Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

CHC AW 189s

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

CHC AW 189s

Old 8th Dec 2018, 03:27
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Inside the Industry
Posts: 783
CHC AW 189s

Hearing a rumour that the CHC AW189s have been grounded in Karratha, Australia due to being inadvertently operated 200kg over weight? Anyone know anymore detail?
industry insider is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2018, 07:25
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: beneath the stars
Posts: 27
Just that,,, a rumour a good one though..
driftwood1 is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2018, 08:26
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wanaka, NZ
Posts: 2,152
Excuse my ignorance...but grounding an R22 for being operated 200kg over weight I could understand, but a AW189, seriously?
gulliBell is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2018, 08:48
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On the green bit near the blue wobbly stuff
Posts: 620
Originally Posted by gulliBell View Post
Excuse my ignorance...but grounding an R22 for being operated 200kg over weight I could understand, but a AW189, seriously?
Overweight is overweight! What would you expect? That'll be fine, mate ... crack on? Or an inspection to make sure you havent damaged something which is going to show it in 50 hours time?
Good grief!
Non-PC Plod is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2018, 10:28
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wanaka, NZ
Posts: 2,152
In all of my years in this business I've never heard of grounding an aircraft for an over weight inspection...
gulliBell is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2018, 10:42
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Europe
Posts: 124
That‘s a good one - a 200kg overweight R22😂
You won‘t even get it off the ground!😳
evil7 is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2018, 13:01
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wanaka, NZ
Posts: 2,152
Hence why if it did get off the ground some sort of inspection would be due...as for an 8 ton helicopter, I wouldn't have thought 200 kg over would cause much of a whimper from the airworthiness maintenance aspect.
gulliBell is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2018, 14:33
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On the green bit near the blue wobbly stuff
Posts: 620
How long might it have been routinely operated overweight? How much much stress might have all the different components been subjected to after an unknown number of cycles of perf class 1 & 2 takeoffs, helideck landings etc? If it was overweight, was it also way outside C of G?
Of course these questions have to be considered before you can release an aircraft back to service after it has exceeded its design limitations. What if it crashed tomorrow? Do you think the management staff would be justified in saying, "Well, we were only a bit illegal, as its a big aircraft, so we thought we would just ignore it and keep our fingers crossed".
Have you ever heard of a safety culture?
Non-PC Plod is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2018, 15:15
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tax-land.
Posts: 903
Apparently they did fine if no one noticed.
Bring the MGW to 8800 Kg then!
tottigol is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2018, 15:27
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,604
Overweight is overweight! What would you expect? That'll be fine, mate ... crack on? Or an inspection to make sure you havent damaged something which is going to show it in 50 hours time?
Good grief!

Just what might such an inspection begin to look for that would manifest itself visually?

This brochure shows an approved 300 KG upgrade in Max Gross Weight if I read it correctly.

https://www.leonardocompany.com/docu...89Offshore.pdf

I would be less worried about the "over weight" than" how and why" it happened!
SASless is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2018, 16:27
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 7,697
But that 300kg upgrade will require additional equipment/modifications and/or adjustments to the performance graphs - that is what happened with the 139.

If the standard aircraft was fit for the additional weight increase then it would have been certified as such in the first place.

As Non- PC plod says - overweight is overweight and at the very least you need to assess how much and for how long and then carry out inspections and perhaps calculate time penalties for critical components.

What would happen if you crashed during a PC1 departure because you were outside the WAT graphs? What would your insurance company say and how long would your licence last - remember ass, tin, ticket SAS?
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2018, 16:43
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tax-land.
Posts: 903
The 8600 Kg is already on.
tottigol is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2018, 16:43
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,604
Bit quick to jump into the Weeds are you Crab?

You assume of course the Pilots knowingly operated the aircraft 2.5% over the 8300 kg weight limit.

Perhaps they did not know....thus why would their "Ticket" be in jeopardy?

Now if like in the "Iron 41" S-61 Crash.....had the Operator provided the Pilot's bogus Weight and Balance and WAT Data....it would be the Operator and not the Pilots that were in violation.

As the weight was upped by 300 kgs....perhaps not as much damage was done as might be assumed.

Again....I am more concerned how such a thing happened and let the chips lay where they fall following the inquiry.

The Carson culprits wound up in the Gray Bar Hotel over their falsifying FAA and USFS documentation.

By the way....I lost a friend in that crash so I do fully grasp the significance of such issues.
SASless is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2018, 16:54
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On the green bit near the blue wobbly stuff
Posts: 620
As Crab says, they dont normally just "up" the weight without, for example, beefing up the landing gear. I have no idea what a post- overweight ops inspection might include, but it may not be purely visual. Maybe they would re-examine HUMS data, do some NDT on particular components etc.
SAS - I agree completely that there is something even more worrying in the SOPs if the aircraft are dispatched overweight, but for the airframe, you cant just treat it as if nothing has happened.
Non-PC Plod is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2018, 17:07
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Montreal
Posts: 608
Not the first time CHC Australia has operated above gross inadvertently due to some operational control weakness. Last time was the 139, again by some small nominal amount. Don’t they operate to the same worldwide OFPS?
malabo is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2018, 17:26
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 321
Any components or structure that are lifed on landing cycles may incur a penalty factor on that life for every overweight cycle e.g PF of 2 would mean a cycle would be recorded as two cycles. It maybe a case that aircraft are being temporarily grounded while Tech Records are calculating how many overweight cycles have occurred, what penalty factors apply and amending component usage lives accordingly. It might not just be landing cycles. It could apply to flying hours also.The PF will be stipulated in manufacturer airworthiness requirements.

Last edited by nodrama; 8th Dec 2018 at 20:46.
nodrama is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2018, 20:26
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: beneath the stars
Posts: 27
Originally Posted by malabo View Post
Not the first time CHC Australia has operated above gross inadvertently due to some operational control weakness. Last time was the 139, again by some small nominal amount. Don’t they operate to the same worldwide OFPS?
Care to elaborate on your 139 control weakness, how about you give all the info or is It just another baseless accusation....
driftwood1 is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2018, 16:29
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: daworld
Posts: 616
Operational Control weakness is what Malabo is referring too. The 139 overweight issue was directly due to the fact that they screwed up their W&B and never caught it. He isn't saying the 139 has weak controls.

They flew the 139's overweight for a number of weeks before the "anomaly" with the weight and balance was found and the aircraft were grounded pending Leonardo prescribing inspections for returning the aircraft to service.
noooby is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2018, 18:17
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: beneath the stars
Posts: 27
Originally Posted by noooby View Post
Operational Control weakness is what Malabo is referring too. The 139 overweight issue was directly due to the fact that they screwed up their W&B and never caught it. He isn't saying the 139 has weak controls.

They flew the 139's overweight for a number of weeks before the "anomaly" with the weight and balance was found and the aircraft were grounded pending Leonardo prescribing inspections for returning the aircraft to service.
I understood what the post meant but thank you for clearing that up. I will make my question more clear...... Exactly when did CHC Australia stuff up a weight and balance on its AW139 fleet and do you know or understand the processes required to carry out a weight and balance in Australia.....
driftwood1 is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2018, 19:22
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 220
I imagine the percentage over max gross would be the number they'd look at it for any penalties
Bladestrike is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.