Agusta AW139
AW139-AB139 Accident / Incident summary
This is a summary of the accidents and (mentionable) incidents that I know of. Anyone able to add anything?
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/508...139-crash.html
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/329...abu-dhabi.html
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/386...xying-doh.html
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/402...n-almeria.html
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/508...139-crash.html
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/329...abu-dhabi.html
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/386...xying-doh.html
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/402...n-almeria.html
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: global
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ERA aw139 tailboom wrinkle
just got word today ERA had a 139 come back from a business as usual flight in the gulf with a creased tailboom. any info from the boots on the ground? hope those BT kits get here soon......
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand from a source that a "fixed" tailboom (ie one with the longerons full length inside the boom) is soon to be trialled by a middle eastern operator in the hope that this mod will finally put this saga to an end ... at least this will put a secondary load path in the structure and perhaps ease those doubts.
We will have to wait and see ....
We will have to wait and see ....
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: alabama
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The floats must not have been armed. Which, if flying at a cruise speed would make sense.
Agusta does not realize that if the floats should somehow inflate at 150 kts that the pilot would probably loss control. Why should we fly around with the floats armed, it should be part of the pre-landing and emergency ditching checklist.
S-76 float arming speed was 74 Kts.
Agusta does not realize that if the floats should somehow inflate at 150 kts that the pilot would probably loss control. Why should we fly around with the floats armed, it should be part of the pre-landing and emergency ditching checklist.
S-76 float arming speed was 74 Kts.
couldn't agree with you more....but unfortunately common sense not always applies everywhere, check this out:
I had an emergency floatation sys accidental deployment in flight @ 110 KTS , 1000 ' on a 412 at night. we were navigating VFR, my head in the charts and in that very second we all heard a boom and the helicopter went 20° nose down and 30° bank left. in a heartbeat I raised my head up while it was still rolling (i wasn't at the controls). Only while other pilot was manouvering to regain the control and level flight we realized what had happened.
we flew the bird according to the manual ( max 60kts and max 200 '/min) and being there was no suitable landing spot ahead we brought the bird back home.....
the "orginization" i was flying for still hasn't removed the POS of arming the floats heading offshore and disarming them when back onshore....
...so someone still cruises around with floats armed all day...I flew 76s in the GOM and they apply the correct (in my opinion) procedure, which is to leave 'em off while cruising and as per landing checklist arming the floats on final for the rig...
donno if i was just lucky or the 412 airframe has been more forgiving compared to the 139's but like i said i agree with you that it would be wiser to leave them floats alone while flying...
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmmmm.......
flying chief ....
So were your floats armed when you had the incident in the 412? ... if so then your bad! ... If NOT then you had a technical malfunction .... and that can happen to anyone anytime eh?
Seeing as the there is a notation in the 412 RFM prohibiting intentional inflation in forward flight there is obviously knowledge that there would be some form of aerodynamic disruption if such a thing happened thus the arming only below say 60kts on finals.
The 139 does not have an Emergency manual inflation backup like the 412 has ... both inflation systems are purely electrical ... there are also no 'gear doors' to blow open as with the S 76 ... and I guess we have to trust the Test Pilots that certified the system that it is indeed safe in the event of an inadvertent inflation in flight ...
BUT in an emergency if you want the floats to work they need to be armed before you NEED THEM and according to the AW139 RFM this can be done when going 'Feet Wet' and at cruise speeds and I have no problem with this.
If your suggesting we all 'second guess' the certification authorities and do our own thing .... I think that attitude may well cause more problems than it cures ....
How about we wait and see what the investigation reveals and what if any amendments MIGHT be made to RFMs etc ....
Cheers
flying chief ....
So were your floats armed when you had the incident in the 412? ... if so then your bad! ... If NOT then you had a technical malfunction .... and that can happen to anyone anytime eh?
Seeing as the there is a notation in the 412 RFM prohibiting intentional inflation in forward flight there is obviously knowledge that there would be some form of aerodynamic disruption if such a thing happened thus the arming only below say 60kts on finals.
The 139 does not have an Emergency manual inflation backup like the 412 has ... both inflation systems are purely electrical ... there are also no 'gear doors' to blow open as with the S 76 ... and I guess we have to trust the Test Pilots that certified the system that it is indeed safe in the event of an inadvertent inflation in flight ...
BUT in an emergency if you want the floats to work they need to be armed before you NEED THEM and according to the AW139 RFM this can be done when going 'Feet Wet' and at cruise speeds and I have no problem with this.
If your suggesting we all 'second guess' the certification authorities and do our own thing .... I think that attitude may well cause more problems than it cures ....
How about we wait and see what the investigation reveals and what if any amendments MIGHT be made to RFMs etc ....
Cheers
Flyingchief, the float system of the Italian Coast Guard 412s is antiquated and has nothing in common with the one in the AW139.
I always wondered why they did not opt for the standard six pack that was readily available off-the-shelf, choosing instead the accident prone system still used by the Italian Navy 212ASWs (or perhaps I know).
Again, 412 and 139, different systems and different procedures.
I always wondered why they did not opt for the standard six pack that was readily available off-the-shelf, choosing instead the accident prone system still used by the Italian Navy 212ASWs (or perhaps I know).
Again, 412 and 139, different systems and different procedures.
and I guess we have to trust the Test Pilots that certified the system that it is indeed safe in the event of an inadvertent inflation in flight
The AW position on float arming is not something most other manufacturers have followed. There will be a reason for this, namely the handling difficulties with an inadvertent inflation - whether this inflation is due to system failure or pilot finger trouble becomes irrelevant.
Does anyone know if Agusta inflated the floats at Vne? I have heard that they didn't, but this was a position that ENAC accepted. Other certifying authorities around the world probably would not, hence the RFM restrictions for other types.
The fact that this one issue causes so much debate shows that some pilots/organisations are uncertain that the AW recommended SOP is the safest option to follow.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: ......
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Radio Altimeter Issue
We've been sufferring from a radio altimeter issue on our ship(long nose) which has had dual RAD ALT systems.
Both systems work properly lower than 2500FT AGL though,....
Sometimes we got the "RAD" miscompare indication or "RAD1" or "RAD2" at around 3000FT AGL or higher. In case of 4500FT AGL or higher, we got a radio altimeter tape on the PFD(either PLT or CPLT side only) suddenly together with the landing gear caution w/audio and EGPWS messages.
Anyone has had the same issue?
Appreciate all the inputs! Thanks.
Both systems work properly lower than 2500FT AGL though,....
Sometimes we got the "RAD" miscompare indication or "RAD1" or "RAD2" at around 3000FT AGL or higher. In case of 4500FT AGL or higher, we got a radio altimeter tape on the PFD(either PLT or CPLT side only) suddenly together with the landing gear caution w/audio and EGPWS messages.
Anyone has had the same issue?
Appreciate all the inputs! Thanks.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Radar altimeters by their nature have a percentage inaccuracy, as well as an absolute inaccuracy. The percentage inaccuracy is typically ±5%. At 3,000', that's over 150' possible difference, which is what is probably causing the miscompare between the two systems.
Surprised any manufacturer is even using radar altimeter signals above 2,000' AGL.
Surprised any manufacturer is even using radar altimeter signals above 2,000' AGL.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Below sealevel
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dexus,
We had some problems with moisture trapped between the Rad. Alt. Antennas and the structure, which in two cases had caused severe corrosion on the antenna's mating surfaces.
After cleaning the mating surfaces and replacing the affected antenna the problems were gone.
We had some problems with moisture trapped between the Rad. Alt. Antennas and the structure, which in two cases had caused severe corrosion on the antenna's mating surfaces.
After cleaning the mating surfaces and replacing the affected antenna the problems were gone.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: alabama
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
spin,
that's exactly what I'm saying...I HAD to arm the floats because it was dectated from a WRONG SOP!!!! keep the floats armed at all times is not always safe!! that SOP hasn't chaged yet even after what happened.... my observation was purely constructive, throwing in there my experience that describes a clear management malfunction on producing the right SOP!!!!
...would you consider "'second guessing' the certification authorities" acting safely to prevent your crew from getting hurt? I don't!
Far from me acting against the authorities decisions!!!!! but sometimes the input has gotta came from the bottom of the pyramid...that's what we all have the right to do as professional pilots...
...than I have no idea how the floats on 139 work being i never flow one of those, unlike tottigol who has flown 'em all (412, 212, 139) who correctly stated that maybe it wasn't a great decision to install that model of floats on those 412's..
finally I wanted to clarify that my comment had nothing to say about the investigation accurring on Helimer 207's crash and only after investigators will produce their final reports we all will be able to comment and learn from "prior experience" facts... I might be fairly young but have quite an experience on flight safety coming from working my b***t off as a safety officer trying to convince other pilots to be proactive and not just lounge around and fly along without giving inputs....
cheers to you my friend
PS just for tottigol: se magnamo l'olive greche stasera? daje roma dajeee
that's exactly what I'm saying...I HAD to arm the floats because it was dectated from a WRONG SOP!!!! keep the floats armed at all times is not always safe!! that SOP hasn't chaged yet even after what happened.... my observation was purely constructive, throwing in there my experience that describes a clear management malfunction on producing the right SOP!!!!
...would you consider "'second guessing' the certification authorities" acting safely to prevent your crew from getting hurt? I don't!Far from me acting against the authorities decisions!!!!! but sometimes the input has gotta came from the bottom of the pyramid...that's what we all have the right to do as professional pilots...
...than I have no idea how the floats on 139 work being i never flow one of those, unlike tottigol who has flown 'em all (412, 212, 139) who correctly stated that maybe it wasn't a great decision to install that model of floats on those 412's..
finally I wanted to clarify that my comment had nothing to say about the investigation accurring on Helimer 207's crash and only after investigators will produce their final reports we all will be able to comment and learn from "prior experience" facts... I might be fairly young but have quite an experience on flight safety coming from working my b***t off as a safety officer trying to convince other pilots to be proactive and not just lounge around and fly along without giving inputs....
cheers to you my friend
PS just for tottigol: se magnamo l'olive greche stasera? daje roma dajeee
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Kill Box 85CJ
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hydraulic Lines
Hey all,
Might want to check the hydraulic lines, on the deck, where they are held in place by the hard black plastic clamps (terminology?). I had one crack along the edge of the clamp. The clamp appears to have crimped into or chaffed the line to the point of failure. You wouldn't notice it unless you unclamp it and have a look see for yourself...
Cheers
Might want to check the hydraulic lines, on the deck, where they are held in place by the hard black plastic clamps (terminology?). I had one crack along the edge of the clamp. The clamp appears to have crimped into or chaffed the line to the point of failure. You wouldn't notice it unless you unclamp it and have a look see for yourself...
Cheers
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Chief
To help you understand the definition of a Luddite given the context I have chosen to use it I should explain that aviation is constantly changing and seeking ways to improve. There was a growing list of incidents and accidents that cause helicopters both military and commercial to end up in the water in an uncontrolled fashion without the benefit of floatation equipment entering into the survival equation despite being equipped with floats.
For quite some time now floats have been available with a specific design feature intended to ensure that the possibility of inadvertent in-flight inflation is so remote as to be considered to all intents and purposes impossible. Thus it is possible to have this survival aid on standby all the time you are over water. believe I am right in saying that the Merlin and Lynx are so equipped as well as the 139. Maybe any Merlin/Lynx drivers will correct me if I am wrong but I don't believe that a case of inadvertant float inflation has ever occurred on any type so equipped. One 139 operator operates his entire fleet over water all the time and must have clocked up over 5000 hours of flight without incident. This on top of the tens of thousands of hours clocked up by the Navy.
I have a colleague who found himself in the water one dark night whilst manoeuvring his SAR S76 in preparation for a pick-up. He described to me the terrifying moments when he was sinking deeper and deeper beneath the waves, when the last breath of his STASS gave out and he could not find his way out. His final act before losing cosciousness was to give up and take a deep breath that delivered nothing but water. He was rescued, resuscitated and lived to tell the story. It is with those events in mind that huge amount of treasure has been allocated to giving you - Joe Pilot - a better piece of safety equipment but because you chose not to understand you want to go back a step - frightened by the scare stories that have no basis in fact - and put your self at risk. Well, should you suffer the fate described above I would not want to be the Chief Pilot who has to go round to your family and explain why you chose NOT to use the equipment correctly.
G.
For quite some time now floats have been available with a specific design feature intended to ensure that the possibility of inadvertent in-flight inflation is so remote as to be considered to all intents and purposes impossible. Thus it is possible to have this survival aid on standby all the time you are over water. believe I am right in saying that the Merlin and Lynx are so equipped as well as the 139. Maybe any Merlin/Lynx drivers will correct me if I am wrong but I don't believe that a case of inadvertant float inflation has ever occurred on any type so equipped. One 139 operator operates his entire fleet over water all the time and must have clocked up over 5000 hours of flight without incident. This on top of the tens of thousands of hours clocked up by the Navy.
I have a colleague who found himself in the water one dark night whilst manoeuvring his SAR S76 in preparation for a pick-up. He described to me the terrifying moments when he was sinking deeper and deeper beneath the waves, when the last breath of his STASS gave out and he could not find his way out. His final act before losing cosciousness was to give up and take a deep breath that delivered nothing but water. He was rescued, resuscitated and lived to tell the story. It is with those events in mind that huge amount of treasure has been allocated to giving you - Joe Pilot - a better piece of safety equipment but because you chose not to understand you want to go back a step - frightened by the scare stories that have no basis in fact - and put your self at risk. Well, should you suffer the fate described above I would not want to be the Chief Pilot who has to go round to your family and explain why you chose NOT to use the equipment correctly.
G.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmm....
Happy to report that I have been able to look over one of the 'new' modified T'booms both inside and out ..... and I am impressed with the longeron installation and the obvious integrity of the modified structure .... these should do the job well!
Happy to report that I have been able to look over one of the 'new' modified T'booms both inside and out ..... and I am impressed with the longeron installation and the obvious integrity of the modified structure .... these should do the job well!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmmm ....
I did ask ... and the answer was "not sure ... but around 15kg??"
Have to wait for the official weigh in I guess ... but its a very solid looking fix.
I did ask ... and the answer was "not sure ... but around 15kg??"
Have to wait for the official weigh in I guess ... but its a very solid looking fix.
