Agusta A109
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
No ... I would think not .... who did your type rating ... a TRI/TRE who should have been able to supply you with an (approved) checklist.
And even as a Private Pilot (and I would hope a quite experienced one) flying this quite sophisticated Helicopter ... you should be able to sit down with the flight manual and make a suitable checklist.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: nz
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just getting the RFM right is challenge enough. Contract them to it though....and they provide....currently on draft 3....looking very good now.
The checklist should, however, always be the 'operators' preserve as the manner in which the aircraft is flown, crew numbers, CRM procedures, etc...etc...can all vary from customer to customer, and it is the operator who intrisically knows the answer to how the aircraft will be used.
My opinion, it is a big ask for the maker to cover all possible checklist outcomes, and in this litigious age, why would they?
Just be clear that your own checklist has all the critical ingredients.
I have seen the 'generic' 139 check list, which looks very good and obviously benetfits from the recency of the aircraft. The 109, however, has a great many different variants now and standardisation of checklists would obviously be more difficult.
The checklist should, however, always be the 'operators' preserve as the manner in which the aircraft is flown, crew numbers, CRM procedures, etc...etc...can all vary from customer to customer, and it is the operator who intrisically knows the answer to how the aircraft will be used.
My opinion, it is a big ask for the maker to cover all possible checklist outcomes, and in this litigious age, why would they?
Just be clear that your own checklist has all the critical ingredients.
I have seen the 'generic' 139 check list, which looks very good and obviously benetfits from the recency of the aircraft. The 109, however, has a great many different variants now and standardisation of checklists would obviously be more difficult.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmmm ...
Shyt ol' darling ..... I was not at all condescending ... re-read through the posts ...
You WILL see I refer to approved checklists made up (from the RFM) by suitably qualified persons attached to an aircrafts owner/operator ...
You as an ATPLH with about 30 years of rotary experience (as am I) have the ability to formulate from the RFM what is required and what may be left out of a checklist .... why have a personal dig at me for offering advice ....
I would hope that any organisation who would offer a machine of the A109's calibre for use would have also gone to the trouble of having suitable checklist made up.
Have a Merry Christmas .....
Shyt ol' darling ..... I was not at all condescending ... re-read through the posts ...
You WILL see I refer to approved checklists made up (from the RFM) by suitably qualified persons attached to an aircrafts owner/operator ...
You as an ATPLH with about 30 years of rotary experience (as am I) have the ability to formulate from the RFM what is required and what may be left out of a checklist .... why have a personal dig at me for offering advice ....
I would hope that any organisation who would offer a machine of the A109's calibre for use would have also gone to the trouble of having suitable checklist made up.
Have a Merry Christmas .....
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
I would hope that any organisation who would offer a machine of the A109's calibre for use would have also gone to the trouble of having suitable checklist made up.
Condescending - the tone of your post certainly appeared to be just that. You wrongly assumed that I was a PPL because I asked a question on behalf of a private owner, who would be without the benefit of a chief pilot, chief instructor, TRE/TRI, etc to provide a checklist.
However, Merry Christmas to you, too.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Unless there is some over-riding requirement (like a Part 135 operation in the US) that mandates the company make up and follow a checklist, it's natural to make up and use your own checklist.
There is no legal requirement to only use the manufacturer's checklist and if you have any optional equipment installed that has a Flight Manual Supplement, and especially one that is not installed at manufacture, then you have to make your own checklist.
Be prepared to defend it!
For the 109E and subsequent models for example, there is no need to go to flight after starting the first engine - the fuel control will maintain the N1 when the governor is turned on, unlike the earlier models.
And it makes sense to only move the two engine mode switches at the same time to prevent the situation of trying to take off with one at idle and one at flight - it's happened many times in the past, and will continue to happen unless you have the discipline of moving both switches at the same time.
There is no legal requirement to only use the manufacturer's checklist and if you have any optional equipment installed that has a Flight Manual Supplement, and especially one that is not installed at manufacture, then you have to make your own checklist.
Be prepared to defend it!
For the 109E and subsequent models for example, there is no need to go to flight after starting the first engine - the fuel control will maintain the N1 when the governor is turned on, unlike the earlier models.
And it makes sense to only move the two engine mode switches at the same time to prevent the situation of trying to take off with one at idle and one at flight - it's happened many times in the past, and will continue to happen unless you have the discipline of moving both switches at the same time.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
And it makes sense to only move the two engine mode switches at the same time to prevent the situation of trying to take off with one at idle and one at flight - it's happened many times in the past, and will continue to happen unless you have the discipline of moving both switches at the same time.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmmmm ...
..... It gives an audio warning if the collective is raised in a "single engine" configuration.
As does the 139 .... now! (but its not an option).
..... It gives an audio warning if the collective is raised in a "single engine" configuration.
As does the 139 .... now! (but its not an option).
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geez you guys make it sound all so hard. I don't mean to sound arrogant but with plenty of time on all the 109's it ain't that difficult.
Why go to flight on the ground if you don't need to?
The EDU's will show you quite clearly that one is in idle hence the yellow displays.
For memory the Grand has an aural associated with this.
Why go to flight on the ground if you don't need to?
The EDU's will show you quite clearly that one is in idle hence the yellow displays.
For memory the Grand has an aural associated with this.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
oxi:
You're exactly right.
But the number of times people have tried to take off with one engine at idle and one at flight in all the helicopters with the P&W 206/207 (except the Bell 427/429- more on that in a minute) is amazing.
You would think that a quick check of the gauges would be in order prior to lifting the collective, but it appears as though there are a lot of folks who don't.
The Bell 427/429 did not go with three-position switches - they have a two-position switch - off and start. The engines are taken from idle to fly using the collective mounted throttles. Bell also declares an engine failure on the basis of a torque split instead of on compressor speed on those two machines.
You're exactly right.
But the number of times people have tried to take off with one engine at idle and one at flight in all the helicopters with the P&W 206/207 (except the Bell 427/429- more on that in a minute) is amazing.
You would think that a quick check of the gauges would be in order prior to lifting the collective, but it appears as though there are a lot of folks who don't.
The Bell 427/429 did not go with three-position switches - they have a two-position switch - off and start. The engines are taken from idle to fly using the collective mounted throttles. Bell also declares an engine failure on the basis of a torque split instead of on compressor speed on those two machines.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Why go to flight on the ground if you don't need to?
The audio warning is part of the mod I referred to. Not all 109S's have it; the later ones (after serial 22045) do have it as standard. For earlier airframes it came out as an optional BT (109S-16, dated October 2007), requiring something like 28 man hours to retro-fit.
Without the mod there is no audio warning. Also, the yellow strip when 102% N2 is set can mask the adjacent yellow one for OEI. Also, the No2 engine control knob is hidden under the collective.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi ShyTalk generally the only time I go to "Flight" is immediatly before take off.
Or if its really necessary to run the air/cond due to atc delays. Cant have uncomfortable punters.
From "Idle" to "Flight" one engine at a time to see it all happens nice, torques match etc etc. Alway rpm set to 100% then 102% for lift off.
I preferr to do my hydraulics at "ground idle" occasionaly I will check for binding of the servo which may be felt at flight rpm as opposed to idle.
Checklists sure as per the rfm and applicable supplements but a good flow check wins everytime for me, provided you know the helicopter..
Or if its really necessary to run the air/cond due to atc delays. Cant have uncomfortable punters.
From "Idle" to "Flight" one engine at a time to see it all happens nice, torques match etc etc. Alway rpm set to 100% then 102% for lift off.
I preferr to do my hydraulics at "ground idle" occasionaly I will check for binding of the servo which may be felt at flight rpm as opposed to idle.
Checklists sure as per the rfm and applicable supplements but a good flow check wins everytime for me, provided you know the helicopter..
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
I do likewise but we are sometimes required to ground taxy for prolonged periods, especially if low-viz procedures are in force. I do that at 100%.
I too select 100% before going from "Idle" to "Flight" mode; otherwise the Nr overswings briefly to 104%, which I don't like to see. As the Nr peaks, then cuts back after the second engine catches up, if on a helipad or in a field, I then immediately select 102% for lift off.
I too select 100% before going from "Idle" to "Flight" mode; otherwise the Nr overswings briefly to 104%, which I don't like to see. As the Nr peaks, then cuts back after the second engine catches up, if on a helipad or in a field, I then immediately select 102% for lift off.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: reckoning
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reducing empty weight of A109C
Hey guys, I am flying a A109C which has an empty weight of 2006Kg. I was wondering how there's another machine (A109C) here that has an empty weight of around 1900Kg ???
The extra equipment fitted in our's, I think are AWR, Loudspeaker system, small inbuilt retractable search light which functions as landing light. But I still don't think that is enough of a difference to cover about 100Kgs of payload difference..
Hope you experienced guys can through some light on this.
Thanks
The extra equipment fitted in our's, I think are AWR, Loudspeaker system, small inbuilt retractable search light which functions as landing light. But I still don't think that is enough of a difference to cover about 100Kgs of payload difference..
Hope you experienced guys can through some light on this.
Thanks
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: around and about
Age: 71
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
A109C weight probs
The problem revolves around the fact that Agusta didn't see fit to appoint a weight engineer to review the changes from the A109A2 model. Hence you have the trailing link on the undercarriage (for example) made of stainless steel. Which is a laudable idea for durability but adds weight.
And just about everything within the design was 'beefed up' so the weight grew (and grew). Panels that were .020" became .032", and one element you could look at would be the plethroa of ' electrical provisions' built in with multi-pin plugs and sockets just everywhere. 'Many a mickle makes a muckle' as they say. You would be amazed at the cumulative effect of all these minimal weight increases. (I tackled a new machine on delivery and managed to remove some 25kg of redundant wiring and connectors. Huge amount of work = labour = much money)
And finally the interior(s). If your machine has the 'silent' one, it has lead sheeting sandwiched in the beautiful (and heavy) custom leather trim, to attenuate the Xmsn noise in the cabin. And very effective too. But one hell of a penalty to payload
Gott a stack of detail on this somewhere (but not sure where I put it) ~ VFR
And just about everything within the design was 'beefed up' so the weight grew (and grew). Panels that were .020" became .032", and one element you could look at would be the plethroa of ' electrical provisions' built in with multi-pin plugs and sockets just everywhere. 'Many a mickle makes a muckle' as they say. You would be amazed at the cumulative effect of all these minimal weight increases. (I tackled a new machine on delivery and managed to remove some 25kg of redundant wiring and connectors. Huge amount of work = labour = much money)
And finally the interior(s). If your machine has the 'silent' one, it has lead sheeting sandwiched in the beautiful (and heavy) custom leather trim, to attenuate the Xmsn noise in the cabin. And very effective too. But one hell of a penalty to payload
Gott a stack of detail on this somewhere (but not sure where I put it) ~ VFR
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A109 without IR(H)
Who of you got to fly one without an (JAA/EASA) IR(H)? My guess it, it was a prerequisite for most jobs, to fly one.
Well, if you are an owner...
My reasoning is, if your aim is to fly the north sea, an IR(H) (plus ATPL) is a must, anyway. If you are in to corporate/vip onshore flying, do not spend the money, unless you get a chance for a job offer, even if it was slim. Seems like a hen/egg problem and with so many pilots with time/qualification waiting for a job, it is not worth the financial risk (imho).
Anyway, no thread drift: Who got to fly one without having a IR(H)?
Well, if you are an owner...
My reasoning is, if your aim is to fly the north sea, an IR(H) (plus ATPL) is a must, anyway. If you are in to corporate/vip onshore flying, do not spend the money, unless you get a chance for a job offer, even if it was slim. Seems like a hen/egg problem and with so many pilots with time/qualification waiting for a job, it is not worth the financial risk (imho).
Anyway, no thread drift: Who got to fly one without having a IR(H)?
Blame My Parrot
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Somerdorset, UK
Age: 69
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A109 Power/LUH ISA+35
Good morning folks. Can anyone tell me if the AW109LUH can operate up to ISA +35? Searched all over the internet but can't find an answer.