Agusta AW139

[tottigol]

Helopat, when you do the TEST your XPDR is ON, right?

[helopat]

CAR42ZE - There aren't any messages in the maintenance page relating to this fault

TOTTIGOL - When we did the test in our older, short nose machines, we had to have the XPDR on for the test...that's not the case with our current aircraft...normally tests fine with the XPDR in SBY

Believe it or not, about 30 min into a flight last night, the bloody thing came good. Subsequent tests on ground produced the correct results...go figure.

[904]

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???

Hi!
Have you figured it out or have became any good answer in regard to your question? We also have the same experience.


thanks

[tottigol]

904, in Perf Init menu on page 1 below the Aircraft Database information there is a line that says:
CURRENT GS/FF, that means that the current value (whichever may it be) is what the FMS uses to calculate the GS/FF for all the other legs of the FLT PLN.
If you want to change that for each leg you would need to use the alternate PILOT SPD/FF in the computations.
Please feel free to PM me.

[TeeS]

Hi Tottigol and 904

Does the 139 use Garmin systems? I only ask because our 135s started arriving with Garmin 430 which do the same. I was dumfounded that a modern navigation unit would work this way since RNAV 2 and I think even RNAV 1 units that I worked with in the past could calculate fuel at each waypoint.

Cheers

TeeS

[tottigol]

No Garmin, Honeywell Primus EPIC vs 1 mod 0.

[rainbrave]

Hi everyone. I'm a little confused with empty weight and basic aircraft configuration. Could you please share with me the empty weight of your AW139 in different configuration excluding optional equipment?
Thank you :D

[maeroda]

Hello Rainbrave,

According to my experience, a short nose (around s.n. 31050) AW139 Hems equipped (summer kit: external hoist, stretcher and 5 std pax seats, no removables) has a mass of 4487Kg BW.
A short nose Aw139 Offshore equipped (aux tank 400kg, flotation, 12 std pax seats, CPI, no removables) has a mass of 4468Kg BW.
Finally a long nose (around 31500) AW139 VVIP equipped (de luxe interiors, hinged doors, A/C, no removables) can have a mass up to 4805Kg BW.

Happy?
Cheers
Maeroda

[Apate]

I don't own any AW139s :E

[maeroda]

Good catch Apate....I'm sure you would apologize my simplified English. ;-)

[Apate]

Of course :ok:

[rainbrave]

Hello Maeroda,

These details are welcome. Thank you so much..

[myassisgrass]

Removal or Partial Removal of AW139 FIPS

Can anyone help with subject?

[maeroda]

What is the question?

[edetroit]

May I ask a technical question about the AW139 here?. At what altitude does the tape rad alt disappear from the PFD to be replaced by a digital rad alt readout and then at what altitude does the digital rad alt disappear please?

regards

Ed

[Harry the Hun]

Tape from 0 to 500 feet,
Digital up to 2500 feet.

[edetroit]

Digital up to 2500 feet may be correct but I do not think the tape up to 500 is. Just seen a photo of the real thing flying with the rad alt at 600 ft with tape still showing.

I'm thinking rad tape up to 1000 or 1500ft.

[Nescafe]

From the phase 7 notes

Tape in view <1100' and removed >1100'
Digital readout <2500' and >1100', removed >2500'

[edetroit]

Thank you very much Nescafe!

Have a lovely evening.

[Geoffersincornwall]

For those that are unaware I run a blog at Sim Trainer ? Sim Trainer (http://www.simtrainer.co.uk) where you can read some interesting stuff and air your views about them if you feel the need. Drop by and have your say.

G. :ok:

[5kyd1v3r]

I'll be glad to help

[5kyd1v3r]

For myassisgrass

[Pontius Pirate]

Anyone out there fly with the TQ Limiter on all the time? Please don't say "Yes, because I don't want to bust any Limits!"...heard that one and nearly spat my cornflakes out ffs!

[Mark Six]

It is standard procedure with at least one EMS operator in Australia to fly with torque limiter on. No doubt all the "experts" will now tell me why they shouldn't.

[HLCPTR]

What I would like to hear is why they believe they should fly with it ON.

[dangermouse]

Well if the Tq limiter is for AEO ops, why not? it will be there to prevent pilots abusing the operational ratings and subsequent maintenance/lifing issues, I assume that in an OEI condition it is not there and at some point AEO with rotor drooped against the limiter it also disappears to give you all the power you need after you have got yourself into a position you shouldn't have.

DM

[BaronG]

I'm curious exactly what criteria causes the TQ Limiter to auto-disengage? Is it really just an NR trigger? I haven't found anywhere that clearly says what causes it to disengage.

I don't have the RFM to hand at the moment, but I think the training text just says it will disengage if an actual engine failure is detected.

So the scenario I'm imagining is an engine run down or reduced power output (but not full flame out) shortly after TDP. If the TQ limiter doesn't drop out, it could be a bad moment to limit the power available from the remaining engine.

BG.

[Nescafe]

Well if the Tq limiter is for AEO ops, why not?

Because you might need to pull through the flight manual limits in hurry!Imagine a poorly executed MAUW rig departure on a hot day with no wind-I'd rather over torque than get wet feet.

I'm curious exactly what criteria causes the TQ Limiter to auto-disengage

OEI will disengage the Tq limiter, but the exact point of disengagement-not sure.

[Non-PC Plod]

Dangermouse,

It doesn't disengage if you are AEO. The Nr just keeps on drooping.
The Tq limiter is designed for use when OEI training. If you screw up and droop the Nr too low, the OEI training switch kicks back automatically to the centre, and bang! you have full power very quickly. Without the torque limiter, you could put huge stresses into the gearbox.
I can't imagine why you would want Tq limiter other than for OEI training, but I am aware that some people do use it as a routine. Doh!

[griffothefog]

Dangermouse,

It doesn't disengage if you are AEO. The Nr just keeps on drooping.
The Tq limiter is designed for use when OEI training. If you screw up and droop the Nr too low, the OEI training switch kicks back automatically to the centre, and bang! you have full power very quickly. Without the torque limiter, you could put huge stresses into the gearbox.
I can't imagine why you would want Tq limiter other than for OEI training, but I am aware that some people do use it as a routine. Doh!
Used it hot n high for sling work (8-10,000) as the load weights given were a farce most of the time when the labourers just kept filling the nets... and filling.... and filling... oomph 😜

[dangermouse]

Ok, thanks for the clarification, I know on some designs the Tq limiter is active AEO but not OEI so will limit the power and thus droop the rotor to a point at which it has been decided that if you droop that much you really do need the power and then the Tq limiter disengages to give full available power (ie the scenario Nescafe suggested).

OEI training mode Tq limiter logic is completely different

DM

[HLCPTR]

The TQ Limiter logic is the same regardless of AEO or OEI.
It limits total Tq to 228% PI - Logically, that means 114%/114% max PI.
IF AEO, once you reach the 228 total, the Nr will droop since the EEC will not give more fuel to support Nf/Nr. TQ LIM does not "disengage".
If you go OEI, TQ LIM is still active but irrelevant. The good engine function still will give you your OEI limits.
Neither does it disengage if in OEI training. It is required in OEI training in the event of a condition (such as a real engine failure while in a low Nr condition) to prevent major engine/MGB overtorque while the EECs are pumping more fuel trying to recover the low Nr.
What does happen in OEI training is that OEI TRNG will automatically disengage under certain conditions, such as a real engine failure or a low Nr condition (<87%). The TQ LIM will still be engaged and prevent a potential overtorque until the pilot deselects it manually

[Pontius Pirate]

So basically few operators have SOPs that require TQ Limiter ON while performing daily flying duties?

I for one don't use it, if I fly correctly I'm unlikely to "bust" any limits during normal ops.

I would be interested in people's thoughts on an engine popping very short final to an offshore platform with TQ Limiter on?

Based on previous comments it sounds like having it ON would not be a factor and would therefore depend on pilot ability to hit the correct OEI profile...the aircraft performance would not be degraded as a result of TQ Limiter ON?

[HLCPTR]

I for one don't use it, if I fly correctly I'm unlikely to "bust" any limits during normal ops.
True. It seems to me that the only operators who fly with it ON all the time either don't fully understand this function or see it as protection from major overtorque. If you fly within the RFM limits, it serves no purpose.
Worst case scenario: pilot gets way behind the power curve and has to grab a big armful of collective to save the airframe. TQ LIM ON will limit the PI. Saves the MGB, but possibly not the airframe.

Based on previous comments it sounds like having it ON would not be a factor and would therefore depend on pilot ability to hit the correct OEI profile...the aircraft performance would not be degraded as a result of TQ Limiter ON?

That is correct. TQ LIM will not affect the good engine.
But again, it's only real purpose is for use during OEI training, not daily flying.

[tottigol]

Nescafe...OEI will disengage the Tq limiter, but the exact point of disengagement-not sure.
Where did you read that?

DM, BaronG and Nescafe, are y'all running a bull**** competition?

[Nescafe]

When the torque limiter function is engaged, a green TQ LIMITER ON will appear on the MFD. The All Engines Operating (AEO) total engine torque is limited to be the combined torque of TQ228% (114%/114%) when the torque limiter function is set to ON. The One Engine Inoperative (OEI) torque is not affected.

From my FSI Phase 7 notes. Maybe my initial phrasing was unclear, but as it was explained to me during ground class, if you lose an engine with the torque limiter on, the tq is not limited on the remaining engine!

[tottigol]

You said FSI, right?:ugh::rolleyes:

OEI shall not disengage the TQ Limiter, OEI shall disengage the OEI trainin' switch.
Like HLCPTR wrote, the TQ Limiter is necessary to allow functioning of the OEI training switch.
I strongly suggest you and your course buddies review the AW139 Section 5 RFM Supplement 12 section L :"Cat A OEI Training".

The OEI TQ shall not be limited BY THE TQ LIMITER, but it shall be limited by other functions to 160% OEI, 2.5 minutes plus a 10% 5 seconds transient, after which the rotor RPMs shall droop.
BTW, 140% OEI is all you are going to get with any collective mode engaged.

I stayed at the Holiday Inn Express last night.

[ODEN]

In the EGPWS manual it says there are several optional aural height calls.

smart 500, 200, 100, 50 etc

Looking for information if any operator has any other calls than the standard 150 call generated by the AWG.

Im not talking about the calls generated during autorotation but during normal operation.

Cheers

[Pilotmartymcfly]

My friends, I would like to know if anyone has the knowledge of this detail. In the AW139, with both motors running, the operating yellow range is up to 110% of torque. There is up to 121% transient for 5 seconds. In this case, if the pilot reaches, for example, 112% in a takeoff, but remains in that range for only 1 or 2 seconds and returns to the normal operating range, that is, below 110%, no overtorque event will be recorded?

And the second question is: Why the TQ is on 114% and not on the 110%, if the 110% is the maximum operation under the red line?

Hugs

[tottigol]

The TQ limiter is to be only used to allow the OEI training switch to function.
It is set at 114% to protect the aircraft from the pilots.
Also, the transient limit on AEO PI is NOT to be used intentionally.

[Pilotmartymcfly]

Tks tottigol.

The question is whether to reach the transient range unintentionally, whether there would be some kind of record or not.

Certainly pilots should not intentionally reach the 110% mark.

[spinwing]

Hmmmmm ....

The question is whether to reach the transient range unintentionally, whether there would be some kind of record or not.

EVERYTHING is recorded ... and can be recovered by the maintenance recording software ...

:E

[tottigol]

Nothing records intentions, however repeated applications of PI into the transient range can definitely be interpreted as INTENTIONAL.
Just for the "record", 110% is maximum T/O AEO PI and can be held for 5 minutes.
100% is max continuous.

[Pilotmartymcfly]

I think my question was not clear enough, because no one could answer exactly what I asked. The question would be whether a torque between the transient range of 110% and 121% would be interpreted as Overtorque and there would be a need to inspect the components, as in an overtorque event. Or only if it was registered in the CAS, it would be registered as an overtorque event. But thank you for the answers.

Edit: Tottigol, you got it. Thank you.

[HLCPTR]

All values (Ng, Tq, ITT, Nf, Nr) are recorded and can be downloaded from the CMC and the engine DCU. The maintenance manuals contain charts which show the relative severity of any exceedance and the resulting maintenance requirements based upon peak value and duration. As simple as "no maintenance required" to "send it back to P&W for overhaul".

[Mark Six]

The TQ limiter is to be only used to allow the OEI training switch to function.

Tottigol, would you like to reconsider your use of the word "only" in the above quote?

[tottigol]

Tottigol, would you like to reconsider your use of the word "only" in the above quote?

Why?
The use of the TQ limiter is associated with the use of the OEI training switch as reported in the pertinent supplement of the RFM.
Please quote for me and my failing memory where else is the TQ limiter required for use in the RFM.

[Mark Six]

It might be semantics but... you're right in that the TQ limiter MUST be used in association with the OEI training switch and that is the only situation it is REQUIRED by the RFM, but to say or imply that is the ONLY time it can be used (as you did) is misleading. For example it is often used for offshore takeoffs when the required CAT A power is 110% TQ in order to prevent the pilot accidentally pulling past 114% through to 121% and bleeding NR. At least one major EMS/SAR operator requires TQ limiter to be switched on for all operations (it's in their before T/O checks).

[Non-PC Plod]

It is not forbidden to use it in that way, but it is not recommended. (See the FCOM). If you have Tq limiter selected, it means you cannot use the extra power if you suddenly need it (maybe heavy helo & sudden downdraught etc).
Any competent crew should be able to avoid pulling over 114% on a normal takeoff!!!

[Mark Six]

It is not forbidden to use it in that way, but it is not recommended. (See the FCOM). If you have Tq limiter selected, it means you cannot use the extra power if you suddenly need it (maybe heavy helo & sudden downdraught etc).
Any competent crew should be able to avoid pulling over 114% on a normal takeoff!!!

I'm not going to get into a discussion about whether you should or should not use it. I'm well aware of the pros and cons.
"Competent crews" do a lot of things they should be able to avoid. Just look at some of the recent discussions on this forum.

[tottigol]

Mark Six, as a fully licesed pilot (I hope), and independently thinking individual you are free to use the TQ limiter whenever you choose to, even to go take a pot.
It's not forbidden, just like it's not forbidden to play Russian Roulette with a snub 38 pointed to your head even though it's not smart nor healthy.
The RFM clearly states its intended use in conjunction with the OEI training switch.
If the manufacturer had other intended uses in mind, then it would have been stated elsewhere in the RFM or even the "FCOM".
I hope this fully clarify when to use the TQ limiter for you, besides the last 60 posts in this thread.

[Mark Six]

Thank you for your patronising reply tottigol. As I said I'm not getting into a discussion as to whether you should or should not fly with the TQ limiter on. You've made your opinion clear, and it is just that - your opinion.
Your statement that "The TQ limiter is to be only used to allow the OEI training switch to function," is blatantly wrong and merely reflects your personal preferred usage. I merely corrected your assertion without giving my own opinion.

[Pilotmartymcfly]

In some offshore takeoff situations, especially if the aircraft is equipped with the 6,800 kg kit, it is necessary to use a target of 110%. When setting the take-off using the CAT A button, the marking is already on 110%.

My questioning is precisely because if you really need to use the 110%, often the sensitivity of the collective does not allow you to stay exactly at 110%, the PI ends up reaching fractions of seconds 111% or up to 112% during The "fine tuning" of the takeoff. Of course this is not done intentionally.

I believe that if there is a torque limiter at 114% rather than at 110%, then there must be a relatively safe transient range between 110% and 114%(Even because the Manual says transient up to 121%), which obviously should not be used intentionally.

Thank you colleagues for the very enriching debate.

[tottigol]

MartyMcFly, none of the CAT A Profiles in the CatA button is representative of the Cat A OffShore Helideck profile power application curve.
If you use the profiles in the Cat A button on the collective you may be misled, since the aircraft won't show you a PI target higher than the Max T/O PI.

[Pilotmartymcfly]

Tottigol, tks for reply.

But there is in the CAT A configuration of the collective the parameter for Offshore helideck procedure and even it places the torque application limit bar (PI) on the left sidebar of the PFD, apparently in the right position(depending of the wheight, close than 110% or in the yellow bar). This information you are citing in relation to a probable system miscalculation, could you indicate in which supplement or source I could find such information? For if this mistake really can happen, I find it extremely prudent for other colleagues to be aware of this, since the CAT A configuration is widely used.

[PatMcgroin]

The TQ limiter is to be only used to allow the OEI training switch to function.
It is set at 114% to protect the aircraft from the pilots.
Also, the transient limit on AEO PI is NOT to be used intentionally.

Disagree, swithch is for operational use...I.E. sling load, helping get pilots who are reluctant to pull 110% used to using appropriate power...Many pilots are afraid to think outside the box and draw incorrect conclusions about the use of aircraft items. By the way we took this question to Augusta and were told that we were able to use the switch as we saw fit......So if that is something you do not want to use, good for you. However please contain your ignorance.

[tottigol]

Pmg, I never said it is forbidden to use it. I said it is not a good use of it.

Enjoy the feeling of cutting engines when you pull to above 114%, just when you need them most.
That is likely going to show your superior airmanship, rather than...you know.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

TOTTIGOL, using maximum power AEO to lift a load in a MEH is the same as lifing with a SEH. Acceptable if your risk assessment agrees. I don't see the point of your post to Patmcgroin.

[SFIM]

the text below is the same as in the type rating ground course.
nothing written there suggests it is a good or bad idea to use use the TQ LIMITER in normal AEO operations.
actually I don't use it myself as it is not company SOP to do so (or any of my previous companies),
but I am not against it in principle as long as you are aware you are limited to 114%/114%
____________________________________________________________
TORQUE LIMITS AND TORQUE LIMITER
EEC limits local torque to a maximum allowable value of 160%, which could
result in a total AEO power of 320% Tq applied to the transmission.
Engine AEO power can be automatically limited by the EEC in order to
protect the main gearbox by engaging the Torque Limiter function. This is
achieved by pressing the TQ LIM pushbutton on the collective grip; when
pressed the EECs control the total engine torque in order not to exceed
228% of total torque (114% per engine).
The Torque Limiter function is not available in single engine operation.
When Torque Limiter is engaged, the TQ LIMITER ON advisory message is
displayed in the CAS. If the Torque Limiter function fails, the 1(2) TQ
LIMITER caution message is displayed in the CAS.
Torque is the only parameter involved in the limitation: Ng and ITT could
reach the single engine limits even in AEO with TQ LIM engaged, if dictated
by the environmental conditions.
Torque limitation is not available in MANUAL mode.
At power-up the Torque Limiter is OFF by default: it is therefore pilot’s choice
to manually engage it.
The Torque Limiter must be engaged in order to enable the OEI TNG Mode.

TORQUE LIMITER
Engine power can be limited in order to protect the main gearbox when in
AEO by engaging the Torque Limiter function.
This is achieved by pressing the TQ LIM pushbutton on the collective grip;
when pressed the EECs control the total engine torque in order to not
exceed 228% of total torque. Torque Limiter has no effect in single engine
operation.
When Torque Limiter is engaged, the TQ LIMITER ON advisory message is
displayed in the CAS. If the Torque Limiter function is failed, the 1(2) TQ
LIMITER caution message is displayed in the CAS.
Torque is the only parameter involved in the limitation: Ng and ITT could
reach the single engine limits even in AEO with TQ LIM engaged, if allowed
by the environmental conditions.
Torque limitation is not available in MANUAL mode.
At power-up the Torque Limiter is OFF by default: it is therefore pilot’s choice
to manually engage it.

[PatMcgroin]

Pmg, I never said it is forbidden to use it. I said it is not a good use of it.

Enjoy the feeling of cutting engines when you pull to above 114%, just when you need them most.
That is likely going to show your superior airmanship, rather than...you know.

If you are having to pull above 110% a lot I think you may want to change your planning a little. If I know that I need 110, and I go to 114 I am still on the upside. You may want to know your equipment and pull to the limiter one time, it maintains power, it does not fall down as I gather you are thinking. I am still above the 110 I had planned. It is a great tool for new pilots that are afraid of overtorque, it gets them to pull required power. It is also great for demonstrating left pedal impact at 110% tq, and again we differ, I think it is a great use of the system. As far as my superior airmanship glad you were so observant!

Not looking to dictate policy, as I said previously if you do not want to use it Great...just don't pass judgement on others for what you have mandated as correct. Kind of like 102...many say for Cat A only, wrong and again we went as far as Augusta on this due to siminstructors saying it is forbidden. There are times when not in Cat A procedure it is advantageous. Use it...

[tottigol]

If you are having to pull above 110% a lot I think you may want to change your planning a little. If I know that I need 110, and I go to 114 I am still on the upside. You may want to know your equipment and pull to the limiter one time, it maintains power, it does not fall down as I gather you are thinking. I am still above the 110 I had planned. It is a great tool for new pilots that are afraid of overtorque, it gets them to pull required power. It is also great for demonstrating left pedal impact at 110% tq, and again we differ, I think it is a great use of the system. As far as my superior airmanship glad you were so observant!


What can I say, you are the man!:ok:::D

[tottigol]

If you are having to pull above 110% a lot I think you may want to change your planning a little. If I know that I need 110, and I go to 114 I am still on the upside. You may want to know your equipment and pull to the limiter one time, it maintains power, it does not fall down as I gather you are thinking. I am still above the 110 I had planned. It is a great tool for new pilots that are afraid of overtorque, it gets them to pull required power. It is also great for demonstrating left pedal impact at 110% tq, and again we differ, I think it is a great use of the system. As far as my superior airmanship glad you were so observant!


What can I say, you are the man! And you are smarter tan all those other ones that don't intentionally use the transient AEO PI!:ok::D:D

[Pilotmartymcfly]

When I asked about the transient range between 110% and 121%, it was not intended to say that using it would be intentional.
All of us as pilots, we will always seek to save the aircraft as much as possible. Since full-time engines are brought to harsh conditions, we may have serious problems in flight and that is not the intention.
I think it is prudent to always be under the red belt, but in case it is extremely necessary, if you need to apply 111 or 112% in a specific and rare situation, it is better to do this than to have an accident.

[Bladestrike]

When I asked about the transient range between 110% and 121%, it was not intended to say that using it would be intentional.
All of us as pilots, we will always seek to save the aircraft as much as possible. Since full-time engines are brought to harsh conditions, we may have serious problems in flight and that is not the intention.
I think it is prudent to always be under the red belt, but in case it is extremely necessary, if you need to apply 111 or 112% in a specific and rare situation, it is better to do this than to have an accident.

Could this argument not also apply to using the torque limiter outside of a training regime? What if in that aforementioned rare situation you need that power to avoid an accident?

[Pilotmartymcfly]

I agree with you. I find it a bit tricky to leave the TL applied during normal operation, but as some this is very personal to every pilot.

[Geoffersincornwall]

Pat McGroin
Factory instructors are obliged to teach as per the RFM. You as an individual are entitled to do as you wish. We only insist on the use of 102 during Cat A because that is what it says in the RFM. Nowhere does it say you can use it for OEI landings but you don't have to be a rocket scientist to speculate that a higher Nr might come in handy.

There is a kind of unwritten rule in our business. If you chose to do something not in the book and it works out then you're a hero. If you end up as a hole in the ground or present the boss with a broken aircraft then you are a 'zero'.

I certainly wouldn't 'Continue Flight' with two hot batteries but that's what the RFM says.

Regrettably we don't live in a perfect world. :-(

[Max Contingency]

We only insist on the use of 102 during Cat A because that is what it says in the RFM. Nowhere does it say you can use it for OEI landings but you don't have to be a rocket scientist to speculate that a higher Nr might come in handy.

I might have miss-understood that but......

Having checked my CSE grade 3 in Rocket Science:

Surely maintaining a sub optimal NR (102%) will use more of our valuable OEI Tq available than maintaining the optimal NR (100%) for any given flight configuration? AEO we have spare Tq to store as Nr so no problem.

It also seems a little counter productive to suggest converting Tq into Nr so that we have spare Nr in case we run out of Tq?

I like to store my energy as airspeed, height and Tq, with NR as my weapon of last resort.

On this basis of the above I never use 102 for OEI.

Happy to be corrected by any holder of a CSE in Rocket Science (grade 2 or above):ok:

[ODEN]

Do any of you know that a 139 had an accident and probably would have made it if they did not use TQ lim with AEO?
Why would you limit power on purpose, you never know when you might need it....beats me..

[Geoffersincornwall]

Not AUGUSTA but AGUSTA !!!!!

Anyway, you can use LEONARDO HELICOPTERS from now on.

It's tough being perpetually confused with a GOLF COURSE!!!

G

[manamale]

Have any of you had incidences of the main cabin door opening in flight, and if so can you describe the event and any remedies ye took to avoid it happening again. Was the door closed from the inside? Pins not engaged? Speed at the time the door opened etc

[Tormas]

Have any of you had incidences of the main cabin door opening in flight, and if so can you describe the event and any remedies ye took to avoid it happening again. Was the door closed from the inside? Pins not engaged? Speed at the time the door opened etc

Wasn't my flight but yes company had a door open in flight, not sure of speed but it wasn't pretty when I believe the door opened and came off the bottom rails, thank goodness for floats on wheel sponsons to stop the door from flapping all the way up and coming off going through the tail rotor ( excuse the dramatics but it could have been ugly) turns out (my opinion so don't use it against me) the pin in the door had broken, I believe was due to being set a little too tight and with use eventually weakened and bent and broke the pin ( 8mm or 10mm bolt so not small) this was on a low time aircraft. R1,000,000 later door replaced. Thoughts if you get a door unlock light but seems to be closed, remove passengers, close door, lock it with a seatbelt from the front row and fly home as slow as your fuel supply will allow. Or put a crew man holding the door. Remove door open covering and inspect for bent rods.

My thoughts only - use it don't use it ;-)

[Arcal76]

Hello Tormas,
Where are you located because we had 2 similar event in less than a month here, so it will be interesting to know if it is a general problem

[Tormas]

Hello Tormas,
Where are you located because we had 2 similar event in less than a month here, so it will be interesting to know if it is a general problem

Sunny South Africa, I think it's a problem from the factory assembly, locking the door from the outside required (on the old one) a fair amount of power on the handle to close it the last bit. Which in my opinion only was the reason the rod end eventually broke off

[Phoinix]

Can somebody please share the BEM for a 139. I got one input and it's 4500 kg with floats only... which is no competition to a 412 in any point of view.
I'm looking for DPIFR airframe with hoist to be precise.
Thanks!

[tottigol]

Can somebody please share the BEM for a 139. I got one input and it's 4500 kg with floats only... which is no competition to a 412 in any point of view.
I'm looking for DPIFR airframe with hoist to be precise.
Thanks!

Floats and liferafts add about 200Kg, we removed them during winter for external load operation in the arctic.

[PabloLAFDmech]

Have any of you had incidences of the main cabin door opening in flight, and if so can you describe the event and any remedies ye took to avoid it happening again. Was the door closed from the inside? Pins not engaged? Speed at the time the door opened etc

Leonardo has a new service bulletin that adds a rod and secures aft portion of door. This also adds a handle to help pull the door in.

[PabloLAFDmech]

Two of our earliest 139 s/n 41009 and 41012 have older style double gas strut door openers. Can someone out there suggest a bulletin that converts it to a single strut . Thanks

[noooby]

Two of our earliest 139 s/n 41009 and 41012 have older style double gas strut door openers. Can someone out there suggest a bulletin that converts it to a single strut . Thanks

If you mean two struts in the centre of the door where there would normally be one strut, that is a local mod. Started in Den Helder to hold up the doors when they were opened on the rig with the engines running.

Agusta do not supply baggage doors with two struts in the centre. For Long Nose and Long Nose Enhanced, you can get doors with two struts. One at the front of the door, one at the back.

Find out the mod that was done on your aircraft and remove it. Then you comply with the parts book again :)

[C1958]

Leonardo has a new service bulletin that adds a rod and secures aft portion of door. This also adds a handle to help pull the door in.

We had the same problem and came up with our own STC modification if anyone's interested...

[Sir Korsky]

2 million flight hours claimed fleet wide by Leonardo.

AW139 global helicopter fleet sets outstanding milestone of two million flight hours - DETAIL - Leonardo - Aerospace, Defence and Security (http://www.leonardocompany.com/en/-/2million-flight-hours-aw139)

[sacher]

Hi everybody, I'm new in this forum and I would like to ask any 139 expert (I have only 350 fh on 139) about some updates of the RFM/QRH that cames up with the Rev. 22...

First: OEI TNG LIMITATION (page 25 limitation on QRH), they took away the possibility to use OEI TNG switch in condition other than CAT A... but I don't understand if they mean that you DO NOT have to use it when you are outside the parameters that guarantee the CAT A performance (that make sense) or if other than not use it outside that parameters, you can't use it when you are not performing CAT A t/o and landings... like when you are in cruise at 140kias...

In this case the only problem that I see is that in cruise at 140 if you use OEI TNG and you don't reduce the PI in few seconds, the NR will drop as far as 87% before the system automatically disengage. Can this be a problem for backgoing blade that can stall at that speed??

thanks for any advice, more questions will came and I hope it can be a mean to expand anyone knowledge on this beautiful machine.
thanks

P.S. Can be helpful to open a new thread on RFM/QRH updates to discuss??

[Hovering-is-devine]

Hi, the OEI TNG switch is part of CatA training supplement, that means it should only be used during CatA profile training. Remember only TRIs are allowed to use this switch

[MightyGem]

In other words, don't worry about it.

[Max Contingency]

Remember only TRIs are allowed to use this switch

I wasn't aware of that. Is that stated by Leonardo somewhere?

[[email protected]]

Who else would be doing simulated engine malfunctions as part of Cat A profiles?

[Nescafe]

TREs perhaps? ;-)

[Max Contingency]

AFAIK. A Check Airman or indeed any ATP under FAA is allowed to instruct a fellow pilot on type.

If Leonardo have not placed restrictions on the use of the training switch in the RFM then just maybe they envisaged it being used safely and sensibly by competent line pilots?

Whether that’s a good idea or not is a separate discussion.

[NRDK]

If the Supplement 12 criteria for use of the CAT A Performance and training modes are met, plus your relevant company does have the use of said modes restricted to TRE/TRI use. Then the RFM does not say who it is restricted to be used by. Probably best left to the Sim check..:}

[rotorwhip]

Hi all. Does anyone know how much the 139 certification costs now? Theory and practical for pilots? Thanks

[[email protected]]

So why do manufacturers put an OEI TRG switch on their aircraft?

Is it A - so line pilots can f**k about with it - that is if they get any training hours to do so

Or is it B - so realistic engine failure profiles can be flown for Cat A training in a safe manner and with the safety net that the OEI TRG will disengage if the Nr droops too low, the other 'good' engine fails or the TQ LIM is disengaged?

As to the argument for the use of the TQ LIM when AEO - seems rather pointless and, since the TQ LIM and the OEI TRG are linked, would suggest that the TQ LIM is only meant for OEI trg.

[Geoffersincornwall]

Not so Crab. The TQ Lim functions during OEI training by design. Part of the 'realism' involves drooping the Nr hence the Tq Lim function. The TQ LIM button will allow the limitation of TWIN ENGINE TQ thus (in the eyes of some) protecting the transmission when doing 'tricky' stuff - like MAUW take-offs or heavy load lifts.Personally, I think that to be a misguided philosophy but some companies have it as an SOP.

G

[[email protected]]

Geoffers - I assume the OEI backs off the Nf of the 'failed' engine just enough that the Nr can be drooped with the 'good' engine for realistic profiles for Cat A.

At some point that drooping Nr would meet the backed off Nf and the 'failed' engine would start to pick up the drive as well.

Is it likely then, with a big pull (cocked up profile) the TQ LIM is there so that the combined Tq of both engines ('good' one very high and 'failed' one increasing) can't exceed 228% and the fact that AEO operation with TQ LIM on just happens to limit at 114% matched because 228% is the TOTAL Tq that the gearbox needs protection from?

[Geoffersincornwall]

No, it doesn't work like that. Operating the OEI Training switch will select the engine you want to keep 'alive'. In fact neither engine spools back, instead the PFD will show that the selected engine is working normally whilst the other indicates zero TQ. Meanwhile, the MFD will show the pilot what is really happening. Both engines are working normally but have an artificial TQ limit of 70% each. Thus a total of 140% TQ is available for the 'fly-away' - this is 20% below the normally available 160% in a real OEI situation. This is why it is critical for the IP to check that the mass of his aircraft is in line with the appropriate training section of Supplement in the RFM. One that didn't do that made a horrid mess of the exercise because he was apparently, allegedly, about 900 kg overweight.

Of course, there are protection systems that take the OEI training switch out of the circuit when needed, so, if the TQ LIM switch is deselected (it is required to allow access to the OEI Training System), or if an engine fails, if either EMS is moved or the NR droops below 87% then the normal performance level is returned - INSTANTLY. That is important to note for the resumption of the normal configuration will result in such a rush of power that an overswing of T5 may occur. It has in the past which is why some companies now limit OEI training to the sim.

Incidentally, the OEI Training Switch is a three position, spring loaded switch. It will remain in the central (OFF) position until No1 or No2 engine is selected. If the TQ LIM switch has been selected and both EMS are in the 'FLIGHT' position then the OEI switch will be retained in the selected position by a magnetic clutch. It is the circuit holding the switch in the ON position that is controlled by the various safety circuits. If one of these operates the mag clutch is released and the OEI switch is then de-selected and it returns to the central (OFF) position.

G

[[email protected]]

Ah, OK, understood:ok: just going through groundschool now so full of questions:ok:

[Outwest]

Hi Geoff, although I agree with you on your thoughts about the use of the Tq limiter for normal ops, I do think there is a place for it.
I was doing night rig training once where the candidate was too fast and too high on final and in spite of my constant guidance to control that, botched the approach so bad that I called for an overshoot. He grabbed such a mitful of collective that before I could react we had a momentary over torque. Luckily it was within limits so not a costly one. We were relatively light on fuel with just the 2 of us on board so there was no need for all that power to be available. I'm of the opinion that this might be a good use of the Tq limiter.

[belly tank]

He grabbed such a mitful of collective that before I could react we had a momentary over torque.

Im interested here Outwest what was the experience of your candidate? was he behind the machine from the outset?

Did he pull 121% ?.....

Why did you let it develop to the point?

[Outwest]

Im interested here Outwest what was the experience of your candidate? was he behind the machine from the outset?

Did he pull 121% ?.....

Why did you let it develop to the point?

He was a very experienced pilot, although not offshore.

Yes, actually if memory serves it was 125% but only for a sec before I could get the collective down.

Yeah...hindsight is 20/20. The approach and subsequent go around did not put the a/c in danger, the problem was the mishandling of the power for the go around. I take responsibility for not anticipating this action by this pilot.

[Buitenzorg]

Outwest, having had a similar experience recently you have my full sympathy. However I disagree with your arguments for routine selection of the torque limiter for AEO operations. Let’s call it a divergence of priorities.

Anyone remember the massive overtorque incident in Nigeria some years ago (not in a 139)? Day visual approach to a rig, lost all visual references in heavy rain, disorientation and pulled IIRC 159% of allowable torque before recovery. If their available torque had been electronically limited to 114% they would have stalled the rotor and everyone would have died. As SASless puts it: “Ass, tin, ticket”. Having the torque limiter selected removes the crew’s option to use the tin to save the asses.

Ironically my operation’s SOP is to have the torque limiter selected throughout the flight; the argument that the belief that an epidemic of overtorques would ensue if we stopped doing so shows a worrying lack of confidence in our training program, has had very little effect. Plus, as Geoff points out, selecting the torque limiter basically “arms” the OEI TNG switch (in a situation where you really don’t want an inadvertent simulated OEI event).

[Flying Bull]

Well Buitenzorg,
I fly a helicopter from a different manufacture, so I don´t know, what Agusta programmed into their helicopter, but I think/hope, they have general a same approach to safety.
On our helicopter there is a safeguard in the trainingsoftware:
If, during OEI training mode operation, the RPM decreases down to 91% NR, or to 12% below nominal NR, the training mode is automatically deactivated. The rotorspeed is increased to its nominal (reference) value in a controlled manner while the torque of the engines is limited to an acceptable level (approximately 2x 95%), in order to avoid excessive torque and rotorspeed overshoots.
So in case the **** hits the fan you get the chance to use the tin to save your ass ;-)
Unfortunatly you can actually proceed an overtorque recording with the training switch active - cause TQ values permitted vary with speed...
If you pull the permitted OEI 30 sec TQ above Vy+10 for more than 12 seconds, you have to report to the boss ;-)
(By passing Vy you should already have reduced to 2 min TQ - but with a fast accelerating helicopter and in the heat of the training........)

[Um... lifting...]

FB, below are the automatic deactivation criteria for the 139. So, not too different. Other than the PFD indications, assuming one doesn't trip one of these wickets, the only other indication one gets when using the training mode is, upon selection, a transient deceleration of the selected "bad" engine down to about 25% and a selected transient acceleration of the other engine up to about 110% before each settle down (in actuality) to about 70% while the PFD indications continue to simulate the malfunction.

I always found it to be pretty tame in use, but we also limited our usage to pretty tightly defined criteria as per our OMs. Like many things, regulating the usage tends to keep people out of trouble.

Note
The OEI TNG will be automatically disactivated for one of
the following conditions:
- either engine set to MANUAL MODE
- either engine ENG MODE switch not in FLT
position
- NR droop below 87%
- either engine flame out
- either engine detected fault on EEC
- TORQUE LIMiter disactivated.

[Outwest]

Outwest, having had a similar experience recently you have my full sympathy. However I disagree with your arguments for routine selection of the torque limiter for AEO operations. Let’s call it a divergence of priorities.

Anyone remember the massive overtorque incident in Nigeria some years ago (not in a 139)? Day visual approach to a rig, lost all visual references in heavy rain, disorientation and pulled IIRC 159% of allowable torque before recovery. If their available torque had been electronically limited to 114% they would have stalled the rotor and everyone would have died. As SASless puts it: “Ass, tin, ticket”. Having the torque limiter selected removes the crew’s option to use the tin to save the asses.

Ironically my operation’s SOP is to have the torque limiter selected throughout the flight; the argument that the belief that an epidemic of overtorques would ensue if we stopped doing so shows a worrying lack of confidence in our training program, has had very little effect. Plus, as Geoff points out, selecting the torque limiter basically “arms” the OEI TNG switch (in a situation where you really don’t want an inadvertent simulated OEI event).

You may have misunderstood my intent or I was not clear enough. I definitely don't agree with the use of the Tq limiter for day to day operations. I was suggesting it's use ONLY while doing this sort of training where the a/c is light and there is a risk of an overtorque if things go pear shaped.

[Buitenzorg]

Outwest,

Understood. Cheers.


Flying Bull,

I think you misunderstood me. I wasn’t talking about training, I was talking about routine revenue flying (carrying passengers etc. up to max gross weight) and taking a training system (the torque limiter) which was designed to be used only during OEI training at limited weights, and using it for something very different: the prevention of an overtorque due to slight mishandling at high gross weight; and the potential unintended consequences of doing so.

[[email protected]]

It pretty much comes down to the old dilemma - if the RFM says you can then it's fine but, if it doesn't say you can't, then can you or can't you?

[Non-PC Plod]

Its interesting to compare the "old" philosophy. In the A109 power, the limiter is always operating, UNLESS you press the "limit override" button, which is diametrically opposite to what you have on a A139.
I was working with a Mexican customer over the last few days, who operates in an environment with a pressure altitude of 8-12,000', at temperatures of approx ISA +20.
Performance is absolutely critical, because an engine out in these conditions is a massively different kettle of fish to the relatively benign environment we have in Europe for example. This company has changed their SOP to require pilots always to fly with the limit override active, having identified several accidents in the past 18 months which have had running out of power as a contributory or primary factor.
We practised in the FFS with and without the limit override, and of course you may completely trash the engines by using every drop of power you can get, but its is surprising what situations you can fly away from, which you couldn't in the "normal" condition.

[[email protected]]

Geoff - I have just been taught that in OEI TRG mode, the 'other' engine (ie not the one you select to 'keep') backs off to 92% Nf - are they wrong about that?

[noooby]

They both back off to simulate the power available from one engine.

[Non-PC Plod]

You get an initial "backing off", which gives you a realistic feel and sound of engine failure. Then, the torques are subsequently quickly matched between the 2 engines, capped at 70% ( demand above which you start to get Nr droop). This is clearly displayed on the MFD. The PFD "lies" to you, showing one engine at zero PI, and the other going up to 140%, which helps understanding during training.

[[email protected]]

So in that initial backing off does the Nf of the ‘bad’ engine drop and then recover? I can’t see how the engine ‘failure’ can be made realistic otherwise

[axioma]

For engines pre SB41020:

When one engine is selected to "OEI TNG" the selected engine will operate at lower limits (MCP) and govern the power turbine / main rotor speed. The opposite engine will govern at a reduced speed of 92% N2. This will be what your instructor was referring to. Perhaps they don't have updated training material?

For post SB41020 software:

Both engines produce up to half of the OEI power (140% Q).

The OEI Training mode logic uses twin engine power to simulate an initial single engine transient to “maximum torque” and rotor droop. Then both engines are used but they are limited to a maximum total PI of 140%.

In order to simulate the transient following an engine failure the engine selected to OEI TNG will accelerate to a maximum of 110% to then reduce to approximately 70%, to while the inoperative engine will decelerate to a minimum of approximately 25% TQ then accelerate to around 70% TQ.

Hope that helps.

[[email protected]]

Axioma - Thank you - that explains it perfectly and shows where the confusion has come from - was that SB part of the phase 7 upgrade?

[noooby]

No. That is a Pratt SB and it is REALLY old. 2005 to be exact. Latest rev is 2007. Deals with the EEC programming. If your ground school is teaching Pre-SB41020, then their material is 13 years out of date.
It says it is Optional, but you can't get the old style EEC anymore and haven't been able to for many years. Any engine after S/N KB-0121 has it done already. So two engines per ship, 121 engines. At the most that would be the first 61 AW139's built that are affected. After that it is done at manufacture.

[[email protected]]

OK, thanks nooby - I'll confirm with them - I think it is just a single error that has slipped through the net.

[manriman]

Hello, greetings to all, just joined. Flying offshore for Helistar Colombia. Just wondering about the ECS operation in offshore, Sup 12. Understand that it should be off so it won't draw power, but why does the before landing procedure states that you have to select Man Heat and hold until ITT increases? Appreciate any comments

[maeroda]

Sure you're reading the correct supplement?

AW139 RFM, rev. 22, Sup. 12 CAT A, offshore helideck landing:
6. HEATER (if used) — Confirm SOV 1 & 2 switches selected to NORMAL - Select HTR switch to OFF, note ITT decrease and confirm HEATER ON advisory extinguished.
ECS ENVIRO (if used) — Confirm SOV 1 & 2 switches selected to NORMAL - Select ECS CONTROL switch to OFF and, if HEATER ON advisory illuminated, note ITT decrease and confirm HEATER ON advisory extinguished.



Hope this helps.

[manriman]

Thanks, here is what Sup. 12 Part E Offshore helideck takeoff says:

ECS enviro (if fitted)
Confirm SOV 1 & 2 switches selected to NORMAL. Select ECS CONTROL switch to MAN HEAT and hold MAN HEAT switch to increase until ITT increase noted on both
engines, and HEATER ON advisory illuminates. Select ECS CONTROL switch to OFF, note ITT decrease, on both engines, and HEATER ON advisory extinguished.

RFM rev. 22 but the revision for this specific page is no. 10 according to the index.

[[email protected]]

Yes the procedure for take-off is subtly different from that for the landing in 12-I.

Perhaps it assumes worst case that the aircraft has been shut down and restarted on the helideck and is a more thorough check that the SOVs are opening and closing correctly.

[user7]

Hello all,

Does anybody know the specific criteria to trigger the OEI caption on the PI?

Unfortunately I don't have enough posts to add an image, but I am referring to the yellow vertical "OEI" displayed alongside the PI bar, on the inoperative engine's side.

I've not been able to find a definitive answer to this.

Thanks in advance

[Sir Korsky]

believe it's decaying NG, I can't remember the trigger value. ( digging through FSI TM, states NG <34.3% or rate of change outside predetermined limits will light ENG OUT )

[Um... lifting...]

Page 3-174 (or thereabouts) of the RFM says nothing specifically about numerical values to trigger. What it does say is:

ENGINE STATE INDICATION ON PFD AND MFD

OEI

on side of PI, TQ
ITT and NG indicators
of failed engine

Associated engine failed

- Fly aircraft in accordance with
OEI operational techniques

[user7]

Thank you both for your replies.

I'll post back if I find any more detail.

[user7]

SUPPLEMENT 90
WEIGHT EXTENSION 7000 KG

[...]

GENERAL INFORMATION

This Supplement details the changes to the Basic RFM to operate the aircraft with an increased Gross Weight up to 7000 kg. This information is valid for all weights in excess of the RFM Supplement 50 weight limit of 6800 kg.

SECTION 1 - LIMITATIONS

GENERAL

For Limitations not included in this Supplement refer to Basic RFM or applicable Supplements.

If the aircraft weight, at any time, exceeds 6800 kg the entire flight duration and all Take-Offs / Landings must be recorded as flight operations above 6800 kg in the helicopter log-book.

SUPPLEMENT 50
INCREASED GROSS WEIGHT 6800 KG

[...]

SECTION 1 - LIMITATIONS

GENERAL

[...]

If the aircraft weight, at any time, exceeds 6400 kg the entire flight duration and all Take-Offs / Landings must be recorded as flight operations above 6400 kg in the helicopter log-book.

I have a question concerning aircraft equipped with the 7000kg weight extension. Is it necessary to record flight operations above 6800kg (Supp 90) and above 6400kg (Supp 50), or only above 6800kg?

Or to rephrase, is Supplement 50 an "applicable Supplement" to a Supplement 90 aircraft?

[gmrwiz]

AW 139 RFM Section 3

Page 3-11
CAS Caption Voice Warning Audio Tone Failure/System State
1(2) ENG OUT ENGINE 1(2) OUT Tone Engine NG below 34.3% or NG rate of change outside predetermined limits.

Page 3-68
TABLE OF PFD AND MFD MESSAGES

‘OEI’ on side of PI, TQ, ITT, NG indications Associated engine failed

[Sir Korsky]

I have a question concerning aircraft equipped with the 7000kg weight extension. Is it necessary to record flight operations above 6800kg (Supp 90) and above 6400kg (Supp 50), or only above 6800kg?

Or to rephrase, is Supplement 50 an "applicable Supplement" to a Supplement 90 aircraft?

Both. State above 6400 or above 6800 entry in log book. Very simple. Helps your mechanic down the road.

[user7]

Thank you both for your answers

[hihover]

Yes the procedure for take-off is subtly different from that for the landing in 12-I.

Perhaps it assumes worst case that the aircraft has been shut down and restarted on the helideck and is a more thorough check that the SOVs are opening and closing correctly.

That is exactly right mate AFAIK. The only way to be sure the air bleed for the heater is closed is to look for the ITT drop when you switch the heater off. That may mean switching it on then switching it straight back off. Obviously, it is difficult to miss the heater being on under normal circumstances, however, doors open, lots of air/noise, you could miss it. I have actually had a couple of heaters stuck on (after a service!!!!) here in the sandbox. Hard to miss here due to the extreme whining noise from the rear crew.

[[email protected]]

the extreme whining noise from the rear crew they're the same the whole world over;):E

[PabloLAFDmech]

Wasn't my flight but yes company had a door open in flight, not sure of speed but it wasn't pretty when I believe the door opened and came off the bottom rails, thank goodness for floats on wheel sponsons to stop the door from flapping all the way up and coming off going through the tail rotor ( excuse the dramatics but it could have been ugly) turns out (my opinion so don't use it against me) the pin in the door had broken, I believe was due to being set a little too tight and with use eventually weakened and bent and broke the pin ( 8mm or 10mm bolt so not small) this was on a low time aircraft. R1,000,000 later door replaced. Thoughts if you get a door unlock light but seems to be closed, remove passengers, close door, lock it with a seatbelt from the front row and fly home as slow as your fuel supply will allow. Or put a crew man holding the door. Remove door open covering and inspect for bent rods.

My thoughts only - use it don't use it ;-)
Wd-40 on the pin, under handle inside keep it free also. This pin locks the handle from opening inadvertently

[manriman]

That is exactly right mate AFAIK. The only way to be sure the air bleed for the heater is closed is to look for the ITT drop when you switch the heater off. That may mean switching it on then switching it straight back off. Obviously, it is difficult to miss the heater being on under normal circumstances, however, doors open, lots of air/noise, you could miss it. I have actually had a couple of heaters stuck on (after a service!!!!) here in the sandbox. Hard to miss here due to the extreme whining noise from the rear crew.
Thanks for your comments. Makes sense now.

[manriman]

Thanks, here is what Sup. 12 Part E Offshore helideck takeoff says:

ECS enviro (if fitted)
Confirm SOV 1 & 2 switches selected to NORMAL. Select ECS CONTROL switch to MAN HEAT and hold MAN HEAT switch to increase until ITT increase noted on both
engines, and HEATER ON advisory illuminates. Select ECS CONTROL switch to OFF, note ITT decrease, on both engines, and HEATER ON advisory extinguished.

RFM rev. 22 but the revision for this specific page is no. 10 according to the index.

I was checking Sup 12 and the procedure says ECS Enviro, so I asume is for aircraft equiped with that specific system (Sup 87) and not the normal air conditioning (Sup 2), am I right?

[hihover]

Correct Manriman, in point number 4 it describes the technique for both types of heater and you follow the technique for whichever heater you have installed. You are basically carrying out the same check, however, with the Enviro system (it has an automatic setting which opens the air bleed when required), you must check the bleed in manual mode, this is why the check is slightly different.

Hope this helps.

[manriman]

Thanks, very clear now. I was checking with a couple of friends who fly in different big companies and although they know this procedure is in the RFM, their company's checklist don't consider it. Not sure why not.

[rancid]

What is the allowable torque split in aw139?

[noooby]

What is the allowable torque split in aw139?

If you're in Tq Match, it should be within 1 or 2 % if not perfectly even. That is at 100 or 102 NR. In Idle it doesn't matter.

If you're in Tq Match and they are not matching, then there is an issue somewhere.

[manriman]

What is the allowable torque split in aw139?
Just to add: load share is performed by the EECs both at Idle and Flight. Couldn't find what's the maximum split but maintenance told me that one of the EECs failures is due to the load share function lost. If it hapens, before start you will have either maintenace white or EEC1(2) fail. Engines runing possibly EEC fail. Hope that helps.

[noooby]

What is the allowable torque split in aw139?

Maintenance Manual Ch 77-40 has your answer.

[Sir Korsky]

If you're in Tq Match, it should be within 1 or 2 % if not perfectly even. That is at 100 or 102 NR. In Idle it doesn't matter.

If you're in Tq Match and they are not matching, then there is an issue somewhere.

I concur with this. I watched the TQ match recently and it always seems to stay within 1% through all power settings.

[mfnaveed]

Just to add: load share is performed by the EECs both at Idle and Flight. Couldn't find what's the maximum split but maintenance told me that one of the EECs failures is due to the load share function lost. If it hapens, before start you will have either maintenace white or EEC1(2) fail. Engines runing possibly EEC fail. Hope that helps.

it happens with me once that the Matching Symbology was not there for Tq n ITT.
Maintenance people reset both EEC and problem was resolved.

[Zeeshan2061]

What is the allowable torque split in aw139?
Chapter 72 Engine Maintenance Manual .... Engine Fault Isolation... Table NCFUR 2 .... Fig 127
There is no limit written but remedial action is given. In my aircraft it was solved at 1st step that is cleaning EEC plugs