AW139 incident - Houma
Originally Posted by SASless
That sounds like a training ad standards deficiency if true.
The ECL's must be similar to the AW109 which I am more familiar with and the levers have small servo motors which are controlled by the "beep" trim switches - normally.
You can manually override them if you grab the lever and they are damped in their movement as I think you have to override the motor clutch or similar.
Both in "manual" using the "beep" switches is pretty benign - adjust "beep" in which you are changing N1 by fuel flow and adjust collective accordingly to maintain acceptable Nr.
If the "beep" trim is not working and both in manual is possibly where you need an cojo with S-61 time?
Best done in a sim for a start. If you get it wrong it can be expensive.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SASless
Training and Sim Courses cannot replicate or identify every possible malfunction or emergency that might be encountered but I would think ECL's might have a role to play in certain situations and when I saw the word. "never"....it made me wonder why the Pilots at said that.
Originally Posted by RVDT
This is where you need a 3rd arm which they had at least 4 so ................
The ECL's must be similar to the AW109 which I am more familiar with and the levers have small servo motors which are controlled by the "beep" trim switches - normally.
You can manually override them if you grab the lever and they are damped in their movement as I think you have to override the motor clutch or similar.
Both in "manual" using the "beep" switches is pretty benign - adjust "beep" in which you are changing N1 by fuel flow and adjust collective accordingly to maintain acceptable Nr.
If the "beep" trim is not working and both in manual is possibly where you need an cojo with S-61 time?
Best done in a sim for a start. If you get it wrong it can be expensive.
The ECL's must be similar to the AW109 which I am more familiar with and the levers have small servo motors which are controlled by the "beep" trim switches - normally.
You can manually override them if you grab the lever and they are damped in their movement as I think you have to override the motor clutch or similar.
Both in "manual" using the "beep" switches is pretty benign - adjust "beep" in which you are changing N1 by fuel flow and adjust collective accordingly to maintain acceptable Nr.
If the "beep" trim is not working and both in manual is possibly where you need an cojo with S-61 time?
Best done in a sim for a start. If you get it wrong it can be expensive.
They needed a Sea King pilot with extensive experience of double manual drills......
The following users liked this post:
Loss of Essential buses
Originally Posted by Nescafe
True, but easy to say from the comfort of an armchair as opposed to a burning cockpit.
If that the case the EEC remains in the last Governing governing mode, in that instance Automatic, therefore the ECL is inoperative to control the engine.
The EEC was reacting properly and driving the engine in overspeed when the crew was moving the collective lower torque tube directly connected to the grips ( input received from the LVDT’s).
The IDLE and FLIGHT mode input are directly received by the EEC so you can play with it even if the cockpit is de-powered. As the rotor collective pitch angle where kind of stuck in high collective demand so that when they were selected ting idle the rotor speed was dropping very quickly.
When they have selected the mode switch to OFF, the FMM solenoid fuel sob did not operate to close as it receives its power from the aircraft to close it (fail safe open). Reason why the engine has been found running still after the crash.
The following users liked this post:
The preliminary report does not mention it as it concentrated on the collective issue, but it seems than the crew as lost the Essential buses.
If that the case the EEC remains in the last Governing governing mode, in that instance Automatic, therefore the ECL is inoperative to control the engine.
If that the case the EEC remains in the last Governing governing mode, in that instance Automatic, therefore the ECL is inoperative to control the engine.
Even with the governor selected to automatic, you can manually manipulate the ECLs to control the engine.
Originally Posted by Nescafe
I’m not sure that’s true?
Even with the governor selected to automatic, you can manually manipulate the ECLs to control the engine.
Even with the governor selected to automatic, you can manually manipulate the ECLs to control the engine.
with the governor in aromatic, yes you can manipulate the ECL, but on a limited travel from Flight to Minimum, in order to be able to reach Off and shut down the engine at anytime. Now during the ECL travel to MINIMUM the engine power is fully controlled by the EEC, so engine will not go the ECL setting. Achieving the OFF position act on a different SOV shutting down the engine.
Well, I am in the “what an incredible job” camp, and am of the “I hope I can do that well” sentiment. My congrats to the pilots at this point.
I have no insight beyond this thread information and have only a few hours 139 to try and comprehend this. However, I am concerned by so many concentrating on the crew before tech details are fully revealed. So far, it sounds like they suffered a cockpit fire resulting in a possible total electrics failure that also removed engine governing where, by design, they freeze until manual mode is selected. only manual mode selection may not have been an option due the electrics failure. So they may have had a double frozen governor with no cockpit indications at all and trying to descend by judging RRPM by sound and feel using the only control they had left. In a smoking cockpit. Maybe.
And they landed safely. Respect.
PS: In my limited experience of the 139, despite the questions and inferences raised above, the 139 ECL do not control engines when in automatic unlike some older acft,,,other than provide a fuel shutoff capability as JGtn points out. You must select manual mode first, and you must have electrical power to do so. As mentioned, it would be a damn sight easier to run through which of the same shaped and positioned electrical switches I could play with from the comfort of my couch as opposed to in a burning cockpit.
and yes, i acknowledge this is also ill informed speculation, but to me it currently suggests a “bravo” is due.
I have no insight beyond this thread information and have only a few hours 139 to try and comprehend this. However, I am concerned by so many concentrating on the crew before tech details are fully revealed. So far, it sounds like they suffered a cockpit fire resulting in a possible total electrics failure that also removed engine governing where, by design, they freeze until manual mode is selected. only manual mode selection may not have been an option due the electrics failure. So they may have had a double frozen governor with no cockpit indications at all and trying to descend by judging RRPM by sound and feel using the only control they had left. In a smoking cockpit. Maybe.
And they landed safely. Respect.
PS: In my limited experience of the 139, despite the questions and inferences raised above, the 139 ECL do not control engines when in automatic unlike some older acft,,,other than provide a fuel shutoff capability as JGtn points out. You must select manual mode first, and you must have electrical power to do so. As mentioned, it would be a damn sight easier to run through which of the same shaped and positioned electrical switches I could play with from the comfort of my couch as opposed to in a burning cockpit.
and yes, i acknowledge this is also ill informed speculation, but to me it currently suggests a “bravo” is due.
The following users liked this post:
Helmet,
I do not see the questions seeking to impugn the performance of the Crew....as they did an admirable job under very trying circumstances and deserve every accolade they have received.
I view these questions as an attempt to understand what the Crew had to work with and how the various systems of the. aircraft function under normal circumstances so that can be weighed against the reported indications and symptoms the crew was dealing with.
Having experienced 139 Pilots discussing the systems is very helpful.
In time....a lot of learning shall take place if we allow the knowing to teach us unknowing of the 139 systems.
That is not in any way a criticism of the Crew and should not be as they landed that aircraft without serious injury to anyone....and that under the circumstances speaks very well of them.
I do not see the questions seeking to impugn the performance of the Crew....as they did an admirable job under very trying circumstances and deserve every accolade they have received.
I view these questions as an attempt to understand what the Crew had to work with and how the various systems of the. aircraft function under normal circumstances so that can be weighed against the reported indications and symptoms the crew was dealing with.
Having experienced 139 Pilots discussing the systems is very helpful.
In time....a lot of learning shall take place if we allow the knowing to teach us unknowing of the 139 systems.
That is not in any way a criticism of the Crew and should not be as they landed that aircraft without serious injury to anyone....and that under the circumstances speaks very well of them.
Originally Posted by SASless
Helmet,
I do not see the questions seeking to impugn the performance of the Crew....as they did an admirable job under very trying circumstances and deserve every accolade they have received.
I view these questions as an attempt to understand what the Crew had to work with and how the various systems of the. aircraft function under normal circumstances so that can be weighed against the reported indications and symptoms the crew was dealing with.
Having experienced 139 Pilots discussing the systems is very helpful.
In time....a lot of learning shall take place if we allow the knowing to teach us unknowing of the 139 systems.
That is not in any way a criticism of the Crew and should not be as they landed that aircraft without serious injury to anyone....and that under the circumstances speaks very well of them.
I do not see the questions seeking to impugn the performance of the Crew....as they did an admirable job under very trying circumstances and deserve every accolade they have received.
I view these questions as an attempt to understand what the Crew had to work with and how the various systems of the. aircraft function under normal circumstances so that can be weighed against the reported indications and symptoms the crew was dealing with.
Having experienced 139 Pilots discussing the systems is very helpful.
In time....a lot of learning shall take place if we allow the knowing to teach us unknowing of the 139 systems.
That is not in any way a criticism of the Crew and should not be as they landed that aircraft without serious injury to anyone....and that under the circumstances speaks very well of them.
[QUOTE=helmet fire;11317402]Well, I am in the “what an incredible job” camp, and am of the “I hope I can do that well” sentiment. My congrats to the pilots at this point.
I like that quote “I hope I can do that well”. My thoughts exactly. I’m still interested on if the manual fuel control was an option missed, regardless it’s clear this crew did a amazing job and I have no doubt many crew would not have had a successful outcome.
It is very interesting the RRPM values. Those are incredibly low especially when paired with airspeeds of 185kts. It makes one wonder how close they were to catastrophic overpitch and blade failure or excessive blade flapping cutting off the boom or RBS. Not to mention massive torque fluctuations on the engines drive shafts and transmissions
It is a testament to the durability of the 139.
I was given a jammed collective once in the SIM and I was very uncomfortable taking the RRPM down to the low 80’s AND that was in the sim….It’s just hoping for the best once RRPM below auto range.
I congratulate the crew and their handling of the situation. I also wish them the best recovery and a successful return to flight operations. An event like this is traumatic and would make many hang up their helmet
I like that quote “I hope I can do that well”. My thoughts exactly. I’m still interested on if the manual fuel control was an option missed, regardless it’s clear this crew did a amazing job and I have no doubt many crew would not have had a successful outcome.
It is very interesting the RRPM values. Those are incredibly low especially when paired with airspeeds of 185kts. It makes one wonder how close they were to catastrophic overpitch and blade failure or excessive blade flapping cutting off the boom or RBS. Not to mention massive torque fluctuations on the engines drive shafts and transmissions
It is a testament to the durability of the 139.
I was given a jammed collective once in the SIM and I was very uncomfortable taking the RRPM down to the low 80’s AND that was in the sim….It’s just hoping for the best once RRPM below auto range.
I congratulate the crew and their handling of the situation. I also wish them the best recovery and a successful return to flight operations. An event like this is traumatic and would make many hang up their helmet
An event like this is traumatic and would make many hang up their helmet
I hope their incident becomes a study in HF because there is no way they managed that without exceedingly superior CRM. If you could bottle it and sell it, every pilot would want some.
The following users liked this post:
I must admit I have to agree with sasless on this one. While kudos to the crew for not killing everyone, initially it would have been as scary as hell, but I do think there was a lack of understanding /training played a role here. It was a gin clear day , (Thank goodness) and in our 139 sim sessions these include electrical fires, and in the end, just turn everything off and look out the window and fly the aircraft! The engines have their own source of power (a pma) so they will keep spinning. Also, if the manual beep trims do not work, then we train to use the ECL's to control the engines, using the PNF to control them while the PF flies the machine the best he can. This would have certainly been far easier and less risky using the engine mode switches
, and eased the workload to allow more capacity to think!
Modern is meant to be better, but, disregarding the control issue here, and focussing on the engine controls, this wouldn't of happened if we continued to use ecl's for engine starts rather than having switches on the console, as the ecl's obviously had been forgotten that they are there when needed?
, and eased the workload to allow more capacity to think! Modern is meant to be better, but, disregarding the control issue here, and focussing on the engine controls, this wouldn't of happened if we continued to use ecl's for engine starts rather than having switches on the console, as the ecl's obviously had been forgotten that they are there when needed?
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Australia
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JGtn
with the governor in aromatic, yes you can manipulate the ECL, but on a limited travel from Flight to Minimum, in order to be able to reach Off and shut down the engine at anytime. Now during the ECL travel to MINIMUM the engine power is fully controlled by the EEC, so engine will not go the ECL setting. Achieving the OFF position act on a different SOV shutting down the engine.
I’ve read in the Pilot Training Manual that in Auto mode the ECL has limited function between flight and Min, what does that mean though? Will moving the ECL actually reduce the power or not in Auto mode? Or does the EEC override the ECL position and continue to control the FMV regardless of where the ECL is positioned.
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Brutal
I must admit I have to agree with sasless on this one. While kudos to the crew for not killing everyone, initially it would have been as scary as hell, but I do think there was a lack of understanding /training played a role here. It was a gin clear day , (Thank goodness) and in our 139 sim sessions these include electrical fires, and in the end, just turn everything off and look out the window and fly the aircraft! The engines have their own source of power (a pma) so they will keep spinning. Also, if the manual beep trims do not work, then we train to use the ECL's to control the engines, using the PNF to control them while the PF flies the machine the best he can. This would have certainly been far easier and less risky using the engine mode switches , and eased the workload to allow more capacity to think!
Modern is meant to be better, but, disregarding the control issue here, and focussing on the engine controls, this wouldn't of happened if we continued to use ecl's for engine starts rather than having switches on the console, as the ecl's obviously had been forgotten that they are there when needed?
, and eased the workload to allow more capacity to think!Modern is meant to be better, but, disregarding the control issue here, and focussing on the engine controls, this wouldn't of happened if we continued to use ecl's for engine starts rather than having switches on the console, as the ecl's obviously had been forgotten that they are there when needed?
Digging through my old notes I think in manual mode the EEC is bypassed completely and the FMV is operated through the 3D cam responding to the position of the ECL.
The whole point of a manual mode is to allow engine control in the event of an EEC failure.
Any 139 drivers ever practiced manual control of the ECLs?
The whole point of a manual mode is to allow engine control in the event of an EEC failure.
Any 139 drivers ever practiced manual control of the ECLs?
My suspicion is that anyone who has practiced manual engine control has only done so on one engine and having to deal with both engines in manual would be more than double the work.
The Sea King double manual drills would have worked but I can't imagine there are very many current 139 drivers who have ever used them.
The Sea King double manual drills would have worked but I can't imagine there are very many current 139 drivers who have ever used them.
212 man, that's because jgt is incorrect. Crab is right, they override the manual beep trims, and if all the electrics were off due to the fire, these beep trims wouldn't have worked at all as they need electrics to motor, so all you have would be the good old wire from the ecl's to the engine.
B.
B.
Crab: The Sea King double manual drills would have worked but I can't imagine there are very many current 139 drivers who have ever used them.
Why is this not part of training? Because we are always being told that "this would never happen"?
B
Why is this not part of training? Because we are always being told that "this would never happen"?
B
From my notes
and
Brutal - I suspect you are correct that a double EEC failure was not considered likely or probable and there are more than enough boxes to be ticked on a check ride without adding that one.
Pretty much every annual Categorisation Check I did on RAF Sea King pilots (30 pilots/year for about 12 years) included dealing with double manual in the aircraft. It was a very uncommon emergency to get for real (although I know of a couple of instances) but we trained for it regularly.
ENGINE CONTROL LEVER (ECL) ECL 1 and ECL 2 are installed on the overhead console. They are connected to the respective engine control gearbox, through a power control cable. Each engine control gearbox is mechanically connected to the respective Fuel Management Module to permit controlling the engine power manually in case of critical failure of the EEC. When an ECL is moved to OFF it mechanically closes a fuel shutoff valve on the FMM, thus ensuring the engine shut down
The metered fuel flow is sent through the FCOC to the fuel nozzles. The FMM include a Fuel Metering Valve (FMV) which, under the action of the Electronic Engine Control (EEC) (when the engine is in automatic mode) or the ECL (when the engine is in manual mode), sets the fuel flow over the full range of the engine operations. The FMM includes a Fuel Metering Valve (FMV) that is controlled by the Electronic Engine Control (EEC) or by the ECL to meter the fuel flow over the full range of the engine operation. Depending on the FMM mode of operation (AUTO or MANUAL), the Fuel Metering Valve uses different methods to meter the fuel flow: • in Automatic mode the EEC commands a torque motor • in Manual mode the ECL moves mechanically.
Pretty much every annual Categorisation Check I did on RAF Sea King pilots (30 pilots/year for about 12 years) included dealing with double manual in the aircraft. It was a very uncommon emergency to get for real (although I know of a couple of instances) but we trained for it regularly.
Crab I was not thinking so much as a double EEC failure, as this would be extremely unlikely, but more like a total electrics failure due to a fire and everything being lost or shut off, rendering the beep trims inoperative!
B.
B.
