Agusta AW139
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Cowling failure?
Reports of a cowling on a Korean aircraft (Gangwon-Do Fire Service) detaching and striking the MR. Claims being made that this is the second instance of forward cowling failure, the first having been on a Mid East ship, though there is possibly some confusion here with A7-GHC's troubles.
I/C
I/C
Amazing timing....
Korea Coast Guard Takes Delivery Of Two AW139 Helicopters
October 23, 2009
AgustaWestland, a Finmeccanica company, is pleased to announce that the Korea Coast Guard has taken delivery of two AW139 medium twin helicopters during an official ceremony held at Vergiate plant (Italy).
The AW139s will be used for maritime patrol, search and rescue and emergency medical service purposes.
Thanks to the AW139's outstanding features, the Korea Coast Guard will perform a major step forward in providing maritime patrolling and Search and Rescue services in the country.
These helicopters add to the Gangwon Fire Fighting Department’s AW139 already in service in Korea and further expand the increasing success of AgustaWestland products in the region.
October 23, 2009
AgustaWestland, a Finmeccanica company, is pleased to announce that the Korea Coast Guard has taken delivery of two AW139 medium twin helicopters during an official ceremony held at Vergiate plant (Italy).
The AW139s will be used for maritime patrol, search and rescue and emergency medical service purposes.
Thanks to the AW139's outstanding features, the Korea Coast Guard will perform a major step forward in providing maritime patrolling and Search and Rescue services in the country.
These helicopters add to the Gangwon Fire Fighting Department’s AW139 already in service in Korea and further expand the increasing success of AgustaWestland products in the region.
You sure it wasn't an engine cowling? ERA had one open up in flight and hit the main rotor quite a while back. It pays to latch cowlings when you close them.
Interesting side note.... why do all manufacturers have microswitches to tell you if a cockpit/cabin/baggage door is open, but nothing for the bits that could actually kill you, like engine and gearbox cowlings??
Interesting side note.... why do all manufacturers have microswitches to tell you if a cockpit/cabin/baggage door is open, but nothing for the bits that could actually kill you, like engine and gearbox cowlings??
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Noooby,
Sorry for the confusion: it was the forward engine cowling I was referring to (as opposed to the high-temp rear engine cowling), not the M/R gearbox cowling.
Human error (latching) will, I'm sure, be considered a likely cause.
I/C
Sorry for the confusion: it was the forward engine cowling I was referring to (as opposed to the high-temp rear engine cowling), not the M/R gearbox cowling.
Human error (latching) will, I'm sure, be considered a likely cause.
I/C
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety warning on rescue helicopter
Sensational stuff from the Aussies
Safety warning on rescue helicopter- Local Cairns News | cairns.com.au
Safety warning on rescue helicopter- Local Cairns News | cairns.com.au
The Cairns article does not cover the best stuff.
That the 139 can no land on soft surfaces or floating platform do the wheel gear, which was not a problem with the 412. Also it is stated the pilots are petitioning for the 412's back.
The Sultan
That the 139 can no land on soft surfaces or floating platform do the wheel gear, which was not a problem with the 412. Also it is stated the pilots are petitioning for the 412's back.
The Sultan
Sultan, why can't a 139 land on soft surfaces or pontoon pads? For soft surfaces, use the slump pad kit. Can't retract the gear, but that only restricts you to 150 knots, a speed that any 412 can only dream of, downhill! So why can't they land on pontoon pads? I'm sure Seahawks/Blackhawks and other wheeled helicopters can. The 139 is very stable on its landing gear, so what exactly is the problem? Perhaps the pontoons are only rated for 'light' helicopters?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MMmmm ......
...... Also it is stated the pilots are petitioning for the 412's back.
Well that I find very hard to believe ..... the 139 is STREAKS ahead of the 412
And as far as "not being able to land on pontoons" I have been landing on 'ships underway' with the 139 and I find it easier than doing the same with the 412 .... pontoons should not be an issue .... so nuts to that claim as well!
Load of BOLLOCKS!
...... Also it is stated the pilots are petitioning for the 412's back.
Well that I find very hard to believe ..... the 139 is STREAKS ahead of the 412
And as far as "not being able to land on pontoons" I have been landing on 'ships underway' with the 139 and I find it easier than doing the same with the 412 .... pontoons should not be an issue .... so nuts to that claim as well!
Load of BOLLOCKS!
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Kill Box 85CJ
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
petitioning for the 412 back?
That seems a bit ridiculous to me. If you have to land on soft surfaces slump pads should take care of it. (Remember to level the night sun if it is mounted on the sponson) That being said, 412 tailbooms haven't broken off lately 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmmm ....
Sven ... old darling .....
The difference between landing a 139 or a 412 on the (theoretically) same pontoon would be non existent ..... if anything the 139 would be less likely to move once on the deck ... the skids on the 412 and the aerodynamics of the airframe can make deck landings "interesting" depending on where the wind might be, and the level of handling skills of the driver!
.... also the 139 is also way less likely to 'resonate' once on the deck the u/c is brilliant!
Sven ... old darling .....
The difference between landing a 139 or a 412 on the (theoretically) same pontoon would be non existent ..... if anything the 139 would be less likely to move once on the deck ... the skids on the 412 and the aerodynamics of the airframe can make deck landings "interesting" depending on where the wind might be, and the level of handling skills of the driver!
.... also the 139 is also way less likely to 'resonate' once on the deck the u/c is brilliant!
Original source:
10 November 2009
Dodgy tails raise more questions about $50m rescue choppers
The possibility of tails dropping off was the latest in a long line of issues with the Bligh Government’s $50 million purchase of the AugustaWestland (AW) 139 helicopters.
LNP emergency services spokesman Ted Malone said the three AW 139s had proved a very costly and embarrassing decision by the Bligh Government and Minister Roberts.
“You have to wonder what’s going to go wrong next,” Mr Malone said.
“The Minister says daily checks are being carried out to make sure the tails don’t crack and fall off …that’s after all the other problems with what’s turned out to be three very costly helicopters.”
Mr Malone said (during Estimates hearings in July) the Minister admitted there’d been a raft of problems with the AW 139s including:
searchlights that didn’t work properly;
limited capacity for stretchers and couldn’t take anyone over six foot;
inability to carry humidi-cribs for seriously ill babies; and
unable to land on pontoons or soft/wet ground
Mr Malone said the Minister had refused to provide details on the full cost of rectifying all the issues with the AW 139s.
“They can’t carry more than one injured person and certainly no one over six feet tall because the cabin is too small. They can’t carry humidi-cribs, so sick children can’t be ferried between hospitals …you can’t send one to road smash where there’s more than one stretcher victim.
“Unlike the Bell 412s they’ve replaced, the AW 139s can’t land on any pontoons on the reef because their wheeled undercarriages are unsuitable.”
Mr Malone said the Minister ignored all the concerns from rescue pilots and their crews who wanted their Bell 412s back.
“The Bell 412s were internationally-renowned for emergency medical and rescue work, and could carry four stretchers or 10 passengers and two neonatal humidicribs.”
“Now the Minister is being forced to defend what amounts to another poor management decision,” Mr Malone said.
10 November 2009
Dodgy tails raise more questions about $50m rescue choppers
The possibility of tails dropping off was the latest in a long line of issues with the Bligh Government’s $50 million purchase of the AugustaWestland (AW) 139 helicopters.
LNP emergency services spokesman Ted Malone said the three AW 139s had proved a very costly and embarrassing decision by the Bligh Government and Minister Roberts.
“You have to wonder what’s going to go wrong next,” Mr Malone said.
“The Minister says daily checks are being carried out to make sure the tails don’t crack and fall off …that’s after all the other problems with what’s turned out to be three very costly helicopters.”
Mr Malone said (during Estimates hearings in July) the Minister admitted there’d been a raft of problems with the AW 139s including:
searchlights that didn’t work properly;
limited capacity for stretchers and couldn’t take anyone over six foot;
inability to carry humidi-cribs for seriously ill babies; and
unable to land on pontoons or soft/wet ground
Mr Malone said the Minister had refused to provide details on the full cost of rectifying all the issues with the AW 139s.
“They can’t carry more than one injured person and certainly no one over six feet tall because the cabin is too small. They can’t carry humidi-cribs, so sick children can’t be ferried between hospitals …you can’t send one to road smash where there’s more than one stretcher victim.
“Unlike the Bell 412s they’ve replaced, the AW 139s can’t land on any pontoons on the reef because their wheeled undercarriages are unsuitable.”
Mr Malone said the Minister ignored all the concerns from rescue pilots and their crews who wanted their Bell 412s back.
“The Bell 412s were internationally-renowned for emergency medical and rescue work, and could carry four stretchers or 10 passengers and two neonatal humidicribs.”
“Now the Minister is being forced to defend what amounts to another poor management decision,” Mr Malone said.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Anywhere I can fly
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...I never read before so many stupid and speculating words as in this thread...
If you want to joke, OK... but if we want to talk seriously on this problem, then we change approach and stop speculating...
If you want to joke, OK... but if we want to talk seriously on this problem, then we change approach and stop speculating...
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmmmm ....
As usual .... the opposition trying to make political points .... if and when can ...
The 139 has issues that new aircraft usually have ... no arguement there ....
'Tis a pity that there is no mention of the 412 problems that plagued it when it was first introduced into service .... such as the severe vibrations due to the rotor head design ... tailboom skin delaminations, tailboom pylon spar cracking etc .... tail rotor blade cracking ADs etc .... all of which at the time would have been cause to moan and groan ....
I would think that the problem with the pontoons may be due the approvals required (though I admit I don't know the intimate detail of the pontoons in question weight & stability limitations) rather than anything else .... certainly in terms of dimension the 139 is slightly smaller than the 412 even if its max mass is higher.
Interestingly ..... the same stretchers that fit in the 412 will fit in the 139 ... perhaps the aeromedical 'fit out' is the problem .... and that would be down to the QES and their role in the extra's fitted to the aircraft .... same as being able to carry Neonate cribs or not!
Politics!!!!!
As usual .... the opposition trying to make political points .... if and when can ...
The 139 has issues that new aircraft usually have ... no arguement there ....
'Tis a pity that there is no mention of the 412 problems that plagued it when it was first introduced into service .... such as the severe vibrations due to the rotor head design ... tailboom skin delaminations, tailboom pylon spar cracking etc .... tail rotor blade cracking ADs etc .... all of which at the time would have been cause to moan and groan ....
I would think that the problem with the pontoons may be due the approvals required (though I admit I don't know the intimate detail of the pontoons in question weight & stability limitations) rather than anything else .... certainly in terms of dimension the 139 is slightly smaller than the 412 even if its max mass is higher.
Interestingly ..... the same stretchers that fit in the 412 will fit in the 139 ... perhaps the aeromedical 'fit out' is the problem .... and that would be down to the QES and their role in the extra's fitted to the aircraft .... same as being able to carry Neonate cribs or not!
Politics!!!!!
I am simply astounded by the declarations of those individuals operating the 139s for EMS and rescue in Australia.
Having flown the 412 in the same capacity for several years and flying now the 139 I find no grounds whatsoever to support any of those statements!
Space availability and speed and ride comfort are light years ahead of the venerable 412.
The patient height problem is certainly related to the stretcher and not the aircraft.
The only factor I may see is the lack of a proper electrical AC system in the 139, some of the equipment in the isolettes requires AC power and unless the EMS kit is spec'd out with an inverter, your hospital maternity team shall be severely disappointed.
Just out of curiosity, is this operation the same one that purchased the 139s without air conditioning?
Having flown the 412 in the same capacity for several years and flying now the 139 I find no grounds whatsoever to support any of those statements!
Space availability and speed and ride comfort are light years ahead of the venerable 412.
The patient height problem is certainly related to the stretcher and not the aircraft.
The only factor I may see is the lack of a proper electrical AC system in the 139, some of the equipment in the isolettes requires AC power and unless the EMS kit is spec'd out with an inverter, your hospital maternity team shall be severely disappointed.
Just out of curiosity, is this operation the same one that purchased the 139s without air conditioning?
Last edited by tottigol; 13th Nov 2009 at 23:41.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmmm ...
...Just out of curiosity, is this operation the same one that purchased the 139s without air conditioning?....
Totty .... this is a different mob to the above ... In the state of Queensland rather than the New South Wales Ambulance machines ....
Cheers
...Just out of curiosity, is this operation the same one that purchased the 139s without air conditioning?....
Totty .... this is a different mob to the above ... In the state of Queensland rather than the New South Wales Ambulance machines ....
Cheers
AgustaWestland is once more demonstrating its ability to develop the very latest rotorcraft technology designed to meet a range of requirements".
We must add this AW "Good news" approach to already mentioned "Ostrich Engineering" by BMax.
http://www.shephard.co.uk/news/4506/...d-now-the-149/
http://www.shephard.co.uk/news/4481/...es-to-the-air/
So all your complains, people, can be vanished with another 20M USD investment,
on 149 ship, orders are welcomed
We must add this AW "Good news" approach to already mentioned "Ostrich Engineering" by BMax.
http://www.shephard.co.uk/news/4506/...d-now-the-149/
http://www.shephard.co.uk/news/4481/...es-to-the-air/
So all your complains, people, can be vanished with another 20M USD investment,
on 149 ship, orders are welcomed
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: West Coast
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AW139 Rotor Head
Anybody out there ever have this problem. I am performing a 48 month inspection and the Main Rotor Head will not come off the mast spline, the machine has hung under a crane for 24 hours a day for 5 days now and no movement what so ever. We have applied penetrating oil also, and heat. I have had this issue with Bell medium in the past but not like this one. The MRH was last installed by Agusta 200 hundred hours ago I a sneaky feeling that the Dry film lubricant on the head and mast splines have bonded together rather well. Corrosion not a issue here. 
Anybody know where I can get some primer cord
Anybody know where I can get some primer cord
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Where I'm pointing...
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
