Agusta AW139
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LOS
Age: 67
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This incident simply demonstrates the ignorance of pilots second-guessing a manufacturer.
All I have been saying from the very beginning of this whole discussion is that we should not blindly follow something that MAY be an accident waiting to happen.
Yes, thank God this turned out well for the crew, but I just wonder what everyone would be saying if it did not have a happy ending.
"Learn from the mistakes of others, as you will not live long enough to make them all yourself"
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Nearthewater
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AW139, 140Kts, Floats not armed, no "finger trouble" (stupid comment), floats inflated of own accord.
Those are the facts.
Wait for the engineering report to find out why, if the reason can be traced.
Do not guess at the company policy re arming floats if you do not know the policy, which obviously no-one does. It does not show knowledge only ignorance.
Those are the facts.
Wait for the engineering report to find out why, if the reason can be traced.
Do not guess at the company policy re arming floats if you do not know the policy, which obviously no-one does. It does not show knowledge only ignorance.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Beside the seaside
Posts: 670
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Telephone conversation overheard today at Vergiate:
"Ahhhh wella Signore I am soo sorry buta at Agoosta we clearly say thata de flotas MUSTA be armed over water - alla da time. Why CHC no do this??? It is not a problem for Agoosta no?? Ciao."
"Ahhhh wella Signore I am soo sorry buta at Agoosta we clearly say thata de flotas MUSTA be armed over water - alla da time. Why CHC no do this??? It is not a problem for Agoosta no?? Ciao."
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Italy
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... again the lazy horse to be taken to the water ...
Who did you talk to at Vergiate? That is not the customer support center.
According to your funny way of emphasizing your terrible Italian, I do understand you cannot speak any Italian.
The only thing that is clear is that, despite your flying skill that I'm pretty sure are a point of reference in the entire world of aviation , you are really not proficient at all as a human being.
Consider to stop offending Italians every now and then.
You are also not making any good job to the colleagues of your same country and do not be so generic if you have to blame somebody do it clearly specifying name and position otherwise do not spam the forum with your conversation with the Vergiate, Milano, Rome or wherever phone operator !
Who did you talk to at Vergiate? That is not the customer support center.
According to your funny way of emphasizing your terrible Italian, I do understand you cannot speak any Italian.
The only thing that is clear is that, despite your flying skill that I'm pretty sure are a point of reference in the entire world of aviation , you are really not proficient at all as a human being.
Consider to stop offending Italians every now and then.
You are also not making any good job to the colleagues of your same country and do not be so generic if you have to blame somebody do it clearly specifying name and position otherwise do not spam the forum with your conversation with the Vergiate, Milano, Rome or wherever phone operator !
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LOS
Age: 67
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AW139, 140Kts, Floats not armed, no "finger trouble" (stupid comment), floats inflated of own accord.
Those are the facts.
Those are the facts.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Back of Bourke
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seem to recall a discussion about the nose up attitude of the AW139 when winching, as part of the SAR-H thread a while back. Yesterday's light aircraft fatality off Curl Curl produced this photo: is it a normal hover attitude for the 139?
Squeaks, unquestionably the 139 has, as with the 76, a nose-high hover profile. Presumably this is reduced (how much I don't know) with the reduction of fuel and the increase of cabin load/pax?
The video below shows a landing followed by a take off with increased fuel load.
The video below shows a landing followed by a take off with increased fuel load.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Beside the seaside
Posts: 670
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MikoR. Savoia is correct. It was attempt at humour and no offence was intended so I apologise if you thought otherwise. I have some good Italian friends who delight in making fun of out of me (very easy) and my attempts to speak Italian. They also gracefully ignore the fact that, despite my best efforts to dress well, I always look like a tramp tagging along with Royalty whenever we are together.
It is always a pleasure to visit your country. I skied there last winter, I have drunk more Barolo and Cappuccinos (which is named after the colour of the Capuchin monks habits by the way) than is good for me, eaten more spaghetti alla vongole than I should and stared far too long at more beautiful Italian women than my wife was happy with.
You also make the worlds best helicopter. Grazie mille.
It is always a pleasure to visit your country. I skied there last winter, I have drunk more Barolo and Cappuccinos (which is named after the colour of the Capuchin monks habits by the way) than is good for me, eaten more spaghetti alla vongole than I should and stared far too long at more beautiful Italian women than my wife was happy with.
You also make the worlds best helicopter. Grazie mille.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anyone heard anymore on the in-flight float inflation?
The only other A/C I have had anything to do with where the floats were live at all times (guard over switch) was the BK117, we had an inadvertent inflation with it as well. The company obtained an engineering order to put an ON/OFF switch in the circuit. No problems after that!
The only other A/C I have had anything to do with where the floats were live at all times (guard over switch) was the BK117, we had an inadvertent inflation with it as well. The company obtained an engineering order to put an ON/OFF switch in the circuit. No problems after that!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peroni
If you read the posts from 2nd Sept you will see that OUTWEST has confirmed that the floats were NOT armed at the time. They were, in other words, NOT LIVE at the time of inflation. The cause is sub judice until we get the full report on the incident which should be forthcoming very soon with any luck.
If you are not familiar with the system on the 139 then you should be aware that the system is designed to be 'safe' until the arming switch is selected ON. Then they can be inflated either automatically (primary method) or manually (secondary method).
The great concern was that an inadvertent inflation in cruise flight would be fatal and at least some good has come from this incident in that it provides a measure of reassurance to this is likely not to be the case. Such an unscientific 'trial' hardly constitutes a certification process but it will steady the nerves of those that are adherents to the FM requirement to have the floats armed at all times over water.
Incidentally the SOP whereby an altitude limit is imposed (Armed below 1000 or 500 feet depending on the company*) would appear to be a sensible compromise but as with all checks it doesn't matter where the check is in the SOP. When it's forgotten it is forgotten and that is at the heart of the philosophy to ARM at all times OVER WATER. As long as the crew doesn't forget the 'Descent Checks' all will be well. Maybe the descent check is a more 'defined' moment compared with the 'crossing the coast' check which perhaps is a less well defined as it does not precede or succeed a change in flight path.
I would be interested to know what the various 'schools of thought' on the subject think now.
G.
* NB Don't forget to get formal agreement from AW and/or your NAA if you vary the FM procedures in your SOPs.
If you are not familiar with the system on the 139 then you should be aware that the system is designed to be 'safe' until the arming switch is selected ON. Then they can be inflated either automatically (primary method) or manually (secondary method).
The great concern was that an inadvertent inflation in cruise flight would be fatal and at least some good has come from this incident in that it provides a measure of reassurance to this is likely not to be the case. Such an unscientific 'trial' hardly constitutes a certification process but it will steady the nerves of those that are adherents to the FM requirement to have the floats armed at all times over water.
Incidentally the SOP whereby an altitude limit is imposed (Armed below 1000 or 500 feet depending on the company*) would appear to be a sensible compromise but as with all checks it doesn't matter where the check is in the SOP. When it's forgotten it is forgotten and that is at the heart of the philosophy to ARM at all times OVER WATER. As long as the crew doesn't forget the 'Descent Checks' all will be well. Maybe the descent check is a more 'defined' moment compared with the 'crossing the coast' check which perhaps is a less well defined as it does not precede or succeed a change in flight path.
I would be interested to know what the various 'schools of thought' on the subject think now.
G.
* NB Don't forget to get formal agreement from AW and/or your NAA if you vary the FM procedures in your SOPs.
* NB Don't forget to get formal agreement from AW and/or your NAA if you vary the FM procedures in your SOPs.
The OEMs are so bad at writing sensible and use-able checklists that I would be amased if any professional operator follows RFM procedures verbatim.
The only part of the RFM that HAS to be followed is the Limitations section. I am sure the OEMs don't want to be inundated by "no objection" requests for every NCL in use!
VL
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MirkoR: Sono certo che Epiphany voleva solo essere simpatico e non intendeva offendere gli Italiani.
Translation: However, a little English knowledge would be rather desirable in vergiate.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VL
OEMs don't write FMs to facilitate the end user's day to day operations they are written as a legal statement of how they believe the helicopter should be operated given all the knowledge in their domain - which may be more than the knowledge in the public domain. Should you chose to operate in another way then that is at your risk not then at their risk. If you chose not to get some kind of approval* or 'no objection' statement then you risk having to stand up in court and justify why your version of a protocol is more valid than the one created by the bloke that designed and built it. Not a task I would relish.
I am the last person to agree that OEMs get everything right for any emergency checklist that omits the three vital components:.........
Immediate Actions ........
Subsequent Actions .......
Considerations .........
cannot be considered to be complete. But then again the OEM's Emergency Procedures lack a context which is best provided by the operator. He is the only one intimately acquainted with his fleet configuration, his operating area and the type of work undertaken. It's only ignorance, laziness and/or lack of resources that leads people to live with the OEM's QRH when it could be improved upon considerably if they had the time, the money and the inclination.
Onwards and upwards
G.
* If the company includes its revised checklists in it's OM which is then reviewed as part of the AOC/CAT process and it comes through unscathed then the chances are you have dotted that particular 'i'. I think this is what in effect occurs in JARland whether we realise it or not.
I am the last person to agree that OEMs get everything right for any emergency checklist that omits the three vital components:.........
Immediate Actions ........
Subsequent Actions .......
Considerations .........
cannot be considered to be complete. But then again the OEM's Emergency Procedures lack a context which is best provided by the operator. He is the only one intimately acquainted with his fleet configuration, his operating area and the type of work undertaken. It's only ignorance, laziness and/or lack of resources that leads people to live with the OEM's QRH when it could be improved upon considerably if they had the time, the money and the inclination.
Onwards and upwards
G.
* If the company includes its revised checklists in it's OM which is then reviewed as part of the AOC/CAT process and it comes through unscathed then the chances are you have dotted that particular 'i'. I think this is what in effect occurs in JARland whether we realise it or not.
Last edited by Geoffersincornwall; 7th Sep 2011 at 06:39.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geoffersincornwall
G,
Sorry missed Outwest's comment, one Peroni too many!
Yes I am familiar with the AW139 float system and was hoping that information such as, whether or not the sytem was tested and passed prior to departure or whether engineering has found a fault in the system would be shared so that we can all learn.
I am glad that it all worked out for the better; this crew/company has all the information on what will hopefully be a once off event.
Unfortunately, if engineering don't find anything there will never be a BT issued for the rest of us.
Our school of thought; After obtaining an NTO from AW we fly with the floats disarmed. We have a company checklist to capture float arming/disarming.
We have created our own Emergency Checklist to include Immdiate Actions.... Subsequent Actions.... and Considerations.....
Were floats are required they are included in the Immediate Actions.
Any technical info on this incident would be greatly appreciated.
Sorry missed Outwest's comment, one Peroni too many!
Yes I am familiar with the AW139 float system and was hoping that information such as, whether or not the sytem was tested and passed prior to departure or whether engineering has found a fault in the system would be shared so that we can all learn.
I am glad that it all worked out for the better; this crew/company has all the information on what will hopefully be a once off event.
Unfortunately, if engineering don't find anything there will never be a BT issued for the rest of us.
Our school of thought; After obtaining an NTO from AW we fly with the floats disarmed. We have a company checklist to capture float arming/disarming.
We have created our own Emergency Checklist to include Immdiate Actions.... Subsequent Actions.... and Considerations.....
Were floats are required they are included in the Immediate Actions.
Any technical info on this incident would be greatly appreciated.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: South East Asia
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
iPad2 Mount
Has anyone come up with a good iPad2 mount for the central instrument panel on the four screen 139? Preferably without wires so as to keep a Minor Mod.