Agusta AW139
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Slidell, Louisiana
Age: 73
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AW 139 Flight Manual restrictions
This question is directed towards the offshore operators. Specifically those who fly IFR offshore.
Section 1, Limitations, of the RWFM under "Avionics Limitations", FMS and GPS Limitations, states;
"3. Instrument approaches must be carried out in accordance with approved instrument approach procedures that are retrieved from the FMS data base."
We have a letter of authorization (LOA) from the FAA allowing us to execute OSAP approaches with our AW 139. Does our LOA allow us to violate the limitations section of the RWFM?
Second question: Also under 3.
"When an alternate airport is required by the applicable operating rules, it must be served by an approach based on other than GPS navigation and the aircraft must have operational equipment capable of using that navigation aid, and the required navigation aid must be operational.
Does this eliminate use of an "offshore alternate" which is allowed under our LOA?
What are you other guys doing?
I know the FAA will never specifically waive a limitation of the RWFM, how do I get around it?
Section 1, Limitations, of the RWFM under "Avionics Limitations", FMS and GPS Limitations, states;
"3. Instrument approaches must be carried out in accordance with approved instrument approach procedures that are retrieved from the FMS data base."
We have a letter of authorization (LOA) from the FAA allowing us to execute OSAP approaches with our AW 139. Does our LOA allow us to violate the limitations section of the RWFM?
Second question: Also under 3.
"When an alternate airport is required by the applicable operating rules, it must be served by an approach based on other than GPS navigation and the aircraft must have operational equipment capable of using that navigation aid, and the required navigation aid must be operational.
Does this eliminate use of an "offshore alternate" which is allowed under our LOA?
What are you other guys doing?
I know the FAA will never specifically waive a limitation of the RWFM, how do I get around it?
Tcvennen, an OSAP is not an FMS approach; the FMS MAY be used to set up a DFAP and FAF, however the radar remains the primary sensor to identify the destination and the 1/2 mile separation required by the FAA in the relevant circular (the specific number escapes my memory).
The alternate limitation also is in regard to the use of GPS as primary sensor for the approach.
Notice that the alternate minimums are generally labeled NA in those IAPs to airports where the only available approach is GPS.
Unless you have a published GPS approach to a specific offshore block lease in the GOM.
HTH
The alternate limitation also is in regard to the use of GPS as primary sensor for the approach.
Notice that the alternate minimums are generally labeled NA in those IAPs to airports where the only available approach is GPS.
Unless you have a published GPS approach to a specific offshore block lease in the GOM.
HTH
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Slidell, Louisiana
Age: 73
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know the OSAP is not an FMS approach, that's the whole point.
There is a limitation in the RWFM that REQUIRES all instrument approaches be "retrieved" from the FMS.
You can't retrieve the OSAP, therefore the limitations section indicates you cannot execute the OSAP approach. Specifically BECAUSE it is not an FMS approach!
Reading the limitations section, "Instrument approaches must be carried out in accordance with an approved instrument approach procedure", (which the OSAP is), "that are retrieved from the FMS data base" (which the OSAP is not).
Hey, we've been doing OSAP's in the 139 for 5 years now, a pilot brought this up. According tto the limitations section we shouldn't be.
There is a limitation in the RWFM that REQUIRES all instrument approaches be "retrieved" from the FMS.
You can't retrieve the OSAP, therefore the limitations section indicates you cannot execute the OSAP approach. Specifically BECAUSE it is not an FMS approach!
Reading the limitations section, "Instrument approaches must be carried out in accordance with an approved instrument approach procedure", (which the OSAP is), "that are retrieved from the FMS data base" (which the OSAP is not).
Hey, we've been doing OSAP's in the 139 for 5 years now, a pilot brought this up. According tto the limitations section we shouldn't be.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by LtColGraves
Anyone have reliable, current fleet hours on AW139? Any reliable sources for this?
I/C
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Slidell, Louisiana
Age: 73
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just had a question. Can the AW 139 execute an SAR or PAR? also approaches not "retrievable". According to the limitations section, no. Isn't that crazy?
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Slidell, Louisiana
Age: 73
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The alternate minimums are not aircraft specific. The limitations section, is. You can use an OSAP in an SK 76, or SK 92, but according to the limitations section for the AW 139, you have to have an airport served by an approach other than a GPS. and yes, the GPS is required for the approach.
Very poorly written limitation. Still it's there, black and white. Now do we just ignore it?
"Note" "The pilot must not continue and instrument approach inside the Final Approach Fix (FAF), unless the "APP" advisory is displayed on the PFD." You don't have the "APP" light when executing an OSAP.
Like the folks writing the RWFM never flew a helicopter? Have no idea what an OSAP is???
Very poorly written limitation. Still it's there, black and white. Now do we just ignore it?
"Note" "The pilot must not continue and instrument approach inside the Final Approach Fix (FAF), unless the "APP" advisory is displayed on the PFD." You don't have the "APP" light when executing an OSAP.
Like the folks writing the RWFM never flew a helicopter? Have no idea what an OSAP is???
tcvennen: easy, don't use the FMS and fly your app of choice
That's the point. They don't want you to program your own ifr app.
Contact Agusta.
And yes you can fly sar apps with the fms and FD modes provided by Agusta
Regards
Aser
That's the point. They don't want you to program your own ifr app.
Contact Agusta.
And yes you can fly sar apps with the fms and FD modes provided by Agusta
Regards
Aser
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The 'Bat Cave' @ HLP in the Big Durian Indo
Age: 61
Posts: 781
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's the quoted price of the AW139 and how long for a new delivery ?
I spoke to an operator yesterday and they were quoted 12.5 million euro including offshore,medevac options and external life rafts
With over 200 built (430 orders) they should have had all the bugs ironed out now ?
Any weak points on the heli ?
I spoke to an operator yesterday and they were quoted 12.5 million euro including offshore,medevac options and external life rafts
With over 200 built (430 orders) they should have had all the bugs ironed out now ?
Any weak points on the heli ?
Last edited by aseanaero; 25th Feb 2012 at 00:09.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Non-FMS database approaches.
Paragraph 3 of The FMS and GPS Limitations section refers only to approaches being flown by the FMS, i.e. with LNAV selected, rather than NAV, on the DICP, and PRV mode not selected.
The same section also states "Use of ILS, LOC, LOC-BC, LDA, (landing directional aid), SDF(simplified directional facility) and MLS (microwave landing system) approaches are not authorised." This doesn't mean you can't fly an ILS in the AW139, only that you must fly on raw data.
I don't believe that an approach must be in the database if flown raw, be it a VOR, an OSAP or any other approach type.
The same section also states "Use of ILS, LOC, LOC-BC, LDA, (landing directional aid), SDF(simplified directional facility) and MLS (microwave landing system) approaches are not authorised." This doesn't mean you can't fly an ILS in the AW139, only that you must fly on raw data.
I don't believe that an approach must be in the database if flown raw, be it a VOR, an OSAP or any other approach type.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Spain
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi, i´m new here. I´ve found this:
Agustawestland is pleased to announce that the certification ofthe new Tail Rotor Blade has been achieved on February 9th, 2012, as stated by EASA major change approval 10038371, well in advance of the estimated period (first quarter 2012) as foreseen in our previous statement dated December 2011.
The new Tail Rotor Blade has been certified initially with a life limit set at 1200 Flight Hours or 3200 Landings, whichever occurs first. Activities are currently underway with the Certification Authorities progressively to extend these thresholds in the course of 2012, with the target to stay ahead of the fleet leader in order to prevent any requirement of new blades replacement.
In order to sustain the demand generated by the in service fleet and new helicopter
deliveries, Agustawestland is processing also the qualification of an additional source of raw material from an alternative Supplier. In conjunction with the certification of the new Tail Rotor Blade, production process has been launched with the target to start the deliveries in the second quarter of 2012.
Since the introduction into service of the new Rotor Blade will require a complete set for each helicopter, Agustawestland will continue to supply the previous configuration Tail Rotor Blades, as necessary. This will allow the support ofthe current fleet operations until an adequate number of new Tail Rotor Blades will be made available by production.
Agustawestland is pleased to announce that the certification ofthe new Tail Rotor Blade has been achieved on February 9th, 2012, as stated by EASA major change approval 10038371, well in advance of the estimated period (first quarter 2012) as foreseen in our previous statement dated December 2011.
The new Tail Rotor Blade has been certified initially with a life limit set at 1200 Flight Hours or 3200 Landings, whichever occurs first. Activities are currently underway with the Certification Authorities progressively to extend these thresholds in the course of 2012, with the target to stay ahead of the fleet leader in order to prevent any requirement of new blades replacement.
In order to sustain the demand generated by the in service fleet and new helicopter
deliveries, Agustawestland is processing also the qualification of an additional source of raw material from an alternative Supplier. In conjunction with the certification of the new Tail Rotor Blade, production process has been launched with the target to start the deliveries in the second quarter of 2012.
Since the introduction into service of the new Rotor Blade will require a complete set for each helicopter, Agustawestland will continue to supply the previous configuration Tail Rotor Blades, as necessary. This will allow the support ofthe current fleet operations until an adequate number of new Tail Rotor Blades will be made available by production.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Spain
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Politicians being... politicians
Opposition attacks safety of air ambulances, but Ornge says concerns addressed - Winnipeg Free Press
The former transport minister pointed to an air-worthiness directive he said was issued "just days ago" by the European Aviation Safety Agency. Klees said it warns the owners of the AW139 that they are required to conduct "repetitive inspections" and maintenance of the tail rotors every 25 flight hours, and orders to replace them every 600 hours.
Just days ago? Actually 6 months ago
Opposition attacks safety of air ambulances, but Ornge says concerns addressed - Winnipeg Free Press
The former transport minister pointed to an air-worthiness directive he said was issued "just days ago" by the European Aviation Safety Agency. Klees said it warns the owners of the AW139 that they are required to conduct "repetitive inspections" and maintenance of the tail rotors every 25 flight hours, and orders to replace them every 600 hours.
Just days ago? Actually 6 months ago
First HH-139 for Aeronautica Militare
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Flexible
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AW139 Hydraulics System?
Just wondering about the news I've been hearing regarding the AW139 hydraulic system. How many 139 operators/engineers/pilots are having problems with their hydraulic lines. I hear that more than one operator has had multiple failures and are expecting more. If this is true then surely it isn't acceptable? The information I have heard is that one company has had 4 separate failures causing the complete loss of one of the hydraulic systems. If it has happened 4 times on different occasions then Murphy's law states that a double failure could happen! Oh no that could never happen... God forbid!!!
I find it hard to believe that we haven't heard much about this issue, if it is out there. If it does exist then it is very serious and Agusta need to do something about it! Lets put it into context and compare the problem to another system with redundancy... the engines! now if there were 4 separate engine failures within one company and reports of other companies having the same problem would the industry be happy? At least if both engines go then there is a chance of surviving the failure by lowering the lever and going into autorotation. I don't like the options for a dual hydraulic failure.
So pray tell, what is the score with the operators and pilots out there at the sharp end?
PT
I find it hard to believe that we haven't heard much about this issue, if it is out there. If it does exist then it is very serious and Agusta need to do something about it! Lets put it into context and compare the problem to another system with redundancy... the engines! now if there were 4 separate engine failures within one company and reports of other companies having the same problem would the industry be happy? At least if both engines go then there is a chance of surviving the failure by lowering the lever and going into autorotation. I don't like the options for a dual hydraulic failure.
So pray tell, what is the score with the operators and pilots out there at the sharp end?
PT
We have had far more hydraulic line failures with our eurocopter 365n3's than our 139,s. similar hours and cycles.
I believe the case your referring to is a chaffed line to the tail.Caused by the operators maintenance personnel putting the wrong screw (way too long) in a panel.
I get the feeling some people expect things to never wear out or fail around here...........
I believe the case your referring to is a chaffed line to the tail.Caused by the operators maintenance personnel putting the wrong screw (way too long) in a panel.
I get the feeling some people expect things to never wear out or fail around here...........
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Flexible
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for that input lowfat, sounds like it isn't entirely an Agusta problem but more a minor maintenance issue. Hopefully it will be solved with no more incidents.
However, I must point out that I'm not sure about your latter comment. If one type has problems it doesn't mean it is acceptable for another to have a similar problem. Additionally, I would like to think that with accident/incident reports and other systems we are working towards an industry that can expect things not to wear out, especially critical components. I thought that was why aviation pays so much money for the certification process. Train for these things to happen and be ready if they do, but accepting that things will just wear out... I'm not sure that should be encouraged so I can only assume you are taking the piss
However, I must point out that I'm not sure about your latter comment. If one type has problems it doesn't mean it is acceptable for another to have a similar problem. Additionally, I would like to think that with accident/incident reports and other systems we are working towards an industry that can expect things not to wear out, especially critical components. I thought that was why aviation pays so much money for the certification process. Train for these things to happen and be ready if they do, but accepting that things will just wear out... I'm not sure that should be encouraged so I can only assume you are taking the piss