Agusta A109
Has it always been a requirement to move the first started engine to flight before starting the second engine?
I feel sure I was taught that leaving the first engine in idle was ok.
What is the reason to move the first engine to flight?
Also I understood the less tha 100 Amps was a recommendation not a requirement.
Can anyone advise?
I feel sure I was taught that leaving the first engine in idle was ok.
What is the reason to move the first engine to flight?
Also I understood the less tha 100 Amps was a recommendation not a requirement.
Can anyone advise?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Qld, Australia
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Dick. I can now admit I too was shown to start the 2nd Eng with the 1st at IDLE, but have been re-reading the RFM which says to have the 1st ENG at FLT before starting the 2nd.
I'm guessing the reason is for a softer Engagement with the 1st ENG at FLT like the Bell 412 requirement to be at 77 to 85% NR for the 2nd Eng start. Which is where I think the 100 amp recommendation has come from. Even though the 412 RFM says below 150 amps. Most guys I've flown with, wait until below 100 amps.
I haven't been able to find anything in the A109E RFM about waiting for below 100amps, but do have a check of the amps, as that too was shown to me during my endorsement.
I'm guessing the reason is for a softer Engagement with the 1st ENG at FLT like the Bell 412 requirement to be at 77 to 85% NR for the 2nd Eng start. Which is where I think the 100 amp recommendation has come from. Even though the 412 RFM says below 150 amps. Most guys I've flown with, wait until below 100 amps.
I haven't been able to find anything in the A109E RFM about waiting for below 100amps, but do have a check of the amps, as that too was shown to me during my endorsement.
Dick,
Yes, the first engine to flight idle after start was there from the start: drove me nuts as I thought it a recipe for forgetting to wind up the second engine plus it was unnecessarily noisy outside at 100% Nr.
Now, hands up the AW109 driver who hasn't pulled pitch with only one engine in flight?
Yes, the first engine to flight idle after start was there from the start: drove me nuts as I thought it a recipe for forgetting to wind up the second engine plus it was unnecessarily noisy outside at 100% Nr.
Now, hands up the AW109 driver who hasn't pulled pitch with only one engine in flight?
Dick,
No, I have an old Rev 11 copy which shows the same procedure. It does note that
A little ambiguous, since if you start in IDLE (as I always do) after post start checks the last requirement before second engine start is
Followed by a note:
Clear as mud?
No, I have an old Rev 11 copy which shows the same procedure. It does note that
It is recommended to start the engine in IDLE, nevertheless, if necessary, it is possible to start to FLIGHT by setting the ENG MODE switch directly to FLT.
ENG 1 MODE switch : FLT
In the starting phase it is suggested to select FLIGHT mode as soon as possible in order to speed up the engine oil heating
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
The start procedure in the 190E and subsequent models mirrors the start procedure for the Allison/Rolls-Royce powered models where it was necessary to put the first engine to Flight when cross-starting.
The FADEC engines will 'govern' N1 at IDLE, so there is no real requirement to put the first engine to FLIGHT - in fact, a case could be made that it's better from a procedures point of view to leave it at IDLE - the logic being that you should only ever have both engines at IDLE or FLIGHT together, so as to not try to takeoff with one at IDLE and one at FLIGHT.
The only PW206/207 helicopters that I know of that haven't had someone try to takeoff with one at IDLE and one at FLIGHT are the Bell 417/429 - their engine switch has only two positions - OFF and IDLE (or is it START). The rest of the engine control is done with collective mounted throttles...
The FADEC engines will 'govern' N1 at IDLE, so there is no real requirement to put the first engine to FLIGHT - in fact, a case could be made that it's better from a procedures point of view to leave it at IDLE - the logic being that you should only ever have both engines at IDLE or FLIGHT together, so as to not try to takeoff with one at IDLE and one at FLIGHT.
The only PW206/207 helicopters that I know of that haven't had someone try to takeoff with one at IDLE and one at FLIGHT are the Bell 417/429 - their engine switch has only two positions - OFF and IDLE (or is it START). The rest of the engine control is done with collective mounted throttles...
John Eacott's note is the key, the RFM say to start the second engine with the first at fly. Simple really.
Not to do with soft engagement and neither is the B412 from memory. The B412 is to avoid and "avoid" area.
Re taking off with one engine at idle in the A109 - it has actually led to more than one accident and even a fatality on an EMS ship in the US. This happens not only because of the engine start procedure (although a common contributing casual factor) and not because it is a PW206/207.
Have not heard of EC135 guys making the error, but I have no experience with that type.
In the A109E I would argue it is a unique human factors issue that permits take off with one engine at idle and both roof mounted throttles at fully open. In other-words, the visual indication from flying other types is the roof mounted throttles - and these can be sit ironed full open in the fly position, however the engine switches are down on the console and can be at idle even when the throttle is mismatched at fully open with no warning light.
No doubt in my mind that this is a human factors issue straight from the human factor manual of what not to do in design
And I think JE's comments on the number of guys caught out is testament to that. Shows also how poor the display system is that a Ts and Ps check is also failing to pick up one engine at idle before take off.
But this is a problem somewhat of the past if you upgrade your machine. As a result of the fatal in the US and some lobbying by other operators (we were one) the system is upgrade able to include an engine out aural warning and engine out light which activates anytime you increase collective with one engine at idle.
Engineering out the problem is always the superior answer to human factor issues, and short of getting rid of the whole throttle design in the A109E, they have done a good job with this one. It is a very effective engineering solution and all A109E operators should do it or face the almost inevitable instance of making the same mistakes and risking the same old outcomes from the same old known issue.
Not sure if this affects the grand and grand new, I have no experience in those types.
Not to do with soft engagement and neither is the B412 from memory. The B412 is to avoid and "avoid" area.
Re taking off with one engine at idle in the A109 - it has actually led to more than one accident and even a fatality on an EMS ship in the US. This happens not only because of the engine start procedure (although a common contributing casual factor) and not because it is a PW206/207.
Have not heard of EC135 guys making the error, but I have no experience with that type.
In the A109E I would argue it is a unique human factors issue that permits take off with one engine at idle and both roof mounted throttles at fully open. In other-words, the visual indication from flying other types is the roof mounted throttles - and these can be sit ironed full open in the fly position, however the engine switches are down on the console and can be at idle even when the throttle is mismatched at fully open with no warning light.
No doubt in my mind that this is a human factors issue straight from the human factor manual of what not to do in design
And I think JE's comments on the number of guys caught out is testament to that. Shows also how poor the display system is that a Ts and Ps check is also failing to pick up one engine at idle before take off.
But this is a problem somewhat of the past if you upgrade your machine. As a result of the fatal in the US and some lobbying by other operators (we were one) the system is upgrade able to include an engine out aural warning and engine out light which activates anytime you increase collective with one engine at idle.
Engineering out the problem is always the superior answer to human factor issues, and short of getting rid of the whole throttle design in the A109E, they have done a good job with this one. It is a very effective engineering solution and all A109E operators should do it or face the almost inevitable instance of making the same mistakes and risking the same old outcomes from the same old known issue.
Not sure if this affects the grand and grand new, I have no experience in those types.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 421 Likes
on
222 Posts
Not sure if this affects the grand and grand new, I have no experience in those types.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near the Mountains
Age: 67
Posts: 345
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now, hands up the AW109 driver who hasn't pulled pitch with only one engine in flight?
However, I got in the habit of both to IDLE and then both to FLT together. Yes, I know it says summat else in the RFM but that's what I did for nearly 1000 hours at an average 1 start per slightly less than a flying hour. The apparent benefit, according to the maintenance organisation at the time, was significantly less wear on the brushes in the Starter/Gen. However, I don't remember the details of the explanation I got other than they were not replaced on ours nearly as often as others....
22
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 421 Likes
on
222 Posts
I do the same, but the load on the gennies isn't so critical on the later models (below 160 Amps load on the first genny before the second engine is started). Out of mechanical sympathy I allow it go down to about 130 Amps or less (it normally is very quickly so if the engines have been run that day).
In the A109E I would argue it is a unique human factors issue that permits take off with one engine at idle and both roof mounted throttles at fully open. In other-words, the visual indication from flying other types is the roof mounted throttles - and these can be sit ironed full open in the fly position, however the engine switches are down on the console and can be at idle even when the throttle is mismatched at fully open with no warning light.
No doubt in my mind that this is a human factors issue straight from the human factor manual of what not to do in design
No doubt in my mind that this is a human factors issue straight from the human factor manual of what not to do in design
With both speed selects and the rotor brake all painted black, if the R/B is inadvertently left on and a quick glance at the overhead made it can easily be overlooked. Yes, I know there is a caption!
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 421 Likes
on
222 Posts
I'd suggest that this also is an issue with the rotor brake on/off for start, since Agusta still don't have a simple code line in their software to inhibit start with the rotor brake on.
Blatantly stupid design, imo, (certainly wouldn't pass an MOT test) but then what do we pilots know about cockpit design?
Even the military Gazelle had a bit of bent wire on the Rotor brake handle so you couldn't advance the throttle with the rotor brake on
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near the Mountains
Age: 67
Posts: 345
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blatantly stupid design, imo, (certainly wouldn't pass an MOT test) but then what do we pilots know about cockpit design?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Europe
Age: 45
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was wondering if I could pick the collective brain.
Recently flew a A109E that if you let it sit for more that two hours, start it up and pick it up in to the hover, it will have a one per airframe bounce - not through the controls. It happens with or without the SAS or inverters on. lower the collective to flat pitch and it goes away for the rest of the flight. If you start up with a short period of time it does not reappear, let it sit for a couple of hours and its back again.
The engineers said that they changed the dampeners, inspected the rotor head (elastomeric bearings, droop stops, etc), tested the inverters, checked for grounding issues but with out any luck.
Any thoughts?
Recently flew a A109E that if you let it sit for more that two hours, start it up and pick it up in to the hover, it will have a one per airframe bounce - not through the controls. It happens with or without the SAS or inverters on. lower the collective to flat pitch and it goes away for the rest of the flight. If you start up with a short period of time it does not reappear, let it sit for a couple of hours and its back again.
The engineers said that they changed the dampeners, inspected the rotor head (elastomeric bearings, droop stops, etc), tested the inverters, checked for grounding issues but with out any luck.
Any thoughts?
Last edited by gwelo shamwari; 4th Jul 2013 at 16:31.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was wondering if I could pick the collective brain.
Hi gwelo,
I am not very familiar with the A109E, but was wondering if they use fibre optic gyro's or the mechanical type?
Sometimes the mechanical type can cause this phenomenon in different types of helo's. Just thinking outside the box...or maybe in this case inside the box
Another is depending on operating environment-I had many experiences where helo's with elastomeric bearings on MR head assy's in very cold environments would affect vibration and seem rough after first start of the day and even after take off but within minutes the elastomerics would soften up and helo become smooth again...even if elastomerics were new.
Best of luck
SS
I am not very familiar with the A109E, but was wondering if they use fibre optic gyro's or the mechanical type?
Sometimes the mechanical type can cause this phenomenon in different types of helo's. Just thinking outside the box...or maybe in this case inside the box
Another is depending on operating environment-I had many experiences where helo's with elastomeric bearings on MR head assy's in very cold environments would affect vibration and seem rough after first start of the day and even after take off but within minutes the elastomerics would soften up and helo become smooth again...even if elastomerics were new.
Best of luck
SS
Gwelo,
Is it an Elite ?
They have damper installed on the forward support tubes (the ones that transfers the lift loads from the gearbox to the airframe), might transmit vibration if they are wearing out perhaps ?
G.
Is it an Elite ?
They have damper installed on the forward support tubes (the ones that transfers the lift loads from the gearbox to the airframe), might transmit vibration if they are wearing out perhaps ?
G.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmmmm ...
I have absolutely no experience with the 109 .... BUT heaps of hours on the 412 ...
IIRC there was a situation with the 412 some time ago where certain Elastomerics were discovered to be made of slightly differing compounds which led to some interesting tracking and balancing issues ( ) ...
Visual inspections tended to mean very little as the elasto's always looked perfect ... check records ... did this issue spring up after the changing of one elasto component in the head?
If all other methods of rectifying this vibe fail ... I'd suggest changing ALL the elasto's as a 'complete set' (I know this will be expensive) and seeing if the problem dissapears.
Good luck ...
I have absolutely no experience with the 109 .... BUT heaps of hours on the 412 ...
IIRC there was a situation with the 412 some time ago where certain Elastomerics were discovered to be made of slightly differing compounds which led to some interesting tracking and balancing issues (
) ...Visual inspections tended to mean very little as the elasto's always looked perfect ... check records ... did this issue spring up after the changing of one elasto component in the head?
If all other methods of rectifying this vibe fail ... I'd suggest changing ALL the elasto's as a 'complete set' (I know this will be expensive) and seeing if the problem dissapears.
Good luck ...
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A109E Power with sliding doors
I am looking for a A109E Power with sliding doors (to buy), preferably in Europe - obviously only helicopters currently not advertised.
Looking forward for pm's if you know somebody who might consider a sale.
TIA
Looking forward for pm's if you know somebody who might consider a sale.
TIA