Agusta AW139

[Swinging Spanner]

Hi Blackmax and Co,

as a blackhander I have seen what I think to be early traces of something similar to this. You may note that there is some missing paint at the paint edge. To me this is the key.
I have dealt with operators where the washing program is poor to say the least. What can happen over time is you will see small orange dots of corrosion appear all over the leading edge,,,and sometimes under the paint at the paint edge. I have pics of this but am unable to attach. More than willing to share if you give me an email etc.. Once this starts it will continue and if not treated...well you get the picture.

Just me 2 cents worth :)

[blakmax]

Hi Swinging Spanner.

Like you, I think that the theory of resonance causing this problem is a bit of smoke and mirrors. There may be some truth in the fact that resonance may* occur and failure may* result. (The asterisk * denotes only under specific and ill-defined circumstances, a bit like Macdonalds Big Mac is healthy* food*.)

I suggest that another possible explanation is that failure occurs only because of the weakened adhesive bonds caused by the same micro-voiding that causes the boom disbonds. This is a processing deficiency caused by poor environmental controls during manufacture. Moisture absorbed by the uncured adhesive during fabrication evolves as steam, resulting in an excessive number of small voids. These reduce the strength of the bond. Reference data shows that peel strength may fall by as much as about 60% due to short term exposure at 29C and 80% RH.

Now your paint blister issues may have similar causes. Please PM me your email address and I will contact you.

Regards

Blakmax

[squib66]

Wasn't Outwest's point about resonance made about the rotor brake actuators not the blade?

[Outwest]

I think they are discussing a previous issue about blade de-bonding.

Interesting that not too many want to say how or when they are using 102%...

[pigi]

102% used only during CAT A operations and hoist operations.
- one heli ( about 500 hrs) with two rotor brake actuator failure
- about 4 CAT A T/O and LDGs per hour
- about 1 hoist operation per hour
second chopper ( about 300hrs) with no rotor brake actuator failure till now.
Pigi

[hovering]

We use 102 for the CAT A departures and landings and can't seem to keep the brakes serviceable. Lack of parts availability seems to be an issue too.

[blakmax]

Ok, been waiting for your PM, but then I tried to PM you and I could not find that facility any more. Either it has been withdrawn or it is an old dog trying new tricks issue. Try contacting me at max at adhesionassociates dot com. I'd love to see the pictures.

Regards

Blakmax (note: No "c")

[Swinging Spanner]

Hi blackmax,

sorry for the delay...am a busy lad :)

I have sent you an email...let me know what you think.

[Swinging Spanner]

Hello Outwest,

interesting regarding harmonics @ 102% Nr causing problems with RB actuators. I will see if I can get any feedback from my sources in AW.

Something to consider in the meantime-I have long seen...and still see problems from RB actuators. Each time I begin to deal with the problem there is always some simple checks I do 1st:

-electrical cannon plug connected to RB actuator has a regular problem with the backshell coming loose causing intermittent CAS messages...always check to see if backshell is tight.

-RB caliper bumper stop shimming...you may remember that when the AW139 1st came out that there was no rubber bumper under the caliper. It was introduced originally as a BT if not mistaken. Anyway, in the instructions there is a MIN and MAX dimension/height of rubber bumper as part of shimming. I always go for the MIN height. Quite often I have found that the RB actuators giving grief that the bumper stop is at the MAX side of bumper height tolerance. With CB's pulled in IGN and START, I operate the Engine Mode Select switch between IDLE and OFF and listen to the sound of the RB actuator moving through its travel. As the caliper swings down and rests on rubber bumper the RB actuator is still trying move to end of travel until it trips its internal microswitches...but it is having to push against the rubber bumper to do so-excessive load on RB actuator. You can actually hear the sound of the actuator change as this happens. Going for the MIN height on rubber bumper shimming has always given me great results :)

-Location of caliper bumper stop...after completing the shimming procedure it is as important to make sure that the caliper bumper assy is centrally aligned to the hole in caliper assy. The caliper bumper assy has 4 elongated holes at baseplate for this very reason. Failure to check this will also have the RB caliper arrive at the bumper stop slightly early and cause excessive load to the RB actuator as it tries to move through full travel.

-RB caliper assy pivot shaft...over time has a tendancy to bind-in particular in hot environs, causing excessive friction and therefore excessive load when RB actuator is trying to move. I have recommended many times to include a proactive maintenance step of introducing a regrease of RB caliper pivot shaft at 600hr intervals as 1 suggestion.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Hope it helps :)

[Outwest]

Thanks Swinging Spanner, that is all very good info and I'm sure there are many here who will benefit from that. Would very much appreciate if you can find out from AW if there is any truth to the 102% rumor.

Thanks also to those who have commented on the 102%, good to know what is being practiced in the field.

[Arcal76]

We use 102% for all take-off and landing including a "vertical cat.B take-off":ugh:created from nowhere by our company because the aircraft is to heavy.When you are above 6400 kg all time in Summer, of course it is difficult to comply with a cat.A profile and you become creative......:mad:
And on 10 aircrafts, I believe only 2 have a rotor brake who is not US, it has been going on for months now.

On a different subject, we won't be using the FIPS again this Winter :D,still have problem with the slip ring.But bying 139 for cat.A performance and FIPS and ending with no FIPS and doing "vertical cat.B" in Summer,what a waste.

[Outwest]

Hi Arcal,

The only reason for using 102% is so that during OEI recovery it will give you that little bit extra droop time.

It was never intended for better AEO performance.

[Geoffersincornwall]

We use 102% for all take-off and landing including a "vertical cat.B take-off"created from nowhere by our company because the aircraft is to heavy.When you are above 6400 kg all time in Summer, of course it is difficult to comply with a cat.A profile and you become creative.

The 139 was designed to deliver Cat A at a sensible mass (read payloads). The sad thing is that whilst we don't see too many helicopter accidents caused by engine failures during take off or landing, we do see many accidents caused by pilots who, for whatever reason, take off at a mass that is too great for the manoeuvre they wish to perform.

The three elements of Cat A operation are mass, profile and obstacle environment. If you want to pick just one then make it the mass. If you have to operate above that (Cat B), or use a higher TDP/LDP then use a profile you are familiar with (sim training should condition you to react quickly and correctly if you have an engine failure at a critical moment). Under Cat A a rejected take off should result in no damage to airframe or passengers. It would be reasonable to suggest that experience gained to date (Malaysia) indicates that a reject above a Cat A weight may damage the airframe but the excellent crashworthiness properties built into the 139 will protect the occupants provided the gear is down and the landing is made in a level-ish attitude.

In all of this we must not loose sight of the fact that Cat A is just one element in any risk-assessment process and whether the pilot realises it or not every take-off or landing manoeuvre should be risk assessed. There are many occasions when working offshore or HEMS or even VIP/corporate where you are required to operate to and/or from unfamiliar or challenging (offshore with complex obstacle environment) sites and the risk assessment may place a slow and gentle arrival above any Cat A considerations. Cat A is just one tool in the toolbox.

In the end if you are having to do extraordinary things to get the job done you may just be working a little too close to the edge. Satisfying when you succeed but not what you Safety Manager wants to hear about.

G.

[HLCPTR]

Very well said!

[PatMcgroin]

We had this happen on a T/R blade that had 10 hours since new, it was a matter of not removing release ply. It was a definate QA problem at Agusta. On anothe note we rejected about ten glass windshields at the factory (PPG glass) for distortion atound windw edge at factory.

[Arcal76]

Well,I did not wait to read pprune to know what is a cat.A and why we use 102%,guys......amazing :=
What I am saying is our company decided to create a cat.B because no profile works as soon as it is hot and heavy (6400 to 6800 kg)
As it is written in our SOP:"the cat B procedure should be utilized if adhering to cat A will compromise the effiency of the flight".
I think it is a statement who tell you where we are.We bought a cat A aircraft,but since we mismanaged the weight,forget the cat A.
When we recieved the aircraft,it was supposed to be an all time Cat A operation until we got to Summer time.....
Same story,over and over again.

[Geoffersincornwall]

Let me understand your situation correctly. Your company buys the best-in-class medium helicopter because it has excellent Cat A performance. Of course your company principle must understand that Cat A is essentially a focus on OEI operations but is an excellent guide to safe AEO operations courtesy of the conservative nature of the WAT curves in this context.

To then accept operations above the Cat A WAT or profiles outside the RFM specifications puts you in that grey area of helicopter operations where a safe outcome is entirely down to the pilots skill and judgement.

The basic tenet of Cat A Ops is that they are predictable. That is why PC1 ops are not possible offshore. That environment involves operations within an unpredictable obstacle environment and we have to consider wind generated turbulence and turbine exhaust heat-pollution as 'obstacles'.

To buy a cat A capable machine like the 139 and then use it Cat B is possible, feasible and practical but it is a bit like saying that because you wear your seat belt whilst driving your car you can drive like a crazy man. Ultimately you will ask your car to do something it is unable to do and then you cannot blame the car when you crash it.

If you elect not to work within the Cat A WAT then be sure you have the skill, be sure you have the judgement, then do not blame the aircraft when you stoof-in. The learning curve in this respect is greased with 'luck' and over the years I have used up my fair share. If I can pass on my experiences to good effect and save you from becoming a statistic then here's a pearl of wisdom.

"Read as many accident reports as you are able and be sure that someone else's misfortune is your free lesson in survival."

G.

[chopper2004]

The Royal Thai Army Signs A Contract for Two AW139s | AgustaWestland (http://www.agustawestland.com/news/royal-thai-army-signs-contract-two-aw139s)

I wonder how it handles in that environment, say compared to other models used by the Royal Thai Army such as the UH-60 and I think the Thais ordered MI-17 as they reckoned get 3 for a price of a S-70.

[Eric_C]

Can anyone help me better understand what we see on FMS Progress 2/3 page.

At LSK 1L we have SPD/ALT CMD which represent current speed and altitude command.

I'm wondering if changing IAS speed using button we have on cyclic grip and moving alt knob is reflected on FMS Progress 2/3 page at LSK 1L.

Thanks a lot.

Eric

[griffothefog]

You get long legs between landings son? ;)

[Non-PC Plod]

Arcal 76,

You are not alone in your situation where the weight of the aircraft and the environmental conditions often preclude Cat A operations. I worked in the simulator with a customer whose main task is to haul heavy loads of platinum out of helipads surrounded by a security fence in mountainous areas of hot countries. We practised single engine failures after take-off in this condition, and together we worked out a profile that gives the least violent crash. There was no way to avoid the crash if the failure came at the wrong moment, but it was possible to get over the fence and crash in a relatively open area. If you find yourself operating in similar conditions, thats the reality you will have to plan for, and I guess that is what your company is trying to do with its invented Cat B profile. It would be interesting to test how your profile works with an engine failure in the simulator!

[Lenticular]

I have a query regarding the predicted fuel remaining shown on the progress page of the MCDU.

It would appear that when en-route to a destination the fuel on arrival is reasonably accurate. However, the fuel at the alternate is very misleading as it seems to be using the current groundspeed to predict the fuel at alternate. This is most obvious when flying with a strong tailwind giving a high groundspeed outbound to destination and the computation appears to assume the same groundspeed for the alternate. If the the alternate happens to be your original departure point ie flying back into wind, then the fuel remaining figure is useless.

Have others experienced this or am I not configuring the MCDU correctly? I cannot find anything in the manual which refers directly to this issue.

I am use to working with the Trimble (Freeflight) 2101 and this gives return leg times and expected fuel on arrival much more accurately. I would have thought the Honeywell system in the AW139 to be a superior system???

[HLCPTR]

Try this on PERF INIT Page 2/3:

— 5L -- Cruise winds at the anticipated cruise altitude are entered
at 5L. Data entry formatting and syntax is consistent with entry
of wind magnitude and direction on other FMS pages. The
default CRUISE WINDS value is zero.
In addition, the altitude is entered before the cruise wind is
accepted. Entering *DELETE* returns the default value of zero.
— 5R -- 5R is associated with 5L and gives the pilot the ability to
specify the cruise wind altitude. Data entry is consistent with
entry of cruise altitude on other FMS pages. The default value
is set to zero. In addition, the FMS gives the pilot the ability to
enter winds from altitudes of --1300 to 60,000 feet.

See if it helps.
Cheers!

[Bravo73]

IIRC, PILOT SPD/FF will also have to be selected (rather than CURRENT SPD/FF).

[HLCPTR]

Current Ground Speed/Fuel Flow Method -- The CURRENT
GS/FF method of performance initialization is similar to the PILOT
SPD/FF initialization with the exception that no cruise fuel flow entry
is permitted on the PERFORMANCE 2/3 page. The default fuel flow
value at 2R is 450 kg/hour.

[tottigol]

Lenti, selecting PILOT SPD/FF on page 1 of the PERF INIT allows the pilot to manually enter fuel flows relative to a specific leg.
This should allow for more accurate residual fuel quantities at the end of each predicted leg on page 1 of the PROG menu on the MCDU.
HTH, another TOFLA.

[Lenticular]

HLCPTR - Thanks for the information, I have tried this and quite often get an error message in the scratch pad 'WIND EXCEEDED AT CRUISE ALTITUDE'.

tottigol - I have the PILOT SPD/FF selected as you say but the error is still there.

I am sure there must be something I am doing wrong as this FMS unit is used in the fixed wing world over much longer distances than helicopters are capable of. Diversions could be hundreds of miles away where fuel prediction is critical.

[Bravo73]

Have you tried asking your Training Dept/friendly TRI?

[HLCPTR]

EXCEEDS WIND LIMITS
The wind limits for takeoff or landing are exceeded.

:cool:

[Arcal76]

Well, I would love to do some training on the Sim with this profile,but every time we go there,our training is so short than we can barely do what we are supposed to do:* So,maybe one day I will have more time.
I am gone be there in January,will see if we have time depending who is the instructor.Depending who you have during your training week, it is not always funny:ugh:

[Non-PC Plod]

Arcal, - I dont know who you work for: some companies have a very strictly defined programme of what they want their pilots to cover during recurrent training, and there is like you say little time to digress and look at something else. If it is less strictly laid down, you should be able to ask your TRI/SFI to cover whichever areas you want to look at - after all they are there for your benefit, and not vice versa. (sometimes they need reminding!)

[Arcal76]

Well, I work for a company who has been in a middle of a big scandal during last 10 months:mad: Not to many AW139 in Canada.........
It is strange to us that there is so much difference in the quality you receive at Rotorsim depending who you get during your week.Some instructors are very good, other don't really care about what we need and what is important to us.We do a training once a year,for one week and we should expect a better service from this training centre.
I agree, it is could to remind them,but when we complain,it does not really change anything, so......

[KiwiRotorWrench]

Anyone seen an issue with the sliding cabin door key lock self locking during a flight??

This has happened a second time now, door lock is in unlocked position at take off but when we landed at the next stop the door was not able to be opened and the key had to be used to unlock the lever, before the handle could be moved.

Just wondering if anyone else has experienced this.

Thanks

KC

[Turkeyslapper]

Don't know about self locking doors however, we had a self opening cabin door at 140 kts. Apparently it happened all on it's own.....ems primary scene response, rotors running recovery, a " rush rush" culture with our organization here in the sandpit, no use of any form of checklist.....hmmm, yep, happened all on it's own.....come to think of it, where can we get those self locking cargo doors :E

Cheers

[seatpanda]

We had the same problem 3 years ago. The lock was installed upside down.So when the hoist operator thought that he was opening the lock it was on the contrary. When he shut down the door from inside it was impossible to open it for hoisting. Check the lock.

[griffothefog]

It'll be all those burgers :}

[espresso drinker]

It's either the residue left over from the foam

Child wrongly accused of filling hangar with foam | abc7chicago.com (http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/bizarre&id=5824931)

Or someone got the conversion from Ibs to Kg wrong.

[aegir]

It could be the reinforcement on the tail. Also the last italian made helicopters are heavier compared to the previous ones.

[doerbird]

Hi there, first time for me here... Hopefully someone will be able to help me. I'm trying to understand if the tyres of the AW139 are capable or earthing the helicopter or not... I'm having troubles in understanding if the ETSO-C62d comprehend this feature or not... Anyone can help??? Thank you.

[Savoia]

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-rQmO4A9u0N8/UU1nCZjxa5I/AAAAAAAAMaM/NIMZOFRQhy8/s769/MSP+AW139+N381MD+Baltimore+Martin+State+13+Mar+13+%28Mark+Ca rlisle%29.jpg
Maryland State Police AW139 N381MD at Baltimore's Martin State Airport on 13th March 2013 (Photo: Mark Carlisle)

One of two new 139's delivered to the Maryland State Police .. more on the way.

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-mMPCZactBDg/UU1nCFgg8VI/AAAAAAAAMaQ/lE7A8XCswIo/s768/MSP+AW139+N381MD+Baltimore+Martin+State+Interior+13+Mar+13+% 28Mark+Carlisle%29.jpg
EMS fit interior (Photo: Mark Carlisle)

This is what they used to fly (below):

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-LagehpeT6L8/UU1nAMO56GI/AAAAAAAAMaI/aMWGJbPLG4g/s746/MSP+AS365N1+Dauphin+2+N97MD+%27Trooper+3%27+Frederick+Munici pal+30+Sep+05+%28Mark+Carlisle%29.jpg
Maryland State Police AS365N1 Dauphin 2 N97MD (flying as 'Trooper 3') as seen as Frederick Municipal Airport on 30th September 2005 (Photo: Mark Carlisle)

[Bravo73]

Interesting to see that 139s are still coming out of the factory with '2 band' tail rotor blades... :{

[HeliStudent]

What is a 2 band tail rotor please?

[NRDK]

2 bands = old style blades (known to fly off without the aircraft:rolleyes:)
3 bands = new improved ones (yet to fly off;))

[HeliStudent]

Ha ha, ok thanks. :ok:

[Adroight]

Why is it that Maryland seem to be able to do HEMS properly (2 pilot, IFR, twins) yet seemingly everywhere else in the States do not?

[Bravo73]

Why is it that Maryland seem to be able to do HEMS properly (2 pilot, IFR, twins) yet seemingly everywhere else in the States do not?

I don't know any of the details but the clue might be on the side of the aircraft: "Maryland State Police".

[LOZZ]

Couldn't see that this had been posted before; AW139 helicopter factory/manufacturing process.

QQZTbpdz91E

[noooby]

Bravo73, These two machines were actually built mid last year. There are 7 completed machines at the factory waiting delivery for this customer that were completed for them in 2012.
I believe there were delays getting the Trakka searchlight certified??

Hence the -131 tail rotor blades.

[HLCPTR]

Why is it that Maryland seem to be able to do HEMS properly (2 pilot, IFR, twins) yet seemingly everywhere else in the States do not?

Not a particularly accurate comment.

That operation has for many years flown single-pilot with minimal (if any) IFR operations.

There are a number of US HEMS who do.

:ok:

[tottigol]

Some even have good IFR pilots!

[hihover]

Can anyone recommend a pre-flight planning iPad App for the 139?

I am looking for something that allows me to change the aircraft configuration and basic weights, as well as applying temp and pressure for performance figures. I would like to end up with a briefing page showing wt & bal, max wt AEO, max wt OEI (OGE/IGE), fly away ht loss.

I've had a look at some EFBs but can't seem to find one that suits perfectly. Is there one?

Thanks

[vaibronco]

Don't take it as a joke, I don't like to be sarcastic.
You mean when you're not in the cockpit or the FMS isn't working?

We use an excel file.

[hihover]

Yeah I mean for pre-flight planning, before the flight briefing. I have most of that info available in the cockpit, but it would be quite useful to have it on an iPad for planning and briefing.

If necessary I'll make an Excel form to do it but if there is something available off-the-shelf I might buy it and save myself the heartache and headache.

Thanks

[tottigol]

HiHover and Vaibronco, read carefully the disclosure in the RFM regarding the use of the FMS W&B page in the PERF INIT section.:=

[vaibronco]

tottigol, hihover,
to be more precise, we get gw and cg from the file, we don't have an automation that excludes cat A perf graphs reading

[terminus mos]

Apparently an AW 139 chucked a tail rotor damper in Nigeria on Sunday 24th or Monday 25th March necessitating an emergency landing.

[212man]

Apparently an AW 139 chucked a tail rotor damper in Nigeria on Sunday 24th or Monday 25th March necessitating an emergency landing

I gather it's the second time it's happened - the photos are quite scarey. I'm guessing the pax and crew will be needing new fillings.......:uhoh:

[hihover]

Tottigol, thanks for the advice. I am not sure what you are getting at - I am looking for a pre-flight planning app. All the pre-flight planning calculations that I currently do on paper, I would like to do them on an iPad. If you know of an app that will enable me to do that I'd be very keen to buy it.

Thanks

[Arcal76]

Is there anybody who has pictures about the incident in Nigeria?
It will be interesting to see what's happened......:ugh:

[noooby]

Arcal 76. If you measure the bearing play every 25 hours and replace when the bearings are out of limits, then you shouldn't have a problem. If the bearing wears too much it binds, then it locks, then it snaps the rod end. That is why you are supposed to check the play every 25 hours.

[[email protected]]

So how often are the bearings being replaced then?

[stacey_s]

Not Often, take a look at the photo's closely, especially the one with the rod end still attached with all the 'cocoa' around it, that does not happen overnight or even IN a week or two but takes time, looks to me that those bearings have not been inspected as per the AMP in the IETP.

Just my opinion!

S

[Maddam]

Greetings All,

I'm new here & I don't know if this has been discussed or not. However, I'm putting this question to have your valuable inputs & help sharing some information :hmm:

AW139 Ground Taxi;


What are the issues that might be encountered during wheel taxi?

What are the limitations on wind speed for cross wind wheel taxi, tail wind, etc?

How likely is it to run into rollover during wheel taxi?


Thanks

Maddam

[Savoia]

Maddam: Read some comments on page 56 (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/405110-agusta-aw139-56.html).

Also check at 6 mins 40 seconds in the video below for wheel shimmy during taxi:

93cF_3wQacE

[maeroda]

for w&b in B412 & aw139 I do use pilotwizpro, iphone e ipad app.
cheers

[Maddam]

Thanks!

Now,

How likely is it to get into rollover during wheel taxi AW139? :ooh:

[hihover]

Thanks very much, I'll take a look.

[Savoia]

Maddam: Most blitterblats have a fairly high CofG .. engines, transmissions (main and engines), shafts, swashplates, hubs, heads, and rotors etc. all typically mounted above the cabin .. but this makes them 'vulnerable' when being towed more than during taxi. I say 'vulnerable' but the risk is minimal and I have never actually heard of an aircraft being rolled while being towed .. although I have seen them collapse while towed into or across something they weren't meant to encounter!

When taxiing (ie. under power) that 'upper weight' (ie. high CoG - often enhanced by low fuel and nil pax) is mitigated by the gyroscopic effect of the main rotor.

However, if you were to taxi as fast as you could and then boot in full rudder .. perhaps you could 'trip it up' but in fact if you did that .. you would most likely achieve a 'tail swing' which might (given how the 139 'hangs') result in a boom strike which could result in a roll over.

Well that's my thruppence worth but you should be advised .. I'm no expert on such matters!

ps: Speaking of gyroscopic effect .. it is possible (so I understand) to misjudge a run-on landing (which if you've had a brandy for breakfast could be interpreted as a fast form of taxi) whereby if you 'strike' one of the craft's wheels extremely hard it may cause the fuselage to rotate and if one of the wheels were to 'catch' any sideways movement while not properly planted on the ground .. then you will get your roll over.

[industry insider]

Sav

Not an AW 139 but G-TIGL was rolled in high winds in Newcastle UK while being towed in the mid 1980s. I think that the main doors are opened now when towing in high winds.

[Maddam]

Savoia,

Thank you for your effort ;)

[Geoffersincornwall]

......well I seem to remember BAH had a brand new S76 blow over in a gale on one of the Forties platforms. They had tied it down to the mooring rings set in the deck but unfortunately the welder has missed them out when the deck was built so they were only held in place by several layers of paint.

G.

[HeliStudent]

ps: Speaking of gyroscopic effect .. it is possible (so I understand) to misjudge a run-on landing (which if you've had a brandy for breakfast could be interpreted as a fast form of taxi) whereby if you 'strike' one of the craft's wheels extremely hard it may cause the fuselage to rotate and if one of the wheels were to 'catch' any sideways movement while not properly planted on the ground .. then you will get your roll over.

Do you mean something like this?

puma crash - YouTube

[vaibronco]

That doesn't look dynamic roll-over to me. They lifted off and start spinning, they didn't roll-over. Most likely it was a tail rotor trouble or whatever. Anyway not a dynamic roll-over.

[tottigol]

Definitely a tail rotor issue.

[NRDK]

Puma...flared tail into the deck:ugh:
Got airborne again:D
Soldier/policeman in the back spat out, nearly landed on, legs it into the distance before the tail comes round to mince him...well done:ok:
Pilot re-briefed by pax:ouch::mad:

[speds]

Maddam asked:

"How likely is it to get into rollover during wheel taxi AW139?"

Any wheeled helicopter is likely to rollover during ground taxi operations if the pilot mishandles the controls. See this accident report on a Dauphin 365 N3 http://dgca.nic.in/accident/reports/VT-SOK.pdf The pilot chose the wrong option i.e. he raised the collective instead of lowering it, when the incipient symptoms were recognised.

Another rollover accident to a wheeled Bell 214ST in Saudi Arabia (ex ROP machine) also comes to mind. I cannot find that report but I am aware that the commander did not have time to intervene when the copilot pulled pitch during the turn into dispersal. The wheeled 214ST had only been added to the fleet of skidded 214B models the week previously.

All 3 types AW139, AS365 and Bell214ST are safe to ground taxi if the pilots are aware of the causes of dynamic rollover and apply the correct techniques to prevent it.




speds

[resonance]

What level of availability are people getting from their AW139s in an EMS role?
Is 80% too low?

[HD 509]

Resonance,
From what I hear 80% is above average.

[Maddam]

Right on Speds.

We started wheel taxing AW139s & I've seen pilots moving cyclic with every turn! In addition to using 25 PI ;( . Sharp/tight turns where you think that the nose wheel would get stuck!! Some yank the cyclic & you feel the aircraft leans excessively.:ugh:

[Non-PC Plod]

One of the most difficult things to get people to do in training is NOT to move the cyclic laterally during ground taxy turns. There is a lot of control power in this helicopter, and you dont want to introduce unnecessary sideways forces on the ground.

[1oh1]

http://i1280.photobucket.com/albums/a482/santabiggles/DSC01438_zpsc1f6e341.jpg

[aegir]

It's a new AW139 from Bahrain?

[Maddam]

This belongs to Omani Royal Police

[aegir]

Ah yes, sorry! Bahrain is A9C

[1oh1]

http://i1280.photobucket.com/albums/a482/santabiggles/DSC01439_zpscd13a194.jpg

http://i1280.photobucket.com/albums/a482/santabiggles/DSC01444_zps632affbe.jpg

http://i1280.photobucket.com/albums/a482/santabiggles/DSC01450_zps317e5347.jpg

[407 too]

Whats up with the fire alarm bell port side, first picture ??
So crews know which aircraft to scramble to ??:E

Nice shots by the way:ok:

[Longdog]

It,s an ADELT, but we know you knew that!:E

[Max Contingency]

I have experienced AW139 nose-wheel shimmy on two occasions and it is undoubtedly an unfortunate design quirk in the nose-wheel steering. It is loud and frightening if you have never experienced it before and I know of one occasion where an inexperienced pilot thought he was entering ground resonance and lifted (AP Out) to stop the shimmy. The frequency of the shimmy is about 0.25 of a second and is felt as a 'jarring' throughout the airframe, if you look behind the aircraft you will see a tell tale herring bone pattern of marks left on the taxiway or runway. On both occasions when it happened to me it was because the nose-wheel "slipped off" a raised dome centre line light, landing at a slight cross angle to the aircraft direction. I have no reason to suspect that it is associated with incorrect taxi techniques and I was able to stop the shimmy by using wheel brakes. On both occasions I had the engineers confirm that there was no damage before proceeding. I now ground taxi slightly offset from any centre line that has embedded lighting.

[212man]

One of the most difficult things to get people to do in training is NOT to move the cyclic laterally during ground taxy turns.

Surely the only reason to move the cyclic laterally is to correct an out of turn roll - or maintain a wings level attitude? It should never be a conditioned reflex!

[Arcal76]

For us, we cannot get above 82% which has requiered 2 aircraft per base and sometimes 3 since our great Ministry of health has requiered 100%:mad:.....Looks they don't know what we do after so many years......
And they also have no clue about aviation and helicopters:ugh:
The level of maintenace and problems related to the 139 is completely crazy.The cost is insane and it is just a question of time before we will have to get rid of this machine, it is not for EMS,at all:=

[Geoffersincornwall]

I don't encounter many with your view. Does that tell you something about your operation. Without wishing to cast any aspersions when was the last time you were audited by external auditors. If the answer is 'never' then you may profit from a firm of auditors with some global expertise having a look-see at how you are doing things.

I have always found external audits to be a valuable way of putting an operation into perspective but don't use those one-day-wonders who parachute in with checklist in hand and disappear without ever getting to the soul of the operation. Use people who have HEMS experience and who speak the HEMS language. IOSA use specialists in each field Ops (planning and flight following)/Maintenance/Ground Ops/Cabin (in your case it would mean a clinician with HEMS experience)/Flight Operations.

G.

[noooby]

It also doesn't help that your company are going through Union negotiations at the moment Arcal76.

I know for a fact that many of your people are trying to make a point to management by doing absolutely everything as slowly as they can to try and highlight manpower issues and parts issues.

That does nothing to help your availability rate.

Due to your lack of AME's, it takes your guys 3 weeks to do a 300hour inspection. That inspection should be done in 7 days at the most with a good crew working on it.

Try not to blame the machine for shortcomings within your organisation. Many within your company still think they are operating a 76A with no autopilot and very basic systems instead of a complex nearly 7 tonne aircraft with many advanced systems.

The whole debacle with the medical interior hasn't helped things and finally that has been modified as an interim measure, until a new interior is designed and installed.

Until some major changes are made not much is giong to change. Perhaps modelling your operation on other EMS organisations that are using the 139 would improve availability and reliability.

As Geoffers remarked, an external audit (perhaps by another EMS company using the 139) could well highlight where improvements could be made.

[Adroight]

Arcal. As others have noted your experience is not a general one. We have been operating the 139 for 3 years flying up to 10 hours per day and the only down time has been for scheduled servicing and minor glitches that were quickly rectified. Having experienced, pro-active and concientious engineers helps enormously.

[AMDEC]

Not counterbalancing the tail rotor thrust by some main rotor moment can lead to taxi rollover. This has nothing to do with dynamic rollover which occurs in flight when the landing gear hits the ground.
Taxi rollover is caused by the toppling moment of the tail rotor thrust. It mainly occurs on helicopters where the tail rotor has a high position. From a theoretical point of view, it is therefore worth to accompany a large amplitude pedal input by a lateral stick input on the same side. I am somewhat astonished that you want pilots not to move the cyclic stick during turns.

[Maddam]

:ugh::ugh::ugh:

5 years now using AW139 with MEL'd rotor brake

[PhlyingGuy]

The cost is insane and it is just a question of time before we will have to get rid of this machine, it is not for EMS,at all

So 412s then?

[HLCPTR]

A quick search and read on dynamic rollover may mitigate your astonishment.

:rolleyes:

[Non-PC Plod]

Amdec,

There is rarely a requirement for a large amplitude pedal input during turns. There is a large turning moment due to the length of the tail, and with the nosewheel unlocked, the aircraft should turn quite easily on level ground, especially if you have just a little bit of forward speed. What I have found when teaching pilots new to this type (especially thoses who have flown Russian machines previously), is that whenever they turn, even taxying gently at 1-2 knots, they always push unnecessary into-turn cyclic, which will induce an unnecessary main rotor mast moment.

[The Sultan]

Phly,

The 412 is what a lot of 139 operators are going to for EMS.

The Sultan

[Maddam]

Mmm! It is like going backwards! AW139 is much much better than 412 in many ways. Power, safety, IFR, speed, etc.. It is a pilot choice ..Yet it burns more fuel, high maintenace due to high tech it has ;)

UNLESS Bell starts thinking again & improving 412s

[HLCPTR]

The 412 is what a lot of 139 operators are going to for EMS.

That kind of statement begs for a list of names.

:suspect:

[Bravo73]

That kind of statement begs for a list of names.

:suspect:

I wouldn't bother waiting for one. You only have to see who made the statement in the first place. :rolleyes:

[Maddam]

:ugh::confused: maybe just an opinion

[Bravo73]

Apologies, Maddam, but my comment wasn't directed at you.

Unless you also happen to work at Bell... :suspect:

[Maddam]

:ok::ok:

I'm anti-Bell lol

No worries Bravo73 :)

[tottigol]

The 412 is what a lot of 139 operators are going to for EMS.


AAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA. Thank you Sultan, I needed a good laugh today.

And what s Bell going to do, "paint it a different color", just lke for the LUH competition?

AAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!! ROFLMAO

[Savoia]

And what's Bell going to do, "paint it a different color"?

You mean you haven't heard of the Bell 139 EP?

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-RUiKuLRnZc0/UWvJfVZFCqI/AAAAAAAANAs/a5HxPsFpxBI/s350/Bell+139EP.png

;)


For us, we cannot get above 82% ..


While we are on the matter .. is there anyone Down Under who can relay what sort of experience the Ambulane Service of New South Wales is having with theirs? Are they pleased or exasperated?

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-o7uDeqmJdK0/UWvRSBoCzWI/AAAAAAAANBA/ytb2Ej9Pgb4/s718/ASNSW+139.png

[tottigol]

Yes Savoia, I have heard of the latest Huey variant.:E

I understand they have calendars in the cockpit rather than the customary stopclocks.

[Turkeyslapper]

Mmm! It is like going backwards! AW139 is much much better than 412 in many
ways. Power, safety, IFR, speed, etc.. It is a pilot choice ..Yet it burns more
fuel, high maintenace due to high tech it has http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif


UNLESS Bell starts thinking again & improving 412s


Horses for courses...Probably like a few people, I am currently flying both.

Yep, for an IFR hospital transfer or winching somebody out of the water at night via a MOT I will take a 139....for a primary response day/night or winching somebody out of an awkard spot on goggles, or plonking it into the dust, I personally would take a 412 EP...each to their own I guess.

Whats the the new 412 EPI like...more power, glass?

Cheers

[aegir]

Whats the the new 412 EPI like...more power, glass?
I read an article about the EPI. It seems it will increase the HOGE performance by more than 600 kg :eek: and the avionics will be a glass cokpit type.

[Arcal76]

Guys,maintenance is maintenance ! It does not matter which organization you are working for,we still follow what is required by Agusta. And when you have a specific budget who won't increase just because you are running a 139,you have to stick with it.
We have been doing EMS for 20 years.
Yes we have now this private company who took over our system who do not know aviation , and it is part of our problem, but it does not change the fact that parts are no available and the service from Agusta is not great even after buying 12 aircrafts:mad:
So,if you have big money available,the 139 is good, for us, it is not the case.
I agree that on the pilot side,it is great,avionics,IFR,autopilot,but for the operator,it is a different story.
All our machines have FIPS,and this system never worked.The tail rotor slip ring has been failing from the start,even after modification from Agusta,it is still failing and after 2 years of operation, we are not able to use it. I know there a very little number of operators who need the FIPS and, as a result, it is not a big deal for Agusta.
Not like I miss flying in ice,because I believe we will get in situation we won't like,but from the operation side,it is not good.
Just the reality.....

[noooby]

Hold on there Arcal.

YOUR company decided to disable the FIPS system. Agusta have come out with a lot of updates to the system that are being supplied to FIPS Customers.

If you want to talk about using FIPS, talk to Era, they have been very successful with FIPS in Alaska because they could be bothered to work through the issues and get the system reliability improved. Give them a call. They'll tell you exactly how they feel about FIPS now. Good and bad!

FIPS is heavy, expensive, and labour intensive. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be an easier way of deicing the blades.

Maintenance is not maintenance. Maintenance is a combination of parts, personnel, and experience. Most of your bases don't have stores people, they rely on mechanics to do it, when they should be out working on the aircraft. Most of your parts are kept in a central location, where there isn't even an aircraft based, instead of being at your heavy maintenance bases!

I also understand you have a dedicated Tech Rep who is onsite everyday. Most 139 operators, including all the ones that I have worked for, do not have that luxury.

I understand your frustration with the 139, but I still think most of it is internally generated, especially when I talk to other 139 operators and people within my own company. None of them seem to be having the same "issues" that you describe, or if they do, not to the same extent.

Perhaps I'm missing something. I find the 139 to be very reliable, even more so when you consider the amount of stuff that most of us choose to install on it!!

[cloudmac]

I am reading this and everyone here has valid points. CHL ran this EMS for 35 years very succesfully in fact I recall people from US based EMS services looking at this as a model to be followed. Unfortunately it is now a pseudo EMS political organisation being run by doctors, lawyers, buerocrats and people from failed airlines. It has evolved into an organisation were a secretary in finance can trump a decision made by an Ops manager. The 139 is a fine platform for Ifr and landing on flat solid surfaces like helidecks and pads. Over 95% of our flying is VFRand much is first response. It is not suited to landing in 3 ft of snow,swampy ground, confined areas or rugged terrain which is were we are required to land frequently. Many of the suggestions being made have been made over and over but management wont listen because they know better than the people who have actually done the job for 20 yrs. Until the operational decisions are made by people with helicopter experience it will continue as it is (unfortunatly)

[HeliStudent]

Mega Factories: super chopper - YouTube

[Pilotmartymcfly]

Hello my friends pilots AW 139. I would like to take a course with you.

During navigation, the page "PROGRESS" 1/3 displays an information fuel, for example, 0.6 or 0.5 (as photo) and so forth. I wonder what it is that information, I looked around the manual flight crew and there is no such explanation.

http://s24.postimg.org/8qf9y1n1x/foto.jpg

Someone could tell me?

I apologise for the low quality photo.

[Adroight]

The display shows your estimated fuel in KG at each leg of your flightplan at your current groundspeed and fuel flow. e.g 0.5 = anything between 501 and 599 kg.

[500e]

nobby your quote
"If you want to talk about using FIPS, talk to Era, they have been very successful with FIPS in Alaska because they could be bothered to work through the issues and get the system reliability improved. Give them a call. They'll tell you exactly how they feel about FIPS now. Good and bad!

I would suggest that the system is\was less than sorted, why should the CUSTOMER have to work through\sort manufacturing defects, he paid for a working system.
There may be inherent problems with Arkels organisation, but if there are in built problems the manufacturer should pick up all the tab

[Pilotmartymcfly]

Thanks a lot!

:ok:

[Adroight]

If you want to see a more accurate fuel estimation then use the following key strokes on the MCDU:

NAV - NAV IDENT - MAINTENANCE - NEXT - SETUP - ENGR DATA - FPL WPTS - NEXT (with arrow key next to it).

By then pressing the NEXT/PREV keys the cursor will move through the stored flight plan route and show fuel to the nearest KG at each waypoint and destination.

Remember that it only calculates on current groundspeed for the entire route.

[NRDK]

Phase 5 and later software will give the progress page fuel in kgs not tonnes and decimals of....which as pointed out can be almost 100kgs different from the actual.

The process outlined by Adroight is the only other way to get a figure without the later phase software.

But as mentioned the system is so useless that it can't work out leg tracks Vs the expected G/S based on the TAS you are currently on and calculate the end fuel for each leg and the whole trip.:ugh: Unlike practically every hand held SATNAV system for the last 2 decades.:ok:

[Variable Load]

Remember that it only calculates on current groundspeed for the entire route

That's a pretty fundamental flaw for a helicopter FMS, given that a lot of the time our routes involve a 180 degree turn once the offshore destination is reached and only very rarely is the g/s out the same as the g/s back! :sad:

[Geoffersincornwall]

.... you could always calculate your estimated average GS/FF and enter it instead of the FMS derived data. This technique is used a lot by the offshore guys in the NS. (Page 1 of Perf Init)

G.

[dieseldo]

The availability for offshore going 139's is getting over 96% which is fairly good for a helicopter. Would be nice to match the 99%+ that big fixed wing achieve but that is probably a pipe dream.

FIPS is possibly dragging this figure down for operators with the system but with comments along the lines that "maintenance is just maintenance" I would suggest that there are other issues as well.

Pilots like the 139 as do engineers. Like all helicopters it has it's moments but AW continue to improove the product and I think the sales speak for themselves.

One comment I have heard from a friend working on a single aircraft operation is that it breaks down so infrequently now that fault finding experience is hard to come by.

[noooby]

500e, if you look at most, if not all manufacturers, they use their customers as the final testing ground for their machines and kits that are fitted to them. I'm not just talking about Rotary either, fixed wing are also guilty. It is a crappy way of doing it, but unfortunately, the Customers are the only ones who really can test the system to it's full extent.

Talking ot some of the guys at Era, they have had issues with parts availability, but it sounds like parts replacemetns and even upgrades when improved parts come out, are all being covered by Agusta.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, that is just what I hear from the good folks up at Deadhorse.

Pesonally, I think the FIPS is a bit of a waste of time, money and payload. Deicing a helicopter is just too complex. There is no simple way of doing it like fixed wing with hot air and the like. Keep It Simple Stoopid!!!

[Ian Corrigible]

Don't you hate it when you finally take delivery of your new multi-million dollar fire firefighting/rescue helicopter, only to find that some fool has painted the wrong model number on it... :E

http://www.helis.com/h/aw139_hl9277.jpg

I/C

(Yes, I know (http://en.rescue.go.kr))

[Boessie]

The following issue is not very important but it has kept me wondering a couple of times regarding the long/short nose config of the AW139. According to AW's sale rep here in the UK (and mr Gualdoni's AW139 production list website) all AW139 post s/n 31201 are long nose config, however if I look at photographs of certain post 31201 s/n aircraft (31406 for example) they seem to have the original short nose. Does anyone know what the story behind this is?

[noooby]

Boessie, if you can see the twin TCAS antenna, it is a short nose. If you can see a bubble over where the antenna is, then it is a long nose.
Anything above 31200 and 41200 is long nose, although there are two different long noses depending on the radar fitted. RDR-1500 has the loooooooong nose fitted. :}

Edit... Having worked on 31406 I can confirm that it is indeed a long nose.

The only exception to the above serial numbers is 31007. The seventh 139 built was the long nose prototype.

[Doby G]

Does any one know of the AW139 being configured for DVOC Vertical Reference long line? Any details would be appreciated.

[Boessie]

Hi noooby, thanks for the explanation. So long nose does not actually refer to the physical size of the nose, but to the avionic config (located in the nose as opposed to the short nose where it was located in the baggage bay).

Regards,

Boessie

[HLCPTR]

The long nose varaiant is indeed longer (approximately 9 inches) to make room for the relocated avionics.

The SAR radar nose("dolphin" nose) is even longer of course.

All other aircraft dimensions are identical.

[Savoia]

First SAR 139 delivered to Sweden

Yesterday evening the first of the Swedish Maritime Administration’s seven new AgustaWestland AW139s arrived in Sweden. The helicopter, registered SE-JRH and nicknamed “SAR Force One”, landed at Skavsta Airport in Nyköping at 19:00 local time, after a flight from AgustaWestland’s Vergiate plant near Milan, Italy.

NordicRotors (http://www.nordicrotors.com/news/2013#188)

[Savoia]

Trooper 3 Down with Hole in Blade! :eek:

Maryland State Police say they temporarily grounded their new AW139 medevac helicopter after a hole was found in the rotor. The newly purchased helicopter has been stranded on the helipad atop University of Maryland Shock Trauma Hospital since yesterday when a pilot discovered the damage during a routine inspection.

State Police spokesman Greg Shipley says investigators are exploring the possibility the hole was caused by a bullet. Trooper 3 flies out of the Frederick Barracks.

Possible Bullet-Hole Grounds New Medevac Chopper - WBFF FoxBaltimore - Top Stories (http://www.foxbaltimore.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/possible-bullethole-grounds-new-medivac-chopper-22265.shtml#.UjOAeNJkOKg)

[Flying Bull]

First time I had a look on one of the birds.
This one belongs to Dubai - and refueled on its way to GB.
http://www.uheeren.de/test/DU-140.jpg

seems like an IFR-departue - Gears- Up
http://www.uheeren.de/test/DU-140to.jpg

DU-140

[noooby]

Maryland State Police machine was ferried back to base at low speed. Confirmed that the hole was indeed from a bullet.
Brand new machine too!!

[Savoia]

FAA AD: DISCONNECT OF FIPS

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Agusta Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters. This AD requires deactivating the Full Icing Protection System (FIPS) and installing a placard next to the FIPS controller stating that flight into known icing is prohibited. This AD is prompted by a report of a fire in the aft avionics bay and the baggage compartment resulting from an Auto Transformer Rectifier Unit internal circuit overload. These actions are intended to prevent a fire, structural damage, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

This AD becomes effective October 16, 2013

http://www.rotor.com/rotornews/Oct13/2013-15-01.pdf

[Pilotmartymcfly]

Hello friends!

I wonder if someone can get me a question. In the AW139, there is the MFD and PFD. According to the manual, the MFD shows us some traffic intruder(TCAS warning) when selected in MAP and if it is not selected in MAP, the cursor will be automatically upon MAP, simply press ENTER on the CCD (MFD display). So far so good.

But is there any situation in which the PFD displays the "traffic" message and also shows the location of this traffic intruder, just as does the MFD??

For the case of MFD screen is on another screen and you can not press the "ENTER" on that time to go to the screen "MAP" on the MFD, understood? I believe we've seen this somewhere but can not remember where.

Like this! (symbolized by the red circle):

http://s23.postimg.org/5ul5inxx7/copy.jpg

Hugs!

[Igor Eurocopter]

Firstly, by pressing HSI on the pilot/copilot display controller you can scroll through the various HSI representations. Full rose ( default ) - expanded rose - hover mode. The first Phase 5 with SAR modes that I flew only displayed the hover symbology , when a SAR function had been selected I.e MOT or HOV, on the guidance control panel. Later models seem to allow you to scroll through all 3 options at anytime.

To get the TAWS page on the PFD , you simply press the WX/Terr button on the pilot/co-pilot display controller. This automatically puts the display into expanded rose and superimposes the required radar /TAWS image behind the HSI image. The biggest problem is the image projected is only what's in front of you , whether that be radar or terrain. So for TCAS your missing what's behind you. The range displayed by TAWS can be adjusted by pressing the left/ right button on the CCD for the appropriate screen ( left for copilot and right for pilot) , move the joystick up or down to bracket the range and then rotate knob as normal. Whilst gimmicky there is a lot of potential information there and it becomes more difficult to pick out the important bits, especially if I was shooting an approach. I think for these reasons, I've never seen anybody regularly use it in this way. Most sensible people stick to either full or expanded compass rose on PFD and TAWS/TCAS on MFD. I used it a few times when I was approaching Shetland from the north and wanted A radar image on MFD and TAWS on PFD.

To answer your question fully, I've never been brave enough to want to see a TCAS return on the PFD only , as I tend to operate with TAWS on MFD. Besides I have the luxury of a 5 th screen , so have radar middle, TAWS copilot MFD and Euronav map on Pilot MFD. So nothing's missing :)

[Non-PC Plod]

Remember too that if you get a "TRAFFIC,TRAFFIC" warning, the MFD will automatically go to the map page with the intruder relative position displayed, without the need for you to make any selections.

[tottigol]

You get a "TRAFFIC TRAFFIC" warning when the threat target enters the 2NM radius (dotted circle), at that point the map scale drops to 1.25 Miles half display.

[BRpilot]

Does anyone could explain why the 90 kt limitation to use NR 102%?

I cant find anywhere.

Thanks!

[spinwing]

Mmmmmm ...

.... Does anyone could explain why the 90 kt limitation to use NR 102%? ...


Yes ... its a manufacturers airframe limitation ... see second item from top of page 11 of your QRH ... or the appropriate limitations page in the Brazilian approved RFM.

It WILL be there.

Cheers

[HLCPTR]

The purpose for 102% is primarily for CAT A procedures and other low-speed operations. There is no need for it once you accelerate beyond Vy, therefore it was not certified in flight test for operations in excess of 90 kts.

[Outwest]

I agree, except I would change that to Vtoss not Vy.

[HLCPTR]

My statement stands.

[tottigol]

The AW139 RFM Suppl 12 CAtA procedures call for 100% rotor RPM at VY, not VToss.
Why would you change that Outwest?

[RVDT]

It also affects the "finite lives" on components.

[Outwest]

AW has been very clear about why 102% was incorporated into the design. It is to allow for that extra 2% to be used during rejected take-offs and OEI landings to remain within the min of 90% Nr for OEI landings. It has nothing at all what to do with climb performance, so using it beyond Vtoss has no benefit.

In my opinion waiting until Vy only increases the chance of crews exceeding the 90 knot limitation.

[HLCPTR]

I don't have an issue with your opinion, but it has little to do with the OP's question.

[Outwest]

OP stands for Original Poster.....I'm afraid that was 83 pages ago ;)

Cheers :ok:

[Tormas]

Had someone ask me a question, does the 139 Phase 7 allow protection of the engines if you using 4Q on the climb out ? I don't know the 139 but in S76 you don't put VS and IAS on the climb as could exceed engine limitations. Is this possible on 139? And what happens if OEI would it automatically reduce speed of VS ?

[tottigol]

Tomas, yes and yes.
4 cue, or coupled collective channel operations allow protection by means of PI limiting.
Since avionics software Phase 4, the AW139 engines and xmsn are protected from exceeding the limitations in both AEO and OEI conditions. When operating with any collective mode engaged the AFCS prioritizes rate of climb over IAS to maintain a set maximum rate of PI.
OEI PI is set at max cont 140% over 60 KIAS, AEO is 97% PI over 60 KIAS. The pilots can still manually override the collective but once released the system returns to the max allowed PI value to maintain the requested RoC, if able.
When limiting PI, IAS may be reduced to VY (if needed) in order to maintain ROC.

[Tormas]

Thanks, so at what minimum speed does the software, stop the RoC to ensure still safe speed?

Appreciate the info.

Cheers

[HLCPTR]

Once airspeed has been reduced (as/if necessary) to minimum of 80kts, then the Roc will be reduced as necessary to remain within the Power Index limits.

[Um... lifting...]

It's easy enough to observe IAS limiting in practice.

Take off at 6800 kg or thereabouts, engage ALTA for a climb, select 100 KIAS, then turn.

You'll see IAS bleed off with an associated limit indication during the turn and then it will accelerate again once the turn is complete.

[BRpilot]

Question about QRH procedure:

Why does bus tie must be switched on, with indication of eng chip?

Tks!!

[Swinging Spanner]

Hi BRpilot,

unfortunately I am not referencing any data here just memory. Unlike a lot of medium twin helicopters, the AW139 bus tie is OPEN/OFF when in NORMAL position. I believe the QRH says to select bus tie ON in the event that the affected engine with chip may shut down thus losing the generator. Saying that I think the bus tie switch does automatically close if you lose and engine/gen anyway...is just to be on safe side.

I could be wrong and happy to be corrected :)

Regards, SS

[BRpilot]

Hi SS!!
Tks for your answer.

All of other eng fail procedures do not require to switch bus tie on because when a generator is lost, the system logic closes it automatically.
But with eng chip, before ecp ENG IDLE, it does require.
Thats why im asking! Perhaps because we keep flying with eng idle....but i dont understand why!

Tks again

[tottigol]

BR, the Gen Load on the engine going to idle is going to increase drastically if the MAIN BUSES are separated. Setting the BUS TIE switch to the ON position shall connect the Main Busses distributing the load evenly.
In the latest RFM revision, AW has changed the ENG CHIP malfunction procedure. The procedure now requires the engine to be shut down only with secondary indications of breakdown (Oil pressure falling, Temperature increasing, Noise, Vibrations, pieces falling off...) and it can be brought up to flight for landing if needed lacking those indications.

Hope this Helps.

Keep the blue side up...unless it's the water.

[BRpilot]

Tottigol,


Thank you very much for your answer.


Now it makes sense!:D

[John Eacott]

700th AW139 Delivered (http://www.agustawestland.com/news/700th-aw139-goes-samsung-techwin-co-ltd)

AgustaWestland is pleased to announce it handed over two AW139 intermediate twin helicopters to Samsung Techwin Co., Ltd. of the Republic of Korea during a ceremony held at AgustaWestland’s Vergiate plant in Italy. These helicopters will be used to perform corporate transport. The delivery includes the 700th AW139 setting a major production milestone coming approximately ten years after its introduction into service in which time it has set the new standard in its category and become the bestselling aircraft in the intermediate twin category. Samsung Techwin, a leading high technology company operating globally in business sectors such as electronics, security, defence, robotics and energy, has been operating AW139s since 2009 with orders for four aircraft placed. The AW139 has achieved great sales success in the Republic of Korea with the sale of aircraft for a number of applications including corporate transport, coast guard duties and firefighting. Mr. Ki Choon Yang, General Manager, Helicopter Service Team Leader of Samsung Techwin said: “We are delighted to celebrate together with AgustaWestland this important milestone today. We have been operating the AW139 for 5 years and we are extremely satisfied of its performance, safety and reliability. We are very much looking forward to adding to our fleet these two brand new AW139s.”

The delivery of the 700th aircraft marks another major milestone for the AW139 programme. The AW139 has become the bestselling helicopter in its class for an impressive variety of commercial and government roles meeting the most demanding requirements across the globe. Since its certification in 2003, the AW139 has been constantly enhanced to achieve ever increasing levels of performance, safety, mission effectiveness and capability to meet the very latest challenging requirements of present and future customers. The offshore oil and gas helicopter market represents 37% of all AW139 sales to date with the emergency medical service, law enforcement, corporate/VIP transport and military markets each representing between 13 and 18% of total sales. The AW139 has found success around the world with over 200 sales across Europe, 150 sales in Asia/Australasia, over 130 sales in the Middle East, over 90 sales in North America and nearly 120 sales to the global fleet operators. The AW139 has also sold in significant number in Africa and South America.

The only new generation helicopter in its weight class, the AW139 sets new standards of performance in its class with the largest cabin in its category, a maximum cruise speed of 165 knots (306 km/h) and a maximum range in excess of 570 nm (1060 km) with auxiliary fuel. The aircraft has outstanding one engine inoperative capabilities, even in the hot and high operating conditions. The advanced integrated cockpit with state-of-the-art technology minimises pilot workload allowing the crew to concentrate on mission objectives. AW139s are now in service performing many roles including VIP/corporate transport, EMS/SAR, offshore transport, law enforcement and military roles. Over 200 customers from approximately 70 countries have ordered nearly 800 AW139 helicopters so far. Earlier this year the AW139 fleet passed the one million flying hour milestone. The AW139 is part of the AgustaWestland family of new generation helicopters that includes the AW169 and AW189 models, which possess the same high performance flight characteristics and safety features as well as sharing a common cockpit layout, design philosophy and maintenance/training concept. This commonality allows more effective operations for customers operating helicopter fleets across the 4 to 8.5 tonne categories. The AW189 and AW169 are perfectly suited to meet a range of requirements in Korea.

http://www.agustawestland.com/sites/default/files/agustawestland/aw1183_-_700th_aw139_goes_to_samsung_web.jpg

[Geoffersincornwall]

The real issue here is that when the engine is turned to idle not only does the load on that engine increase but more critically the generator load on the engine that you want to keep will fall dramatically and may fall as low as the 3% threshold at which point the generator is taken off line by the GMU.

This is obviously an undesirable situation if you then shut down the engine with the chip as you will then have no gennies. It took 3 years of detective work to find that little gem and yes we checked it in the real aircraft and that's exactly what happens. Quite how two electrical systems that are supposed to be isolated can behave in that way I am not sure and I have yet to find an explanation but I'll keep trying. The trick with the Bus Tie neatly circumvents this problem but the RFM leaves you in the dark as to why you need to use it.

Not all the sims behave as they should so you can't use your FSTD to verify that this point. Check it next time you shut down on the real aircraft.

G.

PS. Now back in harness at Sesto

[swisherd78]

Is there anyone out there that has an updated 139 RFM that they could send me please? If so, let me know and I will send you my email information.

I appreciate your help.

[froggy_pilot]

I found the following on a website

Aero Support llc is looking for a qualified AW139 engineer for a permanent position in a West African country (Ebola free).
Must have 15 years of proven helicopter experience including 5 years on AW139
Must be fluent in French and English
Send your resume to : contact @aero-support-llc.com

[John Eacott]

I had heard a rumour earlier about a 7,000kg upgrade: AW prepare for 7,000kg gross weight AW139 (http://helihub.com/2014/10/30/agustawestland-prepare-for-7000kg-gross-weight-aw139/)

30 Oct, 14
HeliHub.com understands that AgustaWestland are working on a higher gross weight AW139. With the current model topping out at 6,400kg all up weight, plans are apparently well advanced for a 7,000kg version. There will be a gap in the serial number sequences. The Italian production line is currently around MSN 31570 and will jump to 31701 for the new model. The US production line is at 41395 and is expected the numbers will jump to 41501.

We do not have a time scale on the new model. The 7,000kg gross weight puts the very successful AW139 – with over 700 delivered to date – right up against the Airbus EC175. The French built helicopter has been certified by EASA at 7,000kg but no deliveries have yet been made to operators.

AgustaWestland were asked to comment on this story, but would only say that they “are continually looking at options to further increase the AW139’s class leading performance”.

Tail boom change/engine upgrade amongst other improvements?

[Bravo73]

I had heard a rumour earlier about a 7,000kg upgrade: AW prepare for 7,000kg gross weight AW139 (http://helihub.com/2014/10/30/agustawestland-prepare-for-7000kg-gross-weight-aw139/)

Tail boom change/engine upgrade amongst other improvements?

Helihub (if you're reading this) - you need to amend your article:

"With the current model topping out at 6,400kg all up weight, plans are apparently well advanced for a 7,000kg version."

The current max AUW is 6800kg.

[tottigol]

Also, the EuroCrap175, I mean Airbus 175 was certified at 7500Kg (regardless of what a certain salesrep thinks).

[John R81]

EAD issued for AW139 and AB139 (https://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/20140924EASAAD20140215E.pdf).


Main Rotor – Rotating Scissors – Inspection / Modification


This AD supersedes EASA Emergency AD 2014-0073-E dated 20 March 2014

[noooby]

John Eacott, they flew 31002 around for a couple of years at 7100kg and it all worked fine. Can't remember where I saw the report on it.

Edit: Here is a photo of 31002 flying at 7100kg with the Goodrich landing gear. Also it is testing the Enhanced Long Nose rear cowling.

Notice the strain gauges on the tailboom, probably checking the twisting at the increased gross weight. From what I heard, the tests were very successful and showed that the stresses between 6.8 and 7.1 were basically the same.

Interesting to see that after all these years it still has the old passenger doors with the external carriage/roller mechanism and with the door handles identical to the pilots. Not sure why that was changed on production machines.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7284882

It did have the heavyweight landing gear (Goodrich) on it though, like the 189 gear. This is now available on the 139 as an (expensive) option.

I heard the new tailboom will be standard for all new 139's so I don't think it will just be for a possible 7k machine. Mind you I've also hear talk of a new fuselage as well to improve upon the "Enhanced" Long Nose fuselage.

We shall see.....

Tottigol, speaking of the 7.5k EC175, why aren't they delivering any if it has been certified for so long?

[spinwing]

Mmmm ...

Rumours have been about for some time on what has been called the Mk2 139 ...

... those rumours also mentioned a different engine fit as well (CT7s anyone ?) and avionics ... :ok:


Time will tell .... :E

[turboshaft]

those rumours also mentioned a different engine fit as well (CT7s anyone ?)
J'avais entendu une rumeur différente.

[HLCPTR]

Funny thing about rumors..... They keep changing.

It depends on who's talking.

And on who's listening.

;)

[tottigol]

Turboshaft, Je t'entende très bien.

Nooby, because the EC175 is a POS.

[trashie]

John Eacott,

The Queensland Government AW 139s are now rated at 6800kg following a software up grade and minor changes to the tail rotor. However, the additional 400 kgs comes at a cost to the maintenance hours when it is flown above 6400 hours.

[detgnome]

There were mutterings from the instructional staff at Sesto earlier this year about a mk2 139 with the increased AUM (as above) as well as the ability to run one of the engines as an APU (Wessex/Sea King actuated freewheel anyone?). I had also heard that to provide commonality across the 169/139/189 that the avionics would all begin to look like the 189, perhaps with the hope that changes between the types would only require a differences course rather than an entire TR.

[spinwing]

Mmmmm .....

'Twud appear the sarcastic dig after my post (#1673) has been removed ...

much appreciated ...


Thank you detgnome ... we must have been listening to the same rumour monger ... :=

;)

[Outwest]

Anyone have an opinion on why there is a 10 sec limit on light up during the start?

[belly tank]

Anyone have an opinion on why there is a 10 sec limit on light up during the start?

Hi Outwest.

I was only type rated a few months ago so i stand to be corrected. Im thinking that its a limit with the supply of fuel from the EEC combined with the FMM. Im just scouting my ground school notes but nothing specific at the moment. Ill do some more research.

Our brief is for first eng start.

"Start the clock, check for start legends and light off within 10 seconds & ITT does not exceed 869, Rotors turning by 40% and start disengaged by 49%, any questions or additions"

[Bravo73]

Our brief is for first eng start.

"Start the clock, check for start legends and light off within 10 seconds & ITT does not exceed 869, Rotors turning by 40% and start disengaged by 49%, any questions or additions"

Interesting. That is all standard stuff. Do you repeat it for every first engine start?

[Non-PC Plod]

I think its because if it hasn't started within 10 secs, you may be accumulating unburnt fuel in the engine, with the possibility that If it does subsequently start, it will be a hot one

[Outwest]

ok, well I was told by one of the ground instructors ( maintenance not flight) in Sesto it was because the ignitors only operate for 10 secs. I can find nothing in writing to this effect.

It sure seems odd that as a group we all seem to just go along with a limit stated in the RFM and no one questioned why......

[noooby]

Ignition keeps operating until the EEC senses NG of 50% +/- 1%. Not on time.

Edit: Actually that is only true for Auto Mode. Manual is NG 49% +/- 1%.

[Outwest]

Ignition keeps operating until the EEC senses NG of 50% +/- 1%. Not on time.

Edit: Actually that is only true for Auto Mode. Manual is NG 49% +/- 1%.

That's what everyone assumes, but where is that written?

[noooby]

AW139 EASA b1.3 Training Manual. I'll have a look in the pilot ground school notes later.

Have a look at the MFD next time you start. IGN and START captions will go out together at 50% in Auto (commanded by EEC) or 49% in Manual (Commanded by GCU).

[Bravo73]

That's what everyone assumes, but where is that written?


That's not an assumption. That is part of a standard start. Like nooby says, the starter and igniter captions should go out at 49%.

[Outwest]

I agree that the captions are there, but that is no guarantee that the ignitors are firing.

Noooby, thanks very much for the reference, that was what I was looking for.

In that same manual, does it say why the 10 sec limit is quoted in the RFM? If I recall from my 212 days there is a certain amount of fuel pressure from the high pressure pump that is required to open the flow divider, so I'm thinking that AW/Pratt is saying that if by the time you reach 10 secs without light up then the flow divider has not opened.

Am I on the right track? I don't go along with the too much fuel in the can theory, if that was the case selecting the mode switch to off at that critical moment just as it lights would be a sure fire ( pun intended) way to an exhaust fire or hot start.

Cheers

[Hilife]

In my experience, Non-PC Plod has hit the nail on the head, as it should be assumed that as a result of the failure of the engine to light-up, un-burnt fuel may have collected in the combustion chamber and gas generator case, thereby increasing the risk of a hot start during any subsequent start attempts.

Following an aborted engine start the RFM calls for a dry motoring run, post a drain period, before attempting another start does it not?

DRY MOTORING PROCEDURE
Following an aborted start shutdown, perform the following procedure allowing a 30 seconds fuel drain period before restarting. The procedure is used to clear internally trapped fuel and vapor:

[Outwest]

I'm afraid you are mixing apple and oranges there.....I'm not talking about an aborted start and subsequent restart. That same procedure is in place whether you abort the start after 5 secs or 25 secs.....

I'm wondering why the 10 sec limit on light up, which is right there in the RFM along with blades not turning, etc.....

I'm still thinking that they are assuming that if it has not lit by then the flow divider has not and will not open so it will not get any fuel.......just looking for where that is written ( or not) not looking for opinions, looking for proof just as noooby gave me on the ignitors.

[noooby]

Outwest, you might be better off asking Pratt, than asking Agusta.

The Ignition caption does mean that the igniters are being told to fire. That is part of the logic through the EEC. If there is no Ignition caption, then the message has not been sent to the igniters to fire. It isn't just a message, that appears between certain RPM's, it is part of the circuit to the igniters.

I've looked throught he QRH and the Type Rating Ground School, but can't find any reason there. You'd need to talk to a Flight Instructor at Agusta, or to Pratt.

And while the box or both igniters may have failed (very unlikely), they are checked at scheduled intervals by the mechanics.

[Outwest]

I suppose that Pratt might have the answer, but it is an AW RFM and I would hope they would know why they have it in there ;)

Anyway, thanks for your input :ok:

[Swinging Spanner]

I would not of thought that you abort a start based on 'no fuel' scenario...especially when there is starter limitations way above this limit which would permit you to continue motoring.
In any case I recently spoke with a good friend of mine who is a PWC Tech Rep and he stated the 10 second limit is for the exact opposite...if you have more than 10 seconds worth of fuel in the engine before light-off than expect a hot start. Another words the limitation is there to prevent hot starts.
Unfortunately I don't have any reference for this and would not recommend to test the theory! :}

SS

[Outwest]

Well not to take away from a P&W tech rep but that is simply not true. Fuel is not being dumped into the can from the very first selection of idle on the mode switch.So there is not 10 secs worth of fuel.

I again go back to my 212 days. If memory serves passing thru 10% ( maybe it was 12) Ng, we rolled the throttles on and waited for light up. I remember flying with a pilot one time who set the throttles to idle and then hit the starter. I was shocked and assumed that we would get a hot start. Nothing out of the ordinary happened, as the Ng went thru about 12% the light up was normal.

So again, I go back to the flow divider and the pressure required to open it.

Geoff.....where are you on this?

[Hilife]

It doesn’t matter that its 10 seconds, 8 seconds or 6 seconds worth, it’s the build-up of un-burnt fuel without ignition that is the cause for concern.

Fine detail aside, initial Ng acceleration results in a rise in metered HP fuel to the flow divider, which when unseated, schedules metered fuel to the primary and secondary fuel nozzle manifolds (as a function of primary manifold pressure) via separate spring loaded valve ports.

As the twin igniters are positioned adjacent to Primary and not Secondary nozzles, and that the Secondary nozzle valve port opens at a higher pressure than for Primary nozzles, were the Secondary valve to open before the Primary, increased fuel flow would enter the combustion chamber away from the igniters, thereby increasing the likelihood of a hot start, which would explains why many engine types have this 10 second limitation for indication of a light-up.

Both valves ports should be open with all nozzles flowing by around 35% Ng, and as I recall, close to idle speed is achievable with just min fuel flow (i.e. before compressor discharge air influences P3 bellow/fuel valve positioning).

Noting your 212 days, there is no HP fuel flow without Ng rotation, so initially no fuel pressure to open up and surge through the flow divider. Additional metered fuel flow in excess of min fuel flow settings is a function of P3, and as P3 is directly proportional to Ng speed, setting the condition levers to idle or even flight before engine start will not result in a hot start, as there is no input reference to increase fuel flow to the flow divider much before idle speed is obtained. (PPRuNer’s - Please do not try and disprove this theory at home ;)).

[Outwest]

That all makes sense.....thanks.

[laurenson]

http://www.agustawestland.com/-/aw1234?bcsi-ac-fa132d60c34d8dfd=240659CE000002046JAssTU8s0Ivcqdjcxj23NntUtw vAAAABAIAAOHSCgBAOAAAAAAAAKE1AAA=


New AW139 at 7 tonnes, where will it stop :confused: ??

[Ian Corrigible]

Lost in last week's tsunami of industry news:

Former AH175 client Héli-Union the launch customer of 7-ton AW139 (http://www.journal-aviation.com/actualites/29110-heli-union-sera-client-de-lancement-de-la-nouvelle-version-lourde-de-l-aw139-d-agustawestland)

I/C

[noooby]

I/C, what do you mean by Former 175 client? Are they getting rid of their 175's? I translated the news item and it doesn't mention the 175 anywhere.

[Ian Corrigible]

noooby,

Didn't want to quote HELiDATA (http://www.aviapress.co.uk/hdn.htm) too much – it's a great resource, and deserves subscribing to – but in short it reports that Héli-Union "has deferred 'indefinitely' its order for the H175," with ten 7-ton MGW AW139s ordered.

I/C

[repvolo]

another question for AW139 operators....
The QRH provided with the helicopter does not have the checks for the optional equipment.
As any optional equipment has dedicated checks, does anyone of you made a proper check list including all checks for all the equipment?
For example we have hoist..hook...emergency floats...flir....trakkabeam....but as they are not mentioned in the checks, some pilots check them only where they are supposed to use them during the flight, looking directly to the RFM, not in every flight.
What do you do?

[malabo]

Custom NCL to match operation, location, equipment. QRH for ECL and everything else. QRH on board is required for single-pilot, but works fine multi-crew as well.

[tottigol]

RepVolo...
As a professional pilot you are expected to check your equipment, especially your mission critical equipment during your preflight inspection at the beginning of your shift, not just before use.
You can add those checks to those listed as pre-flight or "hangar" checks, since they are best done with an EPU connected to the helicopter.
PM me for additional guidance.

[TunaSandwich]

I have a couple of questions about CAT A procedures for the AW139. For reference I am looking at RFM
Supplement 12 Cat A operations,
Supplement 50 6800kg and
Supplement 68 Phase 5 additional functions.

According to supplement 12
"For a Ground Level or Elevated Heliport/Helideck, without obstacles in the
take off flight path, the Vertical procedure with TDP fixed at 35ft can be used."

Nowhere does it say anything about a 20ft TDP option for the Elevated Helideck portion in supp 12. However in supplement 68 it talks about the CAT A takeoff symbology for ELEV HELIPAD which gives a 20ft TDP as default. It would be easy to assume that this option is for the Offshore Helideck Procedure, which uses a 20ft TDP, but the procedure for that in Supp 12 clearly states that a variable PI target should be used taken from the graph given. Therefore the symbology cannot be used as this gives a flat hover PI plus 23% at all hover PI's.

The caution below in supplement 68 comes with no reference and I was wondering if anyone knows more details for its meaning if there is no profile given for a 20ft TDP (except the offshore helideck)

Take-Off Symbology - Vertical Profile

The Take-Off profiles indicated on the PFD are to be used with the fol-lowing Supplement 12 CAT A Operation PARTs:

— HELIPAD - PART A - Ground Level and Elevated Heli-port/Helideck Vertical Take Off Procedure

— SHORT FIELD - PART B - Shortf Field Take Off Procedures

— ELEV HELIPAD - PART A - Ground Level and Elevated Heli port/Helideck Vertical Take Off Procedure

— BKUP HELIPAD - PART C Ground Level and Elevated Heliport/ Helideck Back-Up Procedure

When on the ground after selection of any vertical Take-Off profile the TDP height magenta bug is presented on the Rad Alt tape at the default value of 35 ft (85 ft for BKUP HELIPAD). This value should be modified, as required, for the profile being carried out using the DH rotary knob.

CAUTION

The ELEV HELIPAD displays a default TDP value of 20 ft which is lower than the PART A - Ground Level and Elevated Heliport/ Helideck Vertical Take Off Procedure TDP minimum so requires adjustment.


I'd like to know if anyone knows the correct use for the ELEV HELIPAD 20ft TDP symbology. It would be logical to me to say that it is intended for the Ground Level or Elevated Heliport/Helideck procedure when the elevation of the Heliport/Helideck is at least 15ft above the ground. But this is not mentioned in the RFM as far as I can see.

Thanks for your help.
http://www.pprune.org/images/statusicon/user_online.gif http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=9257500) http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/edit.gif (http://www.pprune.org/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=9257500)

[Geoffersincornwall]

Would appreciate some feedback from 139 operators on how often you conduct PA checks. Perhaps you could also indicate if you operate using Cat A profiles.

Thanks

G.

[spinwing]

Mmmm ..

Geoff ...

The company (based in Dubai) I used to work for operated to CatA/Perf1 procedures/profiles ... we used to do a 'Power Assurance Check' on the first start of the a/c every day without fail.

:E

[Whirling Wizardry]

PAC done daily before first flight. CAT A & B flown dependent upon weather conditions (e.g.20kt crosswind). Default would be CAT A. Operating at/near MAUM on each flight. Offshore flying. Some of the other operators complete their PAC on return from their first flight (no pax on board).

[Geoffersincornwall]

... are there any 139 operators out there that don't bother with the PA check?

Would it be more practical to have tabulated data rather than the current graphic style?

G.

[noooby]

If by Tabulated, you mean a data table that says if you have this temp day at this PA and your Ng is X and ITT is Y then you are good, then that has been done already.

CHC (some of the bases anyway) use a table that assumes TQ at 90% for PA check and for given OAT's and PA's lists the maximum allowed Ng and ITT. If you're under the numbers you're good.

I think it is double sided. 100Nr on one side and 102Nr on the other.

There is also talk of (Finally!!!) getting the EPA button on HUMS to work, or to have another solution that will allow checks to be done in flight.

[Geoffersincornwall]

Thanks for that. I was suggesting that tabulated data in the QRH may be a lot more practical than an almost impossible to read graph. Home-made tables are, however, problematic unless they are NAA or OEM approved and are in a controlled document.

G.

[Arcal76]

We do fly Cat A every day and use 102% for take-off and landing.
We do a power check every 25 hours because the limitations section requires to do a power check every 50 hours.

The limitation section is the law.

The Cat B take-off also call for a power check??? which is a non sense since you are Cat B.

The idea is to follow the trend and the change is very gradual and slow.

If we get close to the limit, a compressor wash resolve the problem generally.

If you want do a daily power check, you are better to do it before the first flight, what is the point to do it at the end of the day.

[Outwest]

what is the point to do it at the end of the day.

So you know it is good to go for the first flight the next morning?;)

[SFIM]

Shot in the dark I know, I wondered please if anyone had (for reference / training only) the PAC tables for EAPS on and EAPS off, for altitudes up to 2000ft, using 90% TQ, 102Nr ??, as the chart is a pain to use IMO
PM me if you can help, regards

[Max Contingency]

I think that to find out the requirement for a power assurance check you need to start at the top:

Does your aviation authority, require you to operate PC1? If so then you must comply with the RFM requirement for CAT A operations including the limitation that "CAT A Ops are prohibited if your engines don't pass a power assurance" and the instruction in each individual take off profile to " Carry out daily power checks in accordance with ENGINE POWER CHECKS procedure in Part K Common Performance"

I think the inference is pretty clear that you should conduct your daily power assurance prior to operating CAT A that same day.

Having said that, I can see Outwest's point of view. Which power assurance is more valid out of these two:

1. You have the first flight in the morning and a power assurance was conducted after last flight the day before. Technically you can't use that power assurance for a CAT A take off even though the aircraft has not flown since and has probably also had a compressor wash.

2. You have the last flight of the day and a power assurance was conducted that morning. Since then the aircraft has flown 10 hours in a salt laden environment without a compressor wash. Technically you are good to go for a CAT A take off.

[tottigol]

Arcal, that's not what the RFM specifies when flying Cat A operations.

[Outwest]

I think the inference is pretty clear that you should conduct your daily power assurance prior to operating CAT A that same day.

What constitutes a "day"? Pretty sure it is defined as 24 hours. So if I do my PA at 18:00 and the next flight is at 06:00 the next morning is that not the same "day"?

[roscoe1]

I don't mean to hijack this thread but is there anyone out there who regularly uses the cargo hook on their 139 at weights that approach the hooks load limit of 4850 lbs.? I'm curious to know if there are any structural issues related to doing external load work with this helicopter. It was never really intended for this (witness the low weight limitation relative to what the ship can carry). Thanks for any input.

[Max Contingency]

I have flown a few under flung toads in the 139. But I have never seen an aircraft with a decent fuel load that had a disposable anywhere near 2200KG (4850lb).

[Apate]

What constitutes a "day"? Pretty sure it is defined as 24 hours.

I can't speak for FAA land, or indeed your operation. However all references to "Day" I can find in our Ops Manual and MEL state that a day is a "24 hour period commencing at midnight".

[tottigol]

We flew loads at around 3,100 lbs. Anything more than that and you would have to deal with the minimum weight for flight limitation.:zzz:

[Outwest]

a day is a "24 hour period commencing at midnight".

Ok, well even if that is the consensus, that means I could do a PAC at 00:30 and it would be valid for the flight at 23:00. Now if the regs said that a PAC is required immediately prior to the first flight of the day then it would mean that.

[NomadicMechanic]

Just coming back to the power assurance checks, I have been reading through the RFM Issue 2, Rev 15 (so my information may be outdated by subsequent revisions) and I have come to the following conclusions but would be more than happy to hear other opinions...

1. SECTION 2, PAGE 2-28 - Take off checks, Cat B take off, step 3 - power checks.
Carry out DAILY power checks in accordance with in-flight power checks procedure in Section 4.

2. SECTION 5, PART A, PAGE S12-A9 - Vertical take off procedure for Cat A ops, step 5 - power checks.
Carry out DAILY power checks in accordance with engine power checks procedure in Part K Common Performance.

3. SECTION 1, PAGE 1-23 - Power Margin Trend Monitoring.
Every 50 flight hours record engine power assurance check values for engine power margin trend monitoring purposes.

Now, from reading this information, my understanding is that for both Cat A and Cat B operations a DAILY power assurance check must be carried out (and passed) before flying and the 50 hour requirement is purely an interval to record figures at for engine trend monitoring purposes.

This is just what I conceive from reading the RFM so please tell me if I am way off the mark as sometimes the Augusta manuals can be a bit ambiguous with regards to their content.

[Geoffersincornwall]

Nomad - you are correct..... and it's Agusta by the way, not Augusta,..... except that now we are Finmeccanica.

I think the difference between Cat A & B in this respect is that if an engine failed the PA check then no Cat A ops are possible. If you can get agreement to operate cat B then in theory that would be possible provided the engine was not below a set margin.

G.

[NomadicMechanic]

Thanks Geoffers,

Noted on the Agusta name, the automatic spell check pulled a swifty on me and am also aware of the recent name change but I'm a bit sentimental and Agusta just rolls off the tongue better.

With this information in mind, does it mean that power assurance checks must therefore be carried out daily for Cat B operations as well?

Cheers

[Outwest]

Is there not a difference between these 2:

1. SECTION 2, PAGE 2-28 - Take off checks, Cat B take off, step 3 - power checks.
Carry out DAILY power checks in accordance with in-flight power checks procedure in Section 4.


2. SECTION 5, PART A, PAGE S12-A9 - Vertical take off procedure for Cat A ops, step 5 - power checks.
Carry out DAILY power checks in accordance with engine power checks procedure in Part K Common Performance.

[Geoffersincornwall]

You may be able to answer that better than me. My guess is that it is jurisdiction-dependent. The very nature of Cat B means that there are no performance guarantees but whilst it would be normal to have a minimum spec for Cat B as expressed in the PA charts at 100% some jurisdictions may turn a blind eye to Cat B operations with a below-spec engine. There are many places around the world where there are very few if any performance requirements and if the thing starts and runs then it's fit for purpose.

Of course if you were the LAE signing for it you may have a different view but then that would be a company decision.

Back in the days when the wood smoke in Borneo clogged up the CT58's in Brunei-Shell's S61's they were changing engines on a monthly basis but in the meantime, despite introducing hot washes they worked out a way of doing a PA check and then reducing the max take off weight depending on how far below spec the engines were. You can see where I am coming from I guess. In some parts of the world a flexible approach to PA checks and PASS/FAIL can be arranged.

OUTWEST - I don't believe that translates into a practical difference save that Cat A must be done before take off and Cat B can be in flight (hover). You can't (normally) do a PA check on a commercial flight with pax or cargo aboard so you would have to make a special flight if you didn't do it in the hover.
G

[Outwest]

You can't (normally) do a PA check on a commercial flight with pax or cargo aboard

Oops:O

We do that all the time, whenever a PAC is required before Cat A (PC 1) ops, we taxi out with the pax and stop on the taxiway and do the PAC.

I should add that for us normally we operate PC2 both off the runway and offshore so no daily PAC.

[NomadicMechanic]

Hi Outwest,

I think the difference between the two is that the Cat B check is done at 100% NR whereas the Cat A check is done at 102%.

I know a lot of operators carrying out Cat A complete the check daily before first flight but operators under Cat B only do it every 50 hours. My question, is by reading the procedures in the RFM, shouldn't the PAC also be carried out daily for Cat B operations? From what I understand the 50 hour requirement for recording of figures is purely a trend monitoring tool, however a daily PAC should still be carried out as a go/no-go item regardless of whether you are conducting Cat A or B operations.

Nomad

[NomadicMechanic]

Also, in relation to carrying out power assurance checks with pax onboard, it has been common practice at all offshore operations that I have worked on. The operator's tend to prefer doing the PAC at light on wheels rather than in the hover and the extra weight allows for this.

[Geoffersincornwall]

Outwest - There is an ICAO requirement NOT to deliberately operate OEI on pax or cargo flights. Maybe your jurisdiction ignores this requirement. With a full load and using a 90% Tq reference you probably would not get airborne but with just one pax and a strong wind you probably would.

Nomad - Like many aspects of Cat B - who cares? A lot of offshore ops are Cat B all the time (USA, Brazil and those areas that base their regulatory system along FAA lines)

As I said a lot depends on your jurisdiction and how they apply any rules they do have.

G

[Outwest]

The operator's tend to prefer doing the PAC at light on wheels rather than in the hover and the extra weight allows for this.

With a full load and using a 90% Tq reference you probably would not get airborne

Yes and Yes....so we never actually "fly" OEI

[Geoffersincornwall]

You would need to check local regs, I would be very surprised if what you are doing is legal in EASA-land.

G.

[bpaggi]

A lot of offshore ops are Cat B all the time (USA, Brazil and those areas that base their regulatory system along FAA lines)


This is not correct, offshore operations can only be carried out either Cat A or in violation to Cat B since if you do not operate Cat A you can only operate Cat B where H-V is a limitation (for more than 9 passenger seats configurations). But the H-V is only valid for operations over a prepared surface and not over oilrigs where there is no possibility to establish any H-V envelope.

[Geoffersincornwall]

So how come many offshore operations are using single engine helicopters? The reality of the offshore world is a million miles from the notion that CAT A OPS prevail. If your assertion is correct then we have a big problem in the North Sea where PC2 operations of one sort or another prevail. As you say, if it's not CAT A then it must be Cat B. In which case your HV argument makes all AW139 ops non compliant with the RFM and therefore illegal? What appears to make them legal is their approval by the NAA.

We have been over this ground before but I'll explain it again as you seem not to understand. To comply with all the Cat A requirements the pilot is required to predict, prior to departure from his base, that he can safely land in accordance with the three elements of a Cat A operations. The mass should be in accordance with the appropriate WAT curve, no problem. A Cat A profile should be used, again, that should be achievable but cannot be guaranteed if adjacent vessels or wind direction make the required approach track unachievable. The third requirement is the show stopper for the pilot must ensure that when he gets to the offshore destination he must be able to comply with the obstacles avoidance element. It was established years ago that this would be impossible because included in that requirement is the need to quantify the effects of turbulence from structures and turbine exhausts and other detrimental aspects such as flares and mobile structures that can invade the FATO at a moments notice. That is the reason for abandoning attempts to make PC1 offshore mandatory.

Two out of three does not, I suggest, create a legally water-tight case for asserting that all Cat A offshore Ops are, or indeed should be, CAT A compliant. We may wish it were so but that does not make it so.

The offshore world at large is more like a 'jungle' than a 'civilised society' and no matter what we wish the reality is that we cannot even police EASA-land effectively so we can be sure that less efficient jurisdictions are nothing like Cat A compliant.

G

[JimL]

Although it has been said many times before, the message has not yet been absorbed. There is a distinction between the Certification Standards of Category A and Category B and the Operating Standards of Performance Classes 1, 2 and 3.

The aircraft is Certificated in Category A or Category B (or both) which results in a helicopter with limitations and appropriate information contained in the relevant sections of the Flight Manual.

Operational regulations force compliance with (or in some cases provide alleviation from) the Limitations and, if they are present (as with EASA but not FAA), provide rules under which the performance information can be utilised in observing the operating rules.

Geoff, you need to rid yourself of the notion that operations can be conducted in Category A or Category B.

Operations can be conducted in Performance Class 1 utilising the procedures/profiles and limitation of Category A (as indicated in the ICAO/EASA definition of Category A).

Operations can be conducted in Performance Class 2 using the limiting Category A mass (which is, for larger helicopters, the same as the limiting Category B mass), and the Category A 'second segment' climb performance.

When operating in Performance Class 2 the HV Limitation can be observed by using the Category B take-off (or landing) profile/procedure (for which performance is assured by the Category B PAC). When operating in Performance Class 2 with exposure, the operator is alleviated from the HV Limitation in the basic regulation (see the HV thread to understand how that is done) but not the Category A mass or the 'second segment' climb performance. Additional requirements might also apply to these operations.

Operating in Aerial Work (utility) requires compliance with the Flight Manual Limitations but, unless otherwise specified, does not require compliance with Performance Criteria. An aircraft with more than nine passenger seats (usually interpreted to be more than nine passengers) cannot be utilised for Aerial Work (utility). Perhaps you are incorrectly understanding these type of operations as Category B; however, that is not correct because when applying the procedures/profiles of Category B the HV Limitation has to be observed (which you will agree is not what you are intending).

Jim

[Geoffersincornwall]

Sorry Jim I forgot to make that clear. I was trying not to get too complicated for PBAGGI whose sole focus seems to be on those two certification classes which of course he is perfectly entitled to do as that's his area of expertise. To assert that nobody can operate other than i.a.w. Cat A was the reason I picked up my pen. As an operator with some experience of operations in other continents I wanted to correct this error.

We have been over the PC1 PC2 and Cat A/B business many times so I don't want to get into that argument but wish merely to convey the reality of offshore operations which some imagine are constrained by performance considerations alone. We wouldn't have much customer satisfaction if that were the case. You can assert that it shouldn't be that way and one day maybe it won't be that way but for the time being it is what it is - the wild west of helicopter ops.

To give you an idea of how far we have come I came across my old S61 notebook from the mid 70's in the North Sea. The section of my notes devoted to current Special Flying Staff Instructions contained details of one entitled 'Backing On To Rigs At Night'. We were instructed (Bristows by the way) not to do this any more but confine such activities to daylight only.

G.

[bpaggi]

Geoffersincornwall what I just wanted to make clear is something that YOU seem not to understand and that is the certification frame, i.e. what is legal in accordance with the RFM and what is not.
As JimL clearly explained, operations can (some times) relieve fro the RFM limitations and this what actually allowed offshore operations (otherwise not possible with helicopters with more than 9 passenger seats), none the less this does not mean that these operations are not violating the RFM limitations.
These operations can only be carried out (not in PC1 or PC2e) accepting some risks that come from the exposure time (PC2 with exposure).

[Geoffersincornwall]

I said, and you quoted me...

A lot of offshore ops are Cat B all the time (USA, Brazil and those areas that base their regulatory system along FAA lines)]

To which you replied...

This is not correct,

Which part of my statement are you saying is incorrect? You said that if an operation is not based on using Cat A protocols then it must be defined as an operation based on Cat B protocols (note my care in not associating the terms CAT A and Cat B with the word 'operating' - thanks Jim)

How can a single engine operation be anything other than Cat B?

Perhaps we are letting the thread title get in the way of my comments about the totality of the world of offshore helicopter operations. I have no doubt that in the context of the AW139 and EASA regulations you and Jim are both absolutely correct.

G

[JimL]

The binary notation of Certification (Category A or B) does not provide a rich enough vocabulary to describe operations - that is why the ICAO Heliops Panel devised the Performance Classes.

The Performance Classes adopted the purity of performance inherent ICAO Annex 6 Part I with engine failure accountability. This included, in the specification of PC 2 and 3, a requirement to perform a safe-forced-landing should an engine fail (exactly as in Annex 6 Part I): in the take-off and landing phases of PC2; and the whole flight envelope of PC3. At the time of provision of the Second Edition of Annex 6 Part III in July 1990, the performance classes were harmonised with the Certification Standards.

However, life is never than simple and by 1998, the ICAO Standards produced by the Heliops Panel, with respect to performance, were beginning to be seen as ‘somewhat aspirational’ and based upon a projection of the development of helicopters that had not (and might not) come to fruition (the same projections had been used by the FAA in NPRM 80-25). As JAR-OPS was the first attempt at providing a regulation in compliance with ICAO, it was the JAA States which established that projections made by the Heliops Panel were not being (and were unlikely, in the near future, to be) realised and adjustments became necessary (the introduction of risk assessed exposure).

The concept of ‘defined’ exposure was formulated by the JAA, risk assessed, presented at Board level, and published for general comment. Following acceptance by the members of the JAA, the necessary changes were made to JAR-OPS; ICAO was informed of the resulting differences and a proposal was put to the ANC for a revision to Annex 6 Part III - to bring States back into compliance. In 2002, the ICAO HTSG was formed and tasked with this revision.

The net effect of these changes were to separate Operational from Certification Standards. The risk assessed procedures used in offshore (and operations with exposure onshore) when operating outside PC 1, no longer fitted into the neat categorisation of A and B. However, as Dino has pointed out, this required operational regulations to derogate from the HV Limitation - applicable to helicopters with more than nine seats.

The point of this is that a helicopter with more than nine seats and operating with exposure, is neither operating in accordance with the procedures/profiles of Category A nor Category B. However in Europe, they are operating quite legally within the requirements of EASA Part CAT.

Where there may be an issue is in another jurisdiction where the helicopter with more than nine seats is Certificated in Category A - in accordance with Part 29 - and operating offshore (or onshore with exposure) but where the State has not made adequate provisions in its regulations for such operations.

Jim

[Geoffersincornwall]

Thank you Lord Jim, (LJim - :-)) conveyor of light and understanding. So the OEM has one view of the world as how it should be and we numpties have been doing the job through thick and thin and getting the oilies to their workplace regardless whilst the regulators sit in South America, Africa and Asia look on with with what to some seems to be bemused confusion.

G.

[bpaggi]

For sure the OEMs have teir own view of the world (not necessarily shared by all the OEMs) but they also have to certify their products in accordance with the certification rules and we do it also taking into account as much as we can the operational world.

[roscoe1]

Max C, thanks for the response. I've done a bit of homework and am aware of the potential for bumping up against the max GW of the aircraft with a couple of people, less than half fuel and a 4000# plus load on the hook. Were you using just the belly hook or did this involve long line? How did you find the video camera to work with? Did you or would you have done the job solo? Please, anyone else with external load experience with the 139 your input would be appreciated. I may get "guided" into doing this and I'd like to know what the experience has to say. The market doesn't seem to have chosen this as a utility ship and I believe I understand why this may be so but input from others is appreciated. Thanks.

[Geoffersincornwall]

The OEM's awareness of the operating environment will be tested by the quality of the FCOM produced for each type. Airbus's attempt at an H225 Flight Crew Operating Manual wasn't greeted with universal applause I believe. The FCOM is a great opportunity for the OEM to show the industry how to get the very best out of their products. I know the team working on the AW139 FCOM are determined to do just that and if they are given the necessary resources then I am sure they will come up with the goods.

One reason for the AW139's tremendous success is that it is so powerful that it just soaks up the kind of everyday abuse (in terms of mass limits) that operators around the world subject their helicopters to. The old arguments about reducing mass to Cat A levels have all but disappeared when this machine is on the job.

G.

[[email protected]]

Yes, thanks Jim - that latest lesson helped put all the other detail into perspective and understand the background to the performance classifications:ok:

[Max Contingency]

Hi Roscoe

I was an external loads (Hoist and Cargo Hook) check airman for one of the large operators. In general the cargo hook assembly is functional but watch out for the following:

1. Where the checklist directs you to test the cargo release pushbuttons (P1,P2 and cabin if fitted), this does NOT include the cargo release emergency pushbutton on the centre console. Very loud and embarrassing mistake that you only do once.

2. The cargo hook load indicator is a bit like the 'Pirates Code' in that its 'more what you'd call guidelines than actual rules'. Probably accurate +/-15 %.

3. 90 Kts Vmax for all loads is painfully slow to a 139 operator and requires some old fashioned fuel planning in strong winds.

The cameras are excellent, particularly if you have the centre screen fitted. Do check they are installed correctly by placing a piece of paper with forward, back, left, right arrows into the field of view as I have seen several incorrectly installed ones. They offer great views of the hook and the load and allow very accurate load positioning.

I have never flown a load sortie single pilot but I have put loads onto elevated platforms and scooped water on instructional sorties (which are effectively single pilot).

[roscoe1]

Max C.,
Once again, thanks for your input. When you are most familiar with the Type II (Huey) utility world, 90 knots is screaming right along. That's also why I asked about the single pilot config. How do you think the helicopter would stand up to use as a fire ship that is not using a water tank (bucket only with a possible 530 gallon bucket and less than 2 hrs of fuel). (I know as you pointed out that GW would be an issue). Carrying helitack crews (more gear than oil rig workers, chain saws etc.) and day in day out use as a bucket carrying water truck, landing off airport more often than not. I know a couple of major cities use them with tanks but they don't use snorkles and normally only use them by ground filling from trucks or hydrandts on hard paved surfaces (streets). I know of the ground clearance issues so no need to dwell on that. If there is anyone else besides Mr. Contingency who has any thought on this, your input is appreciated. Not just pilots, any engineers have opinions? Thanks in advance.

[noooby]

roscoe1, are you sure nobody is using snorkels, because the latest tanks come with them. You are restricted to 140 knots with the snorkel though. 150 without snorkel with belly tank.

Goodrich landing gear is an option on the 139 and increases the ground clearance by a good 6-9 inches. Bigger mainwheels too, so soft ground operations are better. Extra ground clearance is nice to have with the belly tank installed!

Simplex Aerospace Fire Attack helicopter belly tank model 326 for the AgustaWestland AW139 brochure and pictures (http://www.simplex.aero/fire-attack/agustawestland-aw139/)

[KiwiNedNZ]

One I shot not long ago when in Alaska.

http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh627/HeliOpsMag/Main%20HeliOps%20Album/ERA%20AK%20%2005757_zpsgc5odlku.jpg (http://s1255.photobucket.com/user/HeliOpsMag/media/Main%20HeliOps%20Album/ERA%20AK%20%2005757_zpsgc5odlku.jpg.html)

[roscoe1]

Thanks Noooby and nice photo KiwiNed. I didn't mean to imply that snorkels aren't used but both Tokyo and LA City usually do ground fill with their tanks. I am aware of the 189 extended height gear. Mostly I am curious about long term, frequent external load work and how the helicopter might hold up. The helicopter wasn't designed as an external load machine. That much is obvious from the hook weight limitation. It seems well suited for offshore, SAR, EMS or VIP. I didn't know if anyone was deep into using it for a strictly utility ship with the emphasis on external load and off-airport landing.

[helopat]

Hey all,

Has anyone experienced the following?

When powering up, we are seeing a PFD and MFD indication "TCAS FAIL".

When we conduct the TCAS test (through the XPDR page of the MCDU) we get the following indications: PASS in the upper left of the XPDR page, during the test ADS-B indicates OFF, the PFD/MFD TCAS FAIL indications remain, we DON'T get the TCAS symbology on the MAP page (as we should), and we DON'T get the aural warning "TCAS system test, OK).

The aircraft is a long nose with Phase 7 software. We have TCAS II. We've checked antenna connections but there isn't really much else in the maintenance documents (from our engineer) regarding troubleshooting. Any suggestions?

Thanks

[CAR42ZE]

Just to confirm (and ignoring the self test procedure for a second) - you've got no errors shown on the maintenance page?

[ECE]

Get the Engineers to check the CMC for any fault codes, try reloading the software, if no change, open up the forward section of the baggage bay floor and get the guys to look at the TCAS box under there ( I can not remember its name). Depending on which one is fitted there might be a LCD display on it, they need to watch what is displayed on it it maybe failing its BITE check and that will show up on the display. If it is failing you'll need a new box.

In earlier models pre phase 7 there was a way to do a TCAS confirmation check, however post phase 7 and the installation of the newer box this is no longer a option and the only choice is replacing it. Obviously check the connectors on it first.

[Outwest]

I have had a lot of weird things happen that turned out to be WOW switch related.....