That kind of statement begs for a list of names.

:suspect:

I wouldn't bother waiting for one. You only have to see who made the statement in the first place. :rolleyes:

:ugh::confused: maybe just an opinion

Apologies, Maddam, but my comment wasn't directed at you.

Unless you also happen to work at Bell... :suspect:

:ok::ok:

I'm anti-Bell lol

No worries Bravo73 :)

The 412 is what a lot of 139 operators are going to for EMS.


AAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA. Thank you Sultan, I needed a good laugh today.

And what s Bell going to do, "paint it a different color", just lke for the LUH competition?

AAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!! ROFLMAO

You mean you haven't heard of the Bell 139 EP?

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-R...Bell+139EP.png

;)

While we are on the matter .. is there anyone Down Under who can relay what sort of experience the Ambulane Service of New South Wales is having with theirs? Are they pleased or exasperated?

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-o.../ASNSW+139.png

Yes Savoia, I have heard of the latest Huey variant.:E

I understand they have calendars in the cockpit rather than the customary stopclocks.

Horses for courses...Probably like a few people, I am currently flying both.

Yep, for an IFR hospital transfer or winching somebody out of the water at night via a MOT I will take a 139....for a primary response day/night or winching somebody out of an awkard spot on goggles, or plonking it into the dust, I personally would take a 412 EP...each to their own I guess.

Whats the the new 412 EPI like...more power, glass?

Cheers

I read an article about the EPI. It seems it will increase the HOGE performance by more than 600 kg :eek: and the avionics will be a glass cokpit type.

Avalability
 

Guys,maintenance is maintenance ! It does not matter which organization you are working for,we still follow what is required by Agusta. And when you have a specific budget who won't increase just because you are running a 139,you have to stick with it.
We have been doing EMS for 20 years.
Yes we have now this private company who took over our system who do not know aviation , and it is part of our problem, but it does not change the fact that parts are no available and the service from Agusta is not great even after buying 12 aircrafts:mad:
So,if you have big money available,the 139 is good, for us, it is not the case.
I agree that on the pilot side,it is great,avionics,IFR,autopilot,but for the operator,it is a different story.
All our machines have FIPS,and this system never worked.The tail rotor slip ring has been failing from the start,even after modification from Agusta,it is still failing and after 2 years of operation, we are not able to use it. I know there a very little number of operators who need the FIPS and, as a result, it is not a big deal for Agusta.
Not like I miss flying in ice,because I believe we will get in situation we won't like,but from the operation side,it is not good.
Just the reality.....

Hold on there Arcal.

YOUR company decided to disable the FIPS system. Agusta have come out with a lot of updates to the system that are being supplied to FIPS Customers.

If you want to talk about using FIPS, talk to Era, they have been very successful with FIPS in Alaska because they could be bothered to work through the issues and get the system reliability improved. Give them a call. They'll tell you exactly how they feel about FIPS now. Good and bad!

FIPS is heavy, expensive, and labour intensive. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be an easier way of deicing the blades.

Maintenance is not maintenance. Maintenance is a combination of parts, personnel, and experience. Most of your bases don't have stores people, they rely on mechanics to do it, when they should be out working on the aircraft. Most of your parts are kept in a central location, where there isn't even an aircraft based, instead of being at your heavy maintenance bases!

I also understand you have a dedicated Tech Rep who is onsite everyday. Most 139 operators, including all the ones that I have worked for, do not have that luxury.

I understand your frustration with the 139, but I still think most of it is internally generated, especially when I talk to other 139 operators and people within my own company. None of them seem to be having the same "issues" that you describe, or if they do, not to the same extent.

Perhaps I'm missing something. I find the 139 to be very reliable, even more so when you consider the amount of stuff that most of us choose to install on it!!

I am reading this and everyone here has valid points. CHL ran this EMS for 35 years very succesfully in fact I recall people from US based EMS services looking at this as a model to be followed. Unfortunately it is now a pseudo EMS political organisation being run by doctors, lawyers, buerocrats and people from failed airlines. It has evolved into an organisation were a secretary in finance can trump a decision made by an Ops manager. The 139 is a fine platform for Ifr and landing on flat solid surfaces like helidecks and pads. Over 95% of our flying is VFRand much is first response. It is not suited to landing in 3 ft of snow,swampy ground, confined areas or rugged terrain which is were we are required to land frequently. Many of the suggestions being made have been made over and over but management wont listen because they know better than the people who have actually done the job for 20 yrs. Until the operational decisions are made by people with helicopter experience it will continue as it is (unfortunatly)

Hello my friends pilots AW 139. I would like to take a course with you.

During navigation, the page "PROGRESS" 1/3 displays an information fuel, for example, 0.6 or 0.5 (as photo) and so forth. I wonder what it is that information, I looked around the manual flight crew and there is no such explanation.

http://s24.postimg.org/8qf9y1n1x/foto.jpg

Someone could tell me?

I apologise for the low quality photo.

The display shows your estimated fuel in KG at each leg of your flightplan at your current groundspeed and fuel flow. e.g 0.5 = anything between 501 and 599 kg.

nobby your quote
"If you want to talk about using FIPS, talk to Era, they have been very successful with FIPS in Alaska because they could be bothered to work through the issues and get the system reliability improved. Give them a call. They'll tell you exactly how they feel about FIPS now. Good and bad!

I would suggest that the system is\was less than sorted, why should the CUSTOMER have to work through\sort manufacturing defects, he paid for a working system.
There may be inherent problems with Arkels organisation, but if there are in built problems the manufacturer should pick up all the tab

Thanks a lot!

:ok:

If you want to see a more accurate fuel estimation then use the following key strokes on the MCDU:

NAV - NAV IDENT - MAINTENANCE - NEXT - SETUP - ENGR DATA - FPL WPTS - NEXT (with arrow key next to it).

By then pressing the NEXT/PREV keys the cursor will move through the stored flight plan route and show fuel to the nearest KG at each waypoint and destination.

Remember that it only calculates on current groundspeed for the entire route.

McFly & fuel
 

Phase 5 and later software will give the progress page fuel in kgs not tonnes and decimals of....which as pointed out can be almost 100kgs different from the actual.

The process outlined by Adroight is the only other way to get a figure without the later phase software.

But as mentioned the system is so useless that it can't work out leg tracks Vs the expected G/S based on the TAS you are currently on and calculate the end fuel for each leg and the whole trip.:ugh: Unlike practically every hand held SATNAV system for the last 2 decades.:ok: