Offshore Firefighting

[Arctic Tern]

I read the following question posted on another bulletin board http://rescuers.mywowbb.com/forum1/29.html and figured some of the SAR boys that visit pprune could answer.
Can anyone shed any light on what will happen in the future with transporting fire crews to vessels in trouble. Currently the military or the coastguard, using large Sea Kings or S61`s with a high payload and ample cabin space are used. It`s just that i hear that when CHC take over, if i`m correct, they will be using a smaller platform, which although has a higher range and speed performance will surely struggle with volume of numbers. Any feedback would be good.
Interesting point me thinks - will there be enough room in an AW139 to carry an offshore firefighting team and kit? ;)

[[email protected]]

Until 2012 the only area this will affect is the patch covered by Lee on Solent and Portland as that is where the 139s will go. Having said that, it is a big area with a lot of shipping so I hope that someone has thought about this as the transit time from Wattisham, Chivenor or Culdrose is rather long and you won't find any SH assets available as they are all in sandier climes.

[Max Contingency]

The Maritime Incident Response Groups have, to date, made one operational deployment. This was on 6 May to the MV Calypso (engine room fire).

The AB139 would have taken 2 lifts to achieve this task.

The S61 that actually flew them took (you guessed it) 2 lifts to achieve the task (performance limitations). :hmm:

[Dillon the dog]

The Maritime Incident Response Groups have, to date, made one operational deployment. This was on 6 May to the MV Calypso (engine room fire).

The AB139 would have taken 2 lifts to achieve this task.

The S61 that actually flew them took (you guessed it) 2 lifts to achieve the task (performance limitations).

Not quite correct, I suggest you look at the numbers actually carried. Max Con, I wonder if you enlighten us on the radius of action with the firemen on board, assuming they actually fit in?

Crab is right, Chivenor, Wattisham and Culdrose are in for a lot more action post July 07 if a ship catches fire offshore. Perhaps this is why SAR-H chose the AW 139:D

[Max Contingency]

It is my understanding that the 'Firefighting at Sea' Project chose the size of their MIRG teams primarily around the amount of payload that the S61/Sea King could offer them.

I don't think that our next generation of SAR aircraft should be designed as transport vehicles for MIRG teams that can also be used for SAR :=

A better strategy would be to chose a modern platform capable of SAR and have the MIRG teams adjust the size of their fighting unit to match.

All helicopters are a trade off but I personally think that the 139 is going to be a pretty capable ship. :cool: :cool:

[Dillon the dog]

Max con

If you think that the "Aw139 is going to be a pretty capable ship", perhaps you could enlighten us to the range payload etc. :confused:

DtD

[Max Contingency]

From the Augusta Westland website here is the 139 spec. It has more 'disposable' than an S61 and an ROA that makes it ideal to join Lee on Solent and Portland, both of which have the smallest areas of responsibility for SAR cabs in the UK. In most circumstances it will CLIMB away from an engine failure in the hover and it will have the following brand new SAR toys: TCAS, AIS, SATCOM, SATTRACK, FLIR (plus laser), TETRA, none of which presently exist in our S61s and all of which will greatly enhance our SAR capability. For these reasons, I stand by my statement that it should be a pretty capable ship.

Weights

Max take Off 6400 kg 14112 lb
Max Useful Load 2778 kg 6124 lb
Engine Rating (2 x Pratt & Whitney PT6C-67C)

Take Off 1252 kW 1679 SHP
Maximum continuous 1142 kW 1531 SHP
Transmission Rating

Take Off n.a. kW n.a. SHP
Max continuous n.a. kW n.a. SHP
Fuel Capacity

standard 1562 l 413 USG
Auxiliary 500 l 132 USG
Crew

Pilot / Passengers 1 / 15
External Dimensions

Length (rotors turning) 16,65 m 54,63 ft
Overall height 4,95 m 16,24 ft
Main rotor diameter 13,80 m 45,28 ft
Performance (At MTOW - ISA)

VNE 310 km/h 167 kts
Max cruise speed 290 km/h 157 kts
Rate of climb >10 m/s >2000 ft/min
Hovering IGE m 15660 ft
Hovering OGE >3600 m 12014 ft
Service ceiling m 19460 ft
Max Range 568 km NM
Max endurance 3 h 54 min

[fkelly]

So add in offshore spec [floats, dinghies to put it simply] winch system, winch crew, TI system, nightsun, all the other stuff needed for realistic SAR ops and what do the figures actually come out as?

And you can stand up in an S-61 or Sea King

[Dillon the dog]

Max Con

Well lets see if it lives up to the sales brochure, if it does it will be the first!

I think you might like to strike one thing off your list of brand new sar toys:

http://www.shephard.co.uk/rotorhub/Default.aspx?Action=745115149&ID=28895595-3471-4244-9114-f4fc44adef4b

It may be able to do lots of things and talk to the world....... except lift many survivors/deliver many firemen.

You said "A better strategy would be to chose a modern platform capable of SAR and have the MIRG teams adjust the size of their fighting unit to match". You might as well get SAR incidents to adjust the number of survivors to fit the aircraft at the same time.

DtD

[Max Contingency]

Nobody wanted to replace the Whirlwind with the S58/Wessex. Why? Because there was nothing wrong with them.

Nobody saw the need to change the S58/Wessex for the S61/Sea King for similar reasons.

However, if we tried to do what we do today in the Whirlwind, we wouldn't last 5 minutes.

Guys, if you want to live in the past can I suggest that you ask for Weston Super Mare as your next assignments. The rest of us can then get on with taking SAR forward. :ugh: :ugh:

[Arctic Tern]

Gents, thanks for your contributions - I think I got the answer I wanted. Bit a thorny topic me thinks. I tend to agree with Max Contingency, SAR has to move forward and the MIRG should adjust their plans accordingly. In other words, if it doesn't fit in an AW139, then don't take it.
With respect to the AW139, I think there are a few more important factors to consider. As ever there will be teething problems, and if I am a betting man there will need to be some serious modifications to traditional hoisting SOPs once the crews have got used to the platform. I remember the Candians having all sorts of problems with the position and fleet angle on their hoist when the Comorant was introduced. Sadly, this is one area that consistently fails to attract a rigorous operational test requirement before release to service. In any event, good luck with the both the AW139 and the S92.

[[email protected]]

Dillon, the article you referred to regarding lasers is bureaucratic overkill - the wescam will not present a threat to the passengers or crew as it will be mounted such that it can see beneath the aircraft and not back into it. The only risk is to other aircraft (unlikely unless in multi asset search) and persons on the ground. The need for a laser or other boresight marker became apparent when we started doing FLIR searches - the problem is identifying the casualty location to the pilot when he is on NVG using visual references ahead (ground markers, horizon etc) and the casualty is outside his FoV or in featureless terrain with few markers to talk his eyes onto.

[malabo]

Hey, can't anybody answer fkelly's question of operational weight?

Manufacturer's empty weight claims are always have an air of unreality about them. 139 Gross is 6400 kilo, empty SAR version is probably around 4300KG, add in two pilots, winchman, swimmer, you gotta be at 4700 kg. Fuel burn is 450kg per hour. Load up with 3 hours of fuel and you've got a mission range with reserves of about 150nm. Seems to me the useful load is only 400kg, not Mr. Optimistic's 2778kg.

Anybody care to provide better numbers based on operational experience and not a factory brochure?

Malabo