Rescue choppers in the UK

[bolkow]

Is it just me or does anybody else suspect overkill on most occasions when an S61N goes out on a mission to rescue a sole casualty, which seems to happen on most ocxcasions close by or on actual beaches. If these cost £5000 an hour to operate is it not expendive overkill and would not the public andtheir purse be better serves by say 5 ec135's with winches which cost around £1000 an hour to operate effectively giving five capable machines for the price of one?

[Fortyodd2]

The problem with most rescues is that the crew never really know what they are going to find once they get on scene. Given the amount of kit "down the back" of the average Seaking/S61/S92 in order to be prepared for most eventualities your average 135 wouldn't get off the ground. Plus, you'd still need to have the larger aircraft for the occassions when the sinking freighter with 12 crew aboard needs assistance - so now you have 6 aircraft/bases/maintenance/crewing to pay for and operate and the money will come from.......?
Unless of course this was a wind up to get Crab going in which case I'll stand well back and watch :)

[Spanish Waltzer]

Bolkow - Have you been in the sun too long? :ugh::ugh:

Either that or me thinks you are simply bored and fishing but please lets not start another SAR slanging match thread. Particularly as a quick look at your previous posts highlight that you know only too well the S61 has been replaced in the UK.

In fact it wasn't all that long ago you posted in another SAR thread (sic)

actually chinooks are a great idea, you could fit a riow of winches and winchmen like the way they do underslunf loads in three's except have a dozen, and pick up 24 people at a time with cages on the end of the wire? You would'nt even have to land.

Please give it a rest.:oh::oh:

[g-mady]

bolkow,

Just done some quite complicated maths.... are u suggesting we might have 5 SAR units for one that operates a S61... If your figures add up you have a very good point.

I am not an offshore pilot but I suspect the S61 would be the weapon of choice to anyone in a force X storm trying to rescue 3 of a small boat....

9 tonnes or 4???

MADY

[bast0n]

Is there another way of spelling bolkow......................?

[Vie sans frontieres]

Opening gambit by Bolkow :

Is it just me

Yes.

[bolkow]

I appreciate the point about having a variety of kit and going prepared for any scenario. I simply wonder if the details were looked into from most call outs, would it support that kind of apparent overkill?
I am not expressing a strong held view by myself either way, honestly, but was open to persuasion either way.

[[email protected]]

And 5 crews instead of 1, more engineers and support staff for the extra 4 aircraft and 5 times the fuel - a much bigger operating base or 5 smaller ones - the extras required to give a capability which wouldn't get used are rapidly defeating your simple maths.

How often do you think there are 5 incidents needing winching going on at one time??

In the Swansea area it is simple, if it is a land on job the air ambulance will do it - if it needs winching we will do it and although it often is one or two people we retain the capability for many more which you wouldn't have with smaller aircraft.

[Epiphany]

Australia has been operating small to medium size civilian winch and medical equipped helicopters in a combined SAR/EMS role for 30 years and it has worked very well.

Casualty numbers are usually only one or two and range is rarely an issue. Most city hospital helipads are on the roof and most country hospital pads are very close to the buildings so a large helicopter would not be much use.

Of course we don't have the problem of military SAR 'experts' bleating about how they think it should be done.

[[email protected]]

Or the problem of bruised Aussie egos when someone differs from their view point:ok:

[902Jon]

ec135's with winches which cost around £1000 an hour

I don't know where you get your figures from but a knackered old twin Squirrel costs over £1000 + VAT per hour on a charter.

A shiny new EC135 costing X millions plus medical crew & equipment, winch fitting (additional training costs attached) etc will be considerably more.

[Epiphany]

As there is only one view point Crab - i.e. yours - I assure you that what little ego I have is not in the slightest bruised.

[Spanish Waltzer]

but please lets not start another SAR slanging match thread

Of course we don't have the problem of military SAR 'experts' bleating about how they think it should be done.

Or the problem of bruised Aussie egos when someone differs from their view point

As there is only one view point Crab - i.e. yours - I assure you that what little ego I have is not in the slightest bruised.


why oh why...every time.....although it certainly wasn't you crab who started it this time is it possible to take the moral high ground and not rise to the bait?:ugh:

[Epiphany]

SW, my post was not intended to start another slanging match. It was intended to contribute constructively to the thread and to show that Australia has a very good civilian SAR/EMS network that works well, uses smaller machines than UK and is independent from any military SAR involvement.

If Crab choses to believe that I view him as a 'bleating military SAR expert' then that is up to him. Can't think why he should though.

[[email protected]]

Spanish - you are right I should have been more mature and just ignored it.

Or I could have highlighted that the Military have operational control over SAR helicopters in UK and that 2/3 of the SAR flts in UK are Military or that only 2 SAR flts in UK use smaller helos (and have struggled to match the capability of the larger aircraft).

Maybe then it might be clear that my opinions are not borne from ignorance or lack of experience in the SAR role and that the UK SAR environment requires something more in terms of capability than some other SAR environments might.

Does the SARH contract for the next 25 years in UK include a smaller combined HEMS/winching aircraft? Er ......No

[Spanish Waltzer]

.....now there you go - both of you managed to provide reasoned points for discussion and (almost) without lowering yourselves to the increasingly common my willy is bigger / size isn't everything debate that every other SAR thread seems to have fallen into in recent months.

If we are able to keep this thread away from the above style of rants may I be permitted to ask you, Epiphany, assuming you are in a position to know;

How are your civilian SAR/EMS network of winch equipped helos funded? Govt? charity? private finance?

How/by whom are the civilian crews trained in winch ops and what percentage if any of them are ex military?

and how do they respond to a major incident offshore or would they expect the military to assist?

Simialrly crab a few questions for you;

In your opinion have the 2 SAR flights in the UK at present using smaller helos struggled to match the capability of the larger aircraft significantly due to their size alone or has it been due to the multitude of teething problems that that particular version of the 139 has sufferred from? I appreciate the MIRG response is a size issue but even that is surmountable and not often utilised in any case.

On another thread recently, and occasionally in the media, it has been suggested that the RAF SAR helos are suffering from a lack of manpower in certain areas and therefore less able to provide the cover expected. Whilst we all could (UK MPs apart ;)) do with a bit more cash in these difficult times, is the lack of manpower a funding issue or are numbers of your brethen jumping ship (another nautical phrase for you!) due to problems closer to home/better opportunities elsewhere?

I look forward to reasoned and adult debate....maybe:)

[Blue Rotor Ronin]

I look forward to reasoned and adult debate....maybe

Love your optimism SW:ok:

[bolkow]

The figure I was using applied to costs for a fully equipped police ec135 T2+. It costs around £1000 an hour to operate, and frequenlty older aircraft that are more maintainance intensive will cost more not less.

[bolkow]

The figure I used of five is a little crude on reflection, but even three units with the extra ancillary equipment would still work for £5000 an hour I would bet for all three.
I appreciate Crabs point that you'd rarely have a call for all three or more to be working at any given time, to my mind it seems to come down to the weight and variety of the equipment it is prudent to carry, and yes, on occasion, range. It was a genuine question on my part and not an attempt to elicit defwensive reactions from any quarter regardless of how entertaining that might be for some. Thanks for the replies thus far.

[bolkow]

I odnt think you owuld need five times the fuel crab, comparing a sea king burn rate with an ex135? I appreciate the math was a bit too simplistic but revising the figure to three units of the smaller kind, even an ec145 would just burn 300 kgs an hour, with the ex135 around 200.

[griffothefog]

Bolkow,
You should ask the mod's for spell check software or stay out of the pub!!:}

[Blue Rotor Ronin]

defwensive

Bolkow's really Elmer Fudd:E:E:E

http://www.mudvillegazette.com/milblogs/archives/elmer%20fudd.gif

That pesky wabbit....

[bolkow]

typos my man, I can spell but sometimes type way too fast.
Bit picky to home in on that though, dont you think?
I will try typeing slower for those who are prone to distraction easily.

[XV666]

typos my man, I can spell but sometimes type way too fast.
Bit picky to home in on that though, dont you think?
I will try typeing slower for those who are prone to distraction easily.

Or read the post before pressing the "Submit Reply" button. Now there's a thought :hmm:

[landy01]

How are your civilian SAR/EMS network of winch equipped helos funded? Govt? charity? private finance?

How/by whom are the civilian crews trained in winch ops and what percentage if any of them are ex military?

and how do they respond to a major incident offshore or would they expect the military to assist?

Quick rundown for Australia,

As said Oz runs combined SAR/EMS choppers funding varies state to state and base to base.

Queensland has a mix Government (3 x AW139 at Cairns, Townsville and Brisbane) and charity ( energex rescue on the sunshine coast 2 x BK117 / Careflight on the gold coast 1 each bell 412, 230 and AS350 / Central queensland rescue and capricorn rescue both bell 412)

NSW again a mix with gov't funded choppers (CHC on contract- AW139 and B412) in syd and surrounds, with charity (westpac) at newcastle, lismore, tamworth. In addition there are 2 ems only charity choppers (careflight hirt and child flight) in syd.

Vic- all gov't funded with 3 sar/ems B412 on contract from CHC, 2 sar/ems B412 on contract from Helicopters Australia?. In addition there is a police airwing that has sar/ems AS365 on contract from CHC shared with the ambulance service.

ACT 1 B412 charity (snowy mountain rescue)

Not sure about SA, NT and WA (I know WA has a charity B412 near perth but not sure about the rest of the state)

Training- All winch ops must hold a civil licence (2911?) so ex mil can do a crossover course, civilians do the full course.Careflight Queensland offer the training. Not sure about % but I beleive that Careflight has 4 line crewies, 3 training crewies and the chief crewie and they're about 50/50 between ex mil and civ ( but most of the civ are ex or part time emergency services and so are used to the type of work)

Responding offshore will be the responsability of the nearest unit, Mil support may be used but a lot of Aus is a long way from a military assist, the mil choppers (Army and navy) are based at Townssville, Syd,Nowra, Perth and Darwin?, if they are available/ close enough then yes they can be asked to respond but it isn't their primary role.

In addition the RAAF has 6 rescue choppers under contract from CHC and again if they are available they can be asked.

Generally, SAR/EMS is a civvy response only, and the units/bases are about 50/50 between charity and government (owned/contracted).

Hope this helps, if you have any more queries hopefully Epiphany or John Eacott will jump in.


Alex

(sorry for the quote, can't work out the blue box thingy)

To insert a quote, try clicking on the quote icon http://static.pprune.org/images/editor/quote.gif

SP

[Never in Balance]

Nice Job Landy01
But don't forget the SAR machine on the mornington peninsula in Vic that is charity run. With a very nice set up indeed.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3172/3381073679_9df4024b32.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3424/3381900026_5ec9166319.jpg?v=0



http://www.pprune.org/Bell206L-3_VH-BLV_Southern%20Peninsula%20Rescue%20Squad_22.03.09_53

[Turkeyslapper]

Yes, Australia does have a system that works for us being the combined SAR/EMS model with medium twins, however we also have very different operating environments and needs.

I don't want to knock the dedication, professionalism and enthusiam of the guys in the Australian SAR/EMS community whom do a fantastic job, but I think when we talk about a pure SAR capability we would be a little bit short when compared to the whinging poms - look at the resources that are thrown at SAR and the environment they operate in over there.

How many SAR/EMS operators in oz can fly 150 nm off shore at night in crap weather, perform a rescue off a small yacht or fishing vessel and be back for tea and medals and how often do we really even need to do it? I don't think you could justify the huge cost of having several SAR bases equipped with big shiney aircraft when you compare it to the amount of long distance off shore night rescues that are needed - thats what the Navy can do. I guess though up there in the North things are very different.

We have a cost effective system that works, but I would almost say that we are good jacks of all trades but masters of none, again I am not trying to be disrespectful but thats what our types of operations call for. I don't think we can compare our apples with the poms oranges:)

Anyway, my humble opinion.

Turkey

[Vie sans frontieres]

Do my eyes deceive me? A rational, deferential post on Search and Rescue, devoid of jingoism. Well said Turkeyslapper. :ok: You wouldn't have a word with Epiphany, would you?

[[email protected]]

Spanish - manpower first, no they are not jumping ship yet - a couple have gone to other SAR contracts but the main issue has been moving the Sea King OCU which put rearcrew training on hold for several months. The rest of the RAF is working hard on dets and ops and they are holding back many volunteers for SAR who can't be spared from their current posts. Some senior RAF ranks recently decided that to spread the pain, we should reduce to 4 crews per flight because they don't understand how our shift system works and we are now struggling to meet all our tasks with the resources available. Add in a ridiculous new plan for FI manning and you have a recipe for low morale and further PVRs (premature voluntary retirement) - all because some bean-counters won't man us properly to do the task required.

As for the 139 - it has a small cabin (as has the Griffin/412) and is an awful place to work as a winchman/winchop - there are lots of documented cases of bad backs and knees already from the rearcrew in the RAF (Griffin/412)and I would not be surprised if the same thing is happening in the 139 fleet. It's other shortcomings have been due to the contractor - there is still no over-water night winching capability on the aircraft which covers 90% of the English Channel!!!!! a year on from its introduction to service.

MIRG is an issue but many Fire Brigades aren't aware that the 139 can't do the job.

[Spanish Waltzer]

cool - thanks to all for the replies so far. Maybe...just maybe we have turned the corner and can continue with informative, reasoned discussions on how SAR can be and is successfully performed in different parts of the world without needing to try to justify ones own as better or be quick to judge or throw mud at others.

You never know someone somewhere may at the grass roots level have a good idea/practice that just could make another organisation/individuals' job even better/safer. That is, in my opinion, where pprune is at its best.

Regards,

SW

[Epiphany]

The UK has traditionally always used heavy machines for SAR and has until recently been predominantly military. Ask them to use a medium helicopter and suddenly it is a problem because it can't carry 15 casualties and cannot fly 200nm offshore at night and winch those 15 casualties - sore backs and knees also becomes a big issue. These heavy SAR machines are occasionally used for HEMS tasks at night and in IMC as UK HEMS helicopters (mainly) are day VFR. Otherwise they are not suitable for HEMS tasks as they are too large.

Australia has traditionally used small helicopters for a combined role of SAR and EMS and has been predominantly civilian. In the early 90's we started using medium helicopters (Bell 412 and AS365) and we were very happy to be able to wich up 4 casualties and the crewies were ecstatic that they could actually move around in the back. No complaints about bad backs and knees. Some of us now operate the AW139 which is an excellent machine for the job - power, legs and big cabin.

In 20 years of maritime SAR in Australia I have only had to return to a vessel to pick up more survivors (because we couldn't fit them all in) on one occassion and have only had to do a night offshore winch in anger 4 times. Most of our flying is HEMS - primary to accidents and secondary inter-hospital transfers - which we do an awful lot of.

With the Australian system we have an extensive network of 24 hour IFR SAR/EMS medium helicopters that fly regularly on medical tasks and overland SAR tasks- often at night in IFR to remote, unprepared landing sites and winch casualties on a regular basis. These same crews also preform the far less frequent maritime SAR tasks when asked.

The UK mentality seems to be that it is necessary to spend huge sums of money providing dedicated SAR helicopters that can fly 200nm offshore at night and winch 15 survivors. The fact is that this situation almost never happens. These same machines spend a couple of hours each day flying around training. Meanwhile the UK HEMS system operates mainly day VFR in small machines running on a shoe string budget funded by volunteers collecting money from joe public.

The Australian way is to provide a very capable HEMS machine that can pick up one or two casualities and carry them to hospital. This happens every day. The same machine can also perform in a SAR role as it is large enough to carry SAR crew and winch. It may not be capable of flying 200nm and winching 15 casualties but then why should it?

[Moose Loadie]

Let's remember that it's not just about flying 200 miles and picking up 15 casualties. How many times have I needed the cabin space for moving mountain rescue teams? Plenty. How about two stretcher casualties? Several. SAR isn't about who's got the biggest or shiniest asset, it's about having the right asset, equipment and crew to make sure the people who call us get the service they need.

[[email protected]]

The choice of UK SAR machine to date has been whatever the military decided to use - Whirlwind then Wessex then Sea King - for a multitude of other tasks - SH, Anti Submarine etc rather than select a SAR specific aircraft. Generally what we got was what Westlands were producing under licence - they all had one thing in common though - a decent sized cabin because most of them were used for trooping and soldiers don't like getting in and out on their knees.

Since all the UKSAR capability came from the military, primarily to rescue ejected FJ mates, it is hardly surprising that UK SAR was built around larger aircraft and it happened long before HEMS and air ambulances became de rigeur.

However, when the mil decided it didn't want/need certain UK SAR flights because there was little FJ activity there, 4 became civilianised but guess what? - they chose the S-61 because it gave the right mix of capability to suit the wide range of UKSAR tasks - a small island nation with a huge Search and Rescue region (SRR) and very busy waterways plus lots of very popular walking/hiking/mountaineering areas as well as masses of tourist-ridden coastline needs SAR capability to meet all those different environments.

For a while we had a mix of aircraft with Wessex and Sea King/S-61 but the superior overwater capability of the Sea King/S-61 and the lack of investment in a Wessex/Puma replacement meant it was replaced.

Last year the interim contract for the 4 civilian bases was let and they chose a mixed fleet based on the belief that a smaller helo would be better for the sheltered inland waters of the Channel. Has it worked? The 139 is fast and powerful but so is the S-92 - SAR autopilot modes and lighting aside, the 139 can do some UK SAR jobs very well but the fundamental shortcoming is the small cabin - only pilots think it is 'large' because they don't have to work in it.

Moving the ever-weightier British public, especially if they are incapacitated, is not something you want to do on your knees (unless you love your chiropractor) but that is what the 139 forces you to do - how anyone got that past a Health and Safety risk assessment I don't know.

I have made the point many times but if a land ambulance was procured that only had enough headroom for a 4' midget, there would be a riot amongst paramedics the length and breadth of the country.

The large capacity might not get used very often but when you need it, and many people have (Boscastle, Gloucester Floods and umpteen sinking or disabled fishing and commercial vessels) it is worth every penny. Try taking the MRT to a job in a 139 - that should be a laugh!

We don't have a joined-up Emergency Services response in UK, partly for historic reasons (mil controlling SAR) and partly through the inability of the Cabinet Office to create one. Air Ambulance/HEMS has come about through charitable moneyraising because the Govt wouldn't fund it through the NHS and individual Police Authorities run their own helicopters if they think they can afford them.

The system still works however and there is a reasonable overlap of capability which means that more often than not, an air ambulance is tasked to the 'land-on for 1 or 2 casualties' jobs and we get the bigger winching stuff. There are still tasking and command and control issues sometimes but because of the professional people in all the Emergency Services we muddle through in a very British way.

As to the future - the nature of UK SAR demands a larger helo, that should be crystal clear by now, but the SARH process has cost a lot already and will cost Billions to replace a system that isn't actaully broken with another system that looks very similar to the old one.

A whole shedload of taxpayers cash could be saved by banging some heads to gether in Whitehall and MoD and creating a PFI that buys in/ leases modern aircraft but lets the boys and girls already doing a pretty damn fine job carry on.

The MoD would have to decide that despite not being core business, SAR requires a skill set that creates excellent military helicopter pilots - the Govt wouyld have to stop contemplating its navel and realise what is about to change and what it will cost.

Instead we will go through a long and painful process of transition (approx 5 years) which will require many military pilots to transfer across (because otherwise it won't work) and cost a fortune in the process. Anyone who thinks this will save money and validate the myth that civvySAR is cheaper than Mil is deluding themselves.

[Epiphany]

Yes Moose it is about having the right machine for the job. If you regularly carry lots of pax then you obviously need a large helicopter. Although REGA seem to do a good job of mountain rescue in the Swiss Alps using an A109K2 and we manage to carry 2 stretcher patients quite easily in a Bell412. I guess it is also what you are used to and can adapt to.

[Spanish Waltzer]

Isn't it interesting how some, who have come from smaller beginnings suggest that

No complaints about bad backs and knees. Some of us now operate the AW139 which is an excellent machine for the job - power, legs and big cabin.

whilst others who started large...

the 139 can do some UK SAR jobs very well but the fundamental shortcoming is the small cabin

(I make no apologies for selective quoting but it makes the point :ok:)

Epi - are you a front seater by chance? Crab makes the valid point that the 139 is a great pilots machine but the rear crew suffer? Would be interesting to hear from any 139 current SAR back seaters to get facts fom the 'horses mouth' as to whether the smaller cabin is as much of a problem as those who promote the large option like to make out.

I would imagine a massive percentage of the incidents that the UK SAR guys get called to could be handled by a 412/139 size machine but with the caveat of limited space for casualty treatment / equipment carriage. Of course its great to have the size & legs for the infrequent long range / mass casualty event but you have to draw the line somewhere and as crab again has pointed out in the UK that line has been driven by what has been provided to the military by westlands originally for other tasks. With the advent of civilianisation does the Aussie model highlighted by landy, Epi & others meet the majority needs of the UK and therefore provide better value for money or as the SAR(H) bids have shown does the unique UK requirement justify the large helo whatever the cost bearing in mind both options are, to a degree, unknown quantities :confused: :confused:

[John Eacott]

Since the thread title is "Rescue choppers in the UK", I feel there is a unique requirement there which isn't necessarily met by the aircraft and manning used elsewhere.

The Australian set up suits the conditions of long distances and low population, whereas the UK plethora of day only/short range EMS helicopters backed up by medium/long range/all weather/large cabin machines for a dense population in a small area has developed to meet the demands of the nation.

England is about the size of Victoria (IIRC), which has 4 x 412EP EMS machines, 1 x 365N3 EMS and 1 x 365N3 Police/SAR machine, all State Government funded and available 24 hours a day, IFR/VFR as required. That's for a population of 4.5 million, and most EMS jobs from country Victoria are round trips of 1.5 - 2 hours. It is difficult, IMO, to compare that with the UK!

Aircraft type is also subjective. For someone used to the cabin of a Sea King, then a 412 or 139 seems to have limitations which are not acceptable. For someone coming from a BK117, a 412 cabin is luxury, and a 412 crew view the 139 as an acceptable advance in their life ;) All 139 crew that I have spoken to are quite happy with the cabin, although some fit-outs could do with revision in the future. Work space hasn't been raised as an issue, except that one operator seems to have used the extra space (after the 412) to put in extra crew, which limits the improvement!

Crab has his points for the UK: they have devolved from an essentially military SAR requirement to now being an all over civilian and military service, called upon to provide everything from EMS to overwater rescues to mountain SAR and so on. That calls for a large airframe just to carry all the kit to cover every eventuality. The S92 is the next generation to take on the task of the SK/S61, whereas the 139 is better suited (in UK) to Channel ops and short range stuff.

Horses for courses: there is no machine yet that will do everything, hence the need (in UK) for a mixed fleet. And the EMS Air Ambulance in UK should be 24 hour, and is long overdue for full Government funding: it's a disgrace that they have to run themselves as a charity (maybe they should all have second homes to claim upon, that would solve two problems at once :p).

[bolkow]

How about youtake up and comment on the point and question being asked? Being picky about typos is frankly petty.


I quite agree.

But it wouldn't hurt you to read through your posts before submitting them :hmm:

SP

[bolkow]

does anyone think the UK should use a couple of strategically placed ch53's for long distance offshore rescues solely? 1000 litres an hour for up to seven hours max?
If the arguement is that big metal is neccessary I cannot see why that type of machine is not represented to some degree.

[keepin it in trim]

I hate to intrude on private grief, but having flown the SK for 10 years on SAR and then the 135 for 3 years (day/night SP IFR ems in Scotland) I feel I may have some expertise.

Both are great aircraft for the job they do (although the SK, which I love dearly, is getting long in the tooth now).

Epiphany makes the mistake of equating what he does in Oz with the requirement/task in the UK. I do not know enough about the task in Oz to offer an opinion on what works there, so I won't.

However, I have taken a SK 200nm out over the atlantic on several occasions, at night, imc, and sometimes in poor weather, not always to rescue multiple cas, but the point is simple here - a 135 does not have the legs for that kind of task. I have also used a SK to deploy large numbers of Mountain rescue personnel, sometimes on rescues that literally lasted for days, in crap weather, in winter, day and night. On all these occasions the SK was ideal for the task and would have been my weapon of choice. I think the S-92 would probably be a very effective replacement, and certainly the UK coastguard units seem to be making good use of it.

As for the 135, great air ambulance machine. Very fast response time, both in getting airborne and in the cruise. Fits into spaces and places that are surprisingly small, class 1 helipad perf at MTOM, SL, +21 deg. Great medical fit for the 2 paramedics, for the pilot full efis cockpit and a great autopilot make it a highly capable SP ifr machine (nhs scotland has all its pilots sp IFR qual'd).

So what am I saying here? the 2 are complementary, you need both. Don't get overly fascinated by the number of casualties carried. Sometimes you need lots of space for a special care baby team to work during a long night transit in pants weather (SK), other times you need rapid response over shorter ranges to an rta with a critically injured casualty (135). A hospital tranfer of a seriously ill patient can easily be accomplished by a 135, a long search in mountains in winter needs a SK.

I have no axe to grind having been on both sides of the fence, but please do not make the mistake of oversimplifying the requirement, or doing down one asset, when both are needed and effective, if used appropriately.

You all be careful out there:ok:

[Cabe LeCutter]

There seems to be a lot of comment based on winching various numbers of casualties, very few comments about what happens when you get them in the cabin. Having operated in various sizes of helicopter, Bell 412 to SeaKing and Super Puma, give me the bigger cabin anytime. Having suffered the frustration of trying to administer IEC to 2 trauma casualties in the back of a 412, I never want to do it again. There is not enough room in the cabin to intubate a casualty, especially if you have another injured person as well. Yes I know that we do not do it often, I suspect that a lot of the comments come from pilots, not the guys who do the dirty work. It is all very well winching people, but better still to have the facilities to get them to hospital alive.
My bad back was only exacerbated by the 412, it was caused by too many fat casualties when on the larger helicopters.

Head down, look out for the flack.

[Jolly Green]

does anyone think the UK should use a couple of strategically placed ch53's for long distance offshore rescues solely? 1000 litres an hour for up to seven hours max?
If the arguement is that big metal is neccessary I cannot see why that type of machine is not represented to some degree

When the USAF had H-53's based in the UK, the interval between rescue calls could be measured in years. The S-61 was adequate for almost everything that didn't require aerial refueling.

[Spanish Waltzer]

Dear Bolkow,

Whilst I fully appreciate that you have ownership on this thread as the originator, may I respectfully ask you to read back through your posts, slowly and out loud, and then hopefully you might understand why your inputs have been either criticised, ridiculed or very quickly quashed as unreasonable. It really isn't difficult to check through your post for typos and to make sure it makes sense before you press submit...(I'm sure you're now going to scrutinise mine for the same...feel free I'm sure you'll find something).

There are now some massively experienced SAR operators from around the world debating live issues using their background to provide real examples. If you have experience of your own to bring to the table then please do, but throwing in ill-considered, illogical and unpractical 'solutions' without providing supporting evidence will simply cause your thread to dissolve, like many SAR threads before, into a waste of bandwidth.

Just my opinion of course.

SW

[bolkow]

Spanish Waltzer, firstly if you go back to the beginning of this thread you will notice I posed a question, which was genuine, and designed to elicit more information from folk who responded to help me answer the question for myself. You seem to labour under the misconception that I already approached the question with a hard and fast view of my own, - well I did'nt. I merely posed a question to try answer something for myself that I have wondered about. To suggest I ought to have begun with all sorts of supporting evidence for a view I did not have makes little or no sense.
In this respect, IE: the scanario of air sea rescue, I did not pose as an expert in any way shape or form, so if you wish to discredit me in some way its a tad disengenious to try it on basis that I set myself up as any osrt of expert, -that is your mistake and yours alone.
Regarding typos, yeah, I am not a secretary or for that matter a typist, but had there been no typos it appears I'd still have had difficulty communication clearly with you. I'd suggest you correct your own more significant and fundamental errors about the nature of my post before you whine about less relevant typos?

[bolkow]

Now you mention it, that rings quite true, I seem to remember only two in my memory off the west coast of Ireland. The only other time I have seen ch53's in Ireland was at the time of Ronal Regans State visit some years ago, when two flew in support of it.

[Spanish Waltzer]

Bolkow, I apologise if my post made little or no sense to you. I hope you feel your genuine question has been answered. Shall we leave it there. :ok:

[bolkow]

no problem

[[email protected]]

Bolkow - hopefully you now understand that when you see the Sea King from Chivenor doing what seems like simple tasking that could be done by an air ambulance - it is because we are either the best asset for the job (based on the details of the initial 999 call) or the only available asset for the job (air ambulance tasked elsewhere).

Many times that we end up landing on a beach to pick up a casualty we have actually been launched because the report was of a person in the water/capsized dinghy/surfer etc) who the air ambulance cannot assist. By the time we get on scene the casualty has often been dragged from the water but still needs urgent medical assistance and rapid transport to hospital. To a casual observer it looks like an overkill response but better that way than to send an AA only to find the casualty still needs winching.

Your answer might be to fit winches to AA but that has so far proved to be a non-starter in UK for many reasons, not least of which is their non availability at night except into prepared sites (we can go anywhere - within reason - anytime). SAR helicopters are expensive whichever way you cut it and having more, smaller ones does not provide the economies of scale you are expecting, not least because then you need more crew who have to keep their skill-set with lots of training (and that costs loadsamoney).

[bolkow]

to be honest crab your arguement and points are well put and I accept them fully. In some respects it reminds me of a time when I was a young lad and the local harbour acquired a state of the art lifeboat costing a considerable sum. I remarked to a lifeboatman that it was a lot of money for something which in those days exercised once every three weeks and perhaps twice in a few months saved a life.
He responded that as far as he is concerned its paid for itself fully after the first life is saved, and everything after that was profit. That remark stayed with me and i guess I have my answer from yourself. many thanks for your patience!

[Tonka Toy]

Bolkow.

Biggest required lift by SUM S-61, 32 or 33 persons I believe. Thats your answer.:suspect:

[hoistop]

Have to add my five cents worth,

412 bringing in MRTs is a joke? We do it often and it works - of course it would be better to have bigger machine, but on distances we are operating with, a second flight might solve the problem. Small cabin in 412 - my knees are sore sometimes, but some padding helps alot and doctors like it much more than A-109Power or EC-135 as they can at least move around a little...
From what I have seen in the UK and many other places my heart goes with Aussies - a right mix of fleet and capabilities to meet the demand.
In Europe -yes, hoisting in Alps is done with A-109K2 in Switzerland and EC-135 with hoist can be seen in south Germany, Italy, etc. but for my taste, these helicopters are simply too small for such type of operation. (You cannot bring hoisted person inside A-109 - must land first!) but they are the cheapest one to do the job. You need at least four ton class helicopter for decent hoist operation.
What is important is the care for the patient, that is bringing EMS specialists TO THE PATIENT and not rushing him to the hospital, that might be an hour or more away - and here Crab, your excellent SAR service lags behind many others. Dividing SAR from HEMS is simply a nonsense! I know it, I am fighting for merger of these in my country too - as we also can feel "SAR is military, HEMS is civillian!" problem. Add on this "Search for missing persons is police task" plus "HEMS is Health/doctors domain" and a mess is complete! Trying to bring two ministries together is difficult, bringing Defese ministry, Home Office and Ministry of health behind one table and asking them to merge current services or create a dedicated one or whatever else that would solve the problem, looks like mission impossible. But it is the only reasonable way forward, anything else is just keeping status quo.
Talking about costs - 5000 pounds per hour of SK tells you nothing. You have to take in account all costs and you will find out that costs are much higher, but spread in many items. Majority of air rescue costs are fixed - depreciation, salaries, training, insurance etc. Variable costs are created only when rotors are turning - and I can assure you,that these are mostly dwarfed by fixed costs. Recently I had a chance to run a roundtable on future of air rescue in my country. There was a lot of talking that this is an expensive service and it is difficult to get it to higher level, (more bases, night capability etc). So I asked the most responsible persons of my country how much our current air rescue system cost our taxpayers/insurees, and guess what? Nobody could tell. The only thing that is known is hourly charge for 412 (provided by police or military) that covers variable costs. (approx. 1300 EUR)
By not knowing basics you can manage nothing!
Bolkow, I am afraid your "5000 poud per hour would pay for many EC 135" argument is just a guesswork.
Regards,

hoistop

[bolkow]

I did state that the £1000 per hour was for a police operation using an ec135 t2+.
On reflection I appreciate that for air sea rescue availabilty 24 hours round the clock the figure might neccessarily have to be higher as the amount of personnel I imagine would be higher for a start. All that I am saying is that in one type of operation it can be operated for that amount, I think some of crabs points illustrate to me that in different applications the ancillarly costs in addition to the machine might make the cost significantly higher.

[[email protected]]

Hoiststop - our winchmen are very well trained in Emergency Medicine - they are fully paramedic qualified. There is no point taking an ER doctor to a scene when the casualty is in a precarious position (cliff, deck, in the water etc) when they need to be rescued first and treated second. Hospital staff are often a liability in these situations because they are so far out of their comfort zone they become another casualty.

More often than not, you are within 30 mins of a hospital in the UK and the most significant delay getting the casualty to definitive care is usually waiting for the ambulance at the HLS.

So, although I take your points, I really don't think that we 'lag' behind others in the UK SAR world and trying to combine SAR and HEMS just wouldn't work, they are different jobs, albeit with some significant overlap on occasions.

It would be interesting to know how others would have dealt with the 29 stone (406lbs or 184 kg) patient my boss was faced with the other week. Including the trolley he was on, the combined weight was an estimated 500lbs (227kgs) and it took 10 people to lift him into the aircraft! Try doing that in a HEMS helicopter!!:) They had to borrow sheets of plywood from the building site next door use spread the load of the 4 small trolley wheels on the cabin floor!

[Wiretensioner]

It would be interesting to know how others would have dealt with the 29 stone (406lbs or 184 kg) patient my boss was faced with the other week. Including the trolley he was on, the combined weight was an estimated 500lbs (227kgs) and it took 10 people to lift him into the aircraft! Try doing that in a HEMS helicopter!! They had to borrow sheets of plywood from the building site next door use spread the load of the 4 small trolley wheels on the cabin floor!

Well we would just drop the ramp and wheel him and the trolley into the S-92 with some loadspreaders under the wheels!

Simple really with the right aircraft!

Wiretensioner

[Epiphany]

And with a smaller machine we used to say 'Lose some weight you fat b*st*rd and we'll come and pick you up next month'.

[[email protected]]

Wiretensioner - that settles it - we'll ring you when we get the next one:)

[jayteeto]

If a squirrel costs a grand an hour to hire, they are making profit, that is what they do. A 135 would not cost that much (we bill around 700 to other forces), however a 135 that has an engine failure with a chap on the wire would be interesting. In the summer, we hover OGE with 3 POB and are pulling max continuous. Air ambos can pick up the easy ones, let SAR have BIG toys with plenty of kit to do the tough ones!!

[branahuie]

Wire Tensioner-....after you unloaded the aux fuel tank.........

[Juan Smore]

Wiretensioner: aux fuel tank aside, that was a good answer! Keep looking forward!

[Wiretensioner]

Branahuie

On our flight we don't have the aux tank fitted.

Wiretensioner

[[email protected]]

Oh, so you just don't have the range to do Swansea to Dumfries then:)

[Wiretensioner]

Crab

As one who comes across as a font of knowledge on all things SAR,I feel disappointed that you appear to have forgotten that the UK based SAR S-92s do not operate in that part of the UK.

However if we were (and after conferring with our airframe drivers) I have been assured Swansea to Dumfries would be no bother. In fact we could be halfway back by the time a Sea King got there. The only downside for us is that due to a lack of a hot water boiler, teas and coffee would not be served.

Wiretensioner

[[email protected]]

Wiretensioner - as someone who started the banter about having the right helicopter for the job you seem to have a problem with accepting return banter - those smilie icon things are supposed to denote lighthearted comments - do you really think I don't know where you operate and what your capabilities are?????

J for joke, S for small one, B for Badly taken:)

[Wiretensioner]

VSF

Excellent question, well put.

Answer: At the moment, with great difficulty!!!!!!!!!!! But at least we can wheel him up the ramp!

Wiretensioner

[[email protected]]

So what is the problem WT? Is it lack of tie-down points in the cabin, strops not cleared for use, a fragile wet-fit floor or what?

[scottishbeefer]

Agree with previous posts about the idea of lifting MRT. The north side of Ben Nevis is hard enough without having to do it 3 times instead of 1 - you need a big cab for that work. Interestingly, all the MR's I've worked with who have had experience of the odd S-92 assisting instead of a SK, have all agreed 2 things:

1 - the downwash from a highly loaded disc like an S-92 makes for hard work during winching - the relatively gentle SK is easier on the troops.

2 - With the best will in the world, the Coasties are not well versed in mountain ops, (I stand by for the Cuillins argument). Lochaber and Glencoe MRs struggle to get the service they've been used to from the mil boys simply because it's not the CG's bread and butter. I take my hat off to their maritime skills but experience counts - hopefully enough mil boys will make the jump to SAR-H from Lossie/Gannet/Valley/Boulmer/Chiv to bridge the experience gap, otherwise the concept of having no less a service will be a bit of a porkie pie.

Finally, someone posted earlier that 200nm+ rescues are few and far between. Not sure the 771/Chiv boys would agree with that one.

[Lioncopter]

Two things scottish

Eh there is more than just skye for the coasties!

I wonder how many overland jobs the coasties carry out compaired to over water?

[calli]

Scottish beefer,

"With the best will in the world", the Stornoway "coasties" are at least as well versed in daymountain ops as Lossie/Boulmer/Valley, etc