Agusta AW139

[he1iaviator]

Outhouse

In the event of zero oil pressure in the main gearbox the 225 RFM / Emergency Check-List says "Land as soon as possible, maximum flight time 30 mins"

Out of interest, what does the 139 RFM / Check-List say?

Thanks

[Non-PC Plod]

"Reduce power as soon as operational conditions permit. Land as soon as possible."

[leopold bloom]

Date: 08/04/2009
FB Heliservices Takes Delivery of Its First AW139 Helicopter

AgustaWestland is pleased to announce that FB Heliservices has recently taken delivery of its first AW139 medium twin helicopter at AgustaWestland’s Vergiate plant in Italy. This aircraft will be used to provide search and rescue training for AgustaWestland export customers and it will be operated from RAF Valley in Wales where FB Heliservices already perform SAR training for the UK military services. FB Heliservices signed a contract for two AW139 helicopters in 2008 and the second unit is expected to be delivered next month. The AW139 is equipped for over land and over water SAR operations and includes a rescue hoist, search radar, FLIR camera, cabin mission console, emergency flotation system, life-rafts, comprehensive communications system and a NVG compatible cockpit.


http://www.agustawestland.com/dinimg/AW690xsito.jpg
The AW139 has rapidly become the medium twin helicopter of choice for SAR duties and has been ordered by or is already in service with operators in Europe, Asia, Australasia and the Middle East. AW139 SAR customers include the UK Maritime Coastguard Agency, Spanish Marine Safety Agency (Sesamar), Japanese Coast Guard, Australian Queensland Government, Italian company Airgreen, Italian Civil Protection Agency and Coast Guard, Irish Air Corps, Korean Coast Guard, Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency and government agencies in the UAE, Oman, Estonia and Cyprus. The AW139 has also become the benchmark medium-twin helicopter on the world market and orders for over 430 helicopters have been placed by more than 100 commercial and government customers in over 40 countries to carry out a number of roles including search and rescue, emergency medical services, offshore transport, VIP/corporate transport, law enforcement, homeland security and military utility transport.


http://www.agustawestland.com/dinimg/AW690_2xsito.jpg
FB Heliservices is a joint venture company between Cobham Air Services and Bristow Helicopters Ltd that specialise in the provision of helicopters and associated services to military and government markets. FB Heliservices operate over 60 helicopters and have operations in the UK, Belize, Brunei, Cyprus and the Middle East.


AGUSTAWESTLAND (http://www.agustawestland.com/communication_det.php?id_news=478&yy=2009)

[leopold bloom]

http://i568.photobucket.com/albums/ss129/Leopoldbloom691/1392.jpg

[griffothefog]

Hey Crab,

Suck it up buddy... wether you like it or not, warts and all, it's the future of medium twin SAR for the foreseable future. Existing CUSTOMER feedback, especially from those in the SAR role will help this aircraft to fulfill a vital role in rescue ops throughout the world (yes, outside the British channel). :D

With a vested interest as an operator in the SAR role, I welcome all future improvements from AW that can increase our ability to implement the role in a safer and more professional manner. Perfect it ain't.. :ok:

[Max Contingency]

it's the future of medium twin SAR for the foreseable future

Possibly, but not for the UK after 2012. Both remaining SAR-H bidders, having spend several years now on looking at what is available and refining their bids, have decided that they do not want it.

Are these the first NVG compatible 139s?

[nimby]

Suck it up buddy

This can only go one of two ways ...

(conspiracy theorists will be trying to work out whether this "in your face" placement is a wind-up for Crab. I saw the aircraft fly past ... nice)

[Akitomo]

I went to AgustaWestland near Milan in Italy to perform an acceptance check.

Milano Malpensa A/P
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000002.jpg http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000001.jpg
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000003.jpg http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000004.jpg

Typical Euro scene as almost of you know?...
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000493.jpg http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000494.jpg

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000496.jpg http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000501.jpg http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000502.jpg http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000499.jpg http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000503.jpg http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000497.jpg http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000500.jpg http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000504.jpg

[Akitomo]

Acceptance Ceremony. The ship is gonna be operated by ANH (All Nippon Helicopter) that is one of the group companies of ANA(Airliner operator).
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000477.jpg http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000475.jpg

Nose compartment
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000210.jpg

Aft cabin seats
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000166.jpg

3000PSI Hydraulic Module
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000294.jpg

Main rotor head
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000311.jpg

Main Gearbox
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000324.jpg

P&WC PT6C-67C
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000301.jpg

Stab tip
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000249.jpg

Tail rotor hub
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000245.jpg

Heading to the apron... the beginning of the 3 days acceptance test flight
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000148.jpg http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000407.jpg

Another one
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000461.jpg http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000408.jpg

[Akitomo]

The 1st day/Hovering on a hover spot
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000429.jpg http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000409.jpg

Over Verese near Milan
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000415.jpg http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000416.jpg
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000418.jpg http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000419.jpg

Heading to Lake Maggiore
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000420.jpg http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000421.jpg
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000423.jpg http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000424.jpg
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000425.jpg http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000426.jpg

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000428.jpg http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000430.jpg
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000431.jpg

[Akitomo]

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000430.jpg
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000432.jpg http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000434.jpg
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000435.jpg http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000436.jpg
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000437.jpg http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000438.jpg
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000439.jpg http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000440.jpg

Fire?
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000441.jpg http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000442.jpg
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000443.jpg http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000444.jpg
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000445.jpg http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000446.jpg

[Akitomo]

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000447.jpg http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000449.jpg
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000448.jpg http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000452.jpg
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000453.jpg http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000454.jpg
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000455.jpg http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000456.jpg
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000457.jpg http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000458.jpg
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000459.jpg http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000460.jpg

[Akitomo]

The 2nd day.... Foggy morning
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000405.jpg http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000411.jpg




http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000367.jpg http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000369.jpg
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000370.jpg http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000372.jpg

Islands on Lake Maggiore
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000261.jpg http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000263.jpg
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000264.jpg http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000265.jpg
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000266.jpg http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000267.jpg
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000268.jpg http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000269.jpg
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000270.jpg

[Akitomo]

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000271.jpg
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000272.jpg http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/P1000273.jpg

Hope you all will enjoy the shots! Forgot to say, needless to say?.... I had a fun time in the nights riding on the other gals. http://www.airlinebuzz.com/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/aw139.jpg

[heliski22]

And in between which photos did you do the acceptance? :E:)

[atcomarkingtime]

Ok...Ideal thread to ask this one.
I was controlling an A139 today which went "off my frequency" for over 5minutes. I tried the aircraft many times and also another company aircraft tried....tried the radio fail procedure....nothing.
After a while the pilot said something to me......and said that the radio had gone off. I know we have a problem with the aircraft not being able to get us on test (as the S76 can do) as the digital radios dont let them....
But....where and how can the radios be turned off. We got into a big ops room chat in ATC and wonder if a radio switch maybe easily touched and nobody notices?????
Be good to hear any ideas on this.....my first instruction when the pilot came back was "avoiding action ...turn left....."

[Aser]

Akitomo: the picture with 3000PSI Hydraulic Module looks like the Air con module...

atco:
Can you explain what do you mean with this:
I know we have a problem with the aircraft not being able to get us on test (as the S76 can do) as the digital radios dont let them....
:confused:

About the radios... recently an aircraft lost the COM1,NAV1 etc. due a network card failure, it was necessary just to reset the circuit breaker, but to lost com1&2 in the same flight...

Regards
Aser

[Mozzy]

The Digital radios on the 139 can be put into test or Squelch off.:ok:
Also, what catches a lot of pilots out is:
If either comm 1/2 recieve channel is off, if it is then reseleced by pressing the transmit select button the radio receive channel is then selected on, but if however the pilot chooses to speak on the other 'Box' and presses the transmit select button for ther other comm the previous channel is then turned back off........ it will only stay selected on if it was previously selected on prior to the transmit channel being selected........
does this make sense?

[Akitomo]

Akitomo: the picture with
Quote:
3000PSI Hydraulic Module
looks like the Air con module...



Woops, :ugh:
The right pic has been uploaded. Thanks for pointing out!

[[email protected]]

Griffo - re suck it up - I saw the aircraft at Valley last week and yes it does look good but the only reason it has been chosen is because AW got the Algerian contract (thanks to the MoD) and the 139 is cheap and better than the 412 - not because it 'sets the standard' for modern SAR.

If it set the standard it would have an aux hover trim capability for night wet winching and a cabin that you could stand up in. If a land ambulance turned up with a roof so low the paramedics had to work on their knees, there would be outrage but no one listens to the rearcrew when considering what is and isn't a good SAR helicopter and they are the ones who get to do all the really nasty and dangerous stuff in SAR.

I bet manouevering a 20 stone patient in a stretcher is a laugh a minute in the back of a 139 - how long will it take before all the rearcrew are off sick with bad knees and bad backs? Remember all the H&S training about how to lift with your legs and not your back? - how is that going to work when you can't stand up?

The 139 will be OK in the training role and in some theatres where a true and full SAR capability isn't needed/wanted/affordable but it is not, and never will be the standard for light/medium twin SAR. It's cheap.........that is the overriding argument for choosing it.

[S.M.S]

If it set the standard it would have an aux hover trim capability for night wet winching

:ugh::{:ugh:

[VEMD]

Akitomo, to which country this 139 going?

[9Aplus]

That with radios reminds me on our test flight, no one on board was able to
properly switch intercom between passenger area and crew, ANR on
loudspeakers to earphones and back, also comm between pilots was
questionable, things finally finish up with finger signs :ok:

[atcomarkingtime]

ASSER/Mozzy.....we seem to have a problem with the A139 radio....whereas the S76 seems ok in the same area....and we were told that the A139 cannot set to Squelch to be able to hear us....:ok:
Still love to know why it went radio fail for so long!!!:ugh:

[Akitomo]

Akitomo, to which country this 139 going?
To Japan. For further details, check this out!

AGUSTAWESTLAND (http://www.agustawestland.com/communication_det.php?id_news=476&yy=2009)

[Aser]

atcomarkingtime ASSER/Mozzy.....we seem to have a problem with the A139 radio....whereas the S76 seems ok in the same area....and we were told that the A139 cannot set to Squelch to be able to hear us....
Still love to know why it went radio fail for so long!!!

It's right, you can switch on/off the squelch but you can't adjust it, like in a Bell412.

Mozzy: not a big problem if you look at the lights when selecting radios... :8

Akitomo: is the 139 just for news gathering??? :eek:

Regards
Aser

[Akitomo]

Akitomo: is the 139 just for news gathering??? http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/eek.gif
Yup!... The TV station seems to be reaching out for a faster & longer range ship regardless of expense and we've been modifying the ship for them in our hanger.
FYI: The sencond ship is gonna be delivered this summer.... :uhoh:

[[email protected]]

SMS - not sure what your point/problem is.

[VEMD]

IFR flight from Istambul to Constanta

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r272/helicos/IMG_4163.jpg


http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r272/helicos/IMG_3932.jpg


http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r272/helicos/IMG_3931.jpg

[VEMD]

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r272/helicos/IMG_4070.jpg

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r272/helicos/IMG_4095.jpg

[S.M.S]

SMS - not sure what your point/problem is.


my point sir is it true no aux hover trim capability on the aw139 ??????????:eek:

[leopold bloom]

it would have an aux hover trim capability I think you will find that it does have an AHT, still waiting for the release of the software certification though. You can't stand up in the back of an L2/225 either but it seems to do pretty well as a SAR machine around the world. Size isn't everything as I frequently tell Mrs Bloom!

[leopold bloom]

http://i568.photobucket.com/albums/ss129/Leopoldbloom691/139atValley.jpg

You probably can't see it but there is a wet patch on the pilot's seat where Crab was drooling.

[heli1]

I hear FBH put all the SAR kit on that CHC were too tight to pay for...result one helluva better SAR ship in Anglesey that on the south coast.Oh forgot..CHC now having to upgrade theirs to the same standard !

[Geoffersincornwall]

This team of irreplacable adventure-loving workaholics in the back of your SAR helo are certainly worth their salt but please do remember that the time to worry is when they STOP grumbling.

Winging about everything is a way of life that back-seat crews have turned into an art form but you will notice that it doesn't prevent them delivering the goods.

G

[[email protected]]

Leopold - at least you had the decency to include an operational SAR helicopter in the background of your photo:ok:

'Awaiting the release of the software certification' !!!!! sounds just like the CHC cabs then:)

[Dexus]

Here're the shots of the new storm windows of an AW139. According to the guy who works for AW, the new one has been developed as the old one had been suffering from the issue that the window had come off from the cockpit door after setting in the open position during flight like the cabin sliding window of the EC135.
I'm not sure it's true or not though,.... anyone has have heard such a trouble on an AW139? :confused:

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/Stormwindow0000-1.jpg

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/Stormwindow001-1.jpg

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/Stormwindow002-1.jpg

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/Stormwindow003-1.jpg

The old one
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/akitomo/85955_1201544277-1.jpg

[spinwing]

Mmmmm .....

Looks like a much improved device .... AND ... there is one on the Co-Pilot side as well .... :ok: (unlike the machines I fly).


Time will tell as to how good they really are!
:E

[john62]

As the AW139 requires two NVG equiped pilots for NVG operations, what options are there for an operator that currently uses the AW139 single pilot?

http://www.easa.eu.int/ws_prod/c/doc/Design_Appro/Rotorcraft/TCDS%20EASA.R.006%20Agusta%20AW139%20Issue%2012.pdf

[Spanish Waltzer]

employ another pilot :ok::ok:

sorry had to get it in before anyone else did :}

SW

[Non-PC Plod]

Any operation that needs NVG is probably an operation that needs multi-crew anyway. Most operators operating the 139 single-pilot (of which I dont think there are many) will only be generally doing simple pax transport between normal aviation sites. NVG in a civvy environment is going to be useful mostly in the police, SAR and HEMS world Most of these operations need multi-crew at night, and you would be asking for trouble doing them in a complex aircraft like the 139 on NVG without a second pilot.

[redsarboy]

Has anybody got some photo's of the new Bristow 139 SAR cab they could post. Interested in seeing the rear cabin layout.:)

Cheers,

redsarboy.

[john62]

CHC sometimes use 2 pilots, but I understand that it is single pilot up in Sydney. So they can do VFR or IFR (day or night) in the 139, just not NVG. Is this correct?

[Helispanner]

Exactly what wonderful SAR kit has been installed on the FBH machine, I can see wire strike protection and single? hoist, different radar.

[S.M.S]

folks which versions of TCAS fitted on the AW139 ??

[spinwing]

Mmm ...

TCAS on the 139 is the KTA 970 (TCAS1) and is integrated into the PRIMUS avionics suite fitted to the aircraft.

AW139 RFM Supplement 25 refers.

Cheers :ok:

[wde]

Hey all:

I am looking to start a dialogue (via this forum or via email) about some of the maintenance / operational gotchas with the AW139:

For instance:

1. What are the component penalties for starting the aircraft in winds >27 kts?
2. What are the component penalties for operations >6400 kg?
3. Anything else?
4. What is happening with the "CT" rub issues with starting the aircraft on battery power?

Thanks much

wde:confused:

[Eng AW139]

Ref to the AW139 IETP AMPI (EASA or FAA) for penaties

There was an information letter on the CT rub issure with low battery power. But I can't remember if it was an Agusta or P&W letter.

[Geoffersincornwall]

This is a new one on me - can somebody please expand on the subject.

G. :ok:

[drop lead]

Agusta info letter on this subject can be found here
http://customersupport.agusta.com/il/AW139_09_007.pdf
Cheers
DL

[Brilliant Stuff]

Airwave am I to understand that your aircraft lifts before everyone is strapped in?

It was our HLOs routine to make sure all pax were strapped in before he would give us the thumbs up and walk away followed by another thumbs up before we could lift.

[airwave45]

removed by poster at op co request

[mini]

Good post.

[noooby]

Hi Airwave 45,

If the GH pilots are not getting the aircraft started, and it is due to battery problems, then it is probably because they are faffing about like they do in the 412's. The 139 is power hungry and needs to have the pre-start checks done quickly to minimise power loss. Once you get the first donk started, you've got no worries. Of course, it could be ATC. When I was at GH there were times when the controllers would dick you around just because they could.
Best you get your pilots sorted out with taking off with pax still getting strapped in too. Isn't the forward left passenger on intercom? The facility is there in the cabin, use it, it is a great safety tool.
I wouldn't worry about the main rotor blades hitting you when the engines are running. The blades are VERY stiff and don't droop. They don't even droop when everything comes to a stop. Clearance at the front when running is a good 10ft. If a company runs a mixed fleet of 139's and 76's (which GH doesn't) then I would enforce going out of the rotor disc to the side. If you go out the front on a 76, you really do run the risk of a major headache!
After 4 odd years wrenching on the 139, I much prefer working on them to working on the 412. Less to do, and easier to work on. Mechanically they are a pretty simple, robust helicopter. Electrically they can be a challenge, but once any bugs from the factory are ironed out, they tend to pretty good machines.

[airwave45]

removed due to request from op co

[Aser]

humm, I missed the airwave posts :sad:


griffothefog Acer,

Nice pics, but why is the torque limiter on over the pond


Griff, Why not? I can't see the situation where I need to pull more than 228TQ in a normal cruise. It was on from the take off.

Regards
Aser

[Geoffersincornwall]

ASER

You are in dangerous territory. Nowhere in the flight manual, other than the OEI Training Mode, is use of the TL recommended.

If you do some digging you may find a story in which one aircraft was saved because the TL was OFF. It is designed to be OFF.

In any subsequent enquiry your routine selection of the TL may look very foolish...... if you survive.

G

PS - There have been several 109 accidents that may have had a different outcome if the TL had been off (on the 109E it's normally ON but later models have it as per the 139, normally OFF)

[Aser]

Geoff,
That story was told to me by the pilot (imc flight going wrong...)
Nowhere in the RFM says the TQ limiter has to be off.

And about the 109 accidents , there is a BIG difference , in the 109 you have to switch it off after an engine failure(or trying to take off with one engine at idle, like in one of the 109 incidents), but in the 139 TL goes off automatically.

Anyway this discussion is like the one about the speed to arm floats, Agusta doesn't want to write anything specific in the manuals.

I don't really need to fly with TL on, but I have seen over torques at take off just because someone was not paying too much attention.

If TL is not safe to use why we don't get it in writing...? :ugh:

Regards
Aser

[Geoffersincornwall]

With respect the RFM clearly says that if you are over water you arm the floats. Do what you will but be it upon your own head and hope you can afford a good lawyer if the unthinkable happens and you end up trying to explain how you were the only one to get out when you flew the aircraft into the water. Won't happen to me? Well there is a Bond 225 crew who thought the same until it happened to them.



G

[Aser]

Geoff,
about the floats we are on the same side, I always arm it when over water at low level regardless of speed.

You will see a bunch of my colleagues this summer in the sim (sadly I wont be there) and you will see that a lot of them are on the other side...

What about the Agusta? don't you think it will be better if they amend the rfm
regarding TL/floats to be more specific?

Regards
Aser

[spinwing]

Mmmmm ....

Geoffers ....

I am with Aser on the issue of Torque Limiter operations (as Is the company I fly with).

Whilst I do not have a copy of the RFM or QRH with me atm ... I do not recall anywhere in those documents where there is a limitation on its (Torque Limiter) operation. Yes there is an explanation of it operation with regard limiting values (also saying that for OEI flight its operation is inhibited) ... but nowhere does it say your NOT to use it for any particular condition of flight.

Please correct me if I am wrong!

Cheers :confused:

[Geoffersincornwall]

FLOATS

IN FLIGHT PROCEDURES
1. FLOATS EMER switch
Over land operation — Confirm OFF.
Over water operation — Confirm ARMED, FLOAT ARM caution
displayed on CAS.

That cannot be clearer.
TORQUE LIMITER

This extract covers the pre-start checks, collective control switch panel:-

40. ♦ RPM switch (on collective) — Set 100%
41. ♦ 1 ENG GOV (on collective) — AUTO
42. ♦ 2 ENG GOV (on collective) — AUTO
43. ENG TRIM beep switches (on
collective)
— Verify operation, then leave
the engine control levers in
the FLIGHT position.
♦ On BATTERY power use a
single ‘click’ back and forward
to confirm ECL stops in
FLIGHT gate.
Note
Each engine trim beep switch controls the respective
control lever from MIN to FLIGHT position when in
AUTO mode, and from MIN to MAX position when in
MANUAL mode
Note
Both engines control levers should always be operated
through the beep switches located on the collective control.
They should be operated manually only in case of
failure of the remote control (ECL FAIL caution message),
or before starting, to position the lever to FLIGHT.

NOTE - no mention of the TL.
This means that if it was considered 'normal' to use the TL then it would be mentioned - maybe 'Test, then leave on as required' or something similar. The fact that is that it is not mentioned because it is not a normal consideration. As I said before if you can justify the use of the TL in special circumstances then you may have a sound argument in which case you should include it in your (published and approved) SOPs or OM. In my opinion those that fly around with the TL habitually armed are asking for trouble. The TL for OEI ops will always be there whether you like it or not but to loose an airframe for want of worry about an overtorque really is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

G.

[Geoffersincornwall]

I don't know what was in the designer's mind but how about this stab at his possible approach to the situation.

Torque Limiter has an advisory (Green) CAS message because having it on is neither a hazard nor an emergency. Remember the Torque Limiter is only mentioned in the RFM in the context of 'Use of The OEI Training Mode' and in this context it is not a hazard.

The FLOATS ARMED amber CAS message warns the pilot not to press the FLOATS INFLATE button. The switch then becaomes a hazard.

I am aware that you could argue the reverse (Green for floats and amber for TL) but that's the way it is and it doesn't make it wrong, just very wishy washy and with a certain ambiguity of purpose. On balance I feel the designer has just about got it right - but only after a great deal of contemplation.

If we had a designer reading prune or an engineer, maybe he/she would comment.

G.

[spinwing]

Mmm ...

Geoffers ....

Thank you for the above .... I have no problem with the "Floats Operation" and if fact operate IAW the RFM.

I do however still have an issue with your version of operations with the TL.

If as you say there is no mention in the RFM other than as you have mentioned and as a rated pilot trained on type with the knowledge that if you pull more than 114/114% expect the RRPM to bleed off then what is the problem ... it is a protection.

There being no warnings or cautions NOT to operate in that manner I believe allows me to do so as long as I understand how or why I want to do so.

Takes me back to my Puma days .... I believe I would rather fly the Rrpm droop rather than risk burning an engine .... having said that ... my choices would depend on the flight task at hand.

If Agusta consider flying with TL active a flight hazard then they should amend the RFM to indicate same.

Cheers ;)

[Aser]

Section 2 AW139 - RFM - 4D
Normal Procedures Document N°
139G0290X002
Page 2-28 E.A.S.A. Approved
PRE TAKE-OFF CHECKS
1.AFCS — Engaged.
2. MFD — Select PWR PLANT page
3. PARK BRAKE handle — Released.
4. ENG MODE — Confirm both to FLIGHT
5. ECL — Confirm both to FLIGHT
6. TQ LIMiter pushbutton — Push, if required, to enable TQ
limiter function (LIMITER ON
advisory message)
CAUTION
With TQ LIMiter enabled the AEO engine total torque will
be limited to a combined torque value of 228%TQ. OEI
engine torque limit will remain at 160%TQ.
7. CAS — Clear/as required.


As required, and that's how you will find it in the company checklist.

I'm not saying that we need to use the TL, but that Agusta can write better manuals and if the TL is only for OEI training they need to be more clear.

Also with the floats, it doesn't cost money to put something like (arm floats up to vne) so I don't have to fight with every pilot afraid to arm them.

:ugh::confused:
Best regards
Aser

[Geoffersincornwall]

The MGB is built really really well and can take a hell of a load. If you get into a hole and need to get out of it the you may need a lot more that 114/114 and what a shame to DIE for the sake of your concern for your bosses wallet - and it may be insured anyway.

An interesting area for further deliberation is that when in 'Manual Mode' the logic of the Torque matching over-rides the actual Torque used so that with one engine at 112 and the other at 80 it will declare a TRANSMISSION OVERTORQUE on the CAS even though the total MGB Torque is less than the max 220. What happens if the TL is left on during Manual Mode? The answer is that it will artificially restrict your (legitimate) access to the full 220 by holding the high engine at 114.

This is a fine example of pilots 'reading between the lines' and using their intelligence to find a better solution ONLY they don't have all the facts.

Lovely story about the operator who was running a Dauphin C with the tricycle undercarriage. He wanted to modify it to the skids and bought the kit from Aerospatiale. Having completed the conversion he noted that the small tail wheel underneath the fenestron was still in place. 'Remove it' was the order, 'we need to save weight'. Well, they did and 10 hours later the fenestron disintegrated. With no tail wheel the vibes hit resonance at the fenestron and cause the total loss of the aircraft. Now the operator thought that Aerospatiale had forgotten to mention the tailwheel when they read the mod instructions but no, they just made the mistake of thinking that the operator WOULD DO AS HE WAS TOLD.

Remember - you dont know everything - and using your intelligence can get you into trouble if you don't have ALL the facts.

G

Edit - typo

[Geoffersincornwall]

Has your checklist been approved by your regulator (CAA)?

If you have an issue with the RFM then you should take it up with your CAA inspector who should take it up with the factory. You are a customer and have the ability to demand answers, especially if they are routed through your National CAA.

I notice that your checklist by itself does not invite routine use of the TL - seems that you too have an ambiguity problem in that the advice in the checklist is insufficient for the pilot to make an informed decision about when and where to use it. What does your OM say on the subject?

G

[Aser]

An interesting area for further deliberation is that when in 'Manual Mode' the logic of the Torque matching over-rides the actual Torque used so that with one engine at 112 and the other at 80 it will declare a TRANSMISSION OVERTORQUE on the CAS even though the total MGB Torque is less than the max 220. What happens if the TL is left on during Manual Mode? The answer is that it will artificially restrict your (legitimate) access to the full 220 by holding the high engine at 114.


I remember being told that if the two engines are running the input module can't take more than 114 without damage even if the other engine is just at 80.
It had to hold the good engine at 114 or you make damage to the xmsn.
Of course when oei xmsn could take up to 176.

But I'm talking about something I heard in 2006

please correct me if I'm wrong.

Regards
Aser

[Geoffersincornwall]

ASER

Interesting point but somehow it doesn't quite fit with the huge OEI rating of 160 (+). I will try to find out a definitive answer.

G

[JimL]

Geoff/Aser,

The group you need to engage in this discussion is are the former members of the Helicopter Airworthiness Study Group (HASG) who sponsored the Limit Override Workshop conference at Vergiate in November 2001. Nick Lappos gave the Keynote speech and at least one of your own Test Pilots (Nigel) was there.

The concept of limit override was to "Sacrifice the engine to save the aircraft" not to have something that "Sacrificed the aircraft to save the engine". As I remember it, the concept was one of a 'blow-away switch" that could be used in emergencies. This might be more pertinent to the AW139 where there is no access to 30 second power limits.

There were also discussions about twin-engine operations where the OEI limits would not be exceeded but the twin-engine limits would (a gearbox limit); not sure whether such limits are employed as it would require communication/protocols between the FADEC of both engines.

I must say I agree with Geoff when it comes to procedures; best not to double guess the system, much better to comply with the manual and seek clarification of the function of the 'TL' from Agusta.

If the 'TL' is related only to OEI operations (hence the discussion on training), you appear to be in danger of leaving one tool out of your toolbox in an emergency.

Jim

[spinwing]

Mmmm ...

Geoffers ....

This is BRILLIANT ..... I'm now getting facts that I can take to my training department and ask questions about .....

Yes the RFM is obviously vague in this department and if for what ever reason conversion courses miss certain issues I think this forum is a way of getting information out in the open ...

I (and probably others too) are at the mercy of our trainers... and our experience ... we can only read between the lines if manuals and course notes do not go into these details ... and if they don't and our Agusta trained trainers do not know to pass this information on we are the ones to suffer!

Thanks ... keep the Info, points of view etc etc coming ...

Cheers :ok:

[Non-PC Plod]

Flying with TL on (other than for OEI Training) in case you accidentally overtorque the gearbox seems very little difference from deliberately flying with only one engine in case you accidentally overtorque the gearbox. It doesnt compute with me.
Its not in the manual, its not taught on the TR course, because that is not how it is intended to be used. The manual doesnt say "dont turn both generators off in flight to save wear and tear" either. That doesnt mean to say you should do it!

[platinumpure]

This really should not be an issue. Maybe I have been flying a different AW139.

Operating at the gross weight of 6400 KG, I think if you accidently over-torque this aircraft a torque limiter is the least of your problems. I can't think of any time over the last 3 years flying this aircraft under normal operations (max gross weight at up to 40 degrees C) that I have been so close to a limit on torque that this has even been an issue. If operating at the higher gross weight of 6800 KG disregard the previous statement.

If you need to use more than 220% AEO on a regular basis, I think you need to take a look at your operations or weights, IMHO.

If I ever need to use more than that, I want it all available as it will be an emergency.

[calaim]

Does anyone know where i can find the OEI best range speed for the AW139.

[Demented]

Platinumpure

"If you need to use more than 220% AEO on a regular basis, I think you need to take a look at your operations or weights, IMHO."

Agree 100%.......:ok:

[Geoffersincornwall]

With respect to the Torque Limiter:-

I owe you and the rest of the PpruNe fraternity an apology insofar as the TL DOES appear in the RFM Pre Take Off, After Take Off and Pre Landing checklist with the qualification 'AS REQUIRED' - the same as your own checklist.

Clearly somebody has considered the possible need for the TL when the book was written although we seem to have standardised on a scenario here at the school where the TL is not used for normal ops. That's why it doesn't appear on our 'training' checklist.

The ambiguity leaves us no further forward but as Jim says, sacrificing the MGB/Engine to save the airframe is probably better than sacrificing the airframe to save the MGB/Engine.

As for flying around with the TL on all the time - probably not a good idea. As for using it for normal ops - in the absence of any history of MGB overtorques I can't see it as justified. Given the acceptance of the TL by the RFM 'Normal Procedures' I can no longer claim it to be unacceptable to use it and will need to eat my share of humble pie over that. However, the analysis, I believe, is in favour of using it only when you have a clear possibility of an overtorque. Even then there may be some circumstances (I can think of one example when you are landing in the mountains with lots of down-drafting) where it may be better to have it OFF rather ON.


With respect to the MGB:-

3.2 If, with all engines operative, the TQ is 121 thru 125% for 10 s maximum no inspections are necessary.
3.3 If, with all engines operative, the TQ is 121 thru 125% for more than 10 s or it is more than 125%, send the data to the Manufacturer. Then do the recommended inspections.
3.4 If, with one engine inoperative, the TQ is more than 176%, send the data to the Manufacturer. Then do the recommended inspections.
These are the official procedures the customer MUST carry out.

That's the best I can do at the moment. No clear indication of the asymmetric scenario as mentioned previously but the MM would seem to reinforce the 'normal' situation where both engines are producing equal torque. The consensus here is that the designers forgot to to consider this scenario when they designed the software along with the scenario where 'ITT Matching' is selected as this will also generate a torque differential.

G

Edit - Typo plus note about ITT Matching

[heliski22]

Geoff,

Just when I've got my head around the FLOAT ARM procedure, you throw this at me.......? You cruel man!!

On a lighter note, I pitched up in Liege today for a bunch of inspections and a fistful of BTs which need doing. First thing they did inside the hangar was download the engine data. Funny thing was, one engineer was showing another what to look for but both engines gave them completely blank screens with regard to faults and exceedances......they seemed surprised and started to joke about it. Why, I don't know!

To me, even a 103/104% Tq spike is out of order, much less 125%, and I work like this all the time and without recourse to the TL option. I appreciate my flying is all in non-arduous circumstances and non-hostile environmentsand in temperate latitudes, as well as which I can take my time to my take-offs, but I do load right up to the 6400kg limit all the time.

Am I missing something here?

22

[spinwing]

Mmm ...

Geoff,

All is forgiven ...... Keep up the good work anyway!


:ok:

[platinumpure]

Some further reading on the subject of TL from the training manual:

Engine limitations

Engines power can be limited in order to protect the main
gearbox when in double engine operation.
This function is achieved by pressing the TQ LIM pushbutton
on the collective grip; when pressed the EECs controls
the total engines torque in order to not exceed the
maximum take-off power rating while has no effect in single
engine operation.
Torque is the only parameter involved in the limitation, Ng
and ITT could reach the single engine limits even in double
engine operation if allowed by the environmental conditions.
Torque limitation is not available in MANUAL mode.
It is pilot responsibility to select the engines torque limitation,
the default mode is OFF

Although I have to admit I can't really think of any practical uses for this. Like has been stated before, I would rather save the airframe if I ever found myself in the position where I needed that power.

For the guys that do use the limiter. What do you guys use it for out of interest? What kind of operations are you involved in? Do you feel you need it a lot? I'm not saying its wrong, I'm just interested in this as there may be something I'm overlooking.

[spinwing]

Mmmmm ...

Well my point of view is the the TL function IS the airframe protection (ie it protects the transmission input sections) for normal operations.

Let me first declare that I grew up with the SA330J Puma and am quite happy on a big(ish) machine to fly Nr decay if necessary and fly a machine away in that condition if the need arises (we also used/needed to milk RPM on B47 G3B2s on occasions just to keep the suckers flying ... that of course was in a previous life!).

Having said that .... the necessity for this of course depends on the task at hand for any given situation ... you might not want TL "ON" for a particular task and that would be the pilots perogative.

I and my collegues fly the 139 in a disciplined Offshore envoironment and there are there a few of us with similar Puma backgrounds we are very happy to keep using the TL.

As quoted above ... it does NOT restrict your power demands during OEI flight as the TL feature is then inhibited.

Also .... it was illuminating ... during my type training (which was done by a person with Test Pilot qualifications) when we raised questions about what could and could not be done by pilots vis a vis "reading between the lines" of flight manuals (due to RFM vagueness) .... his comment was ... that a lot of limitations in RFMs are in fact due to the "developmental test program" not fully investigating the envelope and just coming up with "artificially" low limits just so as to be able to publish a RFM for Certification and get the aircraft in the air and in use! Very often done with newish aircraft ...

This of course does not mean we can expand the flight envelope with our own (un-approved) test program!!!! :p


Cheers :ok:

[Geoffersincornwall]

I'm sure it was just a slip of the tongue but during OEI the TL is not inhibited. During OEI operation the TL is very definitely ON - but with settings appropriate to the OEI situation. Thus, after an engine fails, the torque is permitted a short overswing above the 160 limit but then the Torque will remain at 160 and the NR will droop if the collective is raised any further.

G :ok:

[spinwing]

Mmmm ...


Oops .... my bad ... Thanks Geoff :}

[KiwiRotorWrench]

Anyone got a source (in USA preferably) where one can get spare door keys cut? These are the ones that look like a small switchblade with blunt edges, and the "key" is cut into both sides of the blade.
Agusta suggests your local BMW car or motorcycle shop, but try getting a dealer to do anything without a VIN number is impossible.
Cheers
KC

[spinwing]

Mmmm ...

Agusta suggests your local BMW car or motorcycle shop, but try getting a dealer to do anything without a VIN number is impossible.

Its a problem isn't it?

Might I suggest talking to a locksmith .... if necessary taking him/her to see the aircraft and you proving to them that the key is in fact for an aircraft then threatening them with a case of beer for a job well done if they would cut you some spares ... all they need is to be reassured that you are authorised to have those keys and that they will not be liable for any car theft conspiracy charges in the future.

Good luck

[birrddog]

Couldn't the aircraft serial number be used as an equivalent for the VIN?

That and a copy of the title or lease agreement....

[Aser]

Latest version:

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h263/aser_martinez/ECKYR/P6250449.jpg

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h263/aser_martinez/ECKYR/P6250451.jpg

New aux. fuel tank
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h263/aser_martinez/ECKYR/P6250468.jpg

Finally... full SAR modes
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h263/aser_martinez/ECKYR/P6250443.jpg

Regards
Aser

[jeepys]

If the pilots can see out of those bubble windows then they have bloody long necks. They are for the rear crew to see down while searching etc without opening the doors. The trouble is they are too small and with a helmet on next to useless.

[Aser]

yes, 6800kg.

More pictures

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h263/aser_martinez/ECKYR/IMAG0539.jpg

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h263/aser_martinez/ECKYR/P6250455.jpg

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h263/aser_martinez/ECKYR/P6250458.jpg

winch operator trim
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h263/aser_martinez/ECKYR/P6260481.jpg

automatic transition to hover
lZd11Nnyjco

Regards
Aser

[spinwing]

Mmmmm...

Damn this is clever ....

Love the new guidance panel with VPath control ..... very nice!
:ok:

[tottigol]

Interesting, how is it that the SAR mode require the 102% setting?

[Eng AW139]

hoisting Requirement as per the RFM?

[eivissa]

Can someone please explain the three SAR Modes?

This article explains MOT (mark on target) very nicely, but what about TD/H and WTR?

Agusta Westland AW139 Pilot Report (http://issuu.com/leardriver/docs/agusta_westland_aw139_pilot_report)

Thanks in advance,
eivissa.


Edit: OK, service bulletin 139-173 brought all the answers...

TD/H: Transition Down & Transition Down to Hover
TU: Transition Up
MOT: Mark on Target
WTR: Winchman Trim - Hoist Operator Control

[Aser]

spinwing,
another clever thing:
C. of G. automatic calculation, with warning when out of parameters ;)
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h263/aser_martinez/ECKYR/P6290549.jpg

eivissa drop me an email if you want more info.

Regards
Aser

[S.M.S]

Aser can you send me info please?

Email:[email protected]

Thanks sir...

[RVDT]

The bubble windows are for the people in the back to watch where they are going while the pilot's fiddle with all the gizmos............................!:p

[malabo]

Agusta Westland AW139 Pilot Report (http://issuu.com/leardriver/docs/agusta_westland_aw139_pilot_report)


I remember this report. Was I the only pilot unimpressed that after leaving 325 lbs of fuel behind they were able to carry only 3 passengers before they hit gross weight?

[heliski22]

Malabo

Just had a quick look at that report, they have a very heavy bird to start with at 4870kgs. Add in 1110 kgs of gas brings it to 5980kgs and five bodies at 90kgs (let's be realistic) each and you've got 6430kgs and that's without bags.

We operate a VIP configuration which we thought was heavy but it's "only" 4620kgs by comparison. That's a difference of 250kgs or more than 500lbs.

[tottigol]

90Kgs is on the light side for the average worker in the GoM area.:eek:
Our aircraft average Empty Weight is around 9800lbs and we add a "standard" 400lbs for the cockpit crews.

Aser, according to that W&B MCDU display are you guys flying single pilot for SAR?

[rustypliers]

Hi Geoffers, I have produced some cruise and range power charts for our company derived from Section 9 of the RFM. As a guide I have used the Correction Factors (CF) the External Breeze Hoist (We have a Goodrich fixed external hoist, which has about the same frontal area) and SX16 nitesun.
I have also been requested to produce a chart for a wheels down configuration. Can you help with a correction factor for this condition.
Thanks Much,
RP

[Geoffersincornwall]

Rusty

The RFM, as I'm sure you know, reminds you that the fuel consumption will increase with the LG down but rather unhelpfully does not go on to specify how much it increases. I will try to find out but in the meantime we used to use 5% on the S61 so I would guess that this number would do for the time being. Get back to you soon.

Tottigol

You can just see that the engines aren't running so I would guess that that page defaults to 90. We have yet to even see this new software so unable to comment beyond saying that it's good to see us moving things in the right direction. Now we just need the fuel display on the PROG page to be a little more user-friendly.

G. :)

[eivissa]

Thanks for the offer aser, I might come back to that :ok:

here is another interesting report about the AW139:
Flying Honeywell?s Primus Epic for helicopters (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/02/16/322529/flying-honeywells-primus-epic-for-helicopters.html)

Any expectations when honeywell's synthetic vision is ready for certification?

[Eng AW139]

I have a question when hoisting in you have engaged the 102% switch as per the RFM. Do you have to log how long you are operating at 102% for CAt A penalties:ugh::ugh:

[shak'n]

Hey Rusty, How are they hangin' old fruit,

From my expereince with other helos and limited time on teh 139 I'd take a wirld guess and say if you allow either a 5kt reduction in TAS or a 5% increase in F/F you can't go too far from reality. Given that you nprmally plan on around 450kg/hr but in reality at your LR cruise config you are around 400ish kg/hr, that would mean around an extra 20-25kg/hr if you maintain the same cruise TAS as normal..........just a wild guess

cheers

[rustypliers]

Thanks Geoffers, eagerly await your reply.

[Aser]

Oh, I forgot to comment that now we have the "check height" aural, and if you are in RHT or ALT modes , it will engage automatic fly-up when within parameters. :ok::ok::ok:

Geoff, I´ll be in the sim from 20 July, I hope we can have a chat.

Totti, I was just playing with the fms, normal ops is 2 pilots & 2 rear crew.

Eng AW139 , you must log only training in CAT A when doing OEI training and you reduce the rpm from 100% during the menouver.
Different when doing hoist, you log only the number of hoists.
If I remember it right...

shak'n , I think 5% or 6% is what I saw in other company manuals for the 139

Best regards
Aser

[noooby]

Aser,

You are correct. 102% use does not penalise the life of the components, only OEI training does. Good memory you have :)

Just been on a flight with gear down and locked. Fuel burn went up about 6% (timed over 1/2 and hour). Difficult to get accurate fuel burns on the 139 though!

[Eng AW139]

Ok thanks for the information.:)

[rustypliers]

Hi Shak'n, side by side!
I've gone into RFM Section 9 - Performance and produced a table for recommended Cruise and Range so the guys can set an IAS in the air and a TAS and Fuel flow for planning. At ISA +15 it makes quite a difference, 0' 152 TAS 486 FF, 10000' 140 TAS 377 FF. On the longer legs this gives us up to a 120kg advantage over the fixed TAS/FF depending on CRZ ALT.
Table 9 in Sect 9 give a DTQ correction factor for various optional hanging off equipment, but not the Gear down situation.
It seems there is about 5-6% increase in FF or reduction in TAS (thanks guys), it would just be a bit neater to have an Agusta derived CF to apply.

[eivissa]

German documentary about the Agusta facilities. Not up to date, since they mention Bell still being part of the 139 project and also calling it the AB139. Maybe that explains the different cockpit layout at 2:07?

tCDVpqghqdI

[zhishengji751]

Thanks for the video.

It looks like a loose panel at 3:57 that closes itself during the check flight?

[eivissa]

You're welcome.
One should just enjoy the pictures, cause the reporter managed to fill the short documentary with lots of errors, like talking about the A109 and showing the A119, saying the EH101 is having a max range of 250NM and it being the only triple-engined helicopter worldwide :ugh:

[noooby]

Looks like the forward sliding cowl wasn't latched properly. Early helicopters had a sliding cowling that tucked in behind the swashplate. To slide the cowling forward, you first had to open an access door at the top on each side, otherwise the cowl would hit the swashplate. The cowling was redesigned quite early on so that these doors weren't needed anymore. Those little doors really were a pain in the :mad:

[copterdr76]

Anyone operating with supplemental oxygen for pilots and engineer's ? We have a need for this and would like some input, please. Anyone ?

[noooby]

Aga Khan Development Network in Tajikistan were using the Mountain High EDS portable O2 system when I was there a few years back. Bottle was strapped to the back of the pilots seat. With Mountain High, you can get distribution boxes that will allow a couple of cannulas or masks to be used off of one bottle. Have a look at the Mountain High website:

Mountain High Aviation Oxygen Systems (http://www.mhoxygen.com/)

And because they are pulse/demand systems instead of constant flow, you get more duration out of your bottle. I've used them alot gliding. Cannulas aren't certified above 18000 feet in most countries though, so I carry a mask as well.

Hope that points you in the right direction.

[spyman2009]

Hello all first time here.
I have been asked to put together a presentation on the electrical system of the AW 139.
In order to construct some of the 3d models ,I need to reference some pictures of the main electrical components,.these being the Generator ,GCU , both Batteries ,overhead switch panel and the Engine quadrant .
I have searched the web but have not been able to find any photos of these items anywhere , also as they do not operate in this country I cannot to take any pictures myself.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
Spyman 2009

[co26]

just heard AW139 lost tail boom while taxiing in Doha, just prior to take-off.

[spinwing]

Mmmm ....

This is going to get interesting .... :eek:

[airwave45]

Sorry, should really read previous posts before posting. heard same rumour.

Epiphany . .I have a hat here . . . .(bit mangy though)

[S.M.S]

AW139 lost tail boom while taxiing in Doha, just prior to take-off.

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
:oh::oh:

[9Aplus]

:ugh:reading recent info,
out of you people,
must admit,
really enjoying

[bandit19]

Anyone had to do composite repairs yet? Just wondering if a few holes (non structural) are a show stopper or if they can be repaired in short order.

Thanks

[bandit19]

I'll let everyone know...It's just a matter of time :suspect:

[wde]

Hey all:

Just heard from internal sources that Agusta has changed the operating temperature limit for the AW139 for 6800 kg ops, especially the cold weather limit from -40 to -30C.

May not mean much for most of you but here in Northern Canada, that is a big difference.

Does anybody have any insight?

Thanks

Walter

[blakmax]

Given my comments on the tail failure thread, I am not surprised about the reduced temerature limits. The strength of adhesive bonds depends strongly on temperature, with lower temperatures causing higher stress at failure but also causing the adhesive to become very brittle. The overall strength of an adhesive depends on the area under the stress-strain curve, so even though the failure stress is higher, the lack of ductility means that the adhesive bond may be weaker. Combine that with a large number of micro-voids and the strength could become critical at low temperature. Therefore given their current issues with the Doha incident, a reduction of the operating envelope is prudent.
I am surprised that there are not weight restrictions as well, given the significant loss of strength which micro-voids cause.
Still haven't heard from AW. :ugh:
Regards

Blakmax

[9Aplus]

Blax....Please do not worry....
You will be on top of mine favor consultants list in case
of any deal with them :ok:

[ATPMBA]

I think heat has an affect on bonding materials. The MidEast can be an oven.

[blakmax]

ATPMBA wrote I think heat has an affect on bonding materials. The MidEast can be an oven.
Heat does have significant effects on adhesives. The stress to failure is lower, but the adhesive bcomes more ductile, and again remembering that the strength of the joint depends on the area under the strsss-strain curve, the adhesive load capacity is often slightly higher at elevated temperature. There is an upper limit to adhesive performance, known as the "Glass Transition Temperature". Above that temperature the adhesive passes from being a relatively hard glassy material to a soft, compliant rubbery material. Stength and performance fall away above that temperature. As a general rule, the higher the processing temperature for the adhesive the higher the Tg. My observation of the close-up photos I have seen indicate that AW used a film adhesive which means it was cured at least 120C (250F) and may have been cured as high as 175C (350F) in which case the Tg should be adequate even in the sand pit.
My observations from the photos is that there is extensive micro-voiding present in the samples I have seen. Micro voids occur when volatiles are released during cure of the adhesive during production. They cause a significant reduction in strength for lap-shear joints and I would expect a similar reduction in core to skin bond strength. I suspect that this may have contributed to the DOH failure.
Because of the number of causes of micro-voiding and the fact that this feature has been observed from two separate samples from two different areas of the boom, it is reasonable to expect that this may not be isolated to one aircraft and may not be isolated to only the disbond area from which the sample was taken.
Regards

blakmax

[Scorpygixxer]

Fascinating and informative discussion and information from many posters here. Cleared up a number of questions for me and for my future students. Thought you might like to see some of the other side of the 139's party pieces:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zKpAq-RTZg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoiK3aCwt7s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b99a7jZ

http://gallery.irishmilitaryonline.com/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=1843&g2_serialNumber=1

Just in case all of the RFM and FMS / Composite discussion was getting a bit too much for you! :ok:

[blakmax]

Geez Scorpygixxer, I hope that isn't being aimed at me! Talk about shoot the messenger!

Blakmax

[9Aplus]

Nice cloudy Irish weather should be included within AW139 RFM :}

[Ian Corrigible]

Reports of a cowling on a Korean aircraft (Gangwon-Do Fire Service) detaching and striking the MR. Claims being made that this is the second instance of forward cowling failure, the first having been on a Mid East ship, though there is possibly some confusion here with A7-GHC's troubles.

I/C

[9Aplus]

Amazing timing....

Korea Coast Guard Takes Delivery Of Two AW139 Helicopters

October 23, 2009
AgustaWestland, a Finmeccanica company, is pleased to announce that the Korea Coast Guard has taken delivery of two AW139 medium twin helicopters during an official ceremony held at Vergiate plant (Italy).
The AW139s will be used for maritime patrol, search and rescue and emergency medical service purposes.

Thanks to the AW139's outstanding features, the Korea Coast Guard will perform a major step forward in providing maritime patrolling and Search and Rescue services in the country.
These helicopters add to the Gangwon Fire Fighting Department’s AW139 already in service in Korea and further expand the increasing success of AgustaWestland products in the region.

[noooby]

You sure it wasn't an engine cowling? ERA had one open up in flight and hit the main rotor quite a while back. It pays to latch cowlings when you close them.
Interesting side note.... why do all manufacturers have microswitches to tell you if a cockpit/cabin/baggage door is open, but nothing for the bits that could actually kill you, like engine and gearbox cowlings??

[Ian Corrigible]

Noooby,

Sorry for the confusion: it was the forward engine cowling I was referring to (as opposed to the high-temp rear engine cowling), not the M/R gearbox cowling.

Human error (latching) will, I'm sure, be considered a likely cause.

I/C

[NRDK]

Sensational stuff from the Aussies

Safety warning on rescue helicopter- Local Cairns News | cairns.com.au (http://www.cairns.com.au/article/2009/11/12/75435_local-news.html)

[The Sultan]

The Cairns article does not cover the best stuff.

That the 139 can no land on soft surfaces or floating platform do the wheel gear, which was not a problem with the 412. Also it is stated the pilots are petitioning for the 412's back.

The Sultan

[Ian Corrigible]

Sensational stuff from the Aussies

You mean the claim of "...improved fuel economy..." over the 412? :E

I/C

[noooby]

Sultan, why can't a 139 land on soft surfaces or pontoon pads? For soft surfaces, use the slump pad kit. Can't retract the gear, but that only restricts you to 150 knots, a speed that any 412 can only dream of, downhill! So why can't they land on pontoon pads? I'm sure Seahawks/Blackhawks and other wheeled helicopters can. The 139 is very stable on its landing gear, so what exactly is the problem? Perhaps the pontoons are only rated for 'light' helicopters?

[spinwing]

MMmmm ......

...... Also it is stated the pilots are petitioning for the 412's back.

Well that I find very hard to believe ..... the 139 is STREAKS ahead of the 412

And as far as "not being able to land on pontoons" I have been landing on 'ships underway' with the 139 and I find it easier than doing the same with the 412 .... pontoons should not be an issue .... so nuts to that claim as well!

Load of BOLLOCKS! :}

[bandit19]

That seems a bit ridiculous to me. If you have to land on soft surfaces slump pads should take care of it. (Remember to level the night sun if it is mounted on the sponson) That being said, 412 tailbooms haven't broken off lately :{

[spinwing]

Mmmm ....

Sven ... old darling .....

The difference between landing a 139 or a 412 on the (theoretically) same pontoon would be non existent ..... if anything the 139 would be less likely to move once on the deck ... the skids on the 412 and the aerodynamics of the airframe can make deck landings "interesting" depending on where the wind might be, and the level of handling skills of the driver!

.... also the 139 is also way less likely to 'resonate' once on the deck the u/c is brilliant!


:E

[The Sultan]

Original source:

10 November 2009



Dodgy tails raise more questions about $50m rescue choppers



The possibility of tails dropping off was the latest in a long line of issues with the Bligh Government’s $50 million purchase of the AugustaWestland (AW) 139 helicopters.



LNP emergency services spokesman Ted Malone said the three AW 139s had proved a very costly and embarrassing decision by the Bligh Government and Minister Roberts.



“You have to wonder what’s going to go wrong next,” Mr Malone said.



“The Minister says daily checks are being carried out to make sure the tails don’t crack and fall off …that’s after all the other problems with what’s turned out to be three very costly helicopters.”



Mr Malone said (during Estimates hearings in July) the Minister admitted there’d been a raft of problems with the AW 139s including:



searchlights that didn’t work properly;
limited capacity for stretchers and couldn’t take anyone over six foot;
inability to carry humidi-cribs for seriously ill babies; and
unable to land on pontoons or soft/wet ground
Mr Malone said the Minister had refused to provide details on the full cost of rectifying all the issues with the AW 139s.



“They can’t carry more than one injured person and certainly no one over six feet tall because the cabin is too small. They can’t carry humidi-cribs, so sick children can’t be ferried between hospitals …you can’t send one to road smash where there’s more than one stretcher victim.



“Unlike the Bell 412s they’ve replaced, the AW 139s can’t land on any pontoons on the reef because their wheeled undercarriages are unsuitable.”



Mr Malone said the Minister ignored all the concerns from rescue pilots and their crews who wanted their Bell 412s back.



“The Bell 412s were internationally-renowned for emergency medical and rescue work, and could carry four stretchers or 10 passengers and two neonatal humidicribs.”



“Now the Minister is being forced to defend what amounts to another poor management decision,” Mr Malone said.

[makrider]

...I never read before so many stupid and speculating words as in this thread...

If you want to joke, OK... but if we want to talk seriously on this problem, then we change approach and stop speculating... :=:=:=

[spinwing]

Mmmmm ....

As usual .... the opposition trying to make political points .... if and when can ...

The 139 has issues that new aircraft usually have ... no arguement there ....

'Tis a pity that there is no mention of the 412 problems that plagued it when it was first introduced into service .... such as the severe vibrations due to the rotor head design ... tailboom skin delaminations, tailboom pylon spar cracking etc .... tail rotor blade cracking ADs etc .... all of which at the time would have been cause to moan and groan ....

I would think that the problem with the pontoons may be due the approvals required (though I admit I don't know the intimate detail of the pontoons in question weight & stability limitations) rather than anything else .... certainly in terms of dimension the 139 is slightly smaller than the 412 even if its max mass is higher.

Interestingly ..... the same stretchers that fit in the 412 will fit in the 139 ... perhaps the aeromedical 'fit out' is the problem .... and that would be down to the QES and their role in the extra's fitted to the aircraft .... same as being able to carry Neonate cribs or not!

Politics!!!!! :{

[tottigol]

I am simply astounded by the declarations of those individuals operating the 139s for EMS and rescue in Australia.

Having flown the 412 in the same capacity for several years and flying now the 139 I find no grounds whatsoever to support any of those statements!


Space availability and speed and ride comfort are light years ahead of the venerable 412.

The patient height problem is certainly related to the stretcher and not the aircraft.

The only factor I may see is the lack of a proper electrical AC system in the 139, some of the equipment in the isolettes requires AC power and unless the EMS kit is spec'd out with an inverter, your hospital maternity team shall be severely disappointed.

Just out of curiosity, is this operation the same one that purchased the 139s without air conditioning?

[spinwing]

Mmmm ...

...Just out of curiosity, is this operation the same one that purchased the 139s without air conditioning?....



Totty .... this is a different mob to the above ... In the state of Queensland rather than the New South Wales Ambulance machines ....


Cheers :bored:

[tottigol]

It has to be an epidemic then.:E

[9Aplus]

AgustaWestland is once more demonstrating its ability to develop the very latest rotorcraft technology designed to meet a range of requirements".

We must add this AW "Good news" approach to already mentioned "Ostrich Engineering" by BMax.
http://www.shephard.co.uk/news/4506/first-the-aw159-and-now-the-149/

http://www.shephard.co.uk/news/4481/aw159-takes-to-the-air/

So all your complains, people, can be vanished with another 20M USD investment,
on 149 ship, orders are welcomed :}

[AW139 Engineer]

Anybody out there ever have this problem. I am performing a 48 month inspection and the Main Rotor Head will not come off the mast spline, the machine has hung under a crane for 24 hours a day for 5 days now and no movement what so ever. We have applied penetrating oil also, and heat. I have had this issue with Bell medium in the past but not like this one. The MRH was last installed by Agusta 200 hundred hours ago I a sneaky feeling that the Dry film lubricant on the head and mast splines have bonded together rather well. Corrosion not a issue here. :ugh:

Anybody know where I can get some primer cord

[birrddog]

This might help....

http://www.wlra.us/wl/wlhammer.jpg

Ok, I'll get me coat...

* From the worlds largest roadside attractions site (http://www.wlra.us/wl/wlhammer.htm)

[blakmax]

Ah AW139engineer. Are you saying that AW actually got something to stick? Maybe they could use that product for their tail boom bonds! :}

[Eng AW139]

We had the same problem with a 109 it seems that this happens. We ended up sending the transmission with mast and head back to Agusta.

This of course was after watching the tyech rep hammer away at it for about aweek.:ooh:

[airwave45]

Some very shiny 139's on the ramp in Doha yesterday.
Hangers filling up with something else?
139's about to go back into service?
how come the booms don't seem to match each other?
(not a close inspection, just looked different as I was on my way to the pub)

[stacey_s]

AW139's back in service for sometime now, in actual fact they were never removed from service by either the operator or any regulatory authority.

Customer confidence took a knock, but after several oil company audits, that has been restored, Gulf Helicopters maintenance or actions, pre or post incident, has never been brought into doubt.

Maybe you never noticed but the AW139's were always there!, hangar has Bell 412's on regular maintenance inside, they took up the slack when customers did not want to fly the AW139, so now maintenance backed up on them, normal stuff when you fly extra hours on one particular type.

Tailbooms are still the same, they will be upgraded to the newer version in time, and before anyone jumps down my throat, 'WAIT FOR THE REPORT' I know, I have read the draft, you'll see it approx January, keep flying and be happy.

S

[stacey_s]

PM me which pub and I'll come and talk to you!

Regards

S

[hot 'n dusty]

Hi Guys.
From the begining the Agusta Aw 139 has had problems with the Hydraulic filter going into bypass (mainly no.2 system, the main system).

This is an expensive excersise changing filters the whole time for seemingly no reason... And Agusta has even admitted this by issuing a letter saying they know about the problem and are working on it:confused:.

has anybody out there got any relyable, believable information as to what the proposed fix is and when they will send out the Tech.bulletin (BT) so we can get past this problem and get some flying done?

[noooby]

hot n dusty.

STOP REPLACING THE FILTERS!!!!!

There is no reason to replace filters or do anything unless the return filter pops as well. Ask Agusta for a letter (I got one) about the problem. Basically the problem is that the pressure switch is too sensitive and pops due to transient short duration pressure pulses across the filter, especially, but no only, when large demands are made on the hydraulic system (eg raising or lowering the undercarriage).
Agusta say that if the return filter has not popped, then contamination is probably not an issue. I have found that by leaving the system untouched, and just resetting the popout, the system will normally settle down after a couple of weeks.
One problem with changing filters all the time is that you can introduce air into the system, which will also cause the popout to pop.
If after leaving the system alone, you still have problems, then ask Agusta for the 1864-40 pressure switch (the standard one is a 1864-10). This is not so sensitive. You will get popouts for the first week or so while air works its way out of the system, but after that you should be fine.
We changed to the -40 and from the popout going every flight, we now don't have it popping ever.
The main thing though, if you have put new filters in, give it at least 2 weeks before you go changing them again. Give it time to work air out of the system.
There is no reason why you cannot fly with the popout popped. Agusta will say that as well if you ask them. If there is contamination in the system, the return filter will block. If there is contamination between the pump and the pressure filter and the pressure filter really does actually begin to block, the undercarriage will be slower to retract.
Once you get the system settled down (2 weeks without changing filters!!!!) any popout from then on should result in changing the filter, and then going back to letting it settle for 2 weeks.
Do not muck about with changing hydraulic pumps. There is no point. You will spend lots of money changing pumps, while introducing more air into the system making the filters pop even more.
There are possibly some aircraft out there that really do have some sort of problem, but in the last 5 years working on the 139, the above has fixed the popout problem on all the 139's I've had it occur on.
PM me if you need any further info.

[spinwing]

Mmmmm.......


... PM me which pub and I'll come and talk to you!

ADA Camp Van #3 ... :E

:}

[griffothefog]

F**ck me Spinwing.....
Are you guy's still living in the 'chicken ranch' :uhoh:
I know the new pads are far, far, away, but are they not meant to be super duper to attract the pointy shoe brigade away from 'honey bunny' land?? :ok:
Take care dude,
GTF.

[spinwing]

Mmm ...


Ha Ha ha .... you better believe it ... and YOU are also invited ... Van 3 ANY TIME ... provided I'm not on leave .... :}

Take care .... ;)

[Wild Chicken]

I agree with your assessment of the filter situation. We would'nt normally change a filter unless we have consecutive pop-outs over several days and it becomes an issue with the pilots getting bored and commenting on the yellow cross on the hyd. synoptic page when they get bored and pull it up during the flight. (AW139 pilots are often bored) I remember this was a problem from delivery in late 2005 and at the time we ran around changing filters and fluid, and even doing the same in the hyd. rigs and sending soap samples of each off to the dodgy local lab that had us even more confused. The other problem that became apparent was Agusta in their wisdom put a very fine filter in both pressure and return. 5 microns was what I heard from a tech.rep. I also heard Eurocopter had the same problem with the 365 when it came out and the fix was........put a 35 micron filter in it instead.......no more problem. Small things really.

I am more concerned with the two earlier BT's to address the servo pressure switch problem and remove serial number batches but still we have regular failures. This brings up a CAS as you know which can be a problem depending on the crew's interpretation of the fault. At least we can now quickly isolate the troublesome switch without a hydraulic rig. I read an article from AW suggesting that a permanent fix was in the pipeline for this problem possibly by using a different vendor, plus the one piece floor issue, and leaking servos both via wiper seals and static seals in the servo body, but haven't heard anything since. Maybe the tailboom problem has blindsided them so much everything else is on hold for now.

WC

[Eng AW139]

We are running 2 aircraft with the new -40 bypass switch on the #2 PCM with over 50 hours no bypass. I was told by the tech rep there is 3 problems with the system.

1. The flow rate when the landing gear is cycled sets up a PSID near to the bypass condition of the older dash switches too strong of a spring and the bypass switch would not work.

2. The chafing of the filter in the bowl helps in clogging the filter which again increases the chance of the PSID occuring. So you end up changing a filter when it won't stop poping.

3. Air in the system will cause a bypass however this will only happen after the system has been serviced if you have about 5 hours on the aircraft after servicing the system and have a bypass it is not air in the system.

The fix so I'm told new -40 switch which seem to be working, new type of filter with a loose rivet to allow the filter to spin and the base to remain solid to stop chaffing. I think they may change to micron rating as well. The filters I was told will be out next year.:ooh:

[Wild Chicken]

Interesting reading all the speculation and expert commentry on the tailboom problem and with the AW139 in general. Seems to me the predecessors of the Bell 412, had major problems with the fin spar cracking at one time also which was not truly eliminated until the advent of cold expansion of fastener holes. Bell recognized a potentially damaging problem and worked long and hard to find a fix. This may be news to all those doomsayers finding fault with the AW139, who I suspect are people not involved with the operation of this heli. I agree that Agusta may have truly miscalculated the forces involved in taxying this large helicopter around using primarily the tail rotor, by not extending the 6 attachment longerons the full length of the forward panels. This large arm coupled with localised heat from exhaust nozzles likely to be affecting/weakening the area immediately behind and below them during taxying and extended hovering. Hang on a minute......didn't the 212 have problems with the baggage bay forward panels delaminating on long line and rescue helicopters!? Yes, and the problem was solved by finding a new and improved bonding procedure to create new 'hot bonded' panels which minimized the problem. Agusta has shifted to new aluminium core composite panels and offers this as a retrofit through BT139-159, but at the customers option/expense. This to me looks as though it will not be the end fix. I think until they go to a full length longeron, the problem cannot be solved through repair or panel replacement. You can bet they are well down the road to finding the end fix as we speak in conjunction with their tailboom supplier. A fix must be found or future sales of this machine are in serious jeopardy. It is interesting to read about the complexities of composite panels from people who have been involved in the repair business for some time, but the problem here is pretty obvious. Every helicopter has had to deal with it at some point during the design stage. The adhesives and processes used on these panels are not new. What seems strange to me is that when I first saw a presentation on the (AB)139 back in I think 2003/4, Agusta suggested there would be no new technology used in the design of the fuselage and tailboom. This ended up being a fully composite aircraft! Only the boffins can explain that one. This aircraft also began it's life as a joint Bell/Agusta product it should be mentioned.

Agusta have some tough decisions to make and fast, no doubt about it. I must say that during the last four years working on this machine, I have found it a breath of fresh air not to have to worry about the next servo change in an oily smelly hell-hole, or the next power section or c-box change with a million AN3C bolts to move, sometimes just to get to a delaminated engine deck, or the next track and balance of the 'greaseless' head and rotor with more rubber and bearings to fail than you can poke a stick at, etc etc. The AW139 is not leaps ahead of the 412 and S76 (Who dreamed up that mess on the roof by the way?!) as an offshore helicopter, it is widely favoured by customers and crews in not only oil support but other roles such as Rescue and VIP. It is a very fast, very powerful and stable platform and is maintenance friendly, with designers for the most part considering the engineers lot as well as the pilot for a change. Once all the hysterical reaction to the tailboom thing goes away, the AW139 will still be out there doing what it does, outperforming the opposition. Good luck with the EC175, Eurocopter.......same aircraft, only 5 years late.

There, I've said my bit. WC :=

[9Aplus]

WC your post is music for my ears,
pls increase volume AW people may
than be able hear you.....:ugh:

[Eng AW139]

I like that the FDR tells all...you can hide nothing. So if you follow the RFM you won't have too many problem steer away then things start to go wrong.:=

[noooby]

And if you have HUMS, then you have another set of FDR data :E and if you have HOMP/QAR, then you have yet ANOTHER set of FDR data :E :E

[JimL]

Nooby,

All except the vibration signals will be the same data.

Jim

[AW139 Engineer]

Our experience with the hydraulic bypass is this, even with the new button, in warm weather we still get a popped by pass indication after every flight on the No2 side. as the cold weather has set in we no longer experience this issue. Nobby has a good point about air in the system, When changing filters I fill the filter bowl with oil when reinstalling the filter. We just reset when it pops, it is sensless to change the filter every time.

DAY 12 of the rotor head pull, last week Chilling the mast with C02 and Heat on the MR Head, did not work. then we tried a 20 ton bottle jack and sling that that has not worked either. Its got agusta s attention now.

[heliski22]

DAY 12 of the rotor head pull, last week Chilling the mast with C02 and Heat on the MR Head, did not work. then we tried a 20 ton bottle jack and sling that that has not worked either. Its got agusta s attention now.

Got mine an' all!!!!

[HeliAviator]

DAY 12 of the rotor head pull, last week Chilling the mast with C02 and Heat on the MR Head, did not work. then we tried a 20 ton bottle jack and sling that that has not worked either. Its got agusta s attention now.


Well its nice to know that it [the head] won't come off inadvertantly at any time, as opposed to the AP's dropping out at the slightest vibration.

[spinwing]

Mmmm .....

Well thats new .... never had a problem with the A/Ps dropping out at all ...


:hmm:

[tottigol]

Not trying to hi-jack the thread, just curious about what was the extent of Bell involvement in the 139 at the beginning of the project.
Did Bell have any engineering input, or was it just a bilateral commercial agreement for the development of the 609 and the 139?

[noooby]

Bilateral commercial agreement. Agusta wanted Bell's tech support. Bell wanted to be in on something not linked to the 1950's! Actually Bell and Agusta had licensing agreements for 212/412 so this was kind of an extension of that, but in reverse.
Bell then ran out of money, so Agusta bought their share of the 139 and invested more money in the 609, thus letting Bell keep their head above water.

[Swinging Spanner]

Hi all, just my 2 cents worth. My experience has been that once you reset the button and carry out the next ground run, as soon as you go W off W this allows system pressure to route through to landing gear actuation system. It is during this electric valve operation that the system senses a drop-or differential pressure at the filter which causes the false positive indication.

I agree with the air in system prob as well-Agusta reps will always advise to bleed even after the 1st or 2nd flight post disturb of hydraulic system.

In any case the W off W scenario is easy to check next time when you have a chance.:)

[tottigol]

Hi, is there anyone operating their 139s in extremely cold environment?
If so, any particular equipment failures or leaks?
Thanks.

[cayuse365]

We operate a VIP config. the cockpit is freezing because the scoops on the bottom of the nose are driving ambient air into the cockpit. We have taped them off and put small wholes in them to cut down on the draft. Currently we are installing baffles in the cabin to block air flow and let some of it go to the cockpit. One problem is the duct run through the nose gear bay, and the other is there is no blower in the heating system.
Agusta has checked our aircraft out and told us we are the only operator that is having a problem with heat.

As far as HYD. is concerned we have no problem.

[heliski22]

Cayuse 365,

You're not the only one with that problem - PM me!!

[tottigol]

We are routinely operating in -30C temperatures and the heaters have been very reliable so far.
We did have to partially block the lower scoops, running the heater with the vents @ LOW setting allows us to defrost the side windows.
The heated windshields work wonders, too bad AW elected to wire them to the NON ESS BUS, perhaps in view of the electric load.

[jet_kay]

Everybody operating in cold enviroment is blocking the lower scoops i think, we fully block them, to avoid also heating system full failure due to overheating at the chamber used to happen when the thermostat is set to high temps.

[139GoM]

You are not alone with this problem. Augusta knows about this problem. We have taped the scoops also, some aircraft have doors some don't

[139GoM]

Our fleet of 139's has a problem with the Honeywell Primus Epic dropping the displayed information for certain types of approaches. It appears to be mainly North/South approaches: (ILS/GPS types). You can call up the approach and it will momentarily display the approach then the screen goes blank. Honeywell is aware of this problem, but says we are the only operator with this problem. Anyone else have this problem? They tell us that Phase 5 will fix the problem. Revert back to executing the approach as I have always done it. The information in the MCDU/FMS is correct, ( I wonder if it will be incorrect on some approach), just drops the planview.

[139GoM]

Approach drops from MAP/Plan view MFD page. MCDU/FMS appears to have correct information displayed. Problem show up on North/South approaches, ILS/GPS. These approaches may dissappear right away or at some point in the approach dissappear and reappear later. Honeywell has been asked and they say we are the only operater with this problem. We have 6 of these aircraft now and it is a problem on all of them. Production dates vary by a couple of years.

[Eng AW139]

Sounds like you have to reload your software to your MAU's from a laptop not the option files.

[139GoM]

Tried that also. Even the new ones picked up recently at factory have the problem.

[500e]

"Honeywell is aware of this problem, but says we are the only operator with this problem.
Now where have I heard that before, welcome to the customer "tests" program!!

[bombiter]

Is this problem happening since the latest NAV Database update?

[jet_kay]

the pilot complained about the problem after we upgraded the DB, But... we didnt knew that if it was happening before or just at upgrade, as we dont fly ILS often, so right now i dont know. they even complained that the FMS waypoint on MFD sometimes disapear during flight but no change in heading or route and after few sec. apears again. ive reloaded back NICs and DB module with the SW and the DB again and for now no complains.

Anyway i was at Agusta few month ago, i was told by the cheif avionic that they were unhappy with Honeywell performance lately, lots of problems with manufactured products and softwares he said that the quality is decreasing.

[139GoM]

Our problems started when we went from a phase 3 aircraft to phase 4. I do not know about aircraft elsewhere in the USA or other locations around the world. I am real curious though.

[bombiter]

We are also experiencing all kinds of weird messages and indications since the upgrade to phase 4 software: trim failures when nothing is wrong; a reset and everything stays OK during the rest of the day. Yellow flickering battery amp. readings during flight, or even in the hangar when the batteries are OFF!
Hopefully a new software upgrade solves these snags and does not introduce other ones :*

[139GoM]

We also have the trim fail, mainly yaw channel, reset and works fine. The battery flicker is common on the last 2 received on the main battery all the time, some of the earlier ones it is on the Aux battery. Augusta did put out Tech. Info. that this is okay, until a fix is determined.

[noooby]

Isn't it disappointing how Honeywell don't give a crap about the 139 Epic Platform, but see fit to put out major software updates every few weeks for the Embraer Jets to make sure that everything on them works well.

I did hear a rumour that Agusta were looking at going to Raytheon from machine number 400 and ditching Honeywell all together. I certainly hope so!

Honeywell have been holding the 139 back with a lack of updates, updates that don't work properly, and updates that are months, if not years too late for the roles the aircraft is being used for.

I personally can't wait for the day when we don't have to deal with their products anymore, unless they are going to wake up and start supporting the 139 with quality software, hardware, and product support, like they are supposed to!

Can you tell that I am not too happy with their products on the 139?? :eek:

[139GoM]

Do any of you other operators have this problem. I would like to know what problems you are exactly having. Honeywell still says we are the onlyl ones, recently someone flying Embarer jet complained of the same problem. Now they think we have a legitimate problem.

[Helispanner]

We also have the "odd" indications when we installed Phase 4. The problem we have with the ILS is that the aircraft does not fly down the centre line, but slightly off to one side.
When changing from P3 to P4 there were a lot of wiring changes, GPS and AHRS were involved, it is worth rechecking these changes. Are you basic 4 axis or enhanced?
Phase 5 does fix some of these problems, introduces some new features and also some new problems.
We also have numerous trim fail warnings, usually pitch or roll, these reset by reselecting the A/P channel, another irritating issue.

[139GoM]

We have a mix of basic and enhanced. Phase 5 coming soon. The ILS in some of the aircraft will bring you down the right side of the runway. Recycling the AP does cure the trim problems that should not be there anyway.

[Shawn Coyle]

To those experiencing problems with Honeywell - are you submitting Service Difficulty Reports?

[S76driver]

We too have quite a few trim cautions which seem fine after reset, across our fleet. We report all to factory.

[RVDT]

SDR's - great tool. Especially with the freedom of information in the U.S. Possible not as open with info in the EU.

When your Tech Rep or Customer Support guy says " Never seen that before " do a little dredging in the SDR databases and you will see that maybe they are handling the truth a little carelessly in defence of their product. You will / should find records of similar problems.

FAA Public Search is here. (http://av-info.faa.gov/sdrx/Query.aspx)

I have made several people change their tune with reference to SDR Reports.

Service Bulletins for instance always look like they are written by a lawyer to avoid liability.

[bobbydazzler]

Interesting what you say about flying an offset iLS to the right of centreline. We had the same problem on one of our AW139s. We found the fault and its fixed now. Turned out to be the AHRS units! this particular machine had p/n 145130-1002 fitted both sides which caused the problem. All our other machines have p/n 142185-1105 which work fine on the ILS.
We swapped out both units with the different p/n; flew it down the ILS and works fine. Honeywell dont know why.
We also have the occasional yaw trim fail, switch off APs then back on and all is fine. MCDU #1 goes to backup or blanks on battery start, reset CB, an audio panel AV900 goes blank on battery start, reset CB etc etc. MCDU blanking fault caused by the #1 CSIO module which was replaced to fix an AP button nil operate so there ya go!!!
Also the main battery and aux battery current drain readings using ext power problem is caused by the CSIO modules. All our machines the main and/or aux toggle between 0 to -5amps. Sounds like its a calibration adjustment problem on the CSIO modules. If they had a damn preset pot to adjust I would be in there!
Yes Im not happy with Honeywell products either, particularly when one of our machines did an emergency landing at night in the pouring rain with the CAS lit up like a christmas tree indicating multiple failures. The MAUs had a gut full of water. Have since did the BT to move the vent hole from under the #2 MAU. Their circuit board conformal coatings dont sem to work to keep the moisture out as several cards were severly corroded.
We operate in Australia.

[Geoffersincornwall]

I was chatting with a far eastern operator today and he told me he had accumulated 4,500 hours on their 139 fleet all of which were flown with the floats 'ARMED' - without incident - as recommended by the RFM. Are there still any Luddites out there who insist on going against the manufacturer's instructions in this regards and switch the arming on and off during landings and take offs offshore?

G :ok:

[spinwing]

Mmmmm ....

....... Are there still any Luddites out there who insist on going against the manufacturer's instructions in this regards and switch the arming on and off during landings and take offs offshore? ......


Geoffers .... unfortunately YES .... I know of one company in the middle east whose 'Flight Standards' section has decided to go against the FLM recommendation in that regard! :ugh:

:*

[139GoM]

Thanks for the info. will look into this. We do not arm the floats while over the water. This is done on final. I wonder how many hours Agusta tested this before it did have a failure? Based on the enviroment we are in and other quirks with the aircraft I feel safer doing it this way.

[spinwing]

Mmmm ....


..... I feel safer doing it this way.


.... err ... Which way? ... and Why? :confused:

[tottigol]

"Are there still any Luddites out there who insist on going against the manufacturer's instructions in this regards and switch the arming on and off during landings and take offs offshore?"

I know of at least one company in the GoM that matches that description.:uhoh:

[wde]

Next month we will completing acceptance checks on behalf of a client for delivery of a new AW139 from AAC in Philadelphia. Anyone out there use an Acceptance Checklist that they would be willing to share? I am certain that AAC uses one but I want to converse with operators who have been through this process to ensure that we don't get bitten by the 'gotchas'...

Appreciate any help in this regard.

wde

[sox6]

Are you telling your client you need to fish for a checklist on the internet?:}

[wde]

Nope. We have one; just looking to employ best practices out there ... never too good to look at what others have to offer ...

;0

[eivissa]

The thing I dont understand is that rescuers report, they only found a helmet floating on the water. I guess it was a very hard impact, but what about the floatation system?

Would the floats inflate even in a very hard impact on the water? If they shear off, will they still swim? If the floats deploy delayed, can they bring the machine back on the water surface?

This is what the flight manual states:

GENERAL INFORMATION
Emergency Flotation and Life Raft System Part N° 3G9560F00111
The flotation bags are automatically deployed on ditching by water
sensors (2 of the four sensors must be activated for flotation inflation)
or by manual operation of the guarded FLOAT pushbutton on either
the Pilot or Copilot collective grip.
For operation of both automatic or manual flotation inflation the switch
on the FLOATS EMERG control panel mounted in the interseat console
(pilots side), must be set to ON. The control panel also incorporates
a self test function for the flotation system.

WARNING
Do not deploy flotation bags in flight. Bags
will automatically deploy on water touchdown.

IN FLIGHT PROCEDURES
1. FLOATS EMER switch
Over land operation — Confirm OFF.
Over water operation — Confirm ARMED, FLOAT ARM caution
displayed on CAS

[malabo]

Anybody know what Helimar's SOP was on arming/disarming the floats when over water?

Depending on the water impact they may or may not have inflated, even if they were armed. One crewmember made it out, so the impact was at least partly survivable.

[cayuse365]

The floats must not have been armed. Which, if flying at a cruise speed would make sense.

Agusta does not realize that if the floats should somehow inflate at 150 kts that the pilot would probably loss control. Why should we fly around with the floats armed, it should be part of the pre-landing and emergency ditching checklist.

S-76 float arming speed was 74 Kts.

[Lunar]

As posted before, floats on the 139 as per RFM are armed for flight over water, there is no speed indicated for arming. There is no gray area, companies who do not arm over water at high speeds due to worries about un-commanded activation are breaching the RFM and as such if they have an accident and lose the heli with the floats disarmed I guess the insurance company will have a field day.

About GOM ops, I was shocked to hear that at least one operator does not operate the 139 as a CAT A maching (Class 1), only CAT B, what is the point in having the machine and operating it that way?

Regards,

Lunar

[eivissa]

This is a summary of the accidents and (mentionable) incidents that I know of. Anyone able to add anything?

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/50886-engineer-killed-ab139-crash.html

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/329624-139-down-abu-dhabi.html

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/386491-aw139-lost-tail-taxying-doh.html

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/402948-sar-heli-down-almeria.html

[downwashfixer]

just got word today ERA had a 139 come back from a business as usual flight in the gulf with a creased tailboom. any info from the boots on the ground? hope those BT kits get here soon......

[spinwing]

I understand from a source that a "fixed" tailboom (ie one with the longerons full length inside the boom) is soon to be trialled by a middle eastern operator in the hope that this mod will finally put this saga to an end ... at least this will put a secondary load path in the structure and perhaps ease those doubts.

We will have to wait and see .... :eek:

[flyingchief]

The floats must not have been armed. Which, if flying at a cruise speed would make sense.

Agusta does not realize that if the floats should somehow inflate at 150 kts that the pilot would probably loss control. Why should we fly around with the floats armed, it should be part of the pre-landing and emergency ditching checklist.

S-76 float arming speed was 74 Kts.


cayuse,
couldn't agree with you more....but unfortunately common sense not always applies everywhere, check this out:
I had an emergency floatation sys accidental deployment in flight @ 110 KTS , 1000 ' on a 412 at night. we were navigating VFR, my head in the charts and in that very second we all heard a boom and the helicopter went 20° nose down and 30° bank left. in a heartbeat I raised my head up while it was still rolling (i wasn't at the controls). Only while other pilot was manouvering to regain the control and level flight we realized what had happened.
we flew the bird according to the manual ( max 60kts and max 200 '/min) and being there was no suitable landing spot ahead we brought the bird back home.....
the "orginization" i was flying for still hasn't removed the POS of arming the floats heading offshore and disarming them when back onshore....:ugh:...so someone still cruises around with floats armed all day...

I flew 76s in the GOM and they apply the correct (in my opinion) procedure, which is to leave 'em off while cruising and as per landing checklist arming the floats on final for the rig...:D

donno if i was just lucky or the 412 airframe has been more forgiving compared to the 139's but like i said i agree with you that it would be wiser to leave them floats alone while flying...

[spinwing]

Mmmmm.......

flying chief ....

So were your floats armed when you had the incident in the 412? ... if so then your bad! ... If NOT then you had a technical malfunction .... and that can happen to anyone anytime eh?

Seeing as the there is a notation in the 412 RFM prohibiting intentional inflation in forward flight there is obviously knowledge that there would be some form of aerodynamic disruption if such a thing happened thus the arming only below say 60kts on finals.

The 139 does not have an Emergency manual inflation backup like the 412 has ... both inflation systems are purely electrical ... there are also no 'gear doors' to blow open as with the S 76 ... and I guess we have to trust the Test Pilots that certified the system that it is indeed safe in the event of an inadvertent inflation in flight ...

BUT in an emergency if you want the floats to work they need to be armed before you NEED THEM and according to the AW139 RFM this can be done when going 'Feet Wet' and at cruise speeds and I have no problem with this.

If your suggesting we all 'second guess' the certification authorities and do our own thing .... I think that attitude may well cause more problems than it cures .... :=

How about we wait and see what the investigation reveals and what if any amendments MIGHT be made to RFMs etc ....

Cheers :E

[tottigol]

Flyingchief, the float system of the Italian Coast Guard 412s is antiquated and has nothing in common with the one in the AW139.
I always wondered why they did not opt for the standard six pack that was readily available off-the-shelf, choosing instead the accident prone system still used by the Italian Navy 212ASWs (or perhaps I know).


Again, 412 and 139, different systems and different procedures.:rolleyes:

[Variable Load]

and I guess we have to trust the Test Pilots that certified the system that it is indeed safe in the event of an inadvertent inflation in flight

Trust is a given, otherwise none of us would get airborne. However I do not believe in "blind faith".

The AW position on float arming is not something most other manufacturers have followed. There will be a reason for this, namely the handling difficulties with an inadvertent inflation - whether this inflation is due to system failure or pilot finger trouble becomes irrelevant.

Does anyone know if Agusta inflated the floats at Vne? I have heard that they didn't, but this was a position that ENAC accepted. Other certifying authorities around the world probably would not, hence the RFM restrictions for other types.

The fact that this one issue causes so much debate shows that some pilots/organisations are uncertain that the AW recommended SOP is the safest option to follow.

[Dexus]

We've been sufferring from a radio altimeter issue on our ship(long nose) which has had dual RAD ALT systems.

Both systems work properly lower than 2500FT AGL though,....

Sometimes we got the "RAD" miscompare indication or "RAD1" or "RAD2" at around 3000FT AGL or higher. In case of 4500FT AGL or higher, we got a radio altimeter tape on the PFD(either PLT or CPLT side only) suddenly together with the landing gear caution w/audio and EGPWS messages. :ugh:

Anyone has had the same issue?

Appreciate all the inputs! Thanks.

[Shawn Coyle]

Radar altimeters by their nature have a percentage inaccuracy, as well as an absolute inaccuracy. The percentage inaccuracy is typically ±5%. At 3,000', that's over 150' possible difference, which is what is probably causing the miscompare between the two systems.
Surprised any manufacturer is even using radar altimeter signals above 2,000' AGL.

[bombiter]

Dexus,

We had some problems with moisture trapped between the Rad. Alt. Antennas and the structure, which in two cases had caused severe corrosion on the antenna's mating surfaces.
After cleaning the mating surfaces and replacing the affected antenna the problems were gone.

[Dexus]

bombiter,

Thanks!.... but we've already done.... Swapping of the RCVR/XMTRs and the ANTs as well. :\

http://i1001.photobucket.com/albums/af132/Dexus2010/radalt000.jpg
http://i1001.photobucket.com/albums/af132/Dexus2010/radalt002.jpg
http://i1001.photobucket.com/albums/af132/Dexus2010/radalt003.jpg

[flyingchief]

spin,
that's exactly what I'm saying...I HAD to arm the floats because it was dectated from a WRONG SOP!!!! keep the floats armed at all times is not always safe!! that SOP hasn't chaged yet even after what happened.... my observation was purely constructive, throwing in there my experience that describes a clear management malfunction on producing the right SOP!!!!;)...would you consider "'second guessing' the certification authorities" acting safely to prevent your crew from getting hurt? I don't!
Far from me acting against the authorities decisions!!!!! but sometimes the input has gotta came from the bottom of the pyramid...that's what we all have the right to do as professional pilots...
...than I have no idea how the floats on 139 work being i never flow one of those, unlike tottigol who has flown 'em all (412, 212, 139) who correctly stated that maybe it wasn't a great decision to install that model of floats on those 412's..
finally I wanted to clarify that my comment had nothing to say about the investigation accurring on Helimer 207's crash and only after investigators will produce their final reports we all will be able to comment and learn from "prior experience" facts... I might be fairly young but have quite an experience on flight safety coming from working my b***t off as a safety officer trying to convince other pilots to be proactive and not just lounge around and fly along without giving inputs....

cheers to you my friend
:}

PS just for tottigol: se magnamo l'olive greche stasera? daje roma dajeee

[bandit19]

Hey all,
Might want to check the hydraulic lines, on the deck, where they are held in place by the hard black plastic clamps (terminology?). I had one crack along the edge of the clamp. The clamp appears to have crimped into or chaffed the line to the point of failure. You wouldn't notice it unless you unclamp it and have a look see for yourself...

Cheers

[Geoffersincornwall]

To help you understand the definition of a Luddite given the context I have chosen to use it I should explain that aviation is constantly changing and seeking ways to improve. There was a growing list of incidents and accidents that cause helicopters both military and commercial to end up in the water in an uncontrolled fashion without the benefit of floatation equipment entering into the survival equation despite being equipped with floats.

For quite some time now floats have been available with a specific design feature intended to ensure that the possibility of inadvertent in-flight inflation is so remote as to be considered to all intents and purposes impossible. Thus it is possible to have this survival aid on standby all the time you are over water. believe I am right in saying that the Merlin and Lynx are so equipped as well as the 139. Maybe any Merlin/Lynx drivers will correct me if I am wrong but I don't believe that a case of inadvertant float inflation has ever occurred on any type so equipped. One 139 operator operates his entire fleet over water all the time and must have clocked up over 5000 hours of flight without incident. This on top of the tens of thousands of hours clocked up by the Navy.

I have a colleague who found himself in the water one dark night whilst manoeuvring his SAR S76 in preparation for a pick-up. He described to me the terrifying moments when he was sinking deeper and deeper beneath the waves, when the last breath of his STASS gave out and he could not find his way out. His final act before losing cosciousness was to give up and take a deep breath that delivered nothing but water. He was rescued, resuscitated and lived to tell the story. It is with those events in mind that huge amount of treasure has been allocated to giving you - Joe Pilot - a better piece of safety equipment but because you chose not to understand you want to go back a step - frightened by the scare stories that have no basis in fact - and put your self at risk. Well, should you suffer the fate described above I would not want to be the Chief Pilot who has to go round to your family and explain why you chose NOT to use the equipment correctly.

G. :ugh:

[spinwing]

Mmm....

Happy to report that I have been able to look over one of the 'new' modified T'booms both inside and out ..... and I am impressed with the longeron installation and the obvious integrity of the modified structure .... these should do the job well!


:ok:

[9Aplus]

What is weight pennalty?
:hmm:

[spinwing]

Mmmm ....

I did ask ... and the answer was "not sure ... but around 15kg??"

Have to wait for the official weigh in I guess ... but its a very solid looking fix.


:D

[Turco]

Guys, Take a look at BT-139-200. You can download it from the Agusta web site.
Weight penalty of 18kg's.

Cheers!

[Aser]

This month, south america, for illustration purposes:
http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/5241/img1373d.jpg
http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/3024/img1364oz.jpg

Best regards & take care.
Aser

[spinwing]

Mmmmm ...

Suriname??? by any chance? .... :eek:

[VEMD]

Back in town Aser?

[heliski22]

Anybody any trouble with keeping winglets from getting loose on the ends of the horizontal stabiliser? Or keeping wires to the Pos Lts from breaking?

[noooby]

heliski22, no problems with winglets coming loose here, but have had a nav light on the winglet stop working due to the wiring breaking. When we pulled it apart we found that Agusta had missed out some terminals in the wiring loom back there and had spliced everything together with far too much wire, which then chafed through!

Agusta supplied the correct parts under warranty.

If your winglets are coming loose, do a HUMS aquisition on your tailrotor and see what it says. You might have a 4/rev shaking it back there. Early (heavyweight) tailplanes had iron weights at the tips for harmonics, but the later tailplanes (with nav lights in them) don't.

Also have a look at your top anti-col light base plate (inside the cowling where the wires come out of it). If it is beginning to crack, then that is also a sign of excessive tailrotor vibes.

If after you do a tailrotor vibe run, the HUMS says to do pitchlink and mass, jus do the mass first and then do another run. Quite often it will bring you down to an acceptable vibe level, and it saves you messing around with all the locking on the pitchlinks.

Not sure if you have HUMS or not, personally I like it, especially the RTB side of it.

[Aser]

Back in town Aser?

Yes, but it's not the same :hmm:
I know you are ok, but it must be cold over there! post more pics.

heliski22 Horizontal Stabiliser Winglets/Wires

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anybody any trouble with keeping winglets from getting loose on the ends of the horizontal stabiliser? Or keeping wires to the Pos Lts from breaking?

Hi heliski, I remember that one of our machines had a problem with winglets coming loose, don't have any details.

Regards
Aser

[blakmax]

All of that money to develop and certify a new design and all they had to do was to dehumidify their bonding facility, dry the nomex core completely and address a few quality management issues in relation to materials acceptance and cure cycle temperature rates, materials handling and storage and the original design would almost certainly been totally adequate for the task. What a waste.

Even worse, one humid day at the production facility and what assurances are there that the same problem will not re-occur with the new design?

The solutions are there for FREE at http://www.adhesionassociates.com/papers/Managing%20Micro-Voiding%20of%20Adhesive%20Bonds.pdf

For the sake if air safety someone at AW please at least read this link. Your damage tolerance analysis is only valid if the strength of the surrounding adhesive is not degraded by micro-voiding. Your strength testing is only valid if your samples reproduce the micro-voiding found in service disbonds.

The only other solution is to eliminate micro-voiding by reading the link. It is FREE. I have waived my consultancy fees to help you improve air safety. What more can I do? You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him fish!

Regards

blakmax

[Furia]

Most interesting Blakmax.
And surely a great gesture to offer your advice and expertise for free.


As far as I know the tail booms are being made by PZL Swidnik and Turkish Aerospace Industries.
I hope proper and definitive steps are taken in order to ensure a proper and reliable manufacturing tail boom assembly process so we all can forget about this issue before "something happens".

Agusta must ensure a proper quality control is enforced in all production process while ussing the lastest industry standards.

[9Aplus]

the tail booms are being made by PZL Swidnik

Wrong....

PZL know better than that, no ever any problem with composites there.
for example main rotor blades of Mi2plus and W3A
(execept one case with W3A and de-ice switched off by pilot error)

[blakmax]

Hi 9Aplus

With regard to the implied quality by reference to other products, I am sorry but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I have no visibility of PZL's product quality but I urge PZL and any other manufacturer to read the link. It will either confirm the suitability of their processes or highlight deficiencies.

Furia, my reasons for making this freely available are obvious in the posting on the Charity Challenge posting. Please everyone make a donation. I am not in the position to chase consulting work at the present moment. I am not rich, but I am retired an not in the position where I do not need to survive on consulting fees. I'd like to be rich but my conscience dictates that I know I must address airworthiness issues where my knowledge is of value and to hell with the money.

The absolute stupidity of this stuation is that even if I charged my full consulting rate, it would have cost AW a fraction of the cost of the design and certification of the new product, and would have eliminated any doubt about the integrity of their products. I have made a number of direct and indirect approaches to provide advice at a nominal low fee, but I have not had any responses.

Is it really the situation where you can lead a horse to water but you just can't get him to stand on the surf board? Must it realy be this hard?

Regards

blakmax

[Furia]

PZL know better than that, no ever any problem with composites there

Such an act of faith!!

When I did the AW139 type rating in Agusta Center in Sexto Calende by 2008, I was told that the tail booms were made by PZL-Świdnik.

Maybe you can correct us, me and the Agusta instructor, and let us know who and where is producing the "troubling" Tail Boom?

[noooby]

Sorry 9Aplus, but tailbooms were made at PZL. Not sure if they are now or not, but they definitely were, and the early ones coming in to the factory in Italy in 2005 were crap! Factory used to spend a couple of days doing repairs to the exact same area on every tailboom. Top lefthand mount point, about 3 inches back from the front. They all came with a big lump there that had to be reworked. Early fuselages weren't much better with misdrilled holes and holes that weren't deburred. After about S/N 31050, things improved markedly in the build quality.

[9Aplus]

NHF guys....

but I was in PZL early Mar 2008. have foto in front of one of ready 139 airframes.

Visited composite works of PZL too, only main/tail rotor blades and SW4
MGB&turbine support seen there :}

Oct 2008. was in Cachina Costa & service/flight line, Verigiate & assembly/flight,
Somma Lombardo & after sale/AOG (new one now is on Malpensa), Sesto Calende & training near lake....

In Vergiate (final assembly) asked who is producing tail booms for 139?:
"facility in South Italy" was the answer! No photo allowed because of NH90
program.

Will meet them next week and ask again, to have clear mind after all :ugh:

Blakmax - hope I will call your PAID consultant composite service soon :ok:

[Eng AW139]

I have heard that the reason for so many failures on the secondary fuel probes is due to decreasing fuel levels the probes begin to vibrate and fail.

Can anyone confirm this?:confused:

[noooby]

Ahhh fuel probes, the never ending quest for a probe that won't fail!

Not sure if it is vibes or not. One machine I've worked on had 7 (yes, seven!) failures in 2 years. All were the #2 Sec probe. One time, we pulled the dead probe, replaced with a shiny new item. New probe failed in 3 hours flight time. Pulled dead probe again, replaced with new probe. Refuelled, checked fuel reading, checked for leaks. Turned off power and put aircraft back on the line. Next time power was turned on, probe was dead. Out of the 18 probes I've changed (yes I do keep track, probes are a :mad: with me, and I let Agusta know that everytime I change one!), 16 have been #2 Sec probe, 2 have been the #1 Sec probe. No Main probe failures for me.

So if it is vibe related, why is the problem almost exclusively the #2 Sec probe?

One thing I have noticed is that the foam in the sump panels gets wet from water running along the belly in flight, and is a VERY tight fit around the wiring. Quite a few times taking the sump panel off, cutting the foam away from the probe connection, and drying everything out, would get the probe working again.

Agusta did change the Sec probes a while back to a new and improved version, and while failures do seem to be less common than before, I would have thought they could get them as reliable as the main probes with not too much effort!

Personally, I'd like to see a waterproof Canon Plug down there to connect the probe wiring to the airframe wiring, instead of that stupid brown rubber terminal block. At least then we would know that it isn't the connection causing the problems!

I hate fuel probes in the 139 :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

[widgeon]

Sounds like they hired some eurocopter( France ) :) engineers to design the electrical system

[noooby]

Hehe, and you'll never guess where the fuel probes come from... Yep, Aerazur from France!

[spinwing]

Mmmmm ....

WHAT .... a coincidence ..... :eek:


;)

[Eng AW139]

I heard that at the HAI this year Agusta in the product improvement brief said that they are replacing the screws that hold the probe together and that production alignement will take from S/N 500. And that a evaluation of possible foam modification to allow better water drainage.

Another theory for probe failure is when refueling, fuel is hitting the probe and causing damage.:bored:

One aircraft I have we changed 5 #2 probes all with S/N lower than 500. I have one arriving greater than S/N 500 we will see how long that one last on this airframe.

[outhouse]

Been away from the thread for a while hence apologies if already covered but did hear on the grapevine that 139 had had boom damage/strike and needed it replaced just wondered if anyone had the info.:ok:

[spinwing]

Mmmm...

Aser posted that an (ERA) machine in South Amarica (Suriname) returned from a flight with the 'boom in a slightly 'different' 'shape' than when it had left .....


:ugh:

[tottigol]

There are no ERA airframes in Suriname.