Agusta AW139
Yes, thanks Jim - that latest lesson helped put all the other detail into perspective and understand the background to the performance classifications
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Roscoe
I was an external loads (Hoist and Cargo Hook) check airman for one of the large operators. In general the cargo hook assembly is functional but watch out for the following:
1. Where the checklist directs you to test the cargo release pushbuttons (P1,P2 and cabin if fitted), this does NOT include the cargo release emergency pushbutton on the centre console. Very loud and embarrassing mistake that you only do once.
2. The cargo hook load indicator is a bit like the 'Pirates Code' in that its 'more what you'd call guidelines than actual rules'. Probably accurate +/-15 %.
3. 90 Kts Vmax for all loads is painfully slow to a 139 operator and requires some old fashioned fuel planning in strong winds.
The cameras are excellent, particularly if you have the centre screen fitted. Do check they are installed correctly by placing a piece of paper with forward, back, left, right arrows into the field of view as I have seen several incorrectly installed ones. They offer great views of the hook and the load and allow very accurate load positioning.
I have never flown a load sortie single pilot but I have put loads onto elevated platforms and scooped water on instructional sorties (which are effectively single pilot).
I was an external loads (Hoist and Cargo Hook) check airman for one of the large operators. In general the cargo hook assembly is functional but watch out for the following:
1. Where the checklist directs you to test the cargo release pushbuttons (P1,P2 and cabin if fitted), this does NOT include the cargo release emergency pushbutton on the centre console. Very loud and embarrassing mistake that you only do once.
2. The cargo hook load indicator is a bit like the 'Pirates Code' in that its 'more what you'd call guidelines than actual rules'. Probably accurate +/-15 %.
3. 90 Kts Vmax for all loads is painfully slow to a 139 operator and requires some old fashioned fuel planning in strong winds.
The cameras are excellent, particularly if you have the centre screen fitted. Do check they are installed correctly by placing a piece of paper with forward, back, left, right arrows into the field of view as I have seen several incorrectly installed ones. They offer great views of the hook and the load and allow very accurate load positioning.
I have never flown a load sortie single pilot but I have put loads onto elevated platforms and scooped water on instructional sorties (which are effectively single pilot).
139 on fire
Max C.,
Once again, thanks for your input. When you are most familiar with the Type II (Huey) utility world, 90 knots is screaming right along. That's also why I asked about the single pilot config. How do you think the helicopter would stand up to use as a fire ship that is not using a water tank (bucket only with a possible 530 gallon bucket and less than 2 hrs of fuel). (I know as you pointed out that GW would be an issue). Carrying helitack crews (more gear than oil rig workers, chain saws etc.) and day in day out use as a bucket carrying water truck, landing off airport more often than not. I know a couple of major cities use them with tanks but they don't use snorkles and normally only use them by ground filling from trucks or hydrandts on hard paved surfaces (streets). I know of the ground clearance issues so no need to dwell on that. If there is anyone else besides Mr. Contingency who has any thought on this, your input is appreciated. Not just pilots, any engineers have opinions? Thanks in advance.
Once again, thanks for your input. When you are most familiar with the Type II (Huey) utility world, 90 knots is screaming right along. That's also why I asked about the single pilot config. How do you think the helicopter would stand up to use as a fire ship that is not using a water tank (bucket only with a possible 530 gallon bucket and less than 2 hrs of fuel). (I know as you pointed out that GW would be an issue). Carrying helitack crews (more gear than oil rig workers, chain saws etc.) and day in day out use as a bucket carrying water truck, landing off airport more often than not. I know a couple of major cities use them with tanks but they don't use snorkles and normally only use them by ground filling from trucks or hydrandts on hard paved surfaces (streets). I know of the ground clearance issues so no need to dwell on that. If there is anyone else besides Mr. Contingency who has any thought on this, your input is appreciated. Not just pilots, any engineers have opinions? Thanks in advance.
roscoe1, are you sure nobody is using snorkels, because the latest tanks come with them. You are restricted to 140 knots with the snorkel though. 150 without snorkel with belly tank.
Goodrich landing gear is an option on the 139 and increases the ground clearance by a good 6-9 inches. Bigger mainwheels too, so soft ground operations are better. Extra ground clearance is nice to have with the belly tank installed!
Simplex Aerospace Fire Attack helicopter belly tank model 326 for the AgustaWestland AW139 brochure and pictures
Goodrich landing gear is an option on the 139 and increases the ground clearance by a good 6-9 inches. Bigger mainwheels too, so soft ground operations are better. Extra ground clearance is nice to have with the belly tank installed!
Simplex Aerospace Fire Attack helicopter belly tank model 326 for the AgustaWestland AW139 brochure and pictures
Thanks Noooby and nice photo KiwiNed. I didn't mean to imply that snorkels aren't used but both Tokyo and LA City usually do ground fill with their tanks. I am aware of the 189 extended height gear. Mostly I am curious about long term, frequent external load work and how the helicopter might hold up. The helicopter wasn't designed as an external load machine. That much is obvious from the hook weight limitation. It seems well suited for offshore, SAR, EMS or VIP. I didn't know if anyone was deep into using it for a strictly utility ship with the emphasis on external load and off-airport landing.
Hey all,
Has anyone experienced the following?
When powering up, we are seeing a PFD and MFD indication "TCAS FAIL".
When we conduct the TCAS test (through the XPDR page of the MCDU) we get the following indications: PASS in the upper left of the XPDR page, during the test ADS-B indicates OFF, the PFD/MFD TCAS FAIL indications remain, we DON'T get the TCAS symbology on the MAP page (as we should), and we DON'T get the aural warning "TCAS system test, OK).
The aircraft is a long nose with Phase 7 software. We have TCAS II. We've checked antenna connections but there isn't really much else in the maintenance documents (from our engineer) regarding troubleshooting. Any suggestions?
Thanks
Has anyone experienced the following?
When powering up, we are seeing a PFD and MFD indication "TCAS FAIL".
When we conduct the TCAS test (through the XPDR page of the MCDU) we get the following indications: PASS in the upper left of the XPDR page, during the test ADS-B indicates OFF, the PFD/MFD TCAS FAIL indications remain, we DON'T get the TCAS symbology on the MAP page (as we should), and we DON'T get the aural warning "TCAS system test, OK).
The aircraft is a long nose with Phase 7 software. We have TCAS II. We've checked antenna connections but there isn't really much else in the maintenance documents (from our engineer) regarding troubleshooting. Any suggestions?
Thanks
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: home
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get the Engineers to check the CMC for any fault codes, try reloading the software, if no change, open up the forward section of the baggage bay floor and get the guys to look at the TCAS box under there ( I can not remember its name). Depending on which one is fitted there might be a LCD display on it, they need to watch what is displayed on it it maybe failing its BITE check and that will show up on the display. If it is failing you'll need a new box.
In earlier models pre phase 7 there was a way to do a TCAS confirmation check, however post phase 7 and the installation of the newer box this is no longer a option and the only choice is replacing it. Obviously check the connectors on it first.
In earlier models pre phase 7 there was a way to do a TCAS confirmation check, however post phase 7 and the installation of the newer box this is no longer a option and the only choice is replacing it. Obviously check the connectors on it first.
CAR42ZE - There aren't any messages in the maintenance page relating to this fault
TOTTIGOL - When we did the test in our older, short nose machines, we had to have the XPDR on for the test...that's not the case with our current aircraft...normally tests fine with the XPDR in SBY
Believe it or not, about 30 min into a flight last night, the bloody thing came good. Subsequent tests on ground produced the correct results...go figure.
TOTTIGOL - When we did the test in our older, short nose machines, we had to have the XPDR on for the test...that's not the case with our current aircraft...normally tests fine with the XPDR in SBY
Believe it or not, about 30 min into a flight last night, the bloody thing came good. Subsequent tests on ground produced the correct results...go figure.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: SWEDEN
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a query regarding the predicted fuel remaining shown on the progress page of the MCDU.
It would appear that when en-route to a destination the fuel on arrival is reasonably accurate. However, the fuel at the alternate is very misleading as it seems to be using the current groundspeed to predict the fuel at alternate. This is most obvious when flying with a strong tailwind giving a high groundspeed outbound to destination and the computation appears to assume the same groundspeed for the alternate. If the the alternate happens to be your original departure point ie flying back into wind, then the fuel remaining figure is useless.
Have others experienced this or am I not configuring the MCDU correctly? I cannot find anything in the manual which refers directly to this issue.
I am use to working with the Trimble (Freeflight) 2101 and this gives return leg times and expected fuel on arrival much more accurately. I would have thought the Honeywell system in the AW139 to be a superior system???
It would appear that when en-route to a destination the fuel on arrival is reasonably accurate. However, the fuel at the alternate is very misleading as it seems to be using the current groundspeed to predict the fuel at alternate. This is most obvious when flying with a strong tailwind giving a high groundspeed outbound to destination and the computation appears to assume the same groundspeed for the alternate. If the the alternate happens to be your original departure point ie flying back into wind, then the fuel remaining figure is useless.
Have others experienced this or am I not configuring the MCDU correctly? I cannot find anything in the manual which refers directly to this issue.
I am use to working with the Trimble (Freeflight) 2101 and this gives return leg times and expected fuel on arrival much more accurately. I would have thought the Honeywell system in the AW139 to be a superior system???
Have you figured it out or have became any good answer in regard to your question? We also have the same experience.
thanks
904, in Perf Init menu on page 1 below the Aircraft Database information there is a line that says:
CURRENT GS/FF, that means that the current value (whichever may it be) is what the FMS uses to calculate the GS/FF for all the other legs of the FLT PLN.
If you want to change that for each leg you would need to use the alternate PILOT SPD/FF in the computations.
Please feel free to PM me.
CURRENT GS/FF, that means that the current value (whichever may it be) is what the FMS uses to calculate the GS/FF for all the other legs of the FLT PLN.
If you want to change that for each leg you would need to use the alternate PILOT SPD/FF in the computations.
Please feel free to PM me.
Hi Tottigol and 904
Does the 139 use Garmin systems? I only ask because our 135s started arriving with Garmin 430 which do the same. I was dumfounded that a modern navigation unit would work this way since RNAV 2 and I think even RNAV 1 units that I worked with in the past could calculate fuel at each waypoint.
Cheers
TeeS
Does the 139 use Garmin systems? I only ask because our 135s started arriving with Garmin 430 which do the same. I was dumfounded that a modern navigation unit would work this way since RNAV 2 and I think even RNAV 1 units that I worked with in the past could calculate fuel at each waypoint.
Cheers
TeeS
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: turkey
Age: 52
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weight Concern
Hi everyone. I'm a little confused with empty weight and basic aircraft configuration. Could you please share with me the empty weight of your AW139 in different configuration excluding optional equipment?
Thank you
Thank you
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: the land of redemption
Age: 53
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
1 Post
Hello Rainbrave,
According to my experience, a short nose (around s.n. 31050) AW139 Hems equipped (summer kit: external hoist, stretcher and 5 std pax seats, no removables) has a mass of 4487Kg BW.
A short nose Aw139 Offshore equipped (aux tank 400kg, flotation, 12 std pax seats, CPI, no removables) has a mass of 4468Kg BW.
Finally a long nose (around 31500) AW139 VVIP equipped (de luxe interiors, hinged doors, A/C, no removables) can have a mass up to 4805Kg BW.
Happy?
Cheers
Maeroda
According to my experience, a short nose (around s.n. 31050) AW139 Hems equipped (summer kit: external hoist, stretcher and 5 std pax seats, no removables) has a mass of 4487Kg BW.
A short nose Aw139 Offshore equipped (aux tank 400kg, flotation, 12 std pax seats, CPI, no removables) has a mass of 4468Kg BW.
Finally a long nose (around 31500) AW139 VVIP equipped (de luxe interiors, hinged doors, A/C, no removables) can have a mass up to 4805Kg BW.
Happy?
Cheers
Maeroda
Last edited by maeroda; 25th Aug 2016 at 09:37. Reason: misunderstanding
