AW189

[industry insider]

Anyone heard that AW is soon going to announce the AW 189, a 16 passenger helicopter aimed at competing with the EC 175? Apparently, AW announced it at a recent industry gathering in the South of France.

[griffothefog]

If the 139 already carries 15 pax, what's the point?:confused:

[eivissa]

AW139: 15+2
EC175: 15+2

Isnt Agusta already competing with it?

[outhouse]

Confused?:confused:

[MarkH1]

Yes I also understand, Agusta is developing the AW189 as competition in the heavy market (S92 & EC225).

I am looking forward to tis kind of concept, together with the AW139, AW169 they will have a great range to compete with EC and Sik.

Mark

[9Aplus]

That may be AW139 on "steroids" called AW149 originally stretched for military
market & tender in Turkey (lost against Sik) so that can be 18 PAX helicopter....
.... :cool:

[Savoia]

.

MarkH1 wrote: Yes I also understand, Agusta is developing the AW189 as competition in the heavy market (S92 & EC225).


A shame that AW doesn't have a larger slice of the NHI pie and that there isn't more flexiblity in the terms relating to the ownership of design; otherwise, instead of starting from scratch, AW could have modified/improved the NH90 to fit this bill!

Sav

[Bravo73]

...and not forgetting that they (ie AW) already have the EH101.

[Savoia]

.
Quite right B73. The 101 was such a long time emerging from its conceptualisation that its hard remembering the complete history of its introduction to service but, when they were EH Industries, didn't they try and push the 101 in front of the offshore operators?

A re-worked (lighter) twin variant would make a good contender to rival the S92 though.

While we're on this path .. just imagine if Westland had succeeded in getting the WG30 right. She could have been an effective precursor to what is now the 139 market.

[2dogz]

http://www.agustawestland.com/system/files/brochures_new_product/AW149%20Brochure%20Final.pdf

The AW website has a 18 seat AW149 8.6t. Rumour is that a Civ 19 seat verison is possible.

[griffothefog]

Sav,

Well said, I always thought the 139 looked like the flying shed (WG30) :p

Thank god it flies better..:ok:

[ShyTorque]

Will it have a tail rotor?

[9Aplus]

For start for sure, later we will see :p

[Novaja Rotatus]

the 189 will have a walkway from front to back :) it will be able to fit 18 pax and will come with an AW-made avionic suite (differs from 139)!

Monday the 20th it will all be presented..

[heli1]

This story was in HeliData two weeks ago.It is the civil version of the AW149 and the prototype flew earlier this year.It arrived in Paris yesterday for the Show and will be unveiled Monday.

[before landing check list]

the 189 will have a walkway from front to back it will be able to fit 18 pax and will come with an AW-made avionic suite (differs from 139)!


The S61 will do 19 and you can walk in it. It can use an avionics upgrade an a bit more power though. Very smooth machine too.

Jerry

[Hilife]

18 PAX :eek:.

Maybe Ken and 17 of his Diddy Men, but not 18 riggies.

[chopper2004]

heli1

"This story was in HeliData two weeks ago.It is the civil version of the AW149 and the prototype flew earlier this year.It arrived in Paris yesterday for the Show and will be unveiled Monday."

The 149 is the military variant of the 139! :) :cool:

[Savoia]

.
Let me get this straight; .. the 189 is a civil variant of the 149 which, in turn is a military version of the 139. If the civilian version of the 149 equals the 189 (as a derivative of 139) this means that the new designator (assuming constant values for the numbers 1 and 9) is the sum of both the civil and military versions (ie. 3+4) plus a factor of one (presumably added as a result of the new designation). This being the case, any new designations would, one imagine, follow a similar pattern.

Therefore, the next AW product should be the AW1149 based on the 169, its military equivalent the 179 (following the above pattern) plus a factor of one, ie: 6+7+1 = 14. ;)

[eivissa]

"The 149 is the military variant of the 139!"

That is actually not true. The military version of the AW139 is the AW139M.

For comparison, the AW139 has a certified MTOM of 6400/6800kg and carries up to 15 people in the rear cabin.
The AW149 lifts up to 8600kg (other sources say 8000/8100kg) and takes 18 people in the back.

The engines arent the same either. PT6 and CT7.

[Big Bucks Bernie]

9udWQZuSNQY

AgustaWestland Press Release (http://www.agustawestland.com/news/agustawestland-unveils-aw189-helicopter)

[eivissa]

Well here we go, just a civil AW149!

Put the 169, 139 and 189 next to each other and it becomes true nerd stuff to tell which one is which.

If prices of the AW189 are noticably cheaper than EC225/S92 it might be a success. At least Agusta thinks one seat makes a difference...

[international hog driver]

Watched the 149 put on a rather spirited display along with EC175 & X3 which I personally thought was brilliant.

As said 189 basically a civil 149, was unable to get to the podium as it was invite only however the interesting thing seen was the 4 rows of seats with what would be the middle seat of 5 missing in rows 1,2 & 3 to allow ingress to the rear and front.

Was told the cockpit will end up similar to that of 169 for commonality figures quoted were 145-150 cruise but as we all know when you start hanging all that crap off the outside it will go down and projected radius was 140nm with a full load with a Cat A departure at each end.

http://i194.photobucket.com/albums/z96/redlum5x5/DSC01985.jpg

[spinwing]

Mmmm ...

And the CT7 engines will not have to be installed backwards so perhaps the exhaust ducting will be simplified ....

Have they re-engineered the aft undercarriage to eliminate the excessive tyre wear issue ....

Will the AB/AW139 type rating become a 'series' typerating I wonder ??

So many questions ......


:hmm:

[Variable Load]

Someone should tell AW that "more pax=more baggage"! Check out the size of that baggage compartment door :eek:

OK, door size isn't an indicator of baggage capacity, but can you imagine trying to locate a bag in there whilst doing a 5+ stop shuttle.

It looks less practical than the back end of the Super Puma, and I didn't think I would ever say that :sad:

[detgnome]

Quite like the colour scheme though....

[Outwest]

Interesting sponson design......does this mean the gear retracts up instead of inward?

[noooby]

Yes. Have a look at the 149 landing gear. Same design

[gwelo shamwari]

is it just me, or does not it look very similar to the Westland 30, but with 30 years improved technology applied? It even uses the same engines (GE CT-7) as the WG30-200!

[iuk1963]

AgustaWestland (http://www.agustawestland.com/news/agustawestland%E2%80%99s-new-generation-aw189-helicopter-completes-its-maiden-flight)

http://www.agustawestland.com/sites/default/files/AgustaWestland/AW931web.JPG

http://www.agustawestland.com/sites/default/files/AgustaWestland/AW931_2web.JPG

AgustaWestland, a Finmeccanica company, is pleased to announce that the first prototype of the AW189 twin engine 8-tonne class helicopter successfully completed its maiden flight yesterday. The aircraft was launched at the Paris Air Show earlier this year and this first prototype made its maiden flight ahead of schedule. AgustaWestland aims to achieve civil certification for the AW189 in 2013 and to start deliveries in early 2014. The AW189 was flown by AgustaWestland Chief Test Pilot Giuseppe Lo Coco at the company’s Cascina Costa plant in Italy. It performed as expected during the flight which included an assessment of the helicopter’s general handling and basic systems. The first prototype will be used for avionic system testing and certification of offshore equipment options, while the second prototype, set to fly in 2012, will be dedicated to a load survey programme.
Bruno Spagnolini, Chief Executive Officer, AgustaWestland, said “Performing the first flight of the new AW189 just a few months after its launch highlights our strong commitment to providing the market with the most advanced helicopters in the shortest possible timescales. We are delighted with the initial response from the market with a number of leading operators having already committed to buy the AW189 for long range offshore missions.” He went on to say “We are confident as we progress towards certification and production that many more operators will select the AW189 as their new generation helicopter for Search and Rescue, offshore transport and parapublic missions due to its long-range capabilities, attractive operating costs and modern safety features.”
The all new AW189 was launched this year in response to the growing market demand for a versatile, affordable, multirole helicopter in the 8-tonne class and has rapidly found success in the market place. A number of sales have already been secured from leading operators serving the offshore oil and gas markets, including Bristow Helicopters, Bel Air, and Weststar Aviation Services. The AW189 is part of AgustaWestland’s family of new generation helicopters that includes the AW169 and AW139 models. These helicopters all possess the same high performance flight characteristics and safety features and share the same common cockpit layout, design philosophy and maintenance concepts. This approach will deliver real cost savings in areas such as training, maintenance and support for existing operators of the AW139 who add AW169 and/or AW189 helicopters to their fleets. Set to enter service in early 2014, the twin engine AW189 helicopter is optimised for long range offshore transport and SAR missions. The spacious cabin seats 16 passengers in the standard configuration with the option of a high density 18 seat layout or an ultra long range 12 seat configuration. In the SAR role the 11.2 m3 cabin can accommodate a mission console, stretchers and seating for the crew and survivors. A single or dual rescue hoist is positioned above the large sliding cabin door on the starboard side and a range of equipment including FLIR, searchlight and radar can be fitted. Exceptional external visibility and the deployment of the latest in avionics technology make the AW189 the pilot’s choice. The cockpit design incorporates the latest in advanced situational awareness technologies which reduce crew workload and enhance safety. The new generation AW189 will meet the very latest international regulatory safety requirements (EASA / FAA Part 29, JAR OPS 3 / EU-OPS). The AW189 will also benefit from the extensive and expanding AgustaWestland worldwide support network already serving the offshore oil and gas industry. A range of simulator and training devices will progressively be made available to serve the worldwide AW189 customer base.

[aegir]

Just the AW149 with the "8" instead of the "4"...

[chopper2004]

Merry Xmas all and be nice to see the 169 fly next !

[espresso drinker]

An AW publication is saying that they have successfully demostrated to EASA a 50 minute run time time on the AW189 MGB during bench testing. :)

[HeliStudent]

I wonder what sort of temperatures the gearbox reaches?

Could someone tell me what material helicopter gearboxes are made from?

[tegwin]

The material choice is the easy bit. Deciding what coatings and treatments is the key. I very much doubt anyone would know what heat treatment processes and finishes are used except the guys at AW!

[Anthony Supplebottom]

Could someone tell me what material helicopter gearboxes are made from?

It does vary somewhat but Bells would commonly use magnesium for the gearbox housing and of course steel for the gears. There was also a process used in manufacturing the gears - known as double vacuum melt - which increased the strength/flexibility of the steel.

[hueyracer]

during bench testing

Thats the important part...they are all tested "on the bench" (of course)-but in reality things might look different...(see the S-92-accidents...)

[311kph]

It would be interesting to see more details.
Was it - ''i forgot to screw the filler cap properly'' run dry, or was it more like -
''I smashed gearbox casing with sledge hammer'' run dry...

[HLCPTR]

If ya smashed it with a sledge hammer, ya wouldn't be flyin' now would ya?

:)

[dascanio]

From AW official Press Release:

AgustaWestland Sets New Safety Benchmark for Helicopter Gearboxes with A 50 Minute “Run Dry” Capability
05/03/2013

AgustaWestland, a Finmeccanica company, has successfully demonstrated to the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) a 50-minute loss of oil or “run dry” capability for the AW189 main gearbox. The AW189 will be the first helicopter ever to enter service with such a capability, which is 20-minutes more than any other currently certified helicopter.
In what Giuseppe Gasparini, AgustaWestland’s Head of Transmission Systems Design & Development describes as a “outstanding result”, the AW189 main gearbox was subsequently disassembled and the components checked. “Although they had sustained some damage due to lack of lubrication, overall they were in very good shape and this showed that our design approach and the way we engineered the distribution of residual oil made it possible to extend the run dry period to 50 minutes.”

Daniele Romiti, CEO of AgustaWestland added “The capability for a helicopter to continue to fly after a loss of oil incident affecting the main gearbox is a critical safety issue that remains a top priority for manufacturers, operators and certification authorities worldwide. As demonstrated here AgustaWestland continues to lead the way in finding technological solutions to one of industry’s most long-standing issues and delivering ever increasing levels of safety for everyone that flies in our helicopters.”

Current EASA rules state that during any failure resulting in total loss of lubricant the aircraft must be capable of safe operation for at least 30 minutes after the crew is alerted to the problem. A helicopter main gearbox is a finely-tuned mechanical system which needs to run reliably and consistently at high input speeds (more than 20,000rpm) and torques, while coping with high temperatures and heavy stresses on its components. Loss of lubrication in flight can have serious consequences – a number of recent industry incidents have involved loss of oil from the main gearbox.

The need for dry run capability is vital for all helicopter operators but particularly for those operating in harsh environments such as the offshore sector where immediate landing is not always an option. AgustaWestland’s approach to reducing the risk of loss of oil from transmission systems differs from its competitors, first of all in the area of design. The design of most main gearboxes includes a heat exchanger designed to cool oil and a fan to draw air – typically these are located away from the main gearbox itself and connected to the main casing via pipes, hoses and fittings. Avoiding these external components is one way to mitigate the risk of catastrophic loss of lubrication. Since the early 1980s AgustaWestland has developed the heat exchanger installation as integrally fitted to the main gearbox casing and has replaced external pipes with integrated cored oil passages.

AgustaWestland designs also include redundancy on the lubrication system with dual pumps working in parallel to ensure sufficient oil flow should one pump fail and the low pressure warning be activated. Other measures include fail-safe capability on pressurised fittings, independent lubrication (sealed grease or oil) to mechanically-driven rotating components and multiple ‘green run’ testing and systems checks during assembly.

Finally, the ability to reduce heat generation within the main gearbox during a loss of oil situation is an important factor because this means less demand is placed on the residual reserves of oil. AgustaWestland has introduced measures to minimise friction through super finishing of gears and the introduction of special treatments and coatings as well as the use of heat-tolerant materials.

[The Sultan]

Yawn,

The Bell 429 went 4 hours with torque being increased from staying in the air, to best range, then up in 8-10% steps at 30 minute increments. And this was with a venting of the oil similar to the S-92.

The Sultan

[topendtorque]

Could someone tell me what material helicopter gearboxes are made from?

A quick illustration from the caterpillar world might help.

A cat hydraulic ram rod will bounce a ball bearing of specified density with a ping back up to a specified height, or it fails quality acceptance.

A cat clone looks identical, all nice and shiny, but the ball won't bounce more than half the cat height and only makes a dull thud sound..

The cat rod last five times longer and only costs twice as much.

Each chromium plated rod may be very similar in appearance but the underlying steel is a different kettle of fish altogether, and like coca cola, you won't get the recipe out of them.
A cat final drive will operate dry on oil for a couple of hours if the operator is deaf, but is very heavy on the pocket to fix.

[HeliStudent]

topendtorque, thanks - I get what you are saying, Caterpillar products are top notch, like Snap-on tools.

So how does this relate to heli gearboxes? Are you saying there are cheap ones and quality ones? I thought aviation laws meant they all had to be top quality?

Interesting to learn that they are made from magnesium, the casing I mean. I guess if they had been steel they would get too hot.

Doesn't magnesium react with salt water though? If a heli ditches will the gearbox have to be completely replaced or just overhauled. How do you check for cracks and stress in a magnesium casing? Can you x-ray it?

[HLCPTR]

Not all gearbox housings are made of magnesium. Aluminium alloys are very common.

[terminus mos]

Oh yeah, let's take the AW189 MGB thread and start S-92 run dry bashing again. There is another thread for that....

Good on AW if they have achieved that. 45 minutes run dry at 100 kias shoud be the benchmark.

[212man]

this means less demand is placed on the residual reserves of oil

What reserves of oil are these? I'm not sure 29.927(c) allows residual oil per se, or do they just mean whatever was left adhering to the gears after the sump emptied?

[rotorfan]

For the engineers/technicians (or anyone else knowledgeable), do you know whether the reduction gears in a typical box are spur or helical? I work in the machine-tool industry, and the sturdiest transmissions seem to all use spur gears with ground teeth. Oil changes show barely perceptible sediment. That AW statement says "super finishing of gears", so perhaps that means ground teeth.

[OnePerRev]

So what is the Pilot instruction to be in the AW189? loss of oil? No problem, you can fly for 50 minutes, we promise.

How about some way of knowing what your real status in that situation is? Aux lube system, you know the pressure, you have real faith. One demonstration, without flight conditions, attitude, what is your standard deviation in results? This release, and the basic requirement itself, only perpetuates a false comfort to go farther than you should. Landing immediately in cold water may be a bad day, but beats the alternative. What if you really only have 25 minutes that day, because the leak initially caused a loss of cooling that you did not notice?

[OnePerRev]

Most Aerospace applications by default require high strength to weight ratio. You need the strength obtained by heat treating, and usually other treatments for hardening. This requires the final precision after hardening which can only be done by grinding. Super finish refers to additional polishing beyond that, to a mirror like finish. Does not matter if spur or Helical for that purpose - but that opens up numerous additional design constraints.

[Nomad110]

Does anyone know if such a test was ever conducted on the AS350 B3 product with the transmission mated to a 2B1 engine?

[vfr440]

RF, Orig design from A109 and carried forward

Input - helical pinion
Planetary reduction - spur
Mast drive from planetary carrier - splines
Coupling g'box - was spur meshing, then changed as 'product improvement' to helical. Made for a challenging O/H cost :(

My concern would particularly concentrate on what happened when the bearings go home with a lack of lube..........:(
VFR

[Non-PC Plod]

Oneperrev,

Surely you dont really expect a pilot instruction to continue flying after losing the MGB oil. I dont know what the emergency checklist will say, but at a guess, it will be along the lines of "Land as soon as possible (30 mins). In the event of .....(eg increased Tq, noise, vibration), ...land immediately"
Personally, it gives me a better feeling to know that the gearbox has given some encouraging results in bench testing, and that I would have a good chance of completing the "Land as soon as possible" or a controlled ditching in the time available, rather than have the whole thing seize up in short order and drop me out of the sky!

[dascanio]

Vfr440,

Wrong. From existing AW139 literature:

Input: bevel gears
Planetary: spur
No splines between carrier and mast, integral connection
No combining gearbox, this was technology of the 70's. Gearbox design (by all OEMs) evolved significantly since then.

[OnePerRev]

NonPC,
that is exactly the confidence to avoid. If you wait until the grinding, it may already be too late. Land immediately does not mean without control. A MGB without lubrication will fail suddenly, matter of time, which is unpredictable if you keep sending power through it. I would not count on more than ten minutes, but even that is questionable.

[HLCPTR]

Most (if not all) of us would take the most conservative solutuion available if faced with a MGB malfunction. I think we can agree on this. That's the operational aspect of this discussion.

But the thread stated with a technical question (not the operational issue). MGB technolgy has improved dramatically over the years, both in design and manufacture. To compare today's MGB certificated under JAR/FAR 29 to older designs is not really relevant except to demonstrate how all things improve with time.

I would prefer to fly a MGB which has actually been tested to a level in excess of the minimum requirement rather than the other alternatives. And that demonstration (necessarily in a controlled environment) is still better than one only meeting the minimum requirement or not tested at all.

And, yes, an emergency source of oil lubrication to critical components being available after total loss of MGB pressure is better than running dry.

You make your operational decisions based on your equipment capabilities and weaknesses, along with your situational condition.

:ok:

[vfr440]

Thanks D, I stand corrected :ouch: - VFR

[Ian Corrigible]

More on the AW189's 30 minute loss of lubrication gearbox here: AgustaWestland Sets New 'Run Dry' Standard for Helicopters (http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/paris-air-show/2013-06-17/agustawestland-sets-new-run-dry-standard-helicopters)

I/C

[Pittsextra]

From a practical perspective what is the current requirement and how is that demonstrated? i.e. is it a one time demo under a set of conditions set or driven by the manufacturer or is it a standardised format from the regulator?

[Lonewolf_50]

AgustaWestland has introduced measures to minimise friction through super finishing of gears and the introduction of special treatments and coatings as well as the use of heat-tolerant materials.
I suspected SF, and am not surprised to see that it was in play for this successful test. Good for AW.

For those interested, a quick look at a superfinishing process.

[riff_raff]

From a practical perspective what is the current requirement and how is that demonstrated? i.e. is it a one time demo under a set of conditions set or driven by the manufacturer or is it a standardised format from the regulator? This is an excellent question.

From FAA FAR 29.927:
"(c) Lubrication system failure. For lubrication systems required for proper operation of rotor drive systems, the following apply:(1) Category A. Unless such failures are extremely remote, it must be shown by test that any failure which results in loss of lubricant in any normal use lubrication system will not prevent continued safe operation, although not necessarily without damage, at a torque and rotational speed prescribed by the applicant for continued flight, for at least 30 minutes after perception by the flightcrew of the lubrication system failure or loss of lubricant.
(2) Category B. The requirements of Category A apply except that the rotor drive system need only be capable of operating under autorotative conditions for at least 15 minutes.

(f) Each test prescribed by this section must be conducted without intervening disassembly and, except for the lubrication system failure test required by paragraph (c) of this section, each part tested must be in a serviceable condition at the conclusion of the test."

The FAA 30 min. loss-of-lube qualification only requires a single test article passing a single test procedure. On one hand, it is quite difficult to design a high-performance helicopter MRGB capable of meeting this test requirement, and conducting the test itself is quite expensive. But on the other hand, due to the large number of variables that can potentially have a significant impact on the results of this particular test, a single test article passing a single test does not really provide a statistically relevant validation of the system's design and reliability analysis. As my high school chemistry teacher was fond of saying about experiments or testing, "Nothing actually happens unless it happens more than once."

In the article linked, AgustaWestland's chief gearbox engineer (Giuseppe Gasparini) claims there are basically five factors that determine an MRGB's loss-of-lube operational capability. But in reality there is another factor he did not mention which has more potential impact than all the others combined. That is the design trade-off between MRGB weight and reliability. It is theoretically possible to design a rotorcraft MRGB that is capable of operating for hundreds-of-hours with nothing more than a mist of oil for the gears and bearings. But such an MRGB would likely be many times the size and weight of conventional designs.

[Helilog56]

Okay....where's the run dry engine(s) :E

[Torquetalk]

Played video, got up, and danced and danced and danced...

[Peter-RB]

Ball and Roller bearings are the main problem, However I would still say,

No Oil/pressure...Land asap or earlier, unless hard things are being fired at you, then you would fly like the Devil with a strange pukering feeling from ya rear end!! :eek:

Peter R-B
Lancashire

[Pittsextra]

Riff_raff - thanks for that. So its pretty much a company driven event and once you have passed a 30 min test then one assumes its rather difficult to take it away??

Do they keep the test gearbox as a reference item?

[dascanio]

Pitts:

Not exactly!
the test is part of the Type Investigation for the certification of a new helicopter.
As such, it is discussed with the airworthiness Authorities.
And, there is a standardized and detailed procedure that is followed.
for instance, ref. to the FAA Advisory circular AC29, as follows:

AC 29-2C - Section 29.927(c):
(2) Procedures.
(i) Section 29.927(c)(1) prescribes a test to demonstrate that the
effects of a loss of lubrication will not prevent continued safe powered operation
for category A rotorcraft for at least 30 minutes after illumination of the low oil
pressure warning device (required by § 29.1305). For category B rotorcraft,
§ 29.927(c)(2) prescribes the tests for safe operation under autorotative
conditions must continue for at least 15 minutes.
(ii) An acceptable means of demonstrating compliance with this rule is
through the use of a bench test (transmission test rig). Since this is essentially a
durability test of the transmission to operate with residual oil, typically the worst
case failure (i.e., the undrainable oil or the oil remaining after a severe pressure
leak, whichever results in a greater loss of oil in the transmission’s normal use
lubrication system) is used as a critical entry point for the test; see paragraph
a.(2)(iii).
(iii) The transmission should be stabilized at the torque associated with
maximum continuous power (reacted as appropriate at the main mast and tail
rotor output quills) at a normal main rotor mast speed, oil temperature that is at
the highest limit for continuous operation, and oil pressure that is within the
normal operating range. A vertical load should be applied at the mast, equal to
the gross weight of the rotorcraft at 1g. Once the transmission oil temperature is
stabilized, simulate the worst case failure in the normal use lubrication system.
Upon illumination of the low oil pressure warning device (required by § 29.1305),
reduce the input torque for category A rotorcraft to the minimum torque
necessary to sustain flight and continue the test for at least 30 minutes at the
maximum gross weight and the most efficient flight conditions. To complete the
test, apply an input torque to the transmission for approximately 25 seconds to
simulate an autorotation. The last 10 seconds (of the 25 seconds) should be at
the torque required for a minimum power landing. A successful demonstration
may involve limited damage to the transmission, provided it is determined that
the autorotative capabilities of the rotorcraft were not significantly impaired. For
category B rotorcraft, upon illumination of the low oil pressure warning device,
reduce the input torque to simulate an autorotation and continue transmission
operation for 15 minutes. To complete the test, apply an input torque to the
transmission for approximately 10 seconds to simulate a minimum power
landing. A successful demonstration may involve limited damage to the
transmission provided it is determined that the autorotative capabilities of the
rotorcraft were not significantly impaired. If compliance with category A
requirements is demonstrated, category B requirements will have been met.

[Pittsextra]

OK but once you have demonstrated your gearbox passes that test, once then its done. i.e its not an issue if you come out later and say our gearbox can't run for 30 mins or there is an accident where lubrication was lost and the gearbox was unable to run for 30 mins.

I guess what I'm saying is that there is an assumption that once that initial test is in the bag and the 30 min demo box is ticked then it is assumed that future failures are the anomaly and not the initial test..?

[noooby]

Slightly off topic, but for those of you who have done practical mechanic training at Sesto Calende on the Maintenance Trainer, you have already seen the dry run MGB for the 139.

After running with oil, then being completely drained, it was run dry for 30 minutes, inspected and then run for another 30 minutes.

Paint blistered off the inputs (mind you they are spinning at over 20,000RPM!) and turned all nasty brown colours on a lot of the casing, but the MGB stayed together.

A coat of paint and it was put into the maintenance simulator.

If you do work on it, pull the frewheel and have a look at the bearings. They sure do look like they go hot, which is no surprise!!!

Well done on the 189 MGB!

[riff_raff]

OK but once you have demonstrated your gearbox passes that test, once then its done. i.e its not an issue if you come out later and say our gearbox can't run for 30 mins or there is an accident where lubrication was lost and the gearbox was unable to run for 30 mins.

I guess what I'm saying is that there is an assumption that once that initial test is in the bag and the 30 min demo box is ticked then it is assumed that future failures are the anomaly and not the initial test..? Pitts- If you read the relevant section of FAR 29 that dascanio posted, you'll note that there is lots of room for interpretation in the requirement as written. What you are saying about the FAA loss-of-lube qual test is basically correct. The regulation only requires a single conforming test article to pass a single test procedure. However, the loss-of-lube test itself is only one part of the total gearbox certification process. Besides the loss-of-lube test itself there are also analysis efforts associated, such as FMEA/reliability.

One thing that the regulatory agencies can do to address this issue in the near term is to revise the regulations. Even without increasing the "run-dry" capability beyond the current 30 minutes, it would be a good idea to require testing of more than a single gearbox due to the large number of variables that can affect the results of this particular test. Conducting this qual test on 3 or 4 conforming test articles would help to minimize the potential for basing a pass/fail decision on a statistical anomaly. Since the loss-of-lube qual test results in destruction of the gearbox, requiring a larger number of test samples will increase certification costs. But spending an extra 2 or 3 million to improve the level of confidence regarding critical MRGB loss-of-lube operational capability is probably a wise investment.

[jimf671]

Does anyone know what ISO accuracy grades are used in these MGB?

(Cylindrical gear accuracy grades are in ISO 1328 and I think bevels are in ISO 17485.)

There is no point in superfinishing if they are the wrong shape.

[mostlylurking]

Generally super finishing refers to polishing using a diamond impregnated wheel or belt that produces a mirror finish.
My experience has been in calendaring rolls for producing rigid plastic sheet eg. 'perspex''
This finish would delay the onset of galling.

[Savoia]

Gulf Helicopters Signs for 15 AW189's

AgustaWestland, a Finmeccanica company, is pleased to announce that Gulf Helicopters of Qatar has signed firm orders for fifteen AW189 helicopters. This signing follows the preliminary sale contract announced in early 2012, confirming customer’s commitment to this new generation model. The first two aircraft are planned to be delivered to the customer in 2014 and all helicopters will achieve operational readiness by 2017.

Daniele Romiti, Chief Executive Officer, AgustaWestland said “We are delighted to see how increasingly strong is our partnership with Gulf Helicopter with the signing of a significant number of firm orders for the all new AW189 helicopter.

Gulf Helicopters Signs Firm Orders for 15 AW189 Helicopters | AgustaWestland (http://www.agustawestland.com/news/gulf-helicopters-signs-firm-orders-15-aw189-helicopters)

[iuk1963]

EASA certifies the AgustaWestland AW189 | Helihub - the Helicopter Industry Data Source (http://helihub.com/2014/02/10/easa-certifies-the-agustawestland-aw189/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HelihubNews+%28HeliHub.com+%C2%BB+Daily +News+Update%29)

[Milo C]

EASA grants AW189 helicopter type certification - News - Shephard (http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/rotorhub/easa-grants-aw189-helicopter-type-certification/)

[jimf671]

O&G Deliveries? Any news?

SAR Prototype? Presumably (hopefully) completed modification?

[nowherespecial]

Bristow are taking a few of them and a few of the Oil companies in Nigeria are wanting bids including them.

[dangermouse]

First commercial flight was carried out this week

from Bristows site

DM

Latest News - bristowgroup.com (http://bristowgroup.com/bristow-news/latest-news/2014/new-generation-agustawestland-aw189-takes-skies/)

[terminus mos]

8 pax 120nm on an 18 seat aircraft, not very impressive, no wonder they need 2 flights per day. We are looking at for the long term it but it probably won't get to where we are (250nm)

It's Bristow or Bristow's not Bristows.

[noooby]

Is the 8 pax perhaps something to do with the new regulations that I've heard whispers about?

Something about if you don't equip and train your pax for rebreather use, then all pax must sit at a window exit?

[Bravo73]

Is the 8 pax perhaps something to do with the new regulations that I've heard whispers about?

Something about if you don't equip and train your pax for rebreather use, then all pax must sit at a window exit?

If you're based in the UK, you must have had your head in the sand for the past few months (or I've missed the irony in your post):

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/524215-review-into-north-sea-offshore-helicopter-operations-announced-caa-8.html#post8467741


"In February the CAA announced a series of measures to improve the safety of offshore operations. These included the introduction of seating restrictions on offshore flights from 1 June 2014, only allowing passengers to fly if they are seated next to a push-out window exit so they can escape in an emergency. This would be an interim measure until improved emergency breathing equipment is provided.

Since February, the new Offshore Helicopter Safety Action Group, set up by the CAA, has been working to develop the recommendations and oversee their implementation.

The regulator said that new information had led it to delay the implementation of the seating restrictions until 1 September 2014".

[SilverHeli]

terminus mos, may I suggest another option for you to consider? that the client only wanted to send out 8 pax, at the end of the day it's up to the client how many seats it wishes to utilise.:) and not BHL.

[maeroda]

in-fact with regards of the north sea safety implementation AW139 carries 6 pax only.

[noooby]

Well no, I don't live in the UK, or even Europe, so I didn't know that these rule changes had been implemented.

[jimf671]

I am glad to see progress with this aircraft.


However, it makes the window seat rule look a bit stupid. You'd be lucky to get a fat man through a S-92 window but you'd get a fat man plus his horse through an AW189 window (with the saddle still on through an EC175 window!).

[terminus mos]

Quite possible Silver, but the client's Logistics department isn't doing a very good job of seat optimisation if that's the case. I would like to know the payload available.

[tottigol]

Terminus, it's very likely a 16 passenger aircraft where you live.
120 Nm out and back, with JAA standard IFR reserves is going to get you at least 16 passengers @ 100 Kg each, or so the brochure says.

[terminus mos]

Tottigol

I like the idea of the 189 for speed and comfort but for me its 250 out with a 160 closest alternate which will probably rule it out.

[Swinging Spanner]

8 pax 120nm on an 18 seat aircraft, not very impressive, no wonder they need 2 flights per day.

Hi terminus mos, it might all be a bit too early to start waving fingers :=
As the infamous Zen master once said..."we'll see" :8

Just my two cents worth

SS

[terminus mos]

Swinger, I am not waving fingers, I am interested in the available payload which will tell me all I need to know. In any event, its not an optimal load, whether oil company logistics or AW189 related.

Next time I want 2 cents from you or your Zen philosophy I will ask.

[nowherespecial]

In my experience, outside of established production areas most ac are rarely full. The oil companies can afford it, don't worry. Let them worry about it.

[Stinger10]

Good point! S-92 window barely qualifies as an emergency exit, and with 7 windows per side, they are only carrying 14 pax?

[jimf671]

New AW189 brochures are available on the AW site.

AW189 | AgustaWestland (http://www.agustawestland.com/product/aw189)

[shetlander]

Those AW189 brochures have been online for months now.

[tistisnot]

490 nms quoted without reserve - anyone know actual fuel burns at say 3000' ISA Vbr?

[Bravo73]

Can anybody confirm how the issue with the Cat A/Class 1 profiles was resolved?

[tottigol]

What Issue would that be?
About 420 Kg/Hr

[Hilife]

I note the referenced range of 600nm is with aux fuel and no reserves, so I would assume the 4 PAX at a 200nm RoA is with baseline fuel, although much detail is missing from this number. Noting current basing plans for the AW189 at LoS, Manston, Cardiff, Prestwick and Inverness, will BHL actually require aux fuel options to cover the UKSRR from any of these bases?

On the subject of fuel burn and not sure if the case for the final submissions, but I believe the initial requirements definition for RoA was for flight at just 1000 ft in ISA conditions, so pretty harsh fuel burn rates for any platform.

With lot 1 and 2 base transitions commencing on 1st April 2015, we should see initial platform deliveries to cover pre-transition training on their way pretty soon and then we will know fact from fiction.

[noooby]

I believe SAR 189's will have even more fuel than the standard+fwd tank+aux.
IIRC the SAR 189 has a deeper belly on it that has increased fuel stowage. I'm pretty sure the camo painted prototype has that belly on it now.

[tottigol]

The SAR configured AW189 has a completely redesigned fuel storage and distribution system to guarantee the performance number required by the Bristow SAR contract in the UK.

[Bravo73]

What Issue would that be?

I understand that the AW189 doesn't have the same Class 1/Cat A profiles as the AW139. Has this now been resolved?

[tottigol]

You are correct, the AW189 doe not have the same CatA/PC1 profiles as the AW139 since it's a different helicopter with a different rotor blade design, different engines...

If you forgive me, I still fail to see the issue.

[Bravo73]

You are correct, the AW189 doe not have the same CatA/PC1 profiles as the AW139 since it's a different helicopter with a different rotor blade design, different engines...

You would appear to be 'in the know' and you list the AW189 as one of your types in your profile.

Can you please share with us what CatA/PC1 profiles are available for the AW139?

[tottigol]

Clear Area and Ground/Elevated Helipad.

[jimf671]

I believe SAR 189's will have even more fuel than the standard+fwd tank+aux. ...

I wonder what happened to the 8600kg figure? Thought to have been in the plan, not in the brochure, but would make sense.



... IIRC the SAR 189 has a deeper belly on it that has increased fuel stowage. I'm pretty sure the camo painted prototype has that belly on it now.

PT5.

[Bravo73]

Clear Area and Ground/Elevated Helipad.

Can you provide more details, please? Specifically the profile for the Clear Area departure and how restricted the weight for the Ground/Elevated Helipad is..

[tottigol]

Clear Area is an acceleration and climb from a 7 ft hover.
Gross weight for the Vertical Helipad varies with HD.

I still do not see an issue.

[Bravo73]

Clear Area is an acceleration and climb from a 7 ft hover.

So the Clear Area departure is no longer a running take off? Thank you for confirming that.

[tottigol]

Clear Area T/O is still being initiated with a ground roll.

[Bravo73]

Clear Area T/O is still being initiated with a ground roll.

Ok. So we have a very modern helicopter that can't carry out a Cat A/Class 1 Clear Area departure from the hover?

And you don't think that this is an 'issue'? Eurocopter/Airbus Helicopters must be laughing their heads off.

[tottigol]

It will change. In the meantime AW is laughing at EC sale rate.

[Swinging Spanner]

tottigol has it right regarding sale rates I reckon. :D
There have been plenty of people available to cut down the AW139...meanwhile AW quietly continued to saturate the market with their product.
Lets not forget that when the AW139 first come out it had a payload of 6400kg's and many a comment was made about much the same things as we see on the AW189 thread right now ;)
Some here are a bit sensitive on the subject...but in the end the ball will keep bouncing. I reckon we just need to take a breath and see what happens during the first year or so of operation by the industry to know where AW are at with their new toy.

SS

[Swinging Spanner]

TS-ouch :ouch:

chill Winston

You have surmised that the AW189 can only carry 8 pax a short range...and then deduce that it's not impressive without knowing why this flight and payload took place...well your POV is as valid as anyone's here I guess.

In the meantime the ball keeps bouncing :8

SS

[JimL]

‘Bravo73’, the situation with respect to the AW189 performance is far more complex than you or ‘tottigol’ have portrayed.

Leaving aside the ‘clear area’ procedure for a moment and looking at the Category A vertical procedure using ‘ISA’ as a reference point (+15C and 0 PA), it has an RTOM of 8050kg (MCTOM 8300 kg):


the procedure is to climb vertically to 110’ (TDP};


following an engine failure at, or before, 110ft it can reject vertically to the helipad;


following an engine failure at or after TDP, it can perform a Continued Take-off (CTO) clearing the surface by 15ft.

Because these are early days, it does not have a variable TDP but an assumption can be made that, if it can survive a power-unit failure and reject at 110ft, there would be no ‘performance’ barrier to this level being raised. (I have my doubts, however, that there are sufficient visual reference to reject vertically from this height to an elevated helipad, let alone higher).

(In the performance section of the RFM, a similar WAT curve (for vertical reject and fly-away) is provided for all categories – in fact it appears to be a mirror image of the reject curve. This replaces the H-V Diagram, quite legitimately, using the converse of the wording from 29.1517 “if a range of heights exist at any speed, including zero, within which it is not possible to make a safe landing following power unit failure…”)

In the performance section, there are WAT and take-off procedures for Category B: one from a HIGE and a second with a rolling start; there is a ‘Category B take-off distance chart’ that applies equally to both. It is not clear if there is any advantage for one over the other because, for both techniques, the RTOM are identical. The MCTOM of 8300 kg applies for quite a wide operating envelope.

There is presently only one Category A ‘clear area’ procedure – rolling to 25kts (how does the pilot know when that has been achieved unless it is GPS derived and displayed on the PFD?); at 25kts GS the reference Tq (PI target – the Tq to achieve a 2m hover) is pulled and the helicopter is climbed to the TDP of 30ft. it is not intuitively obvious what advantage is gained by using this rolling technique bearing in mind that the mass for this procedure is not much greater than that for the vertical (at ISA, 8300 kg as opposed to 8050 kg).

One disadvantage with this procedure is that it cannot be used in PC2 under circumstances where the surface would permit a safe-forced-landing but not a running take-off or reject.

There is no Category A take-off mass WAT as specified in 29.25(a), 29.67(a)(2) and required by 29.1519 but this is not unusual for European helicopters certificated by EASA (we know not why)! AH do provide this in the performance data for the AH225 but not in the limitations section (the S92 has it in the limitations – i.e. in compliance). This data is required for operations in PC2 in order to determine the second segment climb and therefore the take-off mass.

Comparison with other helicopters is difficult because of the unique way that data has been provided.

I stand to be corrected on any/all of this.

Jim

[Ian Corrigible]

when the AW139 first come out it had a payload of 6400kg
Actually a max take-off weight of 6000kg, but we get the point. :p

Mods - Further to Swinging Spanner's point about tracking the performance and perception of the AW189 over time, could you merge all (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/468961-bristow-signs-contract-6-aw189.html) of (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/512769-aw189-demonstrates-50min-run-dry-time.html) the (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/525395-aw189-first-maiden-flight.html) various (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/538805-bristow-aw189.html) threads (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/544305-aw189-service.html) into the original (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/451377-aw189.html) to maintain a single comprehensive thread, in common with what we have for the S-76D (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/249352-s-76d.html) and EC175 (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/281966-ec-175-a.html)?

I/C

[212man]

Some additional info following Jim's points: http://easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/certification-docs-crd-AW-189-CRD-to-Proposed-ESF-on-CS.1587(b)(6).pdf

I have my doubts, however, that there are sufficient visual reference to reject vertically from this height to an elevated helipad, let alone higher).


The S92 graphs go to 300 ft, and it's a vertical procedure - though one could argue that the geometry is such that to maintain the sight picture there is a default movement back and left.

[jimf671]

... Noting current basing plans for the AW189 at LoS, Manston, Cardiff, Prestwick and Inverness, will BHL actually require aux fuel options to cover the UKSRR from any of these bases? ...


Originally, there was no DfT spec for the number of aircraft but there was an availability requirement.

The rescue capabilities and RoA were as follows.
Lot 1: "... minimum rescue capacity per aircraft of 8 casualties/survivors (2 of which are stretchered) and a minimum radius of action of 200nm (250nm at Stornoway)".
Lot 2: "... minimum rescue capacity per aircraft of 4 casualties/survivors (2 of which are stretchered) and a minimum radius of action of 170nm"

Amongst the bidders it is understood that there were proposals for 7 aircraft per lot, probably consisting of one servicing spare and one accident spare.

Then the DfT got cold feet (around the time of the 2 Super Puma ditchings). The spec then became 2 aircraft per base with the theory being that if one type was grounded then the other type could provide coverage.

Bristow now state the S-92 RoA as 250nm and the AW189 as 200nm. The interactive coverage map on the Bristow SAR website shows the coverage.
SAR Coverage Map | Bristow Search and Rescue (http://bristowsar.com/index.php/uk-search-and-rescue/sar-coverage-map/)

At least 70% of UK SAR helicopter jobs are land jobs. Full tanks are unhelpful for Land SAR search jobs since aircraft turn up unable to deploy enough searchers. First indications are that the AW189 may be less prone to this drawback than either SK or S-92 but the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

[JimL]

Some musing on AW189 performance.

Leaving aside the issue of the requirement for the H-V diagram when Category A is not mandated, let’s see what the performance data tells us.

For Category A: we can see that the ‘clear area’ procedure permits maximum mass operations up to 4000ft and 20⁰C. The ‘vertical’ procedure at MSL and 15⁰C permits a RTOM of 8,050 kg with nil wind increasing to 8,200 kg with 20 kts (all accountable headwinds are already factored at 50% in the graphs). Like most others I am baffled by the ‘rolling take-off’ clear area procedure (as stated earlier); some explanation would be extremely helpful.

There is a strong correlation between the Category A ‘vertical’ procedure and the Category B graphs for ‘reject’ and ‘fly-away’ (if one take the Category A ‘vertical’ procedure with its TDP at 110ft and reconstructs it with the Category B ‘reject’ and ‘fly-away’ graphs with the same drop down, one mirrors the other). The reject graph however, has a maximum height of 200ft!

With respect to Performance Class 2; the flight manual states that the second segment climb performance (150ft/min required) is assured if the Category B ‘fly-away’ graph is used. However, that doesn’t tell us enough (because that may not be the profile that is used). What can be seen from the performance graphs however is with the offshore regime (the ISA conditions of +15C and MSL) at Vy with MCTOM of 8300 kg:


At OEI 2 minute power, the ROC is in excess of 700ft/min (to above 50⁰C);


At OEI MCP, the ROC is in excess of 350ft/min (to above 35⁰C);

The Category B ‘reject graph’ and ‘fly-away’ graphs can be used to tailor most vertical profiles and, specifically, the HAPS helideck departure and arrival. The one thing that is missing is the achievement of deck-edge clearance – for this we must await the Category A ‘helideck’ procedure.

We already know that the ‘reject’ graph provides us with sufficient data (reliably) to predict what will result from an engine-failure before the ‘Rotation Point’ (RP - which we can choose) or after ‘Committal Point’ (CP - which we can also choose). The ‘fly-away’ graph permits us to tailor our take-off mass to the drop-down – both for take-off and landing. The ‘fly-away’ graph has wind accountability (without factoring) - although the first 20 kts of wind is ‘shaded’ because it is said that the airspeed system is unreliable up to that speed (without knowing whether that might be a factor in performing the fly-away’ profile, it is difficult to assess whether it is or is not an issue; realistically, we have a reasonable accurate wind vector from the rig which we could factor and apply). Working backwards from the drop-down height, we can establish safe* Performance Class 2 take-off or landing masses.

* With the proviso that we cannot assure deck-edge clearance – so what’s new?

Now to calculate some figures: using the established average deck height in the North Sea of 98ft, and the height of the RP and CP as our sea-miss distances (once again using ISA conditions) – the PC2 take-off mass and landing masses (without ditching exposure) will be:


Zero wind = 7,800 kg;


20 kts wind (factored) = 8,200 kg

Jim

[satsuma]

With lot 1 and 2 base transitions commencing on 1st April 2015, we should see initial platform deliveries to cover pre-transition training on their way pretty soon and then we will know fact from fiction.

Or b)............:ooh::hmm:

[jimf671]

Or b)............:ooh::hmm:

Scottish Mountain Rescue
Casbag Edn 34

"This is a new aircraft type and certification of the oil and gas variant by the European Aviation Safety Agency was issued on the 7th May 2014. The first example of the SAR variant is [late May 2014] being built in Milan and is expected to be completed shortly. This will be a major watershed in the project, allowing significant progress with test and certification, aircrew training and operating procedures. The second example will be built at Yeovil and is expected to be ready by late October 2014.

The top specification of flight simulator, configured for the AW189, was certified at Milan in March 2014 and this supplements a flight training device (without motion systems) that was certified in September 2013. A flight simulator configured as a SAR AW189 is due to be installed at Bristow in Dyce in mid-2015. AW189 maintenance dominates the Agusta Westland Training Academy engineering course calendar for the remainder of 2014.

... ...

The target for EASA certification of the SAR variant is believed to be October 2014. Even then, the Full Icing Protection System (FIPS) will not be certified and aircraft will enter SAR service in April 2015 with the standard icing protection system [LIPS] only. This is an improvement on Sea King capability so it is not a huge impediment to operations. FIPS test and certification requires winter conditions and there is no replacement for a full season of challenging conditions. The final outcome is expected to be an aircraft ready to take full advantage of all that dense winter air.

November might be a more realistic target for certification of the SAR variant but if it creeps out beyond the end of the year then things start to get difficult. The DfT have stated that they are satisfied with Bristow’s back-up plan should the AW189 not be ready to enter service in April 2015. However, neither the DfT nor Bristow have stated what that plan is. Two versions exist in the helicopter industry rumour network. Version One involves using S-92 airframes but where those airframes are to come from is not clear. New S-92 for Sumburgh and Stornoway, before 2017, are also rumoured and if such a plan is in place then its delay might provide the necessary airframes. The S-92 version allows full Contract Lot 2 capability. This version alters the training load because of the need for S-92 aircrew who will later fly in AW189. Version Two involves using Agusta Westland AW139 SAR airframes. Two such aircraft are said to be currently in build. This is similar to the aircraft currently operated by CHC at Lee-on-Solent and Portland. This version of events is not compliant with the contract because of the aircraft’s smaller cabin and reduced radius of action so it would be expected to attract contract fines. EASA reports indicate the likelihood of a reduced type-rating course, allowing credit for prior experience on AW139, so the training load is expected to be reduced. The number of mountain rescuers carried would probably be no more than in a fully fuelled Sea King on a hot summer afternoon, except all the time. Hopefully, we will never need to know which version is correct."

Sources:

DfT/MCA/Bristow/AW/Pilot1/Pilot2/A N Other1/A N Other2

[JimL]

Further musings on performance

In a previous post, reference was made to the ‘clear area’ procedure and the rolling take-off to 25 kts GS. On further examination, it is seen that this is not the only reference to ground speed in the Category A performance section; it is also used in: failure before TDP (rejected take-off); approach to LDP (balked landing); LDPs; and to refine the balked landing manoeuvres – in fact anywhere a reference speed is 40 kts or below.

For the flight testing regime, the ‘allowable wind’ is for the flight test team to decide but, for vertical take-off and landing, general guidance is that it should be at ‘0 to 3 knots’ (AC 29.45(b)). It is likely therefore that an instrumented helicopter has accurately demonstrated all the points/manoeuvres referred above. I can imagine that there was a discussion in certification with respect to speeds below 40 kts, where the (raw data) ASI is known to be inaccurate, leading to this inappropriate use of GS to be applied.

Most of the referenced points/manoeuvres are airspeed sensitive (not ground speed) and reference to GS is therefore non-sequitur. This unique way of describing reference points/manoeuvres either has to be conditioned by explanation along with examples of practical use or a reversion to airspeed applied. It strikes me that providing an RFM to suit the certification process and not the pilot is not such a good idea.

Flight operations in the higher latitudes rarely encounter calm conditions (luckily) – in fact the mean wind offshore is 20 kts. It is unlikely that the pilot will reference the ground speed during his scan of the instruments (it usually sits on its own in an undefined location somewhere in the PFD/MFD), and only the most sophisticated autopilots can fly to the lowest speeds referred to in the RFM. In fact only with respect to siting over/near the landing spot will GS be an issue.

For these reason, reference to ground speed in the RFM is of little use unless the wind conditions are calm – which they rarely are – and/or ground speed becomes a primary reference parameter (as it has become from some offshore approach procedures).

Jim

[dangermouse]

but if the ASI isn't reliable at low speeds, what other speed are you going to use apart from ground speed?

I guess the Flight Test Team knew what they were doing and the Cert authorities are happy with the RFM produced, so why question what it says?

DM

[JimL]

Dangermouse,

Just how do you expect the pilot to know the ground-speed?

As I said before, the flight test team had an instrumented aircraft. The pilot only has his ASI (or whatever is provided in the PFD/MFD for airspeed computations). If these procedures require an accurate speed to work, then there has to be provision of a method to establish it.

There will be occasions when the wind-speed is greater than the target ground-speed at the defined point - perhaps the flight manual should say something about that.

With respect to the Cert Authorities; they have not covered themselves in glory with respect to the other issues of H-V provision and the minimum helipad dimensions for Category A procedures (neither of which are in compliance with their own rules/guidance). What makes you think that they have this right?

Jim

[HeliTester]

With respect to Category A takekoff, the following guidance is provided on page B-38 of Advisory Circular 29-2C.

AC 29.59(b)(2)(i)...The CDP should be definable with the minimum crew using standard cockpit instrumentation.

[dangermouse]

Jim,

IF you have access to the certified RFM, (which I do) you should have seen in the systems description on page 7-197 that GS is displayed all the time to the pilots on the PFD, therefore the techniques CAN be flown by the average pilot because all the data he needs to fly them is presented to him

You stated in an earlier post 'There is no Category A take-off mass WAT as specified in 29.25(a), 29.67(a)(2) and required by 29.1519 but this is not unusual for European helicopters certificated by EASA' forgive me but surely the charts do exist in the Cat A supplement to the RFM?.

as you appear to lack knowledge of GS being available and have no apparent knowledge of the existence of the certified Cat A WAT curves, please can you clarify to the readers of this post the source of your performance data.

BTW The point of the cert authorities is that they act an independent specialist assessors of the manufacturers data, if you don't believe that I am surprised you fly on anything.

DM

[chopper2004]

Also AW are proposing a return to establishing the Isle of Scilly air link using the 189 by 2016


Helicopter manufacturer AgustaWestland eyes Scilly link | This is Money (http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2727305/Helicopter-manufacturer-AgustaWestland-eyes-Scilly-link.html)


Cheers

[satsuma]

With respect to the Cert Authorities; they have not covered themselves in glory with respect to the other issues of H-V provision and the minimum helipad dimensions for Category A procedures

Lest we forget, Certification was achieved in double quick time.

AW189 Achieves EASA Certification | AgustaWestland (http://www.agustawestland.com/news/aw189-achieves-easa-certification)

Less than three years after the AW189 was unveiled at Paris Air Show in June 2011 AgustaWestland has achieved EASA certification thanks to strong collaboration between the EASA and AgustaWestland teams.

On the surface it appeared that the lightning quick certification was to enable the aircraft to be ready in time for the UK SAR programme. Was that a good idea? Who really thinks that the issues referred to above by JimL will be the only problems that prevent it being ready on time? April 2015 is drawing ever closer.

[JimL]

Thanks dangermouse.

After some reflection and having considered what you have said about the use of groundspeed (GS) as a reference for the (low speed regime of) Category A procedures, I am persuaded that you are right.

Because the AW189 MFD is extremely busy, conspicuity of the ‘digital GS’ display below the ASI strip might be an issue – particularly if it is flown single pilot. The integrity of the DGPS signal also has to be assured as has its accuracy (this will have a knock on effect on the MMEL limitations of the Category A procedure because of the GS/DGPS requirement).

With respect to the issue of airspeed in excess of GS, the effects will always be beneficial because lower wind-speed is the limiting case. Although this does affect the continued take-off manoeuvre (ground speed up to 15kts, and groundspeed above 15 kts – what about the 15 kts case?), it is not of sufficient import to worry about.

I used to be of the same opinion as you with respect to the requirement for a Category A take-off mass – i.e. there is a WAT graph for each of the Category A procedures. However, the reason that there is a requirement for a Category A WAT in the ‘limitations’ section is because, even for a helicopter that is certificated in Category A, there is no compulsion to take-off or land within a Category A procedure. A good example of this is the offshore regime where Performance Class 2 is the requirement; however, this still has to be flown in compliance with the Category A take-off/landing mass.

There is also the case of the helicopter with more than 10 seats but not above the 9,072 kg (20,000 lbs) threshold (29.1(e)), for which only the basic Category A WAT is required. (Because the H-V Diagram (29.1517) is also mandated, the requirement aligns almost exactly with the Pure Performance Class 2 definition.)

The Category A mass limitation consists of a basic structural limitation (the MCTOM) and one that is associated with 29.67(a)(2) (the second segment climb) for all altitudes and temperatures specified in the approval. Yes, there are WAT curves in the Category A section, each associated with a set of procedures and the required profile, but these procedures/profiles are not always able to be flown (they might be unnecessarily limiting to the take-off/landing mass or the take-off/landing site might lack the facilities of a Performance Class 1 FATO). Yes, the graphs that show compliance with 29.67(a)(2)* are in the performance (information) section of the RFM but that does not show compliance with 29.1519.

* In fact there are two 'types' of WAT (four when anti-ice is taken into account): that for 2 min. OEI; and that for MCP OEI. Only the MCP OEI is required for compliance with the rule.

RFM that are approved by the Rotorcraft Directorate of the FAA have the Category A WAT in the limitations section.

Jim

[dangermouse]

JimL

My understanding is that the Maufacturer has to meet CS27/29 regulations, which do not reflect any 'performance classes' therefore I am slightly confused as to why you think there is a problem here so please bear with me.

CAT-A

WAT charts are included and are defined as limitations for those kind of operations in the CAT-A supplement. The techniques describe a 2 part flight path ending at 1000 ft AGL with ROC of at least 150 fpm, hence compliant iaw 29.67 (2).

HV
As stated before the RFM of the 189 does not include traditional HV charts, they are replaced by a chart which gves the WAT data associated with 2 fixed procedures; a vertical landing and a flyway one.

The WAT chart gives the maximum mass for a safe vertical landing at any height up to 200 ft (very simple to understand)

The second set of WAT info calculates the height loss associated with the flyaway technique for given AUM/ambient conditions. This data is also summarised in table form (simpler to understand).

surely this does meet the requirement of 29.1517 (I think you made a typo in your post, 29.1519 refers to weight and CG limits), the aircraft is safe to vertical reject iaw the WAT chart if below 200 ft or safe to flyaway if hover height is greater than (height loss + clearance required).

Therefore I am unsure what the problem is, the data presented is compliant with the CS requirements, although not in the 'traditional' manner, and EASA agree

happy to be corrected on any of the above.

reagrding your earlier posting (17/8 15:05) I am having trouble finding the value of Takeoff mass you use (8050kg), the vertical WAT (fig 4A-2) gives 7904 kg, please clarify where that num,ber comes from

regards

DM

[JimL]

Hi dangermouse,

Let me take the easy one first: my value of 8,050 kg came from the Category A Vertical WAT (figure 4A-1 – anti-ice off), resulting from a pressure altitude of 0 ft and temperature of 15C (ISA conditions) and nil accountable wind. I may have overstated the figure if the starting line on the right is -20 and not -10 as I assumed. If that is the case then I apologise and accept your figure of 7904 kg (I still make it slightly more).

I have no comment on the Category A procedures (but would welcome an explanation for the rolling take-off in the clear area procedure).

If, for a moment, you accept my premise that a take-off, at the basic Category A mass (as defined in my previous post), can be made without applying the Category A procedures (for example on a rough strip where a rolling take-off would not be possible) i.e. a take-off mass of 8,300 kg, 396 kg above the vertical procedure WAT. You will see that I have no defined Category A WAT on which to base my take-off mass (in accordance with 29.1519) and no H-V Diagram on which to base my projected profile (in accordance with 29.1517). Whilst accepting that the reject/fly-away graphs are a great innovation and very welcome, only when they complete the circle and provide options right up to the basic Category A WAT, can they be said to replace the H-V Diagram.

What has been described above is not an unusual situation in operations because, to apply the Category A procedures – i.e. operate in Performance Class 1, the pilot must correctly apply the procedures/profile and fulfil the strenuous FATO requirements of surface condition, and minimum size (the rejected take-off distance). Outside of an airfield environment, these are as rare as hen’s teeth. However, I can operate: in Performance Class 2, to the basic Category A WAT - achieving a generally acceptable level of safety; and, in Performance Class 2 with exposure, to the basic Category A WAT (together with AEO HOGE in zero wind conditions) – achieving a measured level of safety.

Jim

[dangermouse]

First the easy one

the chart is coloured, the right hand line is the same colour as the -20 text, the next one to the left is the same colour as the -10 text so you were using the wrong line (the value I got was from the table at fig 4A-2 which is a tabluar version of that chart)

OK let me go through this slow time as things are still not entirely clear to me (and maybe some others), I am not aware of the requirements for PC1 and PC2 are.

I am making the assumption that when you use the term 'basic Category A mass' you mean the maximum mass at which the aircraft is certified (ie 8300kg)

For this aircraft you only have 2 CAT A profiles, vertical or rolling, if you don't do either then surely the CAT A limits do not apply and you will be using the 'HV' data to plan you flying, ie a vertical reject within the WAT limits is OK upto 200 ft AGL or a flyaway provided the height loss allows it, or using CAT B WAT

In this case the 'HV' data gives a max AUM for a safe vertical landing less than 8300kg so doesn't that mean you can only takeoff at MTOW (8300kg) using a CAT A profile or using CAT B procedures with all that implies in terms of OEI capability.

As the Advisory circular for CS29 is that used on FAR29 then I agree arguably 29.1519 has not been met in the legal sense if you require an HV chart to cover max TO mass operations, is that your point?

maybe it's just a difference in view between EASA and FAA, prehaps when (and if) EASA get round to their own Advisory material it will be clearer

DM

[heli1]

There seems to be a lot of armchair discussion here. What do those now flying and maintaining the 189 have to say about the aircraft ?

[JimL]

Thanks dangermouse.

I obviously have an early version of the chart because it is not colour coordinated.

Before attempting to make an input to your post, it might be a good idea to explain some of the reasons this debate is taking place. No area of aviation exists in isolation; whilst your statement on the requirement for showing compliance with the appropriate certification code is correct, the ultimate reason for the provision of standards, limitations, information and data is to provide operations with qualified helicopters, procedures and (for the purpose of this debate) performance information.

AW responsibilities to the code are in some sense finite and static; however the code has an intent which (whilst not always obvious) can, with examination of the history, be divined quite clearly (because it is well documented). Operations on the other hand are dynamic and as broad as the imagination of the customer, operator and pilot. To plot a safe route through such an operational environment needs data and information that doesn’t require us to fly on rails.

Anyway, on with the subject at hand.

The best way to describe the ‘Category A mass’ is to use Part 29.1(e) as the example: it requires the manufacturer to provide “the Category A requirements of 29.67(a)(2), 29.87, 29.1517…”. No compliance with the other Category A rules of Subpart B – Flight, are mandated and compliance with Subpart G – Operating Limitations and Information, is assumed (including 29.1519 – referring to 29.25(a)(1) to (3)). Because there is no requirement for Category A take-off and landing procedures, this leads to a necessity for a ‘Category A mass’ without any presumption of the take-off profile (only that it must remain clear of the H-V Diagram).

Operating in Performance Class 1 correlates quite closely with Category A procedures but is not currently required in the US and, in Europe, required only for operations in a built-up area or when carrying more than 19 passengers (with a derogation for more than 19 passengers offshore). Operations in Performance Class 2 are used the majority of the time (and specifically for offshore landing/take-off). So whilst Category A procedures are required for occasions when ‘mandated’ or, when they can be used without payload penalty, it is operations in Performance Class 2 that are predominant and the driver for flexible performance information/data.

For this aircraft you only have 2 CAT A profiles, vertical or rolling, if you don't do either then surely the CAT A limits do not apply and you will be using the 'HV' data to plan you flying, ie a vertical reject within the WAT limits is OK up to 200 ft AGL or a flyaway provided the height loss allows it, or using CAT B WAT
In essence, this illustrates the issue; the Category A clear area procedure is too restrictive, the Category A Vertical procedure is payload limiting (as is the Vertical reject) and the Category B profile requires level acceleration to achieve flight clear of the H-V avoid curve (and doesn’t provide second segment climb compliance in the WAT).

As the Advisory circular for CS29 is that used on FAR29 then I agree arguably 29.1519 has not been met in the legal sense if you require an HV chart to cover max TO mass operations, is that your point?
Yes it is ‘a’ point, but used only as an illustration that there is a space in the information provided by the reject/fly-away graphs between the upper limits of the reject curve and the maximum Category A mass (the mass meeting the ‘design maximum mass (structural)’ and ‘the highest mass at which compliance with 29.67(a)(2) is shown’) – (for offshore operations) 8,300 kg. There is no doubt in my mind that the gap can be filled, but not with a traditional H-V Diagram. If this information is not provided, then compliance with 29.1517 has not be shown unless Category A procedures, Category B procedures (remaining clear of the H-V curve), or the reject/fly-away graphs are mandated in the limitations section. Not really the result that we want for a new type of helicopter.

Jim

[dangermouse]

Things are now a lot clearer and I can see where you are coming from

hopefully others have also gained some new insights as well

regards

DM

[jimf671]

... hopefully others have also gained some new insights as well ...


No kidding! :ok:

[JimL]

’thought for the day’

Now that the intent of Part 29.1, and its associated clauses are (hopefully) clearer, it can be seen that the taxonomy - used as a bridge between the 'certification' and 'performance' codes in Europe, and the basis for regulation of 'performance' in the US - has been disrupted by the reluctance of EASA to correct the error made when they transferred the requirement to apply RFM Limitations from regulations to the Law - see the discussion in the HV thread:

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/544688-helicopter-height-velocity-h-v-limitations.html

Instead of correcting that error and reinstating the alleviation from the H-V Diagram, when operating in accordance with the ‘Exposure Approval’, EASA are attempting to reshuffle the requirements (both certification and operational) to suit their purpose. (Perhaps observance of the principle of Occam’s Razor should be their maxim.)

When AW applied for an Equivalent Safety (ES) ruling, replacing the HV Diagram with the fly-away and reject graphs, EASA saw an opportunity without seeing the pitfalls in the logic - i.e. the gap between the Category A WAT (8,300 kg) and the top end of the reject curve, resulting in a concomitant lack of compliance with 29.1517. (This was clearly pointed out to EASA in a comment to the published ES proposal.)

http://easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/certification-docs-crd-AW-189-CRD-to-Proposed-ESF-on-CS.1587(b)(6).pdf

The situation has also been compounded by a misunderstanding of the certification requirements, resulting in the omission of: the Category A, and B, H-V Diagrams (in compliance with 29.1517); and, the basic Category A WAT (in compliance with 29.1519) from the Limitations Section of European RFMs (as found in FAA approved RFMs – see the S92). Most of which are required in showing compliance with the requirements of Performance Class 2 (modified, as required, by alleviations permitted when operating with exposure).

As was said earlier, AW have done a great service to the industry by providing the principle of ‘reject’ and ‘fly-away’ graphs - thus providing a toolkit for the construction of Performance Class 2 profiles to suit most sites. What is missing (and probably on the AW agenda) is: a WAT graph to close the gap between the Category A WAT and the top end of the ‘reject’ curve; and, the provision of a practical profile to achieve deck-edge clearance on an elevated heliport or helideck departure. The latter one might already be part of the Category A Helideck Procedure which has not yet been added to Supplement 4 of the RFM.

Without the latter it is difficult to see how compliance with CAT.POL.H.310(c)(2)(ii):
(ii) any helicopter operated from a helideck located in a hostile environment,

the take-off mass shall take into account: the procedure; deck-edge miss and drop down appropriate to the height of the helideck with the critical engine(s) inoperative and the remaining engines operating at an appropriate power rating.
can be shown.

Jim

[bpaggi]

Hi Folks

I would like to post some clarifications on the very interesting discussion develloped here.

I like first to assure everybody that AW189 has been certified and is fully compliance with all the applicable rules and no exemptions have been made.

H-V
In AW we are convinced that the CS29 H-V regulations, particularly for twin engines is out of date and needs to be revisited in order to provide a much more practical and operational information.
The traditional H-V chart does not provide much to the operator other than data for which a potential HOGE engine failure could be catastrophic without providing a real operational scenario and way out procedures. Furthermore traditional H-V charts are only valid for the type of published surface that is usually a runway type that is almost never the situation for takeoff/landing and OGE operations in real life.
For this reason we went for a "non traditional" H-V charts that in our opininon provide what a pilot needs to know when is hovering OGE (IGE section is automatically incorporated in the Cat B and Cat A takeoff and landing procedures/WAT).
We do hope that this way of presenting H-V data will be welcomed by the operators and AAs as well (EASA has already).

Cat B
The published Cat B procedures fully comply with the requirements for the takeoff profile up to 50 ft and climbout speed and for the OEI Continnuous climb performance requirements. The published WATs cover these procedures for zero wind takeoff/OEI landings, for any wind effect, dedicated WAT charts are published for both HIGE (takeoff and landings) an HOGE.
The published procedures cover both HIGE depart style and rolling takeoff from available runways.

Cat A
We currently pubblished only Runway, and ground/elevated helipad (including a shallow landing approach to allow more weight when feasable).
For the Runway (Clear Area) we elected to provide a rolling style manoeuver for a very simple reason:
[LIST]
our helicopters have wheels, why not use them?
this technique is much more passanger friendly
If an engine fails before lift off, no big deal
But we are also open to provide a traditional HIGE depart if this would be required even though a Cat A reject must always be demonstrated on a suitable surface that can accomodate it that is usually a runway for this kind of procedure.

The vertical helipad procedure is provided for helipad size of at least 20x20 m and can easily be accomplished with always the ground in sight. 110 ft is considered safe and easy to achieve. This manoeuver is very passenger friendly in all phases and not aggressive in case of any emergency.
This procedure is meant for ground base helipads.

The shallow helipad approach is a traditional helipad landing style

As per our company attitude, we will be providing also a dedicated offshore helideck Cat A procedure (like the 139) that will be certified a later date.

I hope this helps in understanding the reasons behind the 189 procedures/performance and opens a profitable discussion.

[JimL]

In answer to a question by Geoffer' on the application of the Category A procedures, I have posted on the HV Thread:

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/544688-helicopter-height-velocity-h-v-limitations-2.html#post8650953

It probably has just as much relevance to this thread as the other.

Jim

[John Eacott]

Gulf Helicopters receives 2 AW189 super medium helicopters
(http://www.gulf-times.com/eco.-bus.%20news/256/details/409456/gulf-helicopters-receives-2-aw189-super-medium-helicopters%E2%80%8B)

Gulf Helicopters (GHC), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Gulf International Services, has taken delivery of the first two AW189 super medium helicopters in offshore configuration.

This is part of the 15 AW189s on order and the delivery of the whole batch of aircraft is now scheduled to be completed by 2017, a spokesman of GIS said in a communiqué to the Qatar Stock Exchange.

GHC, already a major AW139 operator, becomes the first customer in the Middle East to introduce the AgustaWestland Family concept into operational service. It was also established as an AgustaWestland authorised training centre for the AW139 and AW189 in September 2013 and ordered the first AW189 Full Flight Simulator (FFS) in the region in February 2014.

“Our recent acceptance of delivery of our first two AW 189s is based not only on our marketing strategy for the future of the company’s expansion, but also on our customers’ requests for such a helicopter size,” GHC CEO Mohamed al-Mohannadi said.

These two deliveries are in line with GHC’s expansion plans and specially cater to contracting with international oil companies outside of Qatar, which is expected to increase the company’s revenue and profitability, the spokesman said.

GHC, being one of the largest helicopter operators in the Middle East, is also building on training capabilities in general and is also developing further as an AgustaWestland Training Center and a Regional Hub, in particular.

The AW189 was designed in response to growing market demand for a versatile, affordable, multirole super medium class helicopter. The new 8.3-tonne, twin engine helicopter is optimised for long range offshore transport and SAR (search and rescue) missions and has already received over 130 orders, including options and framework agreements, in more than 10 countries from 15 customers, making it the outright market leader in its class.

The spacious cabin is configured with 16 seats as standard with the option for a high density 18 seat lay out or a long range 12 seat configuration. The cockpit design, incorporating the latest in advanced situational awareness technologies, reduces crew workload and enhances safety.

The AW189, which meets the very latest international regulatory safety requirements, is unique in having a 50 minute ‘run-dry’ capable main gear box, exceeding current certification standards and offering unmatched safety and reliability for long range offshore operations.

http://www.helis.com/database/pics/news/2012/aw189_gulf.jpg

http://helihub.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/aw189-gulf-helicopters2-2x.jpg

[JimL]

I would like to tidy up my comments on this thread with my conclusions on the AW189 ESF CS 29.1587(b)(6) (these conclusions are an extract from Appendix A of the Response to NPA 2014-19 document posted on the H-V thread):

Conclusions on the AW189 Equivalent Safety Findings on CS 29.1578(b)(6)

Although the initiative to supply graphs that can be used to provide take-off and landing profiles in Performance Class 2 (and for ‘aerial work’ activities) is a move in the direction to removing the H-V Diagram as a Limitation, the boundaries of the ‘reject’ graph fall short of the requirements in CS 29.87, CS 29.1517, CS 29.1583 and CS 29.1587 on a number of counts:

1. The upper boundary of the ‘reject’ graph does not extended to the maximum mass specified in the RFM and therefore does not provide compliance with CS 29.87(a).

2. A failure to comply with CS 29.87(a) prevents compliance with CS 29.1587(b)(6).

Note: Compliance with 29.1587(b)(6) can be satisfied if compliance with 29.1583(f) is provided.

3. A failure to comply with CS 29.87(a) prevents compliance with CS 29.1517.

4. A failure to comply with CS 29.1517 prevents compliance with CS 29.1583(f).

Note: Compliance is not required of CS 29.1583(f) if the Category A procedures are in the limitations section or, are contained elsewhere and mandated by a statement/pointer in the limitations section.

It is not clear, from the contents of the limitations section, if the Category A procedures of the AW189 are, or are not, mandated. This is not an issue that is confined to the AW189 but is also observed in the AW139 RFM. By not showing compliance with CS 29.1853(f) (pointing to CS 29.1517), the requirement to apply the Category A procedures is indeterminate. Mandating the Category A procedures would seriously inhibit operations to other than airfields. It would prevent operations in Performance Class 2 under circumstances where such operations have been safely conducted since the introduction of the Performance Classes.

At the time when the ESF was approved, the AW189 was being introduced to offshore operations without a Category A Helideck Procedure in the RFM. If Category A procedures are mandated, this results in offshore operations in contravention to the RFM!

Even if a Category A Helideck procedure is introduced, there will be circumstances where complying with the procedure is not possible for environmental reasons. This is why there has never been a proposal for the introduction of operations in Performance Class 1 to Helidecks.

Although this equivalent safety finding is ostensibly concerned with the alternative method of providing information for compliance with CS 29.1587(b)(6), it is confounded by a lack of compliance with CS 29.1517 and CS 29.1583(f).

Jim

[Geoffersincornwall]

... where life is a bit more complicated than we would really like all the discussions about Cat A offshore founder on the need for practical solutions that are easily understood and easily replicated in a huge variety of situations. These vary from the heli-deck on the northernmost platforms that are 200 feet ASL to the nasty little monopole flat tops in the southern North Sea that are just under your 'D' size and the lay-barge decks 25 feet above the waves. There is an almost infinite variety of deck shapes and sizes and many in very testing environments. To imagine these global operations are policed to EASA standards is wishful thinking - even in Europe in my opinion!

It wasn't so long ago that the ops manual of a major operator laid down the procedure for take offs with the S76A+. It said 'the pilot can make three attempts at taking off but if there is insufficient vertical performance the pilot must, after the third attempt, remove a passenger or sufficient cargo to facilitate a departure.'

It's a daft idea I know but can you imagine the pilot of a 747 being told the same thing - yes daft - but you can see where I am coming from. Cat A?? Makes me laugh.

The subtleties and complexities of these rules are lost on most and what we need instead is a basic awareness about the relationship between mass and safety. The nearer you are to your maximum the smaller the safety margins. Simple guidelines set out by the CP can be a great help.

G.

[noooby]

Soooooo.... With the SAR 189 now certified and with a MTOW of 8.6t, will the "normal" 189 be getting a MTOW increase soon to match the SAR bird?

Structurally they are the same, bar the extra fuel tanks.

[evergreen139]

Rosneft Oil to Buy 160 AW189 build by HeliVert - Helicopter Database (http://www.helis.com/database/news/aw189_rosneft/)
"By 2025, HeliVert is due to produce and deliver 160 helicopters to Rosneft."
some kind of joke?):confused:

[terminus mos]

Soooooo.... With the SAR 189 now certified and with a MTOW of 8.6t, will the "normal" 189 be getting a MTOW increase soon to match the SAR bird?

Structurally they are the same, bar the extra fuel tanks.

I wouldn't. Bristow have apparently already found a crack in the tail within the first 1000 hours of 189 operations.

[satsuma]

Maybe it is just a big 139 after all.

[Sevarg]

Come on, next line please. Is it just TFIF???:O

[dangermouse]

EASA?

CAA?

or Bristows

and why only Bristows ones....

'Grounded' is not the same as 'not flying' and has much more severe implications.

HECATE, Please clarify the situation (if you can)

DM

[EESDL]

cracks cracks and more cracks - inc engine mounting cracks - so I've heard....

[laurenson]

http://easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/EASA-TCDS-R-510%20-%20AW189%20-%20Issue%202.pdf

Have you seen the belly tank?? 2055kg fuel tank, this helicopter will have a nice range now!!

[Bravo73]

What's the story with the Cat A/Class 1 profiles? Any improvements yet?

[laurenson]

I haven't heard any improvement on CP1 side. The last weight I have heard is around 7950kg on CP1 elevated helideck 110ft. It's look a bit short for a 8600kg MTOW...

[EESDL]

Cracks in the AW189?
must be true as even the Aberdeen P&J has said so ;-)
Love the comment where a worker said that they must have pulled some old 225s out of the shed to replace the 189 - apparently because the 225 was covered in soot - and didn't even have the emergency cards in the back of the seats a priceless ;-)

[jimf671]

Aye, a bit cringeworthy. He should be grateful really. That's sixteen of them that didn't need to make something up for their safety observation card that day. :E

[laurenson]

Yes, BIG cracks, 18 inches....

But I don't know on which part of the aircraft, and how long 189 will be grounded.

[[email protected]]

Looking like an all S92 fleet for UK SAR then...

[Ian Corrigible]

I don't know on which part of the aircraft
"non-structural fractures...in a non-load bearing area of the frame" (https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/aberdeen/512963/north-sea-helicopters-grounded-cracks-found-craft)
Not that this helps much.

I/C

[Same again]

Yes - if only the AW189 had such a problem-free introduction to service as the S-92, EC225, AW139......:rolleyes:

[dangermouse]

not a real issue, just blown out of proportion

as I mentioned before, this is not a 'grounding', it is a choice of the operator not to fly those aircraft untuil a repair has been doneI guess, anybody seen a notice or AD from EASA?

didn't thnk so

Every new aircraft has teething troubles, this one is no different. I believe there were cracking issues within the sponsons on the early S92s...

DM

[shetlander]

Hate to disappoint but the Bristow SAR AW189 has been airborne the last few day, no cracks in this airframe.

Some pics from today's training near the Norfolk coast:

http://i61.tinypic.com/ei4dpy.jpg

http://i57.tinypic.com/20u924p.jpg

http://i57.tinypic.com/21mhs1z.jpg

[jimf671]

High stress environment.

Sea state 2?

[jimf671]

Flightglobal: AW189. (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/delivery-nears-for-first-uk-built-aw189-sar-variant-410153/)

"Cracking of internal panels in the cabin..."



(During this week, AW have registered G_MCGO/P/R/S/T which seems to account for the SAR aircraft currently in build at Yeovil.)

[laurenson]

What is the problem with the De-icing, is it true that the FIPS requires too much energy? :confused:

[jimf671]

I was told two months ago that de-icing was sorted bar the paperwork. That was shortly after a well-publicised period of cold testing at Sawyer, Michigan.

Too much energy? Not heard that one.

In what respect too much energy?

[Ian Corrigible]

Rotor & Wing reported (http://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/topstories/_85254.html) on Friday that the latest AW189 icing tests were only completed in late May.

De-icing systems add to the aircraft's existing power draw (dedicated 45KVA and 25KVA generators required in the case of the AW139, or one of the two 75KVA main generators in the case of the S-92). Not a problem for types such as these with good OEI performance, but a challenge for older models with smaller power margins.

The systems also tend to be temperamental: Sikorsky had to retrofit the initial version of the S-92's RIPS in 2008 due to teething issues (with additional upgrades following in 2009), and similar reliability/troubleshooting issues have been encountered with both the AW139 and H225/EC225. Development of the S-76D's RIPS system also continues to lag behind target.

I/C

[laurenson]

Not a problem for types such as these with good OEI performance, but a challenge for older models with smaller power margins.

AW hasn't yet published any elevated helideck performance charts and in the same time has problems with its De-icing certification.

You don't think, these two facts could have the same origine: not enough power

[laurenson]

no news on that subject.

[noooby]

laurenson, if you look back at the 139, you'll find that elevated helideck procedures were one of the last things added to the RFM and I don't think the 139 suffers from a lack of power! And neither does the 189. A lighter airframe than the 92 with the same engine.

The 189 FIPS is different to the 139 FIPS, so it isn't as simple as just adding a certified system to another aircraft.

FIPS has separate, stand-alone AC Generators that do not take too much power from the helicopter. IIRC for the 139 they take about 17hp to run through the MGB.

[laurenson]

Your comparison with S-92 is not perfectly right, S92 has a CT7-8A engine (around 2500-2700shp), while the AW189 has a CT7-2E (around 2000-2100shp). Moreover some charts in the FM reveal that the current configuration doesn't allow elevated helideck CAT A take off at MTOW.

So my concern is about a takeoff or an hover in icing condition, how will react my helicopter? and which level of safety will i have?

[noooby]

I guess you'll just have to wait until Elevated Helidecks and FIPS are completed in the RFM :)

[Um... lifting...]

laurenson-

S-92. 5.26 pounds / HP

AW139. 4.90 pounds / HP (6.8 tonne). 5.04 pounds / HP (7.0 tonne). 7.3% / 4.3% more engine power per unit mass than S-92.

AW189. 4.58 pounds / HP (15% more engine power per unit mass than S-92)

That's a start. Performance charts will be derived from actual performance during flight testing. I've flown the AW139 for a number of years and watched the performance envelope grow. The same will happen with the AW189.

You need mass to place power in context. Transmission and dynamic losses will all be taken into account during flight testing.

[jimf671]

When somebody referred to not enough power, I think we went off on a bit of a tangent.

Is the power (electrical) available at the right time and in the right place? :uhoh:

This is a powerful aircraft with plenty of generating capacity which is not difficult or unusual. What is difficult is designing a way of distributing and managing that power effectively when there is an endless list of competing systems. Worse still, when the aircraft was designed for one principal purpose and then has to be modified for another.

[noooby]

jimf671, FIPS is a stand alone system.

It has it's own AC Generators (two of them) that are not used by ANY other system on the aircraft.

It has it's own Power Distribution Panels and dedicated wiring and infrastructure.

It even has its own warning and control panel. It does not take power from any other aircraft system. It is totally self contained so that it doesn't affect any other electrical system on the aircraft.

Even the heated windshields are different between FIPS and non-FIPS aircraft because of the different power supply.

This means that it is HEAVY because you are adding a totally independent electrical system to the aircraft.

So there is no issue with power supply to FIPS on a FIPS aircraft as it has nothing to do with the standard electrical system, nor does it have anything to do with the engine power.

I've been playing with the 139 FIPS long enough to know what to expect on the 189, except the 189 system is simpler (thank goodness!).

[jimf671]

... ... I've been playing with the 139 FIPS long enough to know what to expect on the 189, except the 189 system is simpler (thank goodness!).


Excellent news. :ok:

And the rest of the aircrafts electrical systems; my particular interest being SAR role equipment; are they simple and effective?



(Ammunition pre-loaded in Somerset.)

[noooby]

Mmmmm. Couldn't say sorry. Not familiar with the 189 SAR bird at all.

[The Sultan]

noooby,

While it may not suck electrical power. The weight pf an independent electricql system and the fact that the generators suck engine power will be a significant impact on performance/payload.

The Sultan

[laurenson]

I agree with sultan,
to carry the same payload, the helicopter will require more power, for the additional weight and for the electrical power.
adding a electrical system coudn't be transparent for the helicopter performance and that is more true for OEI performance.

[noooby]

The 139 FIPS system is ~500lbs give or take. The 189 system is a bit lighter and is installed on an airframe with increased load carrying capability over the 139 so shouldn't impact the available load as much.

The total extra load on EACH engine with the 139 is ~15 horsepower, 30hp in total. If you are very hot or very high that could affect your Cat. A perf, but otherwise it isn't enough to worry about. And if you're operating in a hot environment you should probably remove the FIPS anyway (there are summer "kits" for the removal of FIPS components to reduce wear and weight).

For flight at or near MTOW there is a payload decrease, as there must be for any system that is added to an aircraft, but remember the Air Con on the 189 is no longer driven by the Main Gearbox, so there is a driveline hp saving there when compared to the 139, so it would be interesting to see how it all balances out between the two Main Gearboxes on the two machines. I don't have that data I'm afraid!

[laurenson]

And if you're operating in a hot environment you should probably remove the FIPS anyway (there are summer "kits" for the removal of FIPS components to reduce wear and weight).

this is a good news if the FIPS could be removed quikly because 500lbs is two pax.

[noooby]

You can't get all the weight back. Roughly 200lbs back if you remove the boxes. The rest of it is made up of wiring and Main Gearbox differences.

[Outwest]

S-92. 5.26 pounds / HP

AW139. 4.90 pounds / HP (6.8 tonne). 5.04 pounds / HP (7.0 tonne). 7.3% / 4.3% more engine power per unit mass than S-92.

AW189. 4.58 pounds / HP (15% more engine power per unit mass than S-92)

Lifting.....are you quoting engine numbers here or MGB numbers? It really doesn't matter what the engines can produce if the MGB is the limiting factor.

I'm not trying to start a fight but right here at the factory, guys who have flown both the 139 and the 189 will tell you the 189 does not have the power margins of the 139. Not saying it is under powered, but it is no ( 6.8) 139.

[Stinger10]

Just need to remember too, 5-bladed rotor systems are higher performing (which everyone loves), but require a more complex system to counter icing. Shedding ice which every system has to be able to do as well as prevent it.

S-92 is a basic 4 bladed (UH-60 rotor system) rotor system.

[nowherespecial]

FIPS is done:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/aw189-finally-receives-easa-approval-for-fips-426972/
29 June 2016.

[noooby]

I hope it is better than the 139 system and I also hope that any improvements filter down to the 139!

[jimf671]

The first Yeovil-built AW189, s/n 92001, was originally an SAR aircraft, G-MCGN on the UK SAR contract. A couple of weeks ago it was re-registered as G-CJNV and has appeared in O&G guise at Aberdeen. The latest Bristow earnings report also indicates a change in the financial provision for buying AW189 SAR aircraft for the UK SAR contract.

Of the six remaining AW189 SAR, only three are registered to BHL and the other three still AW/Leonardo.

Lee-on-Solent work-up soon followed shortly thereafter by Prestwick (two per base) so presumably another handover is due soon.

By this strange twist, Yeovil has produced a helicopter for a normal commercial operation. Whoa, scary!



Funny old world.

[BTC8183]

It will be interesting to see how many of this variant Yeovil eventually 'build'. Let's face it, it's a Polish airframe,normally assembled at Vergiate.
The Sar variants fuel storage config is probably well suited to crew change duties, as the centre fuselage tank space can be used for baggage.
As the afformentioned airframe has only had its tailboom resprayed white, its redeployment may only be temporary

[Sevarg]

It would be a good place to put some hours on the airframe and see what cracks. Knowing New models there will be some that will raise their heads.

[ppng]

Today's teaser: which senior technical manager of a major operator trying to win a contract in the UK with the 189 has described it in public as a "pig wearing lipstick"? :D

[Ex Machina]

Does he drive a black Porsche by any chance?

[[email protected]]

Has there not already been a main gearbox issue? Is the MRGB man enough for those 2 big engines?

[Ex Machina]

No reported issues with the MRGB. No problems at 8.6T either - ask Bel Air as they are the fleet leaders.

[9Aplus]

Never heard about MRGB issue on modern AW machine...
after all the NH90 MRGB doing well too (so far)

[noooby]

crab do tell, with 50 minute dry run, the MGB is proven as being very tough. I'd like to know where you got your info and what you are talking about. Those MGB's and the 139 MGB are pretty darn strong.

[BTC8183]

Just a thought, but might this Mgb issue be no more than a unshedueled change as a result of a Hums alert or trend change.You will find, post225 incidents,no major operator or manufacturer will be taking any chances.

[Yousaidwhat]

Lost windows:
North Sea Helicopters Lose Windows Twice Within a Month - Oil and Gas News (http://www.oilandgaspeople.com/news/11592/north-sea-helicopters-lose-windows-twice-within-a-month/)

[212man]

crab do tell, with 50 minute dry run, the MGB is proven as being very tough. I'd like to know where you got your info and what you are talking about. Those MGB's and the 139 MGB are pretty darn strong.
To be pedantic, it isn't 'run dry' - it's 'run with back up oil supply'.

[nowherespecial]

https://www.oilandgaspeople.com/news/11592/north-sea-helicopters-lose-windows-twice-within-a-month/

Anyone know if this is pure co-incidence or a design fault? I also disagree with the idea that this is not a safety critical incident:

'It is of course a serious issue when something falls off a helicopter during flight, but neither incident presented any critical risk to the safety of the aircraft or the passengers. A window falling out does not present any danger to life as a helicopter cabin is not pressurised.' :ugh:

So it's serious and not....!

[BTC8183]

Is not the 189 back up oil supply,to the inputs only?.The rest of it has no back up.

[nowherespecial]

Let's blame the 225 and the oil price! :)

PS - Yousaidwhat, sorry for duplication.

[dascanio]

Is not the 189 back up oil supply,to the inputs only?.The rest of it has no back up.
Exactly.
Since the most critical areas of the gearbox are the two high speed inputs, a clever "passive" method to continue to feed oil in case of loss of lubrication has been designed, that does not need pilot's activation, sensors, pumps, external coolants or whatever.
Basically, the working main lubrication system keeps a small reservoir always filled, the reservoir drains very very slowly, thus guaranteeing a minimum oil drip that keeps input lubricated and cooled in case of loss of oil pressure because of pump failures or loss of oil.
The rest of the gearbox has to run dry.

[Hilife]

Not wanting to be pedantic, but the phrase Run-Dry is misleading and not a term used by the regulatory authorities.

The loss of lubricant guidance of AC 29-2C does not require the transmission to be empty of oil, as the test allows for a predetermined level of residual oil to be left in the transmission during the test, so most certainly not Run-Dry by any standards.

If you assembled a MGB using just a light lubrication of all the contact surfaces, bearing and gears etc. and performed the loss of lubrication test required by part 29.927(c)(1), I’d bet my shirt that there is not a helicopter MGB out there used for commercial operations that would pass the loss of lubrication test.

[noooby]

Actually, to be pedantic, the run dry test that AW does is done with the MGB totally drained of oil. No back up system. The back up system is only for Oil and Gas machines and is a very recent add-on with the 139 (copied from 189 system).
The 139 MGB was run for 30 minutes with oil, then drained of oil and run a further 30 minutes. Freewheels were then pulled to see how much damage was done. Freewheels were then put back and a FURTHER 30 minutes dry running was done (all at 100% NR and 100%TQ).
MGB was then stopped and inspected again. Inputs were toast. Paint was all brown and bubbling off. Smoke everywhere.
If you want to have a look at that MGB, go to Sesto, it is on the Maintenance Sim. Every mechanic who does the practical training there pulls the freewheel out and inspects it. Jaws often drop :eek:
169 MGB ran continuously for 52 minutes dry (no back up system) before they stopped the test.

[casper64]

https://www.oilandgaspeople.com/news/11592/north-sea-helicopters-lose-windows-twice-within-a-month/

Anyone know if this is pure co-incidence or a design fault? I also disagree with the idea that this is not a safety critical incident:

'It is of course a serious issue when something falls off a helicopter during flight, but neither incident presented any critical risk to the safety of the aircraft or the passengers. A window falling out does not present any danger to life as a helicopter cabin is not pressurised.' :ugh:

So it's serious and not....!

Unless it ends up in the tail rotor.....

[nowherespecial]

Casper, my point exactly.

[Mary]

Nobody has mentioned the service bulletin..............

[Ex Machina]

It might have played a part!

[laurenson]

Any news about UK SAR contract?
I was told that the AW189 haven't yet started operations?

[jimf671]

Starts at Lee-on-Solent on 1st April 2017. That will be followed by Prestwick, the Bristow 139 bases and finally Inverness in around spring or summer 2018. :ok:

At that point, the DfT and Bristow barely have time to draw breath before preparation begins for the NEXT CONTRACT! :E

Work-up starts soon. Aircraft may be available for partner organisations to sniff around during the work-up period of the next few months. :ok:

Thousands of SAR partner practitioners around the UK currently have no idea that people make helicopters that you cannot stand up in :rolleyes: so I am expecting that the bu11sh1t level will initially be be quite considerable. :ugh: :ugh:

[noooby]

April Fools start date? Oh dear....

[jimf671]

All Fools' Day.

But also the British Government's favourite day. I am sure that is purely coincidental.

[tottigol]

Coming soon to a base near you, the AW189K with new and even lower fuel burn and weights.

Bu-Byeeee A175, quickly disappearing in the rearview mirror.

[Twist & Shout]

Bu-Byeeee A175, quickly disappearing in the rearview mirror.

I might be the victim of some sort of elaborate propaganda campaign* but that’s the scenario I’d put my money on.

* AH is on my “zero trust” list, and I’m only getting glowing reports from all the pilots I know who are flying the AW189, so there is a fair bit of bias in my opinion.

[rrekn]

Why on earth would you replace the bullet-proof CT7 with a French thing?

[noooby]

An option for Customers who want a Euro engine in there.

[Ian Corrigible]

And for those customers in countries which may face export restrictions on the CT7 (e.g. Iran).

We'll have to see whether the second engine option helps the AW189 move its orderboard from "over 150 units (http://www.leonardocompany.com/en/-/aw189k-helitech17)," where it's been stuck since February 2015 (http://www.leonardocompany.com/en/-/aw1229).

even lower fuel burn
Not according to Roberto Garavaglia, who says (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/leonardo-expects-few-order-swaps-to-aw189k-helicopte-441766/) that "The GE engine will still be the reference on fuel," with the RTM 322's (sorry, Aneto's) additional power coming 'at the cost of slightly higher fuel consumption.'

I/C

[GKaplan]

Why on earth would you replace the bullet-proof CT7 with a French thing?

An option for Customers who want a Euro engine in there.


You guys know the EC175 has Canadian engines right? (Pratt & Whitney) ;)

[noooby]

I do know that. Similar engine to the 139, but asking for more power for a heavier machine.

You think the 175 will get a Euro engine option soon????

[Ian Corrigible]

You think the 175 will get a Euro engine option soon????
It already does, in terms of the Chinese version of the aircraft, the AC352 (https://www.safran-helicopter-engines.com/media/chinas-ac352-completes-first-flight-wz16-engine-20161220), which is powered by a local variant of the Safran Ardiden (https://www.safran-helicopter-engines.com/helicopter-engines/1000-2000-shp/ardiden), designated WZ-16 (https://www.safran-helicopter-engines.com/engine-partnerships/partnerships/wz16/wz16).

I/C