Agusta AW139

[C4]

As ASER indicated in his last reply, time life for the shafts (MGB Shaft, Main Rotor 3G6320A01852 and MGB Shaft, Main Rotor 3G6320A01853) are 16000 hours and 54000 landings.

With regard to which is used - total sortie hours or winch time:
If you break the formula down, FT + (2.5 x winch cyles)
You will note that the actual penalty is 2.5 x winch cycles, which is added to the total flight time for that sortie. (remember, the total flight time would have counted toward timelife anyway, you are just adding the penalty).

Hope this clarifies the hours counted...:ok:

[Aser]

Rumour:
Anyone knows about one 139 that has been found (Italy?) to have a crack in the xmsn mast ? :ooh:

Regards
Aser

[drop lead]

Rumour I heard was that it was damaged thread on the mast?

[noooby]

Aser, you wouldn't be spreading rumours would you??? :E
Haven't heard anything. They don't talk much to me anymore unless I scream. Apparently former employees of Agusta aren't worth talking to anymore :}
On the OEI penalty time. I was trying to tell a former ADA 139 pilot how the Cat A training worked. He thought that the penalty was for time at 102%. No no no says I, that isn't a penaly. the penalty is for Cat A training, in other words, OEI. You want to see the blades cone!! No wonder there is a penalty for it. Perhaps ADA should go back through their logbooks and see if Cat A TRAINING is being entered in for the penalties to be calculated.

[Thomas coupling]

Nooby, tell me more about the penalty.

When does it kick in.?
What is the penalty?
How is it recorded?

Many thanks

[noooby]

Here is the Chapter 4 of the EASA version of the AMPI, the FAA version is the same:
CAT. A Training Operations. For the parts listed in Table 3 a life penalty must be mandatorily applied whenever CAT. A Training Operations are performed. Flying hours (FH) spent in CAT. A Training must be multiplied by the specified factor. The penalty is applicable only to flying hours. (e.g.: Main Rotor Blade Assembly: Flight time spent during CAT. A Training Operations = 1 FH. Total accumulated FH = 1 x 2.0 = 2.0 FH).


Table 3 CAT. A Training Operations - Life penalty factor
Ref Part Part number Life penalty factor
RL012 Main Rotor Blade Assembly 3G6210A00131 2.0
RL022 MGB Shaft, Main Rotor 3G6320A01852 1.7
MGB Shaft, Main Rotor 3G6320A01853 1.7
RL031 MGB Rear Bracket 3G6320L00231 1.1


Now, Cat A training is not the use of 102%, it is the use of the OEI training switch. Using the switch changes the displays to indicate one engine out, and also winds back BOTH engines to simulate the power output of one engine. Hence the rotor will droop if you push things, and the blades will cone, a lot!!
Now, I'm trying to think where the definition of CAT A training is, and I think it is in the RFM. I don't have a copy of the latest RFM in front of me right now, but I'll see if I can get an answer for you.
Most 139 operators I've seen are just making an entry in the logbook stating that x minutes were spent CAT A training. The tech records people then apply the penalty factors, and record it on the component logcards
I hope this helps.
Hmm, it won't let me layout the freakin table properly. The penalties are, from the top, 2.0 (blades), 1.7 (MR Shaft), 1.7 (MR Shaft), and 1.1 (MGB Rear Bracket)
Cheers

[noooby]

AB139Engineer, I don't think you are correct with your calculation of the hoist penalty. The penalty is not calculated using the TIME you spend hoisting, just the NUMBER of hoists with a load on the cable. Below is the relevant paragraph from Section 4 of the AMPI (EASA):

For the parts listed in Table 5 a life penalty must be mandatorily applied whenever an external hoist lift is performed.

The external hoist lift is defined as an unreeling and recovery of the cable with a load attached to the hook, independent of the length of the cable that is deployed/recovered. An unreeling/recovery of the cable with no load on the hook is not considered to be a lift. Any operation where a load is applied for half the operation (i.e. unreeling or recovery) must be considered as one lift.

Increase the flying hour by the specified value for each external hoist lift. The penalty is applicable only to flying hours.

Table 5 External Hoist Lift - Life penalty factor

Ref Part Part number Life penalty factor
RL022 MGB Shaft, Main Rotor 3G6320A01852 2.5
MGB Shaft, Main Rotor 3G6320A01853 2.5
E.g.: MGB shaft, main rotor: Flight time = 2 FH.
Number of rescue hoist lifts = 3. Total accumulated FH=2+ (2.5 x 3) = 9.5FH.


So what they are saying is that because the example flight did 3 lifts, those 3 lifts must be multiplied by the penalty factor, and then added to the flight time. It is not the flight time that is multiplied by the penalty factor. It is still quite a hit though. The penalty is for the Main Rotor Shaft due to bending stresses from the weight of the person/object on the hoist being so far out to the side. Think of it as a slope landing, kind of :)
So C4 is correct with his calculations.

[Thomas coupling]

Thanks very much nooby, I may need to revert at some stage if that is OK?

[Captain Buck]

What's happening with Agusta in Italy now? I'm due to go for 139 training soon, but I've heard a lot of bad stories about the training there, with a shortage of simulator instructors (some of who are considerably less qualified than many of the pilots going there) and poor helicopter instructors. Am I likely to come away having had a good thoro training or am I going to have to do lots of stuff myself that justa ain't covered?

[AB139engineer]

Yes Nooby you are correct, what I should of emphasised was I was trying to state what it should be, a penalty that only applies for the duration of hoisting but the way Agusta states it it applies for the whole flight until touch down which is totally ridiculous and very heavy penality for the customer to pay, It is so bad I wonder if it is a mistake, I am so happy we do not operate a hoist. The hook has a similar penalty also.

[3D CAM]

Has anyone seen the aircraft which are destined for the U.K. Coastguard,(CHC) contract? Any pictures even?
The first aircraft is due to take over from the Bristow S61's in six months time and information is distinctly lacking. Especially from CHC!?:hmm:

[Non-PC Plod]

Captain Buck - Dont know where you get your information from, but how about you come see for yourself, and then make your own judgement about the instructors & training? You may even find out that some of them are a lot more experienced than you might think.
(One is from your neck of the woods, and has left his 1969-70 Phu-Loi photos behind my desk. I dont think you could describe him as short on experience.)

[3D CAM]

Non-PC
Do you have any information with regards to the UK SAR machines? No one else seems to!

[Aser]

Good luck 3D-CAM, I've been asking for a picture without results.
I may be flying my own Spanish SAR 139 before I see the U.K. C.G. one. :E
I wonder if it will look like this one, but in red and white...
http://www.skycontrol.net/UserFiles/Image/Helicopters_img/200610/200610agusta-AW496-CG-AW139-japan-coastguard.jpg
Regards.
Aser

[3D CAM]

Aser.
Thanks for that but even your picture is a computer generated image!(Unless it has been built with undercarriage doors!!)

[heliski22]

Captain Buck!

I've had AW139 Ground school recently and if you can take on board a quarter of what they put in front of you, you're one hell of a pilot!!!

It's two weeks of instruction at the hands of people who know the aircraft inside out. If you come away with a foundation upon which to build your knowledge once in the field, then you'll be doing fine! It would be impossible to learn everything about this ship unless you spent months in the place and how are you going to do that?

The Sim training is like any other training - it's a structured course which covers the basics and gives you a start once you get into an aircraft for real. As a professional pilot, you build from there. You got any better ideas then every training facility this side of Kingdom Come will be glad to hear from you!!

[Non-PC Plod]

3D CAM - sorry, I'm not a 139 specialist - you could try sending a PM to Geoffersincornwall - he is more likely to have info on the subject than anyone else I can think of.
Heliski22- Refreshing to hear informed comment for a change.:ok: I know this is a rumour network, but talk about tried and convicted on hearsay evidence!!:{

[Aser]

The new ugly nose... (Spanish SAR)
:eek:
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h263/aser_martinez/nose.jpg
P.D.: I confirm one 139 is waiting for a new xmsn :ouch:

Regards.
Aser

[AB139engineer]

That is one ugly nose....perhaps the french will buy it as a memory of one of there previous leaders .:ooh:

[3D CAM]

:eek: Monty Burns!

[Brilliant Stuff]

Did Captain Hollywood have a hand in designing it?:}

[Darren999]

The hardest from my ground school was getting the hang of the FMS. I did however manage to get an Aerosim disc which helped a bunch. Once I started flying, it all made more sense..

[BlenderPilot]

I'm interested in scheduling A139 training ASAP in the Ground and Sim in Italy, anybody have any contact numbers or info? TIA

[Non-PC Plod]

http://www.agustawestland.com/contact03.asp

[Bravo73]

Blender,

It sounds like flungdung is your man to talk to:


As an AW139 sim instructor here...


HTH :ok:

[kiilik]

Hey flungdung I m coming to AW 139 sim in 12 nov. How many instructors are there for sim? I know its 3 days now. Why the agusta skip day for the preview before the sim training`?


Regards Kiilik

[avtar4112]

Long time 412 driver and at Agusta doing the 139 ground and sim course. I'm most impressed with both the training and the aircraft. It is just SO far ahead of the 412 it's not funny. I'll report on the sim part as yet to start altho two of our piolts have just cpmpleted and very impressed

[avtar4112]

What does the exam consist of?? Emergencies, limitations or...

[AB139engineer]

Any thoughts out here about the latest mandatory bulletin concerning
removal of the spring on the pitch change linkage for the tail rotor?

Some operators have expressed concern. any comments?

[Aser]

The spring to set zero pitch in the event the pitch link is loose?

I'll look into it later , have to go for some hoist training... :ouch:

Thanks.

[noooby]

Very concerned here. It was only from this bulletin that we found that two of our machines never even had the spring fitted, even though the ground school was still mentioning it! If you are flying a 139 above S/N 31067, there never was a centering spring fitted. I would rather they redesigned the spring if it is giving problems, and then retrofit the spring to ALL machines.
How about the BT for the cockpit windows? Anybody else not happy with the softness of the new seals, and the fact that it only has a filler wedge on one side?

[AB139engineer]

Noooby, I just finished the crew door / window bulletin and it pretty well was a waste of time, although we have never lost a window, the new window / seal installation does not seem to be much of a improvement.

[avtar4112]

I have just finished the Agusta AW139 Aircrew Ground Course and we were told that the spring has been discontinued on all new production models and there is a directive out allowing removel on existing a/c.

[noooby]

Ah avtar, a fellow k1w1. Agusta stopped installing the spring about a year ago, but neglected to tell anybody at the time. Back to NP soon is it?

[avtar4112]

Couple of weeks in the lever box Nooby then back to the sunny mountain town

[aquila105]

LE, you are saying that a 412 is more expensive to maintain than say, a 139.
I am interested in your point of view and I was wondering if it could be backed up
by actual data.
Thanks!

[andTompkins]

Question for you guys using the AW139 in the passenger transport role.

Does the flight manual mandate passenger loading from front to rear due to aft CG issues?

Thanks!

Tompkins

[212man]

I very much doubt it: RFMs simply state the arms and envelope, they don't dictate how you go about loading. That would normally be an Operator rule in the Ops Manual.

[Camp Freddie]

Our ops manual does not mandate it, I am pretty sure the flight manual doesnt either, but our policy is load from the front as it leads to less problems and our company CofG calcs are based on that assumption.

with no pax you can only be sure that with north sea fit that they will be in limits up to 1000 fuel and you will prob be OK up to 1100 subject to calculation, if you want more fuel than that you need to carry ballast/pax and load from front for max effect.

regards

CF

[Aser]

EC-KJT First AW139 with 4-axis in Spain,
From Casina Costa,after the night stop in LEGE.
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h263/aser_martinez/PB070037.jpg
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h263/aser_martinez/PB070038.jpg
We took pictures of EC-KHV during a hoist training.
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h263/aser_martinez/PB070072.jpg
Regards.
Aser

[Bravo73]

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h263/aser_martinez/PB070072.jpg


That photo has got to be worthy of a caption or two. How about:

First Officer to Captain on AW139: "We don't seem to be slowing it down much, sir..." :}

[Vie sans frontieres]

I hope that's a hi-line and not the cable. Is it always that nose up in the hover?

[Aser]

In hover you could be playing between 8º and 15º to move-stop. :ouch:
In the picture what you see is just the guide line from stand-off postition not the hoist cable.

Regards.
Aser

[avtar4112]

Yes it is nose up. The mast is tilted 5° forward and in the hover the nose reflects this. Agusta are producing a "Long Nose" and putting some of the avionics in the front to help counter the effect.

[Vie sans frontieres]

Let's hope they get on with it. Doesn't look ideal for hoist ops. Is there a maximum permitted angle of cable from the vertical during winching? If it's anything like other SAR helicopters, it's probably pretty near the limit with a 15 degree nose up hover. Not to mention the discomfort of operating in both the front and the back of an aircraft having to maintain that pitch angle to stay in the same place. As for chinagraphs/smoke cartridges etc rolling out the door... no doubt there's adequate stowage for everything!

NOT!

[bladegrabber]

CF

do you mind me asking if your machines are based at N.Denes?

Interested in a pilots views on their reliability etc

Thanks
Blade grabber

[heliski22]

Although we're not taking delivery for another couple of weeks, we've already done a range of CG calculations based upon projected CG position and empty weight. In our case, i.e., 8-seat corporate, the fuel load seems to be not unlike an inverted power/drag curve - maximum fuel capacity is in the middle, so to speak, with lowest at either maximum or minimum passenger loading.

With one crew, no pax and any bags loaded to the front of the cabin, we'll be lucky to get 1,100kgs of gas in.

[pitchlink]

B G,

If you are to be believed, I guess you are with Bristow in Norwich. I am on the 139 at North Denes, and have to say that, to me, the 139 is definately the way ahead for the medium fleet on the North Sea, without question.
I agree they did get off to a bad start reliability wise, but most of the regularly occuring problems are gradually being ironed out by Agusta. The main cause of the two aircraft at Denes staying on the round for a lot longer than required recently on their 1200 hour checks is down to lack of CHC engineering management of large projects. When they finally do get them going the lack of spares/ support from HELI ONE is astounding. The first aircraft got half way through the check and then ran out of parts so the engineers sat around for a few days with nothing to do bar fit some cowlings waiting for parts to arrive!
To answer your question, when engineering is sorted, the 139 is reliable, and is at the moment quite the best aircraft you could hope to fly. When they get uprated to 6800kgs, the offshore companies will love them even more!

[singlecut]

The RFM states front to rear and even has a picture depicting the loading sequence.

[AuxHyd]

PASSENGER LOADING
The tables below give the passenger loading sequence that must be followed for the 12 or 15 seat configurations, in order to maintain the center of gravity (CG) within the limits. If the passenger loading sequence given in the tables below cannot be followed, the third passenger row must be the last to be occupied.

[BlenderPilot]

What is the "Design Speed"? (Agusta 139)

TIA

[PatMcgroin]

OK Now pop the clutch!

[JimL]

Vie,


The criteria for the allowable winch cable angle is set out in AC 29-2C (the more relevant part underlined):"In all approved cases, appropriate winch system placards and flight manual restrictions should be provided. Also, for Class D load combinations, the winch or hoist should have a demonstrated, acceptable level of reliability (for the phases of flight in which it is operable and in which the Class D load is carried externally). The winch should be disabled (or utilize an overriding mechanical safety device such as a flagged removable shear pin) to prevent inadvertent load unspooling or release during the phases of flight that the load is carried externally and operation is not intended. The maximum allowable winch cable angle should be determined and approved. This is primarily a structural requirement but should also be reviewed from an interference and flight handling criteria standpoint."Jim

[sox6]

JimL Surely none of that actually ensures the angle is practical for operational HHO (though the cable may be strong enough, stay clear of obstructions and the aircraft may still handle adequately).

The idea of a dual hoist is to give redundancy when winching not lower people down to the back of the cabin:ok:

Is the long nose / short nose feature a good indication of who knows about winching and who doesn't?

Is the 5º forward angle to cut drag airframe in crusie?

[leopold bloom]

Is the 5º forward angle to cut drag airframe in crusie
The purpose is generally to reduce excessive nose-down attitude in the cruise.

[heliski22]

Long Nose not making any real difference to CG.

Try doing a calculation with 40kg located at the nose wheel station of your short nose ...........

[Aser]

Good times...
:ok:

http://www.verticalmag.com/control/news/templates/?a=5894&z=6

CHC Helicopter Corporation Signs A Contract For Thirteen AW139 Helicopters
Monday, November 05, 2007 / AgustaWestland

AgustaWestland is pleased to announce that CHC Helicopter Corporation through its global helicopter support division, Heli-One, has signed a contract for thirteen AW139 medium twin helicopters. The order value is worth approximately 140 million dollar. This new order, which adds to the previous one for twenty AW139s, will further expand CHC's AW139 fleet dedicated to offshore and emergency medical service missions. CHC, as the world's largest provider of helicopter services to the global offshore oil and gas industry, started incorporating the AW139 helicopter into its fleet in 2005 as part of its fleet renewal and expansion plans.

Renzo Lunardi, Senior Vice President Commercial Business Unit, AgustaWestland said "We are proud and delighted that a leading operator such as CHC, by executing this contract, has committed to add additional AW139s to its fleet of aircraft. The AW139 is the best selling medium twin engine helicopter in the world and will enable CHC to deliver improved levels of performance, safety, capacity and comfort to its customers."

The AW139 has quickly become the twin engine helicopter of choice for offshore oil and gas support operations with sales of over 100 aircraft for this market. The AW139 is ideally suited for the offshore role, with its large cabin and baggage compartments allowing it to transport 12 to 15 passengers while offering ease of access and egress by way of its large sliding cabin doors. The AW139's excellent characteristics including its roomy and unobstructed cabin make this helicopter an ideal choice for EMS and SAR applications as well. CHC is progressively expanding and strengthening its capabilities in emergency medical services and search and rescue markets, offering increased capabilities and improved services. CHC was awarded a contract in March 2007 to operate three AW139s in Australia providing improved emergency medical and rescue services 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Almost 300 orders have been placed by more than 80 customers from over 30 countries to date, making it the benchmark helicopter in the medium twin category. Designed with inherent multi-role capability and flexibility of operation, the AW139 can perform many roles including offshore transport, search and rescue, emergency medical service, VIP/corporate transport, law enforcement and utility missions.

http://www.verticalmag.com/control/news/templates/?a=5958&z=6
Gulf Helicopters Order 10 AW139 Helicopters
Tuesday, November 13, 2007 / AgustaWestland
AgustaWestland is pleased to announce the signing of a contract with Gulf Helicopters of Qatar for 10 AW139 helicopters. The aircraft will be equipped for offshore passenger transportation operations. The agreement also includes the establishment of an AgustaWestland Service Station in Qatar for the AW139. The overall contract value is approximately 130 million dollar.
This order further consolidates the AW139 as the best selling medium twin engine helicopter both in the Middle East region and in the worldwide offshore transport market.
Giuseppe Orsi, CEO, AgustaWestland said "We are delighted Gulf Helicopters has chosen the AW139 as part of its fleet renewal programme. Gulf Helicopters is the latest operator who will able to take maximum advantage of the operational advantages of the AW139, the best medium twin for offshore transport operations. This order is further evidence that AgustaWestland has also become the helicopter company of choice for competitive and complete offshore transport helicopter solutions."
This latest order means AW139 sales have now broken the 300 mark with orders from more than 80 customers in over 30 countries. The only new generation helicopter in its weight class, the AW139 has become the benchmark helicopter in the medium twin market. Over 100 aircraft are now in service performing offshore transport, VIP transport, law enforcement, utility, SAR and emergency medical service missions.
Gulf Helicopters is a wholly owned subsidiary of Qatar Petroleum, a company wholly owned by the government of the State of Qatar. Gulf Helicopters have been providing helicopter services since 1970 working with companies throughout the Middle East, India and North Africa. Gulf Helicopters has its own in-house maintenance facility with a team of highly qualified and experienced engineers undertaking fleet maintenance and modification work.

[SARREMF]

I flew the 139 this year.

I did some SAR style sorties in a short nose. We averaged 6 degrees nose up but what surprised me was that you hardly noticed.

In particular the rear crew said this was a non event for them and they had no issues with the angle of dangle created by the hoist - although it was a single installation. We are expecting the long nose to reduce the amount of nose up to about 4-5 degrees for a SAR cab in the configuration we want it in. Overall, very very impressed with the cab.

[TwinHueyMan]

Spoke with a friend today who did some hoisting in a 139 as well... said the nose was up about 15 degrees usually in the hover, and this created quite an issue during overwater evolutions. Rotorwash was somehow sucked down in the front and along the belly of the chopper, which went straight down and created a very strong and odd current in the water. If the aircraft hovered over the swimmer for more than a few seconds, he would always end up getting pushed about 30 deg left off the tail, for a ways. The only way they could do it was come in and quickly drop the hook to the swimmer, then slide the ship away and stand off while he hooked up and/or got the victim ready to be winched. He's winched off a lot of platforms and said the 139 was by far his least favorite.

Nice chopper tho!

Mike

[bpaggi]

Folks

I have no operational experience but I have a considerable test experience and I'd like to offer some data to take into consideration.
139 pitch attitude in hover varies from +6 to +10° depending of CG.
Considering that the 139 has an excellent hover controllability performance, even up to new 6800 kg Gross Weight, that allows 45 kts wind from any direction with planty of margins, you could easily lower your pitch attitude leaving the relative wind at your right side (90° Az).
With wind from right you can lower your pitch attitude from +7° to +4° at 20 kts and +3° at 30 kts with forward CG. Similar figure at Aft CG.
This could look odd but you can do it with the 139 easily and safely with a lot of margins.
Remember that head wind will not lower your pitch attitude.
I hope this can help

[P2bleed]

Hi bpaggi,

Interesting news especially the increase in MGW to 6.8t. Is this official now and if so to what serial numbers does this apply.

[bpaggi]

It is not official yet.

[heliski22]

bpaggi

Is 6800kgs expected by mid-2008? The sooner, the better in any case.

Other than a performance limitation at around 8000ft, any other effects anticipated?

[bpaggi]

Too early to say officially but the aircraft flys perfectly also at the new increased weight.

[SARREMF]

TwinHueyMan

My experience of flying the 139 was not how your friend described it at all. I fly the 412 and my crewman thought the downwas was pretty identical to the 412 on the 139. With about 5 kts of wind the downwash was just aft of the baggage bay giving a clear area for the winchman.

I have heard some of the early machines - probably set up as 15 seaters - can hover like that but I haven't flown one of them so I am only repeating 3rd hand info. What I can say first hand is what I already have.

bpaggi

Interesting idea. As said though I found the forward visibility to not be a problem at the higher nose up.

The only other thing I did notice was just how fast the ship is and how much you have to anticipate to slow it down. Now then I did get the nose up in my quick stop!

I really am very smitten with it!

[avtar4112]

Hi Gents

We have a new AW139 arriving soon. The Main transmission is full of preserving fluid. Question? Is it possible to drain the oil from the transmission without the electric pump the IETP recommends? We have the drain adaptor, can we use a hand pump and gravity method? or is it better to get the electric pump?

Thank you.

[AB139engineer]

I purchased a hand powered vacuum type oil removal pump / tank from a local marine supply and it works real well. Depending on what brand you get you can adapt it to the MGB drain hose using cheap plastic hose adapters. It came with some small tubes so you can also pull the oil cap adapter on the PT6 and drain the engines also. No more messing around with the drain plugs that are so close to the horizontial firewall there is no room for a drain pan. Total cost $60 dollars.
Agusta Electric Pump $$$$$$$$$$$

[noooby]

We got the electric pump from Agusta. No mess, no fuss, drains the main gearbox in less than a minute. Make sure you hold onto the hose in the bucket, that oil fair flies out of the gearbox! You might as well get the pump, you'll be doing oil changes every 300hours when you change the filter

[CJA]

OK, so we can get away with draining via the hand pump method. Might be easier in the long run to get the electric pump though by the sounds of things. Thanks for that.

Next question? main wheel tyres, the part listed in the IETP, is this a Dunlop tyre? Besides Augusta, where can we purchase these tyres from and are there other makes out there the same size?

Cheers.

[AB139engineer]

only agusta

[noooby]

Only Agusta? Hawker Pacific should be able to get them for you, or Aviall. Make sure there is nothing in your purchase contract that says you have to purchase all your parts from Agusta. There shouldn't be though. As long as the tyre has the same P/N as specified in the IPD (DR9837T) you are good to go. That P/N is a Dunlp P/N, and is readily available at aircraft tyre retailers. It should work out cheaper for you too. As I said though, make sure you're not voiding any parts supply contracts you may have with Agusta.
For K1W1 land, try Flightline, or Airwork as well as Hawk Pac and Aviall. And don't worry about spare nosewheel tyres, you won't need them for a looooong time. Best thing to do for your mains, is to have a spare set built up in stores. Instead of frigging around flipping the tyres to even out the wear, change the whole wheel, then you can flip the tyres in your workshop at your leisure, and put those wheels back into stock. If you have extended taxiing to do, pickup and hover taxi to save the tyres. Until Agusta fix the geometry stuff up that they made with the axles, that is the best that you can do. And carry a couple of Rotor Brake Actuators too. They don't like the heat in the compartment where they live, and are continually crapping out. An 'improved' actuator is supposed to be released soon.

[jet_kay]

one year ago We tried to get the tyres from other dealers but we couldnt, even we talked to Dunlop and in their catalogs there is no such P/N, i think Agusta has the exclusivity of selling them did it changed now???.

Anyway while waiting for the tyres from Agusta as they didnt had in their stock we installed Goodyear, same ply rates and much more speed, really very good tyres, they lasted double and half price, the only problem they r not certified and we couldnt get authorization to install them instead of the DUNLOP.

SO BUY A LOT OF SPARE TYRES YOULL NEED THEM :-)

[noooby]

Hmmm, the plot thickens!! They definitely show in the online Dunlop catalogue, and I can even add them to my shopping cart. It wants company info and the like to get an online quotation, and I don't think my company would appreciate my efforts if I did that :}, so I did the next best thing, I have emailed them asking for price and availability direct from Dunlop, and a list of resellers. We'll see what they come back with.

[Aser]

We are expecting the new long nose,dual hoist,flir, sar modes for AP etc.etc.etc. next week (i've seen a picture of them in Casina) :rolleyes:

Now, some of the "work in progress" we have got here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hwl7XhDssXA
http://stage6.divx.com/user/asermartinez/video/1831484/139-hoist
http://stage6.divx.com/user/asermartinez/video/1831432/139-khv
http://stage6.divx.com/user/asermartinez/video/1831438/139-pasada


Best regards
Aser

[heliski22]

aser

I saw that the other day in Vergiate. Pardon my ignorance, but what's with the dual hoist?

[noooby]

A reply from Agusta. AB139Engineer was right. That is frickin dumb. They are working on it, and they also have a fix for the rotor brake actuators. Here is part of the answer I received from Agusta:

"At present date only Dunlop tyres P/N DR9837T and P/N DR8941T have been qualified for the AB139/AW139, both on the same rating.

We are already evaluating the opportunity to qualify a different vendor for the same loads and ply rating (10 PR), but I do not have a forecasted date for this action at the moment. Any qualified alternative for the future will however be included in the IPD as soon as approved.

Regarding alternative Dunlop Aircraft Tyre resellers, our Spares department confirms that Agusta is the sole distributor for these tyres. According to our commercial agreements with the Vendor they can not be purchased from other Dunlop Aircraft Tyre resellers".



So, they are saying that they are working on other vendor tyres. The 9837T is the original tyre for the mainwheel. the 8941T is and "improved" tyre that has a different cross section, and is supposed to last longer. Haven't seen one yet, we still have about a dozen of the old style to get through first!

[AB139engineer]

Nooby, is there a Lead Acid conversion yet for the AW139 Main battery?
Our marathon Ni cad is crap after 2 years of service.

[Aser]

Finally!
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h263/aser_martinez/EC-KLNAW139.jpg
The two machines will arrive Spain next week.
Sadly I'll be off-duty :*

[noooby]

Hi AB139Engineer,

I don't think Agusta have done a Lead Acid conversion. I'd love to see one though. I hate Nicad's, they are so much more labour intensive compared to good old lead acid!
I walked past your hanger yesterday. Should have called in, but didn't know if anybody would know who to ask for if I asked for you by your pprune handle :)

[AB139engineer]

Go to Agar hanger Nooby and ring the door buzzer, there is only one AB139 Engineer there!

[noooby]

No worries dude. I'm tied up for the next few days, but I'll try and get out there sometime

[indrek]

Does anyone knows if any Agusta 139 is flying in Iran? (Offshore, what kind of firm-backround)

[jonnyloove]

Evening Ladies and Gents

Just a quick question. Is there any news off the 139s for CHC for the MCA contract or pics they must be finishing up soon?

Thank you all :)

[AB139engineer]

nooby I am leaving for Italy in 4 days to get the second machine:ok:

[whiskeytangofox]

Am due to attend the factory course early next year and was wondering if anyone can comment on where to stay, or places to eat or visit during my time there.
Also what sort of daily money one would need to survive.

Any other useful info much appreciated.

Thx

[AB139engineer]

Contact Agusta as they have a list of hotels and the rates vary, if your bringing your laptop make sure your choice has reliable internet, preferably high speed. Sesto Calende is nice and is walking distance to the training center, Arona to the north is also nice but is a larger community, and you will need a car.
Both have train stations if you wish to explore Italy on the weekends.

[faded one side]

whiskeytangofox
I was over doing my annual this autumn. I stayed at the "Hotel Tre" Re. Piazza Garibaldi 25 - Sesto Calende - 21018 ...
A very nice, and slightly unusual hotel in the Piazza. Easy walk to Agusta. The hotel David is even closer, but right on the main road into town and by the roundabout / traffic circle. Our company uses both, but personaly I would go for the Tre.
The daily cost will be relative to your currncy of course, but if you are earning USD, then a hundred bucks a day should be enough, unless you like a lavish time. Dinner is about 25-30 Euro. Don't bother with a car. The trains are great for inter city travel, and every where else you just walk
(like the Italians). Have fun. :cool:
FOS

[heliski22]

WTF

Tre Re is the one to get if you can, booked up well in advance so call straight away +39 0331 924229. Family run affair, they'll look after you well. During ground school, facilities are good, but if you're doing Sim training out of hours, bear in mind that it's impossible to get somewhere to eat before 7 or 7.30 in the evening or outside lunch hours.

Some guys take apartments locally and cater for themselves, might suit you better.

Up to yourself about transport, if you're a road head, then wheels are a must - I personally couldn't be that near those mountains and not be able to drive up there!!!!!

Despite the criticisms, you'll find all aspects of the training are quite well structured with good content prepared by a bunch of people who are interested in the level of knowledge you acquire, both in the classroom and in the Sim or flightline. It's constantly developing so it's somewhat different now than it was in the early days, particularly in the Sim.


You won't be a walking expert after it all, but you'll have enough to build a solid foundation for yourself upon which you can build once you get flying the line.

Above all - enjoy!!

[CS-Hover]

Hi

does any body have RFM Section 2/5/6 in digital format, that could show me? :O Need for some W&B/Performance calculations Paco's excel style

thanks

[heliski22]

Hey Aser!

How do you guys get the carpet and speeches and stuff? We ferried ours out of there this morning and all anybody could think of was getting the hell in out of the cold!!

[Aser]

Heliski22, I wasn't there :(

http://www.ddd.dgualdo.it/ecklm/ecklm-awe-001.jpg

Regards.
Aser

[Eng AW139]

2 very good hotel in Arona (up the road from the school) are

Atlantic
www.atlanticarona.com
Tel 0322 46521

Concorde
www.concordearona.com
Tel 0322 249372

much better night life and places to eat in Arona

[Eng AW139]

What is Agusta's fix for the failed rotor brake actuator's?

[noooby]

There are 2 improvements to the RBA's that I can remember. One is an improved switch inside the unit. Evidently it wasn't handling the vibration very well. The other mod escapes me at the moment. I had it in an email, but deleted it. All new RBA's are SUPPOSED to be of the improved type. Yeah, we'll see.
As an aside, we had an instance where it was actually the pressure switch on the RBCM on the forward roof that failed. This made the caliper stay away from the disc, as the Rotor Brake always thought the helicopter was flying. It is a pain in the :mad: to change too!!!!!

[Eng AW139]

Thanks I think we had change 5 Actuator this past year, have you had any problems with the hydraulic filter popping out. Agusta has told me that it's due to air in the system, but it seems #2 system is always popping.:ugh:

[AB139engineer]

The problem with the original rotor brake actuator is that after exposure to heat after so many hours the micro switches in the actuator would malfunction, apparently a upgraded version is in the works and should be available soon, Noobys rotor brake issue with a pressure sw fail is the only one I have heard of.

The Hydraulic Module No2 bypass button popping (most forward one) is still a on going issue on the AW139, I specifically asked about this issue while in Vergiate last week and have yet to get a satisfactory answer. Don't bother changing modules as that will not fix the problem. At one time Agusta said it was the landing gear cycling that caused the button to pop but that is untrue, we flew our machine around with the gear down one day and the button still popped. Temperature is a factor, in the warm summer days the button pops almost immediately, on cold days on short trips it does not pop. There has been some talk that perhaps the filters are too tight and need the micro spec opened up.

Has anyone else heard otherwise?

[kiilik]

The hydralic popp out is something we have every fligth on sys nr 2. And I couldnt say its related to temperature, we fly around +2 -2C so not so high or low temp, but popp out comes out around 10-15 min fligth. We have even checked during fligth from hyd main page when the filter close and bypass opens. Agusta explained that they are working on new oil filter. So till then lets wait and see.:confused:

[noooby]

Yep, I received a letter from Agusta a while back about the #2 Pressure Filter. In the letter they say that as long as the Return Filter is OK, then keep flying. Just reset the Pressure Filter next time it lands (and probably every landing after that!) This has been an ongoing issue for 2 1/2 years that I know of. Initialy we were told it was pressure pulses from the two pumps hitting the filter, and that the filter was too fine, and that the pop-out was too sensitve. A coarser filter and an improved pop-out indicator are supposedly on the way sometime, but I can't get a time frame out of them :ugh:
I think they are more concerned with increasing the Gross Weight just now, and sorting this sort of thing out later.
As an aside, we did figure out how to tell if the Pressure Filter really is blocked, as opposed to a false indication. The undercarriage will take a loooooong time to cycle (like about 40 seconds!!).
About time Agusta sorted this one out!!

[AB139engineer]

Hi Nooby, yes the gross weight increase is a big issue, and the use of the forward baggage compartment floor is another big issue for operators who have aircraft without the aux fuel tank. While in Vergiate I got the distinct impression that the engineering department at Agusta was focused on the Japan Coast Guard contract as it is 20 ships in a 2 year delivery schedule. One look at the JCG machines and you can tell there is a heck of a lot of new mods specific to their mission requirements and the approvals for these mods are going to take a lot of manhours and paperwork.

Also too If your going there to go over a new machine be very thorough with the paperwork as I found several errors on the Equipment list and Chart A / Chart C

[Eng AW139]

Thanks for the information, I was told by my Tec Rep here that there was a new pop out to be available this spring or summer. we have also been told that to bleed the system would clear up the problem. We have bled the system which seem to help for a flight or two but the problem returns.

I'm installing the 4th axis into 6 aircraft at the moment, heads up that some of the aircraft have been pre-wired but some have not. The BT call to run the new wiring, save some time check if the wiring is there before you pull the dash apart.:ugh:

[AB139engineer]

Agusta (Philly) will send out someone to complete the 4th axis AP on our first machine, the second machine already has the mod incorporated. My understanding is that it is a collective lever change and software upgrade and it had to be done by Agusta personal.

[Eng AW139]

Not at all just follow the BT you will require a level 1 test kit to load the AHAR's other than that quite easy to convert.

We are also installing the bubble windows now that is becoming a pain (waiting parts from Agusta) as well as the SX16.

[night dipper]

Hi Aser,

I was looking at the picture of the AW-139. It looks pretty smart:ok:. Can you tell something more about all the goodies it has got installed? I see FLIR and Nightsun, but has it got one or two winch, autohover etc.

Cheers!

[CJA]

Hi Guys

Can any of you people advise on why other operaters restrain the baggage when operating a AW139 on offshore. Besides the net does anyone use a forward restraining net or bulkhead arrangments and how does one stop the MAU covers from sustaining damage in this area?

Cheers

[MrTriple]

I'm looking for "Offshore" configured Empty Weights...........anyone?

Cheers

[CJA]

Can any of you people advise on HOW other operaters restrain the baggage when operating a AW139 on offshore. Besides the net does anyone use a forward restraining net or bulkhead arrangments and how does one stop the MAU covers from sustaining damage in this area?

Cheers 4th January 2008 20:02

[GOM139er]

CJA

We operate in the Gulf of Mexico and I don't think there is a way to protect the ridiculously flimsy MAU covers that come with the aircraft. We fabricated "boxes" around the front of the MAU's with "L" angles and a composite panel. It works very well. As for the net, it's installed but I am not sure how well it is used. We do also have a bulkhead that we fabricated and installed just forward of the MAU's.

[jet_kay]

to protect the MAUs from beeing hit with baggages, we put 2 hollow stainless steel tubes, with the shape of the cover just in front the MAUs. horizontal wise one above the other separated about 10cm from each other and attached to the structure by bolts and inserts. its a non aproved modification :-) but it avoid the damage.


cheers

[platinumpure]

Mr Triple.

You can expect empty weight for an offshore configured aircraft to be in the region of 9300lbs - 9700lbs depending on what you have installed.

In most of our aircraft with 2 200lbs pilots you can expect to carry around 4000 - 4100lbs, which is not great considering the aircraft burns on average 900 - 1000lbs of fuel per hour.

When the gross weight goes up the aircraft will be a winner I think.

[bombiter]

Since 2 years we now accumulated 4000 Hrs. with 2 ships. In that period we had 2 or 3 occasions where a crack in one of the covers was found during maintenance. A poly-repair solved the problem, and in doing so, the cover even became stronger.
Our experience is that using the net for heavier freight (drill bits and stuff) gives enough protection. The normal bagage, like the bags and suitcases the offshore people are taking with them, does not harm the covers; even in turbulence the risk is minor.
Now I have another question. Anybody who has done BT 139-080 Part I; the replacement of the transponder top antenna cable? Sound like a pretty time consuming job :}

Ciao

[wde]

Does anyone have experience with the Aux tank? I have heard a rumour that AW is planning a 1/2 size tank? Any info is appreciated.

wde

[heliski22]

Anybody had any instance of nose wheel shimmy while taxying? Maybe after running over or glancing off a taxi-way light?

[AB139engineer]

Yes, I am sure it is a characteristic of dual nose wheels when only one of the wheels contacts a small bump or small obstruction.

[heliski22]

139 Engineer

Happened to me yesterday, first time I've experienced it in any aircraft. Pretty severe vibration for a couple of seconds until I stopped, didn't know what it was for a bit, sitting there for a couple of seconds with death's grip on the controls waiting for something to fly off................!!!!!

[Aser]

heliski22,
Welcome to the club :}
I have never run over a taxiway light again.

wde,
We have been told that the next year will be an aux. tank. with a different shape to access the bag. compartment.

night dipper,
We have dual hoist,nightsun,flir,iridium-satcom,euronav moving map with AIS, a weather/search radar from telephonics (only in the 5th display := ) , a really nice direction finder from chelton,hums,NAT marine radios, HF radio...

For pictures interior/exterior:
http://helimer.bravehost.com/albumAW139/index.html

Regards
Aser

[redsarboy]

Hi Aser,

Check your PM :).

Cheers,

Redsarboy.

[Collective Bias]

Nice ship Aser:ok:

How do you find the visibility from the RH pilot seat on small running vessels, say like 15 meters?

What kind of auto approaches can it do?

Just curious on new technology.




Regards

CB

[patniven]

We have one AB-139 with an AUX fuel tank. The irony is that until we get a gross weight upgrade beyond 14,110 lbs...the tank is essentially unusable:

With a 400 lb. crew weight and enough weight in the front row of seats to bring it into CG with a full AUX tank, you are over MGW. Nearly 3700 lbs. of fuel would allow the AB-139 longer legs offshore than an S-76C+, but not until the gross weight is increased.

We hear the increase in gross weight is coming...but then, Agusta has promised us the 4th AFCS cue for years without delivering...:*

[Eng AW139]

I have been informed that the new hydraulic bypass pop outs will arrive shortly. :) I hope this clears up this problem.....:D

[heliski22]

Weight Increase

Previous posts notwithstanding, does anybody have any idea when the weight increase might actually happen?

Soon? Early this year? Late this Year? Next Year? Never?

22

[Aser]

Collective Bias,
visibility is bad, but, that doesn't mean we can't do the job...
We have got the 4-axis but we are waiting for the SAR modes. for the moment when you are below 60knots you can transition to auto-hover at the selected radio-height.

patniven & heliski,
I was talking with an Agusta pilot a few days ago, and he told us the weight increase is coming shortly this year, they just need to change the tires and landing gear.
We have the same problem with the aux. tank, 1450kg max. because of weight. not C.G. problem with the SAR version.

Regards.
Aser

[pumaboy]

Any news on the UK Coastguard AW139?

Any pics?

When are they due?

[3D CAM]

pumaboy
First one was supposed to be collected three weeks ago to go to Lee on Solent.:hmm:
Rumour now is that the first one will go to Portland, when it appears and crews trained up, with Lee crews, because the autopilot will not be ready for 24hr. all weather service for quite some time!:(

[Biggles1049]

Apologies if already posted , but here is a photo of G-CHCT at North Denes - only registered a few days earlier when photo taken back in 2006
http://www.abpic.co.uk/images/images/1010532M.jpg

[3D CAM]

Biggles
Very nice,:) but that isn't the one for the MCA contract!

[heliski22]

Aser

I'll be keen to hear more about that - all the information so far was no structural changes would be involved but that there would be some restriction to CAT A above 8000ft, give or take. We'll just have to wait and see, eh?

[AB139engineer]

Our machine is running great, just out of curiosity but has anyone seen a tail rotor chart for adjusting the pitch links to minimise tail rotor axial vibration?
We are currently using VXP

[drop lead]

Check out the AMP chpt 18, t/r track and balance. One of the "tools" listed is the chart, click on the hyper link for the chart p/n which takes you to the tools catalogue. Print a copy of the figure only and you will have the chart, in A4 size.

[AB139engineer]

Thanks Drop Lead , I am aware of that chart for the Agusta Smiths Hums, what I am looking for is the VXP specific chart. I will try Honeywell when I am at HAI in houston.

[drop lead]

No problem AB139engineer, the chart works well using a Chadwich 8500 and photocell (which is what Agusta Vergiate use also, if Hums is not fitted)
Could you still use that chart by ploting the VXp clock angle and ips level?
It may need a clock angle correction if the velocometers are located in a different location.
Does VXp have a photo cell to pick up the out of track blade?

[tottigol]

Any news on the gel cell batteries that were supposed to be STCed by AW?
The current NiCads are really putting a crimp in our operational tempo.

The batteries were sent to Italy from LC but nothing ever more was heard.

[noooby]

We've just fitted a new 44 A/H battery with a 900 hour servicing period instead of the 400 hour servicing of the older 44 A/H. It is a Micro Maintenance M3 battery by Marathon. Is that the one you are meaning??

[grover76]

Greetings,

I'm looking for an AW139 Flight Manual or other such reading material so I can start learning about the systems, limitations and emergency procedures prior to undertaking type training. If anyone has any useful files they can send me, please PM.

Many thanks to all :ok:

[wde]

Hey Grover:

Don't be so certain. In any case, why don't you wait a while, if they come it won't be for years.

Better stick with keeping up to date with the '76.

Signed;

The Count (Ah Ah Ah)

[AB139engineer]

Drop lead, sorry for the delayed return to your question as I have been out of town importing a second machine. Yes track on the 139 with VXP can be corrected, it has both radial and axial accelerometers with photocell. In the mean time I can use a modified agusta chart.;)

[GOM139er]

:ok:AB139Engineer,
I have been using the VXP to adjust in flight track of the tail rotor for about a year and a half. I originally got a production chart from engineering and modified it to work with the VXP. We operate at max gross wt. pretty much all the time and we were experiencing quite a few problems in the structure of the tail boom and not only the attach fittings. Since we've started to perform the inflight track of the tail rotor all the way to VNE we have not experienced any problems in the tail structure. Also,you may find that the pronounced 5per vibes will be greatly reduced as the tail rotor simulates a M/R 5per. We are currently working with Honeywell and hopefully the proper corrections will be in the program some time soon. If you need the chart, let me know. However, it sounds like you have a good plan.:ok:

[Aser]

UK: First Coastguard AW139 due this week - operational from 3rd April
http://www.thisisdorset.net/display.var.2057645.0.new_era_in_rescue.php

Passenger Helicopter Service to Tallinn to Resume
http://www.yle.fi/news/left/id83142.html

Govt to acquire new chopper for VIP use
http://www.siasat.com/english/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=246580&Itemid=79&cattitle=Hyderabad

Korean Coast Guard Orders Two AW139 Maritime Helicopters
http://www.verticalmag.com/control/news/templates/?a=6779&z=6

YTL Corporation Berhad Orders An AW139 Helicopter
http://www.verticalmag.com/control/news/templates/?a=6780&z=6

AgustaWestland Performs AW139 Assembly Line Grand Opening In Philadelphia
http://www.verticalmag.com/control/news/templates/?a=6778&z=6

[widgeon]

lotsa sales . looks like they have a winner . How are EC155 sales going now ?.

[heliski22]

Got a #1 DCGEN Caption a couple of times during cool-down, took a few enquiries to reveal it was only the % on #1 dropping below 3% at which point the GCU1 was switching the GEN out. Hence the caption but no fault showing in a subsequent check of the maintenance pages.

After taking a while to realise I'm flying a great big computer around the skies - i.e., CTRL+ALT+DEL if in doubt - things are getting a little more relaxed!!

Awesome heli, really!

[cayuse365]

The FAA has finished the approval of the 4th axis in the U.S.. Other operators have told us that the collective is constantly moving while engaged in 3Q. They say that you cannot simply select a power setting, like the Honeywell SPZ 7600 autopilot. Is it the same all over, or did the FAA require something different.

[heliski22]

C365

It does seem to move quite a bit - this is the first 4-axis I've flown so I've nothing to compare it to. In bumpy conditions last week, using ALT and IAS as well as NAV modes, the collective seemed to be forever busy! I took out IAS for a while and it reduced quite a bit but it still moved some. This was the ifrst time I looked at that in particular and it was only a brief look so I couldn't say anything definitive.

22

[Aser]

heliski22, if you want to get rid of the DC gen caption during cool down, just put the bus tie on or increase the gen load.

cayuse365, you are right about the 4-axis, the collective moves a bit but you get used to it.

After taking a while to realise I'm flying a great big computer around the skies - i.e., CTRL+ALT+DEL if in doubt - things are getting a little more relaxed!!

This remembers me of the MAU reset (on ground) we had to do during some problems... there is a procedure with both breakers... :E


Anyone involved in the UK s.a.r. fleet knows what radar is installed?


Regards
Aser

[Helispanner]

Aser, you mean you did not wander over when picking up your 3rd Aircraft to have a look. P701 radar fitted. Pity CHC did not supply a correct photo to the Dorset Echo of the SAR aircraft, not an old Oil and Gas machine.

[Aser]

Helispanner, I went yesterday to pickup the 3rd aircraft, I had just time for a coffee and out to helicopter, but I got a glimpse of the second UK sar 139 in the distance when leaving the hangar!
What a difference from 2006, Vergiate is full of 139s

Just a couple of pictures:

Out if Milan at FL120
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h263/aser_martinez/007.jpg

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h263/aser_martinez/P3020070.jpg

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h263/aser_martinez/P3020069.jpg

Regards

[Helispanner]

Aser
Some pics of the SAR AW139, now at Lee-on Solent, that you missed.

http://img3013.photobox.co.uk/64250026d381612e964bf48b3aaeec9f935a152f3d4e6dc8a28086bc0d8e 55baab14c90b.jpg

http://img3013.photobox.co.uk/28436496f9d078de94970c5eee6eeb02063d8ee8b4574c57aa6909198fba edaccf2613ab.jpg

[3D CAM]

Helispanner
G-CGIJ.
Wow, it does exist then! Any news on when the other two are due in the U.K.? Also when will the auto hover and SAR modes be up and running? Maybe the S61's will finally get to rest towards the end of the year.:)
With ref. to your bit about the Dorset Echo article. CHC couldn't even supply the real figures for casualty carrying ability! 15??? On North Sea duty maybe, SAR, Hmmm! Also said it had more endurance than the S61! I thought only one new machine had the overload tank fitted?
3D

[jeepys]

3D CAM,

From what I have heard I would agree with you on the endurance bit. Apparently the 139 burns the same as a 61 but carries a little more than half the fuel load (without the overload tank that is), therefore I would say the 139 has far less endurance.

I am sure the Lee boys will soon tell us all.

[heliski22]

http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg138/heliski22/dublin009.jpg


http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg138/heliski22/dublin008.jpg

Looks I got a nicer day for the trip than you did, Aser! Something about those mountains, isn't there?!! Saas Fee on the Nose and the Dom on the left (red spot on the left of Map display) at 14911ft

[wde]

Wow..what great shots!! Make me jealous...

On another point, I have a question:

How long does it take to go through the prestart and start procedures on the 139? It looks like our EMS customer is upgrading from the 76 to the 139 and I would like to know the impact it will have on our dispatch time...

Thanks in advance.

wde

[patniven]

You could use the 'Quick Start' Procedure in the RFM...probably designed for the EMS Industry. We don't use that procedure in the Offshore GoM environment. A full start (first start of the day) takes some time...maybe about 6-8 minutes to takeoff. Once that is completed the Thru-Flight start is very quick. Dual engine starts are prohibited, but with a GPU you can start one immediately after the other starter has dropped out. You could probably be airborne in less than two minutes while your co-dude is still working on the MCDU and NAV data input (FMS).

[wde]

Three minutes? That is quick. Are there wait times after the first engine is started? When do the electronics come on prior to or after the first engine start?

Thanks

[donut king]

Hi WDE!

Is this Ontario EMS? We heard rumours about the a/c change/ upgrade. If it is Ontario, good for you guys.

As for dispatch times, I hope reference to flight manual/manufacturer's procedure is priority! I have come across the "scramble start" mentality on certain op's which leads to mission oriented mentality rather than solid aviation standards mentality!

Two minutes from engine start to airborne seems quite drastic. There must be some requirement for oil temperature and internal metals coming up to temp before placing any load on them??? Hope you 139 dudes can advise?

Cheers!

DK

[patniven]

Using normal battery start procedures, the second engine can be started as soon as the loadmeter is in the green (roughly 20-40 seconds). Using external power, the second engine can be started immediately after the first starter drops out (49% Ng). Using the Quick Start procedure, the second engine can be started after the starting engine Ng reaches 25%, even on a battery start. The only delay for any start is waiting for ENG & XMSN T's and P's. In our GoM environment, the temps are in the green very soon after the starter drops out. Colder climate operations would obviously have to wait longer. NOTE: No shortcuts here...These procedures are straight from the RFM.

As soon as the battery switches are turned on, all avionics are powered-up. There is a RAD MASTER switch that disables some of the avionics to aid in a battery start (RAD MASTER OFF). We use a GPU for nearly every start...RAD MASTER ON...and all avionics are powered-up as soon as the External Power is applied and battery switches are on.

[heliski22]

And don't forget PW requirement to keep the difference in cycles between No 1 and 2 to less than 10%, means you need to alternate the first engine to be started, a little gem hidden away in the engine maintenance manuals and which I didn't find out until the first 50-hour check. Unlike Patniven, we're starting pretty much all the time on the battery so No 1 has been getting the vote all the time................................

[RedWhite&Blue]

heliski22

I'm a little confused, why not start the No 2 engine with the aircraft main battery?

All the best

Red

[RedWhite&Blue]

flungdung

I agree, but only connect the bus tie seconds before starting the No2. It's not been a hugh problem.


I admit that you don't get too many chances before the MAUs have got the better of the batteries, but that's par for the course with a 139.

Red

[Aser]

heliski22,
Did you try the DCL mode in the ils?

We have found that after reducing speed with IAS mode or using DCL mode, the helicopter always deviates to the right and we end aligned with the taxiway!
Agusta pilot also checked it.
Any other 4-axis user out there?

"Sunset"
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h263/aser_martinez/P3120019-1.jpg

Regards
Aser

[platinumpure]

Aser I have noticed this in a few aircraft, however only on the 3 axis while using the auto level mode while reducing power on the ILS. As you spoke of it was quite a deviation to the right on the ILS.

I agree with Red white and blue. There should be no problem with starting the number 2 first even off the main battery, if you can't you probably need a new main batt or it needs to be deep cycled. The only time you are going to have problems is if you are starting all the time on external power (bad practice) as this will rape the batteries if you don't use them to start. We found this out a year or two ago. To be honest though there is not going to be much of a difference in time between starting with the batt or the EPU.

As for the quick start (which was developed for the EMS industry, I remember something about 3 mins for some reason, something to do with EMS operators in Europe. However, it was quite a while ago I heard this so I may be mistaken)...I have never tried it but if you like I can certainly try it tomorrow and come up with a time for you from seltbelts on to take off. I would estimate around 3-4 minutes if all the system checks have been completed.

[BedakSrewet]

Have any of the 139 operators considered replacing the Ni-cad batteries with CONCORDE sealed lead acid batteries ?

They ( CONCORDE ) have numerous STC's for 'other' type / models helicopters but haven't seen one for the 139. Perhaps the right time to put pressure on AW to evaluate and approve

One of the advantages -of sealed lead acids- over Ni-cads is that one will not have any more problems with -defective- battery temp warning systems that warns you for a thermal runaway .

A phenonemon invented by MARATHON, probably triggered by the MARATHON 'bossom buddies' that used to 'parade' around the annual HAI shows in the eighties....

[heliski22]

Aser,

Just noticed that deviation to the right recently and checked it again last night, same thing. Deviation indicator in the middle of the course needle also flickering left and right off centre by a couple of mm from about 6miles out. As you say, fully coupled and using IAS mode to back off the speed as we came in. We'll run some checks next week but when it auto levels, I like to see it run down the centreline - much warmer feeling!!

Yes, I've tried the DCL mode but rather than claim it doesn't work, I'm going to double-check what the RFM says about using it. I thought I was doing it right but.....................

As for the battery start for number two, I agree it shouldn't be a problem and I'd have done it more often if I'd known about the PW 10% requirement, so I'm just going to start #2 first whenever I can now. I'd prefer to see closer to 24v than 23v (just me being cautious)for #2 so I've even started to carry a hand held - the last thing I want to hear is "Standby" after calling Ground for start at some major airport or other (hate bloody airports, I do).

Is it just me, or do you get accustomed to the higher vibe, or does it settle down after a bit? I feel it increasing through about 142/143 knots (pretty common) but the last couple of trips, I've pegged it at the highest speed IAS mode will allow (e.g., 153KIAS at 4,500 ft) and just left it there, before long I'm wondering where the vibe has gone?

[heliski22]

Aser

Did the DCL thing a couple of times today. It did the decel to 80kts fine but the same as you each time, off to the right but came back in to the centreline over the numbers. I let it continue to ALVL, otherwise it would have been aligned with the grass to the right side at DH.

PM me with some contact details, please.

22

[Geoffersincornwall]

"1. The optimum Nr for rotor performance is 100% (any more or less and the rotor is LESS efficient)

2. In order to meet the RFM Cat A performance standards, any OEI flight during take off and landing must be conducted with the remaining engine at maximum power.

3. To ensure that this is so, the collective lever must be raised until the Nr droops. This will bring the remaining engine up to maximum power. If the remaining engine is NOT at maximum power then the performance promised in the RFM cannot be guaranteed.

4. If the starting point was 100% Nr then this would mean that when the Nr was 'drooped' to say 98% then the rotor was working at a less efficient speed so the Nr is set to 102%. Thus, when the Nr is drooped it will droop to 100% where it should remain until Vtoss is achieved.


Comment!

[212man]

1. Type specific ;)
2&3. Obvious, and applicable to any type :ok:
4. Gobbledygook :confused:

[Geoffersincornwall]

It's 'Guess The Question' time. The question you answered is not the question being asked - apologies for sounding a bit like Donald Rumsfeld.

The statement posted was in response to the much asked question

"Why do we select 102% Nr for Cat A ops but not for Cat B Ops - or for that matter during OEI ops"

The only answer I can find that fits the published info is the one given. Apologies if you find it gobbledegook. If you tell me which bit you don't understand the I will try to explain further. Other 139 guys seem to get it but maybe you are not familiar with the type.

G

[bpaggi]

"1. The optimum Nr for rotor performance is 100% (any more or less and the rotor is LESS efficient)

It depends what is your flight condition or flight profile. For Cat A operations optimum NR is 102% as pubblished
2. In order to meet the RFM Cat A performance standards, any OEI flight during take off and landing must be conducted with the remaining engine at maximum power.
In order to meet the RFM Cat A performance you have to stick to RFM procedures that are quite clear. FADEC will take care of the power once you take care of the pubblished procedures
3. To ensure that this is so, the collective lever must be raised until the Nr droops. This will bring the remaining engine up to maximum power. If the remaining engine is NOT at maximum power then the performance promised in the RFM cannot be guaranteed.
Not true, collective has to be kept at the same position of a standard AEO maneuvre unless a droop is necessary to achieve transational lift to accelerate to Vtoss
4. If the starting point was 100% Nr then this would mean that when the Nr was 'drooped' to say 98% then the rotor was working at a less efficient speed so the Nr is set to 102%. Thus, when the Nr is drooped it will droop to 100% where it should remain until Vtoss is achieved.

The starting point for Cat A can only be 102%. The droop is allowed up to 90% and is not meant to achieve a better efficiency but to convert the huge M/R inertia into transational lift, once you have achieved Vtoss you have to recover your 102% NR setting.

100% Nr is only for Cat B because there is no need for extra power to ensure best Cat B performance in the entire envelope.

[Geoffersincornwall]

It depends what is your flight condition or flight profile. For Cat A operations optimum NR is 102% as pubblished

With respect the aircraft does not know whether you are flying Cat A or Cat B so the type of profile selected cannot affect the rotor efficiency. It is either more efficient at 102% or not. If it is more efficient then why not use it for Cat B ops and for OEI landings? I suspect, but I don't know (and I wish I did) that the helicopter is designed to fly at 100% because that is the most efficient Nr.


In order to meet the RFM Cat A performance you have to stick to RFM procedures that are quite clear. FADEC will take care of the power once you take care of the pubblished procedures

The FADEC (actually it's not a FADEC but I know what you mean) will only deliver if you put the collective in the right place. As the RFM invites you to adjust collective during the response to engine failure it may not be in the right place to get max power from the remaining engine. 'FADEC' wont help you then.


Not true, collective has to be kept at the same position of a standard AEO maneuvre unless a droop is necessary to achieve transational lift to accelerate to Vtoss

Well the only practical way I know that you can be sure the remaining engine is at max power is to pull until the NR droops. Exactly how much droop would depend on the circumstances.


The starting point for Cat A can only be 102%. The droop is allowed up to 90% and is not meant to achieve a better efficiency but to convert the huge M/R inertia into transational lift, once you have achieved Vtoss you have to recover your 102% NR setting.

Agree

100% Nr is only for Cat B because there is no need for extra power to ensure best Cat B performance in the entire envelope.

Surely any wise pilot who believes that 102% Nr endows the machine, in some way, with better performance, would select 102 for every take off - A or B.

I am not sitting here thinking I know all the answers that's why I'm enlisting Ppruners help and advice but if it's not published by AW then I have to be sceptical. If AW say 102 is good for Cat A but not for Cat B then I have to look deeper for an answer. It cannot be performance, it must be technique. Somebody show me otherwise and I'll be a happy man.

G

:} :{

[Aser]

3. To ensure that this is so, the collective lever must be raised until the Nr droops. This will bring the remaining engine up to maximum power. If the remaining engine is NOT at maximum power then the performance promised in the RFM cannot be guaranteed.

Not true, collective has to be kept at the same position of a standard AEO maneuvre unless a droop is necessary to achieve transational lift to accelerate to Vtoss

Humm...
" SINGLE ENGINE FAILURE, RECOGNIZED AT/AFTER TDP (CONTINUED TAKE OFF)"
1. [...].Mantain 0º while using collective to droop NR to minimum of 90% and set 2.5min. power.

Yes, "quite clear" :E

Anyway... if you are taking off at any Tq. above 80% I don't think you need to use collective, the "droop" will be automatic. If you are very light you may need to use collective to drop NR and use all the power the engine can give (if you need it).

Geoffersincornwall, how is it in the sim at MGW ? I'd like to go there some day.


EDIT: I think the rotor is more efficient at NR 90% than 100% at 2.5min power , in the transition to Vtoss. No?

Regards
Aser

[Geoffersincornwall]

The sim as a fantastic tool but as with any such device will only deliver according to the software. It is supposed to be accurate but how do you know when the only real aircraft training is done using the OEI training switch - which is a great tool in itself.

I'm currently doing a customer's TR course and due to their location have cranked up the OAT to 35 - 40 degrees. At that temp and with no wind the machine does the job with no fuss. A higher MTOM will be interesting but we are waiting to hear officially about that.

Enjoying the job very much but wish that the flow of information was a little better. Physically I am near the centre of the AW world but info-wise I could be the other side of the world. That's the trouble when you are not important enough.

Hope to see you one day.

G

[212man]

Geoff, you are right - I am not familiar with the type and maybe the quote would appear more logical in a wider context.

What I would say is this: For a CAt B procedure, the only pre-requisite is the ability to hover IGE AEO. Nothing is guaranteed in the way of OEI performance either for a rejected take off or continued (or attempted continued!) Take off. Therefore, it would make sense to operate the aircraft at the most efficient Nr when AEO, which seems to be 100%, as this is the only flight regime being recognised by the RFM.

For a CAt A procedure, everything is predicated on the subsequent OEI performance, so it would make sense to operate such that in the event of an engine failure, the aircraft then enters the optimum OEI conditions. It would seem that the natual Nr decay for this type (as quoted) is about 2%, therefore setting 102% for AEO ops would place the aircraft at 100% in the transition to OEI.

Of course, at the end of the day it all depends what you do with the lever after the failure and I'm assuming the quoted decay is the normal result of leaving the collective position alone.

I hope this ties in with your dilema?

[Aser]

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photos/photos/6/8/8/1337886.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK---Coast/Agusta-AB-139-(AW-139)/1337886/L/

Nice nose... :ok:

[bpaggi]

Of course the aircraft does not realize whether it's flying at 100 or 102%. For AW139 Cat A operations 102% has not been selected to have the best rotor efficiency but to achieve the best Cat A performance. So in this terms the best aircraft efficiency is 102% NR

Actually is FADEC and nothuing else that it'll take care of the power delivered topping the engine at 2.5' rating and giving you always the max power available. Collective has to be kept at the same position most of the times and when needed (at the extreme of the nevelope) pulled in order to droop the rotor as much as required to achieve transitional lift.

You do not need to know whether the engine is at max power, you need to carry out the reccomended procedure. Actually you need to watch NR gauge and not PI. Many conditions will not require max OEI power to carry out the procedure.

If you operate the aircraft within the RFM limitations you'll have huge safety margins at 100% NR in the whole Cat B envelope respecting the certification requirements.

212man

The reason 102% has been selected is not to achieve 100% when the rotor droops but to have a greater inertia reserve down to 90% when is required

[JimL]

Geoff,

Firstly, bpaggi (if he is who we think he is) should know, and I would bow to his superior knowledge; it is nice having someone who is at the sharp end of Flight Testing prepared to confirm/refute such statements. Like 212man - I would like to qualify my statements, as he does, by stating that I have no intimate knowledge of the AW139 performance.

Category B performance consists of the provision of AEO data - one of which elements is the provision of "the horizontal distance required to take-off and climb over a 15 m (50-foot) obstacle"; one of the conditions of that manoeuvre is that "a landing can be made safely at any point along the flight path if an engine fails" - which we can assume to mean that the trajectory remains outside the HV diagram. As this is conducted at AEO, we can assume that the most efficient condition of rotor-speed is used (in your text 100%) - no failure is assumed.

Category A - for all of the noise we make about it - is mostly about distances. Under normal circumstances, we can assume that distances are critical only if the engine fails at the critical point - which is at TDP (minus the pilot recognition and intervention time - i.e. one second unless otherwise justified and accepted). The distances are: the rejected distance; and the take-off distance. These distances are specified with one-engine-inoperative.

In meeting the requirement for the rejected distance, the point in space at which the engine-failure is assumed to occur plays its part. TDP is the last point at which the pilot has to be able reject the take off and land; field-of-view and the (average pilot's) ability to fly the helicopter into the area provided by the rejected take-off distance available dictates where this point can be in a vertical and horizontal sense.

For the take-off distance; the pilot must, with a failure recognised at the critical point, be able conduct a contined take-off and avoid all obstacles in achieving the the projected take-off distance required at the appropriate conditions. The achievement of this distance also depends on the point in space of the TDP.

However, as procedures have become more sophisticated, the total energy package has had to be considered; in that package are a number of potential benefits (mainly for the continued take-off - for the rejected take-off, some of these could, if exceeded, be disbenefits): the vertical acceleration at the point of failure; the potential energy contained at the height of the TDP; and the energy stored in the rotor before it is drooped (to the manufacturers recommended setting).

As you well know, this total energy package is used extremely effectively in achieving the OEI trajectory to avoid the take-off surface; in an elevated procedure, it provides the deck-edge miss and utilises the drop down to recover the rotor speed (to 100%?) and provide acceleration to Vtoss.

Now to return to the initial point; the conditions for the Cat A procedure are optimised to utilise all engergy at a single critical point of failure. If that point is passed with all-engines-operating, the procedure ceases to be critical unless (and I can't imagine why this would be the case), the single engine profile is flown with AEO.

Jim

[Geoffersincornwall]

Lots to think about there.

Bpaggi - just to clarify I said that the aircraft doesn't know if it's being operated Cat A or Cat B not that it was unaware of the NR ...... it obviously IS.

My situation is that I have to teach exactly what it says in the RFM/QRH and my colleagues and I try hard to do that. We are however beginning to encounter other (very professional) colleagues from around the world who come for their recurrent training and bring with them their intelligent interpretations of the gaps and ambiguities of the master documents such as the RFM.

What we crave is the aviation equivalent of that wonderfully interesting DVD that often accompanies the Movie DVD - "How it was made" "Interviews with the director".....That kind of background stuff would enable those of us in the firing line to deliver not only 'technique' but also 'understanding'


It is desperately frustrating to have the opportunity to deliver an accurate and meaningful contribution to the safe and effective operation of this great helicopter only to be starved of background info. We have tried asking more experienced AW colleagues but cannot get a consistent answer. Whatever we get we need it from those that know and in writing.... please.

If Bpaggi can help further would love to chat.

G

:ok:

PS - Doesn't a proper FADEC include control of the starting cycle???

[bpaggi]

Geoff, you're perfectly right. You all operators need to know how and why everything was made. We are perfectly aware of that and we have already (as a company) organized a meeting with the Italian Corporates Pilots where we gave a presentation on how we built the AW139 Take Off and Landing procedures.

I also think we need all possible feedbacks from you because everything is made for you.

I'll start working on this and I'll let you know as soon as possible what we can organize.

I'm also available in this forum whenever I can.

Yes FADEC includes also control starting cycle.

[pitchlink]

To answer ASER's statement;
"I think the rotor is more efficient at NR 90% than 100% at 2.5min power , in the transition to Vtoss. No?"

Next time you have an aircraft for training, sit in a high hover in a high power situation, out of wind, and get the training captain to fail an engine. If you droop the NR down toward 90% you will find the Aircraft will sink. By lowering the collective and allowing the NR to increase toward 100% the aircraft will start to climb, indicating the increase in efficiency of the rotor system at 100%NR. :ok:

[Aser]

Thanks pitchlink,
It was really a question.
I was just thinking about the possibility that at 90% we were using more pitch, more thrust from rotor, and all the possible power from the engine,even at less rotor speed.

Now, re-reading the posts from Geof,bpaggi and you. I understand the NR droop is just a "tool" to jump into flight,
The droop is allowed up to 90% and is not meant to achieve a better efficiency but to convert the huge M/R inertia into transational lift

Regards
Aser

[heliski22]

bpaggi

The gathering of Italian Corporate Pilots was a great idea, especially with regard to the operation of the 139. However, it seems a pity it was confined to corporate pilots (after all, the aircraft neither knows nor cares who or what is in the cabin) and only to Italian pilots.

Unless, of course, there is a plan to disseminate any useful infromation from that meeting to other interested parties, or, even better, to repeat the exercise in the different theatres where the aircraft is operated.

Regardless of geographical location or type of operation, it's really silly that those of us who are lucky enough to fly but who also carry the accompanying responsibilities involved in operating this fine aircraft are still scrabbling around amongst ourselves to keep abreast of developments and in the search for explanations for different things, whether by e-mail, telephone or even here on PPRuNe.

And, while I'm at it, where the hell are we with the MTOW increase?

22

[Aser]

S.A.R. AW-139 Promo Video from Agusta Westland
http://youtube.com/watch?v=EJV4F_bRHVE

Best regards
Aser

[Aser]

Japan Coast Guard Takes Delivery Of Its First Three AW139 Helicopters
http://www.verticalmag.com/control/news/templates/?a=7220&z=6
http://www.verticalmag.com/control/news/articlefiles/7220-1.jpg

These helicopters were ordered in late 2006 as the initial phase of a replacement programme for up to 24 helicopters.

No nightsun,no liferafts, and only one hoist but int the twin-hoist arm, strange.. :ooh:

Regards
Aser

[noooby]

Of course, the life rafts and Nitesun can be fitted later. Knowing Agusta, and their suppliers, stocks are running low! ;)

[Aser]

Now that we had the chat about the CAT A 102% thing...

1-Can we also say that the reason we must(by flight manual) use 102% for Hoist & External loads ops. is related to OEI scenario and not rotor lift in hover?

2- Why don't we have an airspeed limit to arm floats in the supplement, is it tested up to VNE??

3- If you know that while in hover you are going down if engine quits, will you popout the floats before water contact? f.m. suggests to wait the water..

4- We are happy in floating in the water(after a really good ditching), we can not leave the rotor brake in "park" position due to the weight on wheels(I'm not talking about using rotor brake to stop rotors), isn't it?

Best regards & excuse the writing ;)

[Geoffersincornwall]

I am in pursuit of the many questions floating around at the moment and the latest contributions to the debate are:-

1-Can we also say that the reason we must(by flight manual) use 102% for Hoist & External loads ops. is related to OEI scenario and not rotor lift in hover?

The latest version of the answer to the '102%' query is that it appears that the helicopter was first certified under the 'Normal' Category and the 100% Nr became an RFM-set-in-stone feature. When the Cat A programme was under way the use of 102% was found to improve performance due to added rotor inertia. The 102% feature was then added via Supp 12. Draw your own conclusions but remember if you ding-it whilst working outside the RFM then the legal-beagles will come looking for your a**e. I remain in the hunt for the horses mouth.

2- Why don't we have an airspeed limit to arm floats in the supplement, is it tested up to VNE??

I'll chase that one

3- If you know that while in hover you are going down if engine quits, will you popout the floats before water contact? f.m. suggests to wait the water..

I guess we will have to wait for the first ditching to get some answers

4- We are happy in floating in the water(after a really good ditching), we can not leave the rotor brake in "park" position due to the weight on wheels(I'm not talking about using rotor brake to stop rotors), isn't it?
Mmmmmmmm we have said the same thing - must go find another horse!!

G

:ok:

[Forsyth]

Does anyone knows what happened with a AW-139 operated by Heliportugal during a ferry flight from Italy to Portugal?
I heard an strange history, apparently the main rotor hits the WSPS due a strong turbulence?
Would be nice to know what realy happened.
Cheers

[Aser]

http://www.verticalmag.com/control/news/articlefiles/7350-1.jpg
Atlantic Airways Takes Delivery Of An AW139
Tuesday, April 15, 2008 / AgustaWestland

AgustaWestland is pleased to announce that Atlantic Airways Ltd of the Faroe Islands has taken delivery of an AW139 medium twin turbine engine helicopter during an official ceremony held at AgustaWestland’s Vergiate plant yesterday. The helicopter is configured for 12 or 15 seat layouts for both public passenger transport and offshore passenger transport operations.

The delivery to Atlantic Airways continues the rapidly growing AW139 customer base in Europe with aircraft now in operation in Ireland, United Kingdom, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Luxembourg, Estonia, Finland and Turkey.

The AW139 is a new generation medium twin-turbine helicopter setting new standards against which all new medium twin will be measured. Designed with inherent multi-role capability and flexibility of operation, the AW139 is capable of carrying up to 15 passengers or six litters with two medical attendants or up to four litters and four medical attendants at the highest speed, in the most spacious cabin and with the best power reserve of any other helicopter in the medium twin-engine class. The AW139 has quickly become the aircraft of choice for offshore support operations offering unparalleled features in its class in terms of performance, capacity and safety which will dramatically enhance Atlantic Airways’ operations. The AW139 is ideally suited for the offshore role, with its large cabin and baggage compartments, offering ease of access and egress by its large sliding doors. Remarkable space on board and modular equipment solutions, allow an easy and quick conversion between various configurations.

In addition to offshore transport, the AW139 can be used for a number of other applications including EMS/SAR, executive/VIP transport, law enforcement, utility and government roles. The helicopter has achieved a great success becoming the best selling medium twin in the world marketplace. Over 90 different customers in more than 30 countries have ordered over 330 helicopters.



As the national airline of the Faroe Islands established in 1987, Atlantic Airways is based at Vagar Airport and operates domestic as well as international scheduled and charter services through its mixed fixed/rotary-winged aircraft fleet. Scheduled transport services link the Faroe Islands to various destinations in Northern Europe including major cities in Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK. Additionally, Atlantic Airways undertakes other missions including search and rescue.

[spinwing]

Mmmmmmmm .........

I am just about to join the ranks of "Rated Pilot" on this wonderful machine .....

The "Mental Abuse" stage (Ground School) completed this last week ...... physical abuse to start next week (I bloody hope!).

;););)

Nothing quite like either an Italian Sports Car (?) OR a young Italian woman to take a bloke back to "before he had grey hair" stage of his life eh?

:E: :ok:

[Eng AW139]

Remember German Car, Italy woman but never the other way around...

[spinwing]

Ooooohhher .........

I've gotten that wrong already ....... girfriend is from Koln ..... but she is younger!


Quote from Groucho ....... "Your only as old as the woman you feel" :E

[Geoffersincornwall]

How many offshore guys have adjusted to using the floats correctly and armed them as you go outbound across the coast and vice versa when you make land? Do you disarm them whan on deck?

G
:ok:

[pitchlink]

Hi Geoff,
We disarm the floats after reaching Vy during after T.O checks, and arm them again at 90kts decellerating to the deck. I think due to the fact we had 2 inadvertent float deployments (on the ground) when we first got the aircraft! I'm sure you already know about that.
Maybe see you in August when I am due to be out in the sim.
Rgds

[malabo]

AW139 and using the FLOATS correctly "G"

Geoff, everyone is using them incorrectly. The AW139 has the safest, most practical float installation I've seen, yet everyone is stuck in historical practises of arming and disarming them constantly going through Vy. Do what you can when you are training pilots, maybe in a few years the lightbulb will come on.

I think other manufacturers should take a page out of Agusta's book and modify their float systems to do the same.

Pitchlink thinks it's OK to discredit a technical advance because some dufus can't follow a procedure. Time to move on everyone.

[pitchlink]

"because some dufus can't follow a procedure". Not quite sure what you mean by this! please explain, OR maybe you should not comment on incidents you know nothing about!

[RedWhite&Blue]

Malabo, can you outline why you are so confident in the 139 float system? I for one would not like to suffer the brown out following an inadvertant/uncommanded float deployment at 155kts in the cruise:eek:. It has happened on other types.

Having had so many different strange 'electrical things' happen with the 139 I do not share your confidence.

The last one that confused me was when we were told (CAS warning) that the OEI 2.5 min limit was about to expire. We were parked with both engines matched and in fly, Nr at 102 and just about to taxi. Confused? I guess so for a while, luckly not for as long as the engineers who had to trouble shoot it.

I may be wrong but I believe both incidents that Pitchlink refers to were uncommanded float deployments.

Anyway, very interested to here your views. I guess a few may have thought Agusta just didn't have much experience of offshore ops.

ATB

Red

[speds]

"
Hi Geoff,
We disarm the floats after reaching Vy during after T.O checks, and arm them again at 90kts decellerating to the deck. I think due to the fact we had 2 inadvertent float deployments (on the ground) when we first got the aircraft! I'm sure you already know about that."I understand that the first inadvertent float deployment referred to, happened on the ground after the Floats were armed and the Test button was pressed. Engineering investigations did not suggest the cause of this unexpected event and subsequently company crews were advised not to arm the floats at speeds above 80KIAS in a company Safety Instruction.

The second occurrence happened in the same aircraft under the same conditions, at a different operating base. This time the engineering investigation did reveal the cause and the problem was rectified on this airframe.

This company operates 5 different types and I can understand the desire to standardise the "Float arming procedure" for the AW139 with common practice on all their other types across the rest of the fleets, however it does appear to be counter to the advice in the RFM Supp.

I would suggest that as the Test Function was the cause of the inadvertent deployment in both cases, both of which occurred on the same aircraft, there should be no further cause for concern. However a prudent pilot might consider arming floats at 80KIAS when coasting out and subsequently increasing speed confident that the system will not deploy until its needed, ie on contact with the water.

Speds

http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/statusicon/user_online.gif http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.pprune.org/forums/report.php?p=4063527) http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/buttons/reply_small.gif (http://www.pprune.org/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=4063527&noquote=1)

[Geoffersincornwall]

Well I got the response I was hoping for having kept my ear to the ground during the courses we run and discussed the topic with colleagues who have much more experience with AW products than I do.

First point - please be cautious if you choose not to follow the RFM. Only do this if the changed procedure is properly documented and approved by the National Aviation Authority - or better still EASA and/or the OEM.

Second point - Other AW types (Merlin and Sea King) I am reliably informed have operated this procedure for many years and floats get armed when the coast is crossed and the feet are wet and switched off when the feet are dry. No snags with them that we know of.

Third point - If you are concerned about the possibility of an inadvertant inflation when the floats are armed then simply turn the switch to arm and off again during the pre-take off checks. This action is normally included in the PTO checklist anyway, to take care of the offshore departure. If the darn things are going to go off chances are that it will be at that moment.

Fourth point - your family will enjoy a large financial settlement I guess, if they pop off in the cruise and thereby bring about your untimely demise. You having complied in all respects with the manufacturer's written instructions in the RFM.

Fifth point - on the other hand your family, or at least your 'estate', could be on the wrong end of a suit for damages should you cause the demise of others by not following the express wishes of the manufacturer who said you should arm them whenever you are over water.

G

:sad:

[pitchlink]

Hi Geoff,

If you are saying we should always act in accordance with the RFM and therefore the published emergency checklist please take the time to have a look at the emergency drill for exhaust fire after shutdown. Spot the deliberate mistake which has been pointed out to Agusta who have still not made any correction.
Should we therefore idly follow checklist or actually think about what it is we are doing? Reminds me a bit of the AirTransat flight that landed in the Azores having run out of fuel because nowhere in the checklist did it say to close the crossfeed after confirmation of a fuel leak!

[RedWhite&Blue]

Geoff

I had a busy morning flying and have not had a chance to check the RFM supplement, however if my memory serves me right this is covered under Normal Ops, so not in the Limitations section.

The company checklists, both normal and emergency, have been altered.

This has been thought through at a highest level within the company, and a policy developed.

What should us line pilots do? And, why is what we are doing so very, very wrong? I don't see the problem here. Why is it any less safe to do what we are doing or to put it another way, why is it so much safer to do it Agusta's way?

I ask in the light of my own experience where as I said I have seen some very strange electrical goings-on. I have used the windscreen wipers and not been able to turn them off in the normal fashion. Not good for expensive plastic windscreens!

I've nearly fallen foul to the nose wheel re-locking having been unlocked while taxiing. And many more.

My point is that these are just 'simple electrical functions' which now have computerised rocket science driving them. In the old technology a switch was a connection to a power source not a signal to a computer to commence a series of logic functions and finally to remotely operate the bit you wanted. So why not the possibility of a mis-signal to fire the floats, if armed, in flight?

I'm starting to sound like a ludite, and I don't mean to. We are moving in the right direction. But just because it's new doesn't necessarily mean its better and the old way is pants. If there is a remote (10 to the power of nine or whatever) chance of deployment in flight, why not reduce it further by isolating the circuit? If the crew are not in a position to 'arm as required' my feeling is that the floats may not save the day anyway.

I should point out that I am all in favour of AFDS i.e. a suplimentry system to fire the floats once armed by the crew at the apropriate time/speed, should the crew, by that time, be unable to fire them.

I genuinely hope to hear some good counter arguments on this one.

Now Geoffers, you baited your hook well and reeled in a good sized fish. So I will cast a wee tempter back towards you.

When converting guys/girls onto the 139 do you ensure that they have the fwd vent running (heater off) or they have a DV window (tricky in the sim) open when MPOG/HIGE/HOGE in wind speeds less than 25 knts?:p

Honest answers only now.

Being a limitation we all do it religiously. I don't know why I have to do it, all I do know is that it is bloody chilly in the winter!:confused:

All the very best

Red

[Geoffersincornwall]

Pitchlink.

The point I am making is not that any OEM's docs are perfect and yes ours are behind the game when it comes to catching up with glitches, typos and foul-ups. I recommend caution when dealing with these things. For example is the statement in the RFM Supp ref Float Operation policy a 'mistake'? Clearly not. This 'policy' was carried over from other previous types and may even be a function of the certification process. If you, as an individual aircraft commander decide unilaterally, to operate a different policy then I believe you are standing into danger. I venture to suggest that you may not survive the 'in the subsequent enquiry test'.

If you spot a mistake in any procedure or you believe it is inadequate or inappropriate you must bring it to the notice of your superiors - preferably in writing - and even complete an MOR or equivalent Air Safety Report. They should notify their local Aviation Authority and or the OEM.

I know it's tough when you want to change NOW but beware doing it in any way that exposes you to difficulties if it all goes pear-shaped on you.

I have had some colleagues of mine who have been decimated in the witness box by barristers who can put you on the spot with statements like 'So tell me Captain Smithers, are you telling this inquiry that you know better than the people who designed, developed, tested and certified this helicopter and specifically stated that this procedure must be followed'.

Not impossible to get out of but you really don't want to be in that situation if you can avoid it.

Red

My point is that these are just 'simple electrical functions' which now have computerised rocket science driving them. In the old technology a switch was a connection to a power source not a signal to a computer to commence a series of logic functions and finally to remotely operate the bit you wanted. So why not the possibility of a mis-signal to fire the floats, if armed, in flight?

Do you think this possibility wasn't covered in the design/cerification process?

I'm starting to sound like a ludite, and I don't mean to. We are moving in the right direction. But just because it's new doesn't necessarily mean its better and the old way is pants. If there is a remote (10 to the power of nine or whatever) chance of deployment in flight, why not reduce it further by isolating the circuit? If the crew are not in a position to 'arm as required' my feeling is that the floats may not save the day anyway.

Everybody - well nearly everybody, wants AFDS. There seems little point in having it if you don't trust it and use it. I'm sure we can find some examples in the statistics where such a system either did save the day or would have saved the day - can anybody out there point out any specific ones?

If we revert to the old methods we negate the potential for saving our skins one day. Lets FIX IT so we can USE IT.

Now Geoffers, you baited your hook well and reeled in a good sized fish. So I will cast a wee tempter back towards you.

When converting guys/girls onto the 139 do you ensure that they have the fwd vent running (heater off) or they have a DV window (tricky in the sim) open when MPOG/HIGE/HOGE in wind speeds less than 25 knts?

Honest answers only now.

My Get Out of Jail Free Card is quite simple. The TR course is designed around the basic aircraft and we do not include Customer Specified Equipment (if it needs a Supp to the RFM then its CSE). We don't cover use of the heater. Pathetic but true, I can't even find the reference you are talking about in my electronic copies of the RFM or the QRH. Where can I find it?

I'm a great believer in PPrunes ability to air and resolve these topics. The more the merrier, keep them coming and we will all get to learn something.

G

:ok:

[RedWhite&Blue]

Geoff

With regard to the change in arming the floats procedure, neither Pitchlink nor I had anything to do with it. That said I'm still not convinced what we are doing is so criminal.

If your counter is that we will be ripped apart at the subsequent inquiry that’s one thing. My response would be we are doing as our company check list requires, so our normal procedure supersedes the normal procedure in the RFM. The company have addressed the perceived problem and formed a policy. To what extent the Authority have been involved I'm not aware.

I'm more interested in why you are so sure the floats won't inflate in flight from a technical point of view.

You ask me "Do you think this possibility wasn't covered in the design/certification process?"

My thoughts are that clearly not everything has been well thought out, yet still certified. As Pitchlink points out there is a blooper in the certified RFM with regard to one fire drill. Should we just follow the drill and run from the flames?

How the search light was 'certified' is a mystery to me. It is completely useless to the RHP when landing at night on an offshore platform! It's a joke. All it does is cast a shadow of the nose gear over the deck. Add to that that you need a vvvvvery long thumb to reach the switch while operating the FTR collective trigger switch. It becomes more of a distraction and a hazard than an aid. I tend not to bother with it any more. It is better from the left seat. That is my pet hate, but it has been certified. Ask other 139 pilots what bothers them and you may be surprised buy the length of the list. All certified but still leaving people scratching their heads.

Tell me, how did a design of escape window pass certification and then need a speedy modification following the loss of one in flight? The subsequent modification, which must also have been certified, was then proven to fail to jettison when tested on more than one airframe (modified by the manufacturer). Now having been modified again, I have been lead to believe, two have ‘departed’ in flight again.

Read the JAR requirements for an AVAD and then think of how poorly the 139 complies. Yes, it passed certification but only by the thickness of a comma. I believe it offers poor protection for offshore ops. Imagine in a dark cockpit with the Aural Warning Regrade switch inadvertently (Why no CAS warning or advisory!!!:ugh:) in the wrong position. Now no 150 ft call and no Check Height! Just a little black box subsequently filled with the letters MIN at DH. Geoff, I know you see where I’m going on this one.

My point is that just because it was certified doesn't mean it is right. We all know of examples of aircraft which following certification - and all that that requires - that have had to be modified once being shaken down in service.

Someone still needs to explain to me in simple talk why this is such a safe system that it should be armed in the cruise.
.
Everybody - well nearly everybody, wants AFDS. There seems little point in having it if you don't trust it and use it.

I agree, but the AFDS I’m used to allows the pilot to arm the AFDS system at the appropriate speed/time when should there be a fault and the floats pop there and then, then the consequences should not be catastrophic. Why have the floats armed at 2000/3000 ft MSL for 120 Nm at 155kts?

With regard to my little teaser, from memory try the basic RFM, limitations for ventilation.:ok:

ATB

Red

[Geoffersincornwall]

Great debate. We need more but please, if we are to get things right then we need to

1. Iron out misunderstandings
2. Correct misconceptions
3. Identify and correct procedures that are inappropriate
4. Ensure the documentation supports the above in a timely fashion.

How do we do that? My recommendation is sustained pressure either through the OEM's channels or through your local aviation authority channels (CAA, FAA etc). Unilateral action may plug a gap but if you remember the Airbus Accident in NY just after 911 they found that the clever-clogs at the sim centre had been teaching the guys to 'pick-up' a 'turbulance induced dropped wing' with rudder. They thought they were doing the right thing when all along it turned out to be the wrong thing and it killed a bunch of people. The OEM knew what was right but poorly communicated it to the guys at the sharp end.

Floats do not get armed during an approach a bunch of times - remember I've been there and I know how the real world works. The probability is that during a hurried approach that is complicated by other factors - at night - and we are then in the 'zone' that auto-floats were designed for.

I could go on but risk boring you. Remember that I don't work for the OEM and anyway am so far down the pecking order that what I say seemingly has little if any effect. Ask the 7 crews (so far!) that have slavishly followed the checklist after Double Gen fail (at night and or IMC) and have then switched off the Batt Mast instead of the Batt Main. OOps - at night = very tricky and IMC = YOU'RE DEAD. The checklist should read Main Batt not Batt Main but can I get it changed? Well it's been a year now and nothing yet despite repeated reports up the chain.

Now all I can do is shine a light in the right direction - you guys have to get vocal and get some changes made, not sit around dreaming up fixes that might just be your version of the Airbus drama mentioned above.

G

:ok:

[RedWhite&Blue]

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

[Geoffersincornwall]

Red

I remember in my past dealing with the NHS deciding at one point that the biggest struggle of all was communicating and that communicating with the NHS was like wandering around a beached whale trying to find the appropriate orifice for intelligent, informed conversation........ you know where I'm going with this ......

YOU .... have the power. YOU are the customer. I am but a voice in the wilderness. If the people in your organisation don't know how to use that power then we will forever be condemned to a painful gestation. Get together with other customers, bully the CAA/FAA and GET SOME BLOODY ANSWERS.

We have an OEM with a great product but this OEM must realise that he is not working in a vacuum. His products are 'alive' and take some care to get them through their birth-pangs. YOU have to convince them to be a responsible and caring parent. Selling can only be one small part of a bright future. Good parenting leads to successful offspring and the success of all those MkII and MKIII etc. etc. AW139s will keep them in business for a long while for basically this machine is the mother and father of a bloody good helicopter with real potential.

GO TO IT........ please....

Ref the other question - AP's go OFF in the After Landing Checklist. RFM Page 2-34

I cannot find the heating/Vent limitation either - is it for real???

G

:sad:

[212man]

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?

Presumably it is WOW switch (Weight On Wheels) related? Both the S-92 and EC-155 (and the 225 I think) are operated with the AFCS engaged on the ground, but the WOW logic disables it. I once had an EC-155 with a faulty WOW switch - that remained in 'ground logic' - and it resulted in an interesting few second as I lifted into the hover, trying to work out what was wrong (the a/c obviously wasn't stabilised, but non of the usual warnings/cautions to say the AP was disengaged, and I could see on the AP control panel that it was engaged!)

[Geoffersincornwall]

So f***ed up avionics is not just an Italian/US thing then??

You sometimes feel as if you have been sold and are operating the 'Beta' version don't you!

G

:ugh:

[212man]

We were definitely the IFTU I would say! In fairness (and I love the 155) most faults tended to be low tech and not avionics stuff, though a lot of heartache resulted. That and the 27 engines that failed their EPACS at about 300 hours :ugh:

Mind you, I never had a gearbox decide to cook itself on me!

[RedWhite&Blue]

Where is the 'POWER' in this struggle

It's in those PT6's I think:ok:

Geoffers - I think we may be sunk. So much inertia, commercial not rotor.

But we can keep trying. I would love to here what pet hates other pilots have with the 139.

Why don't we construct a wish list here on Pprune?

I'd like:

1. A proper AVAD.
2. A CAS caution or advisory of Aural Warning Regraded.
3. Properly integrated TCAS and WX Radar
4. An airspeed feed to the Gear up warning system.
5. A Guidance Controller in my field of vision when flying on instruments, maybe where the VNE placards are, and one for each pilot.
6. Better batteries.
7. Repeater for Glide slope info on the HSI.
8. Better DME display
9. More logical wind direction display.
10. Rotor Low aural warning inhibited by WOW

There you go ten to start things off. I agree that this could be a truly great helicopter, just not quite yet.

Regarding AP off after landing I will enquire why our normal operating procedure omits this.

Oh and Geoff - I think 'The' NHS is great. But I guess I would, hey?;)

Best wishes

Red

PS. the vent limitaion is no wind up. Its in out OM B but I need to check a RFM. I will let you know

[Geoffersincornwall]

Red

You have good idea there. I hope that others contribute and then we have the basis for a healthy debate that could put those items into categories....

Urgent, URGENT, URGENT

BLOODY GOOD IDEA

NICE BUT NOT ESSENTIAL - WAIT FOR THE 'B' MODEL THEN GET IT RIGHT!!

You then go out and organise an 'Operator's Conference' with your agenda nice and clear and all singing from the same hymn sheet. You invite AW and the NAAs.

Lock the doors and don't let them leave until you have a commitment and a time-line and an action-list with the names of those responsible. Change may come at a price and you may grumble at it but 'just living with it' will make us look immature and irresponsible.

Our industry is a proud one and a competent one. Those industrialists who think that the answer lay in increasing sales of a faulty product can be likened to those so-called 'bankers' who sold mortgages to people who could never afford to pay and were described by one journalist as 'not real bankers - just financial engineers' . The same could be said of those whose bonus depends on sales numbers rather than satisfied customers.

(Gee - hope I don't get the sack for that!!)

signed Herbert Gruntbucket, Southend.

:E

[212man]

You then go out and organise an 'Operator's Conference' with your agenda

Interestingly enough, that's exactly what happens with the S-92 : Sikorsky have formed an S-92 Flight Operators Group (currently just offshore operators) and hold a 6 montly 2 day meeting. The operators send the type technical pilot or senior training captain, or similar, and Sikorsky send the programme manager, programme test pilot and senior design engineer.

Sound like an idea for AW?

[heliski22]

Funny old thing......................

Now there's an Owners/Operators Conference in Valencia at the end of May....................

[Geoffersincornwall]

I claim no credit whatsoever and am delighted at the prospects of what might be if the owners/operators get together beforehand and sort out thier gripes into categories. The odd software glitch that is found in one machine and not another is for each owner to resolve. The systemic failures in manufacture and/or design are the meat of the argument and you will have a better chance of making rapid progress if these are notified to AW BEFORE the conference and they are given the opportunity to respond positively rather than gape opened mouthed at your sizeable shopping list.

I am sure there are some very serious issues that once resolved will benefit the majority. Dont' allow these issues to be buried under a plethora of niggles.

If you want the searchlight moved then make your point and it may even be in the 'B' model but if you want a 'no-objection' certificate for your own modification then I sure AW engineers will engage with you and help find ways to minimise the cost....... but it will cost. Maybe the (non-aviator??) who ordered your offshore machine with the current searchlight spec. needs to learn a lesson or to about involving the sharp-end when agreeing the spec with the OEM.

Meanwhile the sim searchlight works beautifully because of course the nose wheel is only imaginary. Is this a serious shortcoming with the sim visuals???

.......no.....we're not going to change the visuals but imagine if the sim was that clever and did reveal such anomolies.

I look forward to hearing news in May.

G

:ok:

[RedWhite&Blue]

Geoffers

As promised here is your reference.

AB139-RFM-4D Pg 1-31 Rev 14 EASA approved.

Miscellaneou Limitations.

Ventilation.

At MPOG/HIGE/HOGE or with the helicopter forward velocity below 25Kts, operate cockpit fans or open pilot or copilot window.

By the way, have you got an electronic copy of the VNE Power On Limitations in KIAS, (temp against alltitude) placard which is screwed to the insrtument panel - that you could post here. I don't, but I do have a question for anyone who could help me with a quandry about it.

I can't believe the good folks at Agusta have made a school boy error, but I can't fathom the logic out either. I will of course apply the limits religiously regardless.

ATB

Red

[pitchlink]

This is exactly the sort of discussion that is required to try and iron out the problems with operating this aircraft. As someone said to me the other day, he would, "give Agusta eleven out of ten for concept, but only three out of ten for execution!"

The idea of putting together a wish list made up from all operators through out the world can only help to bring these problems to the attention of Agusta. We never know, there may be a few common themes running through out!

Geoff, having an Owner / Operator conference is a GREAT idea but we must ensure the right people attend! As you know the biggest operator of the aircraft in the world do not own the aircraft directly, but lease them off an inhouse third party who have no expertise whatever in operating the aircraft at the coal face. No doubt it will be them who get the invite, and if past experience is to be believed will not think about canvasing opinion of the pilots and engineers prior to turning up in Vallencia!!!!!!

Red, for what it is worth here is my top ten. I have tried to put them in some sort of order of importance but I am sure others would order them differently.

1. AVAD - it seems to me the hardware for the system is already there! As well as producing a MIN warning when going through the decision height bug, surely the software should be capable of it triggering a "check height" warning aswell?!!

2. Aural warning regrade caption on CAS - Agusta have produced enough warnings on the CAS but seemed to have ignored this one! At least make it a guarded switch like the others on the MISC panel.

3. "Gear Up" warning triggered by an airspeed switch. I would have thought that this could once again be done through software modification.

4. Searchlight location.

5. Radar software compatible with the aircraft TCAS.

6. Independent DME display on PFD.

7. Seats that move independently forward / aft, and up / down.

8. Totally seperate power supply for the standby ADI.

9. Glide slope info on HSI.

10. FMS suited to the roles the aircraft is being sold into;
i) Search patterns for SAR
ii) Auto flyovers for offshore shuttles
iii) Fuel to nearset Kg on progress page rather than right at the back of the FMS in the engineering Data.

Looking at this it seems six out of ten of the above faults could be software related - Significant??

As an asside I wonder if anyone can explain to me why the CAT B WAT graphs indicate an increase in weight with decrease in windspeed at altitude. My limited knowledge thought that it should be the other way around, but I am waiting to be corrected. After all the graphs have been certified and therefore must be correct. It could be another one like Reds anomoly with airspeed at height placard.

[speds]

Pitchlink

7. Seats that move independently forward / aft, and up / down.

The fully adjustable pilot seats on your wish list are available as an option. I think it is around an additional Euros 9000 each seat.


As an asside I wonder if anyone can explain to me why the CAT B WAT graphs indicate an increase in weight with decrease in windspeed at altitude.


What you describe as "an increase in weight with a decrease in windspeed at altitude" is a misinterpretation of the way in which a weight penalty is imposed for operating cross-wind or downwind at altitude.

The chart title actually states that this is the WAT for TAKE-OFF, LANDING and IGE MANOEUVRES with a RELATIVE WIND AZIMUTH 10 to 350 deg ie wind from 10° right of the nose clockwise through to 10° left of the nose. ie The chart accounts for out of wind manoeuvres.


There is an important NOTE on the CAT B WAT Chart which says: "no windspeed limitation exists for headwind conditions (wind azimuth +10 deg) Check your QRH and RFM revision state if you cannot find this statement.

Therefore as long as you are into wind you do not have to apply the weight penalty ie you can use the "20 KTAS and BELOW" line even in a 45 KIAS headwind and do not suffer a weight penalty.

Hope this makes the graph clearer.

speds

[Geoffersincornwall]

Red

Ref the Vent Limitation - Must have missed that one and not one of my trainers or colleagues has ever mentioned it so it needs some homework to find out the whys and wherefores before I comment further.

VNe - I have an electronic copy of the placard but cannot paste it here. What's the query?


Pitchlink

Conference Reps - start agitating now for adequate representation but make sure you are well informed. Example - you don't like the 'cheap' pilot seats but better (more expensive) ones are available well that's down to adequate comms between he who draws up the spec, he who pays the bill and he who has to sit in it. Not an OEM problem. There are other grumbles that are in similar vein. If you buy the wrong kit that's down to you.

Software changes are something that sound very simple but they cost a lot of money so are you prepared to pay? Many good ideas from the two of you but I fear you will have to wait for the 'B' model - unless you have deep pockets and can force the issue with a bit of cash. The lessons learnt MUST make it to the 'B' model (if and when it's made, bearing in mind there is a long queue for this current one) so keep the list and bang them on the table at the Operators Conference.

Meanwhile I'll tell anyone I bump in to that the Operator's Conference should include end users (pilots and engineers) not just bean-counters and their suits.

DME - Yes, a real dogs dinner and I cannot believe that this system has been approved. All that MFD space and software telling how the Wx Radar is set up and no space for a constant read out of at least one DME.

G

:ok:

[RedWhite&Blue]

Geoff

I don't have a photographic memory, but I think the relationship between the limitated KIAS and density altitude breaks down between 6000ft and 10000ft if I remember correctly. Look at the 8000ft column.

I just wondered if this was a Fractional Undulating Compressability Konstant - Under Pressure effect or not?:E

ATB

Red

[Geoffersincornwall]

It looks like the 8000 and 10000 ft columns have been transposed. I'll try to find out WIHIH. Think it was a Certifiable Operational Compressibility Knot-UP.

Ref the Vent Issue - In my view the start-up regime is equivalent to MPOG but the Vent selection is missing from the normal start checklist in the RFM but included in the 'Quick-Start Checklist' where you are invited to select the vent 'as required'. Inconsistent and unhelpful would be my observation. I'll follow it up.

G

:ugh: :{

[rjsquirrel]

Pitchlink asked, "As an asside I wonder if anyone can explain to me why the CAT B WAT graphs indicate an increase in weight with decrease in windspeed at altitude."

This is the way you are allowed to load the helo beyond the tail rotor's control range - expressed by the way you lose crosswind capability when you load up higher. At the higher weight you use more main torque - more torque than the tail rotor can handle. That is why the allowable crosswind is reduced to nil at the higher WAT curve weight - above the lower weight limit, you will lose yaw control if you try to land hover or take off.

Nice, huh? Sort of a great way to make an LTE event, and get to blame the pilot while publishing capability that is bought by challenging the pilot beyond reason, IMHO.

[RedWhite&Blue]

Oh Sock

And I thought those clever designers had discovered a new atmospheric phenomenon. What's more I thought they had dicovered the link I needed, the final piece in the jigsaw to prove that Global Warming was caused by wind turbines and not aircraft (cause and effect - more turbines = more ice shelf melting). Oh well back to the drawing board on that one.

Seriously now, I guess we can safely say that all that is certified is not necessarily perfect. So, I ask again, why - in simple terms - is it safe to arm the floats at 155 kts?

If we were told that the system was inhibited by the ADCs at above say Vy, corroborated by the air data from the FMS and/or maybe limited by the rad alt to say below 500ft then I might be more relaxed. But, no one is saying anything. Just that it is brilliant and everyone should do it this way. Convince me, resolve my 'misconception' someone please.

One other thing, Geoffers. It seems that there are very few well ‘informed’ people who could go to this conference. This thing is so new and so complex that I think people, from all walks, will have to learn as they go. If they don’t know they have the cheap seats (and Pitchlink does, his bottom has told him a thousand times) then so what? I guess, in time, as all the misconceptions and misunderstandings are ironed out a few people will become Yodas. The process just needs to get moving.

Yodas, more it is that we need - the wisdom amoungst the Agusta Jedi to spread. Overcome the Sikorskiis and Eurokopts we will.

ATB

Red

[Geoffersincornwall]

Seriously now, I guess we can safely say that all that is certified is not necessarily perfect. So, I ask again, why - in simple terms - is it safe to arm the floats at 155 kts?


Could possibly be for the same reason the blades don't fall off, the wheels don't fall off and the windows don't fall out...oh no I'd better not use that one. But seriously, the float system logic circuits must be pretty good and, at least in theory, 100% reliable. None has failed thus far so why the apprehension? You are reading across other electrical failures and computer glitches that are unrelated and irrelevant. The inadvertant inflation was almost certainly down to the test circuit on one ship malfunctioning. Nothing to do with the activation circuit.

You know that a blade failed on a 76 a while back but we were told by those that are supposed to know that no fleetwide grounding was necessary and we just got on with it. I could list the same type of story about Dauphin fenestrons, 332 gearboxes, 332 controls, S92 Tail Rotors. None of these incidents stopped the pilots getting into their machines the next day and getting on with the job....... and these were real-live incidents.

So now - with no evidence you want to compromise the very basic principles of having an automatic system.

If an uncommanded inflation occurs in the cruise ever happens then you would be entitled totake action but not I suggest on mere inuendo and ill-informed heresay.

In the old days we used to say that chopper drivers were born pessimists and that if something had not yet failed then it was about to. Without being complacent I think we have moved on a bit since then.

G

:{

[TomBola]

It's interesting that in Africa's most populous nation, and one which has enormous onshore and offshore gas reserves there are only 2 serviceable civil AW139s and one unserviceable one and most of the flying they do is over a relatively short distance carrying around the same payload as an S76 or Bell 412 which cost considerably less. An idea why there aren't more?

[spinwing]

Geoffers .......

....."In the old days we used to say that chopper drivers were born pessimists and that if something had not yet failed then it was about to. Without being complacent I think we have moved on a bit since then."

Are you really sure about this????? :E

;);)

[RedWhite&Blue]

the float system logic circuits must be pretty good and, at least in theory, 100% reliable Why?

Geoffers, the VNE placard is in theory 100% reliable; in fact it looks like we can report that it has failed in flight on every machine, on every flight. The consequences of its failure have so far been benign. If we decide to apply prudence/logic then all good and well.

So mistakes happen, both from a OEMs and Aircrew point of view.

I accept that there are occasions that crews go to disarm floats on deck, to find that they were never armed in the first place.

This is a problem that must be addressed. But the solution must 'fail to safe'. A solution that in it's design might deploy in a flight regime that will probably kill is no solution at all.

Now, in the overall context of the AB/AW139 I’m but a small rotary knob which compresses the pilot seat cushion, but that's how I think about this system when I strap a 139 to my back. And, I can tell you I’m not alone on this one. We still have no solid explanation as to why the system is fail safe.

It is the basic concept that people don’t like, not solely that there were uncommanded deployments (pre start) one airframe, for one reason (maybe) or another.

In the same light crews have found themselves about to land with the gear up. Should we fly with the gear down at all times, just in case we forget it? Maybe we should have and automatic gear extension system or maybe have it down when feet dry and raise it when we are feet wet.

Maybe we should have auto RPM select too. Actually why not? ‘AutoRPM’. Just press the CAT A button on the collective, to let the computers know what you intend, and the machine does the rest as you accel and decel through Vy. Has the limitation for CAT A ops to be flown by the RHP only been reviewed. Here’s a solution.

Geoffer, as you can see I’m not yet convinced. Will someone please show me the light?

ATB

Red

PS. The emergency check list requires me to confirm that the floats have deployed, once on the water, before lowering the collective completely, and if not blow them with the guarded switch on the collective. Why? This is a system that is 100% reliable. That’s a given so we're told. There is no chance of it failing is there? Well yes 100%, in theory, well we think – no we’re sure, I guess… uhh… aren’t we?

[212man]

In the same light crews have found themselves about to land with the gear up. Should we fly with the gear down at all times, just in case we forget it? Maybe we should have and automatic gear extension system or maybe have it down when feet dry and raise it when we are feet wet.

Would it be too radical a suggestion that they use their checklist?

[RedWhite&Blue]

212man

Would it be too radical a suggestion that they use their checklist?

No of course not. But...

As Geoff quite rightly points out sometimes things do get forgotten normally, when attention is focused elsewhere for what ever reason.

We are mostly human beings and humans make mistakes. Hand on heart have you never had a Phewwww moment? So please forgive my sarcasm over the landing gear argument.

In the UK the floats are both finals and after take off check list items. The company has chosen to supersede the OEM's normal procedure with its own. And, of course the crews use the checklist.

This defeats the OEMs objective of eliminating the 'human' factor should the floats be needed. But of course there is the perceived downside to their procedure.

I have just had a quick look through the material I was given when I did the type rating. Not a word about the floats. Other options like the WX Radars and heater yes, but not floats. So here, maybe lies the problem. I guess I have not been fully educated as to the finer points of the system, so don’t really trust it not to deploy at 155kts (this is in the context of being forbidden to arm the floats above Vy ish speeds on both AS332 and S76).

I guess if I had been on the factory course this would not be the case.

At the moment, as is clear, I'm with those that chose to supercede the SOP and I will use the checklist, as always.

But, I'm open to persuasion.

ATB
Red

[212man]

Clearly we are all prone to errors, as humans. That's why the use of a well designed checklist is so important - precisely to catch items missed. NASA refer to them as 'killer' items : a little melodramatic perhaps but meant to emphasise that what's in a checklist should be important and other stuff should be left to SOP.

Regarding the floats, what speed have they been certified to for deployment? There have been floatation systems around for a while now, that are armed in th e cruise. Bristow introduced them for the 332 about 10 years ago. The EC-225 floats are armed in the cruise, as will the EC-175 ones. I would have thought it would be essential that the manufacturer demonstrates deployment at whatever arming speed they choose to nominate, and ceratinly AC29-2C implies this.

[RedWhite&Blue]

212man

the 139 floats are deployed on contact with the water ie not in flight. Agusta's SOP says they should be armed as you coast out, and disarmed coasting in again. I guess any speed under VNe/VNo.

If they have been deployed at cruise speed for demonstration purposes, with no 'ill effects' then... happiness! And, Geoffers wins this little debate.

This is the crux of the matter for the uninformed, who fear that things would become a little exciting under such circumstances, because they are unaware of the results of such a test. If Agusta have a real probllem with this operator's revised SOP then they need to knowlege share pdq.

As the floats are certified then surely we can assume the AC29-2C, that you mention, has been complied with. Or is assumption the mother of all "Certifiable Operational Compressibility Knot-UP[s]"?:E

Geoffers, I take your point. Could possibly be for the same reason the blades don't fall off, the wheels don't fall off and the windows don't fall out.

The inertia may simply because on the machines we have been flying, prior to the introduction of the 139, don't tend to shed blades or have the wheels fall off. Although there has been at least one inadvertant/uncommanded deployment of the floats while airbourne. It has been drummed home that you don't fly around willy nilly with the floats armed.

In most other areas the 139 is no different to that which we are more familiar with. So we don't question the more 'normal' aspects. Well not so much.


ATB

Red

[Geoffersincornwall]

The good news is that we are making headway in at least one area - ventilation! The background was made clear in a quote receive today.

This is a JAA limitation. JAR 29.831 (ventilations) wants at least 0.3m3/min of air for crew member. The only way to respond to the JAR while on ground or in hover is to do what we wrote in the RFM.

Still some work to do to fully understand the reasons behind the need for ventilation and the 'acceptable means of compliance' chosen by AW. I will try to get some more info.

The ongoing debate about floats is a testament to the price paid by our community for inadequate disemmenation of information. I have been reluctant to be too bold about my support for the AW approach to the problem because I have to admit that until recently I was one of the old school and armed my floats when I got into the OEI 'zone'. When I sat down and thought it through I began to realise that my attempts to manage the situation according to my rules were self-defeating.

Of course anything can go wrong at any time and in the first 30 years of my career I lost 30 close colleagues to a variety of incidents including one who died, along with his son, for want of a quarter-inch nut. In our world we trust the designers and makers of our trusty steeds because if we didn't we wouldn't get off the ground. We base our own qualitative assessment of each machine on experience, rumour and sometimes heresay on Pprune. We then have a choice about following the manufacturer's advice or not, the Ops Manual advice or not. We all know what we should do but in the end we may choose to follow the lead of someone or some organisation that has not taken the trouble to find out why things are the way they are before blithely accepting that because it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck it must be a bloody duck!! But it isn't - its a blooming swan.

If I had been the Ops Director signing of a potential 'killer' change to my Ops Manual I would have jumped on a 50 quid return flight to Milan Malpensa, paid the 50 euro taxi ride to Vergiate and spoken to the horses mouth. Of course, sitting on my right hand all the way would be my Tech Director (damn the expense) because I'm just a dumb jockey and couldn't tell a wiring diagram from a London Underground Map. Then and only then would I have casually said 'eh-up lads, it's just another chopper - lets do it like we did on the old one'. WHY THE HELL DO YOU THINK WE WENT TO ALL THE BOTHER OF DESIGNING THIS B****Y swept up system ??????????????

G

:ugh::confused::(



STOP PRESS - this just in

Vne PLACARD
Believe it or not there is no mistake!

For JAR certification, the windscreens had to be proven able to withstand a birdstrike at up to 8000ft PA at up to ISA+35°C (Note Bene UP TO 8000ft Hp)
With the glass windscreens (17mm thick and 45kgs each) there was no problem but the acrylic windscreens are not so robust and failed the tests at lower airspeeds hence the dip in Vne on the placard at 8000ft.
Above 8000ft there is no certification requirement to provide protection against birdstrike and the limiting airspeed is again determined by all other aerodynamic factors.

You have to go to Figure 1-5 on Page 1-11 of the RFM and look for the area of the chart maked with a dash and two dots thus _.._.._.._ This area goes up to 12000ft Hd which is equivalent to 8000ft Hp and +34°C (or ISA +35°C)

[speds]

When you said


Although there has been at least one inadvertant/uncommanded deployment of the floats while airbourne.


Are you implying this happened in an AW139? If so what is your evidence?

I believe that both the inadvertant float deployments occurred on the ground. They were both in the same aircraft (while at different bases). They both happened when the pilot pressed the TEST BUTTON with the FLOATS ARMED. The aircraft was one of the first delivered and is now approaching 2500hrs. It regularly flys to the rigs and since the last incident when the cause of the deployment was determined and rectified by the gingerbeers, it has never misbehaved again.

If any one knows of any other incident of an inadvertant float deployment on an AW139 I think we should know the facts. But please don't embellish a rumour to fit your mindset.

speds

[RedWhite&Blue]

Well done Geoff!

Vne Placard - Well there's a suprise, it wasn't either the Fractional Undulating Compressability Konstant - Under Pressure effect or Certifiable Operational Compressibility Knot-UP. :O

Thank god we have you to ask the right people. I guess without this debate we would have all been none the wiser for ever and a day. Much appreciated.

The ventilation thing is interesting too. At least we know.

Floats... I submit!!! What the hell I do on my next line check? I think the answer to that is to tell the check pilot that you said I should not "choose to follow the lead of someone or some organisation that has not taken the trouble to find out why things are the way they are before blithely accepting that because it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck it must be a bloody duck!!"

That should do it. Can't fail.

I'll duck out now, or swan off and leave you in peace.

So, untill the next time...

Oh just one other thing cold you ask your guys when will we have CAT A 'AutoRPM'? :)

ATB

Red

PS Speds, no don't worry not a 139. I know the machine you refer to well, and yes, you are right it's floats system has not misbehaved since.

[pitchlink]

One last input on the float debate; Why is it that it has an amber caution on the CAS and not a green advisory as I would expect for a system which is OK to be armed for the majority of the time? The search light is green, heater, landing light, brakes etc..........., it seems the logic is flawed somewhere? :rolleyes:

[speds]

All armed systems are Cautions.
Tried arming the Hook?

The Caution is there to tell you that if you press the appropriate button with the Caution on, a significant event will happen.

Is that flawed logic?

speds

[RedWhite&Blue]

Pitchlink

Are you rostered to do my next line check? Cos, I might have an 'Advisory' for you!:p

Brace yourself for another revision to the checklist.

ATB

signed Herbert Gruntbucket, Southend.

[pitchlink]

Well Red,

It looks like we are the only two with ideas to take forward to this conference in order to improve the aircraft. Maybe it is that elsewhere in the world, the aircraft and custommer service from Agusta is exactly what people want. It maybe that we are just fussy, but I dont think so; I think it is that we alone realise what a great machine it could be with a little help from its friends.

Fix it we must! Then the way of the force everyone will see!

[speds]

Pitchlink

Maybe everyone thinks you have named all the important items and we don't want to cloud the issue with minor niggles?

Such as:

I haven't flown the AW139 at night yet but I have heard others comment that it would be nice to be able to:

1. Switch the searchlight off and back on again without it self-stowing
2. Train the nightsun up higher than 25° below aircraft level datum
3. Reduce glare on the cabin windows from the landing lights so that 3rd crewmember can assist with lookout on finals

Perhaps none of these more important than your top 10. However there are also some switches in the cockpit that are far too easy to confuse:

ENG TRIM 1, ENG TRIM 2 and HOIST UP/DOWN all feel the same and so are easily confused and not only at night. Why not change the feel of the odd one out?

Good luck at the Operators Conference. Heard you will be.

speds

[RedWhite&Blue]

Speds

Yes, that's another good one. Having the search light stow every time you turn it off is often a problem. It takes a count to seven before you can see the beam again ie before you can knowingly steer it to where you want it.

Quicker you must be to think of the light that you need. Or the darkness in your way you shall follow.

Have you noticed the lightsabers in their racks in the main cabin - amazing they thought of everthing.:ok:

ATB

Red

[heliski22]

While it may be a small matter for all you offshore people, my penn’orth focuses on the infuriating difficulty of getting reliable communication between cockpit and cabin. Depending upon the capacity of a competent crew-member to cycle a cockpit call switch in the cabin is one thing but depending upon a passenger, no matter how well briefed, is another matter entirely.

Getting a passenger to press a switch that sounds a cockpit-call chime is one thing, but why on earth was it necessary to have that switch as one part of a two-part switching action required to connect front to rear.

I don’t care what the signal might be – a chime in my headset, a tap on the shoulder, a delicate, or even indelicate touch of an umbrella under my left ear, frantic waving of a headset in the cabin – as long as, upon receipt of that signal, it remains only for me, the pilot, to press a single switch to carry out a single switching action to activate the ICS connection to the cabin.

Having paid for their expensive BOSE headsets, I should have thought the passengers might at least be entitled to be able to have a little civil conversation with the pilot from time to time rather then to be addressed imperiously through the PA. If I don't want to or can't talk to them at any time, I only need to wave them away for a few minutes, it's not bloody rocket science!

[Role1a]

Slightly off the current topic, but what type of AFCS/FPC and NAV kit does the SAR 139 have? I appreciate that this changes with customer but as a general rule.

Regards

R1a

[spinwing]

Mmmmmm ....

SAR kit is as per the Standard aircraft ..."Honeywell Primus" Avionics fit out with the addition of the 4th Axis control (collective inputs)and the appropriate software changes which (though I have not seen them yet) include "search patterns" selectable throught the FMS.

Of course I stand to be corrected by those that might know better. :O

Cheers

[heliski22]

Don't think you're far wrong there, spin. It's all the same kit, even looks the same fitted.

3-axis is just that.

Basic 4-axis does what it says on the tin.

Enhanced 4-axis includes Auto Hover and but without a formal electronic transition to the hover

SAR version is all of the above with additional software to complete the search patterns and what the SAR people (correct me if I'm wrong) call a Trans Down, the ability to transition "electronically" or fully coupled from enroute flight all the way to a stable hover over the target. Additional hardware is the joystick for the crewman to make fine adjustments to position of heli in relation to the target as he looks vertically downwards, something the PF can't easily do.

None of the 4-axis options/variants include a VNAV function, despite it being available when the same kit is fitted to plankwings. When you want to climb or descend, the best you get is Altitude Acquire. It'll stop at the pre-selected Altitude but you have to push the button to initiate the climb or descent. Tough life, ain't it!! All that button pushing could wear a body out!

[heliski22]

And what about Manual Starting, boys and girls!

What about this scenario?

#2 up and running, move #1 EMS to IDLE and ................... nothing! Figlio di puttana!! Try it again, check all the switches, ECLs, Auto Mode, etc, still nothing but a 1 ENG MODE SEL caption has appeared on the CAS.

The checklist says Mode switch has failed and to "continue flight, monitoring parameters" but nowt about start-up.

However, with passengers happily aboard and ready to go as well as the nearest maintenance being a days camel ride away, what to do.............?

Well, as #2 is already fired up and, therefore, there is no shortage of precious voltage to keep everything running, switch # 1 to Manual and see what happens. Press the button and lo, it's spinning up, lights off and steadies itself at idle. # 1 back to Auto, the Caption disappears and they match.

So now, there's two engines running, and no warnings or cautions. What to do..............? Yep, I thought so too!

To add to the mix, there was nothing in the CMC afterwards - NOTHING. So, was it snag or was it not a snag? Was it a software fart or not? Did it happen or not?

Or should I still be waiting in a field for the camel-borne techie to come and tell me there was nothing wrong to start with and what the f****** hell was I playing at?

Now, I know it's Italian, and therefore apt to be a little peculiar, but I will NOT buy it flowers and mutter sweet things in its earhole..............just to get it to perform.

[KiloAlfaLima]

Heliski

the ENG MODE SEL, appears when the Auto start switch fails, this can happen either a faulty switch or when you went to start the selected ENG, youve passed and then back to IDLE or to slow to get to the IDLE position, what you did was correct too, MAN mode is there for these cases :-). elswhere you could of shut the HELI shut the BATT and restart again and fixed:D, at the end the 139 still a computer but without CTRL+ALT+SUP .

[spinwing]

Heliski .....

Methinks like myself, you are thinking the software might have some "Microsoft" code embedded eh?? ... :eek:

Cheers :E

[heliski22]

Well, we do seem to have become quite accepting of the idea of switch it off and switch it on again with regard to computers, don't we?

I do wonder, though, just how it might look in the QRH?

Think about it - for all those captions, the first line might read:

"To determine if this is a real snag or not, switch everything off, then switch everything on again. If the caption disappears, continue flight and land and soon as practicable.

If the caption remains......................"

Or, if it isn't in the QRH and it all ends up on the wobbly side, then the post incident enquiry/court hearing might contain the following question.

"Am I to understand, Captain Bligh that you, based upon your experiences with a.......(dramatic pause to check notes).......let me see.......with a laptop computer you own, decided to respond to this warning light in the cockpit of a ten-million dollar helicopter.......designed, I might add, by teams of highly qualified and experienced engineers by........ahem........by switching it off.....and switching it on again?"

:):)

[RedWhite&Blue]

Imagine Heliski22's scenario...

"Am I to understand, Captain Bligh that you, based upon your experiences with a....... (dramatic pause to check notes).......let me see.......with a laptop computer you own, decided to respond to this warning light in the cockpit of a ten-million dollar helicopter.......designed, I might add, by teams of highly qualified and experienced engineers by........ahem........by switching it off.....and switching it on again?"

Well, do you remember Geoffers pointed out (post 453);
Ask the 7 crews (so far!) that have slavishly followed the checklist after Double Gen fail (at night and or IMC) and have then switched off the Batt Mast instead of the Batt Main. OOps - at night = very tricky and IMC = YOU'RE DEAD. The checklist should read Main Batt not Batt Main but can I get it changed?

Here's your defence! The check list said just turn it all off!:p

"...well...(rubbing chin with puzzled look over top of half round specs). Hummm, ... I see. I withdraw the question me laud". (Sits down quickly with smurk wiped off red face.)

Small print; Helicopters can go down as well as up. Your home may be at risk if you do not keep up to date with the certified RFM. RW&B is governed by the Authority. You should always take sensible legal advice before flight. No warranty given or implied on any free advice herewith.

[heliski22]

RWB

Mea culpa - I don't know which one of the seven I was! Presumably Geoffer's first as he sat bolt upright at the instructor's station and gasped "What on earth have you done?" a moment after the entire panel went black. Mercifully, the sortie was VMC at night and was, therefore recoverable but he's right - real time IMC, such a development would be catastrophic.

We'd been having a debate during briefing (and previously in Ground School) about the sequencing of load shedding activities. Main Battery off is quite early in the sequence while Fuel Pumps follow later on. However, as Main Battery also loses you the FD (the only friend you have in the world at that moment if you're single crew) why not shut off the pumps first and give yourself a few extra minutes to get sorted out THEN lose the Battery.

Diligent student that I was, however, I stuck to the list and then turned the Main Battery on again to restore the FD which helped me get my bearings and get pointed at Fiumicino. Task over, and for the purposes of the exercise, I reached up to switch it off again and Bingo - Master off and instant lights out!!

With the power immediately restored, the APs wouldn't come back on (no answer to that yet either) and in the end I just threw away the checklist, concentrated on stabilising it then aimed it at the runway and ran it on at about 25 knots or so.

Geoffers had a bit of a chuckle when he said "Right, let's pick that one apart, shall we?!!"

Apart from the observations by Geoffers regarding checklists and labelling, could we not get the Battery Master guarded? Seems it would be a simple exercise or is there some obvious reason why not that I can't see?

[RedWhite&Blue]

I guess a guarded Bat Master switch would be a good idea. Need to think why there is a gang switch over the Gens and the Bat Master, as a guard would complicate things there. I think the guard might get my vote. Worth more thought.

I think the reason you couldn't get the AP's back having done the airborne 're-boot' is that the standby AI will take about 136 secs or so to realign. Only once it is up and running will the APs re-engage. I think its all to do with AHRS voting. Just a thought not gospel. Maybe Geoffers might comment.

On guard you must be before you switch Masters. Align your energies or with manual skill you will engage your worst fears.

ATB

Red

PS Can anyone tell me what the consequences of deploying the floats with the gear down are? The drill for ditching does not require the gear to be lowered. Is this to aid the pilot with reduced work load or might the floats be damaged by the undercarriage in some way?

[212man]

With the power immediately restored, the APs wouldn't come back on (no answer to that yet either)

Probably to do with the AHRS coming back on line - typically (with other types I know of) they take about 30 seconds on ground, about a minute in level flight and up to 3 minutes on a moving deck or unstable flight. Just a thought :ok:

[Lightonwheels]

Hi Guys,
I'm back after a long bout of sickness. Nice to see all the discussions on the AW 139.

These links may be of interest to you.
http://www.aeroboek.nl/ab-013.htm

http://www.dgualdo.it/prod-ab139.htm

[Geoffersincornwall]

Quote:
With the power immediately restored, the APs wouldn't come back on (no answer to that yet either)
Probably to do with the AHRS coming back on line - typically (with other types I know of) they take about 30 seconds on ground, about a minute in level flight and up to 3 minutes on a moving deck or unstable flight.

Like I say, if you screw that up IMC or on one of those famous 'VFR-but-very-dark nights' then you are dead. I guess if you are in autorotation for 3 minutes (6 to 8,000 feet required) you might make it out the bottom assuming you don't adopt the flying qualities of a house brick in the meantime.

Best solution in the interim is a good CRM policy - check, cross-check and double check. This helicopter deals with a double gen fail better than any other with no loss of APs or coupling in the first instance. You have the opportunity to get your collective (unless you are HELISKI or others that fly single pilot) heads together and make a plan. DO NOT RUSH is the key philosophy.

I have heard some intelligent suggestions that involve switching off some heavy consumers (fuel pumps and MFD) immediately but we have to teach what it says in the book so you can expect me to skate over such suggestions wearing a crinkly grin.

G

:ok:

[heliski22]

Yes, 212, to be fair, I had the broad description that it just takes things a tad longer to get up and running again whilst airborne.

Geoffers is right, of course, the lessons learnt so far across a range of issues regarding this heli is that it affords you the time to take your time, as it were, and not to do anything hasty in response to various problems. He and I had several discussions about the way the QRH says to do things when common sense, and even the experience brought from other aircraft wouold suggest a better alternative.

However, what I said in Post #431 still holds true - why is it that we are reduced to scrabbling around, whether by telephone, by e-mail or even here on PPRuNe, trying to keep up to date with developments, chasing information on various small issues arising or whatever else happens to be going on with what may yet prove to be the benchmark aircraft in the category for some considerable time.

Even the weekend in Valencia (why does it have to be the bloody weekend anyway?) is on the basis of sharing the schedule with the other models. Can Agusta not spare the personnel to do these gatherings one model at a time? Or am I just being grumpy over my morning coffee?

And another little snippet which isn't really that important and won't affect most, if any users. The aircraft is certified for SPIFR, fair enough. The dual controls are actually removable. But there are no plugs to maintain circuit continuity when the duals are out - they don't exist, nor, so far as I can gather, has anybody even considered making any yet. It's not a very important matter, but it does suggest some haphazard planning, does it not?

[212man]

for some considerable time.

Not that much time - the EC-175 will be here soon, then watch how it's done :ok: