Sav,

As ramblingrotors mentioned, there was also the loss of the first pre-production aircraft (I-ACOI) during autorotation testing in 2001, with the unfortunate death of Vincenzo Iellamo. Previous thread here.

I/C

Thanks for the various items of feedback both posted and sent via PM. Herewith is the 2nd Draft with as many of the recommendations as possible embraced:

2nd Draft
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-I...T%2525207a.png
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Q...T%2525207b.png
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-L...T%2525207c.png

Notes:
1. This table is not intended to replace or substitute factual accident reports. It is instead a ‘quick reference’ resource for those wishing to obtain a ‘snapshot’ of AW 139 accidents to-date.
2. Columns 'e', ‘f’ and ‘g’ have been composed with the assistance from members from the Rotorheads community and are a product of the recommendations and suggestions tendered.
3. This Table intends no inference; either supporting or criticising the AW139, but seeks only to communicate, as effectively as possible, the most basic information surrounding AW139 accidents to-date.

Additional Comments:

There have been several requests to include details of one of the AW prototypes but I have been inclined to exclude this given that it was pre-production and a prototype. Having said that is there anyone with details as to what actually happened?

A list of the PPRuNe threads relating to all the AW129 accidents appears on the previous page and now, thanks to Aegir we have a second 'official' statement bringing the total number to two:

Interim Statement Spanish Crash

Interim Statement Hong Kong Harbour Ditching

Regarding the table I have now removed the comment re: possible bird strike (which someone had mentioned had come from AW) as the Interim Statement mentions nothing of this.

Having now spent far too much time on this and having read more than I ever intended about 139 crashes I have to say that the incident which I find most perplexing to-date (and in the absence of more detailed information on the recent accidents) is the Hong Kong Harbour episode. It will indeed be interesting to see what the verdict is on this one.

FYI fresh from the press ALERT TB AW139 Blades
 

BOLLETTINO TECNICO N° 139-265
The technical content of this document is approved
under the authority of DOA nr. EASA.21J.005 DATE August 25, 2011


SUBJECT: PRECAUTIONARY INSPECTION AND QUARANTINE OF TAIL ROTOR
BLADES
REASON: to introduce a precautionary inspection and quarantine on tail rotor blades.

NOTE
This Bollettino supersedes BT no. 139-251
HELICOPTERS AFFECTED:
Part I: All AB139/AW139 helicopters equipped with tail rotor blades P/N
3G6410A00131 or P/N 4G6410A00131.
Part II: All AB139/AW139 helicopters equipped with tail rotor blades P/N
3G6410A00131 or P/N 4G6410A00131, having logged more than 600 flying
hours or more than 1500 landings whichever occurs first.

This almost mean the whole fleet.

DESCRIPTION: as a result of the first available information of the AW139 event in Brazil, while the investigation is ongoing and waiting for additional
information/analysis, as a precautionary measure this Bollettino prescribes
inspection and quarantine of the tail rotor blades meeting the criteria reported in the above paragraph.
In the meantime collection of all necessary evidence is going on in order to isolate the root cause and determine the final corrective actions.

South Korea additional Info (B-516 31264) confirmed
 

This is all I have on this accident, the source is very good.

about China accident
 

I quote parnaiocas
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/461...ml#post6662137

I confirm!


Yesterday 24/08/2011 had a meeting in Rio de Janeiro Agusta, attended by operators in Brazil AW.

They are implying that the most likely cause of the accident was SEK even breaking blades TR.

So tomorrow will be issued a BT with more instructions to be followed by radical Mnt, even without the issuance of the accident report.

The Pilot Test Agusta emphasized that this type of emergency response should be taken immediately. Otherwise, the panic will not be identified correctly, you can lose control of the ANV due to the strong imbalance.

As for AW of China, then was recovered, but the government did not allow any information to be disclosed, since this was an operational failure. The pilot flew into the water during a rescue training. I saw the photo of the ANV being hoisted. Only the cockpit was damaged. The rest, including the TR, was intact.

And this is the response of Agusta:

http://www.agustawestland.com/system/files/139-265.pdf

What means SEK?

Capt 139, thanks for confirming the registration of the Korean aircraft. The available information is sketchy indeed - in fact all I have been able to ascertain is that the craft crashed into the sea at night.

VEMD, see accident No.9. SEK is the registration of the Brasilian aircraft which crashed .. PR-SEK.

During the compilation of the table I received numerous PM's providing various aspects of information relating to several of the crashes. I am now awaiting further detailed information on both of the Gulf Helicopters incidents as it seems the information I was sent was (unsurprisingly) incomplete.

From communications over the past couple of days is does seem as though a stronger case is being built for a possible generic problem of tail rotor blade shearing.

Frustratingly, in the Hong Kong Harbour incident the critical piece of the evidence (the blade which may have sheared) could not be found. Also, the other piece of evidence which could have helped (the HUMS memory card) was not housed in a waterproof receptacle and the chips, being corroded, could not be analysed.

Hopefully the Brasil crash will yield more immediate and conclusive information.

Epiphany - still feeling very safe in your 139 having read that bulletin?

Can't speak for Epiphany, Crab, but after 6 1/2 years on the 139, I'm still happy with it overall.

Until I get further details about the Brazil accident, I'll go along with Agusta's BT, which is basically an extension of the inspection done on the blades each day by the AME's, but brings in an early retirement as an extra precaution.

I'd like further info on the supposed vibration issue that SEK may have had previously and why it was on the ground for 3 days because of it, as reported by North&South (if this is true).

Pretty much every wide body aircraft we fly on to get to our jobs (those of us touring in the oil industry) has had a catastrophic accident at some point in it's life and we still travel on them. 747 center fuel tanks exploding, MD11 entertainment system fires, A330 pitot icing, 767 thrust reverser operating in flight etc etc. Not to mention basically every type of helicopter we travel in too.

Agusta will fix this, just like Sikorsky, Bell, MD, Boeing, Airbus and the others have in the past.

Not trying to play down the seriousness of what could be a major issue with the 139, but I'll wait for some factual evidence rather than jump to conclusions about what could be the problem. Yes, we know from Agusta that a TR blade came off, but WHY? That is the question I'm wanting the answer to.

Now, lets see how quickly Agusta can support their customers. There are going to be a LOT of tail rotor blades coming off very shortly, and oil companies don't like helicopters sitting on the ground! More to the point, if the tail rotor blade does turn out to be a potential point of failure, how quickly can they design a new one and get it into production? Assuming that is, that the tail rotor blade design is a factor, rather than quality control or operational use.

Hopefully all parties involved will be pressing on with getting this sorted one way or the other as soon as possible!

Yes thanks Crab. I flew 5 hours today (including 3 hours IFR, 2 ARA's, 6 deck landings) and will probably do the same tomorrow as most of our 139's have less than 600 hours.

The 139 must be the most popular new helicopter ever introduced to the industry with >400 airframes flying worldwide and with a flying and serviceability rate that the RAF can only dream of.

Of the hundreds of thousands of hours so far flown by the AW139 in geographic and climatic extremes; flown and maintained by operators, pilots and engineers from both ends of the ability spectrum there have been 9 accidents. 5 of them were very probably human error related and of the 4 still under investigation my bet is that a further 2 were human error. For me that leaves 2 unexplained accidents out of 9.

If reports already received of the Brazilian accident are factual I fail to see how the crew were able to declare an emergency, state that they were diverting and suggest that the problem they were experiencing was hydraulic related if the aircraft had thrown a tail rotor blade.

I am no fan of AW mainly because I believe that they show an arrogance that is breathtaking (much like your own), their training is unprofessional and the customer support abysmal. However, I think that the 139 is undoubtedly the best multi-role helicopter of it's class that we have ever seen.

After 30+ years flying and 10,000 hours in helicopters I for one am very happy to be flying it and fully expect to be flying it for the remainder of my career.

Excellent post Noooby.

True, but for example there have been more than 1400 747's built in the last 42 years, those have flown I can't imagine how many hours, but the AW139 has only what 400 built since 2003? how many hours flown, years in production, and # of acft, vs. acccidents?

That makes the accident rate of the 139 gigiantic by comparasion.

BP,

With only 2 confirmed mechanical failures, I don't think its as bad as the picture you are trying to paint. What is high for the type is the number of pilot error accidents, which to me squarely points to an alarming lack of proper training or plain absence of ability :eek:

That leaves me to conclude that, 1. Something seriously wrong with training given by the manufacturer. 2. Continuity training by those companies involved is pants, or 3. Big question mark over the standard of pilots being pushed into those right seats.

Ive seen all three :cool:

Some excellent comments in recent posts:

Fully Agree. :ok:

Again, fully agree. :ok:

Wish I had written that Griffo. I've seen all three too and for me that is the root of the problem and I fully expect there to be more pilot related accidents. The operators who have some kind of pilot selection procedure along with competent and regular check and training, annual dry-lease LOFT sim training and all the other safety barriers that I take for granted have yet to have a pilot-related accident.

Two thoughts come to mind:

1. Pilot Error - Not one for believing in coincidence, why is the AW139 currently proving to be much more susceptible to accidents than other similar sized twins. Is it just down to crew training and selection as inferred, or is there also a cockpit ergonomics issue here?

2. Design - Is there any correlation between airframe serial numbers that have (or we suspect) suffered tail rotor blade separation and the 6400 and 6800 kilo weight certification?

I heard on the radio today that Emergency Management Queensland (EMQ) an operator of 3 airframes have grounded them until further notice.

Warwick Daily News

Mmmm ....

..... Design - Is there any correlation between airframe serial numbers that have (or we suspect) suffered tail rotor blade separation and the 6400 and 6800 kilo weight certification? ....

Problems perhaps have more to do with the accuracy and tenacity of the chaps doing the T/R Tracking and Balancing then anything else ????

With normal ops on this a/c being varied between 100 & 102% Nr depending on the ops requirement I would suggest the balancing of the major rotating components becomes paramount !!

:(