AW139 introduction into offshore services
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Wherever I lay my grip thats my grot
Age: 55
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know 2 aircraft have developed cracks near the tail Pylon / boom joint and are being repaired. I also know of another operator who also heard this story from another credible source and asked Agusta about it, they deny any knowledge of any cracks..
I should have added earlier... on the positive side, I hear it goes like stink and is a pleasure to fly in.
I should have added earlier... on the positive side, I hear it goes like stink and is a pleasure to fly in.
Last edited by Pan Pan Splash; 15th Nov 2006 at 15:09. Reason: One sided take on the subject...
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chevron is using the AB 139
Our Neighbor Chevron is using AB 139s on a single contract (sorry, can't recall who with). All the feedback I've heard is positive FWIW. Most guys dig the speed and power and squawk about the range. Antidotal info I know, but just what I've heard.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Denver, CO and the GOM
Age: 63
Posts: 515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Down in the (currently stormy) GOM, the 139 seems to be getting mixed reviews (all secondhand, I'm a 120 pilot). Pilots like flying the aircraft, pax like the ride, and so far in the pure performance arena it is doing as advertised.
But (you knew it was coming)...
Reliability has been an issue. The 139 wasn't offshore-ready when delivered, and so it is a game of wait and see what breaks next. Avionics are the biggest issue. Of course there are the ADs which (unfortunately) are to be expected from any new buildup (the 119 went through the same evolution - now it is a reliable performer).
I suspect a year or so from now the 139 will be universally liked in the GOM, once the teething pains subside.
But (you knew it was coming)...
Reliability has been an issue. The 139 wasn't offshore-ready when delivered, and so it is a game of wait and see what breaks next. Avionics are the biggest issue. Of course there are the ADs which (unfortunately) are to be expected from any new buildup (the 119 went through the same evolution - now it is a reliable performer).
I suspect a year or so from now the 139 will be universally liked in the GOM, once the teething pains subside.
Oh dear, sad how people get the wrong end of the stick and stories get bigger and bigger all on their own.
The cracking is NOT at the pylon to tailboom joint. There have been some instances of the upper left hand tailboom to fuselage mount cracking (in the sheet metal, not the casting). The repair scheme is quite basic and straight forward. The machines were sent to Agusta in Belgium for repair (not Italy), and why wouldn't you?? It is a free service under warranty, and they have all the tooling to do the job very quickly, while the customer can concentrate on flying their other machines.
Pan pan splash, I suggest your friend calls Agusta in Italy to ask about cracking, they know about it, and are incorporating a mod on the production line. Will take a while to get it introduced, but at least they are trying.
Didn't see any AD's come out when I was working in the UK on the 139. Service Bulletins yes, but AD's no.
Had a few unusual mechanical problems (swashplate boot for instance), but by and large it has been more reliable than the S-76's at the same base. The problem with any faults it develops is that it is often the first time anybody has seen that fault, so rectification takes longer than it would normally due to a lack of experience. Use your tech reps at Agusta, Honeywell, and Pratt. That is what they are there for, and I found them all to be extremely helpful with any queries I had.
You just about need a forum where operators of new types can share fixes to problems that they have encountered.
If only it had another 400kg of payload!!!!
The cracking is NOT at the pylon to tailboom joint. There have been some instances of the upper left hand tailboom to fuselage mount cracking (in the sheet metal, not the casting). The repair scheme is quite basic and straight forward. The machines were sent to Agusta in Belgium for repair (not Italy), and why wouldn't you?? It is a free service under warranty, and they have all the tooling to do the job very quickly, while the customer can concentrate on flying their other machines.
Pan pan splash, I suggest your friend calls Agusta in Italy to ask about cracking, they know about it, and are incorporating a mod on the production line. Will take a while to get it introduced, but at least they are trying.
Didn't see any AD's come out when I was working in the UK on the 139. Service Bulletins yes, but AD's no.
Had a few unusual mechanical problems (swashplate boot for instance), but by and large it has been more reliable than the S-76's at the same base. The problem with any faults it develops is that it is often the first time anybody has seen that fault, so rectification takes longer than it would normally due to a lack of experience. Use your tech reps at Agusta, Honeywell, and Pratt. That is what they are there for, and I found them all to be extremely helpful with any queries I had.
You just about need a forum where operators of new types can share fixes to problems that they have encountered.
If only it had another 400kg of payload!!!!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOR
noooby
Any comment on this little story about AB139 G-CHCP?
Maintenance was allegedly performed on the 1st and 2nd September, but was not signed for and the aircraft was allowed to fly three days operationally before a Tech Log entry was eventually made to clear the work.
Now I'm told a disgruntled engineer reported this direct to CAA 6 weeks later after having followed the Whistleblower Policy and failed to get any where with GW's little web site...
Any comment on this little story about AB139 G-CHCP?
Maintenance was allegedly performed on the 1st and 2nd September, but was not signed for and the aircraft was allowed to fly three days operationally before a Tech Log entry was eventually made to clear the work.
Now I'm told a disgruntled engineer reported this direct to CAA 6 weeks later after having followed the Whistleblower Policy and failed to get any where with GW's little web site...
sox6, not true. Paperwork was all sorted before the machine flew. It only did one revenue flight before CT came back online. Reason for always wanting to fly CT over CP is that the company wanted to spread the hours out for maint requirements. Easy to do when you only have crew for one helo!!! 
Wouldn't listen to disgruntled engineer. He is a knob of the highest calibre. Only went screaming to CAA after he was suspended for swearing and yelling (and not in a friendly manner) to his shift supervisor, who incidentally, is so easy to get along with that you would have to be a real prat to get him p
d off, as this knob did. And the reason for the yelling??? Nobody would remove all 3 of the panels he wanted removed so that he could do his work, they only removed the 2 panels he actually asked for. Of course, he was probably too busy surfing ebay to notice that he hadn't asked for everything he wanted. Touche!!!!
One of the snags was a HUMS issue if I remember correctly, which was definitely rectified before next flight. There were paperwork issues, but not with the aircraft, with company procedures. All found during audit, and all rectified, or in the process of.
I wouldn't believe everything a disgruntled engineer says. Especially that one!!!
Hope that clears it all up. I'm not there at the moment, off to work in sunnier climates. Had to leave before UK immigration came knocking. Damn colonials you know
P.S, what is GW's little website?? You've lost me there
Wouldn't listen to disgruntled engineer. He is a knob of the highest calibre. Only went screaming to CAA after he was suspended for swearing and yelling (and not in a friendly manner) to his shift supervisor, who incidentally, is so easy to get along with that you would have to be a real prat to get him p
d off, as this knob did. And the reason for the yelling??? Nobody would remove all 3 of the panels he wanted removed so that he could do his work, they only removed the 2 panels he actually asked for. Of course, he was probably too busy surfing ebay to notice that he hadn't asked for everything he wanted. Touche!!!!One of the snags was a HUMS issue if I remember correctly, which was definitely rectified before next flight. There were paperwork issues, but not with the aircraft, with company procedures. All found during audit, and all rectified, or in the process of.
I wouldn't believe everything a disgruntled engineer says. Especially that one!!!
Hope that clears it all up. I'm not there at the moment, off to work in sunnier climates. Had to leave before UK immigration came knocking. Damn colonials you know
P.S, what is GW's little website?? You've lost me there
Last edited by noooby; 11th Dec 2006 at 21:51. Reason: Don't know what GW is
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't sound like a happy working environment - and they are potentially two LAEs down too in short sucession. Explains the SNS aircraft servicability disaster.
Noooby
Though I assume you are a contractor I would have thought you would have been briefed in the CHC Whistleblower policy (GW is the top CHC safety guy in Canada). Perhaps LAE Knob may have had a few reports about his behaviour if it had been advertised.
Perhaps its not very effective or well advertised?
Any one else had any experience with the CHC openboard web site?
https://www.openboard.info/chc/index.cfm
Noooby
Though I assume you are a contractor I would have thought you would have been briefed in the CHC Whistleblower policy (GW is the top CHC safety guy in Canada). Perhaps LAE Knob may have had a few reports about his behaviour if it had been advertised.
Perhaps its not very effective or well advertised?
Any one else had any experience with the CHC openboard web site?
https://www.openboard.info/chc/index.cfm
So true sox6, so true. I found that while I enjoyed the work for the most part, people were always putting out fires. Never enough time and/or organisation to actually plan ahead. Continual catch up game. Not much fun, and I really don't know why anybody puts up with it. Hence no time for any proper sort of briefing, just a "thanks for coming, grab your tools" type intro.
I here that Bond are moving some machines down to SNS. Perhaps you know more??? About time I say, maybe shake the resident operators up a bit and make them take some action (of a positive sort I would hope). If only they would spend the money to have a good facility, and pay the engineers what they are actually worth, 99% of the problems would be solved, as the retention/attraction problem would be overcome. Nope, too busy trying to get 2500 hours out of every airframe per year, and wondering why they are running into problems. Centralising the management/power at Aberdeen didn't help I am sure. The people at the outstations now don't have any real power, and the people at Aberdeen are too busy to really care.
Frustrating doesn't even begin to describe it!!!!
Great bunch of guys for the most part, just continually under intense pressure.
I here that Bond are moving some machines down to SNS. Perhaps you know more??? About time I say, maybe shake the resident operators up a bit and make them take some action (of a positive sort I would hope). If only they would spend the money to have a good facility, and pay the engineers what they are actually worth, 99% of the problems would be solved, as the retention/attraction problem would be overcome. Nope, too busy trying to get 2500 hours out of every airframe per year, and wondering why they are running into problems. Centralising the management/power at Aberdeen didn't help I am sure. The people at the outstations now don't have any real power, and the people at Aberdeen are too busy to really care.
Frustrating doesn't even begin to describe it!!!!
Great bunch of guys for the most part, just continually under intense pressure.
It is a 365N2 that bp have requested - not a L2 which would be fairly useless at Humberside as only the main decks could take it as most of the satellite decks are too small for a Puma.
HF
HF
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Age: 57
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3 139's with cracks in the tail as described above down in the gulf. Augusta here fixing them. Also needs gear doors, at least a front one. Vibrates badly over 78%.. spills my coffee 
Gear doors won't really help vibes, only noise. That's why they're fitted to the VIP machines. Your vibes are from something else. If you've got HUMS, check your RTB data.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: vancouver
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I checked our 139 today and the tail boom/fuselage attach structure is fine, on the topic of nose gear doors, it is a worth while mod as it reduces cabin noise and pilot fatigue.
You can order the parts and retro fit gear doors on your ship. Our ship is very smooth and is very comfortable at 160knts. If your ship is rough check the MR track and the hammers beneath the floor, they definitly influence cabin comfort.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Below sealevel
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The two 139's at Den Helder are doing pretty well so far. OK, they also have their teething problems, but if I recall the introduction of the S-76A in our company, this ship causes much less problems! A lot of people, especially on the customer side, don't seem to realize that it is a totally new concept. Pilots and technicians have to learn to understand the behavior of the modern avionics. But in general we are happy with it.
