Civilian SAR Aircraft [Archive]

NickLappos

23rd Jun 2007, 15:53

Mr Toad,

The latest FAR/JAR have very stringent rules on lightning strike protection. It is my belief that these regs protect the 92 and the 139 to an extent not possible with earlier aircraft.

BTW there is nothing especially significant about Ti for lightning strikes, any more than aluminum or steel. The issue with metals is allowing the charge to run along a clean electrical path, rather than having it jump as a spark between two areas, which creates a pit. This pit then creates a stress riser that allows a crack to form and grow. The S92 has many bonding paths and jumpers to allow the charge to run happily without sparking. Also, modern criteria for fatigue life require that these pits cannot form cracks (called "flaw tolerance"). I believe the charge size and conductance for modern helos (latest FAR/JAR) are considerable better than older regs, so the chances for a pit are far lower.

The issue with composites is the charge buildup during the strike that causes them to explode or shatter.

Whirlygig

23rd Jun 2007, 15:58

Ah no ShyT, there's no need to go off in low dudgeon just 'cos someone decided to burn my bra for me (I'm a girl so totally unreliable with all things pyrotechnic!! :}).

There might be many reasons why some women would jump on you but sexism isn't one of them! :p:O

Cheers

Whirls

Mr Toad

24th Jun 2007, 02:29

Titanium
--------

Thanks Nick; I wish the 92 well and hope she will be a fitting successor to the 61 which has a distinguished SAR history.

Good luck to all those involved in SAR work, civil or military.

[email protected]

24th Jun 2007, 06:54

Can anyone elaborate on the lighting fit for the SAR 92? Does it have steerable spotlights (other than the nitesun) for the pilots and does it have hover/flood lights in the sponsons to illuminate the winching area?

And before anyone starts, there is no hidden agenda or 'my dad's bigger' etc - I am just asking a question.

Dan Reno

24th Jun 2007, 08:34

Ideally, the Nitesun would sit where the FLIR is mounted but instead will have to take the next best position available according to the mfg and customer's wants. A Sikorsky marketing type once told me that they first would put any device, including a popcorn machine, where they thought it best for the customer but in the end, "Would put whatever the customer wants, where he wants it."

ShyTorque

24th Jun 2007, 08:42

UL,

Thanks for the explanation about Nightsun ops, but after 20 years of flying aircraft fitted with it and teaching it's use to others on four different types of helicopter, I do already know it gets hot and might get broken. However, if the beam can't reach the field of view of the pilot, it's not much use. This is the case on two Sikorsky types that I have operated and I asked a genuine question, based on operational experience.

As regarding reading posts properly, chilling out, time taken to vent spleen etc; I suggest you do the same, your reply was a lot longer than mine.

pinho_fap

24th Jun 2007, 10:38

Regarding the Nitesun,

the PoAF Merlin has the Nitesun on the starbord side, meaning, on the pilot's side, and we have the ability to give control of the beam to the systems operator, who puts his head out the bubble window, and just follows the pilot's directions. It's the best compromise we could find. Having the non-flying pilot operate it is near to impossible, and having it on the opposite side of the flying pilot doesn't sound like a good idea to me...

ShyTorque

24th Jun 2007, 11:22

pinho,
Exactly my point, thanks.

I was also used to operating Nightsun myself whilst flying the aircraft. It's safer that way if using it for SAR work.The light is so bright that in very dark conditions, objects illuminated by it can become the only visual cues for the pilot to hover by. Having another crew member suddenly move it away from the pilot's field of view with no warning can leave him with no visual reference and no night vision. It once happened to me having winched off a boat one very dark night - the Winch Op inexplicably moved the Nightsun in the transition at 50 feet over the sea and then switched it off. The sudden movement gave me the impression the aircraft was rapidly spinning, followed by complete darkness and no visible horizon. I think we were lucky not to hit the water.

Rescue1

24th Jun 2007, 11:25

Does anyone have any Pictures of the rear interior of MU please

Thanks in advance
R1

pinho_fap

24th Jun 2007, 19:26

Shytorque,

we are operational for one year now, and we are still learning and adjusting procedures. We currently don't use the Nitesun for winching Ops as a standard procedure, we use the landing lights. I suppose the first operational pilots just applied what they did in the Pumas, but it doesn't make much sense to have Nitesun and not to use it in winching Ops at night. You have a very good point about the heat coming out of the beam, and as a matter of fact I'll talk about this in the Squadron tomorrow.

Aser

24th Jun 2007, 21:25

Any picture of the 139 in SAR configuration?

Torque Split

25th Jun 2007, 11:16

Good to see so much activity on the string.

I use the Night Sun II on a smaller platform, and we have keep out arcs programmed in to prevent burning. Does that not happen in the 92/101?

How many 92's is CHC buying and are they new? How long is the CHC contract?

Does anyone out there know anything about SAR harmonisation in the UK?

steve_oc

25th Jun 2007, 12:24

There are two fixed landing lights in the nose and one standard swivel landing/searchlight below about theRH pilot's feet. In addition for SAR there are two fixed floods below the fuselage pointing down, plus a spotlight mounted on the hoist bracket and controllable by the winch operator. There are also two white "logo" lights, one either side of the IGB fairing, pointing up at the tail rotor.

cougar77

25th Jun 2007, 12:32

From what i gather, you guys are not NVG equipped.

If NVG's is in the pipeline, when would it happen as i am aware that some civil SAR/EMS are already on NVG's.

[email protected]

25th Jun 2007, 18:40

Steve oc, thanks, that what was I was after - sounds like someone got the design right first time. The logo lights are a top idea for illuminating the TR without having to use the hoist light like we do.

I guess the nitesun would be useful if your hover references are a long way off but our landing lamps and hover floods seem to be adequate for most winching scenarios.

pinho_fap

25th Jun 2007, 19:30

Exactly the same as we have found in Portugal with the Merlin, use of the Nitesun during winching Ops is difficult, because:
1. The captain is flying the a/c
2. The co-pilot is maintaining his/her eyes on the instruments, ready to take over the flight commands if the pilot gets spacial desorientation
3. The systems operator is busy working the winch

No one left to operate the thing, it's easier if the flying pilot uses his landing lamp to illuminate his visual references on the vessel...

bobsaget123

26th Jun 2007, 02:17

The UK MCA contract called for NVG use only by the non-flying crew.

[email protected]

26th Jun 2007, 05:49

Which is complete waste of time and more dangerous than not having NVG at all. This was tried in the early days of NVG - the person who needs to use goggles is the one who needs to see where he is going - ie the one flying the aircraft.

I am sure that eventually the contract will include full NVG ops, it just requires a change of attitude from regulators and penny-pinchers.

cougar77

26th Jun 2007, 07:12

I was just wondering how then does the non-flying crew cope with NVG's with the lightings provided by the nice aircraft. I would guess that they will just de-goggle then.

I fully agree with what Crab has said.

I would assume that the 92's interior lightings are NVG compatible to cater for the eventual full NVG ops. Also, provisions for IR landing lights too.

SARREMF

29th Jun 2007, 05:07

Is it me or does it look like a Basset Hound?

Actually all it needs is big eye lashes - a lady basset hound Shy Torque!..... think I have been out here too long!

Not in UK at present!

look up google images basset hound I tell you I bet the designer has one as a pet!

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, ENTERING STAGE LEFT

The new CG Basset Hound. low slung Cute nose! Sniffs out survivors throughout the UK.

Ok I'll go to bed and sober up! Bye.

SARREMF

29th Jun 2007, 05:12

On a sober note

SAR-H calls for NVG throughout the crew.

[email protected]

29th Jun 2007, 07:16

However - since the phrase 'no less capability' which was trumpeted by SAR H as a guarantee of quality now seems up for 'interpretation' and discussion - we do still run the risk of getting royally scr*w*d and losing capability to the bean counters.

Add to this that the Police, who have primacy for overland SAR (which accounts for 51% of our SARops), have not been included in any dialogue or any stage of the SAR H process!

Then factor in the lack of surge/concurrent ops plans other than some braod brush and meaningless platitudes. All of the major incidents in the last 20 years have required the use of the second standby aircraft and crews from both RN and RAF SAR flights.

Then consider the ridiculous notion that 66 military aircrew will be a sustainable number to man the Falklands, provide SAR cover at 1 or 2 flts and give up 15 people a year back to the SH force (how many do they think will do a tour SAR and leave for the CG jobs?) plus providing manpower for the ARCC (or son of), SARTU (or son of) training, standards management etc etc etc.

Now if this sound like I am having a go at SAR H then I must say in their defence that they have had to play the hand they have been dealt, especially with military manning and only intervention from the highest levels in MoD will change this.

Oh and by the way, military crews have a lower capitation rate (salary plus pension) than the pay scales presently existing in the civil sector for SAR.
The new S92's and 139s are sexy machines but they cannot match the present capability of the Mk3 and 3A Sea Kings for SAR (esp night and IMC),so much work will need to be done before the new contract is let.
So will SAR H work, I hope so but I am not holding my breath.......

The cabinet office needs to get a grip of the whole shebang and devise a policy for SAR/aid to the civilian community/ resilience ops etc and include the Police and Air ambulance and Fire service community or we will get to 2012 and still have a fragmented, disorganised, patchily funded and poorly legislated SAR/EMS setup.

The police in Sheffield were somewhat delighted when a SAR winchman wandered into their Gold control room to act as liaison 'Thank God - someone who speaks helicopter". They gave him a radio (and stole his map:)) and he ran the tasking for 3 Sea Kings - what would have happened without him? The police had no idea of the capabilities of the helicopters were and had never trained to use them. Joined up response? I don't think so.

SARCO

29th Jun 2007, 08:02

You know something Crab, you are right. I'm not being sarcastic or anything you have really valid points there, you are correct about inland primacy the so-called 'Polsa' who requires a radio to talk to the a/c. I may be sticking my head above the parapet here but maybe there is a valid reason for the police not being involved. Perhaps inland SAR will be handed over to the agencies that can actually be effective the MOD and MCA.

Who knows

cyclic

29th Jun 2007, 08:07

The police in Sheffield were somewhat delighted when a SAR winchman wandered into their Gold control room to act as liaison 'Thank God - someone who speaks helicopter". They gave him a radio (and stole his map) and he ran the tasking for 3 Sea Kings - what would have happened without him? The police had no idea of the capabilities of the helicopters were and had never trained to use them. Joined up response? I don't think so.

Isn't this the best outcome though? We can't expect the police to know about everyone's jobs and placing an expert in a command centre is the best way forward.

As for the capability of the S92/139, let's wait and see. Please don't start:=

Heliport

29th Jun 2007, 08:07

Interesting thread. :ok:

BTW, women SAR pilots?
See post 3189: Rotorheads Around the World (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?p=3382433#post3382433)

H

[email protected]

29th Jun 2007, 08:57

cyclic - it may well be the best way forward but the problem is there is no framework for it to happen, milsar is not included in the home office plans other than being just another asset, we are not seen as either class 1 or 2 responders which is crazy. The SARF has led on the concept of putting a liaison officer into the Silver or Gold controls but not because we were asked to and certainly not because we were told to by government - we recognised the need because there was no top down planning or govt overview that would have otherwise included us. The UK response to a major incident shouldn't be haphazard and unplanned but it will be until command and control of all the assets is formally brought together - only the home office and the cabinet office can make this so.

As for S92, I am not after another p8ssing contest just stating that PRESENT capability (not what could be fitted to the aircraft at a future date) is not the same. Therefore the SARH must ensure that blurring of real and perceived capabilities by those who don't fully understand them is not allowed to occur, because once things are gone they will never be replaced.

SARREMF

29th Jun 2007, 10:12

Yeah, but seriously, it does look like a Basset Hound.

SARREMF

29th Jun 2007, 10:18

On a really serious note, I will feed that back in about Gold control and the use of helicopters. Might just have a way forward with that one.

Of course fitting all the SAR-H aircraft with Tetra would help.

Expanding SAR-H to cover all the other areas that we all know need covering as Crabb points out is the right way forward. However, give the SAR-H team credit, they did try that and had to step back as it became just too complex and territorial. What they then did was withdraw the competition to something that could be contracted for and more importantly delivered in the timescales required.

Interestingly, I am over in another country talking about co-ordinating exactly as Crabb highlighted. Same problems the SAR-H team had. However, other countries have done it - police,fire, air ambulance coast guard and SAR all under one service. Now you have to guess the country.

steve_oc

29th Jun 2007, 12:10

The interim SAR S92 config has NVG-compatible cabin lighting. The SAR-H spec includes full NVG compatibility.

The interim spec also includes Tetra for both the S92 and AW139.

zalt

29th Jun 2007, 12:41

POLSA = Police Search Aware / Advisor??

[email protected]

29th Jun 2007, 14:07

zalt - advisor

steve oc - just need the CAA to come on board and the contractors to create realistic, sustainable training plans for NVG ops. But what about letdowns to rigs, boats and cliffs in zero visibility (OK then less than 100m)

We may get a Tetra fit in the next year or 2 as well but at the Cumbria rail crash the network saturated as all the users on scene tried to talk at once. It would be very nice to be able to talk direct to the Police on scene (we've only been asking for it for 20 years or so:)

SARREMF - it is definitely achievable but will only happen with direct govt involvment and direction.

SARCO

29th Jun 2007, 19:33

Now this thread is going somewhere :ok:

I am curious about the Airwave fit, would that not be expensive to have a digital (for police,fire,ambulance comms) and analogue (for CG,MRT,Shipping and ATC)?

One interesting thing I am aware of the new S92 will not have HF fitted to it and will instead have a Satfone system similar to the BP helicopters. I think this may be a hiccup for coordination purposes as ARCC/MRCC's will still require to communicate with helo's on HF for Ops Norms and long range jobs over the oggin, also you can't coordinate jobs if no one is listening to you.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

cyclic

29th Jun 2007, 20:35

SARCO

Not wishing to be picky but BP don't actually have any helicopters. The helicopters belong to Bond and are on contract to BP; it's a very long contract but there is always a distinction between ownership and contract.

The Bond L2s have both a sat phone and HF. I wouldn't want to be a long way out to sea and have to rely on phoning my Mayday call in - I can't believe they are not HF fitted. What speed dial is it for Oh my God.....

Helinut

29th Jun 2007, 20:46

The issue you are talking about certainly is fragmented. It is part of completely patchwork provision of aviation support to the emergency services in the UK.

No one seems to have mentioned police helicopters in connection with inland SAR (or at least the search part). A couple of observations:

Police helicopters are part of the police's provision for onshore SAR and spend an enormous amount of their time doing onland searches for various categories of people that the police want to find - very many of these are NOT criminals. There is much variation between forces and ASUs as to how they go about that - there is much variation in the way individual forces and ASUs operate.

Even though ASUs are part of the police, the problem of the lack of knowledge of police commanders about helicopter ops is common for us too. Sometimes they do not seem to want to know about helicopter issues. A very few ASUs place ASU personnel in C&C setups, which works well when it is done, but only the minority.

Historically, police ASUs have been pressed to stay out of the rescue element of SAR in any cases where winching would be the preferable method. There are a couple of cases where pilots involved have been warned when in extremis, they have used non-approved measures to rescue a person. However, at least one ASU, the Met, have apparently been provided with winches to hang off their shiny new EC145s. Presumably, the taxpayers' money has not been used simply for them to be expensive ornaments, although I do not believe there has been any indication of how they are planned to be used so far.

Incidentally, most police helicopters in coastal areas have both Tetra/Airwave and Marine VHF to talk to the CG. It does require separate systems, but it seems to be done without too much trouble. I won't expand on it here but the airborne use of Tetra is a nightmare and it is currently a horribly unreliable comms system.

We also have various little projects where helicopters have been trialled for use by fire and rescue services, but to date no permanent dedicated provision is provided for them. In some areas, police regularly provide assistance to fire services - in other areas such cross-service assistance is rare or non-existent. I am not sure that it would be possible to generate a satisfactory case for full-time separate air support for the F&R.

We also need to acknowledge the HEMS and air ambulance roles and the ad-hoc way that this also essential helicopter service is currently provided (or indeed NOT provided in some cases).

Helicopters are an expensive resource and even though many emergency service helicopters fly more than many commercial equivalents, they can fly more. My feeling is that the whole issue should be considered as a whole - holistically if you like that word.

There are some moves to gently nudge us away from the current piecemeal approach. The noises from the Home Office "centre" are towards regionalisation of police aviation and even a National Police Air Wing. I suspect there would be much objection to that from the individual Chief Officers, if it ever happens at all. In a similar way, cross-department joint use of heles is fraught with problems. Even in cases where it has happened successfully in the past (there are some really good examples of joint Police/HEMS heles in rural areas), they are now threatened by moves to separate and provide a worse service using more aircraft at greater cost.

UK-wide multi-use emergency service helicopter support seems like the obvious answer to me. It would involve different helicopters with differing sizes and capabilities, working across the emergency services. I doubt that there is the desire for such a system to occur amongst the decision-makers, despite the effectiveness and financial benefits which could be achieved. It would need different government departments at national and local level to work together and combine budgets.

[email protected]

29th Jun 2007, 20:48

SARCO, it's just another box in the aircraft and another aerial on the tail, that fact it is digital instead of analogue doesn't really matter, it will just be routed through the station box. The Mk3A already has 3 multiband radios - it's about time this fit was added to the Mk 3s as well. Are you sure that the 92 won't have HF? Since the ARCC have operational control of the CG helos it seems odd that this has slipped through the net.

I know their sat tracker isn't compatible with the RCS - again we are expecting to have one fitted (RCS compatible though) in the near future.

Helinut - absolutely right on all counts:)

332mistress

29th Jun 2007, 21:27

Cyclic

I don't want to be picky either;) but I think you'll find that bp have a large interest in Bond's L2s having financed the set up of what is known, in Aberdeen, as Air BP as it flies almost only for bp. The present JIGSAW set up is a much smaller operation than was originally proposed and financed by bp.

332M

cyclic

29th Jun 2007, 21:32

They have a large interest - yes. Do they own the aircraft - no. Do Bond fly for other companies other than BP - yes. Don't want to go off thread so I'll leave it there.

Sven Sixtoo

29th Jun 2007, 22:43

Helinut

I am technically involved in trying to get TETRA / Airwave comms on the UK mil SAR Fleet. Please PM me with the problems - I really need to know before we propose to spend taxpayers money..

SARCO - multiple radio systems ain't difficult, it just costs money and there isn't any - unless the new govt realises that integrated c2/3/4 is the way to go and coughs up - not likely IMHO seeing as Des is now double-hatted - MoD obviously not flavour of the month.

Sven

Night Watchman

30th Jun 2007, 09:58

The new CG S92's will have the ability to speak direct to the police and ambulence crews on the encrypted frequencies used by them.

Helinut

30th Jun 2007, 13:47

Night Watchman,
If that's true it will be more than the police helicopters fitted with Airwave can do most of the time. :mad::(

SARCO

30th Jun 2007, 20:07

Night Watchman regarding airwave that is an interesting development.

Crab I have it on good authority that the 92 does not have HF fitted which I agree is very strange when the CG has operational control of the CG helo's when on task it has been known for the Northern stations to use HF to maintain contact with them due to the distances involved and the dog leg that is sometimes generated between the Helo, ARCC and MRCC.

The AIS transponders will be an interesting development also. As you know it will enable the MRCC's to see where the helo's are in real time, eventually as you say the Mil SAR fleet should have them and the ARCC or JRCC will eventually have the softyware to track them also.

Cyclic, yes Bond fly for other companies but the JIGSAW aircraft were heavily financed by BP as were the RSV's and the ARRC's so are contracted to fly for them only. They have carried out SAR missions to other platforms owned by other companies on a large number of occasions when tasked by the ARCC/MRCC or Jigco but are still tied to BP.

[email protected]

30th Jun 2007, 20:28

SARCO - whilst the CG can scramble a CG SAR helo within 30 miles of its (the CG unit's) location - the ARCCK has operational control of all SAR helo assets and theoretically, any job outside that 30 nm radius must be activated through ARCC.

The AIS transponder is a different piece of kit to the sat tracker but you are correct in that it gives visibility of the helos location to the MRCCs. The sat tracker will only give a feed to the ARRC and their RCS although there is a plan to make the RCS available to other users (MRCCs, ambulance and police control rooms etc) through the internet with password access - this will require the IT to work so probably won't be quick or cheap!!!!

Helinut - is it a weakness in the Airwave system or the aircraft installation that is causing the problems?

cyclic

30th Jun 2007, 21:07

SARCO

I wasn't referring to the Jigsaw assets as it is obvious that Jigsaw is a BP contract only even though both aircraft's ownership has nothing to do with BP. Who lent who money is anyone's guess and why the heck should it matter? Why is it that so many of you are still so down on what Bond have achieved? They have proved the concept and saved lives offshore. This is a good thing for everyone in the industry. No more thread creep please.

zalt

1st Jul 2007, 11:34

So how are the Bond aircraft tasked? Is it through some kind of BP emergency control centre?

I understand the oil company funded SAR operation in Den Helder is tasked through the Dutch Coastguard who are free to task it themselves.

cyclic

1st Jul 2007, 12:27

shetlander

1st Jul 2007, 15:17

The Jigsaw aircraft are tasked by the Jigsaw Controller who controls all the Jigsaw assets both marine and aviation. He has to maintain the required readiness states and response times for the Jigsaw regions.

Hi there,

I might be wrong but I am pretty sure the Jigsaw Helicopter based at Sumburgh can be tasked by Shetland Coastguard aswell.

I have heard on many occasions Shetland Coastguard asking the Jigsaw Helicopter to assist them or even re-task them to incidents.

For example:
Shetland Coastguard tasked the Jigsaw Helicopter to help out with the Bourbon Dolphin incident after it capsized 75 miles north west of Shetland.

So maybe the MRCC and the Jigsaw Controller Liase with each other. But it is the MRCC and the ARCC that has overall command of the air assets responding to an incident.

Cheers!
Shetlander:cool:

zalt

1st Jul 2007, 16:28

Cyclic

Can you expand? Are the Jigsaw Controllers BP? If so where are they based?

cyclic

1st Jul 2007, 16:39

I don't want to turn this into a Jigsaw thread but the Jigsaw controllers work for BP. They have a close liaison with the CG and ARCC and are asked by both agencies to help out on occasion. At the end of the day it is BP's call where and when their assets are used but they have helped out on several occasions already.

jonnyloove

2nd Jul 2007, 10:12

The jigsaw controler is called the JIGCO they are based in the BP offices in Dcye aberden and control all bp jigsaw assets including the helis and ARRC on the reginoal support vessels as for the pecking order Kinloss contact the jigco and ask if there cabs are availble for use all taskings for jigsaw aircraft come through dyce come through the jigco hope this clears it up.

SARowl

2nd Jul 2007, 14:35

The MCA may be pondering this one, but on Saturaday evening - 30 June - the venerable old S61 from Lee on Solent picked up 14 survivors from a capsized yacht. The 61's are due to be replaced by the AW139 as of 1st Jan 08, max capacity 8?:ugh:

[email protected]

2nd Jul 2007, 18:25

That's OK they could just call in the second standby crew.............

Oh dear...........

mustfly1

2nd Jul 2007, 18:57

Crab,
oh to have the money the RAF seems to squander, then maybe EVERY eventuality could be covered.
Now why was it harmonisation is being introduced?, oh yes, COST. :ugh:

Rescue1

2nd Jul 2007, 22:37

Now that would be a novelty Crab

Calling in a second standby crew to find a second serviceable Sea King sitting in the hanger.:eek:

Saint Evil

2nd Jul 2007, 23:42

It may be tricky to find many serviceable Sea Kings for a surge capability but it seemed to work for Sheffield and Grayrig. Sometimes they even generate crews who aren't on standby(see Selby rail crash).
Been in SAR for a few years now, and been called in on a number of occaisions, even when not on standby to add flexibility(KEY TO AIR POWER).
Is SAR(H) going to provide us with the ability to generate extra aircraft? Is it going to allow us to generate a SARLO(or HEL-LO as the new term is), as Sheffield proved people need someone who can speak helicopter. Cyclic is right - the police can't be experts in everything, but they can at least recognise when an expert arrives and then defer to their experience.
The next few years are critical for Public Service Aviation(SAR/Police/Air Amb/MCA etc). We don't do this for the government or even the RAF/RN or MCA - we do it for the people of this country who demand and expect a good service. They won't pay for it as it will cost, but if the Govt can get a grip then maybe, just maybe we can stop squandering money and get a good direction in which to proceed or we can continue to march down this incohesive(is that a word?) path that we currently tread.
As always we have good and brave people on the shop floor but it is the higher echelons(which include The Govt, MOD, RAF, SARF, MCA etc) to get a grip and stop scoring points off each other and make a Rescue Service that the British People deserve - or do our lords and masters think so little of them that they have the rescue service they deserve? I leave that one to you.
I personally am immensely proud of what I and many others have achieved during my time on SAR and I shall be sorry to go(I do this for personal reasons - I'm not bitter or anything like that). My respect and admiration for those who stay and continue to carry on. I wish you all the best of luck for the next few years.
Saint Evil signing off.:D

[email protected]

3rd Jul 2007, 08:25

Mustfly - you still don't understand, you can have a cheaper service - it just won't be as capable, you decide.

Rescue 1 - sometimes you can even find a serviceable 2nds cab at Lec:)

Saint Evil puts it very eloquently - SARH could be the answer but not without some serious modification to its present direction.

3D CAM

3rd Jul 2007, 08:59

Crab.
Please change your tune, it is becoming boring! Nothing you, me or anyone else who posts on here, say will make an iota of difference to the end result. We all in civil SAR wish we had the resources that are at your disposal, crews, aircraft, equipment etc. but this is the real world and no amount of shouting or tantrum throwing has any effect.( Both methods have been tried.) You are not the only ones with serviceability problems, but at least you are told when we are off line, we never know when you are!!! That goes for the South Coast at least.
The bean counters will have the last word/laugh on this. Afterall, they are shiny arses, who in the main, have no idea of what is involved in SAR other than a quick famil. visit to maybe one unit!!!
Saint Evil.
Very well said!
Good luck with your chosen path.

[email protected]

3rd Jul 2007, 11:21

3Dcam - until the contract for 2012 is actually let, there are no certainties (apart from death, taxes and nurses:)) so I won't change my tune - you never know who is reading this stuff.

There is a very real opportunity to create a proper, integrated, well funded and resourced SAR structure for UK and just sitting back and letting the bean counters win is not an option as far as I am concerned.

If you don't presently have access to the RCS then you should in the near future as it becomes available on the internet - all the serviceability info is there for all to see.

Sailor Vee

3rd Jul 2007, 16:49

There is a very real opportunity to create a proper, integrated, well funded and resourced SAR structureWhich planet are you on? The politicians will ALWAYS hold sway, we at the sharp end are NEVER asked how the services we provide could be improved.:{

[email protected]

3rd Jul 2007, 18:37

That is why every opportunity should be taken to influence the politicians decisions, especially since the present bunch are so sensitive to press criticism.

Dripping about it in the crewroom won't help but lots of journos read these pages - there were people from the cabinet office at last weeks SARF conference who listened to exactly the arguments I have reproduced here.

Whether or not anything gets done is another thing but in the present climate, when homeland security (resilience) cannot be divorced from emergency service response - there has bever been a better time to change things for the better.

SARowl

4th Jul 2007, 11:42

That's OK they could just call in the second standby crew.............

Oh dear...........

What's the response time from a cab being on scene, realising that another aircraft is required, getting the standby crew in, briefing, re/de-fuel, until finally getting airborne?

cyclic

4th Jul 2007, 12:30

The Second crew is on 60mins standby, so that is 60mins from call to airborne. It used to be a frequent occurrence at the busier bases.

Sven Sixtoo

4th Jul 2007, 12:55

And quite regularly the ARCC will spot that you are going to need more than one asset without being prompted. Quite a few of the controller are experienced ex-SAR aircrew, and even without the been'n'done it experience, it's their job to make that kind of decision.

Sven

[email protected]

4th Jul 2007, 19:15

SarOwl - as cyclic and sven have said, RS 60 means what it says.

3D CAM

4th Jul 2007, 21:26

Crab.
Surely your second standby, RS60, is there to back you up when you have to pick up downed military crews... Your main raison d'etre!?:) (if that is spelt wrong sorry, I am Yorkshire not French.)

[email protected]

5th Jul 2007, 07:40

3D - the first standby would do the ejectee(s) - that is what it is theoretically there for and hence the RS15 - the seconds aircraft is for just about anything but was originally set up to continue the fast jet cover if the 1sts aircraft ended up away from base on a longranger or similar. Practically though, the seconds aircraft comes into its own for major incidents, providing a surge capability and the ability to deal with concurrent Sarops.

At the time of the July bombings (24/7), the RAF SARF generated 12 serviceable and ready to go aircraft and crews within 2 hours - fortunately they were not needed but that was 12 fully SAR capable crews just from the 6 RAF flights. Is anyone else going to provide that capability???????

3D CAM

5th Jul 2007, 08:26

Crab.
Thanks for that, I was already aware of that but maybe some people on here were not.
With respect to your statement of 12 serviceable aircraft within 2hrs on 24/7, you must be saying then that your six bases are not always capable of providing a second standby/ crews??:confused:

[email protected]

5th Jul 2007, 10:20

3D - we are always (except in exceptional circumstances) able to provide 2nd standby crews but it is sometimes the serviceability of the dear old Sea Queen that lets us down on the aircraft front. 24/7 just came at a time when all the SK fleet was 'S'.

The main difference in surge capability between civvy and military SAR (or anything for that matter) is that if you want military guys to do more work you just tell them to - with civilian ops you have to ask nicely and pay them more:)

Sadly , you guys have probably got it right:{

Max Contingency

5th Jul 2007, 10:23

At the time of the July bombings (24/7), the RAF SARF generated 12 serviceable and ready to go aircraft and crews within 2 hours - fortunately they were not needed but that was 12 fully SAR capable crews just from the 6 RAF flights. Is anyone else going to provide that capability???????
I agree with Crab, no one else could have provided that response. However, the point that jumps off the page to me is that it was a level of response that was not needed. IIRC the only tasking was a bus run from Leeds to London that any commercial operator from LBA could have done.
My question would have to be, how do we know that we are not overprovisioned today in terms of military 2nd standby?

[email protected]

5th Jul 2007, 10:29

Max, we don't but history has proved the worth of the second standby. Until you get a major incident you don't know what you need.

The Greyrigg (Cumbria) accident is a suitable case to examine for appropriate emergency response - the actual number injured (and one fatality sadly) was very low but the emergency response was huge, assuming that a train with up to 200 people leaving the tracks at 95 mph would produce carnage on a fairly major scale.

No-one has suggested cutting police fire and ambulance crews in the area because they weren't needed.

So, do you plan for the contingency or hope it never happens - over to you Govt....

Max Contingency

5th Jul 2007, 10:48

I think we are going to loose that one.
We have had plenty of major incidents over the years and the most SAR helicopters (mil and civ) we have had airborne at one time was 8.

If you look at the amount of times that a military 2nd standby aircraft is brought up from RS60 to RS15 and then tasked to SAR, its about once a year (all of the other 2nds tasking occurs on training flights or mountain dets etc)

And, given that SAR flights are about an hours flying time apart from each other, any major incident needs to have 4 aircraft or more before a mil 2nd standby even comes into the orbat.

I think that the time has come to acknowledge that the prime purpose of our 2nd standby aircraft is to prop up the availability of the 1st cab.

SAR-H have done the maths and decided that they don't need a 2nd standby crew in the future. Just a thought, but rather than drip about it surely we should use that as a reason to drop 2nd standby today and ease a bit of the pressure around our manning and shift plots?

Vote here.

Hummingfrog

5th Jul 2007, 11:17

Of course the government will go for only one SAR cab on standby at each location - it is cheaper and allows money to be spent on more PC projects:ugh:

Max - SAR must have changed since my time (left in 1990) but it was a regular occurrence to be called in for a "seconds" job especially in the summer.

On one occasion at Brawdy, for the Air India 747 off Cork, we generated 3 cabs and crews (we had the OCU a/c in the hangar as they were on summer break at Culdrose). The 3rd crew had a pilot as winchman as he had been a crewman in a previous life. (hi TG).

For the Piper Alpha disaster I was generated from home at 2230 and was airborne within 30mins. The Piper disaster was a classic example of how different assets should be used. Winch equipped a/c searched for and recovered survivors to the Tharos flotel while non-winch equipped a/c took them onward to Aberdeen. A Nimrod ran the show from Flt Level very high.

A Crab says the military have a surge capability, which is very useful in a disaster, and it will be a shame to loose that.

HF

mustfly1

5th Jul 2007, 13:44

Max Contingency

5th Jul 2007, 15:19

Cruise Ship Canberra ran out of fuel 2 miles off the Isle of Wight in a force 8 at 0130 hrs. Over 2000 persons on board.
The CIVIL SAR at Lee on Solent had 2 aircraft fully manned and ready to go in 30 mins.

Very commendable but I'm not sure of the relevance? Hope we are not straying into mil Vs civ again.

Firstly, an undeclared capability is nice but no one can plan around it.

Secondly, two S61s (or Sea Kings) are a 'Tick on the arse of the Rhinoceros' when it comes to evacuating a cruise ship in a hurry.

Droopystop

5th Jul 2007, 16:50

Max Con,
Lets face it, any helicopter is a mere gnat on the backside......

Crab,
All this psoturing and providing information for journos is a waste of time. SAR-H obviously have a view of the huge picture we will never see. I hope they have managed to get the right people in place who can make decisions based on front line experience. But nothing here is going to make a jot of difference. Journos might be reading, but information provided anonomously on a rumour network is of no use to them what so ever.

The capability of future SAR will depend on what the DofT want and what they are prepared to pay for. There is no reason why the civies can't provide what the military do today and do it better tomorrow. By the same token, if the MOD threw more money at Mil SAR they would be better too.

Its all down to money and that means we have to rely on Politicans. May the Lord help us.

[email protected]

5th Jul 2007, 17:53

Droopy - SARH have to play the hand they are dealt - unless the Govt decide they want the capability to provide surge/concurrent ops then it won't happen. Equally, unless the military decide they want to maintain a bigger presence in SAR than 66 then that is what we will be stuck with.

Regardless of the manpower, the funding is still split between the home office and the MoD, with the MoD paying most (which seems rather outrageous) so nothing will come off the Defence budget anyway.

Max - as soon as you drop seconds, people will be posted to the SH force, everyone's manning is in tatters and their pull will be greater than ours.

If you only have one cab at each location then you would need just about all the SAR assets to give 8 aircraft and you wouldn't achieve that in less than 4 - 5 hours. With seconds you only need half the UK assets and olny from the nearest locations - a far better response that wouldn't denude the rest of the UK of SAR cover.

Surge and concurrency - the need won't go away as much as bean counters would like to think it will.

NRDK

5th Jul 2007, 18:18

SAR-H anybody? follow the link to recent gathering at a base near CRAB?
it's all going to happen one way or another so hold on for the ride:8
http://www.shephard.co.uk/rotorhub/Default.aspx?Action=745115149&ID=6d38337a-fdd5-4bd1-b6d8-fdcda38dc037
:}

zorab64

5th Jul 2007, 20:04

Sorry - a bit late in the day, but a few comments on this thread.

Re Nitesun 2 on S92 - great bit of kit if you can link it to the TI camera, as it will keep station on the target much better than trying it manually . . . which is far too sensitive (in our machine anyway) for effective pilot control. You also have to hope you've got the new, improved, gimbal or you may well spend a deal of time with the thing removed, when it goes wrong - then you'll be glad of all those other lights!

Re TETRA radios - (concur with Helinut #52 & #58, Sven62 #56 take note) - we have 4 TETRA radios, analogue radio for CG and two ATC VHF, so can talk to anyone when the TETRA stays on-line, including ringing land & mobile phones from the a/c. However . . . TETRA is NOT the answer to anyone's prayers (due to its habit of dropping out or making a transmission sound like a Dalek) and the only current effective & efficient method of co-ordinating Police & SAR a/c is the use of pilot-to-pilot scene-of-SAR or other VHF freq!!

Re MET Police winches - I believe I'm correct in noting that they only actually have ONE winch for fitting to any of their three a/c. As yet they may be undecided as to how they'll (be allowed to) use it, but probably easier to have one on the shelf for when it's approved, than to retro-fit . . especially considering the tiny fraction of the £15m or so total purchase!

Re Regionalisation of Police etc, Helinut (#52) should watch Essex - currently operating 3 a/c for 3 forces at 3 bases under one PAOC, with the full support of Chief Officers. Groundbreaking stuff, being closely monitored by CAA & HO - but it's working.

And finally . . . concur with Mustfly (#90) & others about gnats on elephants etc - the latest Freedom Class cruise ships, twice the size of the lady Canberra, have over 5000 POB!:eek:

Torque Split

10th Jul 2007, 22:16

Quote Zorab: "Re Regionalisation of Police etc, Helinut (#52) should watch Essex - currently operating 3 a/c for 3 forces at 3 bases under one PAOC, with the full support of Chief Officers. Groundbreaking stuff, being closely monitored by CAA & HO - but it's working."

Several forces have been doing it successfully and for longer with closer co-operation/integration (swapping of aircrafte etc) - see Chiltern. However this is not enough lets hope the HO gets regionalisation and or nationalisation sorted, with proper inclusion in the ARCC system. That is my real point for this thread. Why not get the police winch trained. Central counties had to rescue flood victims by landing on rooves! Can't remember the year but know the pilot and Sergeant who did it. Surely a winch would have been safer.

Sven Sixtoo

11th Jul 2007, 10:02

I have, a long time ago in a sophisticated first world country far away, watched a Police helo with a crew untrained in such operations engage in flood relief using a long line on a hoist bracket.

On the second lift they dropped the survivor from about 120 feet.

TorqueOfTheDevil

11th Jul 2007, 20:50

Why not get the police winch trained. Central counties had to rescue flood victims by landing on rooves! Can't remember the year but know the pilot and Sergeant who did it. Surely a winch would have been safer.

...and a winch would have been provided quickly and free of charge, on a Sea King/S-61, had it been asked for. From what you say, this is yet another case of the control room sending the wrong asset, or not knowing what assets are available to him/her, or thinking that there would be a bill for using SAR.

SARCO

12th Jul 2007, 20:02

You are right there. The amount of times we have had to persuade police forces that there is no charge for SAR is amazing :ugh:...it can and has put lives at risk due to the delay

Torque Split

16th Jul 2007, 13:20

Torque of the Devil and SARCO, you both have good points.

The police forces provide mutual aid to each other. When a helicopter goes "cross border", it's use will be charged for. I guess they, wrongly, apply that thinking to SAR aircraft.

Torque of the Devil, I do not know the urgency of the lift in question, but imagine it must have been high to warrant that sort of risk. I think the incident happened in Worcestershire; where would the nearest SAR aircraft come from and how soon would it have been on scene? I assume either Valley or Chivenor at alert 15 day time?

Torque Split

16th Jul 2007, 13:23

Totally different thought within this thread:-

If the military remained involved after SAR(H), what about the use of Merlin as a SAR asset?

I love the Sea King dearly but it will have to go the way of the Wessex sooner or later.

Could it be used as the only platform, both Military and Civilian?

[email protected]

16th Jul 2007, 16:28

Torquesplit - the Merlin would be good for long-range stuff but has too powerful a downwash for use on cliffs, mountains, small vessels and in urban scenarios. The stock answer to this is to say 'hover higher' but it does little to alleviate the problem and just takes the pilot even further away from his hover references. The Canadians had to revisit their SOPs and had some interesting problems with downwash at some of their HLS. The winch installation combined with the hover attitude makes winching less than ideal. The Wessex and Sea King were good SAR platforms because they offered stable, easy winching with big cabin doors and manageable downwash due to relatively low disc loading.

It is difficult to envisage a one size fits all future SAR aircraft (although that is what we have had for a while now) and most of the SAR H bidders are offering two different aircraft, one for long range/offshore and a smaller one for coastal inland use.

SARREMF

17th Jul 2007, 12:53

Crab, tosh. yes the canadians did alter some of their SOPS agreed. As to you cant use the 101 in the hills or against a cliff tosh. the 101 is used very effectively in an urban environement and. like any helicopter, produces a downwash that the crews need to be aware of.
Secondly, have you ever sat over the water in a Merlin? you would know then that the downwash directly under the aircraft is NOT too severe at all, some refer to this doughnut effect - which is even better with BERP IV - please lets not reopen the BERP debate thank you.
On one of your earlier post you mentioned "SARH have to play the hand they are dealt - unless the Govt decide they want the capability to provide surge/concurrent ops then it won't happen". hate to tell you mate, but the SAR-H IPT have included Surge and concurrency in the competition - and it knocks spots off the current system!
I am surprised at you Crabb, despite the way you sometimes come accross you do normally believe in what you say and their is some truth in your words. But with this you are not right.

I agree with your mixed fleet analysis though.

inputshaft

17th Jul 2007, 13:21

SARREMF
I have to wonder where you got your ideas from when you decided to correct Crab. I have no experience with the EH101, but I have had time on the USCG HH60 fleet, and I can tell you it is a significantly worse winching platform than the Sea King/H3 because of hi rotor loading. And it certainly gave us more downwash problems in urban areas and beside other aircraft than the Sea King. I can only imagine that the EH101 at 20 to 30% heavier would be much worse.
As for your EH101 "doughtnut" theory. I'm new to this forum, but that comment makes me wonder if you have ever actually done any SAR work. Exactly how would you get all of a small boat into the doughnut without blowing it all over the place as you moved in? And where would the "doughnut" be in a standard 15kt wind day at sea? Presumably not directly under the aircraft.

Wiretensioner

17th Jul 2007, 16:03

Crab

How much experience have you got in the Merlin?

Before I left the Royal Flying Club I garnered a couple of hundred hours on the aircraft including a small amount of winching (on the switch and t'other end), albeit just on an airfield and winching to the old tower. Flying pilot was an experienced ex Lossie pilot. No problems with downwash at all, on the end of the wire it just felt the same as the Sea King. Only problem was the position of the winch and having to swap hands from the tradional practise with the winch at the front. However Wastelands say they can put the winch anywhere yhe customer wants it.

The Merlin has been operated in the Highlands (that is the lumpy bits were real SAR crews work - DUCK!!) on a couple of detatchments quite successfully. In fact I believe the aforementioned pilot moved some MRT onto Ben Nevis with no complaints or problems.

So take the CFS badge of and return to reality.:cool:

[email protected]

17th Jul 2007, 17:34

SARREMF - yes I do believe what I say, because I listen to the people who do the trials and give the feedback - not what the manufacturer claims. I certainly don't listen to the opinions of those with limited experience of SAR in all environments - winching on an airfield for crying out loud, that's just like a cliff or small boat - NOT.

A big helicopter with a small disc produces a huge downwash - that is a fact - the doughnut phenomenon allows you to trap a target in the downwash very effectively, BUT only when the wind is of exactly the correct strength to push the center of the downwash exactly under the winch; the rest of the time it is hindering you not helping you.

As for the CFS badge, at the point I am considered unworthy of it I will stop wearing it.

Thanks inputshaft:)

As far as SARH goes - their response to a question about surge and concurrency was vague, evasive and worthy of Tony Bliar. They will need a lot of aircraft to 'knock the spots off' what we can do now, especially if the military element is to be decimated.

Wiretensioner

17th Jul 2007, 17:48

My limited experience on SAR other than an airfield was a tour at Boulmer, instructing at RAFSKTU (RNAS Culdrose), double tour at Lossie, over 4000hrs, plus instructing SAR in the Middle East. Yes I bit but enjoyed it.

By the way Crab back to my original question how much time have you on the Merlin and lets forget the theory of flight for helicopters this time.:cool:

Regards
Wiretensioner

[email protected]

17th Jul 2007, 19:32

Wiretensioner - I have no Merlin time at all but you should know better than to use your experience on the end of the wire over an airfield as a basis for stating it will make a good SAR machine in all environments.

I didn't say it couldn't get into the mountains or land MR but with a downwash like that it is unsuitable for a lot of cliff and mountain rescues. You'll be saying we should do SAR on the Chinook next.

I had a cliff faller last Wednesday who was stuck on a ledge 100' down from the top and 150' up from the bottom of a very steep climbing area. It was interesting enough getting the winchman safely onto the ledge without the added embuggerance of introducing more downwash and turbulence to the area.

NickLappos

17th Jul 2007, 21:00

The downwash discussion is really not about absolute weight alone, it is more the disk loading that drives downwash velocity (weight drives the volume of air that rides at the downwash speed).

The S61/H3 has a lot less downwash speed, its disk loading is about 35% less than an EH101 or an S92, and the downwash velocity goes with the square root of the disk loading, so the 101 is perhaps 15% higher velocity than the S61. The S92 and EH101 are within 10% of each other, the 101 a bit more.

The 92's downwash is clearly more than an H3's, but not so much greater that it needs a great deal more thought. I would believe the 101 to be that way, too. More downwash that an S61, but not disqualifying.

OK, write down the date, I said something good about the 101....

toolguy

17th Jul 2007, 21:42

I wouldn't classify that as something good about the 101, just an observation, your record is unblemished.

NickLappos

18th Jul 2007, 01:10

Well, at least I defended it!

[email protected]

18th Jul 2007, 11:58

SARREMF and wiretensioner - look at post #863 by oryxs on the S92 thread - he has an interesting comment regarding fierce downwash and SAR. As Nick has said, the S92 and Merlin have very similar disc loadings! Still in denial?

Wiretensioner

18th Jul 2007, 16:38

Who's in denial?

[email protected]

18th Jul 2007, 18:02

de crocodiles is in denial

[email protected]

18th Jul 2007, 18:08

Oryxs said of the S92:

'It does however have a big down draft. Have seen some of the smaller rescue specialists hanging on for dear life during operations with a guide line'

Nick Lappos said of the S92 and EH101:

'The S61/H3 has a lot less downwash speed, its disk loading is about 35% less than an EH101 or an S92, and the downwash velocity goes with the square root of the disk loading, so the 101 is perhaps 15% higher velocity than the S61. The S92 and EH101 are within 10% of each other, the 101 a bit more.

Yet you maintain the Merlin is suitable for all the SAR jobs that the Sea King currently performs. Illogical Captain...

Wiretensioner

18th Jul 2007, 18:58

Do you never give up or is it quite in the SW approaches?:cool:

[email protected]

18th Jul 2007, 19:48

No, I never give up and No it's not quite in the SW approaches but it is quiet:)

Droopystop

19th Jul 2007, 07:40

Correct me if I am wrong, but don't all modern heavy types that are currently available that might replace the mighty King (92, 225, 101) have high disk loadings? So downwash issues are going to have to become a fact of life and some lateral thinking might be required to develope new SOPs. What works for the Sea King might not work in the newer types.

What concerns me is that the newer types seem to be designed as a passenger transport machine and optimised for that role. As far as I can see, the Sea King was designed to hover over the sea and was optimised for that. Is the poling on these new types next to a cliff/downwind of a mountain/over a dead ship in the Atlantic going to be easier than on the SK? Certainly the extra power (on paper at least) will be useful. Only time will tell.

[email protected]

19th Jul 2007, 10:34

Droopystop - I think you are entirely correct - hence the need for a mixed fleet with the big aircraft used for longrange and large scale evacuation work and the smaller ones for inland, cliff, mountain etc stuff. Strangely much like we had with the Wessex and Sea King a few years ago and in keeping with what the MCA have got now (S92 oop north and AW139 dahn saarf:))

SARREMF

21st Jul 2007, 11:43

Crabb, finally I can agree with you. Yes I agree mixed fleet. yes I agree long range large ac samller short range. I have over 5500hrs all SAR. I have flown Sea King extensively and I now have some time on the 101, its just not as big an issue as yu make out. But this debate is very similar to the Whirlwind Wessex then Wessex Sea King debate.

Surge and concurrency is a clearly laid down requirement.

One other thing as I sit here and watch a SK go past the window again - major flooding in this part of the world at the moment - Thank you boys and girls you do a cracking job and long may it last and long may we have a civil miltitary mix.

Some of us are actively trying to make sure that continues - in the background in the right places.

One final thing. CRABB I know you, you deserve the CFS badge, you did not deserve that comment about removing it from the other poster. Keep it on.

I still think the 101 could have done all the jobs in Evesham, Worcester and the such like.

Perhaps I ought to arrange for you to fly one Crabb?

before landing check list

22nd Jul 2007, 00:03

Cougar Helicopters are using the 61.

SARCO

22nd Jul 2007, 19:32

A big well done to all the mil and civ SAR crew's taking part in the response over the past few day's.

You guy's and gal's are doing us proud. :)

bell222

22nd Jul 2007, 21:12

here here god speed :D :D :D

Mr.Challenger

13th Aug 2007, 06:50

http://www.shetland-news.co.uk/news_07_2007/MP%20impressed%20by%20new%20helicopter.htm

:D:D:D:D:D

BRASSEMUP

13th Aug 2007, 06:56

:D:D

Did many Bristow guys go over to CHC?

jonnyloove

13th Aug 2007, 07:54

Most off the Stronoway crew did apart from the chief engineer a few pilots and the senior crewman. The rest have stayed with chc.

BRASSEMUP

13th Aug 2007, 08:18

Did they have to do the Psychometric test's? Or just change uniforms?

jonnyloove

13th Aug 2007, 08:35

They just changed uniform most have now completed the S-92 course and the first 4 have completed the intial paramedics course. All is going well for them.

BRASSEMUP

13th Aug 2007, 08:37

:ok: Thanks for the update.

pinho_fap

15th Aug 2007, 10:36

Hello everyone,

regarding the use of the Merlin as a SAR platform, we at the Portuguese Air Force are doing just that. May I remind you that we upgraded from the Puma S1 (Makila 1A1 engines), which unfortunately we didn't sell to the RAF.
Regarding the use of the Merlin as a long distance platform, I have no way to compare it to the S-92, although some of our guys who were at the replacement programme from the start said the cargo door on the S92 was very small, and you'd get problems when working with stretchers.
One big disadvantage over our Puma is the position of the winch, way back in the helicopter, which means the pilot has to be too forward of references when working over small vessels, etc. The Danish have a better position for their winch (almost behing the pilot), and a cargo door on the port side of the helicopter, which can also be useful.
Regarding the downwash, it is true that for cliff rescues it can be dangerous, however, regarding small ships we haven't had problems. Our Sar Techs spent hours in the water testing different hover heights, did hundreds of winching ops, and we came to 60ft as the ideal height for winching, which ensures that the Sar Tech will be out of the downwash on the descent and in the water.
Regarding small ships, if they can maintain a course and speed, we'l direct them to wind 30 degress port side, and the added ship speed and wind speed will usually mean the downwash is way behind the a/c. We haven't had any problems when we stick to this procedure, however if you try it with a tailwind, you'll get into trouble. We train at night with a 40 ft navy patrol, and the downwash of the helicopter, in tailwind conditions, has made the ship turn 180 degress!
If the small vessels can't maintain a course and speed (adrift or sinking), we usually pick the survivors from the water or from their liferaft (we tell them to tie a rope to the ship and put themselves in the liferaft). If there is someone really hurt and unable to exit an adrift vessel, then we have to use hi-line and we can't choose where the wind is blowing from if they can't manoeveur, and that's the only situation where downwash will really make a difference. Two days ago I was winching 3 frenchmen from a liferaft close to a drifting trimaran (45 ft long), and we almost turned the trimaran on its head...
Regarding hover references, well, with auto hover you don't need that, unless you are over bigger ships, where you do visual hover, but then you have the speed advantage, and downwash is not a big problem (hasn't been for us). I know the Canadians have been through the same problems as we have and have come to similar conclusions. It's a good a/c, but maybe not the ideal for cliff rescues or small vessels, however, I wouldn't go back to the Puma, doing rescues at night from 30 ft fishing vessels, without NVG's or auto-hover:=.

Cheers

Pinho

Vie sans frontieres

16th Aug 2007, 00:40

Hours in the water off Portugal sounds quite nice.

Mr.Challenger

19th Aug 2007, 17:45

Video from the SAR-S92 in Stornoway

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWsL-TvAcEU

Have fun...

NickLappos

19th Aug 2007, 21:46

pinho_fap said, "some of our guys who were at the replacement programme from the start said the cargo door on the S92 was very small, and you'd get problems when working with stretchers."

That was a good observation back then, the door was only 32 inches wide, and getting a litter in was not very easy.

As a result, a new 52" wide cargo door was designed (I was some help, as Program Manager in pushing it through) and made available. The S-92 depicted on the video has this bigger door.

In fact, if I recall correctly, the 101's sliding door only opens about 52" when the bubble windows are installed in the forward fuselage, because the door would crush the window otherwise (I saw the stops on the door in Canada).

I am sure both doors on both helos are quite satisfactory for litters and hoist work.

One thing I do note on the video is the folks standing under the downwash while the aircraft is in a low hover - the worst condition. Doesn't look like any big deal.

pinho_fap

19th Aug 2007, 21:57

Regarding the bubble window in the front fuselage, that is quite true, but we don't use the bubble window in that position in the SAR configuration. We use the bubble window on the Systems operator position, starboard side, aft of the cargo door, or in the 2nd observer position, port side, aft of the port pilot position. We only use the bubble window on the front starboard side in the fishery control configuration, because that is the position of the console operator (1st observer). However, I have seen photos from the S92 cockpit, and I can say that our Nav capability is much inferior to what the Danish have, in fact, their was considered by most people at Westland to be the best solution in terms of equipment and capabilities of all the variants (the worst was generally assumed to be the VH-71, tons of radios and cryptos on that thing, it will have a 30NM radius...).