Just when you thought it was safe to go out! First day back at work since this really got going. Took off with 266 in the main, transfer pumps off. Settled down in the cruise, supply tanks were showing a decrease at just under 260. I've now got 294 in the mains and will try again on the next trip(if we get one)! ;)

Actually Giovanni we can fly with one Tx pump inop iaw the guidance in our MEL - Hence my thread on 135 Tx pumps (which you so kindly resurrected):uhoh:

By not intending to do it. ;)

Thanks for all the info - I carried out a check flight today with the pumps off and noted the following.

Contents in the main decreased quite happily from 320kgs until 245 kgs

The main tank contents were unuseable below 245kgs

The supply tanks' red 'low' captions (on CDS) came on at around 28kgs

MG and LA,

Don't forget about the aircraft attitude in these measurements. My calculations were based on a level attitude. In the cruise with forward C of G it will be worse and vice versa. You do have control over this to some extent and naturally it can vary but could possibly be no worse than the figures I quoted.

Obviously attitude is important. I'm consistently getting supply tank reduction at around 260kgs in the cruise(130kts, 5 deg nosedown, with pitch adjustment at zero). I hover at around 7 degrees nose up, so that would probably give me something similar to Droopy's 205kgs.

However, the higher figure is the important one, because as soon as you decide to scoot for home, anything below this and the supply tanks are emptying, and you've got about 15 mins to Low Fuel lights. Not to mention Minimum Landing Allowances. :uhoh:

Letsby: My presumption is that your check flight was conducted ad hoc and that you are not a test pilot or the trip wasn't as a result of a dedicated maintenance ride.
That being the case, then you will be putting in a MOR for flying below your MLA????
That should make some interesting reading................

"flew the aircraft down to its minimum's and below, to identify the accuracy of the system" :ooh:

Still wondering why you pulled the original thread? Have you read your PM?

Hmmm, TC. Couldn't all that have been said in a PM?

MG: believe me, I have tried most avenues to talk to him behind the scenes.
Not only does he not respond, but he then pulls all his previous posts from the thread....weird:suspect:

He did it with the original thread (pulled the lot!)

See above....he's done it again. :mad:

Letsby...talk to me, hellooooooo r u there?

It's precisely because of the MLA issue MG that I thought to investigate this issue further - Initial informed advice given to us about 18 months ago was that the main tank contents would be available to just below 100kgs - clearly this is not the case! And I must thank those people who have posted informative, helpful and non-vituperative replies for their efforts. In the light of this however, I do wonder though why the MEL allows the Ac to fly with one Tx pump U/S?

Giovanni and MG check PMs

Probably because one can supply enough for both Supply Tanks. Our
remaining one did when the other failed a few months back.

Our MEL allows for flight with one transfer pump u/s but only Day VMC. This is limited to a maximum of three days.

Seems like a sensible balance to me but I might turn down that trip to Jersey!!!

TeeS

Let's not confuse legality and safety ( unless your Australian, Civil Aviation Safety Authority, you work it out, I can't). The MEL is normally issued by the authority in the country of registry. The FAA one certainly does allow it. Part 27 only requires the failure of ONE pump, hence the conditions in the RFM.

My personal opinion to remedy the perceived situation would be to fit an ejector pump (jet pump for US folk) or similar arrangement driven by each of the PRIME pumps. They are identical to the transfer pumps and serve nothing more than to prime the engine driven pumps for start and then turned off. The excess fuel driving the jet pumps would only serve to transfer fuel to the supply tanks.

Flight manual then says "Failure of both fuel transfer pumps - select BOTH PRIME PUMPS TO ON".

It does go to show that we have here an "electrically powered fuel system". If one pump fails there are consequences which are described in the RFM. If BOTH pumps fail, as a failure of the pump or their electrical supply there is no information published in the RFM nor is there any requirement to. An additional in the unapproved manufacturers data might be nice but then again. "Caveat Emptor" The axiom or principle in commerce that the buyer alone is responsible for assessing the quality of a purchase before buying.

Giovanni agricolarie: :confused:

PS: had a Fwd Fuel Tx pump failure last sortie:uhoh:

Now grounded all night!!!!!

Stranger things happen at sea...............

EC-135s for Ch 9 (Syd/Mel & BNE)
 

Just got a text message from contacts on the Gold Coast that Channel 9 has, or is going to order, three EC135s to replace their aircraft in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane.

Anyone know anything.

Autorotate.

Has been rumoured for a while since there had been a couple IFSD on the 355’s:* :*

I was recently told that it had all been deferred for a while, to see what other options might be about.:{

Australian Aerospace (ie Eurocopter Australia) said "no such sale is confirmed" quote, when I asked them. Not that that is confirmation either way, of course!

Patience Ned, all will be revealed in due course! Remember these things will have to last 30 years considering the current ones have done about 20!

Out of interest, how many EC 135s are there in Australia?

I'd heard that there was just the one in Sydney, privately owned.

And who does the training and maintenance?

Also, is it true that there is just one Bolkow in Oz?

If so, for what role is it used?

Thanks