|
UTair signs MoU for 20 AW139s | Helihub - the Helicopter Industry Data Source
Russian Helicopters (subsidiary of JSC UIC Oboronprom, part of Russian Technologies State Corporation) and AgustaWestland (a Finmeccanica company) have recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding for a planned order of 20 AW139 helicopters to be assembled in Russia. AgustaWestland and Russian Helicopters have also recently announced the establishment of HeliVert, a joint venture company which will assemble and deliver to UTair a batch of AW139 helicopters from its Tomilino plant in the Moscow region. Aser |
AW says that it will take 45 days to supply enough blades to completely replace all that are over 600 hrs :E |
A Question for the gathered masses:
We have received inquiries from a client about the AW T/R A/D and they expressed a desire to complete this inspection twice daily rather than the 25 hr frequency. This seems to be overkill to me given that the OEM has essentially chopped the life of these TR blades to 600 hrs / 1500 landings. Are there operators out there who are completing the AD on a more stringent basis? It is particularly difficult as we have a mandate to operate the aircraft on a 24/7 footing. Any feedback is welcomed or PM me. Thanks wde |
Regarding inflight deployment of the floats it would seem we have a guineapig....
CHC helicopter makes emergency landing at Great Yarmouth - News - Eastern Daily Press Could be a 76 0f course but my money is on a 139 A HELICOPTER carrying 11 offshore workers to a North Sea oilfield had to make an emergency landing today after its flotation equipment suddenly deployed. The CHC helicopter was minutes into its flight to the Leman oil field 20 miles off the Lowestoft coast when the flotation equipment used for emergency landings on water deployed in mid-air. The pilot was forced to turn around and return to Yarmouth Heliport in Caister Road where it landed safely shortly after. Neither the pilot nor the passengers on board were hurt. Dave McDermid, spokesman for the helicopter’s owner CHC Scotia, described the flotation equipment as an “airbag” for helicopters and similar to a dinghy which inflates out of each side of the aircraft. However, he said the dinghy would only inflate if the pilot pressed a button in the cabin if the helicopter was about to hit water, but on this occasion a malfunction caused the flotation equipment to inflate 1,000ft up in the air while the helicopter was over the North Sea. |
Originally Posted by Um... lifting...
(Post 6676017)
Silly of me, but maybe we ought to wait to see what the cause was before jumping to conclusions... oh, wait, this is PPRuNe... jumping to conclusions is how most of you get your exercise.:ugh:
I know that the GY fleet is AW139, but there is always the possibility of a spare non 139 airframe coming in from elsewhere. Does that meet your criteria? ;) |
It was a 139.....at 140 kts.
So much for all the flack I got a while back about this being impossible to happen. What can go wrong, will. At least now we know an inflation at this speed is survivable, thank god for that. |
Outwest
My recollection is that nobody said that it was impossible, just that it had never happened and as the operator is one who supports the idea of NOT arming the floats over water as a general rule I am guessing that they were switched OFF at the time. In which case there was either finger trouble or a manufacturing defect or some other screw-up because this IS the first such incident.
Nonetheless flight testing in this way is, as you say, rather unorthodox but welcome anyway. Does that mean that folk will now follow the FM recommendations and arm them over water? G. |
Not sure where you get your info, but this operator follows the RFM recommendation, "armed over water".
This was your quote Geoff: During the lifetime of this design of float system (which I believe is the same as that used on the Merlin and the Lynx) there have been no reported instances of inadvertent inflation in flight and the many many thousands of hours of their use whilst 'armed' testify I believe to a well designed and reliable system. |
This from Malabo:
The old 76 system is a fossil with the exposed inflate button instead of the guarded one on the 139. I sleep like a baby at night. This from Spinwing: Mmmm ... I do the same as malabo ..... I have no reason to doubt or need to 2nd think the RFM ..... |
Outwest
You have quoted me perfectly and I stand by what I said. Best we await the incident report methinks.
G. |
|
Outwest.
How can you post when you possibly don't know what actually happened for the floats to inflate. Either crew could have been messing with the guarded cyclic switch for all we know! :hmm: |
So just because we don't know the cause of the inflation I should not post the fact it happened????
:= |
Lowfat already posted it had happened. Sorry, I think you are just being smug!
I'm glad to see that there wasn't a problem after the inflation. Is there some other information that states they inflated at 140kts? |
No need to apologize....you have your opinion and I have mine ;)
If you re -read the OP they did not know the a/c type. What I posted is a fact, both the type and the speed. |
I wasn't apologising, quite the contrary! You are being smug. I'm sure you don't fly it and don't care too either. I understand that in the present climate!
The OP didn't know the type I agree but it had been posted since so we knew what aircraft had the incident! What I posted is a fact, both the type and the speed. |
You make a lot of assumptions and apparently can't read or should I say read what is not there. Not one post before mine stated that it was a 139, some speculated, but no one confirmed it until I did.
I am not at liberty to say how I know the speed, but you will just have to trust me when I say I posted facts. And btw, not that it really matters, but I am currently flying it...... |
as the operator is one who supports the idea of NOT arming the floats over water as a general rule I am guessing that they were switched OFF at the time |
The only assumption I made was that you are smug! You are! Not an assumption!
Think I'll go the way of most others and wait on the report! And yes you knew it was a 139. Well done...:cool: |
Outwest,
I still sleep like a baby. This incident simply demonstrates the ignorance of pilots second-guessing a manufacturer. This one had nothing to do with whether they were armed or not, and in any case the inflation was simply an inconvenience that required a return and normal landing. By flying without the floats armed, all the operator is doing here is giving away a safety net in the case of a CFIT or inadvertent ditching. Interesting your inference that a so-called high quality operator like CHC would have both an "armed" and "non-armed" over water policy in two different locations. How does that happen? Does every pilot make it up on his own in your company? |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 20:55. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.