EC135
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 3,931
Likes: 142
From: Warrington, UK
Just when you thought it was safe to go out! First day back at work since this really got going. Took off with 266 in the main, transfer pumps off. Settled down in the cruise, supply tanks were showing a decrease at just under 260. I've now got 294 in the mains and will try again on the next trip(if we get one)! 
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
From: UK
Thanks for all the info - I carried out a check flight today with the pumps off and noted the following.
Contents in the main decreased quite happily from 320kgs until 245 kgs
The main tank contents were unuseable below 245kgs
The supply tanks' red 'low' captions (on CDS) came on at around 28kgs
Contents in the main decreased quite happily from 320kgs until 245 kgs
The main tank contents were unuseable below 245kgs
The supply tanks' red 'low' captions (on CDS) came on at around 28kgs
Last edited by Letsby Avenue; 11th March 2004 at 03:38.
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
From: TI
MG and LA,
Don't forget about the aircraft attitude in these measurements. My calculations were based on a level attitude. In the cruise with forward C of G it will be worse and vice versa. You do have control over this to some extent and naturally it can vary but could possibly be no worse than the figures I quoted.
Don't forget about the aircraft attitude in these measurements. My calculations were based on a level attitude. In the cruise with forward C of G it will be worse and vice versa. You do have control over this to some extent and naturally it can vary but could possibly be no worse than the figures I quoted.
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 3,931
Likes: 142
From: Warrington, UK
Obviously attitude is important. I'm consistently getting supply tank reduction at around 260kgs in the cruise(130kts, 5 deg nosedown, with pitch adjustment at zero). I hover at around 7 degrees nose up, so that would probably give me something similar to Droopy's 205kgs.
However, the higher figure is the important one, because as soon as you decide to scoot for home, anything below this and the supply tanks are emptying, and you've got about 15 mins to Low Fuel lights. Not to mention Minimum Landing Allowances.
However, the higher figure is the important one, because as soon as you decide to scoot for home, anything below this and the supply tanks are emptying, and you've got about 15 mins to Low Fuel lights. Not to mention Minimum Landing Allowances.
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,670
Likes: 1
From: UK
Letsby: My presumption is that your check flight was conducted ad hoc and that you are not a test pilot or the trip wasn't as a result of a dedicated maintenance ride.
That being the case, then you will be putting in a MOR for flying below your MLA????
That should make some interesting reading................
"flew the aircraft down to its minimum's and below, to identify the accuracy of the system"
Still wondering why you pulled the original thread? Have you read your PM?
That being the case, then you will be putting in a MOR for flying below your MLA????
That should make some interesting reading................
"flew the aircraft down to its minimum's and below, to identify the accuracy of the system"
Still wondering why you pulled the original thread? Have you read your PM?
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,670
Likes: 1
From: UK
MG: believe me, I have tried most avenues to talk to him behind the scenes.
Not only does he not respond, but he then pulls all his previous posts from the thread....weird
He did it with the original thread (pulled the lot!)
See above....he's done it again.
Letsby...talk to me, hellooooooo r u there?
Not only does he not respond, but he then pulls all his previous posts from the thread....weird
He did it with the original thread (pulled the lot!)
See above....he's done it again.
Letsby...talk to me, hellooooooo r u there?
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
From: UK
It's precisely because of the MLA issue MG that I thought to investigate this issue further - Initial informed advice given to us about 18 months ago was that the main tank contents would be available to just below 100kgs - clearly this is not the case! And I must thank those people who have posted informative, helpful and non-vituperative replies for their efforts. In the light of this however, I do wonder though why the MEL allows the Ac to fly with one Tx pump U/S?
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 696
Likes: 10
From: Shropshire
Our MEL allows for flight with one transfer pump u/s but only Day VMC. This is limited to a maximum of three days.
Seems like a sensible balance to me but I might turn down that trip to Jersey!!!
TeeS
Seems like a sensible balance to me but I might turn down that trip to Jersey!!!
TeeS
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
From: TI
Let's not confuse legality and safety ( unless your Australian, Civil Aviation Safety Authority, you work it out, I can't). The MEL is normally issued by the authority in the country of registry. The FAA one certainly does allow it. Part 27 only requires the failure of ONE pump, hence the conditions in the RFM.
My personal opinion to remedy the perceived situation would be to fit an ejector pump (jet pump for US folk) or similar arrangement driven by each of the PRIME pumps. They are identical to the transfer pumps and serve nothing more than to prime the engine driven pumps for start and then turned off. The excess fuel driving the jet pumps would only serve to transfer fuel to the supply tanks.
Flight manual then says "Failure of both fuel transfer pumps - select BOTH PRIME PUMPS TO ON".
It does go to show that we have here an "electrically powered fuel system". If one pump fails there are consequences which are described in the RFM. If BOTH pumps fail, as a failure of the pump or their electrical supply there is no information published in the RFM nor is there any requirement to. An additional in the unapproved manufacturers data might be nice but then again. "Caveat Emptor" The axiom or principle in commerce that the buyer alone is responsible for assessing the quality of a purchase before buying.
My personal opinion to remedy the perceived situation would be to fit an ejector pump (jet pump for US folk) or similar arrangement driven by each of the PRIME pumps. They are identical to the transfer pumps and serve nothing more than to prime the engine driven pumps for start and then turned off. The excess fuel driving the jet pumps would only serve to transfer fuel to the supply tanks.
Flight manual then says "Failure of both fuel transfer pumps - select BOTH PRIME PUMPS TO ON".
It does go to show that we have here an "electrically powered fuel system". If one pump fails there are consequences which are described in the RFM. If BOTH pumps fail, as a failure of the pump or their electrical supply there is no information published in the RFM nor is there any requirement to. An additional in the unapproved manufacturers data might be nice but then again. "Caveat Emptor" The axiom or principle in commerce that the buyer alone is responsible for assessing the quality of a purchase before buying.
We have a picture of evolution in which life strives for, and tends to get closer and closer to, perfection. Perhaps a better picture might sometimes be one in which life manages to get by on whatever can be botched together just well enough to work.
For a bird to bang its face repeatedly against a tree looks like pretty dodgy behaviour, perhaps as dodgy as a mammal walking on its back legs while carrying things with its front legs. A woodpecker might get away with banging his head, just as I might get away with bipedalism. But I wouldn't be at all surprised if he was just as likely to get a headache as I am to get a bad back.
Richard Riscon , Canterbury Kent
For a bird to bang its face repeatedly against a tree looks like pretty dodgy behaviour, perhaps as dodgy as a mammal walking on its back legs while carrying things with its front legs. A woodpecker might get away with banging his head, just as I might get away with bipedalism. But I wouldn't be at all surprised if he was just as likely to get a headache as I am to get a bad back.
Richard Riscon , Canterbury Kent
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
From: 48 Deg South
EC-135s for Ch 9 (Syd/Mel & BNE)
Just got a text message from contacts on the Gold Coast that Channel 9 has, or is going to order, three EC135s to replace their aircraft in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane.
Anyone know anything.
Autorotate.
Anyone know anything.
Autorotate.
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 245
Likes: 5
From: longwayplace
Out of interest, how many EC 135s are there in Australia?
I'd heard that there was just the one in Sydney, privately owned.
And who does the training and maintenance?
Also, is it true that there is just one Bolkow in Oz?
If so, for what role is it used?
Thanks
I'd heard that there was just the one in Sydney, privately owned.
And who does the training and maintenance?
Also, is it true that there is just one Bolkow in Oz?
If so, for what role is it used?
Thanks