Agusta AW139
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Wherever the work is
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Geoffers,
Noted on the Agusta name, the automatic spell check pulled a swifty on me and am also aware of the recent name change but I'm a bit sentimental and Agusta just rolls off the tongue better.
With this information in mind, does it mean that power assurance checks must therefore be carried out daily for Cat B operations as well?
Cheers
Noted on the Agusta name, the automatic spell check pulled a swifty on me and am also aware of the recent name change but I'm a bit sentimental and Agusta just rolls off the tongue better.
With this information in mind, does it mean that power assurance checks must therefore be carried out daily for Cat B operations as well?
Cheers
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LOS
Age: 67
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there not a difference between these 2:
1. SECTION 2, PAGE 2-28 - Take off checks, Cat B take off, step 3 - power checks.
Carry out DAILY power checks in accordance with in-flight power checks procedure in Section 4.
Carry out DAILY power checks in accordance with in-flight power checks procedure in Section 4.
2. SECTION 5, PART A, PAGE S12-A9 - Vertical take off procedure for Cat A ops, step 5 - power checks.
Carry out DAILY power checks in accordance with engine power checks procedure in Part K Common Performance.
Carry out DAILY power checks in accordance with engine power checks procedure in Part K Common Performance.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nomad
You may be able to answer that better than me. My guess is that it is jurisdiction-dependent. The very nature of Cat B means that there are no performance guarantees but whilst it would be normal to have a minimum spec for Cat B as expressed in the PA charts at 100% some jurisdictions may turn a blind eye to Cat B operations with a below-spec engine. There are many places around the world where there are very few if any performance requirements and if the thing starts and runs then it's fit for purpose.
Of course if you were the LAE signing for it you may have a different view but then that would be a company decision.
Back in the days when the wood smoke in Borneo clogged up the CT58's in Brunei-Shell's S61's they were changing engines on a monthly basis but in the meantime, despite introducing hot washes they worked out a way of doing a PA check and then reducing the max take off weight depending on how far below spec the engines were. You can see where I am coming from I guess. In some parts of the world a flexible approach to PA checks and PASS/FAIL can be arranged.
OUTWEST - I don't believe that translates into a practical difference save that Cat A must be done before take off and Cat B can be in flight (hover). You can't (normally) do a PA check on a commercial flight with pax or cargo aboard so you would have to make a special flight if you didn't do it in the hover.
G
Of course if you were the LAE signing for it you may have a different view but then that would be a company decision.
Back in the days when the wood smoke in Borneo clogged up the CT58's in Brunei-Shell's S61's they were changing engines on a monthly basis but in the meantime, despite introducing hot washes they worked out a way of doing a PA check and then reducing the max take off weight depending on how far below spec the engines were. You can see where I am coming from I guess. In some parts of the world a flexible approach to PA checks and PASS/FAIL can be arranged.
OUTWEST - I don't believe that translates into a practical difference save that Cat A must be done before take off and Cat B can be in flight (hover). You can't (normally) do a PA check on a commercial flight with pax or cargo aboard so you would have to make a special flight if you didn't do it in the hover.
G
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LOS
Age: 67
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can't (normally) do a PA check on a commercial flight with pax or cargo aboard
We do that all the time, whenever a PAC is required before Cat A (PC 1) ops, we taxi out with the pax and stop on the taxiway and do the PAC.
I should add that for us normally we operate PC2 both off the runway and offshore so no daily PAC.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Wherever the work is
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Outwest,
I think the difference between the two is that the Cat B check is done at 100% NR whereas the Cat A check is done at 102%.
I know a lot of operators carrying out Cat A complete the check daily before first flight but operators under Cat B only do it every 50 hours. My question, is by reading the procedures in the RFM, shouldn't the PAC also be carried out daily for Cat B operations? From what I understand the 50 hour requirement for recording of figures is purely a trend monitoring tool, however a daily PAC should still be carried out as a go/no-go item regardless of whether you are conducting Cat A or B operations.
Nomad
I think the difference between the two is that the Cat B check is done at 100% NR whereas the Cat A check is done at 102%.
I know a lot of operators carrying out Cat A complete the check daily before first flight but operators under Cat B only do it every 50 hours. My question, is by reading the procedures in the RFM, shouldn't the PAC also be carried out daily for Cat B operations? From what I understand the 50 hour requirement for recording of figures is purely a trend monitoring tool, however a daily PAC should still be carried out as a go/no-go item regardless of whether you are conducting Cat A or B operations.
Nomad
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Wherever the work is
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, in relation to carrying out power assurance checks with pax onboard, it has been common practice at all offshore operations that I have worked on. The operator's tend to prefer doing the PAC at light on wheels rather than in the hover and the extra weight allows for this.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Outwest - There is an ICAO requirement NOT to deliberately operate OEI on pax or cargo flights. Maybe your jurisdiction ignores this requirement. With a full load and using a 90% Tq reference you probably would not get airborne but with just one pax and a strong wind you probably would.
Nomad - Like many aspects of Cat B - who cares? A lot of offshore ops are Cat B all the time (USA, Brazil and those areas that base their regulatory system along FAA lines)
As I said a lot depends on your jurisdiction and how they apply any rules they do have.
G
Nomad - Like many aspects of Cat B - who cares? A lot of offshore ops are Cat B all the time (USA, Brazil and those areas that base their regulatory system along FAA lines)
As I said a lot depends on your jurisdiction and how they apply any rules they do have.
G
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LOS
Age: 67
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The operator's tend to prefer doing the PAC at light on wheels rather than in the hover and the extra weight allows for this.
With a full load and using a 90% Tq reference you probably would not get airborne
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Italy
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A lot of offshore ops are Cat B all the time (USA, Brazil and those areas that base their regulatory system along FAA lines)
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bpaggi
So how come many offshore operations are using single engine helicopters? The reality of the offshore world is a million miles from the notion that CAT A OPS prevail. If your assertion is correct then we have a big problem in the North Sea where PC2 operations of one sort or another prevail. As you say, if it's not CAT A then it must be Cat B. In which case your HV argument makes all AW139 ops non compliant with the RFM and therefore illegal? What appears to make them legal is their approval by the NAA.
We have been over this ground before but I'll explain it again as you seem not to understand. To comply with all the Cat A requirements the pilot is required to predict, prior to departure from his base, that he can safely land in accordance with the three elements of a Cat A operations. The mass should be in accordance with the appropriate WAT curve, no problem. A Cat A profile should be used, again, that should be achievable but cannot be guaranteed if adjacent vessels or wind direction make the required approach track unachievable. The third requirement is the show stopper for the pilot must ensure that when he gets to the offshore destination he must be able to comply with the obstacles avoidance element. It was established years ago that this would be impossible because included in that requirement is the need to quantify the effects of turbulence from structures and turbine exhausts and other detrimental aspects such as flares and mobile structures that can invade the FATO at a moments notice. That is the reason for abandoning attempts to make PC1 offshore mandatory.
Two out of three does not, I suggest, create a legally water-tight case for asserting that all Cat A offshore Ops are, or indeed should be, CAT A compliant. We may wish it were so but that does not make it so.
The offshore world at large is more like a 'jungle' than a 'civilised society' and no matter what we wish the reality is that we cannot even police EASA-land effectively so we can be sure that less efficient jurisdictions are nothing like Cat A compliant.
G
We have been over this ground before but I'll explain it again as you seem not to understand. To comply with all the Cat A requirements the pilot is required to predict, prior to departure from his base, that he can safely land in accordance with the three elements of a Cat A operations. The mass should be in accordance with the appropriate WAT curve, no problem. A Cat A profile should be used, again, that should be achievable but cannot be guaranteed if adjacent vessels or wind direction make the required approach track unachievable. The third requirement is the show stopper for the pilot must ensure that when he gets to the offshore destination he must be able to comply with the obstacles avoidance element. It was established years ago that this would be impossible because included in that requirement is the need to quantify the effects of turbulence from structures and turbine exhausts and other detrimental aspects such as flares and mobile structures that can invade the FATO at a moments notice. That is the reason for abandoning attempts to make PC1 offshore mandatory.
Two out of three does not, I suggest, create a legally water-tight case for asserting that all Cat A offshore Ops are, or indeed should be, CAT A compliant. We may wish it were so but that does not make it so.
The offshore world at large is more like a 'jungle' than a 'civilised society' and no matter what we wish the reality is that we cannot even police EASA-land effectively so we can be sure that less efficient jurisdictions are nothing like Cat A compliant.
G
Last edited by Geoffersincornwall; 14th Mar 2016 at 07:03. Reason: add to text
Although it has been said many times before, the message has not yet been absorbed. There is a distinction between the Certification Standards of Category A and Category B and the Operating Standards of Performance Classes 1, 2 and 3.
The aircraft is Certificated in Category A or Category B (or both) which results in a helicopter with limitations and appropriate information contained in the relevant sections of the Flight Manual.
Operational regulations force compliance with (or in some cases provide alleviation from) the Limitations and, if they are present (as with EASA but not FAA), provide rules under which the performance information can be utilised in observing the operating rules.
Geoff, you need to rid yourself of the notion that operations can be conducted in Category A or Category B.
Operations can be conducted in Performance Class 1 utilising the procedures/profiles and limitation of Category A (as indicated in the ICAO/EASA definition of Category A).
Operations can be conducted in Performance Class 2 using the limiting Category A mass (which is, for larger helicopters, the same as the limiting Category B mass), and the Category A 'second segment' climb performance.
When operating in Performance Class 2 the HV Limitation can be observed by using the Category B take-off (or landing) profile/procedure (for which performance is assured by the Category B PAC). When operating in Performance Class 2 with exposure, the operator is alleviated from the HV Limitation in the basic regulation (see the HV thread to understand how that is done) but not the Category A mass or the 'second segment' climb performance. Additional requirements might also apply to these operations.
Operating in Aerial Work (utility) requires compliance with the Flight Manual Limitations but, unless otherwise specified, does not require compliance with Performance Criteria. An aircraft with more than nine passenger seats (usually interpreted to be more than nine passengers) cannot be utilised for Aerial Work (utility). Perhaps you are incorrectly understanding these type of operations as Category B; however, that is not correct because when applying the procedures/profiles of Category B the HV Limitation has to be observed (which you will agree is not what you are intending).
Jim
The aircraft is Certificated in Category A or Category B (or both) which results in a helicopter with limitations and appropriate information contained in the relevant sections of the Flight Manual.
Operational regulations force compliance with (or in some cases provide alleviation from) the Limitations and, if they are present (as with EASA but not FAA), provide rules under which the performance information can be utilised in observing the operating rules.
Geoff, you need to rid yourself of the notion that operations can be conducted in Category A or Category B.
Operations can be conducted in Performance Class 1 utilising the procedures/profiles and limitation of Category A (as indicated in the ICAO/EASA definition of Category A).
Operations can be conducted in Performance Class 2 using the limiting Category A mass (which is, for larger helicopters, the same as the limiting Category B mass), and the Category A 'second segment' climb performance.
When operating in Performance Class 2 the HV Limitation can be observed by using the Category B take-off (or landing) profile/procedure (for which performance is assured by the Category B PAC). When operating in Performance Class 2 with exposure, the operator is alleviated from the HV Limitation in the basic regulation (see the HV thread to understand how that is done) but not the Category A mass or the 'second segment' climb performance. Additional requirements might also apply to these operations.
Operating in Aerial Work (utility) requires compliance with the Flight Manual Limitations but, unless otherwise specified, does not require compliance with Performance Criteria. An aircraft with more than nine passenger seats (usually interpreted to be more than nine passengers) cannot be utilised for Aerial Work (utility). Perhaps you are incorrectly understanding these type of operations as Category B; however, that is not correct because when applying the procedures/profiles of Category B the HV Limitation has to be observed (which you will agree is not what you are intending).
Jim
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Jim I forgot to make that clear. I was trying not to get too complicated for PBAGGI whose sole focus seems to be on those two certification classes which of course he is perfectly entitled to do as that's his area of expertise. To assert that nobody can operate other than i.a.w. Cat A was the reason I picked up my pen. As an operator with some experience of operations in other continents I wanted to correct this error.
We have been over the PC1 PC2 and Cat A/B business many times so I don't want to get into that argument but wish merely to convey the reality of offshore operations which some imagine are constrained by performance considerations alone. We wouldn't have much customer satisfaction if that were the case. You can assert that it shouldn't be that way and one day maybe it won't be that way but for the time being it is what it is - the wild west of helicopter ops.
To give you an idea of how far we have come I came across my old S61 notebook from the mid 70's in the North Sea. The section of my notes devoted to current Special Flying Staff Instructions contained details of one entitled 'Backing On To Rigs At Night'. We were instructed (Bristows by the way) not to do this any more but confine such activities to daylight only.
G.
We have been over the PC1 PC2 and Cat A/B business many times so I don't want to get into that argument but wish merely to convey the reality of offshore operations which some imagine are constrained by performance considerations alone. We wouldn't have much customer satisfaction if that were the case. You can assert that it shouldn't be that way and one day maybe it won't be that way but for the time being it is what it is - the wild west of helicopter ops.
To give you an idea of how far we have come I came across my old S61 notebook from the mid 70's in the North Sea. The section of my notes devoted to current Special Flying Staff Instructions contained details of one entitled 'Backing On To Rigs At Night'. We were instructed (Bristows by the way) not to do this any more but confine such activities to daylight only.
G.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Italy
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geoffersincornwall what I just wanted to make clear is something that YOU seem not to understand and that is the certification frame, i.e. what is legal in accordance with the RFM and what is not.
As JimL clearly explained, operations can (some times) relieve fro the RFM limitations and this what actually allowed offshore operations (otherwise not possible with helicopters with more than 9 passenger seats), none the less this does not mean that these operations are not violating the RFM limitations.
These operations can only be carried out (not in PC1 or PC2e) accepting some risks that come from the exposure time (PC2 with exposure).
As JimL clearly explained, operations can (some times) relieve fro the RFM limitations and this what actually allowed offshore operations (otherwise not possible with helicopters with more than 9 passenger seats), none the less this does not mean that these operations are not violating the RFM limitations.
These operations can only be carried out (not in PC1 or PC2e) accepting some risks that come from the exposure time (PC2 with exposure).
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I said, and you quoted me...
]
To which you replied...
Which part of my statement are you saying is incorrect? You said that if an operation is not based on using Cat A protocols then it must be defined as an operation based on Cat B protocols (note my care in not associating the terms CAT A and Cat B with the word 'operating' - thanks Jim)
How can a single engine operation be anything other than Cat B?
Perhaps we are letting the thread title get in the way of my comments about the totality of the world of offshore helicopter operations. I have no doubt that in the context of the AW139 and EASA regulations you and Jim are both absolutely correct.
G
A lot of offshore ops are Cat B all the time (USA, Brazil and those areas that base their regulatory system along FAA lines)
To which you replied...
This is not correct,
How can a single engine operation be anything other than Cat B?
Perhaps we are letting the thread title get in the way of my comments about the totality of the world of offshore helicopter operations. I have no doubt that in the context of the AW139 and EASA regulations you and Jim are both absolutely correct.
G
The binary notation of Certification (Category A or B) does not provide a rich enough vocabulary to describe operations - that is why the ICAO Heliops Panel devised the Performance Classes.
The Performance Classes adopted the purity of performance inherent ICAO Annex 6 Part I with engine failure accountability. This included, in the specification of PC 2 and 3, a requirement to perform a safe-forced-landing should an engine fail (exactly as in Annex 6 Part I): in the take-off and landing phases of PC2; and the whole flight envelope of PC3. At the time of provision of the Second Edition of Annex 6 Part III in July 1990, the performance classes were harmonised with the Certification Standards.
However, life is never than simple and by 1998, the ICAO Standards produced by the Heliops Panel, with respect to performance, were beginning to be seen as ‘somewhat aspirational’ and based upon a projection of the development of helicopters that had not (and might not) come to fruition (the same projections had been used by the FAA in NPRM 80-25). As JAR-OPS was the first attempt at providing a regulation in compliance with ICAO, it was the JAA States which established that projections made by the Heliops Panel were not being (and were unlikely, in the near future, to be) realised and adjustments became necessary (the introduction of risk assessed exposure).
The concept of ‘defined’ exposure was formulated by the JAA, risk assessed, presented at Board level, and published for general comment. Following acceptance by the members of the JAA, the necessary changes were made to JAR-OPS; ICAO was informed of the resulting differences and a proposal was put to the ANC for a revision to Annex 6 Part III - to bring States back into compliance. In 2002, the ICAO HTSG was formed and tasked with this revision.
The net effect of these changes were to separate Operational from Certification Standards. The risk assessed procedures used in offshore (and operations with exposure onshore) when operating outside PC 1, no longer fitted into the neat categorisation of A and B. However, as Dino has pointed out, this required operational regulations to derogate from the HV Limitation - applicable to helicopters with more than nine seats.
The point of this is that a helicopter with more than nine seats and operating with exposure, is neither operating in accordance with the procedures/profiles of Category A nor Category B. However in Europe, they are operating quite legally within the requirements of EASA Part CAT.
Where there may be an issue is in another jurisdiction where the helicopter with more than nine seats is Certificated in Category A - in accordance with Part 29 - and operating offshore (or onshore with exposure) but where the State has not made adequate provisions in its regulations for such operations.
Jim
The Performance Classes adopted the purity of performance inherent ICAO Annex 6 Part I with engine failure accountability. This included, in the specification of PC 2 and 3, a requirement to perform a safe-forced-landing should an engine fail (exactly as in Annex 6 Part I): in the take-off and landing phases of PC2; and the whole flight envelope of PC3. At the time of provision of the Second Edition of Annex 6 Part III in July 1990, the performance classes were harmonised with the Certification Standards.
However, life is never than simple and by 1998, the ICAO Standards produced by the Heliops Panel, with respect to performance, were beginning to be seen as ‘somewhat aspirational’ and based upon a projection of the development of helicopters that had not (and might not) come to fruition (the same projections had been used by the FAA in NPRM 80-25). As JAR-OPS was the first attempt at providing a regulation in compliance with ICAO, it was the JAA States which established that projections made by the Heliops Panel were not being (and were unlikely, in the near future, to be) realised and adjustments became necessary (the introduction of risk assessed exposure).
The concept of ‘defined’ exposure was formulated by the JAA, risk assessed, presented at Board level, and published for general comment. Following acceptance by the members of the JAA, the necessary changes were made to JAR-OPS; ICAO was informed of the resulting differences and a proposal was put to the ANC for a revision to Annex 6 Part III - to bring States back into compliance. In 2002, the ICAO HTSG was formed and tasked with this revision.
The net effect of these changes were to separate Operational from Certification Standards. The risk assessed procedures used in offshore (and operations with exposure onshore) when operating outside PC 1, no longer fitted into the neat categorisation of A and B. However, as Dino has pointed out, this required operational regulations to derogate from the HV Limitation - applicable to helicopters with more than nine seats.
The point of this is that a helicopter with more than nine seats and operating with exposure, is neither operating in accordance with the procedures/profiles of Category A nor Category B. However in Europe, they are operating quite legally within the requirements of EASA Part CAT.
Where there may be an issue is in another jurisdiction where the helicopter with more than nine seats is Certificated in Category A - in accordance with Part 29 - and operating offshore (or onshore with exposure) but where the State has not made adequate provisions in its regulations for such operations.
Jim
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Lord Jim, (LJim - :-)) conveyor of light and understanding. So the OEM has one view of the world as how it should be and we numpties have been doing the job through thick and thin and getting the oilies to their workplace regardless whilst the regulators sit in South America, Africa and Asia look on with with what to some seems to be bemused confusion.
G.
G.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Italy
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For sure the OEMs have teir own view of the world (not necessarily shared by all the OEMs) but they also have to certify their products in accordance with the certification rules and we do it also taking into account as much as we can the operational world.
Max C, thanks for the response. I've done a bit of homework and am aware of the potential for bumping up against the max GW of the aircraft with a couple of people, less than half fuel and a 4000# plus load on the hook. Were you using just the belly hook or did this involve long line? How did you find the video camera to work with? Did you or would you have done the job solo? Please, anyone else with external load experience with the 139 your input would be appreciated. I may get "guided" into doing this and I'd like to know what the experience has to say. The market doesn't seem to have chosen this as a utility ship and I believe I understand why this may be so but input from others is appreciated. Thanks.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bpaggi
The OEM's awareness of the operating environment will be tested by the quality of the FCOM produced for each type. Airbus's attempt at an H225 Flight Crew Operating Manual wasn't greeted with universal applause I believe. The FCOM is a great opportunity for the OEM to show the industry how to get the very best out of their products. I know the team working on the AW139 FCOM are determined to do just that and if they are given the necessary resources then I am sure they will come up with the goods.
One reason for the AW139's tremendous success is that it is so powerful that it just soaks up the kind of everyday abuse (in terms of mass limits) that operators around the world subject their helicopters to. The old arguments about reducing mass to Cat A levels have all but disappeared when this machine is on the job.
G.
One reason for the AW139's tremendous success is that it is so powerful that it just soaks up the kind of everyday abuse (in terms of mass limits) that operators around the world subject their helicopters to. The old arguments about reducing mass to Cat A levels have all but disappeared when this machine is on the job.
G.