AW139 Accident rate discussion
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: landdownunder
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AW139 Accident rate discussion
A few years back the BV234 Chinook was banned in the offshore industry because of a couple of accidents in the North Sea. Seems to me every other month a 139 goe's down somewhere or the arse end drops off while it is taxiing -how many accidents have these things had now in it's very short life?
It does seem to be a worryingly frequent event. In fairness, however, one of the significant factors in the removal of the 234 from the North sea was the large numbers of pax carried, thus making any accident proportionally more severe - too many eggs in one basket.
But AW certainly have some serious questions to answer.
OH
But AW certainly have some serious questions to answer.
OH
My own view of the 139 is that it is a robust reliable aircraft suffering from the success of Agusta and regulator marketing - that the biggest possible engines in the smallest possible airframe will save your day. Doha crash -(non)pilot error, Spanish crash -pilot error, Korea crash -pilot error, China crash - pilot error ( until we hear otherwise from Agusta, hint: low alt 1.5 km from shore), Malaysia crash-pilot error, losing a couple of tails in Doha -pilot/maintenance?
Even where there has been a significant mechanical issue like in Hong Kong harbor, a skilled and trained crew was able to use the remaining aircraft capability to execute a safe landing.
Might be time for the industry to focus less on an engine quitting, which is almost nonexistent, and focus more of the available initial and recurrent training time on situations that actually have some risk. Of course this is counter to the notion that a pilot must be spring-loaded to deal with an engine failure on every takeoff at the worst possible time but that in true ETOPS fashion the second one will never quit. Beyond logic.
Even where there has been a significant mechanical issue like in Hong Kong harbor, a skilled and trained crew was able to use the remaining aircraft capability to execute a safe landing.
Might be time for the industry to focus less on an engine quitting, which is almost nonexistent, and focus more of the available initial and recurrent training time on situations that actually have some risk. Of course this is counter to the notion that a pilot must be spring-loaded to deal with an engine failure on every takeoff at the worst possible time but that in true ETOPS fashion the second one will never quit. Beyond logic.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Might be time for the industry to focus less on an engine quitting, which is almost nonexistent
Engine failures? You can make statistics read what you want. For my part, an engine failure at CDP on a rig take off (S-76), and a couple of years later an engine failure at the begining of the take off roll on a runway in the same aircraft, tells me keep training for engine failures. The only two in 20,000 hours. Nonexistent event? Not a chance.
Malabo,
So what exactly was the cause of the Korean loss? Have you seen the flight data recorder or just assuming that it must be a pilot problem.
The Sultan
Remember that before the second Doha tail incident Hong Kong was obviously a bird strike.
So what exactly was the cause of the Korean loss? Have you seen the flight data recorder or just assuming that it must be a pilot problem.
The Sultan
Remember that before the second Doha tail incident Hong Kong was obviously a bird strike.
I'm trying to gain a picture of the 139's accident history. Anyone able to fill-in the blanks or tender more appropriate remarks or additional accidents please chip-in and I'll amend the table accordingly.
lemonchiffon.
lemonchiffon.
I've received a couple of PM's regarding the 139 Accident Log with various comments, notably that the Abu Dhabi (location now corrected) incident was most likely pilot error and that incident no. 6 (this year's Doha event) was probably mechanic error (a failure to remove some type of lock prior to start-up).
Herewith then is the latest version. Please do keep the comments coming so that one might compile a complete (and hopefully reasonably accurate) summary.
Herewith then is the latest version. Please do keep the comments coming so that one might compile a complete (and hopefully reasonably accurate) summary.
Why are you classing the Hong Kong accident as mechanical failure? The investigation has not been completed. As far as I know bird strike is still being considered as the most likely cause of the tail rotor imbalance and there was nothing in the interim report to discount this possibility. Maybe the Sky Shuttle pilots can enlighten us???
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Beside the seaside
Posts: 670
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The cause of the Abu Dhabi accident will never be revealed due to where it occurred and the fact that the two people in the cockpit were nationals - one of them a non-pilot VIP. The ex-pat pilot was sitting in the cabin (presumably pressurised into giving up his seat to the VIP).
