Agusta AW139
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Geoffers:
I agree about the floats not armed part.
Why don't we fit a duplex airspeed signal to arm the floats automatically when the airspeed falls below a certain value?
Also, we know where all the water in the world is (from the GPS), so why not incorporate a position signal so that when we're over water, the floats arm automatically? I mean, this can't be a big thing to do can it??
Let's think a bit laterally.
I agree about the floats not armed part.
Why don't we fit a duplex airspeed signal to arm the floats automatically when the airspeed falls below a certain value?
Also, we know where all the water in the world is (from the GPS), so why not incorporate a position signal so that when we're over water, the floats arm automatically? I mean, this can't be a big thing to do can it??
Let's think a bit laterally.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shawn
Some interesting ideas there. I wonder what the design engineers would make of them. I can certainly testify that when driving on the highway my TomTom satnav clicks over the change of speed limit within a few metres of the sign.
Of course the long term aim has to be to keep us out of the water altogether - then we can do without floats, just like our fixed wing cousins.
G.
Of course the long term aim has to be to keep us out of the water altogether - then we can do without floats, just like our fixed wing cousins.
G.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Beside the seaside
Posts: 670
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why don't we fit a duplex airspeed signal to arm the floats automatically when the airspeed falls below a certain value?
Also, we know where all the water in the world is (from the GPS), so why not incorporate a position signal so that when we're over water, the floats arm automatically?
Also, we know where all the water in the world is (from the GPS), so why not incorporate a position signal so that when we're over water, the floats arm automatically?
P.S I am a highly paid, offshore AW139 pilot who performs this action on a daily basis and also sleeps well at night.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LOS
Age: 67
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as i know no helicopter is immune from the kind of failures that may be fatal.
BH47,206,204/205, 212, 412 HU 50, AS350, SA341G, Sk76, 61, AW139
It will be a long list
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LOS
Age: 67
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"floats coming out at 140+ knots and ripping off and going thru the tail rotor"
Has this ever happened?
Has this ever happened?
I am only bringing this whole subject up to try and get people to not blindly follow something because it is written somewhere.......it was only written by a mere mortal.
BTW, I have had it confirmed that AW never tested float inflation at any speed. You know why? Because it was not required by the legislation for certification.
So my question has been answered, no one, not even the manufacturer can tell us what will happen if there is an inadvertent inflation at 140+.........and I hope we never find out the hard way
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agusta 139
We seem to be going round a circular argument. If the highly paid pilot was as reliable as he professes then all would be well but as the stats reveal - they are not!
Helicopter manufacturers are not required to test the in-flight detachment of doors/hatches/access panels/or windows. These could be equally tragic events and in some types you feel that it occurs often enough to be a certification issue. By the same token a system that has a fail-safe design can avoid such testing. I am assuming that the 139 certification team took that view.
I am a simple soul. Designed to save my hide and never having malfunctioned is the argument for flying with floats armed versus a tragic history of even the best pilots being caught out by a sequence of events that led to an otherwise survivable contact with the water.
We as an industry have an extraordinary resistance to the embracing of SOPs and much more than our FW colleagues appear to feel we have the right to chose when and what we do by way of procedures. Above all I see a regular resistance to the use of formal checklists that have been 'de-rigour' in the FW world for decades. Be it upon your own head. Read the accident reports on a regular basis and you will see what poor cockpit procedures, poor CRM and poor MCC brings - death and misery, that's what.
For the 'I know better' brigade remember those famous words - "You don't know what you don't know". I have no more confidence in 'sales-blurb' than the next guy but the stats speak for themselves.
G.
Helicopter manufacturers are not required to test the in-flight detachment of doors/hatches/access panels/or windows. These could be equally tragic events and in some types you feel that it occurs often enough to be a certification issue. By the same token a system that has a fail-safe design can avoid such testing. I am assuming that the 139 certification team took that view.
I am a simple soul. Designed to save my hide and never having malfunctioned is the argument for flying with floats armed versus a tragic history of even the best pilots being caught out by a sequence of events that led to an otherwise survivable contact with the water.
We as an industry have an extraordinary resistance to the embracing of SOPs and much more than our FW colleagues appear to feel we have the right to chose when and what we do by way of procedures. Above all I see a regular resistance to the use of formal checklists that have been 'de-rigour' in the FW world for decades. Be it upon your own head. Read the accident reports on a regular basis and you will see what poor cockpit procedures, poor CRM and poor MCC brings - death and misery, that's what.
For the 'I know better' brigade remember those famous words - "You don't know what you don't know". I have no more confidence in 'sales-blurb' than the next guy but the stats speak for themselves.
G.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Beside the seaside
Posts: 670
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have just been reading Supplement 9 (Ditching Procedures) and was interested to see that AW recommend that during the pre-flight test of the flotation system personnel must stand clear of the floatation bags in the event that the system malfunctions!
A bit unnecessary I would have thought as AW say they cannot malfunction?
I suppose the AW logic being that if they haven't inflated during the ground test then they will not inflate when armed during cruise flight? So don't forget the flotation test.
A bit unnecessary I would have thought as AW say they cannot malfunction?
During the following test personel must NOT be close to flotation bags as an internal mal- function of the FLOAT system may cause the flotation to inflate.
FLOATS EMER switch — ARMED, confirm FLOAT ARM caution displayed on CAS and
flotation system does not inflate. Select switch to OFF.
FLOATS EMER switch — ARMED, confirm FLOAT ARM caution displayed on CAS and
flotation system does not inflate. Select switch to OFF.
When you press "test" you are like activating the system, nothing compared to just arming the floats, the only thing that could prevent the inflation is that the guard is down.
Same thing as in the hoist, try to do a "test" while the guard is up... no, don't do it, others already have done it...
So you are comparing to be flying with floats armed, with to fly while continuously sending a signal to wires...
Regards
Aser
Same thing as in the hoist, try to do a "test" while the guard is up... no, don't do it, others already have done it...
So you are comparing to be flying with floats armed, with to fly while continuously sending a signal to wires...
Regards
Aser
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Floats Test
If the human element had been at work (maintenance!!) then who knows what gremlins have been introduced into the system? Best way to find out? ...... test the float system ....... best way not to be hurt if said gremlin has been introduced into the system? .... stand clear when I test them please.
At this point I want to say 'simple' just like the meercat on the TV. .... with a funny little noise at the end.
(apologies for non-UK TV viewers).
G.
At this point I want to say 'simple' just like the meercat on the TV. .... with a funny little noise at the end.
(apologies for non-UK TV viewers).
G.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: texas
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't fly the 139 but have a little experience with the 76. Actually flew one with the floats inflated about 100 miles after my CP accidently pushed the button that was then located on the underside of the collective. Aircraft actually flew rather well at around 75 knots.
That being said, there was a 76 that had the floats accicently deploy while the aircraft was IFR and doing around 130 kts. The crew got it under control but it was a close call. An electrical short was found on investigation.
As far as Murpy's Law is concerned, reminds me of a discussion I have many moons ago with a couple of Allison engineers. A couple of us informed them that we were flying the 76 with the electrical engine overspeed C/B's pulled. They insisted that the system was incapable of inadvertent activation.
Sounds like a scenerio that out to be practiced in the sim.
That being said, there was a 76 that had the floats accicently deploy while the aircraft was IFR and doing around 130 kts. The crew got it under control but it was a close call. An electrical short was found on investigation.
As far as Murpy's Law is concerned, reminds me of a discussion I have many moons ago with a couple of Allison engineers. A couple of us informed them that we were flying the 76 with the electrical engine overspeed C/B's pulled. They insisted that the system was incapable of inadvertent activation.
Sounds like a scenerio that out to be practiced in the sim.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmmm ...
...Sounds like a scenerio that ought to be practiced in the sim....
Well for that to happen ... then a real activation would need to have occurred and than modeled so that the sim could be programmed to react correctly ... in which case we/they would then know exactly what to expect and then 'perhaps' the RFM would/may be changed to reflect any realities ...
Surely the sim only will do accurately what the programmers allow ....
...Sounds like a scenerio that ought to be practiced in the sim....
Well for that to happen ... then a real activation would need to have occurred and than modeled so that the sim could be programmed to react correctly ... in which case we/they would then know exactly what to expect and then 'perhaps' the RFM would/may be changed to reflect any realities ...
Surely the sim only will do accurately what the programmers allow ....
Damn, I KNEW there was something I wanted to try in the sim this Rec period...
Oh well, have to wait until next time. Was having too much fun laughing at people trying to recover tail rotor snags...
Oh well, have to wait until next time. Was having too much fun laughing at people trying to recover tail rotor snags...
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Beside the seaside
Posts: 670
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would you want to fly a back-up profile from an elevated helideck? The back-up profile is only of any use from a ground helipad with obstructions in the take-off path preventing a 35-70 foot TDP.
For an elevated platform the 20 foot TDP and 30 foot rotation would be the correct profile.
For an elevated platform the 20 foot TDP and 30 foot rotation would be the correct profile.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: West Coast
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Epiphany,
To be Cat A compliant, maximum cross wind component must not exceed 20 kts.
Some offshore installations (generally production platforms) that don't give you a clear takeoff path would necessitate either an out of wind takeoff or, if you want to be Cat A compliant, the back-up procedure.
To be Cat A compliant, maximum cross wind component must not exceed 20 kts.
Some offshore installations (generally production platforms) that don't give you a clear takeoff path would necessitate either an out of wind takeoff or, if you want to be Cat A compliant, the back-up procedure.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Beside the seaside
Posts: 670
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Outhouse - I wasn't being critical, just interested in the reasons why.
Zudhir - I'm aware of the CAT cross wind limits but I have never had occasion to fly a back-up profile from an offshore elevated helideck even with obstructions. There's more than one way to skin a CAT A.
Zudhir - I'm aware of the CAT cross wind limits but I have never had occasion to fly a back-up profile from an offshore elevated helideck even with obstructions. There's more than one way to skin a CAT A.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Europe trying to enjoy retirement “YES”
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In any simulator project you have to get stuff correct, one is the profile mentioned. Regardless of when needed and I have used it, it needs to work as advertised. If you use the Augusta sim it don't work, you end up short of the deck unless you modify the profile, try it next time you visit.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmmm ....
Back up procedure .... Offshore .... where I work/have worked doing this will require immediate consultation of the 'positions vacant' section of your trade magazine of choice .... and you will most likely NOT get a very favourable reference from your ex employer!
Ya just DON"T DO IT ... so don't even talk about it !!
Sorry if I sound a bit oversensitive BUT I lost a friend to this a few years ago and the subject still gets to me.
Back up procedure .... Offshore .... where I work/have worked doing this will require immediate consultation of the 'positions vacant' section of your trade magazine of choice .... and you will most likely NOT get a very favourable reference from your ex employer!
Ya just DON"T DO IT ... so don't even talk about it !!
Sorry if I sound a bit oversensitive BUT I lost a friend to this a few years ago and the subject still gets to me.
Maybe Jim Lyons can wade in on this one and give us the regulatory intent that seems to be driving some parts of the industry to back-up procedures.
I agree with Spinwing, and I don't know of any pilot that does back up either onshore or offshore. I haven't worked for any employer that endorsed back up procedures as part of their SOP's. The consensus being that you are introducing a hailstorm of real tangible risk for the sake of a statistically improbable engine failure. Like Spinwing, I too have had friends that inadvertently came to grief by letting themselves drift back when coming out of a tight area.
I agree with Spinwing, and I don't know of any pilot that does back up either onshore or offshore. I haven't worked for any employer that endorsed back up procedures as part of their SOP's. The consensus being that you are introducing a hailstorm of real tangible risk for the sake of a statistically improbable engine failure. Like Spinwing, I too have had friends that inadvertently came to grief by letting themselves drift back when coming out of a tight area.