CHC find S92 & AW139 "Unacceptable"
HC,
incorrect: the minimums call comes from the MIN bug, which is baralt triggered, which is logical because it meant to be used for onshore approaches and so would be set to MDA or DA. Offshore, unless you had set the BARO setting to match the altimeter reading to the radalt, you wouldn't use the MIN for an ARA. More useful would be to have it set for MEA/MFA (or MESA for you BHL chaps!), thereby giveing a clear warning that you are in that regime.
The AVAD functionality comes from the RA setting -equivelant to the DH in a Eurocopter, or the 'bug' on a conventional radalt. This triggers the call "Altitude, Altitude" (don't ask me why it doesn't refer to Height!) and is the "pilot selectable" warning. The fixed warning is "One Hundred".
I don't have the manuals in front as I write, so can't confirm when the RA warning is reset. However, bearing in mind you would typically set it at MDH-20 ft, and the height would be controlled by the RALT coupling - so pretty accurate- you probably have a problem if you hear it, other than once visual and landing!
I think the EGPWS is work in progress to a degree. We may yet see Mode 1 in the S-92.
incorrect: the minimums call comes from the MIN bug, which is baralt triggered, which is logical because it meant to be used for onshore approaches and so would be set to MDA or DA. Offshore, unless you had set the BARO setting to match the altimeter reading to the radalt, you wouldn't use the MIN for an ARA. More useful would be to have it set for MEA/MFA (or MESA for you BHL chaps!), thereby giveing a clear warning that you are in that regime.
The AVAD functionality comes from the RA setting -equivelant to the DH in a Eurocopter, or the 'bug' on a conventional radalt. This triggers the call "Altitude, Altitude" (don't ask me why it doesn't refer to Height!) and is the "pilot selectable" warning. The fixed warning is "One Hundred".
I don't have the manuals in front as I write, so can't confirm when the RA warning is reset. However, bearing in mind you would typically set it at MDH-20 ft, and the height would be controlled by the RALT coupling - so pretty accurate- you probably have a problem if you hear it, other than once visual and landing!
I think the EGPWS is work in progress to a degree. We may yet see Mode 1 in the S-92.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Frozen North
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why RADALT?
I know that it is deviating from the point, but it is something that has long puzzled me and I am sure that the knowledge is out there somewhere. Who decided to call a device that measures height a 'radio altimeter' and why?
I would hazard a guess it's because it uses RADIO waves to measure height.
Height measuring devices are known as altimeters: hey presto, let's call it a radio altimeter.
Height measuring devices are known as altimeters: hey presto, let's call it a radio altimeter.
I think he means "why is it not called a radio heightometer" - to which the answer is that life is too short!
HC
HC
Last edited by HeliComparator; 19th Mar 2007 at 13:47.
212- Oh yes, I think we went round this loop before. The EGPWS product spec talks about "Minimums" as the call you get with gear down and "altitude" as the call you get with gear up. Here is the relevant extract from the product spec for v24.
I am not quite sure how this matches with your experience on the 92. Unless you are permanently in Low Altitude mode or have the gear up for approaches?
. But of course the last sentence explains it. I am not quite sure how a product spec can say it does one thing normally, but another thing when installed in a particular aircraft. I wonder if its an S92-specific part number. All very confusing ....
To counter your comment that EGPWS has all the functionality of AVAD, how about the suspend function so that you do not routinely hear the call on every landing (meaning that when you do hear it, you react to it). Yes you could wind the bugs down but that is bad as you might forget to wind them up again - whereas suspend self-resets.
HC
6.4.1 Minimums Type Callouts
The Minimums type callouts are given when transitioning the Minimums setting with the landing gear down and not in the
Low Altitude Mode. The Minimums call-out is triggered via a discrete DH input that switches to ground. The computer will
only respond to the first transition encountered until a reset term is satisfied. The Minimums callout is reset by transitioning
from Takeoff to Approach mode or by ascending through 200 feet above the barometric altitude at which the Minimums
callout was previously annunciated. For the S-92 the Minimums callout is triggered from the MDA setting based on
Corrected Altitude.
6.4.1.1 “Altitude Altitude” Type Callout
When Landing Gear is up or when the Low Altitude Mode is selected, the callout “Altitude Altitude” is provided when
transitioning below the DH setting. The callout is repeated for each transition. For the S-92 the “Altitude Altitude” callout is
always active.
The Minimums type callouts are given when transitioning the Minimums setting with the landing gear down and not in the
Low Altitude Mode. The Minimums call-out is triggered via a discrete DH input that switches to ground. The computer will
only respond to the first transition encountered until a reset term is satisfied. The Minimums callout is reset by transitioning
from Takeoff to Approach mode or by ascending through 200 feet above the barometric altitude at which the Minimums
callout was previously annunciated. For the S-92 the Minimums callout is triggered from the MDA setting based on
Corrected Altitude.
6.4.1.1 “Altitude Altitude” Type Callout
When Landing Gear is up or when the Low Altitude Mode is selected, the callout “Altitude Altitude” is provided when
transitioning below the DH setting. The callout is repeated for each transition. For the S-92 the “Altitude Altitude” callout is
always active.
. But of course the last sentence explains it. I am not quite sure how a product spec can say it does one thing normally, but another thing when installed in a particular aircraft. I wonder if its an S92-specific part number. All very confusing ....To counter your comment that EGPWS has all the functionality of AVAD, how about the suspend function so that you do not routinely hear the call on every landing (meaning that when you do hear it, you react to it). Yes you could wind the bugs down but that is bad as you might forget to wind them up again - whereas suspend self-resets.
HC
That extract is not what happens in the 92. Why? is not my call.
"meaning that when you do hear it, you react to it"
As for aural alerts, how about SOPs that demand a response, rather than a culture of "I must never hear that warning"?
"Check Height": "Visual, landing"
"Check Height": "Going round"
As opposed to "I must never hear "check Height" so I'll turn it off"
Will 'you' (your company) be avoiding "Minimums" calls for ILS'? I doubt it. The response will be "visual, landing" or "going round" (i.e. the go around will have commenced by then). What other response is there?
"meaning that when you do hear it, you react to it"
As for aural alerts, how about SOPs that demand a response, rather than a culture of "I must never hear that warning"?
"Check Height": "Visual, landing"
"Check Height": "Going round"
As opposed to "I must never hear "check Height" so I'll turn it off"
Will 'you' (your company) be avoiding "Minimums" calls for ILS'? I doubt it. The response will be "visual, landing" or "going round" (i.e. the go around will have commenced by then). What other response is there?
212 - of course there should be SOP responses to these sorts of calls (and are at the moment with the AVAD "Check Height") and in an ideal world where human factors don't exist, there would be no need for a suspend function. But human factors do exist and these calls lose their ability to grab attention when they are heard routinely. In a critical situation surely humans are less likely to react to a warning which is heard routinely when all is going well, rather than one which is only heard when things are going wrong, and that could make a difference.
HC
HC
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Age: 57
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tcfix- There are quite a few platforms in the GOM where we land the 139. Admittedly they are either floating drilling rigs, or boats. But a lot of the decks are being upgraded....
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: AFRICA
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AERO/CHC 139 get new aux battery
Agusta is changing the aux battery (13 amps) to the 27 amps, on the next two 139 for Aero/CHC, let's hope it will be better.
Helicomparator
Who is operating 76 C++ in Nigeria?
As far as I know the first C++ in Nigeria will be for Brsitow and is not yet arrived (I might be wrong)
Helicomparator
Who is operating 76 C++ in Nigeria?
As far as I know the first C++ in Nigeria will be for Brsitow and is not yet arrived (I might be wrong)
212man, in answer to your question, "Continue" could be another response!
With regard to the AWS regrade switch on the 139, having flown with Red today, I can confirm with switch in regrade and gear down no aural warning at all is generated. With gear up, you get the aural gear warning and warning on CAS but no height warning. Could this not be simply fixed with a change to the software? After all, the DH bug can already generate a MIN warning on the PFD, why cant this be linked in some way to the AWS?
Another thought regarding spurious warnings (software glitches) on the CAS, having flown several 139s there seems to be a common thread. Would it be possible to somehow keep a database of these from 139s worldwide to create some pressure on Honeywell to get them sorted?
With regard to the AWS regrade switch on the 139, having flown with Red today, I can confirm with switch in regrade and gear down no aural warning at all is generated. With gear up, you get the aural gear warning and warning on CAS but no height warning. Could this not be simply fixed with a change to the software? After all, the DH bug can already generate a MIN warning on the PFD, why cant this be linked in some way to the AWS?
Another thought regarding spurious warnings (software glitches) on the CAS, having flown several 139s there seems to be a common thread. Would it be possible to somehow keep a database of these from 139s worldwide to create some pressure on Honeywell to get them sorted?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: AFRICA
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helicomparator
Just a joke I heard in Norway couple of months ago
Sikorsky made only 3 mistakes with the 76; the A,B and C models and they are about to do the fourth mistake one the D model...
An other Joke from Norway about the S 92
To fly 19 pax at reduce take off power for noise and reduce power in level flight for vibrations,it's better to fly a S 61
Sorry Mr Lappos
But since decades it's proven that an helicopter above 10 000 kg with 4 blades doesn't work well, I don't understand what sikorsky people are trying to prove...
maybe just to please the oil indusrty 
this works on a short time basis it won't last long, that's why sikorsky is about to bring 5 blades on the 92
It looks like Sikorsky is counting only on the US military market and is forgetting the huge growing civilian market, not sure but after the success of the Presidential US 101 (officialy EH 101 for the rest of the world
) I BELIEVE IT'S TIME FOR SIKORSKY TO WAKE UP
I am just happy that the White House has choosen an european chopper, It means that they are less stupid than they look like....................................
Just a joke I heard in Norway couple of months ago
Sikorsky made only 3 mistakes with the 76; the A,B and C models and they are about to do the fourth mistake one the D model...
An other Joke from Norway about the S 92
To fly 19 pax at reduce take off power for noise and reduce power in level flight for vibrations,it's better to fly a S 61
Sorry Mr Lappos
But since decades it's proven that an helicopter above 10 000 kg with 4 blades doesn't work well, I don't understand what sikorsky people are trying to prove...
maybe just to please the oil indusrty this works on a short time basis it won't last long, that's why sikorsky is about to bring 5 blades on the 92It looks like Sikorsky is counting only on the US military market and is forgetting the huge growing civilian market, not sure but after the success of the Presidential US 101 (officialy EH 101 for the rest of the world
) I BELIEVE IT'S TIME FOR SIKORSKY TO WAKE UP I am just happy that the White House has choosen an european chopper, It means that they are less stupid than they look like....................................
Last edited by froggy_pilot; 19th Mar 2007 at 23:26. Reason: forget some details......................
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ecosse
Age: 44
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eh101
I understand that the EH101 would have been a great aircraft to operate commercially in the north sea if it had'nt been for the fact that it was too expensive to run!! 
3 engines! plus an APU...
Anway, Its going to be interesting to see how the S92's get on when they are delivered to shetland later on in the year.
BM
3 engines! plus an APU... Anway, Its going to be interesting to see how the S92's get on when they are delivered to shetland later on in the year.
BM
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Below sealevel
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 3rd AW139 is coming to Den Helder in September 2007, we learned yesterday evening from our management.SHK is now in maintenance for mod's and 1200 hrs. In the meantime SHL is doing >110 hrs. per month without problems. I think pilots and engineers are going up pretty quick in the learning curve and everybody likes the machine. It can only become better!