Agusta AW139
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmmm ...
Geoffers ....
This is BRILLIANT ..... I'm now getting facts that I can take to my training department and ask questions about .....
Yes the RFM is obviously vague in this department and if for what ever reason conversion courses miss certain issues I think this forum is a way of getting information out in the open ...
I (and probably others too) are at the mercy of our trainers... and our experience ... we can only read between the lines if manuals and course notes do not go into these details ... and if they don't and our Agusta trained trainers do not know to pass this information on we are the ones to suffer!
Thanks ... keep the Info, points of view etc etc coming ...
Cheers
Geoffers ....
This is BRILLIANT ..... I'm now getting facts that I can take to my training department and ask questions about .....
Yes the RFM is obviously vague in this department and if for what ever reason conversion courses miss certain issues I think this forum is a way of getting information out in the open ...
I (and probably others too) are at the mercy of our trainers... and our experience ... we can only read between the lines if manuals and course notes do not go into these details ... and if they don't and our Agusta trained trainers do not know to pass this information on we are the ones to suffer!
Thanks ... keep the Info, points of view etc etc coming ...
Cheers
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On the green bit near the blue wobbly stuff
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Flying with TL on (other than for OEI Training) in case you accidentally overtorque the gearbox seems very little difference from deliberately flying with only one engine in case you accidentally overtorque the gearbox. It doesnt compute with me.
Its not in the manual, its not taught on the TR course, because that is not how it is intended to be used. The manual doesnt say "dont turn both generators off in flight to save wear and tear" either. That doesnt mean to say you should do it!
Its not in the manual, its not taught on the TR course, because that is not how it is intended to be used. The manual doesnt say "dont turn both generators off in flight to save wear and tear" either. That doesnt mean to say you should do it!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Button Moon
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This really should not be an issue. Maybe I have been flying a different AW139.
Operating at the gross weight of 6400 KG, I think if you accidently over-torque this aircraft a torque limiter is the least of your problems. I can't think of any time over the last 3 years flying this aircraft under normal operations (max gross weight at up to 40 degrees C) that I have been so close to a limit on torque that this has even been an issue. If operating at the higher gross weight of 6800 KG disregard the previous statement.
If you need to use more than 220% AEO on a regular basis, I think you need to take a look at your operations or weights, IMHO.
If I ever need to use more than that, I want it all available as it will be an emergency.
Operating at the gross weight of 6400 KG, I think if you accidently over-torque this aircraft a torque limiter is the least of your problems. I can't think of any time over the last 3 years flying this aircraft under normal operations (max gross weight at up to 40 degrees C) that I have been so close to a limit on torque that this has even been an issue. If operating at the higher gross weight of 6800 KG disregard the previous statement.
If you need to use more than 220% AEO on a regular basis, I think you need to take a look at your operations or weights, IMHO.
If I ever need to use more than that, I want it all available as it will be an emergency.
Last edited by platinumpure; 14th Jun 2009 at 15:58.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ASER
With respect to the Torque Limiter:-
I owe you and the rest of the PpruNe fraternity an apology insofar as the TL DOES appear in the RFM Pre Take Off, After Take Off and Pre Landing checklist with the qualification 'AS REQUIRED' - the same as your own checklist.
Clearly somebody has considered the possible need for the TL when the book was written although we seem to have standardised on a scenario here at the school where the TL is not used for normal ops. That's why it doesn't appear on our 'training' checklist.
The ambiguity leaves us no further forward but as Jim says, sacrificing the MGB/Engine to save the airframe is probably better than sacrificing the airframe to save the MGB/Engine.
As for flying around with the TL on all the time - probably not a good idea. As for using it for normal ops - in the absence of any history of MGB overtorques I can't see it as justified. Given the acceptance of the TL by the RFM 'Normal Procedures' I can no longer claim it to be unacceptable to use it and will need to eat my share of humble pie over that. However, the analysis, I believe, is in favour of using it only when you have a clear possibility of an overtorque. Even then there may be some circumstances (I can think of one example when you are landing in the mountains with lots of down-drafting) where it may be better to have it OFF rather ON.
With respect to the MGB:-
3.2 If, with all engines operative, the TQ is 121 thru 125% for 10 s maximum no inspections are necessary.
3.3 If, with all engines operative, the TQ is 121 thru 125% for more than 10 s or it is more than 125%, send the data to the Manufacturer. Then do the recommended inspections.
3.4 If, with one engine inoperative, the TQ is more than 176%, send the data to the Manufacturer. Then do the recommended inspections.
These are the official procedures the customer MUST carry out.
That's the best I can do at the moment. No clear indication of the asymmetric scenario as mentioned previously but the MM would seem to reinforce the 'normal' situation where both engines are producing equal torque. The consensus here is that the designers forgot to to consider this scenario when they designed the software along with the scenario where 'ITT Matching' is selected as this will also generate a torque differential.
G
Edit - Typo plus note about ITT Matching
I owe you and the rest of the PpruNe fraternity an apology insofar as the TL DOES appear in the RFM Pre Take Off, After Take Off and Pre Landing checklist with the qualification 'AS REQUIRED' - the same as your own checklist.
Clearly somebody has considered the possible need for the TL when the book was written although we seem to have standardised on a scenario here at the school where the TL is not used for normal ops. That's why it doesn't appear on our 'training' checklist.
The ambiguity leaves us no further forward but as Jim says, sacrificing the MGB/Engine to save the airframe is probably better than sacrificing the airframe to save the MGB/Engine.
As for flying around with the TL on all the time - probably not a good idea. As for using it for normal ops - in the absence of any history of MGB overtorques I can't see it as justified. Given the acceptance of the TL by the RFM 'Normal Procedures' I can no longer claim it to be unacceptable to use it and will need to eat my share of humble pie over that. However, the analysis, I believe, is in favour of using it only when you have a clear possibility of an overtorque. Even then there may be some circumstances (I can think of one example when you are landing in the mountains with lots of down-drafting) where it may be better to have it OFF rather ON.
With respect to the MGB:-
3.2 If, with all engines operative, the TQ is 121 thru 125% for 10 s maximum no inspections are necessary.
3.3 If, with all engines operative, the TQ is 121 thru 125% for more than 10 s or it is more than 125%, send the data to the Manufacturer. Then do the recommended inspections.
3.4 If, with one engine inoperative, the TQ is more than 176%, send the data to the Manufacturer. Then do the recommended inspections.
These are the official procedures the customer MUST carry out.
That's the best I can do at the moment. No clear indication of the asymmetric scenario as mentioned previously but the MM would seem to reinforce the 'normal' situation where both engines are producing equal torque. The consensus here is that the designers forgot to to consider this scenario when they designed the software along with the scenario where 'ITT Matching' is selected as this will also generate a torque differential.
G
Edit - Typo plus note about ITT Matching
Last edited by Geoffersincornwall; 15th Jun 2009 at 13:18.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near the Mountains
Age: 67
Posts: 345
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geoff,
Just when I've got my head around the FLOAT ARM procedure, you throw this at me.......? You cruel man!!
On a lighter note, I pitched up in Liege today for a bunch of inspections and a fistful of BTs which need doing. First thing they did inside the hangar was download the engine data. Funny thing was, one engineer was showing another what to look for but both engines gave them completely blank screens with regard to faults and exceedances......they seemed surprised and started to joke about it. Why, I don't know!
To me, even a 103/104% Tq spike is out of order, much less 125%, and I work like this all the time and without recourse to the TL option. I appreciate my flying is all in non-arduous circumstances and non-hostile environmentsand in temperate latitudes, as well as which I can take my time to my take-offs, but I do load right up to the 6400kg limit all the time.
Am I missing something here?
22
Just when I've got my head around the FLOAT ARM procedure, you throw this at me.......? You cruel man!!
On a lighter note, I pitched up in Liege today for a bunch of inspections and a fistful of BTs which need doing. First thing they did inside the hangar was download the engine data. Funny thing was, one engineer was showing another what to look for but both engines gave them completely blank screens with regard to faults and exceedances......they seemed surprised and started to joke about it. Why, I don't know!
To me, even a 103/104% Tq spike is out of order, much less 125%, and I work like this all the time and without recourse to the TL option. I appreciate my flying is all in non-arduous circumstances and non-hostile environmentsand in temperate latitudes, as well as which I can take my time to my take-offs, but I do load right up to the 6400kg limit all the time.
Am I missing something here?
22
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Button Moon
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some further reading on the subject of TL from the training manual:
Engine limitations
Engines power can be limited in order to protect the main
gearbox when in double engine operation.
This function is achieved by pressing the TQ LIM pushbutton
on the collective grip; when pressed the EECs controls
the total engines torque in order to not exceed the
maximum take-off power rating while has no effect in single
engine operation.
Torque is the only parameter involved in the limitation, Ng
and ITT could reach the single engine limits even in double
engine operation if allowed by the environmental conditions.
Torque limitation is not available in MANUAL mode.
It is pilot responsibility to select the engines torque limitation,
the default mode is OFF
Although I have to admit I can't really think of any practical uses for this. Like has been stated before, I would rather save the airframe if I ever found myself in the position where I needed that power.
For the guys that do use the limiter. What do you guys use it for out of interest? What kind of operations are you involved in? Do you feel you need it a lot? I'm not saying its wrong, I'm just interested in this as there may be something I'm overlooking.
Engine limitations
Engines power can be limited in order to protect the main
gearbox when in double engine operation.
This function is achieved by pressing the TQ LIM pushbutton
on the collective grip; when pressed the EECs controls
the total engines torque in order to not exceed the
maximum take-off power rating while has no effect in single
engine operation.
Torque is the only parameter involved in the limitation, Ng
and ITT could reach the single engine limits even in double
engine operation if allowed by the environmental conditions.
Torque limitation is not available in MANUAL mode.
It is pilot responsibility to select the engines torque limitation,
the default mode is OFF
Although I have to admit I can't really think of any practical uses for this. Like has been stated before, I would rather save the airframe if I ever found myself in the position where I needed that power.
For the guys that do use the limiter. What do you guys use it for out of interest? What kind of operations are you involved in? Do you feel you need it a lot? I'm not saying its wrong, I'm just interested in this as there may be something I'm overlooking.
Last edited by platinumpure; 23rd Jun 2009 at 21:02.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmmmm ...
Well my point of view is the the TL function IS the airframe protection (ie it protects the transmission input sections) for normal operations.
Let me first declare that I grew up with the SA330J Puma and am quite happy on a big(ish) machine to fly Nr decay if necessary and fly a machine away in that condition if the need arises (we also used/needed to milk RPM on B47 G3B2s on occasions just to keep the suckers flying ... that of course was in a previous life!).
Having said that .... the necessity for this of course depends on the task at hand for any given situation ... you might not want TL "ON" for a particular task and that would be the pilots perogative.
I and my collegues fly the 139 in a disciplined Offshore envoironment and there are there a few of us with similar Puma backgrounds we are very happy to keep using the TL.
As quoted above ... it does NOT restrict your power demands during OEI flight as the TL feature is then inhibited.
Also .... it was illuminating ... during my type training (which was done by a person with Test Pilot qualifications) when we raised questions about what could and could not be done by pilots vis a vis "reading between the lines" of flight manuals (due to RFM vagueness) .... his comment was ... that a lot of limitations in RFMs are in fact due to the "developmental test program" not fully investigating the envelope and just coming up with "artificially" low limits just so as to be able to publish a RFM for Certification and get the aircraft in the air and in use! Very often done with newish aircraft ...
This of course does not mean we can expand the flight envelope with our own (un-approved) test program!!!!
Cheers
Well my point of view is the the TL function IS the airframe protection (ie it protects the transmission input sections) for normal operations.
Let me first declare that I grew up with the SA330J Puma and am quite happy on a big(ish) machine to fly Nr decay if necessary and fly a machine away in that condition if the need arises (we also used/needed to milk RPM on B47 G3B2s on occasions just to keep the suckers flying ... that of course was in a previous life!).
Having said that .... the necessity for this of course depends on the task at hand for any given situation ... you might not want TL "ON" for a particular task and that would be the pilots perogative.
I and my collegues fly the 139 in a disciplined Offshore envoironment and there are there a few of us with similar Puma backgrounds we are very happy to keep using the TL.
As quoted above ... it does NOT restrict your power demands during OEI flight as the TL feature is then inhibited.
Also .... it was illuminating ... during my type training (which was done by a person with Test Pilot qualifications) when we raised questions about what could and could not be done by pilots vis a vis "reading between the lines" of flight manuals (due to RFM vagueness) .... his comment was ... that a lot of limitations in RFMs are in fact due to the "developmental test program" not fully investigating the envelope and just coming up with "artificially" low limits just so as to be able to publish a RFM for Certification and get the aircraft in the air and in use! Very often done with newish aircraft ...
This of course does not mean we can expand the flight envelope with our own (un-approved) test program!!!!
Cheers
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spinwing
I'm sure it was just a slip of the tongue but during OEI the TL is not inhibited. During OEI operation the TL is very definitely ON - but with settings appropriate to the OEI situation. Thus, after an engine fails, the torque is permitted a short overswing above the 160 limit but then the Torque will remain at 160 and the NR will droop if the collective is raised any further.
G
G
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AW139 spare door keys
Anyone got a source (in USA preferably) where one can get spare door keys cut? These are the ones that look like a small switchblade with blunt edges, and the "key" is cut into both sides of the blade.
Agusta suggests your local BMW car or motorcycle shop, but try getting a dealer to do anything without a VIN number is impossible.
Cheers
KC
Agusta suggests your local BMW car or motorcycle shop, but try getting a dealer to do anything without a VIN number is impossible.
Cheers
KC
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmmm ...
Agusta suggests your local BMW car or motorcycle shop, but try getting a dealer to do anything without a VIN number is impossible.
Its a problem isn't it?
Might I suggest talking to a locksmith .... if necessary taking him/her to see the aircraft and you proving to them that the key is in fact for an aircraft then threatening them with a case of beer for a job well done if they would cut you some spares ... all they need is to be reassured that you are authorised to have those keys and that they will not be liable for any car theft conspiracy charges in the future.
Good luck
Agusta suggests your local BMW car or motorcycle shop, but try getting a dealer to do anything without a VIN number is impossible.
Its a problem isn't it?
Might I suggest talking to a locksmith .... if necessary taking him/her to see the aircraft and you proving to them that the key is in fact for an aircraft then threatening them with a case of beer for a job well done if they would cut you some spares ... all they need is to be reassured that you are authorised to have those keys and that they will not be liable for any car theft conspiracy charges in the future.
Good luck
Bubble
If the pilots can see out of those bubble windows then they have bloody long necks. They are for the rear crew to see down while searching etc without opening the doors. The trouble is they are too small and with a helmet on next to useless.
