I was not being a SA Griffo. Granted the buttons are not ideally located but they are quite obviously in different places on the handgrip - one on the top and the other on the side. Even at night you can clearly see the FD release button on the top. I tell the PNF that I intend to cancel the FD, look down, press the button and hey presto (or e presto! in Italian) - job done with no brown trousers.

5 minutes in the hangar every so often refamilarising the location on these important buttons is not a bad idea if there is any doubt. Or AW could spend millions redesigning it of course.

Safe flying to you too.

Yes that CAS acknowledge button could be better placed elsewhere - it caught me out in an over-water hover at night when I inadvertantly initiated a go-around instead of acknowledging the cabin-door open message:O

I have been caught landing on a Offshore deck, where during the transition shake, trying to hold the cyclic firm , had me disengaging the APs .One has to be careful not to touch the AP release switch specially while landing during the transition shake or in gusty ,turbulent conditions .
I have seen it happen to others too ...to imagine it happening when the tail rotor vibrations are high ......!! ??
I would have liked to see that switch at the bottom of the cyclic similar to the cyclic AP release switch on the Bell 412 / 212 .To be operated by the little finger .

Button problems
 

Amazing how much good a few sim sessions can achieve when it comes to knowing which is which. Would be interesting to know if there is any correlation between poor button awareness and lack of sim time.
G.

Example..... rotor brake fire in the 109 due to all recency in the 139 :{

Not me hee hee hee..

Is this because the 139 brake can be applied continuously whereas in the 109 it has to be 'fed'?

Geoffers, a question for you! Evidently there are only a few 139 sims available. Just how much is a sim (ball park)? Is there an existing and accepted ratio of sims to operational aircraft and, if the number of operational 139's has yet to reach a level which could support more sims is there no place for operators and perhaps even clients to support their cost in cases where you have a 'new' type and the sim numbers need to grow?

Wouldn't AW be interested in supporting access to regional sims in those areas where the 139 is operationally tasked in full-time commercial applications?

In the meantime ..

.. seems sensible!

Level B about $5m
Level D about $10+m

Savoia,

The 139 RB is the opposite to the 109, so you could start the little fella with the RB on thinking that it is off if you have most of your recency on the big un :eek:

It has happened....

crab
 

Out of interest how much sim time did you get on the 139? Any kind of tactile cue to assist with both collective and cyclic buttons would definitely be a step forward. You can comfort yourself that selecting the GA is a common mistake on recurrent training but I have not thought to see if this can be correlated with the training delivered to date for that candidate.

G.

"selecting the GA is a common mistake on recurrent training"
Different type but on more than one training ILS in the 135 I've pressed the "GA" button and instead of climbing I've noticed the windscreen wiper doing it's thing! (and apparently, I'm not the only one!).

The same position (and similar type) of one particular button on two types I flew was a bit of a worry when doing loads over water......

Load release button on the first type = Floats arming switch on the other. Both were almost identical thumb buttons, under the same type of guard on the cyclic...

Never accidentally inflated the floats myself but I know a man who did....

Agusta Actions
 

By the time we have been following these bad happens with the 139 , the AW actions is not enough for the moment . Agusta Westland should not limit its helicopter at this time wich is very very bad , limitations such a gross weight reductions , less airspeed during cruise , Weight X altitude X IAS will not be applied . and I argue WHY NOT ? maybe cause the 139 sounds to be a SUPER AIRCRAFT? I can remember when S92 had the MGB issues and Sikorsky imediatelly has limited the aircraft FOR SAFE .
My wish is can see Agusta taking another effective action nothing about limiting components lifetime .Maybe something that might scratch 139 market at the moment but will save our ass and the other friends !

One of small operators, found today root cracked tail blade....
Spare helicopter of near size is AOG too, fortunately after
whole day of := :mad::ugh::confused::} - they managed to borrow
one blade from bigger state related brother....
:ok:
:D
Happy End, but for how long.....

Was there a tailboom incident in Austrailia last week?

Australian tail boom incident
 

Cayuse 365

Turkeyslapper posted a report of a disbond of the new design tail boom on the AW139 stream, posting 1389. Maybe it was that case?

Spain accident report
 

http://www.fomento.gob.es/NR/rdonlyr..._002_A_ENG.pdf

I haven't read it yet but I've see that there are about 20 safety reccomendations.

Have they got systemic problems with the 139 or are these mainly one off occurrences each time - just curious.