

A Bond TRE recently told me that the 139 is good when it works. Trouble is most of the time it doesn't, he said.

[ADACEO]

I have been so happy with my purchase of the AB139's. They are a really nice aircraft. I brought one to fly and three others for spare parts. 15million for one flyable machine and 45 million in spare parts. It makes good operational sense does it not.
They sure look good on static display in the hanger. four machines at less than 100hrs on each with three been broken.
Well must go. I have not fired any engineers today but the day is early. Shame cannot sack any pilots as they seem to be leaving of there own accord with seven going this month. Did not need them anyway.:D
Saves me more money:ok:

[Impress to inflate]

MightyGem, funny question but, how would a Bond TRE know how a 139 works when Bond don't have any ? The spec CHC bought was may be not the best, granted

[Camp Freddie]

the AW139 is a fine aircraft, with awesome power, impressive speed, and whilst the payload may be slightly limited on longer sectors, the MAUW is expected to increase soon.

there has been some issues on introduction such as cracks in exhausts and some minor airframe cracks now repaired. parts availabilty has been an issue but now improving.

the passengers all like it and compared with the same stage that the S76 was introduced things are better I am told (being too young to remember myself)

impress to inflate : what is wrong with the CHC spec? they have everything you would expect for an offshore a/c

I have heard so many negative things from people do dont fly them but everyone I know who does thinks they are the business !

regards

CF

[212man]

75%? We dream of 75% :ugh:

[AB139engineer]

I am surprised to here about CHC 75% reliability factor with the AB139, ours has worked out rather well, so far 100 % dispatch rate, and other 139 operators have done better than CHC and ERA also. I once worked for a helicopter airline once and management / employee attitude combined with poor moral wrecked havoc on the operation and reliabilty of the aircraft.

[Geoffersincornwall]

Got the type rating on my licence yesterday. IMHO this helicopter is a cut above everything else out there in the 6 ton class. It has 'joined-up' design that presents the pilots with everything they need to know from modularised avionics. It is as sweet as a nut to fly and as long as you deal with the high nose up attitude effectively (try kicking the nose off 20-30 deg.during the landing approach - it works well) it has no handling vices. Have to admit I haven't explored the entire envelope yet but nonetheless it's an impressive product.
The analogy with the S76 is a fair one and those who peddle rumours without hands-on experience should beware of overstating the very real difficulties encountered when you introduce a new machine with truly revolutionary design features. Until the 139 came along my favorite machine was the 76B in exec config (not had a chance to try the C+/C++) but this beast will take some beating. The 76D - whatever 'new' it brings to the table, will forever be a pre-FAR29 design and and will have to work hard to compete.
We can all anticipate that the 'B' model 139 will be something to behold when it comes on the scene as it surely will. If you had doubts about the 139 then the arrival of a 'de-bugged' version will make your mouth water.
I said to Nick L. some time ago that his assertions that such an over-engined machine would be uncompetitive would not be borne out by customer response. Now I see that the expected 139/149 market is expected to exceed 1,000 units ( This month's R & W ). Out of interest, how many 76s are out there?
G
:ok:

[spinwing]

Geoffersincornwell ...

'fraid I'm gunna have to agree with everything you have said .....v:D

Cheers ....enjoy ;)

[RedWhite&Blue]

Camp Freddiewhat is wrong with the CHC spec? they have everything you would expect for an offshore a/c

I can think of a few things that need to be addressed with the spec of the UK based 139's
1 - A radar that allows termination of an ARA at .75Nm not 1.25Nm. Not Agusta's fault - CHC ordered the wrong radar. :ugh:
2 - Windscreen washers - same problem. Who ever specified the machines didn't know CHC operates in the offshore environment. :ugh:
3 - Windsreen wipers that actually offer some purpose.
4 - An AVAD
5 - A steerable seach light that doesn't cast a shadow of the nose gear on the deck when doing a right seat deck landing.
6 - Batteries that offer a better chance of a start when no external power available.
7 - A 'gear up' warning system that works on both airspeed and rad alt. Not much good getting the warning as you cross the deck edge!
8 - An FMS system that can calculate fuel around a schuttle route.
9 - The 4th axis. (Is it certified yet?)
10 - Rotor low aural warnings when you are safely on the ground and turn the engine mode selectors to idle. (Ok just my personal bug bear this one, but just how many times do I have to get that s**t every day!). Agusta -link it to the WOW switch please!
So that's just a few off the top of my head. And, don't get me wrong, I love flying the 139 off-shore, it is a great machine. But I don't kid my self that at this stage there is not a lot of work to be done to make it into the kind off off-shore machine it should be.

[HeliComparator]

RWB - as a matter of interest does your aircraft have EGPWS instead of AVAD? If so, would you care to comment on the suitability of EGPWS for offshore ops particularly with regard to its ability to replace the functionality of AVAD?

HC

[RedWhite&Blue]

Hi HeliComparator
No EGPWS, so unable to make any pracitcal comment.
Regards
Red

[JKnife]

Bodes well for the new MCA SAR Contract then - NOT!!!

[HeliComparator]

Thanks RWB - so with no AVAD or EGPWS, is there anything that meets the requirement for JAR-OPS 3 radalt voice warnings or are you not operating to JAR-OPS?

HC

[Geoffersincornwall]

There is a voice warning at 150 feet radalt. Does that meet the regs? Somebody must have said "yes" or it wold not be operating in the UK and Netherlands offshore sectors. Personally I have my doubts about this and also about the EGPWS meeting the offshore community's needs.

G

[ppheli]

Geoffers

There have been around 640 76s off the prodline so far

ppheli

[Impress to inflate]

Camp freddie, there is nothing wrong with the CHC a/c apart from the small battery and the plastic front windscreens with no heating mats.

[HeliComparator]

Geoffers.

It probably does meet the letter of the law - JAR-OPS 3.660 just requires " a voice warning .... operating below a preset height with a visual warning capable of operating at a height selectable by the pilot". It doesn't say what the preset height is to be, but I don't think 150' is unreasonable. Presumably there are radalt bugs which when descended below, bring on some sort of caption or light?

If so then it does meet the regs but seems to me retrograde compared to what we are used to on the N Sea ("Check Height" call). Its a pity to see major operators "forgetting" where these various requirements came from - ie the accidents that created the regs. On the other hand its also a pity that JAR-OPS 3 is so vague in this area. I recall that the reg came after the N Sea operators implemented fleetwide fitments of AVAD. In those days it was the operators and oil companies leading the way in safety. These days its more a case of everything done to the minimum requirement to save money, though I would say that ultimately its the new generation of oil companies that are to blame for this culture.

When are you going to post some video of the 139 EFIS in operation?:)

HC

[Aser]

Presumably there are radalt bugs which when descended below, bring on some sort of caption or light?

You'll see a black box 100' before the DH selected, then at DH there is a "MIN" yellow box in the ADI.

[RedWhite&Blue]

HC - Geoffers has beaten me to it.
Basic 139 has a rad alt generated call at 150ft as pointed out by Geoff. This can be suppressed/eliminated (not suspended as with AVAD), consciously or inadvertently, by the flick of a tiny unguarded switch on the central panel. It could be easily knocked in a dark cockpit.
This little switch, in its self could lead to problems if the crew are unaware it is in the regrade position while descending low level, either IMC or on an inky black night. A warning on the CAS (Crew Alerting System) while in regrade might be a helpful improvement. I don't recall there even being an advisory, maybe Geoffers could help me out here, as I never knowingly fly with it in regrade.
While on the subject of CAS warnings, you get a warning every time you arm the floats, which seems to me a waste of a warning at a time in the flight when if something else is going on it would be good to know about it. The crews get so used to cancelling a warning as they arm the floats that they might inadvertently cancel a coincidental warning without noticing.
Maybe an advisory would be more appropriate. Just a thought.

Red

[Aser]

This little switch, in its self could lead to problems if the crew are unaware it is in the regrade position while descending low level, either IMC or on an inky black night. A warning on the CAS (Crew Alerting System) while in regrade might be a helpful improvement. I don't recall there even being an advisory, maybe Geoffers could help me out here, as I never knowingly fly with it in regrade.
While on the subject of CAS warnings, you get a warning every time you arm the floats, which seems to me a waste of a warning at a time in the flight when if something else is going on it would be good to know about it. The crews get so used to cancelling a warning as they arm the floats that they might inadvertently cancel a coincidental warning without noticing.
Even with the switch in "regrade" you will have the aural "two tones" and "LADING GEAR" , and the caption landing gear in the CAS.There is no point to be below 150ft with landing gear up when in offshoe app isn't it?.
There is no "150ft" advisory in the CAS when in regrade mode.
You are right about cancelling the CAS, when I arm the floats my right hand is on the switch and the left is ready to cancel the cas with the collective button.
We just need to add TCAS, moving map, HEGPWS,AVAD,cup holder,DVD,MP3 player, a good paint desing,de-icing,blonde flight attendant... etc. to be happy :E

[MightyGem]

MightyGem, funny question but, how would a Bond TRE know how a 139 works when Bond don't have any ? The spec CHC bought was may be not the best, granted

Hmmm...not sure, might have been CHC. :O His comments were aimed mostly at the reliability of the EFIS screens and various spurious captions that kept appearing.

[RedWhite&Blue]

Aser
Shuttling offshore you may well have the gear down as you fly between platforms.
What warnings will you get then?
MG - We do get more than our fair share of CAS warnings which seem to solve themselves. No 1 Audio Fail seems to be very common. MGB Oil Px is another even when the guage is reading 3.2 bar!
Red

PS Aser you have hit the nail on the head. Most important adition for everyones safety - Cup Holders!!!;)

[HeliComparator]

Well I would say that the system as now described does not meet the requirements of JAR-OPS 3.660. JAR-OPS 3 says as I quoted before. It does not say "a voice warning .... operating below a preset height provided the pilot remembers to make the correct switch setting with a visual warning capable of operating at a height selectable by the pilot.

I know that the subject of the possibility to switch off the warning was an issue with the S92 JOEB - the solution was to force removal of the offending switch (actually button iirc)

This 139 underwent the JAA JOEB (Joint Ops Evaluation Board), the whole point of which is to check compliance with JAR-OPS 3. The result is published on the JAA website and is mostly bull**** and a list of credits. The appendices which includes the "tick list" for compliance with the various paras of JAR-OPS 3, seem to be missing (surprise surprise).

Perhaps I misunderstand the rule or the warning system, but it seems to me that this aircraft is not in compliance with JAR-OPS 3.660 and therefore it should not be flying. The regulatory system seems to have failed in this case - its notable that the majority of JOEB members were Italian and I suspect if we looked into it, none of them would turn out to have any offshore experience.

Why should the introduction of new types, with a safety fanfare, allow evasion of good rules that were introduced in response to fatal accidents?
All in all piss poor and it would not have been flying in the UK in Brian's day!

Maybe JimL would care to comment on my interpretation?

HC

[rotor-rooter]

Some within the industry might possibly believe the opinions expressed by CHC are indicative of an attempt to blame the manufacturers for the inability of the internal support structure to support the current (and future) fleet.

If you were to have a conversation from anyone within the group, you might well hear alarming stories of inadequate spares provisioning, inadequate manpower and technical resources and a serious lack of overhaul capacity to maintain the current level of operations. There appears to be a never ending revolving door of personnel, not counting the myriad on stress leave or simply taking other more achievable positions within the company.

Apparently, the internal workings of Heli-One represent an unequalled challenge in the history of the helicopter industry, where the cultural clash between expatriate Norwegians and everyone else, is something to behold! Interesting times, but when you try to shift the blame to others, sometimes the resulting truth from the other side is something to behold, and will certainly make interesting reading for everyone else!

SAR contract anyone?

[212man]

HC, I agree: as described it does not meet 3.660. I find this particulraly ironic given the amount of grief and effort that went into confirming that the EGPWS in the S-92 DOES meet 3.660. You'd have thought the Dutch authority would have picked up on this too, given they have direct experience of night shuttling CFIT with the S-76.

[HeliComparator]

212 -Yes, and it also begs the question why a European manufacturer is churning stuff out that is not fit for purpose on its own patch.

Sikorsky can be forgiven for getting that bit wrong - at Sikorsky School they are all taught that the earth is flat and you fall off if you go beyond continental USA. Most cannot spell Yawrup never mind point to it on a map.

HC

[Aser]

I don't understand why the manufacturer didn't put an aural tone linked to the altitude selector or the DH bug, is it so expensive?? :confused:

[NickLappos]

Can't let helicomparitor (what a misnomer - should be helibiaser) hold court too much longer! The slur on American will not be returned, because I think European pilots do a darn fine job, and would be welcomed on my flight line, any time.

I believe Honeywell and Sikorsky got it right, with the EGPWS and has a piece of kit that meets the full requirement of JAR-OPS 3.660 and has a number of other, excellent altitude warning modes.

Noting the cause of a number of offshore accidents (as the investigator), I am glad to see the various modes of EGPWS beyond AVAD, and await an impartial user to tell how it works. Why? because an EGPWS is hooked to all the instruments and the warnings (aural, visual, and display) the means to improve it is right at hand, with a software update.

So, those of you who operate an EGPWS S76 or S92, let Honeywell and Sikorsky know how it works, and how to make it better.

helicomparitor you, to your passenger's misfortune, must go to your corner, you refused the advanced technology on your latest helos, so you fact-less opinions do not get a vote!

[HeliComparator]

Nick

No slur given to American pilots, just those designing the aircraft. I naively would expect to be able to buy an S76 C++ from Sikorsky in Sikorsky's full knowledge that it was to be operated in Europe, and find that it was equipped to operate legally in Europe, but I believe we found that not to be the case recently - even the FDR did not comply with European regs and don't mention the HUMS system!

My point really is that this is more understandable than buying a European helicopter and finding it does not comply with European operational regs - though still not excusable.

You are right that one of EGPWS's better attributes is that it is software driven and once the software has been improved and is not just a stunted version of fixed wing software, it will probably become worthwhile. I am aware of two initiatives, one to develop v26 of the software with better AVAD functionality and another (RTCA H-TAWS working group) to look afresh at modes 1-5 in order to make them relevant for offshore ops. Interestingly I am told that even the fixed-wing boys consider modes 1-5 to be pretty useless - the algorithms have been slashed and burnt over the years to get rid of nuisance warnings and are now hardly worth the ROM they take up. They regard only the E part as being of any use and imho that part is quite good for onshore ops.

Interestingly I conducted a straw poll of some of our 225 pilots to ask if they would like to trade in their AVAD for EGPWS v24. They all said "no", including a couple of guys who had operated the C++ in Nigeria with EGPWS.

But eventually EGPWS will represent a safety improvement not a deterioration, and then we shall have it!

HC

[Darren999]

Aser- with the reference to your cup holder, I can fit my coffee mug quite nicely in the co pilots door pocket, with the handle over the side, next to my water bottle :E . Furthermore, I also have the luxury of the MP3 player, however, it plays the usual landing, take off briefs... but its there :ok:
when its flying!!!!!!

[unstable load]

"Some within the industry might possibly believe the opinions expressed by CHC are indicative of an attempt to blame the manufacturers for the inability of the internal support structure to support the current (and future) fleet."

Or Maybe, just MAYBE it is a statement of the fact that the current level of seviceability is unacceptable NO MATTER WHAT THE REASON.

I can remember in a previous life in Nigeria when ALL 6 of the new whistles and bells, ra-ra-ra, shiny marvellous EC155's that Shell went out and bought were AOG due to snags that had everone saying that it was a piece of cr@p and that the 76 was so much better etc etc.

Now that CHC has actually put it in writing instead of just carrying on and working through the growing pains it appears that everyone is looking beyond the obvious intent of the statement, vis......

Quote:
"So far this year the Sikorsky S92 and AgustaWestland AW139 have had a combined availability rate of 75%. Even though it is normal that new aircraft types have a lower rate of availability during the introduction period, the current performance of the S92 and AW139 is unacceptable. The Company is currently in discussions with the manufacturers to remedy this situation as soon as possible by increasing spare parts production and improving technical support and aircraft design."


I agree wholeheartedly that the current incarnation of Heli-1 is less than ideal, but does anyone know whether the parts are actually available from the manufacturers for H1 to actually deliver to the field?

[JimL]

Helicomparator

A number of interesting points arise from this discussion:

JAR-OPS 3.660 rule is objective and therefore needs additional material to provide guidance on methods of compliance. In trying to understand the intent of the rule it is worthwhile looking at the reasons for its presence; it followed the accident to the S61N in the Penzance to Scillies scheduled service which resulted from a (slow) controlled descent into water - resulting in fatalities. This resulted in the requirement for a RADALT and AVAD (an early attempt at an HTAWS for overwater flights) to be fitted for flights over water - this was then migrated to JAR-OPS 3.

The UK regulations were accompanied by guidance material which, for no apparent reason, was not carried over to JAR-OPS 3 – here are excerpts from the UK guidance material (AIL0114):Whilst most current Radio Altimeters include a height warning light, this is not considered sufficient for alerting a pilot to an inadvertent descent as his attention may be directed away from the indicator at the critical time. It is for this reason that an audio low height warning is considered necessary. The warning must be distinguishable from other warnings and should therefore be a clear and concise voice message.

Research activity has indicated that the characteristics above can be satisfactorily met if the warning format incorporates the following features:

a) A unique tone should precede the voice message. A further tone after the voice may enhance uniqueness and attention-getting without causing undue annoyance.

b) The perceived urgency of the tone and voice should be moderately urgent.

c) The message should be compact as opposed to lengthy, provided the meaning is not compromised e.g. ’One fifty feet’ as opposed to ’One hundred and fifty feet’.

d) An information message is preferable (e.g. ’One hundred feet’). Messages such as ’Low height’ do not convey the correct impression during deliberate descents through the datum height

e) Command messages (e.g. ’Pull up, Pull up’ are not acceptable unless they relate specifically to height monitoring (e.g. ’Check height’).

f) The volume of the warning should be adequate and not variable below an acceptable minimum value.

Every effort should be made to prevent spurious warning.

Altitude Trigger

The height at which the audio warning is triggered by the radio altimeter should be such as to provide adequate warning for the pilot to take corrective action. It is envisaged that most installations will adopt a height in the range of 100 – 160 ft. It will not be permissible for the datum to be altered in flight.

The pre-set height should not be set such that it will coincide with commonly used instrument approach minima (i.e. 200 ft). Once triggered, the message must sound within 0.5 seconds.

The voice warning should be triggered only whilst descending through the pre-set height and be inhibited whilst ascending.

The fact that this advisory material is not present in JAR-OPS 3 has complicated the issues – it was suggested recently that this material be inserted but this was resisted for a number of reasons. Whilst the requirement is perfectly acceptable for over water CAT flight, there are a number of circumstances (such as SAR) where an inhibit switch might be required; it is also the case that the JAR-OPS 3.660 does not distinguish between a RADALT fitted for use over water and one for use over land (those of you who flew helicopters which were first fitted with AVAD will be reminded that, whilst it could be relied upon to provide a necessary warning when flying over water, the call occurred on every approach over land); it is optimised for use over water, not land.

It is also the case that the introduction of other warning devices into the cockpit (EGPWS, ACAS etc.) had drawn attention to the fact that there is no equivalent guidance in AC 29-2B Chg 2 to AC 25.1322 - the integration of alerts and warnings in the cockpit (in fact in the S92 and other helicopters, the EGPWS specifically assumes responsibility for other warnings). The lack of clear general (in an equivalent to AC 25.1322) and specific (in JAR-OPS 3.660) guidance therefore puts the manufacturer at a disadvantage.

Helicomparator is correct that, for offshore operations, the JOEB for the AW139 should have picked this up (as another JOEB did for the S92 – due mainly to the presence of the CAA flight department), it is clear that the construction of the AW139 JOEB invited this oversight; it is not clear that either of the two operational pilots (one Italian and one Canadian) had offshore experience, and this points to a weakness in the system. (Unfortunately, the provision of joint JOEB teams (FAA/TC/JAA) makes it certain that compliance with operational requirements (for EASA/JAA JAR-OPS 3) are reduced in importance alongside the common elements (provision of training courses, STD, MMELs etc).)

The intent of JAR-OPS 3.660 is that there will be a voice message associated with the RADALT; an ‘alert’ will be given with the attainment of a bugged height (ascent or descent) such as ‘check height’, and a ‘warning’ when reaching the ‘preset’ (by the manufacturer) height; such a warning will announce the preset height - for example ‘100 feet’ or ‘150 feet’. Both calls should be preceded by ‘attension tones’

As an additional point, AC 25.1322 makes it clear that all messages should be prioritised and integrated – it is not clear from this discussion that this is being achieved for the aircraft mentioned.

The extension of the discussion, between Helicomparator and Nick Lappos, to the protection modes of EGPWS/HTAWS is welcome. Although the functionality required by JAR-OPS 3.660 has now been introduced to mode 6 of the EGPWS, there is still a need to re-assess the relevance of protection modes 1-5 to offshore operations.

The tailoring of protection modes 1-5 can bring further safety benefits for offshore operations; additionally, if the press release from Honeywell on the further development of SVS is correct, then the addition, and integration, of real-time obstacle sensors into HTAWS/SVS will provide the protection from mobile obstacles that is missing in the current implementation of EGPWS (in the 'enhanced' mode)

Jim

[HeliComparator]

Thanks Jim, I think its a great pity that this material has been lost from the public domain - we are now seeing the consequences of that and presumably must wait for the next fatal accident before its reborn.

Although you say that AVAD is optimised for overwater not overland, it still has considerable value overland (though EGPWS is probably better) and with correct operating procedures, does not produce nuisance warnings. SAR is not covered by JAR-OPS 3 and even if it were (as HHA is), that would be the sort of area where a National Authority could grant a dispensation to allow an inhibit switch for the fixed height call - just like our very own JSAR had. When inhibited, the AVAD CWP caption was illuminated so there was little doubt that the 100' call was off. But in reality it was rarely used as 100' is normally far too high for winching.

Do you think there is any chance of getting the advisory material back into circulation during the transfer to EASA OPS? The longer its left, the more aircraft there will be around that are not compliant and so the harder it would be to introduce.

And what to do about the 139? If we are correct that its not compliant, does anyone care enough to do anything about it?
HC

[AB139engineer]

In reference the the Battery and heated windscreen issue, Agusta has already offered a more powerful main battery with more capacity and also a larger 27ah auxillary battery also. We just recently got the larger 27 Ah auxillary battery as a proactive reliability measure and it also helps move the CG a liitle more forward. Last year most of our starting was with battery carts/ ground power and this in itself I am sure save us from some of the hassles other operators experienced

The heated glass windscreens are now available, contact Agusta;)

[Geoffersincornwall]

All the above noted. I will do what I can to mitigate the shortcomings of the system on the 139 during training but as a sim instructor doing type ratings we don't normally get into the areas related to LOFT. When we do get around to doing recurrent training then we should get the opportunity to cover these problems and fully investigate the problem.

Nonetheless there will be some value in highlighting the best way of using the system and lessons learnt early on do tend to stick. (regrade switch etc).

I have to say that I have some serious issues with a set up that labels the rad alt test button "Decision Height" (the knob also changes the DH, shown on the PFD) and the associated radalt driven "Decision Height" visual cues on the Primary Flight Display. Can we get some movement on the evil concept that Rad Alt height can in any way be considered as a "Decision Height" - except when over water!

Meanwhile I sense a long road ahead for any changes.

G

[Darren999]

We have found the larger batteries both main and Aux improved the starting. We would use grd power to start 1 engine, then disconnect that and start no2 on the batteryon the 1st start of the day. This helped cycle the batteries, then every start that day was done on the main batteries...

[212man]

Geoff, that's a valid point about DH, and the same applies to the EC products too. If your SOPs continue to treat it as a rad-alt 'bug' then it doesn't seem to cause a problem, but may do other operators. I'm equally bemused as to why the S-92 shouts "Altitude, Altitude" at you when you pass the Rad-alt height bug!

HC, you really must get your ex 76 pilots to get out more: what a crass response!:ugh: As has been stated above, and in more detail on another thread, V.24 EGPWS has ALL the functionality of an AVAD, plus a whole bunch of other goodies. A scan through the last few months worth of AAIB monthly bulletins will show how these 'extras' have saved huge embarrassment, or worse, for several FW crews (Do-328 and Dash-8 spring to mind with 'glideslope' and 'obstacle' warnings).

As for aural alert prioritisation, well, if you have an engine fire and failure on rotation, it REALLY isn't your day but, in any case, maybe Nr and height should be your primary concerns: not waiting for some woman to hold your hand and say "check height" or "One hundred", isn't that the PNF's job? At least you have the opportunity to pass those levels: some of us start below 100 ft in the first place!

[tcfix]

Sorry, but all the decks I look at on the GOM say 12,000. It will be a long time before we get a real chance at them here. Most of the 139 work is on temporary jobs. Anything long term still goes to the mediums.

[HeliComparator]

212

V.24 EGPWS has ALL the functionality of an AVAD

I disagree. eg during an ARA with the gear down, descending below bugged height gives you "Minimums", but if you climb back up to above bugged height (as you would) you will then never get another voice warning. You have either to land or climb 200' above bugged height to rearm the system. So once you have triggered the first warning, you are left without protection.

I think you should bear in mind that the EGPWS installation is highly configurable. Sikorsky spent some time with the 92 trying to make it good, but I don't think the same is true for the 76. They just bolted it on and there are some significant differences - the main one I know is that on the 92, mode 1 is permanently inhibited, but not on the 76. There seems no logic to that!

HC

[212man]

HC,
incorrect: the minimums call comes from the MIN bug, which is baralt triggered, which is logical because it meant to be used for onshore approaches and so would be set to MDA or DA. Offshore, unless you had set the BARO setting to match the altimeter reading to the radalt, you wouldn't use the MIN for an ARA. More useful would be to have it set for MEA/MFA (or MESA for you BHL chaps!), thereby giveing a clear warning that you are in that regime.

The AVAD functionality comes from the RA setting -equivelant to the DH in a Eurocopter, or the 'bug' on a conventional radalt. This triggers the call "Altitude, Altitude" (don't ask me why it doesn't refer to Height!) and is the "pilot selectable" warning. The fixed warning is "One Hundred".

I don't have the manuals in front as I write, so can't confirm when the RA warning is reset. However, bearing in mind you would typically set it at MDH-20 ft, and the height would be controlled by the RALT coupling - so pretty accurate- you probably have a problem if you hear it, other than once visual and landing!

I think the EGPWS is work in progress to a degree. We may yet see Mode 1 in the S-92.

[Overt Auk]

I know that it is deviating from the point, but it is something that has long puzzled me and I am sure that the knowledge is out there somewhere. Who decided to call a device that measures height a 'radio altimeter' and why?

[212man]

I would hazard a guess it's because it uses RADIO waves to measure height.

Height measuring devices are known as altimeters: hey presto, let's call it a radio altimeter.;)

[HeliComparator]

I think he means "why is it not called a radio heightometer" - to which the answer is that life is too short!
HC

[HeliComparator]

212- Oh yes, I think we went round this loop before. The EGPWS product spec talks about "Minimums" as the call you get with gear down and "altitude" as the call you get with gear up. Here is the relevant extract from the product spec for v24.

6.4.1 Minimums Type Callouts
The Minimums type callouts are given when transitioning the Minimums setting with the landing gear down and not in the
Low Altitude Mode. The Minimums call-out is triggered via a discrete DH input that switches to ground. The computer will
only respond to the first transition encountered until a reset term is satisfied. The Minimums callout is reset by transitioning
from Takeoff to Approach mode or by ascending through 200 feet above the barometric altitude at which the Minimums
callout was previously annunciated. For the S-92 the Minimums callout is triggered from the MDA setting based on
Corrected Altitude.
6.4.1.1 “Altitude Altitude” Type Callout
When Landing Gear is up or when the Low Altitude Mode is selected, the callout “Altitude Altitude” is provided when
transitioning below the DH setting. The callout is repeated for each transition. For the S-92 the “Altitude Altitude” callout is
always active.

I am not quite sure how this matches with your experience on the 92. Unless you are permanently in Low Altitude mode or have the gear up for approaches?:) . But of course the last sentence explains it. I am not quite sure how a product spec can say it does one thing normally, but another thing when installed in a particular aircraft. I wonder if its an S92-specific part number. All very confusing ....

To counter your comment that EGPWS has all the functionality of AVAD, how about the suspend function so that you do not routinely hear the call on every landing (meaning that when you do hear it, you react to it). Yes you could wind the bugs down but that is bad as you might forget to wind them up again - whereas suspend self-resets.

HC

[212man]

That extract is not what happens in the 92. Why? is not my call.

"meaning that when you do hear it, you react to it"

As for aural alerts, how about SOPs that demand a response, rather than a culture of "I must never hear that warning"?

"Check Height": "Visual, landing"
"Check Height": "Going round"

As opposed to "I must never hear "check Height" so I'll turn it off"

Will 'you' (your company) be avoiding "Minimums" calls for ILS'? I doubt it. The response will be "visual, landing" or "going round" (i.e. the go around will have commenced by then). What other response is there?

[HeliComparator]

212 - of course there should be SOP responses to these sorts of calls (and are at the moment with the AVAD "Check Height") and in an ideal world where human factors don't exist, there would be no need for a suspend function. But human factors do exist and these calls lose their ability to grab attention when they are heard routinely. In a critical situation surely humans are less likely to react to a warning which is heard routinely when all is going well, rather than one which is only heard when things are going wrong, and that could make a difference.

HC

[Darren999]

Tcfix- There are quite a few platforms in the GOM where we land the 139. Admittedly they are either floating drilling rigs, or boats. But a lot of the decks are being upgraded....

[froggy_pilot]

Agusta is changing the aux battery (13 amps) to the 27 amps, on the next two 139 for Aero/CHC, let's hope it will be better.

Helicomparator
Who is operating 76 C++ in Nigeria?
As far as I know the first C++ in Nigeria will be for Brsitow and is not yet arrived (I might be wrong)

[HeliComparator]

Frog - I might have meant the C+. All these derivatives confuse me. Much simpler just to call it S76C, D, E etc (so that would make the proposed D an F):ugh:

[pitchlink]

212man, in answer to your question, "Continue" could be another response!:oh:

With regard to the AWS regrade switch on the 139, having flown with Red today, I can confirm with switch in regrade and gear down no aural warning at all is generated. With gear up, you get the aural gear warning and warning on CAS but no height warning. Could this not be simply fixed with a change to the software? After all, the DH bug can already generate a MIN warning on the PFD, why cant this be linked in some way to the AWS?

Another thought regarding spurious warnings (software glitches) on the CAS, having flown several 139s there seems to be a common thread. Would it be possible to somehow keep a database of these from 139s worldwide to create some pressure on Honeywell to get them sorted?

[froggy_pilot]

Helicomparator

Just a joke I heard in Norway couple of months ago
Sikorsky made only 3 mistakes with the 76; the A,B and C models and they are about to do the fourth mistake one the D model... :E

An other Joke from Norway about the S 92
To fly 19 pax at reduce take off power for noise and reduce power in level flight for vibrations,it's better to fly a S 61 :yuk:

Sorry Mr Lappos
But since decades it's proven that an helicopter above 10 000 kg with 4 blades doesn't work well, I don't understand what sikorsky people are trying to prove...:= :zzz: :confused: maybe just to please the oil indusrty :\ :} :eek: :sad: :( this works on a short time basis it won't last long, that's why sikorsky is about to bring 5 blades on the 92

It looks like Sikorsky is counting only on the US military market and is forgetting the huge growing civilian market, not sure but after the success of the Presidential US 101 (officialy EH 101 for the rest of the world:mad: ) I BELIEVE IT'S TIME FOR SIKORSKY TO WAKE UP :}
I am just happy that the White House has choosen an european chopper, It means that they are less stupid than they look like....................................

[Beaucoup Movement]

I understand that the EH101 would have been a great aircraft to operate commercially in the north sea if it had'nt been for the fact that it was too expensive to run!! :ugh: 3 engines! plus an APU... ;)

Anway, Its going to be interesting to see how the S92's get on when they are delivered to shetland later on in the year.

BM

[jonnyloove]

I have heard on the jungle drums that the MCA are looking at the EH101 for the 2012 contract.

[Bravo73]

Has the EH101 got a civi type certificate yet? If not, is it likely to have one by 2012?


Unlikely, me thinks...

[212man]

You could always look at the EASA web site...:ok:

http://www.easa.eu.int/doc/Certification/Design_Appro/easa_tc.pdf

[Bravo73]

Thanks, 212man. I stand corrected. :O



I'll crawl back into my hole, shall I? :ouch:

[bombiter]

:ok: The 3rd AW139 is coming to Den Helder in September 2007, we learned yesterday evening from our management.
SHK is now in maintenance for mod's and 1200 hrs. In the meantime SHL is doing >110 hrs. per month without problems. I think pilots and engineers are going up pretty quick in the learning curve and everybody likes the machine. It can only become better!

[212man]

http://www.brunei-online.com/bb/wed/mar28h14.htm

[he1iaviator]

212: Do I spot your slightly receding hairline in that first pic?

Only 16 seats eh?

[212man]

yes you do, though I think 'short', rather than 'receding', was the word you were looking for!:uhoh:

Not sure where the 16 comes from: we have 18 plus a cabin attendent.

[sarbee]

... perhaps if CHC had listened to one of their employees back in May of 2006, they wouldn't have this problem now...? I gather that he's still looking for work, but I loved the report he wrote entitled 'S92 Doomsday Report'. Suddenly being on the other side of the apron seems like a good thing!!:D :ok:

[pitchlink]

... perhaps if CHC had listened to one of their employees back in May of 2006, they wouldn't have this problem now...?

And what problem is that? I'm not quite sure what you are getting at! As someone who flies the 139 for CHC I would like to know what you think the problem is!:confused:

[sarbee]

... including adequate (minimal) numbers of pilots and engineers trained on type before the aircraft arrived in country? I'm up north, so haven't heard much on the 139 front, but can't walk across the apron without hearing about the 92!

[Dan Reno]

Worldwide survey of potential operators stated they wanted S-92 w/o a non-paying passenger (flight attendant). Present S-92 seating complies with the FAA regarding how many passengers can be seated w/o a flight attendant. IOW, crew of two is $$ ahead.

[Aser]

I've been reading the last issue of vertical mag. and there is a good report about the 139 in the field.
You can read it from the website.

Regards
Aser ( 139 lover) :E

[ericferret]

During it's early years the S76A shed main rotor blades due to spindle failures. I believe that at least one aircraft was also lost due to tail rotor cable failure. Hence the big mod to the bellcrank on the tail gearbox.

In the days when Bond operated 6 S76A's at one point they used to remove a pair of turbines from one aircraft every Friday night, send them to overhaul for a decoke and then refit them in time for monday morning.

Then they also had to armour the engine compartment in case of uncontained turbine failures. I recollect that mod weighed about 20 kilos.

The current fleet is now mature and maybe people have forgotten what a pain it can be to integrate a completely new type in the offshore environment.

The only aircraft I remember arriving quietly was the 365N, but that was on the back of the 365C which had operated for a number of years.