Agusta AW139
What is the general thought on float arming? The RFM says "over water" Is that what most of you are doing? What about a speed restriction? Did AW test an inflation at 140kts?
Personally I'm pretty nervous about having the floats armed at 140+, I think an inflation at that speed would not be a ride I would like to be on.........
Personally I'm pretty nervous about having the floats armed at 140+, I think an inflation at that speed would not be a ride I would like to be on.........
Opinions are as varied as personalities, I prefer to use an altitude restriction than speed, I'm happy flying with the floats armed or not at 5000' but I won't fly at 1000' without floats armed regardless of speed.
Personally I arm them even at take off, when I'll be over water in a few minutes.
I'm with Flying Bull.
Anyway I would like to know more about the floats tests flights...
Regards
Aser
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LOS
Age: 67
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for pointing out the previous posts SP......seems like there is no consensus 
Having read all thru the previous posts and that some people think that these floats are now so well tested that an inadvertent inflation is "impossible" then why are we disarming them on the deck? Why are they only armed over water and not all the time? Why is there even an "arming" switch at all?
I still want to see the video of AW popping the floats at 140+ kts
Having read all thru the previous posts and that some people think that these floats are now so well tested that an inadvertent inflation is "impossible" then why are we disarming them on the deck? Why are they only armed over water and not all the time? Why is there even an "arming" switch at all?
I still want to see the video of AW popping the floats at 140+ kts
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: West Coast
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hydraulic BY PASS switches
Hi, anyone have any success with the latest PN 1865-44 Hydraulic bypass switch, I would like to here from someone who has success with the latest switch.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To arm or not to arm??
During the lifetime of this design of float system (which I believe is the same as that used on the Merlin and the Lynx) there have been no reported instances of inadvertent inflation in flight and the many many thousands of hours of their use whilst 'armed' testify I believe to a well designed and reliable system. There have, however, been several instances where folk have perished or very nearly perished thanks to an inadvertent ditching with the floats un-armed - in other types (S76 for example, NY and SW)
I empathise with those who have a weird feeling thrashing around with floats armed when that was not the case in a previous type but the stats tell it all.
If you choose to go against the flight manual then please do it formally with a written submission to your NAA and or AW rather than just 'doing your thing' and maybe finding out the hard way that making up your own rules can be a tricky way forward when the proverbial hits the fan.
G.
I empathise with those who have a weird feeling thrashing around with floats armed when that was not the case in a previous type but the stats tell it all.
If you choose to go against the flight manual then please do it formally with a written submission to your NAA and or AW rather than just 'doing your thing' and maybe finding out the hard way that making up your own rules can be a tricky way forward when the proverbial hits the fan.
G.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Geoffers:
I don't see why one would need to submit a change to the FM to the NAA or AW - the normal and emergency procedures sections can be changed by operators. They are not limitations that must be obeyed.
If the operator's manual is subject to some other regulation (Part 135 in the US, for example) where the manual is a company document, then that's another matter.
I know of only one civil flight manual (and it's FW) where it says that only the procedures in this manual are to be used...
I don't see why one would need to submit a change to the FM to the NAA or AW - the normal and emergency procedures sections can be changed by operators. They are not limitations that must be obeyed.
If the operator's manual is subject to some other regulation (Part 135 in the US, for example) where the manual is a company document, then that's another matter.
I know of only one civil flight manual (and it's FW) where it says that only the procedures in this manual are to be used...
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dubai
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yippee! All 139 systems will always work as advertised - guess I can cancel all our Sim slots!
Sorry Geoff but the new age Safety Culturists keep telling me that because I've done something safely for thirty years doesn't mean I will be able to do it safely today.
So the fact it hasn't failed yet doesn't mean it won't.
A perfect design isn't the end of the story, it has to be manufactured, checked and installed. We are all aware of AW Quality Control..
Aviation is littered with accidents/events caused by unforeseen circumstances or things that "just can't happen" - Airbus Computer progamming thro to Little Mexican Lady miswiring B407 FADECs.
I too would love to know exactly what modelling/flight testing was used to show the 139's reaction to float inflation at 145kts.
Personally I think the potentially dangerous time is when you arm the floats and I either do this on the ground or reduce speed briefly while arming airborne. I still expect it to go Bang being an old Wessex man!
I guess we should be grateful AW's intentions are very clear in the Flight Manual instead of that statement of old - "Floats should not be Armed above....Kts". Manufacturers could never decide whether they meant the Float switch should not be moved to the Armed position or should not remain in the Armed position.
Sorry Geoff but the new age Safety Culturists keep telling me that because I've done something safely for thirty years doesn't mean I will be able to do it safely today.
So the fact it hasn't failed yet doesn't mean it won't.
A perfect design isn't the end of the story, it has to be manufactured, checked and installed. We are all aware of AW Quality Control..
Aviation is littered with accidents/events caused by unforeseen circumstances or things that "just can't happen" - Airbus Computer progamming thro to Little Mexican Lady miswiring B407 FADECs.
I too would love to know exactly what modelling/flight testing was used to show the 139's reaction to float inflation at 145kts.
Personally I think the potentially dangerous time is when you arm the floats and I either do this on the ground or reduce speed briefly while arming airborne. I still expect it to go Bang being an old Wessex man!
I guess we should be grateful AW's intentions are very clear in the Flight Manual instead of that statement of old - "Floats should not be Armed above....Kts". Manufacturers could never decide whether they meant the Float switch should not be moved to the Armed position or should not remain in the Armed position.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LOS
Age: 67
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aviation is littered with accidents/events caused by unforeseen circumstances or things that "just can't happen" - Airbus Computer progamming thro to Little Mexican Lady miswiring B407 FADECs.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shawn - you may be right but......
If you have ever been witness to the way flight crew are chewed up and spat out by lawyers and barristers at 'The Subsequent Enquiry' you may take my words as wise advice.
Once again I quote the stats - people have died in floatless ditchings (that is to say they were fitted and automated but were not armed) but so far no-one has died 'cos of AW floats popping off in flight. I bet I could find those comments about float arming in the texts about parachutes back in the First WW. People - well I use the word advisedly because I am referring to Fixed Wing Chappies - have often been heard to say the very same thing about helicopters.
Is there an aviation equivalent to the Luddite?
G.
Once again I quote the stats - people have died in floatless ditchings (that is to say they were fitted and automated but were not armed) but so far no-one has died 'cos of AW floats popping off in flight. I bet I could find those comments about float arming in the texts about parachutes back in the First WW. People - well I use the word advisedly because I am referring to Fixed Wing Chappies - have often been heard to say the very same thing about helicopters.
Is there an aviation equivalent to the Luddite?
G.
Last edited by Geoffersincornwall; 7th Jun 2011 at 12:53.
139 tail...
Hello all 139 drivers and interested parties....
Here we are today at 6500ft with the tail rotor still firmly attached..
Its a great machine...
Safe fluglin you all
Here we are today at 6500ft with the tail rotor still firmly attached..
Its a great machine...
Safe fluglin you all
Geoff,
I'm going to call your hand on this one:
Can you back up your statement and give details of "ditchings" involving an aircraft equipped with automatic flotation inflation equipment that was not armed and that cost lives?
I would counter your potentially "luddite" position (your word, not mine), in that there have been a number of inflight inflations involving automated systems that I know of. (332 during the early days of the BHL system and more recently an S92)
If the AW139 was subject to initial FAA certification it would have had to do an inflight inflation. Lucky for Agusta they only had to deal with ENAC
I'm going to call your hand on this one:
Once again I quote the stats - people have died in floatless ditchings (that is to say they were fitted and automated but were not armed)
I would counter your potentially "luddite" position (your word, not mine), in that there have been a number of inflight inflations involving automated systems that I know of. (332 during the early days of the BHL system and more recently an S92)
If the AW139 was subject to initial FAA certification it would have had to do an inflight inflation. Lucky for Agusta they only had to deal with ENAC
We blew the floats on our 76C+ at 140kts, 500ft, over water. Copilot playing around with buttons. No big deal. Embarrassing.
Know of at least 2 S76 that CFIT into the ocean in the GOM, both at night, one outbound one inbound. Everyone died in the first, one pax in the back in the second. All the offshore 76C+ an C++ I ever flew had the automatic belly switches.
I fly the 139 armed over water, disarm on deck for the passenger swap. Everyone I fly with does the same. The old 76 system is a fossil with the exposed inflate button instead of the guarded one on the 139. I sleep like a baby at night.
Know of at least 2 S76 that CFIT into the ocean in the GOM, both at night, one outbound one inbound. Everyone died in the first, one pax in the back in the second. All the offshore 76C+ an C++ I ever flew had the automatic belly switches.
I fly the 139 armed over water, disarm on deck for the passenger swap. Everyone I fly with does the same. The old 76 system is a fossil with the exposed inflate button instead of the guarded one on the 139. I sleep like a baby at night.
It's an interesting debate so I'll keep this running
I don't know the details of these accidents. Do you think inflation of floats would have made any difference in these cases, given they were a CFIT?
The Aux Flotation systems are designed to keep the aircraft afloat in the event of a ditching (i.e. controlled alighting on the water) long enough for the occupants to get out and board the liferafts. For any other events e.g. CFIT at speed, then all bets are off.
Really? I'm surprised you would say that. I have gone through my career doubting and asking why! The fact that the AW139 is the only offshore helicopter that doesn't have a float arming speed coupled with the lack of OEM in-flight testing makes me doubt!
I'm not saying my doubt is founded on facts, it as actually based on the lack of facts!
Know of at least 2 S76 that CFIT into the ocean in the GOM
The Aux Flotation systems are designed to keep the aircraft afloat in the event of a ditching (i.e. controlled alighting on the water) long enough for the occupants to get out and board the liferafts. For any other events e.g. CFIT at speed, then all bets are off.
I have no reason to doubt
I'm not saying my doubt is founded on facts, it as actually based on the lack of facts!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LOS
Age: 67
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I sleep like a baby at night.
I have no reason to doubt or need to 2nd think the RFM .....
Have you all forgotten so quickly the "extremely remote" defense that Sikorsky made with the S92 MRG.....look where that got that crew
Please gentlemen, question everything.....everyone and everything is fallible
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dangerous ditchings
The first one I will mention is the New York Ditching of a corporate S76 in which the pilot was last known to be 'critical' having suffered 'salt water drowning'.
Second helicopter crashes in New York - World - smh.com.au
The second was another S76 flow by a colleague whilst on SAR duty in the Baltic. I had a first hand account of how he flew into the water positioning at night for a medevac on a remote island. He told me in graphic detail how, with the last breath on his STAS he crawled out of the cockpit and inhaled water, became unconscious and floated to the surface where he was resuscitated by his colleagues who had made it out OK.
I ask myself 'will every step forward that designers make be faced with this approach by the Luddites?'
If you fly a helicopter then you have to accept that so long as is made by humans and maintained by them then mistakes are always possible and every year bad things happen. Would Variable Load and Outwest kindly share with us the types they fly and then I'll give them a list of things that have historically been the cause of tragedies. As far as i know no helicopter is immune from the kind of failures that may be fatal.
Ask the guys who fly around with Ballistic Parachutes fixed to their aircraft if they are happy or unhappy that this feature is aboard.
I'm not going to persuade the unpersuadable and I feel no obligation to save you from your own views but if you chose to do something other than the RFM procedures on a regular basis then get it in writing first. In my experience the guys higher up the tree, the guys in the regulators and the establishment have a well trodden pathway when it comes to getting out from under and leaving you holding the baby.
G.
Second helicopter crashes in New York - World - smh.com.au
The second was another S76 flow by a colleague whilst on SAR duty in the Baltic. I had a first hand account of how he flew into the water positioning at night for a medevac on a remote island. He told me in graphic detail how, with the last breath on his STAS he crawled out of the cockpit and inhaled water, became unconscious and floated to the surface where he was resuscitated by his colleagues who had made it out OK.
I ask myself 'will every step forward that designers make be faced with this approach by the Luddites?'
If you fly a helicopter then you have to accept that so long as is made by humans and maintained by them then mistakes are always possible and every year bad things happen. Would Variable Load and Outwest kindly share with us the types they fly and then I'll give them a list of things that have historically been the cause of tragedies. As far as i know no helicopter is immune from the kind of failures that may be fatal.
Ask the guys who fly around with Ballistic Parachutes fixed to their aircraft if they are happy or unhappy that this feature is aboard.
I'm not going to persuade the unpersuadable and I feel no obligation to save you from your own views but if you chose to do something other than the RFM procedures on a regular basis then get it in writing first. In my experience the guys higher up the tree, the guys in the regulators and the establishment have a well trodden pathway when it comes to getting out from under and leaving you holding the baby.
G.