CHC find S92 & AW139 "Unacceptable"
CHC find S92 & AW139 "Unacceptable"
So far this year the Sikorsky S92 and AgustaWestland AW139 have had a combined availability rate of 75%. Even though it is normal that new aircraft types have a lower rate of availability during the introduction period, the current performance of the S92 and AW139 is unacceptable. The Company is currently in discussions with the manufacturers to remedy this situation as soon as possible by increasing spare parts production and improving technical support and aircraft design.
Full webcast of above report available at
http://www.newswire.ca/en/webcast/vi...ventID=1751860
Select "Click to listen" at top left hand corner of page.
Last edited by roundwego; 16th Mar 2007 at 18:27.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: abu dhabi
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
139's @ Ada
I have been so happy with my purchase of the AB139's. They are a really nice aircraft. I brought one to fly and three others for spare parts. 15million for one flyable machine and 45 million in spare parts. It makes good operational sense does it not.
They sure look good on static display in the hangar. four machines at less than 100hrs on each with three been broken.
Well must go. I have not fired any engineers today but the day is early. Shame cannot sack any pilots as they seem to be leaving of there own accord with seven going this month. Did not need them anyway.
Saves me more money
They sure look good on static display in the hangar. four machines at less than 100hrs on each with three been broken.
Well must go. I have not fired any engineers today but the day is early. Shame cannot sack any pilots as they seem to be leaving of there own accord with seven going this month. Did not need them anyway.
Saves me more money
MightyGem, funny question but, how would a Bond TRE know how a 139 works when Bond don't have any ? The spec CHC bought was may be not the best, granted
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 18 Degrees North
Posts: 699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the AW139 is a fine aircraft, with awesome power, impressive speed, and whilst the payload may be slightly limited on longer sectors, the MAUW is expected to increase soon.
there has been some issues on introduction such as cracks in exhausts and some minor airframe cracks now repaired. parts availabilty has been an issue but now improving.
the passengers all like it and compared with the same stage that the S76 was introduced things are better I am told (being too young to remember myself)
impress to inflate : what is wrong with the CHC spec? they have everything you would expect for an offshore a/c
I have heard so many negative things from people do dont fly them but everyone I know who does thinks they are the business !
regards
CF
there has been some issues on introduction such as cracks in exhausts and some minor airframe cracks now repaired. parts availabilty has been an issue but now improving.
the passengers all like it and compared with the same stage that the S76 was introduced things are better I am told (being too young to remember myself)
impress to inflate : what is wrong with the CHC spec? they have everything you would expect for an offshore a/c
I have heard so many negative things from people do dont fly them but everyone I know who does thinks they are the business !
regards
CF
75%? We dream of 75% 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: vancouver
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am surprised to here about CHC 75% reliability factor with the AB139, ours has worked out rather well, so far 100 % dispatch rate, and other 139 operators have done better than CHC and ERA also. I once worked for a helicopter airline once and management / employee attitude combined with poor moral wrecked havoc on the operation and reliabilty of the aircraft.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The future IS the AW139
Got the type rating on my licence yesterday. IMHO this helicopter is a cut above everything else out there in the 6 ton class. It has 'joined-up' design that presents the pilots with everything they need to know from modularised avionics. It is as sweet as a nut to fly and as long as you deal with the high nose up attitude effectively (try kicking the nose off 20-30 deg.during the landing approach - it works well) it has no handling vices. Have to admit I haven't explored the entire envelope yet but nonetheless it's an impressive product.
The analogy with the S76 is a fair one and those who peddle rumours without hands-on experience should beware of overstating the very real difficulties encountered when you introduce a new machine with truly revolutionary design features. Until the 139 came along my favorite machine was the 76B in exec config (not had a chance to try the C+/C++) but this beast will take some beating. The 76D - whatever 'new' it brings to the table, will forever be a pre-FAR29 design and and will have to work hard to compete.
We can all anticipate that the 'B' model 139 will be something to behold when it comes on the scene as it surely will. If you had doubts about the 139 then the arrival of a 'de-bugged' version will make your mouth water.
I said to Nick L. some time ago that his assertions that such an over-engined machine would be uncompetitive would not be borne out by customer response. Now I see that the expected 139/149 market is expected to exceed 1,000 units ( This month's R & W ). Out of interest, how many 76s are out there?
G
The analogy with the S76 is a fair one and those who peddle rumours without hands-on experience should beware of overstating the very real difficulties encountered when you introduce a new machine with truly revolutionary design features. Until the 139 came along my favorite machine was the 76B in exec config (not had a chance to try the C+/C++) but this beast will take some beating. The 76D - whatever 'new' it brings to the table, will forever be a pre-FAR29 design and and will have to work hard to compete.
We can all anticipate that the 'B' model 139 will be something to behold when it comes on the scene as it surely will. If you had doubts about the 139 then the arrival of a 'de-bugged' version will make your mouth water.
I said to Nick L. some time ago that his assertions that such an over-engined machine would be uncompetitive would not be borne out by customer response. Now I see that the expected 139/149 market is expected to exceed 1,000 units ( This month's R & W ). Out of interest, how many 76s are out there?
G
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: the top of the flag pole
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Camp Freddie
I can think of a few things that need to be addressed with the spec of the UK based 139's
1 - A radar that allows termination of an ARA at .75Nm not 1.25Nm. Not Agusta's fault - CHC ordered the wrong radar.
2 - Windscreen washers - same problem. Who ever specified the machines didn't know CHC operates in the offshore environment.
3 - Windsreen wipers that actually offer some purpose.
4 - An AVAD
5 - A steerable seach light that doesn't cast a shadow of the nose gear on the deck when doing a right seat deck landing.
6 - Batteries that offer a better chance of a start when no external power available.
7 - A 'gear up' warning system that works on both airspeed and rad alt. Not much good getting the warning as you cross the deck edge!
8 - An FMS system that can calculate fuel around a schuttle route.
9 - The 4th axis. (Is it certified yet?)
10 - Rotor low aural warnings when you are safely on the ground and turn the engine mode selectors to idle. (Ok just my personal bug bear this one, but just how many times do I have to get that s**t every day!). Agusta -link it to the WOW switch please!
So that's just a few off the top of my head. And, don't get me wrong, I love flying the 139 off-shore, it is a great machine. But I don't kid my self that at this stage there is not a lot of work to be done to make it into the kind off off-shore machine it should be.
what is wrong with the CHC spec? they have everything you would expect for an offshore a/c
1 - A radar that allows termination of an ARA at .75Nm not 1.25Nm. Not Agusta's fault - CHC ordered the wrong radar.
2 - Windscreen washers - same problem. Who ever specified the machines didn't know CHC operates in the offshore environment.
3 - Windsreen wipers that actually offer some purpose.
4 - An AVAD
5 - A steerable seach light that doesn't cast a shadow of the nose gear on the deck when doing a right seat deck landing.
6 - Batteries that offer a better chance of a start when no external power available.
7 - A 'gear up' warning system that works on both airspeed and rad alt. Not much good getting the warning as you cross the deck edge!
8 - An FMS system that can calculate fuel around a schuttle route.
9 - The 4th axis. (Is it certified yet?)
10 - Rotor low aural warnings when you are safely on the ground and turn the engine mode selectors to idle. (Ok just my personal bug bear this one, but just how many times do I have to get that s**t every day!). Agusta -link it to the WOW switch please!
So that's just a few off the top of my head. And, don't get me wrong, I love flying the 139 off-shore, it is a great machine. But I don't kid my self that at this stage there is not a lot of work to be done to make it into the kind off off-shore machine it should be.
RWB - as a matter of interest does your aircraft have EGPWS instead of AVAD? If so, would you care to comment on the suitability of EGPWS for offshore ops particularly with regard to its ability to replace the functionality of AVAD?
HC
HC
Thanks RWB - so with no AVAD or EGPWS, is there anything that meets the requirement for JAR-OPS 3 radalt voice warnings or are you not operating to JAR-OPS?
HC
HC
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AVAD
There is a voice warning at 150 feet radalt. Does that meet the regs? Somebody must have said "yes" or it wold not be operating in the UK and Netherlands offshore sectors. Personally I have my doubts about this and also about the EGPWS meeting the offshore community's needs.
G
G
Geoffers.
It probably does meet the letter of the law - JAR-OPS 3.660 just requires " a voice warning .... operating below a preset height with a visual warning capable of operating at a height selectable by the pilot". It doesn't say what the preset height is to be, but I don't think 150' is unreasonable. Presumably there are radalt bugs which when descended below, bring on some sort of caption or light?
If so then it does meet the regs but seems to me retrograde compared to what we are used to on the N Sea ("Check Height" call). Its a pity to see major operators "forgetting" where these various requirements came from - ie the accidents that created the regs. On the other hand its also a pity that JAR-OPS 3 is so vague in this area. I recall that the reg came after the N Sea operators implemented fleetwide fitments of AVAD. In those days it was the operators and oil companies leading the way in safety. These days its more a case of everything done to the minimum requirement to save money, though I would say that ultimately its the new generation of oil companies that are to blame for this culture.
When are you going to post some video of the 139 EFIS in operation?
HC
It probably does meet the letter of the law - JAR-OPS 3.660 just requires " a voice warning .... operating below a preset height with a visual warning capable of operating at a height selectable by the pilot". It doesn't say what the preset height is to be, but I don't think 150' is unreasonable. Presumably there are radalt bugs which when descended below, bring on some sort of caption or light?
If so then it does meet the regs but seems to me retrograde compared to what we are used to on the N Sea ("Check Height" call). Its a pity to see major operators "forgetting" where these various requirements came from - ie the accidents that created the regs. On the other hand its also a pity that JAR-OPS 3 is so vague in this area. I recall that the reg came after the N Sea operators implemented fleetwide fitments of AVAD. In those days it was the operators and oil companies leading the way in safety. These days its more a case of everything done to the minimum requirement to save money, though I would say that ultimately its the new generation of oil companies that are to blame for this culture.
When are you going to post some video of the 139 EFIS in operation?
HC
Presumably there are radalt bugs which when descended below, bring on some sort of caption or light?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: the top of the flag pole
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HC - Geoffers has beaten me to it.
Basic 139 has a rad alt generated call at 150ft as pointed out by Geoff. This can be suppressed/eliminated (not suspended as with AVAD), consciously or inadvertently, by the flick of a tiny unguarded switch on the central panel. It could be easily knocked in a dark cockpit.
This little switch, in its self could lead to problems if the crew are unaware it is in the regrade position while descending low level, either IMC or on an inky black night. A warning on the CAS (Crew Alerting System) while in regrade might be a helpful improvement. I don't recall there even being an advisory, maybe Geoffers could help me out here, as I never knowingly fly with it in regrade.
While on the subject of CAS warnings, you get a warning every time you arm the floats, which seems to me a waste of a warning at a time in the flight when if something else is going on it would be good to know about it. The crews get so used to cancelling a warning as they arm the floats that they might inadvertently cancel a coincidental warning without noticing.
Maybe an advisory would be more appropriate. Just a thought.
Red
Basic 139 has a rad alt generated call at 150ft as pointed out by Geoff. This can be suppressed/eliminated (not suspended as with AVAD), consciously or inadvertently, by the flick of a tiny unguarded switch on the central panel. It could be easily knocked in a dark cockpit.
This little switch, in its self could lead to problems if the crew are unaware it is in the regrade position while descending low level, either IMC or on an inky black night. A warning on the CAS (Crew Alerting System) while in regrade might be a helpful improvement. I don't recall there even being an advisory, maybe Geoffers could help me out here, as I never knowingly fly with it in regrade.
While on the subject of CAS warnings, you get a warning every time you arm the floats, which seems to me a waste of a warning at a time in the flight when if something else is going on it would be good to know about it. The crews get so used to cancelling a warning as they arm the floats that they might inadvertently cancel a coincidental warning without noticing.
Maybe an advisory would be more appropriate. Just a thought.
Red