Agusta A109
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Spain
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
109 power
Can't remember the exact date but around 2 or 3 years ago one 109 power coming from maintenance to its working base in Madrid as HEMS crashed. As result the only pilot on board died. Witness man in agricultural job around the scene decribed: " helicopter started to do strange things near the ground and finally crashed oppsite direction than it was flying". I flew to the scene and thought that for a helicopter with no contollability, what a great job the pilot had done trying to bring it down!!
After all this time no results on investigation but we all think in the same cause than you are discribing in previous meesages. So sadly I have to say you were forgetting to add this accident to the others you discribe.
After all this time no results on investigation but we all think in the same cause than you are discribing in previous meesages. So sadly I have to say you were forgetting to add this accident to the others you discribe.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: N20,W99
Age: 53
Posts: 1,119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Matador,
Are you in Spain? Do you by any chance know a Heli pilot named Xavier Rovira? He's catalan and taught me to hover in the US many years ago.
Last I heard several years ago he was working over there fighting fires.
Are you in Spain? Do you by any chance know a Heli pilot named Xavier Rovira? He's catalan and taught me to hover in the US many years ago.
Last I heard several years ago he was working over there fighting fires.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sunrise, Fl. U.S.A.
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blender Pilot stated:
Who would you blame the mechanics or the pilot?
That's the unfortunate part of our professions, it has to be something we couldn't have seen on preflight to be able to lay causal factors elsewhere other than the obvious "pilot did not notice on preflight, etc."
Lot of pressure, typical response is that if we can't handle it, then don't do it.
My thought is: Check Everything before flight, and hope if something happens it wasn't something I could have foreseen.
Know what I mean?
Who would you blame the mechanics or the pilot?
That's the unfortunate part of our professions, it has to be something we couldn't have seen on preflight to be able to lay causal factors elsewhere other than the obvious "pilot did not notice on preflight, etc."
Lot of pressure, typical response is that if we can't handle it, then don't do it.
My thought is: Check Everything before flight, and hope if something happens it wasn't something I could have foreseen.
Know what I mean?
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Spain
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Blender pilot, yes I've heard about Xavi Rovira ,though I never met him we share some friends. He is working in Cataluņa in a company called Heliswiss mostly in firefigting and external cargo in northern mountains. If you want I could contact him and get you in touch with him.
Glad to share information with everybody in this forum.
Buen vuelo.
Glad to share information with everybody in this forum.
Buen vuelo.
I have just done a bit of off-line research on the crash record of the 109 Power and I have come up with this list ....
Date
03.03.1997 9M-DRB Destroyed Commercial
26.07.1999 EC-GQX Destroyed EMS
See the above report. Data supplied by Air-Britain. According to them it was mentioned in AAIB report www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/bulletin/feb01/gtvaa.htm so I guess that it was a scissors accident but have not checked.
14.01.2000 G-JRSL Damaged w/o Commercial
26.2.2000 I-FLAN Damaged in f/l EMS
17.6.2000 G-TVAA Damaged w/o EMS
14.1.2000 SX-HDQ Destroyed EMS
09.10.2000 I-FLAN Destroyed EMS
25.02.2001 G-DPPH Damaged w/o Police
17.06.2002 SX-HDR Destroyed EMS
plus there has been PP-MPA which ditched in the Atlantic within the last year on a commercial flight.
I make no comment whether that list of ten [including one which flew again to crash again] is a good or a bad record, but I am sure it will give you something to chew on!
Date
03.03.1997 9M-DRB Destroyed Commercial
26.07.1999 EC-GQX Destroyed EMS
See the above report. Data supplied by Air-Britain. According to them it was mentioned in AAIB report www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/bulletin/feb01/gtvaa.htm so I guess that it was a scissors accident but have not checked.
14.01.2000 G-JRSL Damaged w/o Commercial
26.2.2000 I-FLAN Damaged in f/l EMS
17.6.2000 G-TVAA Damaged w/o EMS
14.1.2000 SX-HDQ Destroyed EMS
09.10.2000 I-FLAN Destroyed EMS
25.02.2001 G-DPPH Damaged w/o Police
17.06.2002 SX-HDR Destroyed EMS
plus there has been PP-MPA which ditched in the Atlantic within the last year on a commercial flight.
I make no comment whether that list of ten [including one which flew again to crash again] is a good or a bad record, but I am sure it will give you something to chew on!
Scalextric for Men
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Southern England outside the M25
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now in addition to the preceeding list.
Didn`t an English Television presenter;
known for a helicopter passion. Have an
inflight control problem with the same make of
machine: whose style is not disimiliar to those in this thread?
Didn`t an English Television presenter;
known for a helicopter passion. Have an
inflight control problem with the same make of
machine: whose style is not disimiliar to those in this thread?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: london
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He sure did - and now refuses to fly his family in the aircraft and is trying hard to move it on - but who would buy it ?
Don't forget the Dyfeed Powys Police A109E crash on Dec 26 last year aswell - that's gone quiet now aswell
Link this site to the A119 crashes aswell - who would buy a helicopter from Augusta ????
Still they plough on and we keep buying them and flying them - maybe when enough people have lost thier lives someone will spark !!!!
Don't forget the Dyfeed Powys Police A109E crash on Dec 26 last year aswell - that's gone quiet now aswell
Link this site to the A119 crashes aswell - who would buy a helicopter from Augusta ????
Still they plough on and we keep buying them and flying them - maybe when enough people have lost thier lives someone will spark !!!!
If the Agusta is all that bad....why is not the FAA/CAA on their case? Also....why has not some lawyer tweaked to the lure of vast sums of money if he wins a court action for product reliability or some other lovely tactic for removing money from defendants? Surely the insurance companies would be in the lead to put them out of business by charging outrageous premiums?
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What should be changed?
Regarding the CAAs requirement that no design will be certificated if parts can be put in backwards this sounds good in principle but it is not always true. That is my first point.
Regarding the crash of any aircraft the certifying authorities require that something be changed in order to prevent a similar accident from occurring. The manufacturer has the option of changing the design, which is expensive, or to modify or clarify the procedures, which allowed the accident to occur. Another thing to consider is that it was purely a maintenance error and the technician did not follow the existing procedures or in cases illustrated in the accident report the manufacturers technicians installed the scissors incorrectly.
Although this post is aimed at accidents of Agusta designed helicopters the same situation applies not only to all helicopter designs but to fixed wing aircraft as well. Engineers do not take into consideration all aspects of the design although the certification requirements dictate what should be done. The tech writers sometimes minimize the technical detail in the maintenance procedures or they get it wrong or, they too do not consider all aspects of the procedure and what can go wrong. If a maintenance technician performs his job in accordance with the manual and something goes wrong it is not his fault. However if he does not follow the procedure and something goes wrong then it is his fault. But who is at fault if the technician follows the procedures and the procedures are wrong. In that case the procedure is changed or further amplified with words or pictures.
This does not happen, as frequently on military aircraft as the entire maintenance manual must be verified by performing every single maintenance procedure. If a discrepancy is indicated the manual and or the design is changed prior to fielding the system. This does not mean the system is perfect, as problems will arise in the field but not to the magnitude of the problems described in this thread.
Getting back to my first point there are many designs that were approved by the CAA where parts or elements could either be put in backwards or cross connected.
Cases in point: S-55 where the tail rotor controls could be cross-connected. The S-58 where the electrical connectors on the servo control systems could be cross-connected shutting both systems down. A-310 and possibly the A-320 where the electrical controls and sensing and control elements of the secondary flight control could be cross connected causing system failure or possibly causing extreme difficulty in diagnosing technical problems. There are probably many many more.
The manufacturers are not perfect nor are the certifying authorities. However you must end up flying the finished product. As it has been said many times in these threads never buy (or fly) the A model of anything.
Regarding the crash of any aircraft the certifying authorities require that something be changed in order to prevent a similar accident from occurring. The manufacturer has the option of changing the design, which is expensive, or to modify or clarify the procedures, which allowed the accident to occur. Another thing to consider is that it was purely a maintenance error and the technician did not follow the existing procedures or in cases illustrated in the accident report the manufacturers technicians installed the scissors incorrectly.
Although this post is aimed at accidents of Agusta designed helicopters the same situation applies not only to all helicopter designs but to fixed wing aircraft as well. Engineers do not take into consideration all aspects of the design although the certification requirements dictate what should be done. The tech writers sometimes minimize the technical detail in the maintenance procedures or they get it wrong or, they too do not consider all aspects of the procedure and what can go wrong. If a maintenance technician performs his job in accordance with the manual and something goes wrong it is not his fault. However if he does not follow the procedure and something goes wrong then it is his fault. But who is at fault if the technician follows the procedures and the procedures are wrong. In that case the procedure is changed or further amplified with words or pictures.
This does not happen, as frequently on military aircraft as the entire maintenance manual must be verified by performing every single maintenance procedure. If a discrepancy is indicated the manual and or the design is changed prior to fielding the system. This does not mean the system is perfect, as problems will arise in the field but not to the magnitude of the problems described in this thread.
Getting back to my first point there are many designs that were approved by the CAA where parts or elements could either be put in backwards or cross connected.
Cases in point: S-55 where the tail rotor controls could be cross-connected. The S-58 where the electrical connectors on the servo control systems could be cross-connected shutting both systems down. A-310 and possibly the A-320 where the electrical controls and sensing and control elements of the secondary flight control could be cross connected causing system failure or possibly causing extreme difficulty in diagnosing technical problems. There are probably many many more.
The manufacturers are not perfect nor are the certifying authorities. However you must end up flying the finished product. As it has been said many times in these threads never buy (or fly) the A model of anything.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Television presenter's problems were not airframe ones, they were avionic.
I believe that a vertical gyro had failed on a previous flight causing one SAS channel to be inop.
He continued operating the aircraft (with only one SAS)
When the other VG failed, he was left with no SAS at all.
Hardly a life or death situation.
Dont think you can blame Agusta for this one, maybe the VG gyro supplier ( a dodgy batch of gyros was to blame)
Sure whenever a new aircraft design comes on to the market place their is going to be teething troubles. (and the swashplate was a BIG one). But the 109 Power is a great bit of kit, and I'm sure anyone who flys whem will agree.
I believe that a vertical gyro had failed on a previous flight causing one SAS channel to be inop.
He continued operating the aircraft (with only one SAS)
When the other VG failed, he was left with no SAS at all.
Hardly a life or death situation.
Dont think you can blame Agusta for this one, maybe the VG gyro supplier ( a dodgy batch of gyros was to blame)
Sure whenever a new aircraft design comes on to the market place their is going to be teething troubles. (and the swashplate was a BIG one). But the 109 Power is a great bit of kit, and I'm sure anyone who flys whem will agree.
Scalextric for Men
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Southern England outside the M25
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Bosher
Your information helps keep the thread alive, and discounts my posting and I dont mind a bit.THINKS I wonder, is the pilot concerned in the gyro failure; a ppruner: if you are, what about personal input.?
Examples the Bo105 long tail rotor control rod can be installed back to front. The 105 tail rotor can be installed with the flapping stops outboard, found that one on a duplicate inspection.
The tail rotor blades on the 105 can be installed back to front.
Nice idea that no control can be installed back to front but not the case.
As for the CAA requirements, if I remember corectly the Met Police 222 which crashed a few years back had a failure of CAA mandated changes to the tail rotor control system.
The tail rotor blades on the 105 can be installed back to front.
Nice idea that no control can be installed back to front but not the case.
As for the CAA requirements, if I remember corectly the Met Police 222 which crashed a few years back had a failure of CAA mandated changes to the tail rotor control system.
Rob L,
Even better, you can buy a new 117 tail rotor assembly (-C these days) direct from the factory in Germany, with incorrect (Bo105) weight arms installed. When the right pedal throws 2" forward, and the helicopter takes about 25lb of pedal force to fly in balanced flight, Eurocopter's answer is that it's not their fault, install a hydraulic t/r servo to reduce the force
Fortunately we have a good maintenance organisation, who ran down a parts check and sussed out the error. 5 months later the silence from EID is deafening
Even better, you can buy a new 117 tail rotor assembly (-C these days) direct from the factory in Germany, with incorrect (Bo105) weight arms installed. When the right pedal throws 2" forward, and the helicopter takes about 25lb of pedal force to fly in balanced flight, Eurocopter's answer is that it's not their fault, install a hydraulic t/r servo to reduce the force
Fortunately we have a good maintenance organisation, who ran down a parts check and sussed out the error. 5 months later the silence from EID is deafening
Guest
Posts: n/a
on the 105 is you install the TR blades backwards and reverse the engine rotation can you fly inverted ?. btw Eurocopter ( france ) avoid the problem of buying an A model by always making the first production version B , AS350b , EC120b , EC155b
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agusta delivers first combat A129 to Italian Army
Special ceremony held at Agusta's Vergiate facility on October, 25, 2002. Italian Army Chief of Staff, Gen.Gianfranco Ottogalli, was accompanied at the ceremony by Ing. Amedeo Caporaletti, Agusta SpA President.
In 1999 the Italian Army awarded a contract to Agusta, an AgustaWestland company, for the production of the last batch of 15 A129s in the new Combat (CBT) configuration, to meet the Italian Army's new requirements as dictated by the new international scenarios.
The new A129 CBT includes a 20mm gun turret, Stinger air-to-air missiles, avionics and airframe upgrades including a five blade main rotor and increased mission weight.
The A129 was originally designed to comply with the requirements set by the Italian MoD for day/night, all weather anti-tank and scout roles, with a built-in growth capability for further weapons and systems development.
At the end of last year, the Italian Army awarded a contract to Agusta to also retrofit the other 45 A129s currently in service to the CBT configuration. All the A129s will be assembled and upgraded at Vergiate plant in Italy.
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A109
Hi Can anyone help I am looking to find if there is any weight and balance calculations on a computerised spreadsheet available for all the 109 models.
all help appreciated
Thanks Max
all help appreciated
Thanks Max
Make yer own charts
It is a piece of cake to make your own using Excel or another spreadsheet. The columns are called
Item (or passenger name, as it can be used as a manifest)
Weight
Arm (from flight manual, for pilot / copilot row, middle rear-facing row, rear seat, cargo compartment)
Moment (weight * arm)
And the rows are:
Aircraft basic (or operational) weight
Pilot
Copilot
Centre left
Centre right
Rear left
Rear middle
Rear right
Baggage compartment
Zero fuel weight (sum of all weights above, and the ARM column will be the sum of moments divided by sum of weights, and is your longitudinal cg position.
Below that is the row for your fuel, and its arm
Then comes the final row, the fly-away weight and the final Arm.
You can put in extras to make the weight box turn red if it is over the limits, and other calculations will put a box with the allowable range with the fuel you can carry.
And in an Agusta, this box can bring tears to your eyes - with 4 or 5 pob your range is line-of-sight.
Then you can add a chart to graphically show your cg position. The first task is to define the envelope, so in an area well away from your figures, make a list of the corners of the envelope, usually 5 or 6 points. No reason to include any that fall below your aircraft's empty weight. These become Series one on the chart.
The second series is made by copying the cells with the ZFW weight and Arm, and then the fly-away weight and arm. This should then draw a line on the chart showing how the cg will vary with fuel burnoff.
Don't forget to lock out all the cells except the passenger's name and weight, and the fuel and cargo - otherwise some dill will blot out your arms / moments and wreck the whole show.
Plenty of other stuff can be added, and of course this chart method applies to any aircraft - I have made them for R22, BK117, B206/L, AS 350, EC 120, A109 and S76. Obviously you must cross-check the calculations for various configs against the flight manual examples.
With a little computer skill (and I have as little as anybody) you can make a load sheet / manifest that will get you through a CASA ramp check.
Item (or passenger name, as it can be used as a manifest)
Weight
Arm (from flight manual, for pilot / copilot row, middle rear-facing row, rear seat, cargo compartment)
Moment (weight * arm)
And the rows are:
Aircraft basic (or operational) weight
Pilot
Copilot
Centre left
Centre right
Rear left
Rear middle
Rear right
Baggage compartment
Zero fuel weight (sum of all weights above, and the ARM column will be the sum of moments divided by sum of weights, and is your longitudinal cg position.
Below that is the row for your fuel, and its arm
Then comes the final row, the fly-away weight and the final Arm.
You can put in extras to make the weight box turn red if it is over the limits, and other calculations will put a box with the allowable range with the fuel you can carry.
And in an Agusta, this box can bring tears to your eyes - with 4 or 5 pob your range is line-of-sight.
Then you can add a chart to graphically show your cg position. The first task is to define the envelope, so in an area well away from your figures, make a list of the corners of the envelope, usually 5 or 6 points. No reason to include any that fall below your aircraft's empty weight. These become Series one on the chart.
The second series is made by copying the cells with the ZFW weight and Arm, and then the fly-away weight and arm. This should then draw a line on the chart showing how the cg will vary with fuel burnoff.
Don't forget to lock out all the cells except the passenger's name and weight, and the fuel and cargo - otherwise some dill will blot out your arms / moments and wreck the whole show.
Plenty of other stuff can be added, and of course this chart method applies to any aircraft - I have made them for R22, BK117, B206/L, AS 350, EC 120, A109 and S76. Obviously you must cross-check the calculations for various configs against the flight manual examples.
With a little computer skill (and I have as little as anybody) you can make a load sheet / manifest that will get you through a CASA ramp check.