Coastguard S92's [Archive]

212man

5th Dec 2007, 12:42

We managed to squeeze 3 into the Antonov!

Look forward to hearing some genuine feedback on the MCA 92s in operation:

- Downwash characteristics during winching
- Ground clearance for mountain rescues
- Ease of hovering close to cliffs etc
- SAR AFCS performance
- AFCS warnings during vigorous 'stiring' (FD Degrade etc etc)
- Salt Spray ingestion effects (or not) in avionics bays
- General reliability

Good news I hope.......

The 2" leaking crack in our (500 hr) MGB casing was too large to repair, so AOG for MGB... ho hum, that's progress for you. (don't tell HC :E)

212man

5th Dec 2007, 12:46

Yes, it does hover nose high, typically about 5-7 degrees, but can be more than 10 in high winds

nbl

5th Dec 2007, 16:08

It has a dry run capability -NL tells us-just fly back to Anduki -no problem.:ugh:

tomotomp

5th Dec 2007, 18:05

The 2" leaking crack in our (500 hr) MGB casing was too large to repair, so AOG for MGB... ho hum, that's progress for you. (don't tell HC )
Hope you dont have to wait 3 months for your gearbox as we did for the S76.

David Eyre

18th Dec 2007, 23:40

Some nice photos of the Coastguard S-92s flying here:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3770307&postcount=3842

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1277075/L/

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1270835/L/

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1268029/L/

Regards,
David Eyre

Mole The Truth Hunte

21st Dec 2007, 18:01

A fellow mole tells me that one of these fine aircraft took considerably longer than its specified response time to get airborne recently. Apparently this was not for any technical reason. Rather than spread false rumour, can anybody shed some light?

The Mole

'Digging for the truth.'

Northernstar

21st Dec 2007, 18:47

Couldn't see the reg but one was definitely in ABZ today.....

Tail-take-off

21st Dec 2007, 20:53

Max Contingency

22nd Dec 2007, 09:17

I'm sure that CHC would have rather had the letters CHC somewhere in the reg but as I recall, it was the MCA and the Islanders themselves that wanted to keep the 'Oscar Charlie' thing going.

On a professional note, can any of the PoF gurus explain to me why they

hover nose high, typically about 5-7 degrees, but can be more than 10 in high winds

Is that due to greater down force on the stabaliser?

And to any of the rear crew:
Does this produce any bell crank/fleet angle or cabin entry issues for winching?

Ta

HeliComparator

22nd Dec 2007, 10:09

Typically the horizontal stabiliser is stalled in the low wind hover, but starts to work (producing a down force) in stronger winds. In the case of the S92, the canted tail rotor might have something to do with it as well.

HC

NickLappos

22nd Dec 2007, 12:48

again, helicomparitor shows how little he knows about what makes helicopters tick.

The broad flat area of the horizontal tail, as well as the tailcone, present area for the main rotor downwash to act on, as vertical drag, even when the surface is stalled. In fact, the down force is greatest when it is stalled. They certainly produce download in a hover and in low speed flight. (How would the NOTAR work otherwise?)

The nose up for the 92 is greatest at about 10 to 15 knots of forward speed at aftmost CG, and even at that, trials by various independent agencies (including those who bought the aircraft for SAR) show that recovering a litter is quite easy, as long as the large door (1.33M wide) is fitted. Door size, cabin width to rotate the litter and surprisingly decent downwash are all judged to be supportive of the task.

HeliComparator

22nd Dec 2007, 15:10

In fact, the down force is greatest when it is stalled.

Now lets see, the horizontal stabiliser is an inverted aerofoil generating a downforce whose purpose is to help keep the fuselage level in fast forward flight (ignoring for a moment its role in pitch stability).

Ah but according to St Nick, aerofoils tend to generate the most lift when they are stalled. Next time I fly a fixed-wing I must remember to keep the wings stalled at all times, thereby maximising the lift.

Whilst you are blessing us with your superior knowledge, could you explain why according to those that actually fly it (Mr 212) its more nose up in strong winds than in light winds (strong winds to a former N Sea pilot means 40kts +)

Outwest

22nd Dec 2007, 15:31

The broad flat area of the horizontal tail, as well as the tailcone, present area for the main rotor downwash to act on, as vertical drag, even when the surface is stalled. In fact, the down force is greatest when it is stalled.
HC, are you blinded by your obvious hatred for Nick or are you just daft:ugh:
Even a lowly colonial understood what Nick meant, maybe because I actually read what he posted. Give it a rest man, you are so far behind you are actually deluded into thinking you are first.:yuk:

Outwest

22nd Dec 2007, 16:15

You know, I was wondering that myself.....
When you first started posting facts and figures about the 225 (and other EC models) I actually valued your opinions. Now however I see that you are so blinded and biased that I have to throw the baby out with the bath water. As I said, EC makes some fine a/c, as a matter of fact the 350 is one of my favorite and the 76 is one of my least (due to that stupid nose high hover to name one). However, that does not lower my opinion of Nick, he has the knowledge and experience to back up his claims. One does not get to where is on B**ls**t.
And by the way, now that you have used the name St. Nick in a degrading manner, don't be surprised if you find a lump of coal in your stocking this year:{

HeliComparator

22nd Dec 2007, 16:33

Ow
Rather than getting your kicks out of slagging me off, why not post something to explain why 212 thinks the nose attitude is higher in strong wind than in light wind. So far no-one has explained that. Its easy to snipe from the sidelines, somewhat harder to contribute something useful.

My explanation is spot on for the Super Puma family - you can feel the stabiliser stall as speed is reduced through around 20kts with a corresponding tuck in fuselage attitude, but that does not mean its necessarily correct for the S92 with its flatter section horizontal stabiliser and canted tail rotor. Looking at the photos, the 92 stabiliser looks more like a flat plate than an aerofoil and perhaps its sole job is to aid the otherwise dodgy longitudinal stability? Lets try to have some technical discussions without personal attacks. Now that would be a first for Pp

HC

Outwest

22nd Dec 2007, 16:48

Lets try to have some technical discussions without personal attacks.
Now there is the pot calling the kettle black:D

Sorry, I am not an aeronautical engineer, so I would never presume to be able to explain anything that has to do with that. However, again if you read Nick's post he says:
The nose up for the 92 is greatest at about 10 to 15 knots of forward speed
I would also deduce that to mean 10 - 15 kts wind in a stable hover.

HeliComparator

22nd Dec 2007, 16:58

OW yes but that is a light wind. When Mr 212 wakes up (he's on Borneo time) perhaps he will tell us at what wind speed the maximum hover nose up occurs (or if you like what forward airspeed in level flight. My guess is that it will be around 40kts or so.

You don't presume to have an opinion, but are you saying that no-one else except Nick is entitled to one? It would be a pretty dull forum if only he were allowed to post on technical or aerodynamic issues. The only other posts would be the cooing, gasping and re-posting his CV by his prostrators.

I am not an aeronautical engineer either but I am an instructor and I have to be able to explain flight characteristics to my trainees.

If you look back at this thread (and many others) I think you will find that the first insulting post is from Nick. I just tend to react (even though my mother told me that was the wrong thing to do!)

HC

Senior Pilot

22nd Dec 2007, 20:27

HC (and others whose mothers may have given Good Advice):

Let me remind you of one of the terms and conditions to which you agreed when you registered with PPRuNe

Be Courteous!

Don't attack others. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Challenge others' points of view and opinions, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully... without insult and personal attack.

Aser

22nd Dec 2007, 20:57

HeliComparator
Quote:
Ah but according to St Nick, aerofoils tend to generate the most lift when they are stalled. Next time I fly a fixed-wing I must remember to keep the wings stalled at all times, thereby maximising the lift.
HC: I think Nick was talking about this....
look at the Cl:
http://www.apstraining.com/images/diagram4.jpg
Regards.

Roofus

23rd Dec 2007, 10:55

Staggering!! Yet again a thread has turned from the topic & become 'I know more than you do thread!' :ugh:

Why?? :mad:

The question was, I believe, how are the S-92's getting on with MCA!! (Or words to that affect!) But somehow we've found ourselves embroiled with Principles of flight! :zzz:

In short....the S-92 is doing pretty well. It's new....so there are teething problems. But on the whole the guys operating it seem pretty damn happy!

I don't fly it, so I can't comment on all the things the other people who DON'T fly it are talking about! But I'm sure someone who knows will post eventually......if he can be bothered to wade through the me me me's!! :bored:

212man.....other than the downwash.....I think the answers to all your questions are very positive! The downwash is pretty severe!! But I'm sure the boys will adapt & overcome!

Fingers crossed for lots of stimulating on topic posts! :rolleyes:

Rescue1

23rd Dec 2007, 22:39

G-CGOC In Sumburgh last week
http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh107/Rescueoneuk/DSC_0199.jpg

http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh107/Rescueoneuk/DSC_0132.jpg

HAL9000

24th Dec 2007, 08:17

The second photo is of the crew getting airborne after enjoying a hearty meal that they were not going to let anything interrupt!:ok: Hence the nose down attitude.

bigglesbutler

24th Dec 2007, 10:00

I've forgotten how to quote someone, so it doesn't quite look right sorry.

Tailtakeoff said:

I must say I think it is a bit much that CHC have registered their Sumburgh S-92 G-CGOC (Coast Guard Oscar Charlie). They are clearly trying to cash in on the good reputation that the last Coast guard Oscar Charlie (G-BDOC) had in Shetland for the last couple of decades.

This is probably going to sound VERY big headed, but I think that was my idea. When in a meeting with CHC in the Sumburgh hotel way back when, I suggested they keep the last two letters the same for the new aircraft. Whether they did that on my suggestion or not I dont know. Logic being everyone in the area doesn't get confused by callsigns, local's as well as people involved in the aviation bit. That and the fact it was a pain in the rear end everytime we changed A/C and forgot which one we were in. To be fair it wasn't the "senior's" only, us "junior" staff were as bad, as were air traffic sometimes.

Anyway just thought I would put my penny's worth in, que the smart comments by text and emails from Shetland.

Si

P.S. I KNOW I'm easily confused LOL

Night Watchman

24th Dec 2007, 11:09

I must say I think it is a bit much that CHC have registered their Sumburgh S-92 G-CGOC (Coast Guard Oscar Charlie). They are clearly trying to cash in on the good reputation that the last Coast guard Oscar Charlie (G-BDOC) had in Shetland for the last couple of decades.

Doesn't make any difference now because all UK CG S92 helicopter callsigns will be: -

Coastguard 100 - Stornoway Duty
Coastguard 101 - Stornoway Standby
Coastguard 102 - Sumburgh Duty
Coastguard 103 - Sumburgh Standby
Coastguard 104 - Lee Duty
etc etc..

Wiretensioner

24th Dec 2007, 15:28

blast beaten to it. However Biggles I think there are others who may make the claim about keeping the OC part of the reg. At the end of the day I reckon the majority of the islanders don't care either way. Just look at the flood of letters of support that appeared when Bristows lost the contract. NOT!!

Regards

Wiretensioner

branahuie

24th Dec 2007, 19:48

Stornoways sounded more like 'panpanR100.....':O

Return to sender

24th Dec 2007, 20:23

Stornoways sounded more like 'panpanR100.....'

I think the pan pan bit comes as a standard fit with the S92!! ;)

Gaspode the Dog

25th Dec 2007, 12:22

There is a lot of whinging about the S92 on this thread. Mostly, I guess, from non S92 operators. Just about all the S92 SAR pilots are very pleased :)with the aircraft. The nose up attitude and the poor seat do not seem to be a problem, the only area that is different from exisiting SAR aircraft is the rotor wash but there are ways around that and, after all, it is a big aircraft (AUM upto 26500 lbs). There is always resistance to new things but if people that think the S61 or Sea King are so much better because "we have always done it that way" need to pull them selves into the current century, the S92 is new technology. We could always go back to a single engine aircraft with a 100ft winch like the Whirlwind!!!!:rolleyes:

Dan Reno

25th Dec 2007, 19:00

The term coined by Churchill himself is: Pathetic jealousy

SASless

25th Dec 2007, 19:31

Nick Dear Boy,

Maybe I have had a few too many Egg Nogs (note.....means VSOP coloured by the essence of Egg Nog) but as I read your post it seems quite clear to me....but not to HC that what you refer to as a stalled surface is in fact the non-moving tail bits and not the rotor blades.

Heavens knows even a Redneck knows a wing creates the most lift just at stall....but also provides for max drag as well.....and what with drag being the force that gets strongest quickest, it has the more noticeable effect. (or so I dredged up out of the deepest reaches of my alcohol ravanged brain).

HeliComparator

25th Dec 2007, 20:15

SAS

Why are you on the computer on Christmas Day? Oh all right then, escaping the rellies just like me!

I don't think anyone (even me) thought that NL was referring to the rotor system when he was talking about drag. He was talking about the horizontal stabiliser.

Anyway, a quick point of aerodynamics for you and Aser (nice graph, Aser!). You can stop reading now if you already understand it!

Once you get to the top of Aser's graph at the stall line, an aerofoil (other than one tethered in a wind tunnel) tends to find the region to the right of the stall line quite unstable due to the fact that lift reduces as angle of attack increases. (angle of attack being defined as the angle between the relative airflow and the chord line). Take a fixed-wing wing - as the angle of attack exceeds that stall line the wing loses lift and starts to drop. The very fact that the wing is descending through the air increases the angle of attack further, which reduces its lift, which makes it descend faster, which increases its angle of attack further still etc.

The same applies to a horizontal stabiliser. In forward flight its pushing the tail down but as airspeed reduces, the angle of attack increases due to the increasing angle of downwash from the main rotor and at some point it gets to the top of Aser's graph and lift starts to decrease. As soon as that happens, the tail starts to come up and that increases the angle of attack, losing (downward) lift which further increases the angle of attack etc. That's why the hover attitude suddenly takes a step change as the stall is reached, rather than a gradual change as might be implied by Aser's graph

So although it looks as though you could function happily just to the right of the stall line, in reality you couldn't, and you fall off the right-hand side of the graph as soon as you touch the stall line.

This phenomena is very noticeable on the Super Puma family. The auto-hovering AS332L2 could get into an oscillating syndrome where the hover attitude varied between level and about 7 degrees nose up when hovering in about 40 kts of wind as the stabiliser cycled through stalling / unstalling.

Possibly it doesn't happen on the S92 but I think the chances are it does and that is why 212 says the hover attitude is more nose high in strong wind than in light wind.

Nick will no doubt argue but we should remember that whilst Eurocopter, Sikorsky etc are the experts in designing and building the aircraft, Bristow, CHC, Bond, Norsk, Cougar, PHI, (even Shell!) etc are the experts in operating them and the total hours ever flown by Sikorsky on the S92 is exceeded by the operators every month.

HC

SASless

25th Dec 2007, 20:48

Ah, the old "Bristow Knows Best" attitude rears its ugly head again! I listened to that bovine fecal matter for too many years. Having been at both the factory and in operations I know the factory tends to draw input from all operators and is able to consider those inputs from a much more impartial perspective than some of the contributors.

Shall we use one small example....that being the wonderful mod to the 212's by Bristow where they removed the torgue limiter (simultaneously removing the torque damping as well) so as to save one of the North Sea Juniors at Eket from taking a swim when he had a Super Puma Flashback on takeoff or landing in a machine that did not have the excess of power they had grown used to while plodding to and fro on the North Sea.

How many overtorques did we see as a result of monkeying about with the factory design of the aircraft on what would best be described as a very unthoughtout concept. It was the pilots....not the aircraft that had that problem.

A second example would be the walhalla over generator bearings on the 212.....despite the factory being able to identify the exact lot of bad bearings and thus institute a corrective action that cured the ill.....Bristow probably still has their modified procedure in place for the 212.....that is shutting down the engine iat the first indication of a generator problem.

Bristow does some things very right....but the attitude that "Mama knows best" doesn't fly. All one had to do was compare the fatal accident rates for ACN and Bristow Nigeria to see the patent disproof to that mindset.

As to my being here on Christmas....me dear Mum is having a kip....and when she awakes I will go fix her dinner for her. Until then, I am left to my own devices. Since I just love the sound of hissing hot air....I thought a Christmas visit to Rotorheads would be good fun.

Tynecastle

26th Dec 2007, 21:59

SASless,
I always thought you were a Man who enjoyed the Macallans, Glenmorangies, Glenlivets,of this World, now you're telling us you drank too many Eggnogs, you must have went off the rails when you left Bristow.
Think you should cut HC some slack here though, he just mentioned Bristows along with a lot of other operators, and I think its fair to say that they are the ones that developed each aircraft, if not we would still be flying A models.
Look at a Ferrari F1 car, designed by computers/ draughtsmen/engineers, but it's M Schum'r who developed it.
You know if it wasn't for the jousts between Nick and HC, Pprune would be pretty boring most of the time, so keep it up gents, but keep it above board, two gentlemen here who love what they do, and will defend it to the end.
Slainte,
TC.

Max Contingency

27th Dec 2007, 09:29

Dear Sirs

I wish to formally apologise for having ever asked the question as to why the S92 hovers more nose up in higher wind speeds. It was a moment of reckless and irresponsible madness for which I have no excuse. Had I in any way realised the PoF nightmare that such a question would generate then I would never have lowered myself to ask it in the first place.

I have the honour to be
Max Contingency
Your Obedient Servant

Moving on........

I also asked our rearcrew brethren if 10 degrees nose up presents any winching/cabin entry issues? I take it that you are operating with twin hoists that have no bell crank/fleet angle issues?

IIRC 10 degrees is a winch limit on hoists on certain well known yellow helicopters. Therefore 10 degrees nose up, theoretically, would allow no trailing of the cable?

Moving on again...

Was that IR turret not originally on the sponson during production?

nessboy

27th Dec 2007, 15:46

Tynecastle check your pm

detgnome

27th Dec 2007, 16:32

Does it have a water boiler, or similar hot beverage dispensing facility?

212man

28th Dec 2007, 00:30

HC, just for clarity: I have not personally experienced the greater nose up attitude in winds of 45 kts, it was reported by a Norwegian operator as a problem they encounter when lifting from decks in strong winds. It generates the "Tail too Low" EGPWS warning.

Roofus, glad to hear it!

CH274

29th Dec 2007, 12:52

"Tail too Low" EGPWS warning - could that be due to deck edge/structural turbulence rather then due to the wind strength factor alone:confused:

ODEN

4th Jan 2008, 10:52

Max Contingency,
I would say that more speed gives less attitude....this is the same when hovering in strong winds with a clean airflow, more wind gives less attitude.
Over a helideck the aerodynamics are probably different and it will then behave different.
But the SAR people flying the 92 will have the correct answer.....

JKnife

9th Jan 2008, 10:34

From today's Scottish Daily Mail:

Scots Coastguards have warned that lives are being put at risk by serious faults in their new £8million rescue helicopters.

The Sikorsky S92s have suffered a series of technical glitches since their introduction in July last year.

Last week Coastguards were even forced to ground the helicopter and use its 47-year-old predecessor to carry out a rescue.

The problems mainly lie with the S92's satellite communications system, which a senior source has described as 'unusable'.

Other technical issues, such as the helicopter's 'auto-hover' system used during winching, have raised concerns about its suitability for search-and-rescue duties. The new S92s were introduced after helicopter firm CHC Scotia was awarded a £100 million, five-year contract by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) for search and rescue operations.

The U.S. built helicopters replace the old Sikorsky S61s used by the previous contractor, Bristow. The S61 was introduced in 1961. Two S92s are now based at Stornoway in the Outer Hebrides and two more are set to be deployed at Sumburgh in the Shetlands soon.

The helicopters from these two Coastguard stations are used in rescue missions all over Scotland.

However, crews were concerned that the S92s did not have short-wave radio sets, which are often used to co-ordinate rescues involving the RAF and Royal Navy.

Instead, the Coastguards have to rely on a satellite phone, which sometimes provides a poor signal.

Crews have complained that emergency messages are often delayed by problems dialling up the air rescue co-ordination centre at RAF Kinloss in Moray.

Matters reached a head on Hogmanay, when the Stornoway team were informed that a crewman aboard an Inverness-registered trawler The Adventurer was suffering severe chest pains.

But the S92 had problems contacting RAF Kinloss and controllers scrambled an ageing S61 from Sumburgh - a machine which had been replaced by the S92s - to carry out the rescue mission 95 miles out to sea.

A senior Coastguard source said last night: 'It was an embarrassing fiasco. They had to get out the old workhorse which has been flying since the 1960s to do the job properly.

'Yet they (the MCA) refuse to listen when told the satellite system is often unuseable.'

Western Isles councillor Donald Macsween said: 'I know that many of the crews are concerned and there has been talk of some quitting because no one is listening to them. It's not good enough in a vital public serivce.'

An MCA spokesman admitted there had been glitches during the Hogmanay operation but claimed problems with the S92's communications system were being 'urgently addressed'.

He added: 'Crews are still getting to grips with the aircraft and this was a scenario that had not previously been encountered or practised.'

Roofus

9th Jan 2008, 13:06

Good Grief!!

Here we go again!! :mad:

The S-92 is going to be a good, if not great, SAR machine!! But.....it's new! So yep.....there's some software problems.....they'll have to adapt a few procedures.....etc etc!

& there's my point! Most of the guys are working to adapt, correct & overcome any of the teething problems! They'll tell you the Pro's far outweigh the cons!!
& then there are those who just want to be obstructive & highlight only problems. Not only highlight......exaggerate!!! :mad::mad::mad:

So......the 92 launched out of Stornoway (LAUNCHED!! Not Grounded!!!). They had comm problems, not unheard of in any aircraft!! They requested top cover, the Nimrod was only available on 120mins notice......so they launched the S-61 out of Sumburgh. The S-92 couldn't get a hi-line to the deck......they asked the S-61 to try.....the S-61 managed. No big deal, no reflection on either crew, good cooperation!

My input.....let them walk!! Will save us having to read this tripe in the papers! :rolleyes:

nbl

9th Jan 2008, 14:39

No reflection on either crew but at the end of the day the crewman was only rescued because the S61 could do it and the S92 could not. Is that not a fact. Communication is vital in these jobs and I find it incredible the systems on the new aircraft were not checked before going live.

Limpopo

9th Jan 2008, 14:51

Roofus

Think you missed the point of the article, it was about the poor communications currently fitted to the S92 to talk to various units when a long way offshore, not the helicopter itself (other than some minor comments). I wouldn't want to be a long way offshore out of VHF contact unless I had a reliable radio or system talk to my controlling authority. The current sat phone also sounds totally unreliable such that if the aircraft has a problem and needs to put out an emergency call, the crew cannot do so as it keeps falling over.

If either the MCA or some other authority is not listening, then perhaps an article like this in a daily newspaper is a last resort to get thngs moving at a quicker pace! Who's to say that a bit of politics isn't being played here? After all CHC themselves criticised both Sikorsky and Agusta Westland for their poor backup support on their website last year. I suspect that was after a lot of trying to sort something out without any positive response.

NavyTorque

9th Jan 2008, 18:50

Guys

As any of you who have operated this patch of sea will know:

Channel 0 and Aberdeen Information are available most of the way from Sumburgh to Stornoway in addition to Scottish Information as an alternative. Trust me - speak to Aberdeen Info if you do not beleive!!!

And indeed on this very mission the S61 was in comms with Aberdeen Info until the final 40 miles to vessel and in contact witht the Coastguard on Channel 0 throughout the whole mission!!!!!

Depending on your view of what you want HF for - I would much prefer the SKYTRACK real time display of location (GPS & sat link) together with the sat phone link. ie if the worst should happen then the RCC, Coastguard and indeed anyone with access to the internet and the appropriate password can see the precise location of the aircraft etc etc.

Indeedd although no-one (including the S61) could talk to the S92 the Coastguard passed an accurate Lat and Long of the S92 from their Skytrack display which allowed the S61 to track direct to the vessel.

The S92 was eventually raised by the S61 on channel 67 with 15 miles to run and it subsequently transpired that the S92 wasn't listening on any other channel despite many incoming calls on the sat link phone (HF replacement) from the coastguard!! so where is the failure of the kit!!! Imagine the worst - S61 140 miles out - major emergency - whats the chance that someone would get out a Lat and Long on HF prior to ditching???

The previous few posts hit the nail on the head - the S92 were not able to get a highline on the boat (for whatever reason - certainly not radios!!)and were big enough to give the S61 crew a go before the S61 needed to depart for fuel - the S61 captain happened to be an extremely experienced Ex RN SAR Captain who was familiar and comfortable with his machine and a bloody nice bloke as well!

Lets not knock the S92, the kit or indeed CHC! chances are the S92 may have also got the hi-line down on the next go but they WERE professional enough to pull away, have a rest and let another crew have a go!!!

Thats the point of SAR and experienced SAR operators at that - get the job done - egos later!

To the Luddites amongst you - ask what you want HF for and ask what can't be done by the currently fitted Skytrack system!!!!

Oh and for the dis-believers amongst you - Aberdeen information stayed open to oversee the return of the S61 back to Sumburgh in the early hours and were spoken to all th eway home!!!

Long Live the S61!!!!!!

And for Crab - be very careful if you are even thinking of slagging off civvy SAR - the particular details of the personnel in this episode may just bite you in the arse mate!

Regards

Roofus

10th Jan 2008, 07:23

Far more eloquently put than I could ever hope to manage NavyTorque :D:D:D

pumaboy

10th Jan 2008, 08:12

Why do we so much listen to what the media have to write they only write half a story and even then 9 times out 10 it is not correct what they write.:ugh::ugh:

They only thing they do do brilliantly and that is F... people in the Arse.

The S92 is a great helicopter with some teething problems and which new helicopter has not got teething problems

It takes time and then I'm sure it will be fantastic machine

Bloody hell guy's give the people involved a chance to make it work and stop listening to what media people have write at the end of the day what do they know?????? .

Media shut the hell up!!!!!! :ok::ok::ok:

skadi

10th Jan 2008, 10:20

Why do we so much listen to what the media have to write they only write half a story and even then 9 times out 10 it is NOT correct what they write.

Pumaboy, I think you forgot the NOT ?? Nevertheless youre absolut right!

skadi

SARCO

10th Jan 2008, 14:33

NavyTorque - couldn't have put it better myself, times and technology are changing and we as SAR Operators have to go with the flow :D:D

Regards

mbriscoe

10th Jan 2008, 15:30

I wonder if anyone knows the MMSI and IMO numbers of the various new Coastguard helicopters as used on AIS?

The two at Stornoway seem to be

MMSI IMO
111232500 9255139
111232501 7310868

And one of the Sumburgh ones (headed North earlier in the week as COASTGUARD 102)
111232502

It would be good to be able to link these to the aircraft registration rather than callsigns which presumably can change.

MB

blimp22

11th Jan 2008, 11:26

111232502 - G-cgoc

111232503 - G-csar

[email protected]

11th Jan 2008, 13:39

Some overly sensitive souls on here:) What's the problem, the job got done didn't it? Comms faffs are not exactly exclusive to aircraft type or role.

3D CAM

11th Jan 2008, 16:46

Crab.
Is that really you???:)

[email protected]

11th Jan 2008, 17:04

Yes, it's my New Year's resolution to be more cuddly and 'civilian-friendly':)

Might not last though:ok:

Lost at Sea

11th Jan 2008, 17:31

couldn't have put it better myself, times and technology are changing and we as SAR Operators have to go with the flow

No, you don't have to go with the flow. You embrace new technology if it helps you to do the job but you make sure it is properly trialled and tested before you implement it. Perhaps the Coastguard should have tested the Sat Comms with a HF radio as backup. That way the S92 might have had proper Comms with them.

But to go with the flow because its new and therefore must be better is totally wrong. The Coastguard should have checked the system worked before risking the SAR crews who do the job.

[email protected]

11th Jan 2008, 18:45

As I understand it, the MCA were offered the satphone option and jumped at it since it was new and, in theory, improved technology. However, the compatability with what presently exists at the ARRCK was either assumed or ignored.

Yes HF is old hat but it is the primary source of comms between the tasking authority and the helicopters - in hindsight it does seem foolish not to have included it in the S92 spec. A modern HF set can still provide very good comms with the ARCC - just a shame only our Mk3As have one.

Ned-Air2Air

11th Jan 2008, 20:24

PumaBoy - Media shut the hell up!!!!!!

Just remember that NOT all media have no clue about helicopters. Some of us do all we can to PROMOTE the industry.

I could turn around and bag ALL puma drivers with the same brush because one was a dick, but we dont. So DONT tar all media with the same brush.

Ned

pumaboy

11th Jan 2008, 22:34

Ned

My apologies

Ok their is one journalist who knows what he is speaking about.

But in general whan you pick up a news paper and some thing small has happend to an a/c the media pick up the incident and write what ever they want and it turns to be a whole different incident to what really happend and this can damage the industry and loose contracts.

It is peoples jobs and lively hoods that are affected.

I don't mind them writting about our industry but please make the story as it happend and listen to the experts who know what they are speaking about instead of making up things that are exaggerated.

Once again many apologies to you Ned

Justintime80

11th Jan 2008, 22:46

Hands up all those would have failed on more than one occasion has failed to speak to Kinloss on HF,:ugh:

Skytrac might not be the answer it might have a few shortcomings.
But please do not say that HF is the be all and end all its's NOT.

Justintime80

We do NOT allow outing of PPRuNer's real names, or hints thereof :=

Senior Pilot
Rotorheads Moderator

blimp22

12th Jan 2008, 01:19

Lost at Sea

The Coastguard have never been able to speak to their helicopters once out of VHF range as they dont have HF in their MRCCs. Now they can speak to them using the Satphone. So for them it's a welcome addition.

Ned-Air2Air

12th Jan 2008, 03:45

Pumaboy - No problem, just would be nice for us not to be stuck in the same catergory as the mainstream media, who I agree, have very limited, if any, knowledge of the industry.

You will find that most of the time they wont listen to the experts and include their explanations, because that would make sense, would make that "life theatening situation" into a broken fuse on the overhead panel, and hence they wouldnt sell any papers. And for mainstream media thats the purpose, sell papers and dont let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Just my two cents worth.

Ned

Lost at Sea

12th Jan 2008, 10:34

Blimp22

The Coastguard have never been able to speak to their helicopters once out of VHF range as they dont have HF in their MRCCs. Now they can speak to them using the Satphone. So for them it's a welcome addition.

I'm sure it is for the Coastguard who are sat warm and cosy in their ops rooms. But its surely not a welcome addition for the crews if they can't communicate and there the ones who are out in crappy weather. Do they have to phone through a Mayday for example and was this system ever tested or trialled before it went into the Coastguard heli's?

blimp22

12th Jan 2008, 14:35

Lost at sea

Whoa there. I'm with you, lets have HF as well. It is a welcome addition as the situation has now gone from having no means of communication to having one, thats got to be a good thing, but HF in addition would also be very welcome.

3D CAM

12th Jan 2008, 18:02

Lost at Sea.
This whole interim contract is a trial!! Aircraft, equipment, CHC, people, etc.etc.:( Hadn't you realised that!:)

SARCO

12th Jan 2008, 23:19

To correct a point the MF equipped MRCC's in the UK do have full HF capability and some MRCC's use it including Stornoway, Shetland and Aberdeen although I believe Shetland use the MF freqs I am aware Aberdeen have used HF in the past on more than several occasions, and yes the ARCC / MRCC staff may sit warm and cosy in their ops rooms but they do a hell of a lot of work in preparation for the job to be carried out...it doesn't just happen. :ugh:

Return to sender

13th Jan 2008, 11:57

It is a welcome addition as the situation has now gone from having no means of communication to having one, thats got to be a good thing

Actually it seems to be the complete opposite for the poor old Coastguard crews in the S92! :uhoh:

[email protected]

13th Jan 2008, 14:58

Justintime - I didn't see it but I presume it was my name you were taking in vain. I didn't say the HF was the be all and end all - I said that in the 3A it is a much more user friendly system than the 3. Even so HF works a lot more often than it doesn't.

However, in the next year or so all RAF SAR Sea Kings should be fitted with satphone/sat tracker providing the trials are OK and the funding doesn't disappear. So then we will have Satphone AND HF!! The big difference is that our satphone/tracker will be compatible with the ARCCK system:)

Inverted81

13th Jan 2008, 16:08

Ok....

Comms appear to be an issue, but something i am sure will not be left unresolved considering the hostile conditions in which these guys can work in. I believe the Sumburgh 92's officially go 'on line' this week, and from what i've heard the crews are very happy with the helicopter. Yes there are some bugs to be worked around, same as there were probably bugs to be worked around when the S61's were introduced.

What about the good points? most noticeable for me has been the ability of the S92 being able to keep a good speed on approaches if they are in a sequence, and no doubt this increased speed can only be of a benefit to response times??

Whats the endurance like compared to the S61's? More space down the back so more people can be winched and taken to safety?

Just a few questions to perhaps focus the convo down another avenue from the usual S92 bashing....

enjoy ;)

Tonka Toy

13th Jan 2008, 17:29

Just as a point of interest, all of the coastguards fixed wing assetts had there HF comms removed and sold off some years ago. There was no replacement in terms of sat comms.

I rather feel that some people at the MCA are going to get there collars felt by either the NAO ( ie; 'wheres the money going?') or the EU ('are you actively trying to get people killed?') in the not too distant future.:*

atcomarkingtime

29th Jan 2008, 20:29

Just been catching up on things having been on holiday since just after Hogmany....Navytorque's post on 9th Jan is interesting about the rescue west of shetland on Hogmany....I was the controller along with my watch manager plugged in on Aberdeen Information that evening....good to read about what happened but I must say that ARCC worked very hard ....they were sorting that rescue out along with a casevac from the Forties that had us all working till way gone 0300hrs!! Everyone kept the evening very pleasant!!

edwardspannerhands

4th Feb 2008, 09:38

Quote from BBC News website; "Operators CHC said an operation by Stornoway's S92 to save 14 crew of a trawler on St Kilda had been the machine's biggest challenge so far". Given the tasty conditions at the time in question, will this be enough to silence those who critisised CHC's decision to select the S-92 for Stornoway?

[email protected]

4th Feb 2008, 14:23

...and those who were prepared to slag off the pilot when she was unable to complete a previous job in the 92. The public slagging didn't happen but I was sent a gypsies warning that if I criticised the crew it would backfire since the pilot was ex-RAF. I wouldn't have critcised the crew anyway but it seemed like there were some queueing up to try and throw some mud.

Another good job completed by a professional crew.

RLHDLW

15th Jul 2010, 21:32

I have added S-92 rotor head images here
Aircraft in Detail - Helicopter Rotorhead Image Gallery Index (http://www.b-domke.de/AviationImages/Rotorhead.html#Cyclone)

Cheers,
Burkhard

ifsknt

16th Jul 2010, 03:10

Burkhard

Good pictures but its not an S-92 Cyclone, its just an S-92A.

The Cyclone nomenclature is for the Canadian MHP program and has auto folding main blades and tail section.

widgeon

16th Jul 2010, 15:17

I would really like to see some pictures of the folding mechanism. Does any one have info as to whether the actuators are on condition or do they get overhauled after a certain number of fold cycles ?. On the Sea king I know that at each overhaul there is much work to do on the actuators , control and blade locks and the hydraulic lines . Some years ago I recall the hydraulic tail fold had a very low time between unsched removals , is it any better now ?. If anyone has a video of the blade fold I would really like to see that as well , I will trade for one of the Sea King ( without blades ).