Agusta AW139
Very concerned here. It was only from this bulletin that we found that two of our machines never even had the spring fitted, even though the ground school was still mentioning it! If you are flying a 139 above S/N 31067, there never was a centering spring fitted. I would rather they redesigned the spring if it is giving problems, and then retrofit the spring to ALL machines.
How about the BT for the cockpit windows? Anybody else not happy with the softness of the new seals, and the fact that it only has a filler wedge on one side?
How about the BT for the cockpit windows? Anybody else not happy with the softness of the new seals, and the fact that it only has a filler wedge on one side?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: vancouver
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Noooby, I just finished the crew door / window bulletin and it pretty well was a waste of time, although we have never lost a window, the new window / seal installation does not seem to be much of a improvement.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AW139 Pitch Change Spring
I have just finished the Agusta AW139 Aircrew Ground Course and we were told that the spring has been discontinued on all new production models and there is a directive out allowing removel on existing a/c.
Last edited by avtar4112; 4th Nov 2007 at 07:15.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Age: 63
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
139
LE, you are saying that a 412 is more expensive to maintain than say, a 139.
I am interested in your point of view and I was wondering if it could be backed up
by actual data.
Thanks!
I am interested in your point of view and I was wondering if it could be backed up
by actual data.
Thanks!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Greater Dubach Metro Area
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AW139 Loading
Question for you guys using the AW139 in the passenger transport role.
Does the flight manual mandate passenger loading from front to rear due to aft CG issues?
Thanks!
Tompkins
Does the flight manual mandate passenger loading from front to rear due to aft CG issues?
Thanks!
Tompkins
I very much doubt it: RFMs simply state the arms and envelope, they don't dictate how you go about loading. That would normally be an Operator rule in the Ops Manual.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 18 Degrees North
Posts: 699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our ops manual does not mandate it, I am pretty sure the flight manual doesnt either, but our policy is load from the front as it leads to less problems and our company CofG calcs are based on that assumption.
with no pax you can only be sure that with north sea fit that they will be in limits up to 1000 fuel and you will prob be OK up to 1100 subject to calculation, if you want more fuel than that you need to carry ballast/pax and load from front for max effect.
regards
CF
with no pax you can only be sure that with north sea fit that they will be in limits up to 1000 fuel and you will prob be OK up to 1100 subject to calculation, if you want more fuel than that you need to carry ballast/pax and load from front for max effect.
regards
CF
In hover you could be playing between 8º and 15º to move-stop. 
In the picture what you see is just the guide line from stand-off postition not the hoist cable.
Regards.
Aser
In the picture what you see is just the guide line from stand-off postition not the hoist cable.
Regards.
Aser
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nose up
Yes it is nose up. The mast is tilted 5° forward and in the hover the nose reflects this. Agusta are producing a "Long Nose" and putting some of the avionics in the front to help counter the effect.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Monde
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's hope they get on with it. Doesn't look ideal for hoist ops. Is there a maximum permitted angle of cable from the vertical during winching? If it's anything like other SAR helicopters, it's probably pretty near the limit with a 15 degree nose up hover. Not to mention the discomfort of operating in both the front and the back of an aircraft having to maintain that pitch angle to stay in the same place. As for chinagraphs/smoke cartridges etc rolling out the door... no doubt there's adequate stowage for everything!
NOT!
NOT!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near the Mountains
Age: 67
Posts: 345
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although we're not taking delivery for another couple of weeks, we've already done a range of CG calculations based upon projected CG position and empty weight. In our case, i.e., 8-seat corporate, the fuel load seems to be not unlike an inverted power/drag curve - maximum fuel capacity is in the middle, so to speak, with lowest at either maximum or minimum passenger loading.
With one crew, no pax and any bags loaded to the front of the cabin, we'll be lucky to get 1,100kgs of gas in.
With one crew, no pax and any bags loaded to the front of the cabin, we'll be lucky to get 1,100kgs of gas in.
Last edited by heliski22; 10th Nov 2007 at 05:43.
B G,
If you are to be believed, I guess you are with Bristow in Norwich. I am on the 139 at North Denes, and have to say that, to me, the 139 is definately the way ahead for the medium fleet on the North Sea, without question.
I agree they did get off to a bad start reliability wise, but most of the regularly occuring problems are gradually being ironed out by Agusta. The main cause of the two aircraft at Denes staying on the round for a lot longer than required recently on their 1200 hour checks is down to lack of CHC engineering management of large projects. When they finally do get them going the lack of spares/ support from HELI ONE is astounding. The first aircraft got half way through the check and then ran out of parts so the engineers sat around for a few days with nothing to do bar fit some cowlings waiting for parts to arrive!
To answer your question, when engineering is sorted, the 139 is reliable, and is at the moment quite the best aircraft you could hope to fly. When they get uprated to 6800kgs, the offshore companies will love them even more!
If you are to be believed, I guess you are with Bristow in Norwich. I am on the 139 at North Denes, and have to say that, to me, the 139 is definately the way ahead for the medium fleet on the North Sea, without question.
I agree they did get off to a bad start reliability wise, but most of the regularly occuring problems are gradually being ironed out by Agusta. The main cause of the two aircraft at Denes staying on the round for a lot longer than required recently on their 1200 hour checks is down to lack of CHC engineering management of large projects. When they finally do get them going the lack of spares/ support from HELI ONE is astounding. The first aircraft got half way through the check and then ran out of parts so the engineers sat around for a few days with nothing to do bar fit some cowlings waiting for parts to arrive!
To answer your question, when engineering is sorted, the 139 is reliable, and is at the moment quite the best aircraft you could hope to fly. When they get uprated to 6800kgs, the offshore companies will love them even more!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Mordor
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RFM Section 6 W&B
PASSENGER LOADING
The tables below give the passenger loading sequence that must be followed for the 12 or 15 seat configurations, in order to maintain the center of gravity (CG) within the limits. If the passenger loading sequence given in the tables below cannot be followed, the third passenger row must be the last to be occupied.
The tables below give the passenger loading sequence that must be followed for the 12 or 15 seat configurations, in order to maintain the center of gravity (CG) within the limits. If the passenger loading sequence given in the tables below cannot be followed, the third passenger row must be the last to be occupied.