Low level overwater ops: radar discussion

[lost horizon]

RAF and RN Sea Kings regularly operate in bad weather at low level overwater down to 50 ft amsl during ops and training. That they are able to do so depends on a skilled radar operator working a 360 arc radar to ensure collision avoidance.

The S92 has a co pilot operated radar 120 arc weather radar, the limitations of which would be highlighted in strong cross winds and in the hover, for example; Coastal letdowns. How would an IMC (lets say 100ft cloud base, 100mtres vis, w/v 40 kts) let down to the base of a 300ft cliff in a strong onshore wind be safely achieved. This is a not uncommon occurrance, I know, I've done enough of them.

Also, when operating in the hover at night, ops or even training and in similarly poor vis for protracted periods, how is collision avoidance from surface vessels to be achieved with said radar particularly in busy sea areas like for example off Felixtowe. I might be wrong here but wasn't a Navy Lynx run down by a merchant vessel in the Adriatic some years ago? Perhaps CHC don't intend to train in those conditions. (Train hard fight easy, its the way ahead) but bearing in mind the contractual requirement to provide a service no less capable etc etc how will all round collision avoidance be achieved with the S92 in poor vis?

I did (over) hear someone once say "why would you need a radar to point anywhere but the direction you are heading?" Well, if you have to ask that ..........................!!!

I don't understand the ins and outs of certification and AOLs etc but I would like to know how CHC will cope with those circumstances described.

[Rescue1]

RAF and RN Sea Kings regularly operate in bad weather at low level overwater down to 50 ft amsl during ops and training. That they are able to do so depends on a skilled radar operator working a 360 arc radar to ensure collision avoidance.

Here we go again:ugh:

Your right I don't know how the the crews from the four CG bases have managed to survive the past 26 years without the "360" := Radar

[lost horizon]

Let me be clear. This is not a "Crabesque" rant about mil crews being "better" than civ crews. You don't have to convince me of the calibre of the CG crews past and present. I was in the business for over 30 years and I know their record, most are ex mil anyway. If you are a civil SAR operator and I gave you that impression I apologise.

My question is more about equipment. A Mil Sea King (mil registered) is able to operate in the conditions I described because it is unencumbered by the (lack of) restrictive civil certification for those conditions, and has the equipment (360 radar) to do it.

My own experience (and 30 odd years of sea king ops confirms) is that you cannot operate SAFELY in those conditions without a 360 radar whatever your SOPs and whatever other sensors you employ.

I will be happily back down if you, or anyone in CHC come to that can tell me that a safety case has been made using the S92 with it's current radar and that CHC have or will have CAA clearance to operate down to the wx limits currently used by mil Sea Kings.

If it hasn't and they haven't then they will not, as required by the contract, be able to provide the same service currently provided by the mil.

[louisnewmark]

Folks,

Please, please don't start off the radar debate yet again on this thread; if you want to revisit this circular argument then it's all there (many times over) on the 'SAR-H to go' thread.

Facts: 1) The future UK SAR service will have helicopters equipped with a nose-mounted 120 degree radar, 2) the operational differences between 120 and 360 degree radars were well recognised by the PT and advisors, 3) the 120 degree radar solution was examined in great detail during the evaluation process by people who know what they are talking about and 4) the bidders were required to describe procedures to cope with specific scenarios posed by the PT, and these procedures were thoroughly evaluated by the PT and advisors.

I think it's safe to assume that both the preferred bidder and SAR-H PT have actually put some work into this topic, so perhaps it's better to accept the equipment that will be provided and use this thread for more constructive debate!

Louis

[pasptoo]

RAF and RN Sea Kings regularly operate in bad weather at low level overwater down to 50 ft amsl during ops and training. That they are able to do so depends on a skilled radar operator working a 360 arc radar to ensure collision avoidance.



Lost Horizon,

Don't you think the operators of the 120 arc radars are skilled at operating it? Working through any limitations it may have?

360 deg radar???? With +/- 15 deg blind arc forward and +/-5 deg blind arc rearwards, Excellent planning!

That said i think the S92 has a moving map, FLIR, digital terrain mapping, FMS navigation system, so many many tools for which to ply its trade safely.

The black magic of the radop has been exposed surely?

Lastly, I think the run down Lynx was in the Gulf region and day time! could be totally wrong on that one!

pas

[lost horizon]

louis and Pas

So is that a yes for the safety case and CAA clearence?

[Clever Richard]

The SAR-H contract is supposed to provide a capability no less than that currently provided. Lets stick to the facts about the different types of radar and what you can or cannot do with them. Could a mil 360 degree radar operator give a quick description of how they conduct an overwater IMC letdown in an onshore wind that would exceed the limits for hovering tail into wind; and then close to the land to get visual? If an experienced operator of a forward looking 120 degree radar could then give a description of how they would do it the rest of us would then be in a position to make informed comment.

I have edited my post to include that any systems used in the above procedures must have the necessary clearance/approval for the purpose for which they are used. I believe this rules out many of the fancy toys on the S-92 but I am prepared to be corrected.

Lets stick to facts and not let the thread degenerate.

CD

[Marty H]

(lets say 100ft cloud base, 100mtres vis, w/v 40 kts) let down to the base of a 300ft cliff)


All,

I too would like some information on the use of 360 degree radar in the above scenario.
100 meters is 0.05nm. That’s quite a resolution.

I have only ever had the 120 radar so I know no different. We usually have to go to another location along the cliff line where we can let down more comfortably before moving closer
More modern a/c can have fairly high cross wind limits. I believe the AW139 has 40kts demonstrated crosswind and 30kts downwind with power to weight almost double that of the Seaking.

The inertial in space autohover, moving map, terrain mapping and improved homer are certainly helpful aids.

As far as all these toys are concerned, this will have to be clarified on SAR H

The CAA have accepted it will be a free standing SAR AOC under national regulations. Ie Nothing to do with JAR/EASA. So it starts with a blank sheet and the CAA then sign it off if they are happy.
Maintenance will of course be EASA.

The CAA has always taken a sensible view on Lifesaving, however their history with training for the task has always been a little too restrictive in my opinion.

On the face of it though the 360degree radar with qualified and dedicated operator does seem to have the edge.

Regards

Marty

[peterperfect]

Lost Horizon, why not speak to a Lynx looker as well ? pp

[[email protected]]

Now when a Radop is sorting the let down, and giving it his full attention so as not to overfly land or other radar contacts, the co-pilot gets to do nav, radios, fuel planning and most importantly monitor the handling pilots flying making safety check calls (rad alt heights) during the manoeuvering and descent to the hover.

If the co in a 92 is going to be doing the radar as well, what happens to these well-proven safety cross checks? Or does he just have to work much harder.

As for the myth of the radop being exposed pasptoo I guess you haven't seen how good they are at their job and how logical a dedicated radar op is during high workload SAROPs. The pilots can get on with their jobs and the man with the sensors can do his.

Do the CAA have a suitably experienced and qualified SAR expert who is going to sign the new AOC off?

Marty the minimum radar range on the Sea King is 75m and yes that is good resolution - it is the main reason we have been allowed to operate the way we have for many years - a good quality radar and a dedicated operator.

[Non-PC Plod]

But surely, in a modern aircraft with a decent FMS, 4 axis FD and TAWS/EGPWS, "sorting the letdown" is not really anything like the hard work it used to be in the mighty king! - I admit I know zilch about SAR, but I have some experience of the latest generations of aircraft, and I know they are capable of getting to a 50' hover over the sea, close to fixed obstacles in total IMC. Obviously the unknown factor is moveable obstacles, which is clearly where the radar comes in, but I think the pilot flying and the pilot monitoring will have their workloads hugely reduced in comparison to what they experienced in older-gereration aircraft.

[lost horizon]

Clever Rich,

Quick version as requested.

Fly at safety height overwater (1000 ft) parallel to the coast on a mapping run to check you are in the correct location and to locate any surface contacts which may be in the area.

Let down in a safe area a few miles off shore (2 - 5 miles depending on the wind) to a chosen height prior to the final let down (usually 200 ft in a Sea King)

Fly parallel to the cliff approx half to one mile off shore. With a strong on shore wind there will be a lot of onshore drift so it is important to be able to see where you are tracking and about to track in order to maintain separation from land.

Start the final let down to the chosen hover height turning the aircraft into wind at an appropriate time to position the survivor in the chosen clock code (eg 5 or 5:30). Vital to get this right, because as the speed reduces the onshore drift increases. This is a so called "modified let down" You can just turn into wind and then let down if you want but you will end up further offshore.

Once established in the hover you are pointing out to sea with the cliff behind you at whatever range you have planned for depending on the conditions (one mile?) The aircraft is then flown backwards to the cliff either by the pilots or, certainly in the latter stages, by the rear crew on Hover Trim (if you have one!!) looking out of the door to the minimum radar range. This is 75 metres in the Sea King. If you have the cliff visual you can continue if not you should abort (dead ahead , into wind, out to sea)

Throughout all this the radar operator can see the cliff and ensure separation.

With a limited arc radar there is the possibility in very strong winds that there is so much drift during the approach that the ac will be tracking outside the radar's field of view and of course, once turned away from the cliff then you can't see it at all. In light winds it will be mitigated somewhat because you can always "cock off" heading but not in strong winds.

All conditions are different but this is a generic but well established SK SOP which, as requested, indicates the advantages of a 360 radar over a 120 radar. As was pointed out on the other thread, the CG have been operating for 25 years with a 120 so I will be interested to know how they cope with this scenario.

Finally, PLEASE, PLEASE understand this is about equipment NOT people.

Out of interest, for SARH the S92 was bid with a 120 radar the 225 with a 360!

Ta

[Clever Richard]

Lost Horizon,

Many thanks for taking the time to explain the procedure. Will be interested to compare with the 120 degree radar procedure.

CD

[thechopper]

why not mount the then obsolete 360 radars on the new s92's together with the then obsolete radops? Must still be some life in them.

:ugh:

Keep it serious guys

[Norfolk Inchance]

As part of EX Saif Sarea approx Oct 2001; Gulf of Oman. HMS Marlborough's a/c was instructed to hold posn. below 100' as (not very) fast jets were running in on a simulated attack/wasex on HMS Illustrious with VIP's from both countries on board. Lynx duly complied and sat in 50' hover watching display. Not very observant Omani patrol vessel with distracted bridgewatchkeeper then ran into tail of Lynx, chopping it off and sending Lynx into Davy Jones's locker:ooh:. Both aircrew got out; one straightforward, other one having to use STASS and inflate LSJ underwater.:D

[Cabe LeCutter]

Iron,

I am currently with an outfit that has the new technologogy but nowhere near the capability. Sadly a person who has his workload split, using a piece of albeit modern technology but, reduced minimum range and limited viewing angle cannot perform either job as well as a Sea King Co Pilot plus RadOp. I have yet to see a weather radar with a 75mtr minimum range.

What is more important is how often will you need to operate down to those extreme limits to save lives, in my experience only a few times a year. There have only been a couple of jobs that I have had to operate down to 75mtr, these jobs would not have been doable by a modern replacement. It does not matter how many nice new toys EICAS, TCAS, EGPWS, AVAD you have, a radar is the only thing to stop you hitting a moving ship in fog, the others are there for other reasons.

A helicopter was lost a few years ago in Ireland in circumstances suggested by Lost, onshore wind etc, hapily nothing similar since. At the end of the day, money will dictate capability. I am sure that the SAR-H IPT have decided that the extra cost of a 360 degree radar and dedicated operator cannot be justifed for a few jobs a year.

To answer Lost's question, in some circumstances CHC will probably not be able to cope, but there are always some jobs that you will not be able to carry out. The 360 degree radar battle is lost, accept it and get on with life.

We do not fear change, we fear being short changed.

Heads down, look out for the flack.

[Turkeyslapper]

Hi all,

Interesting discussion and whilst we are on the topic. As one that has only really experienced using a 360 RADAR optimised for surface search ie preriscopes etc I have a question in reference to the use of weather RADAR with its various modes for search ops.

Are there any good rules of thumb that we can apply when using these RADARs for search operations in order to get the best out of them ie range, tilt (I know there are lots of variables).

We won't be using ours for IMC let downs et al just as another search tool.

Thanks in adavance.

Turkey

[Rotary Girl]

why not mount the then obsolete 360 radars on the new s92's together with the then obsolete radops? Must still be some life in them.



Keep it serious guys

Chopper,
I think it is vital that we keep it serious. You and ironchuffly's derision of the radop and of 360 degree radar is rather flippant considering the topic of discussion relates to a vital safety element of the SAR operation.

As we are primarily discuissing the S-92, I am assuming that the aircraft is certified for IFR dual pilot. Over the many years of civil and military helicopter and fixed wing operations, experience has been built up that has concluded that some flight regimes benefit from having a second pair of eyes monitoring the instruments ( that may not be the immediate focus of the handling pilot) and indeed monitoring the HP himself who may have made a simple HF mistake that could have drastic consequences.
I'm sure everyone here would agree that a co-pilot conducting such a high workload task as ensuring radar separation in an environment like the English channel, is less able to devote as much attention to the HP or indeed the FCS that may be 'flying' the aircraft.

I know of at least one mil helicopter where the introduction of FLIR screens to assist in low light ops was deemed as an unacceptable safety risk - resulting in (several) multi million pound programs to address the workload issue.

I am also intrigued as to the CAA's approach to operating IMC at low level for training. Their position on SAR Ops is clear, but the capability is also required to train on the kit, and many parts of the UK do not provide a 1000' cloud base every time you wish to go training.

Many SAR bases without approach aids regularly rely on IMC letdowns to the coasts with a low level transit once VMC below in order to rtb (Day & Night) If the clearance for IMC below Safety Alt is limited to SAROps, the ability of crews to train and rtb will be severely restricted, thereby impacting SAR Capability.


I also find it interesting that maintainers have such firm opinions on operating methods.....:D

[[email protected]]

Good posts Cabe lecutter and rotary girl.

Iron - the Sea King 3A has a much better autopilot than the 3 in addition to AVAD but we still monitor the other pilot during let down/ low level IMC/night manoeuvering - why? Because as too many accidents have proven, workload in the cockpit can go from manageable to unmanageable very quickly when conditions are difficult.

[Clever Richard]

The argument about how frequently the ability to carry out an IMC letdown with a strong onshore wind is irrelevant. The SAR-H programme is mandated to provide a capability no less than that currently provided. So, if this procedure, which is used on SAROPs now, cannot be done once SAR-H comes in then the capability requirement has not been met.

However, once someone can explain how the procedure in question can be done using a 120 degree radar then the issue goes away.

CD

[Bertie Thruster]

Crab; when I was at Manston and Wattisham, we had a procedure where we used to orbit at 1000ft, over the Channel, using the radop as an 'on scene controller', radar vectoring RNLI IRB's onto small vessels in trouble, when the vis made it impossible for us to see the surface at a 50ft hover.

Do you still do that?
I wonder if it's possible with a 120' weather radar?

[lost horizon]

Richard

The silence is deafening on the procedure using a 120 wouldn't you agree?

There's more.

When conducting an overwater radar search, ie using the radar to detect a missing vessel, I was always taught, correctly, to look downwind to minimise clutter. so you oriented yourself along the search box in such a way as to always be looking downwind. How's that going to work with a 120? Also, if the search is being conducted in bad weather in an area of high density moving contacts, how are are you going to maintain a plot of those contacts which you have investigated and cleared visually when you only have 1/3 of the picture. IR won't help much.

There has been a lot of talk about the SARH evaluation process with scenarios given for the bidders to solve. I know all about those but what I don't know and clearly what nobody is prepared to tell me is how solutions to these particular problems are achieved using the 120. Perhaps the IPT didn't think them very important or perhaps they were evaluated correctly but not considered important enough.

Cabe is right about one thing, the 120 is here to stay and we have to live with it but nobody has convinced me yet that the radar as fitted to the S92 will confer the same capability as that currently on the Sea King. Airknight bid with a 360 for this very reason.

Richard rightly points out that the Preferred Bidder is mandated to provide a service no less capable etc etc. On this issue, I can't see how Soteria can. Someone help me out.

[[email protected]]

Bertie - it's not an SOP but the big advantage of the dedicated Radop with all the sensors at his fingertips is exactly as you describe - he has an overview of the scene with the best SA of the crew and the ability to communicate with all the agencies directly whilst the pilots get on with flying and monitoring the aircraft systems.

Maybe it is others who are so dyed in the wool in their operations that they just can't cope with control over a SARop being exercised by anyone not in the cockpit;)

[lost horizon]

Iron

I've posed some specific questions about the relative merits of 120 vs a 360 radar. With all due respect I don't expect you as a maintainer to answer them but there has been a deafening silence from the operators of your shiney new service.

The 92 does have a good cabin I admit, whether that makes it a better platform for SAR is debatable but my questions are about the radar and from an operational perspective. Some 92 operator answer them please.

[[email protected]]

Yes the S92 is faster (although aren't some of the fleet limited to 130kts due to MRGB feet cracking?)

Yes the S-92 gets serviced less (if you ignore the 10 hour inspections for the MRGB feet cracking)

Yes the S-92 has a greater range (if you take up a load of the cabin space with the aux fuel tank).

Yes the S-92 has moving map displays (but who provides the obstruction database required to operate at low level overland at night?) Not AIDU who gives the military this capability I am pretty sure.

Yes the S-92 has a radar (but is it good enough to let down to a flooding estuary in fog to rescue stranded cocklepickers?).

Iron, I suggest you stick to maintaining and let those of us who do conduct SAROPs (Search and Rescue Operations - see that's not too difficult is it?) continue to ask pertinent questions about how the shiny new toys are going to be used in anger to perform rescue that are already within the capability of the current fleet. We should be expecting a step beyond current capability given the amount of money and technology involved - that is what moving forward to the future should give.

[NorthSouth]

Rotary Girl:I'm sure everyone here would agree that a co-pilot conducting such a high workload task as ensuring radar separation in an environment like the English channel, is less able to devote as much attention to the HP or indeed the FCS that may be 'flying' the aircraft...Many SAR bases without approach aids regularly rely on IMC letdowns to the coasts with a low level transit once VMC below in order to rtb (Day & Night) If the clearance for IMC below Safety Alt is limited to SAROps, the ability of crews to train and rtb will be severely restricted, thereby impacting SAR CapabilityThere must surely be someone on here with Portland S-61 SAR experience who can say how they've done it for all these years? I know they have had various IMC letdown procedures, including tail-first approaches in strong onshore winds, for some time, all of them by definition CAA-approved.
NS

[Clever Richard]

North South,

There are many on here who await a response from anyone with experience of conducting IMC letdowns in strong onshore winds using a non-360 degree radar stating how it is done.

CD

[calli]

Crab,

Fortunately, AIDU do supply all the low level mapping info that we require - 1:50k maps and the CHAD every 2 months. Sadly, we don't have a nice opsy to do the amendments for us :bored:

There is also a full digital CHAD/mapping service available from AIDU too, though that is not integrated at the moment.

On the subject of radar letdowns, I believe that full demonstrations were given to RAF specialist Radops to prove the required capability?

Calli

[Rotary Girl]

Calli
On the subject of radar letdowns, I believe that full demonstrations were given to RAF specialist Radops to prove the required capability?

I would certainly hope that this is indeed the case.

However, can anyone comment on the ability of current (or future) civil SAR helicopters to train below SAlt whilst IMC utilizing internal radar for collision avoidance ?

[spinwing]

Mmm ....

And what of the integration of I/R (viewer) technology into the Modern SAR machine as a complement to the RADAR?


:confused:

[[email protected]]

Iron - there are many threads where your engineering expertise is both relevant and valued but in a discussion about IMC letdowns you have nothing to offer except criticism of those who do want the discussion.

I asked the same question of the rotorheads community much earlier in the SARH process and the same deafening silence regarding SOPs and clearance to operate IMC below SAlt was experienced then.

Calli - it is exactly the integration of the digital service I am referring to - why isn't it already integrated on the S-92 and the 139? Do the crews routinely carry 50 thou cover of all the areas they might be required to operate? It makes a bit of a mockery of lauding the moving map technology if they do.

[Clever Richard]

Calli,

If, as you say,'On the subject of radar letdowns, I believe that full demonstrations were given to RAF specialist Radops to prove the required capability?' is true then the question that I, and others, asked should be easy to answer.

Now that the preferred bidder has been announced, maybe the question can be answered by not only a civilian user of 120 degree radar but also one of the RAF specialist Radops that treated to a demonstration of the procedure.

CD

[busdriver02]

Here's my input on this:

How accurate is the nav system on the aircraft in question? If you have a nav system that is +/- 40ft, and a digital terrain map that is accurate to 50m, then you can derive a tolerance similar to the 75m radar clearance you've described with the legacy Sea King. Obviously, that does not account for non-terrain contacts. Once you through half pulse width inaccuracies into the radar mix, how accurate do you really need to be?
It should be obvious that a 360 radar with a dedicated operator is better than a 120 degree (what I'm used to) weather radar with a co-pilot, but does that mean the mission cannot be accomplished?

[lost horizon]

Bus driver

In answer to your last question, I'm afraid "safely-yes"

You can have all the map data in the world and a super swept up IR but you won't see surface contacts at night (boats etc) and /or in very bad weather without radar And in the UK environment sometimes you need the full 360 picture.

Clever

I think we are waiting in vain!!! and furthermore nobody has responded to my point on radar searches.

Perhaps I should be the one to stick his head above the parapet and say what
he really thinks, please feel free to join in if you agree.

The MCA have never been able to carry out full low level IMC overwater let downs or overwater searches in all the conditions described with the same degree of safety conferred by the Sea king and its 360 and to my knowledge they have also never had the Civil clearence to do it, partly because they have never had the radar to ensure that safety. Not in the 61, the 139 and now not in the 92 sadly. I know they do do it and it is a tribute to their determination, skill and downright ballsiness that they attempt it at all. I know there is an IMC overwater let down SOP but it isn't as comprehensive as the Mils because of their limited radar. But if the SARH contract were to hinge on this point and Soteria lost because they didn't have a 360 radar (like AK) it would be implicit that the MCA had been providing an inferior service (to the military) all these years and that would never happen.
I am prepared to admit on this forum that I am talking total horse poo if someone with experience of using the 120 radar in the UK SAR environment will describe how they would safely handle the 2 situations previously described (cliff let down - onshore wind and low level radar search) both at night and/or in bad weather.

Oh dear, now I've gone and done it :{

[Clever Richard]

Lost Horizon,

I think you have stated exactly what a lot of people, including me, have thought for some time with regard to the 120 vs 360 degree radar debate. You have summed up the entire debate very eloquently and highlighted the deafening silence from some quarters when facts are requested as to the actual methods and procedures used.

I have no dog in this fight other than being an interested tax-payer with experience of the product delivered not matching the sales pitch in the context of Defence Acquisition.

CD

[louisnewmark]

There have been quite a few comments stating that Airknight offered a 360 radar in their SAR-H solution compared with a 120 for Soteria's offering. Just out of interest, how do those commentators know? Do they all work for AK / Soteria / SAR-H PT? Just curious, given the confident tone of those posts.

Here's a thought: 120 degree radars are pretty standard for civilian aircraft, and I can't imagine that either integration or certification would be a problem. 360 degree radars, however, are certainly not standard in industry; not only are they significantly more expensive than a 120 radar, they are also rather more difficult to mount. This extra expense would be increased by any airframe design and mod work required, not to mention the time and cost of associated certification.

The bidders would have been required to meet a very wide range of requirements, but sadly there is only so much money in the pot to pay for the equipment to meet them all. Perhaps a 360 degree radar could have been provided, but only at the price of sacrificing equipment that would meet lots of other requirements. In the end I imagine the contractor decided on the most appropriate balance of equipment that was affordable, and a 360 degree radar simply wasn't. This isn't gospel, just my guess. For what it's worth I would have definitely preferred to see a 360 radar in the winning solution, but I'm a realist.

Serious question, though, as I'm genuinely interested in the answer: has anyone actually been in the situation where an IMC letdown and closure to the coast was required in an onshore wind strong enough to prevent a hover with a downwind component? In my experience winds of that strength have tended to clear the fog.

Louis

[[email protected]]

Louis - AK took a lot of rearcrew, including radop, input when formulating their solution whereas many of the Soteria personalities seem to be pilots. Additionally AK had a few very experienced, very recently ex-RAFSAR people advising them which may explain why they went for the 360 radar when Soteria didn't. It clearly can't have been that difficult or expensive an engineering solution to provide a 360 radar - it just depends on the will of the bidders. For CHC, as part of Soteria, it might have been too much of an admission to the charges lost horizon has made against them to have accepted that they haven't been doing things properly in the past, I don't know - maybe they really do believe they can achieve the same capability with a 120 radar (I and many others don't think they can). Time will tell unless the CAA are fobbed off with flannel.

Bus driver - only a radar (and a good one at that) will tell you what is actually there as opposed to what you believe is (or isn't) there, not GPS. The anemometer mast used to gather data for wind farm sites are a classic of something that will kill you if you fly into it but will not often be marked on the maps.

[QTG]

When I was a lad, flying SAR missions (amongst other things) in Mk 1 Sea Kings, locating targets ahead of the aircraft was a nightmare due to the 40 degree blind arc caused by mounting the radar behind the engines/transmission etc. It would appear that the radome is still in the same place, so how come we now have a "360 degree" radar?

[lost horizon]

QTG

You do blind arc turns and use the wind/drift combination to ensure that you only fly into areas that you have cleared. Simple!

[QTG]

Yes, that's what we used to do. So we don't have a 360 degree radar at all, and some of us seem to prefer a radar that doesn't see where we're going to one that does. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[lost horizon]

QTG

The Sea King has the radar that we all know and love. Blind arcs yes (14 deg either side of the nose, 2 1/2 either side of the tail) but with procedures that give a great deal of flexibility and safety for UK SAR ops which no one in their right mind would suggest is equaled by a 120.
Incidently, the 360 offered by AK was chin mounted and had no blind arcs at all.

[thechopper]

search bbc Friday 8th August 2003

Camera 'sees through fog'

Dmist removes light reflected from water particles
Scientists in Manchester have invented a video camera that can "see" through fog.
:rolleyes:

Scared by the wind of change?

[Cabe LeCutter]

Louise,

To answer your last question, yes I have had to let down to the coast on a number of occasions in those conditions. The west coast of UK is well known for 40 kt fog, Brawdy and St Mawgan suffered from a poor weather factor because of this problem. Strong wind may clear radiation fog but seems to have little effect on sea fog, maybe lifting it a little to very low stratus.

Some people do not seem to understand that if you have to hover into wind and your radar is pointing away from the direction that you are moving, you are possibly going to bump into something. Modern nav kit is great and generally very accurate, but does have glitches where it is a couple of hundred of meters out, that can kill you.

I doubt that there will be any answers for procedures with a 120 degree radar to let down with an onshore wind, as it is not possible in fog. The minimum range on all of the weather radars that I have used have been in the order of a quarter of a mile; so even if they did point backwards, minimum range would be a lot worse than present.

The bottom line is that a finite amount of money is available for toys on the cab, the best radar lost out to other kit that may be better utilised on more occasions. We are asking for a champagne service but only have a lager budget. I think that this discussion will ramble on without an answer until the next percieved lowering of capability is discovered in SAR-H

Heads down, look out for the flack

[lost horizon]

Cabe

You got it. A lowering of service. Absolutely right for all the reasons and unanswered questions that I have posted.

The thing is that the SARH winner is mandated to provide a service no less capable etc etc and in this they are in breach of the contract (when it is signed off). I know the radar evaluators involved on the assessment process and what they would have concluded from the scenario solutions and the only conclusion I can come to is that the results were not considered important enough in the final analysis.
Why not? Politics? See my previous.

Cabe is right. there will be a lowering of the service provided in this particular area and we are stuck with it. I just hope that there is not a major national incident offshore in really bad weather where the crews involved feel pressured to continue and a tragedy results. If so, there will be no satisfaction in anyone saying "I told you so" at the subsequent inquiry.

That's all from me on this subject.

[Thomas coupling]

What a load of moaning Brits! You'll moan about anything won't you just to get your name in lights.
For God's sake guys get a life...perleeeeze.
No-one is going to rant on about the benefits of the S92 such as reduced maintenance times (TBO's) or the reaction time launching and getting to the sinking vessel due to its superior speed, or the reduced running costs or the superior HUMS fit, blah blah blah because its NOT (bad) news.

Next you'll moan about the colour because it doesnt match the pilots flying suit. Or because it can't fly in supercooled water droplets on the third Thursday in every month.

Look and listen eh:

Its coming to a place near you and 97.5349782% of the time it'll get the job done, effectively, quickly and more safely than EVER before. It's called progress and its also called FATE.

120 radar - less than 1% of ALL rescues maybe :zzz:


Move on...............................................

[lost horizon]

Thomas

Thanks for the advice, much appreciated. I'm now off to get a life. :rolleyes:

[thechopper]

Well said T.C.
l.h. stick to plan "A" and keep your promise.
b.t.w. 3x 120 = 360 (without blindspots)

Cheer up guys the year is still young.:ugh::ugh::ugh:

the hun in the sun!(not yet)

[Clever Richard]

Having sifted the wheat from the chaff, it would appear that the IMC, strong onshore wind, letdown described previously cannot be done with a 120 degree radar.

Thanks to all those who responded.

CD

[Bertie Thruster]

It's funny how it was those annoying "strong onshore winds" that always seemed to blow unlucky yachts and fishing boats with lost power, to the base of rocky cliffs and often at night or crap vis. (We needed a modified letdown about twice a year with the south coast white cliffs and prevalent S or SW winds.)

Good luck guys!

[[email protected]]

TC - let us just hope it is no-one you know needing saving in the 2.5% of remaining rescues that will need a 360 radar to do the job.

You have a vested interest in this contract and so are not likely to be as impartial as you otherwise might.

I am apparently a laughing stock in the Soteria camp because I keep raising questions about performance and capability - I will keep asking questions until the answers are forthcoming so it should at least keep you amused for a while longer.

[lost horizon]

Hey Crab
I suspect that the laughter may be of the nervous type.

[Tallsar]

Anyone who has operated a mil SK with the "360" capability of the radar particularly the latest digital display versions know well how much situational awareness and safety is enhanced in the low level operating environment whether in poor viz or a beautiful starlit night - and that means on most of those type of operations and training not just the 2.5% of occasions - or whatever the appalling weather statistics say. There are just too many bumpy bits out there for it to be anything otherwise - including its use over land in certain circumstances - ask any one who has had to transit in potential icing conditions (and usually on NVG these days) at high level at night!!. Indeed lets not forget that several SAR SK operators were so concerned about this and the need for weather and collision avoidance in the forward arc they had both types of radar installed - the Norwegian SAR force led the way before the RAF even got hold of their 1st SK. Any operational and CRM analyses support this. I agree totally with the view that both the arc of view and the actual discriminatory (target/range) performance of the usual forward facing radars fitted to commercial helos while offering some benefits simply do not replace all the operational situational awareness and safety capabilities presently on board UK mil SAR SKs. Try approaching (AFCS or otherwise) a small unlit yacht/ejectee dinghy at night in poor visibility with other obstructions in close proximity - and thats before its windy!
Unfortunately the Civ registered approach means some degree of compromise with the CAA - and if anyone asks in detail how the present CG helo force operates particularly their visibility and height limits -they will see a difference in approach dictated by the differing radar/AFCS combination as well as the CRM issues associated with 2 pilot use of those systems. Let no one say of course that this type of installation does not offer the same all weather capability as the mil SK's - it is the elephant in the SAR-H room that dare not speak its name - particularly at the DfT and HMCG!! The extra points scored in the competiton for a 360 installation were probably of insufficent weight to count that much - so sad if it was really the intention to maintain the full capability offered in the UK SRR. One might better ask how much "weighted operational judgement" features in such competitions.
Clearly the "Customer" thought that the needed capability could be achieved with just a modern forward facing radar as to be fitted to the S92 - I totally disagree - however thats not to say they will not do a good job with what they will have - if not in the optimum way had they had a better radar/crew combination.

[[email protected]]

Good post Tallsar:ok:

[lost horizon]

Hear Hear :D

[thechopper]

Crab says

You have a vested interest in this contract and so are not likely to be as impartial as you otherwise might.

You very obviously have not, are not.:suspect:

You've got to be the better choice then.:sad:

[Thomas coupling]

Crab -you've known who I am for some time. My comments before and after down select have and always will be unbiased, as you can see.
The real issue here, isn't who has won, it's about - time for change.
The 'customer' has spoken, several contestants stepped up to the plate, two were chosen to go forward. NEITHER has the perfect model. Why? Because there isn't one available. But they provided the best solution given the very strict caveats. Don't blame the solution. Look to what has been asked of them - this is where any weaknesses (if any) lie.
The MoD want SAR out of the RAF's future plans (if there is an RAF in future plans!).

You can question performance and capabilities 'till you are blue in the face. You're asking the wrong people the wrong questions. Your fate is sealed. Your lords and masters have seen to that. Lambast them :rolleyes:

See you Monday!

[Tallsar]

Pertinent words TC - and sadly so on the mark. History will show of opportunites lost, weak and unchampioned policy and lost ethos all of which has been part of the overall management of decline we have all been part of, unknowingly or otherwise......Per Ardua Ad Astra

Cheers

[[email protected]]

Sadly TC, there is a better model but it would mean combining the best parts of both bidders to achieve.

Another poster crticised the make-up of the IPT, which may be valid, since they were the ones who set the rules and arbitrated the decision - unfortunately at the point where 'as capable' became weasel-worded into 'as effective' they handed control to the bidders regarding future capability.

I am well aware I won't get any answers but unless the questions are out in the public domain, no-one will question future press-releases where the dilution of capability is stage-managed and glossed over.

As Tallsar said - it is difficult to stress strongly enough what a superior CRM model the crew with a radop provides in high workload scenarios - dumping all the load on the co-pilot is a risky option by comparison and not conducive to conducting SAROPs as safely and efficiently as possible.

Maybe at some point in the future, a generation of senior RAF officers will realise what they dismantled, part by design, part by neglect - maybe:ugh:

[Tallsar]

I have always held the view that the consitution of the IPT was too commercially focussed (a DE&S policy decision given that it was just a PFI!!) and that the representation was not adequate enough given the complexity, politics and ultimate signifcance of the programme. Could you envisage any other MoD IPT for a £6Bn programme having just a sqn ldr or 2 in its IPT - not likely.

The higher level joint Working groups were where the real decisions were taken and people undoubtedly trod carefully to maintain political compromise between the MoD and the DfT. Both Departments of State have very different risk thresholds and politics, and as usual in UK politics - little day to day alignment - throw in ministerial ambition - and no chance of such a joint project producing a detailed requirement that truely reflected operational experience and need. It is amazing (and to be fair a testament to the IPT) that what emerged was as good (but imperfect) as it is.

As for the struggle for UK mil ownership - we all know that was lost some years ago......not surprising given the other issues their airships etc have had to deal with. SAR helos have been caught between the hard rocks of an air force suffering almost terminal decline in its fast jet and maritme capability since 1990, and those air marshals with helo experience fighting for JHC capability (with some having no truck for the SARF at a personal level) and sadly no one at senior enough mil or political level to realise how mil owned SAR helos could be integrated within a focussed strategy for UK mainland protection and defence - integrated with other departmental responsibilities of course - such as the Police & CG (Maritime surveillance etc). Despite it being government policy for instance to coordinate inter-departmental policy on counter terrorism plans and resources - it was just assumed that appropriate helo capability would be available - nobody has yet considered the detail into the future. Thus When the Aligators (ie the ingnorant and self serving politicians) are attacking your precious parts you have insufficent energy or effort to think straight enough in all areas for the future. We had no Champion in any domain - Thus the RAF SARF has died (though I have every confidence the RN FAA will find at least 1 sqn that somehow retains the SAR role within its roles:hmm:).

I like to think Trenchard amongst all the other tears he would be shedding at the moment (or certainly will be soon) would shed one or two for the RAFSARF. The capability and ethos has been hard won over several generations - it is world class - and although SAR-H will deliver UK SAR capability (but not truely all weather) - it will never (in my view|) match what might have been retained under military ownership into the next generation.

Cheers

[pasptoo]

Tallsar, Crab et al, Let me get this correct, what you are really saying is that the demise of your (the country's) Military SAR Force is the fault and blame of the your Lords and Masters at the RAF? The poor solution with which to replace it is the fault of the IPT (RAF again?). Incidentally didn't both bidders have "high level" exRAF personnel within their makeup as the SMEs???? :oh:

Do not wish to make any assumptions, but there seems to be a common thread here.......the RAF have screwed the SARF. End of!

So you have all spent months moaning about everything and sundry because your teacher is taking your ball away and not letting you play any more. :ugh:

As for the loss of an All Weather service? Is that why a yellow SK was u/s in GLA, because it got some snow in the cockpit?????? :confused:

I'm sure the four man crew of the HMCG aircraft use CRM to provide a safe and efficient conclusion to any tasking. They may not be called Winchop Radop P2 and Capt. But in essence the names surely don't matter? Who knows what will come out in the next few weeks and months, I'm sure the SDR will be a interesting beast when it arrives.

It's a shame that continued prejudice seems to get in the way of generating the perfect integrated solution to SAR in the UK for the future. As I have said before, this was the chance to take all the best parts of RAF, RN and CG SAR and produce a service far more capable than anything in place now.

Good luck to all involved now (and in the future).

Pas.

[Tallsar]

Hi Pasptoo - sorry you seem to want to box my comments in to a single service prejudice box. I think you have very much misintepreted both the motivation and detail of my post(s).

Yes it is true that some of my comments are rather damning of several generations of RAF (and RN as it happens) senior staffs (and their staff officers of course!) for failing to secure the future for UK military SAR (of which the RAF has had primary miliatary responsibility and the majority stake), but I have if you had read more closely, been sympathetic to the immense pressures on the UK military decison makers and suggested why they had little resource to worry about what to them was a less signifcant issue than the many others they were dealing with. As a SAR professional and with an understanding of Defence matters, I am entitled to the view that this was a strategic mistake given the wider potential integration and flexibility of a mil SAR force within a revised and revamped UK defence and security structure in the present circumstances. Please do not simplify my opinions by what appears to be a bitter rant (perhaps with a chip on your shoulder) against the RAF SAR service.

As for the all weather SK - your comment re snow in GLA is of course symptomatic of all helicopters and their ultimate limitations in snow and ice. As it happens the UK mil SK has one of the best detailed releases for flight in snow but there are accumulation limits that can defeat any helo in the worst of snow conditions. Icing is a different matter and while the SK has one of the best cold blade clearances of any helo it is now clearly upstaged by the few modern ac fitted with "hot" blades such as the Merlin, S92 and E225. " All weather" is indeed a very all encompassing and sweeping term, but in my case, and given this thread, I was specifically refering to the SK (and by default the RN Lynx and Merlin variants) being the only helos on the UK mil or civ registers who are cleared to descend to the hover and recover from that condition in zero visibility assuming they have their very capable "360" radar and AFCS and other internal aids functioning. In the circumstances of low level over the water this is one step beyond which is normally available.

I can assure you that the IPT was not RAF dominated - very much not the case - check your facts please. While all bidders had their credible representatives including from ex senior RAF and RN officers (as any good balanced bid team should) - they can only respond to the customer's requirements - they do not dictate policy or set the playing field for the competition. So your comments are simply not releveant on this matter.

I am perfectly entitled to mourn the loss of what still remains a world class SAR organisation - the RAF SARF - but you will note I have been very careful not to make comment on other such military or civilain SAR services. That has been debated in other threads on this Forum, often to no real conclusion. I standby my view that whatever the undoubted improvements will arrive with SAR-H - there will also be some losses of future capability. Life in this procurment domain is a trade off - sadly too influenced by departmental politics and a budget limit.

Please take your rather ranting chip back to bed with you - or get out of bed the right side next time!!:)

Cheers.

[[email protected]]

Tallsar - I just think it is me that pasptoo doesn't like:)

Interesting picture on the 'Canada Cormorant and Cyclone woes' thread - post #48 showing a maritime S-92 (presumably how the 148 is destined to look) with all the bells and whistles of a 21st Century helicopter including what appears to be a 360 radar!!

Since the B model of the S-92 (as I am led to believe) is what is planned to be delivered for SARH with a new MRGB and a redesigned aux fuel tank, adding the 360 radar is clearly feasible and would, at a stroke, kill this whole argument stone dead.

Interesting that apparently the IPT requirements to demonstrate radar let downs didn't include an onshore wind to a cliff scenario - no wonder it didn't have to be met and a 360 radar wasn't mandated.

Pasptoo - I want the future of UKSAR to be as strong and capable as possible and those of us who really understand the capability available at the moment do not want it to be lost. The technology is there, it is just the will to provide the capability that is required. Frankly, the budget is so big now that a few more quid for a 360 radar will hardly be noticed.

[Lt.Fubar]

No. The Telephonics APS-143 radar is not available for civilian customers.

[louisnewmark]

...which might, at a stroke, kill this whole argument stone dead!


Fat chance...:ok:

Louis

[Tallsar]

Unfortunately Crab, when the sums are done for the modifcation costs, as well as the procurement and through life support for a 360 radar ,on either the 92 or the 225, the delta cost is significant. When set against other issues to be afforded in an immense programme like SAR-H it has to fight its corner unless the requirement is explicitly essential for the task. Sadly I do not believe this was the case in the SAR-H requirement (and the rationale for that was more than just technical sadly).
Maybe it might get a look in during the final contractural negotiations - but I am not convinced.
As for the standard of S92 to be used - I look forward with eagerness to see what Soteria have to offer in the end. The final radar spec will be worthy of scrutiny to see if they have offered the most cost effective civ solution that has the best target range/discrimination - I hope so. Meanwhile the present Interim Contract IR shack is opposite the front winching door - not the most ergonomic position I believe particularly when bulky (stretcher) jobs are in progress - so hopefully they will have moved it as part of the cabin reconfig and fuel tank mods. Shame the 225 didn't win as I understand despite its lower cabin roof it would not have needed any cabin intrusions to achieve full misson radius - and of course those large cabin doors wither side would have proven their worth on many occasions. I am curious as to why you call it an S92 B model - I must have missed something - I thought the S92B was to have major improvements such as an extra bladed head - certainly not a project that would be likely to be ready for the ISD of SAR-H - even if it was affordable - but no doubt part of Sikorsky's bid for the revised Presdiential procurement.

Cheers

[louisnewmark]

Interesting that apparently the IPT requirements to demonstrate radar let downs didn't include an onshore wind to a cliff scenario - no wonder it didn't have to be met and a 360 radar wasn't mandated.

Interesting that I'm reliably informed that the IPT requirements to demonstrate radar let downs definitely did include an onshore wind to a coastline scenario - it had to be met to ascertain whether or not a 360 radar should be mandated.

Louis

[pasptoo]

Tallsar and Crab, There are not many people in the world i don't like, if i had an axe to grind i'd let you know.

Also, TS, I certainly have no chip, I am more than happy with my lot, my grass is very green.

All I seem to read here is how we are better than your camp etc. I personally believe that there is much to be gained in SAR-H by combining the best of all current SAR providers. If any one camp were the ultimate solution don't you think the government would stay with that solution?

Unfortunately for the military, the government must see a different solution to that of the SARF and that is the way. If anyone wanted a better solution to their own future they could have asked for a posting to the IPT, thus ensuring the future was in capable hands.

Talking of which, I'm sure many current military SAR crews will be looking to join the civilian (and ex-military SAR) SAR crews in SAR-H. So I don't see how the capability is lost. You can teach old dogs new tricks, they just have to listen and want change. As Crab once said (i think) "if you need a Cat Skinned go to the Cat Skinners!" ergo SAR trained personnel will teach SAR crews of the future.

Radars: Lynx 120 deg - I understand.
S92 min radar range 140 yds or thereabouts. Do you need any less range? Yes you can sanitise an area with 120 deg field of view, then work around it. No one is going to move so fast in poor light or fog with a strong onshore wind that you misplace a target! If you have a target of interest, mark it. All as demonstrated to the senior Radop Specialist of the SARF i believe.

Isn't the CG S92 cleared to the hover and recover in zero visibility over water?

This is not a rant, I am merely highlighting a few facts that appear to have been misconstrued

Ironcheffley - keep posting it is good to see an different perspective occasionally.

P

[[email protected]]

40 kt fog - TM airmass in the SW not entirely uncommon - blowing onto a rocky shore with 200-300' cliffs and aboat run aground getting pounded by the surf with a family of 4 on board.

Our option would be a modified letdown to a hover facing into wind and then reversing in using the radar to accurately pinpoint the coastline until visual contact acquired - min radar range 75m.

How is this possible with a 120 radar? You could fly in downwind if your aircraft limit permits but you are supremely poorly placed for a donk stop.
You could sanitise the area with a mapping run and then let down into wind but you still don't have radar contact with the hard stuff as you reverse in so you are guessing not pinpointing.

Oh and by the way, it's dark and raining so the FLIR is next to useless because of all the moisture in the air.


S-92 I know it's not a real B model but SK have at least addressed some of it's shortfalls.

[Vie sans frontieres]

I certainly have no chip

And Fred Goodwin thinks he's a sensible and cautious investor of funds!:)

[Tallsar]

A much more reasonable perspective PPtoo - thank you.

I too have always wanted a singular focus for SAR in the UK - but have never believed it should be in the civilian domain - sorry that is not a slight on those civ companies who have practised helo rescue so well over the years - its more a strategic perspective of flexibility, military responsiveness to wider security and operational challenges beyond just the actual rescue capability and at times pushing limits or developing new and approvable techniques rapidly that the civ licensed domain is just not set up to respond to quickly or maybe condone. NVG capability being a classic example. Thats what the military are about after all.

There were many who sought to be part of the IPT believe me ....I was one at one stage....but the posts were not there and as I repeat, the construction of the IPT was commercially focussed not as a "standard" IPT for aviation procurement -- so unfortuantely it has nothing to do with individual military people wanting or not wanting to have an influence. The reality is that the top level MoD decision to relinquish "ownership" of UK SAR was taken some years ago in a vacuum of single minded budget driven thinking - not from a wider future policy perspective. Anyone who wanted to influence this from the SAR military component had little influence on it. Sad but largely true.

Civilain release for the 92 and the 139 does not permit let downs to the same limits as available under mil regualtion for the UK SAR SKs.

There are many training and real SAROp scenarios where the lack of a 360 radar will at best complicate matters, some would say make it less safe, and at worst prevent an effective and safe let down at all. Some will argue that this will be on a very few occasions - and that is probably true too. I would not wish to be the casualty(s) on those "few" occasions. Nothing brought home to me the real merits of such an installation as the (very dramatic but nonetheless infrequent) operation for a rig accident many years ago - the Alexander Kielland (and there have been several others on the N Sea since). Over 9 rescue helos, extremely poor viz, a Nimrod overhead - and some very close calls as those helos transitioned up and down and searched the accident scene in gales and poor viz. Believe you me, when you have experienced that situation - you will always understand the merits of a well balanced crew working together as a close and professional team using the best of the sensors that are available with the workload spread amongst them to best effect and sensible human capacity - particularly using a 360 radar. Even roaming around the coast off Essex on a good night with all those vessels scooting about and those monstrous wind farms springing up all over can be one hell of a challenge without such a capability.

Cheers

[lost horizon]

Louis

You are quite right, there was a scenario to a cliff with a 45 kt onshore wind, actually a headland in Cornwall (I forget the name). It was clear that it could not be achieved with a 120 radar with anything like the same degree of safety as with a 360. It (The 120 solution) involved lots of hover taxying sideways and backwards using nothing but visual clearances and with no full SA picture. It was the main reason why AK opted for the 360. In producing the AK solution it was clear to me that, particularly in a dynamic radar contact environment and whether close to a cliff or not, the 360 added a huge level of safety reassurance and flexibility. AK would not have acccepted the cost delta of a 360 (as opposed to the established Primus 701 120 deg) if they were not convinced of the validity of that argument.

In the event the SARH decision did not hinge on that one issue, there were obviously others but I think it's a shame to say the least that this capability will not be on the 92 unless of course....................!!

[Lioncopter]

Out of intrest could someone explain how an approch to a confined inlet such as the Cromerty firth would be acomplished in a Sea king. If the weather was nil wind and viz of 800m with the casulty along the shore say some where near Eventon.

There are allot of rigs and boats in that area at the moment.

Its just to get a idea of the procedures involved in clearing the area infront in a confind area transit taking into account that blind spot.

Having no background in sea kings or there operations i would find the answer enlighting. :ok:

Thanks

Lioncopter

[Cabe LeCutter]

Hey Lion,

Lets make it really interesting and bring the vis down to 200 meters.

Heads down, look out for the flack

[Lioncopter]

no problem Cabe, 200m it is. :ok:

Lioncopter

[Hummingfrog]

Not really a problem in the Seaking. Although it is 20 yrs since I flew out of Lossiemouth and the radar might have improved but using the radar and its overlay you could let down along the length of the inner loch, which is about 1 mile wide, and hover taxy to the shore. The rigs tend to be further up towards Cromarty so it is the small targets you have to be aware of. The so-called blindspot is a myth as it is a moveable area, so with good training it can easily be overcome. I am sure a S92 would do it the same way, unless civil rules preclude coming below safety altitude close to the shore

Now make it a 50kt onshore wind and 100m viz! How would a S92 do that?

HF

[Lioncopter]

Thanks hummingfrog

So there is no area that the radar on a sea king can not see with out having to turn the aircraft?

Recently with all the rigs in there they are bring them further west down towards Dalmore area, though as you mention there are alot of small contacts kicking around there as well.

Lioncopter

[[email protected]]

Lioncopter - no, the Sea King does have a blind arc 15 degrees either side of the nose but, as hummingfrog points out, only a small amount of manoeuvring is required to clear that arc.

The extra coverage of the 360 radar means that you can see into the area you are about to turn into which, when manoeuvring in a tight and busy area, is a very big advantage.

That extra coverage, as tallsar highlights, gives much better SA when operating with multiple assets and avoids the constant traffic alerts from a TCAS system which would be another distraction on a busy sortie.

Interesting that a headland was used in the SARH scenario wheras a bay or straight line area of cliff would have been far more challenging for a 120 radar as they would have to taxi in backwards to get the job done.

[[email protected]]

Just bumping this back up to ask if anyone has done a risk- assessment/feasibility study of radar let downs IMC over water to prove what equipment (ie radar capability and sweep) one would need to carry out the operation safely.

I suspect that Boscombe Down (before they were qinetiq) must have done many trials to allow the MoD Sea Kings to operate the way we do. Anything similar been done regarding 120 radars??

[Tallsar]

Hi Crab

I am personally not aware of such an assessment (and given the general acceptance of the use of radar for "high" level transit as a weather radar I suspect that none has been done - certainly recently). That said, maybe the CAA/CHC had some thoughts for the recent CG Interim Contract release for the 92 and 139??? - or maybe they just read across approval of an AOC submission by CHC based on the previous S61 clearance -focussed on a clear airspace over water requirement - I suspect so.

As you know from my background, I would be clear myself that a 120 would get only a limited clearance in the UK mil environment for zero viz ops these days - check out the Lynx Mk3/8 MAR - the closest to that sort of radar installation in the mil domain.

You will be aware of the excellent performance assessments the RAF RWOETU SK element did when the SK3 FLIR procurement went ahead - I have to say the fonts of knowledge of radar performance in such a low level environment are few and far between - and that alone often leads to a fairly shallow perspective across industry and customers on how best to assess (never mind risk assess) radar (and complimentary sensor) performance in any operational environment. There are exceptions - that done for the RN Merlin being one.

Cheers

[[email protected]]

I find it difficult to believe that the CAA has allowed the same exemptions to ANO for the S-92/AW139 and previously to the S-61 with a 120 radar as the MoD has to the Sea King with a 360(nearly) radar ie operating below SAlt IMC overwater but close to coasts and in amongst vessels/masts etc.

Surely no-one would just read across weather radar capability and apply it to such a hazardous environment - the AAIB investigation would ask some interesting questions I am sure.

Perhaps Soteria did use someone like qinetiq to carry out a risk assessment and confirm a 120 radar was sufficient, I don't know but it seems a big gamble to take if all they are relying on is the CAA to say 'it was OK for S-61 20 years ago therefore it is OK for S-92 in 2012'.

Someone in the CAA has to 'take the risk' and sign off the SAR AOC allowing such ops - I am sure they must have some empirical standard that must be met when doing so.

[Tallsar]

Hi again Crab. Put it this way - I know the gent who was responsible for seeking the original CAA S61 clearance when it was first used for SAROps. The risk assessment as we would call it today was perhaps not of the same focus or procedure but nonetheless allowed transitions in "poor" visbility with appropriate modifications to the cockpit and obviously a fully functional radar. The exceptions to the ANO do not permit let downs in a cluttered environment or to the same weather limits as available to the mil ac so cleared (SK, RN Merlin & Lynx). Amendments and reviews were made following the accident off the west coast when a S61 flew backwards into the water during slow speed maneouvering in the coastal domain (over 20 years ago now?). When the original UK SAR exemptions were sought the CAA was rightly appraised that this technique would be a strictly overwater technique well clear of land. From my own earlier discussions with the CAA (a few years ago) it was apparent that this was their consistent view given their then knowledge of what a civ registred SAR helo was doing (and my view of that was I was suprised what a narrow view the CAA had of what a modern SAR helo actually gets up to). They would expect any divergence or extension of their then understanding to be sought via an approriate AOC submisson by the company requiring it....ie. I would expect Soteria to do this as a matter of course - what limits emerge (and when!) is of course a point of real interest for SAR-H watchers like ourselves no doubt. As you know, the UK military perspective in effectively operating outside the ANO by descending IMC below 3000ft SA on internal aids only in the maritme domain was also assessed (even all those years ago) against the need for fully serviceable equipment (radar/AFCS) and appropriate instrumentation to allow 2 pilot monitoring/workload, malfunction scenarios and radar operation by a dedicated operator. I would assume the CAA will assess any SAR-H ACO application from a similar (but no doubt not identical) perspective. I share your concerns if this is not rigourous enough and there be a future AAIB investigation, which over a 30 year contract is sadly statistically possible!

[QTG]

Oh for God's sake you lot! 40 years ago the Sea King was state of the art. Now it isn't. Deal with it!

[Bertie Thruster]

Not much progress in 40 years then!

[[email protected]]

QTG - that is exactly the point, 40 years on the replacement doesn't actually have the same (essential in my view) capability as the aged Sea King.

I know that modern autopilots allow the HP to monitor the aircraft rather than the NHP monitoring the HP but that is only valid until some parts of the system fail and you are back to square one.

Tallsar, we keep coming back to the 2 issues we knew a long time ago would be the crucial ones - radar letdowns and NVG:)

[Tallsar]

I think OTG you might follow the lead of your own acronym.....and trip yourself off given your rather unneccessary overspeed :D...perhaps the point has been missed on you --- it has little to do with the good old SK (and in that regard you might consider the recent US contract to fully Carson mod over 100 S61s!!) and more to do with achieving the best available UK SAR service.....sorry if that grinds but there it is...some of us do really care about the detail of delivering the best to UK SAR:)

Can't argue with that one Crab....:ugh: ..but the dye is cast........I feel sure that much more will emerge once the contract is signed off...and the commissioning demos begin...I am keeping my fingers crossed ( a lot!);)

Cheers