Agusta AW139
Mark Six, as a fully licesed pilot (I hope), and independently thinking individual you are free to use the TQ limiter whenever you choose to, even to go take a pot.
It's not forbidden, just like it's not forbidden to play Russian Roulette with a snub 38 pointed to your head even though it's not smart nor healthy.
The RFM clearly states its intended use in conjunction with the OEI training switch.
If the manufacturer had other intended uses in mind, then it would have been stated elsewhere in the RFM or even the "FCOM".
I hope this fully clarify when to use the TQ limiter for you, besides the last 60 posts in this thread.
It's not forbidden, just like it's not forbidden to play Russian Roulette with a snub 38 pointed to your head even though it's not smart nor healthy.
The RFM clearly states its intended use in conjunction with the OEI training switch.
If the manufacturer had other intended uses in mind, then it would have been stated elsewhere in the RFM or even the "FCOM".
I hope this fully clarify when to use the TQ limiter for you, besides the last 60 posts in this thread.
Thank you for your patronising reply tottigol. As I said I'm not getting into a discussion as to whether you should or should not fly with the TQ limiter on. You've made your opinion clear, and it is just that - your opinion.
Your statement that "The TQ limiter is to be only used to allow the OEI training switch to function," is blatantly wrong and merely reflects your personal preferred usage. I merely corrected your assertion without giving my own opinion.
Your statement that "The TQ limiter is to be only used to allow the OEI training switch to function," is blatantly wrong and merely reflects your personal preferred usage. I merely corrected your assertion without giving my own opinion.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Brazil
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In some offshore takeoff situations, especially if the aircraft is equipped with the 6,800 kg kit, it is necessary to use a target of 110%. When setting the take-off using the CAT A button, the marking is already on 110%.
My questioning is precisely because if you really need to use the 110%, often the sensitivity of the collective does not allow you to stay exactly at 110%, the PI ends up reaching fractions of seconds 111% or up to 112% during The "fine tuning" of the takeoff. Of course this is not done intentionally.
I believe that if there is a torque limiter at 114% rather than at 110%, then there must be a relatively safe transient range between 110% and 114%(Even because the Manual says transient up to 121%), which obviously should not be used intentionally.
Thank you colleagues for the very enriching debate.
My questioning is precisely because if you really need to use the 110%, often the sensitivity of the collective does not allow you to stay exactly at 110%, the PI ends up reaching fractions of seconds 111% or up to 112% during The "fine tuning" of the takeoff. Of course this is not done intentionally.
I believe that if there is a torque limiter at 114% rather than at 110%, then there must be a relatively safe transient range between 110% and 114%(Even because the Manual says transient up to 121%), which obviously should not be used intentionally.
Thank you colleagues for the very enriching debate.
MartyMcFly, none of the CAT A Profiles in the CatA button is representative of the Cat A OffShore Helideck profile power application curve.
If you use the profiles in the Cat A button on the collective you may be misled, since the aircraft won't show you a PI target higher than the Max T/O PI.
If you use the profiles in the Cat A button on the collective you may be misled, since the aircraft won't show you a PI target higher than the Max T/O PI.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Brazil
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tottigol, tks for reply.
But there is in the CAT A configuration of the collective the parameter for Offshore helideck procedure and even it places the torque application limit bar (PI) on the left sidebar of the PFD, apparently in the right position(depending of the wheight, close than 110% or in the yellow bar). This information you are citing in relation to a probable system miscalculation, could you indicate in which supplement or source I could find such information? For if this mistake really can happen, I find it extremely prudent for other colleagues to be aware of this, since the CAT A configuration is widely used.
But there is in the CAT A configuration of the collective the parameter for Offshore helideck procedure and even it places the torque application limit bar (PI) on the left sidebar of the PFD, apparently in the right position(depending of the wheight, close than 110% or in the yellow bar). This information you are citing in relation to a probable system miscalculation, could you indicate in which supplement or source I could find such information? For if this mistake really can happen, I find it extremely prudent for other colleagues to be aware of this, since the CAT A configuration is widely used.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Saudi Arabia
Age: 68
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is not only for OEI training...
Disagree, swithch is for operational use...I.E. sling load, helping get pilots who are reluctant to pull 110% used to using appropriate power...Many pilots are afraid to think outside the box and draw incorrect conclusions about the use of aircraft items. By the way we took this question to Augusta and were told that we were able to use the switch as we saw fit......So if that is something you do not want to use, good for you. However please contain your ignorance.
Pmg, I never said it is forbidden to use it. I said it is not a good use of it.
Enjoy the feeling of cutting engines when you pull to above 114%, just when you need them most.
That is likely going to show your superior airmanship, rather than...you know.
Enjoy the feeling of cutting engines when you pull to above 114%, just when you need them most.
That is likely going to show your superior airmanship, rather than...you know.
Last edited by tottigol; 24th Apr 2017 at 06:37.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
TOTTIGOL, using maximum power AEO to lift a load in a MEH is the same as lifing with a SEH. Acceptable if your risk assessment agrees. I don't see the point of your post to Patmcgroin.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Den Helder
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the text below is the same as in the type rating ground course.
nothing written there suggests it is a good or bad idea to use use the TQ LIMITER in normal AEO operations.
actually I don't use it myself as it is not company SOP to do so (or any of my previous companies),
but I am not against it in principle as long as you are aware you are limited to 114%/114%
____________________________________________________________
TORQUE LIMITS AND TORQUE LIMITER
EEC limits local torque to a maximum allowable value of 160%, which could
result in a total AEO power of 320% Tq applied to the transmission.
Engine AEO power can be automatically limited by the EEC in order to
protect the main gearbox by engaging the Torque Limiter function. This is
achieved by pressing the TQ LIM pushbutton on the collective grip; when
pressed the EECs control the total engine torque in order not to exceed
228% of total torque (114% per engine).
The Torque Limiter function is not available in single engine operation.
When Torque Limiter is engaged, the TQ LIMITER ON advisory message is
displayed in the CAS. If the Torque Limiter function fails, the 1(2) TQ
LIMITER caution message is displayed in the CAS.
Torque is the only parameter involved in the limitation: Ng and ITT could
reach the single engine limits even in AEO with TQ LIM engaged, if dictated
by the environmental conditions.
Torque limitation is not available in MANUAL mode.
At power-up the Torque Limiter is OFF by default: it is therefore pilot’s choice
to manually engage it.
The Torque Limiter must be engaged in order to enable the OEI TNG Mode.
TORQUE LIMITER
Engine power can be limited in order to protect the main gearbox when in
AEO by engaging the Torque Limiter function.
This is achieved by pressing the TQ LIM pushbutton on the collective grip;
when pressed the EECs control the total engine torque in order to not
exceed 228% of total torque. Torque Limiter has no effect in single engine
operation.
When Torque Limiter is engaged, the TQ LIMITER ON advisory message is
displayed in the CAS. If the Torque Limiter function is failed, the 1(2) TQ
LIMITER caution message is displayed in the CAS.
Torque is the only parameter involved in the limitation: Ng and ITT could
reach the single engine limits even in AEO with TQ LIM engaged, if allowed
by the environmental conditions.
Torque limitation is not available in MANUAL mode.
At power-up the Torque Limiter is OFF by default: it is therefore pilot’s choice
to manually engage it.
nothing written there suggests it is a good or bad idea to use use the TQ LIMITER in normal AEO operations.
actually I don't use it myself as it is not company SOP to do so (or any of my previous companies),
but I am not against it in principle as long as you are aware you are limited to 114%/114%
____________________________________________________________
TORQUE LIMITS AND TORQUE LIMITER
EEC limits local torque to a maximum allowable value of 160%, which could
result in a total AEO power of 320% Tq applied to the transmission.
Engine AEO power can be automatically limited by the EEC in order to
protect the main gearbox by engaging the Torque Limiter function. This is
achieved by pressing the TQ LIM pushbutton on the collective grip; when
pressed the EECs control the total engine torque in order not to exceed
228% of total torque (114% per engine).
The Torque Limiter function is not available in single engine operation.
When Torque Limiter is engaged, the TQ LIMITER ON advisory message is
displayed in the CAS. If the Torque Limiter function fails, the 1(2) TQ
LIMITER caution message is displayed in the CAS.
Torque is the only parameter involved in the limitation: Ng and ITT could
reach the single engine limits even in AEO with TQ LIM engaged, if dictated
by the environmental conditions.
Torque limitation is not available in MANUAL mode.
At power-up the Torque Limiter is OFF by default: it is therefore pilot’s choice
to manually engage it.
The Torque Limiter must be engaged in order to enable the OEI TNG Mode.
TORQUE LIMITER
Engine power can be limited in order to protect the main gearbox when in
AEO by engaging the Torque Limiter function.
This is achieved by pressing the TQ LIM pushbutton on the collective grip;
when pressed the EECs control the total engine torque in order to not
exceed 228% of total torque. Torque Limiter has no effect in single engine
operation.
When Torque Limiter is engaged, the TQ LIMITER ON advisory message is
displayed in the CAS. If the Torque Limiter function is failed, the 1(2) TQ
LIMITER caution message is displayed in the CAS.
Torque is the only parameter involved in the limitation: Ng and ITT could
reach the single engine limits even in AEO with TQ LIM engaged, if allowed
by the environmental conditions.
Torque limitation is not available in MANUAL mode.
At power-up the Torque Limiter is OFF by default: it is therefore pilot’s choice
to manually engage it.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Saudi Arabia
Age: 68
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure you get it...
Not looking to dictate policy, as I said previously if you do not want to use it Great...just don't pass judgement on others for what you have mandated as correct. Kind of like 102...many say for Cat A only, wrong and again we went as far as Augusta on this due to siminstructors saying it is forbidden. There are times when not in Cat A procedure it is advantageous. Use it...
If you are having to pull above 110% a lot I think you may want to change your planning a little. If I know that I need 110, and I go to 114 I am still on the upside. You may want to know your equipment and pull to the limiter one time, it maintains power, it does not fall down as I gather you are thinking. I am still above the 110 I had planned. It is a great tool for new pilots that are afraid of overtorque, it gets them to pull required power. It is also great for demonstrating left pedal impact at 110% tq, and again we differ, I think it is a great use of the system. As far as my superior airmanship glad you were so observant!
If you are having to pull above 110% a lot I think you may want to change your planning a little. If I know that I need 110, and I go to 114 I am still on the upside. You may want to know your equipment and pull to the limiter one time, it maintains power, it does not fall down as I gather you are thinking. I am still above the 110 I had planned. It is a great tool for new pilots that are afraid of overtorque, it gets them to pull required power. It is also great for demonstrating left pedal impact at 110% tq, and again we differ, I think it is a great use of the system. As far as my superior airmanship glad you were so observant!
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Brazil
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I asked about the transient range between 110% and 121%, it was not intended to say that using it would be intentional.
All of us as pilots, we will always seek to save the aircraft as much as possible. Since full-time engines are brought to harsh conditions, we may have serious problems in flight and that is not the intention.
I think it is prudent to always be under the red belt, but in case it is extremely necessary, if you need to apply 111 or 112% in a specific and rare situation, it is better to do this than to have an accident.
All of us as pilots, we will always seek to save the aircraft as much as possible. Since full-time engines are brought to harsh conditions, we may have serious problems in flight and that is not the intention.
I think it is prudent to always be under the red belt, but in case it is extremely necessary, if you need to apply 111 or 112% in a specific and rare situation, it is better to do this than to have an accident.
When I asked about the transient range between 110% and 121%, it was not intended to say that using it would be intentional.
All of us as pilots, we will always seek to save the aircraft as much as possible. Since full-time engines are brought to harsh conditions, we may have serious problems in flight and that is not the intention.
I think it is prudent to always be under the red belt, but in case it is extremely necessary, if you need to apply 111 or 112% in a specific and rare situation, it is better to do this than to have an accident.
All of us as pilots, we will always seek to save the aircraft as much as possible. Since full-time engines are brought to harsh conditions, we may have serious problems in flight and that is not the intention.
I think it is prudent to always be under the red belt, but in case it is extremely necessary, if you need to apply 111 or 112% in a specific and rare situation, it is better to do this than to have an accident.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pat McGroin
Factory instructors are obliged to teach as per the RFM. You as an individual are entitled to do as you wish. We only insist on the use of 102 during Cat A because that is what it says in the RFM. Nowhere does it say you can use it for OEI landings but you don't have to be a rocket scientist to speculate that a higher Nr might come in handy.
There is a kind of unwritten rule in our business. If you chose to do something not in the book and it works out then you're a hero. If you end up as a hole in the ground or present the boss with a broken aircraft then you are a 'zero'.
I certainly wouldn't 'Continue Flight' with two hot batteries but that's what the RFM says.
Regrettably we don't live in a perfect world. :-(
Factory instructors are obliged to teach as per the RFM. You as an individual are entitled to do as you wish. We only insist on the use of 102 during Cat A because that is what it says in the RFM. Nowhere does it say you can use it for OEI landings but you don't have to be a rocket scientist to speculate that a higher Nr might come in handy.
There is a kind of unwritten rule in our business. If you chose to do something not in the book and it works out then you're a hero. If you end up as a hole in the ground or present the boss with a broken aircraft then you are a 'zero'.
I certainly wouldn't 'Continue Flight' with two hot batteries but that's what the RFM says.
Regrettably we don't live in a perfect world. :-(
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We only insist on the use of 102 during Cat A because that is what it says in the RFM. Nowhere does it say you can use it for OEI landings but you don't have to be a rocket scientist to speculate that a higher Nr might come in handy.
Having checked my CSE grade 3 in Rocket Science:
Surely maintaining a sub optimal NR (102%) will use more of our valuable OEI Tq available than maintaining the optimal NR (100%) for any given flight configuration? AEO we have spare Tq to store as Nr so no problem.
It also seems a little counter productive to suggest converting Tq into Nr so that we have spare Nr in case we run out of Tq?
I like to store my energy as airspeed, height and Tq, with NR as my weapon of last resort.
On this basis of the above I never use 102 for OEI.
Happy to be corrected by any holder of a CSE in Rocket Science (grade 2 or above)
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Abroad
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do any of you know that a 139 had an accident and probably would have made it if they did not use TQ lim with AEO?
Why would you limit power on purpose, you never know when you might need it....beats me..
Why would you limit power on purpose, you never know when you might need it....beats me..
Last edited by ODEN; 29th Apr 2017 at 21:41.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ireland
Age: 43
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have any of you had incidences of the main cabin door opening in flight, and if so can you describe the event and any remedies ye took to avoid it happening again. Was the door closed from the inside? Pins not engaged? Speed at the time the door opened etc