Yep, it was window bulletin issue
Now will be door too :D

it seems that minister boarding was on left and right one fell, not just lock issue....:}

What's Par for that hole?

Must have been one of those Polish built fuselages.:E

Wrong :=

Doors and hatches Made in Italy

Door are falling
 

I wonder if BT 139-118 was carried out?

139 electrical bonding check
 

You may want to check with your maintenance department and see if your fleet has a problem like this with the starter / Gen, we have it in more than one aircraft. It is a possible fire hazard. I suspect Agusta will notify users regarding this soon.

We are preparing the repair Scheme. Please ship back to AW the removed parts (the Grounding Bracket + the Bonding Block + the Bonding Cable + the DC Transformer)for further investigation.



Grounding Cable Installation inspection and a continuity check on the whole assembly is requested.
Please refer to the drawings already provided by XXXX and check for continuity between the logeron and point GS301 and then from GS301 and the starter generator.
We request just an additional check:
Before the first flight perform a test engine start with the baggage compartment open and the baggage compartment liner removed in order to inspect the bonding plate for electrical arches.

If continuity check is succesfully performed and no arches are visually detected during the test engine start restore the baggage compartment liner and consider the A/C flyable.

Vauuuuu

smoke signaling.......
:bored:
it is time to call
spaghetti western horse calvary

Geoff I think this thread is a better place to respond than the S92 crash one.
Are you speaking different kind of English? Well maybe you've a bit of an Italian accent now!
We've both been around long enough to know aircraft (and not just helicopters) are full of "mistakes".
Design Engineers make mistakes. Genuine mis-thinks; not understanding what pilots and aircraft may be required to do; not thinking through subsequent problems from initial failures. The S-76A was a classic on several issues. Airbus computer Logic for a fly-by another.
Third Party Suppliers make mistakes. Misinterpreting design documents, saving time/money without realising consequences. Thinking they know better than Designers. Not applying QA procedures.
Production Personnel make mistakes. Looking inside any aircraft torn down for a major check shows many "unique" features. Also think B407 and early FADEC wiring issues all down to one line worker.
Yes Quality Control should catch all these, but they don't.

More specifically 139 floats. Yes of course they are designed not to inflate in the cruise. Yes so far that is the case, the only reported uncommanded inflations appear to be a specific aircraft problem. (Production Mistake as above?) The 139 CFIT - don't think floats would have made any difference one way or another. But I will give you a 0-1 score right now , not a full time score yet tho! I really hope nobody ever has to even the score with a float inflation at 155kts or so...

Even you say in Post #453 "So f***ed up avionics is not just an Italian/US thing then??"
I think all 139 Drivers have had "Why the heck has it done that?" or "Control, Alt, Delete" moments. I'm not sure why any one system should be immune.

If the Float system is so reliable perhaps we can do away with the Arming Switch entirely and it is routinely live whenever flying, taking away the necessity to arm on becoming feet wet....

The reality is, aircraft are not built the way they are designed; components are not totally reliable nor do they always last to TBO. If everything always performed as advertised we wouldn't need your talents in the sim! I'll read what is written on the tin but not necessarily believe it.

How do I personally use the floats...... Well having now been seduced by New Jersey Simulator I'm not sure I'll be back to Italy for you to find out....:}

Sandy
 

I don't think I can take issue with anything you have just said....... and not telling me about how you personally use the FLOATS leaves me guessing.

That said however yours is a very weak argument if it is designed simply to justify doing anything you want to do ......... more of an excuse for doing it that way rather than a serious analysis of the statistics and the balance of probabilities.

If your Company SOPs support the RFM then you are taking the classic
'I'll do it my way, because i know best' attitude that may lead to tensions withing the cockpit and all that goes with life in a poor CRM environment. Of course I know that you are NOT that kind of domineering old fart who has always got a good reason for ignoring the SOPs but we can both point out those that may fit that description.

As to which of our fine instruments of torture you choose please bear in mind that a stale bagel will never compare with a fresh ciabatta pannini overflowing with parma ham, steak and chips you can get anywhere but a delicate risotto porcini will prove a healthier choice and a course a cold 'Bud' cannot compare with a chilled Pinot Grigio drom Alto Adige.

G.

Copterline...
 

Yes, 9Aplus...Copterline cancelled those flights.

Not enough passengers, especially from the Estonian side. The November/December was better but they decided to quit. The company is concentrating now to hems operations with their EC135s in Finland.

AW139s are waiting to be leased/sold out, I believe. Need for those?...

Greetings to Geoff from the Arctic Circle!

It was nice with 139, but you will never know your future. I'll be back to the (EC135 this time- not anymore 412 ;)..) sim box 'cause 135 pilots need IR(H)+nvg basic training in Finland.

Brg -Esa

"AW139s are waiting to be leased/sold out, I believe. Need for those?..."

If the offer is right, who knows..... send me PM pls.....;)

6800kg Upgrade

Harking back a little to earlier posts about the 6800kg Upgrade, does any operator plan to do it, or does anyone know of any operator planning to do it??

heliski22,
We have got a couple of 139s flying at 6800kg here...

Regards
Aser

Thanks, Aser! Check your PMs, please!

Aser let us know what do you think about the 6.8 please ???

Hi experts, info on indications re single MGB lubrication pump failure needed. Have contacted Augusta but would like the street wise users view.
Outhouse.
:8

MGB
 

The AW 139 MGB was subjected to a dry run test for at least 30 mins - and passed.

The oil pumps are installed in opposite sides of the MGB but are both driven by the same (main crown gear) wheel - if that stops rotating then oil is the least of your worries.

Yes there is a single filter/cooler but if you are concerned about leaks I guess the logic is that any leak anywhere will empty the MGB of oil so no fuss about redundancy there.

The MGB has been designed as a development of the A129/EH101 style gearbox with all oilways internally cast. Clever chaps these Italians.

Loss of one pump will result in a drop in pressure but no RFM references made to this - don't know why but suffice it to say that one pump will do the job OK.

G

Must agree with Geoffers on 139 MGB.
MGB production line in Cascina Costa really impress me.
One MGB was on dry run test during my visit, did not wait long enough to see outcome....
Who the hell care about arcing , smoke signals or falling doors, to be honest
MBG is The right one. :ok:

Noted on a different thread is a cross wind limitation of 17 kts. Can anyone give an explanation of why the limit is so low? It does sound restrictive, certainly for locations away from the tropics.

It seems odd given the aircrafts great power margins. Agusta products are normally quite good in this are as well. I seem to recall flying sideways in an A109E at 50 knots - with Double Bogey at the controls :eek:


VL

VL
 

Crosswind and tail wind limits 45 kts unless you are operating at around 10,000 feet and above. Checkout the Cat B WAT curves in the RFM/QRH
G