SAR Equipment Question.

[Could be the last?]

Gents,

Trying to put a capability requirement together.

Anyone any ideas on equipment or mechanisms available to deploy from a RW SAR platform (hoist fitted) a rescue device for multiple casualties in a maritime environment, at night?

The platform, at this time, is not allowed to hover over water at night, which discounts using a winchman to deploy a multi-seat raft. Any potential solution will also need to fit the 'day' multiple casualty requirement.

Any pointers or pearls of wisdom will be appreciated.

[extpwron]

You could drop this in at the “hover taxi”.

Not sure if it floats though.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/gallery/s2_10gallery/1024/tardis.jpg

[kiliwizz]

If you have to keep in motion, what about a firefighting scoop? Would have to deposit them somewhere safely afterwards, of course, but at least you could pick them up whilst in motion.

:}

[Charlie Time]

Is this a rescue device or simply a survival aid? The latter would be met by an air dropped multiseat life raft.

[JTIDS]

Might be missing the point here somewhat but wouldn't it be better to investigate how you can get cleared to hover over the water at night so you can use conventional methods, rather than reinvent the wheel?

[Fareastdriver]

The platform, at this time, is not allowed to hover over water at night

Bit of a waste of money having it. Get something better.

[SirToppamHat]

Slightly off tack, at the end of the Thunderball Movie, James Bond end up in a dinghy and raises a balloon marker, which enables an ac to snag a cable and whisk him up of the sea - was that ever done for real? If so, what was the ac?

Edited to Add

Answered my own question I think.

Fulton Sky Hook System:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5GJ4cu311o

[500N]

SirToppamHat

I think MACV SOG may have used it in Vietnam (or adjacent countries like Laos and Cambodia). I'd have to check John Plaster's book.

[[email protected]]

Anyone any ideas on equipment or mechanisms available to deploy from a RW SAR platform (hoist fitted) a rescue device for multiple casualties in a maritime environment, at night?

The platform, at this time, is not allowed to hover over water at night, which discounts using a winchman to deploy a multi-seat raft.

If it can't hover over the water at night it is not a RW SAR platform - pretending otherwise is disingenuous.

The only effective way to rescue casualties from the water is to hover and deploy a winchman and this needs an appropriately equipped aircraft and well trained crew.

Is this yet another pathetic attempt to do SAR on the cheap? if you want people rescued do it properly - do not pretend that anything less will work.

[Tallsar]

Crab is right.... Other than dropping life rafts and other survival packs en-passant, anything else other than with an aircraft equipped with coupled hover capability is fraught with risk. Goodness knows thats why the need for a 4 axis AFCS capability was properly identified so long ago, never mind the other safety aids such as radar to avoid nearby obstructions.
I have horrifying visions of low speed scooping devices attempting to gather bunches of casualties scrabbling to get on board in high sea states...... And in the dark..... Surely not!

Proper and de-risked night SAR cannot be done on the cheap.:ugh:

[Evalu8ter]

Tallsar, sage words.

Could be - I'm a little concerned that you appear to be reverse-engineering the capability requirement by looking for extant equipment. Unless this is a UOR (and I'm guessing that there's not much scope for this on HERRICK, though conceivably, possibly, ELLAMY) then be careful; much better to consult with your platform RM or Cap desk officer (unless of course you are one...) and assemble a group of SMEs/SQEPs to identify what your requirement actually is before trying to find kit to match it. If I've got the wrong end of the stick then I apologise profusely. Happy for a PM.

[sycamore]

Probably will be the last, if you `search` in the `Nostalgia` threads for `Sproule Net`,all your problems may be answered,..or just starting..!

[xenolith]

If it can't hover over the water at night it is not a RW SAR platform - pretending otherwise is disingenuous.


Is this yet another pathetic attempt to do SAR on the cheap? if you want people rescued do it properly - do not pretend that anything less will work.


So just to be clear, 84 Sqn should be an SH tour.

[jamesdevice]

could you carry / air drop one of these?

500TD - Products - Griffon Hoverwork (http://www.griffonhoverwork.com/products/1)

[Tallsar]

Now thats what I call a well equipped aircraft for hovering over the water at night!:)

As for 84.... Hovering at night over water but with close visual references such as a boat with deck is of course SAR And feasible....but it is still inherently riskier than using a fully coupled transition AFCS to minimise the risk of arriving and leaving the hover.

That said, the original question was believed to insinuate survivors needing rescue in the middle of the ocean with no such references. Those of us who have tried this in the past, and without NVG, know only too well this is not a sensible game. No... The best advice is to get a 4 axis AFCS equipped helo and move on from there...

[[email protected]]

xenolith - 84 Sqn's Griffin is an example of what happens when you let people that don't know anything about SAR procure a helicopter for the role. It is not a SH helo either - presumably you have seen the size of the cabin!

Far better to have had a Sea King det there than in the Falklands - 203 proved it was feasible when they moved the OCU there for a few weeks.

However, given that it is what it is, it is better to have SAR trained boys knowing when to stop than SH boys pushing on and trying to get the job done in impossible conditions.

[leopold bloom]

Far better to have had a Sea King det there than in the Falklands - 203 proved it was feasible when they moved the OCU there for a few weeks.
A few weeks!! - You're off my Christmas card list.

[Tallsar]

Ouch.....thats just a tad harsh Crab....

Using the SK (and now the S92) for most UK SAR for over 40 years has rather spoilt us all.....and rightly engrained in those of us who have had the priveledge an aspiration that it should always be like that. Sadly, this can not always be the case.

There is nothing fundamentally unsuitable about the Griffin Mk2, although in this day and age its single engine performance is poor, and of course in many circumstances, a bigger cabin always helps.

The harsh reality of the Cyprus requirement was that it had to be delivered to a joint service small budget, wherein full night over water rescue capability was not an essential requirement and other roles had to be accomodated too. We can argue endlessly whether it should be ...but thats what the customer ordered. A compromise has been reached which I have always felt uneasy with.... and in the new financial circumstances the chances of changing that are very remote. Who knows though...someone might come along the next time the contract is up for grabs and deliver something better for the price.. or there again maybe not if the requirment isn't there again! Its a shame too because those of us who have been around long enough, know only too well how over water flying can quickly lead to disaster - SAR flying in Cyprus being no exception... PB RIP!


OH...and its a great shame the MoD didn't insist on the SARH OCU being at Akrotiri... now that would have been a way to sort the problem!:rolleyes::)

[tramps]

No actually, Crabs comments were not at all harsh! The diabolical way the Griffin was ‘PROCURED’ and initially brought into service bordered on the criminal.:ugh::ugh::}
The then ‘SO1’ & ‘SO2’ were tasked with trying to clear up the mess and had to drop everything else they were juggling at HQ 3Gp to do so; they endured a few long and extremely difficult weeks getting the disaster of a procurement cleared up and then received very little recognition for their sterling efforts.
The Griffin: a nice little ‘sports car’ equivalent for the drivers and a shambles in the back for the rearcrew!! Your comment ‘a bigger cabin always helps’ shows your utter lack of awareness of the issue of trying to get 2x downed A/C ejectees into the back of a Griffin, never mind giving them medical aid!
The Seaking: the pilot 15ft forward of the winch-op, engine exhaust obscuring the winch-ops view, Right sponson obscuring the winch-ops view, engine exhaust pouring into the cabin area causing ‘who-knows-what’ carbon related issues, no forward looking radar, shabby storage area for winching equipment etc etc!
The Seaking Mk3a: read as for Seaking Mk3, but with an updated cockpit.
The Merlin: the pilot 15ft forward of the winch-op, winch fitted on the aft of the cabin door and 3’ out from the cabin (which Einstein allowed that past the design stage?), issues with the ramp etc etc!
It would seem that the voices of those who actually risked their lives over the last 40 years were ignored or were never properly consulted about such issues, whilst those at the top danced to the tune of Wastelands! :}

[[email protected]]

Tramps - you can be sure that no-one even considered the mechanics of a stretcher entry to the Griffin cabin before deciding it was fit for purpose:ugh:

Considering it replaced the venerable Wessex and brought nothing extra to the party (and a lot less in terms of cabin space and suitability for SH tasking) it should be considered a case study in how not to procure an aircraft.

The fact that it could have been replaced last year with the 139 and wasn't is a further damnation of contract management and procurement policy with the MoD.

[I'm Off!]

Tramps,

Surely you cannot have both a large cabin, and expect the pilot not to be sat somewhere approaching 15' forward of the winch? If the winch was in the middle of the doorway to make stretcher entry easy, the cockpit is always going to be that far forward...

[Ruby Con]

'Gents,

Trying to put a capability requirement together.

Anyone any ideas on equipment or mechanisms available to deploy from a RW SAR platform (hoist fitted) a rescue device for multiple casualties in a maritime environment, at night?

The platform, at this time, is not allowed to hover over water at night, which discounts using a winchman to deploy a multi-seat raft. Any potential solution will also need to fit the 'day' multiple casualty requirement.

Any pointers or pearls of wisdom will be appreciated.'

1st post:

No mention of procurement inadequacies etc...it just so happens that the helicopter in question (I think) has some limitations that a certain Sqn is trying to work with. If I am correct in my assumptions (dangerous, I know), the contract will run for several more years and--as with anything in the miltary nowadays--vast sums of money are not available for new platforms / avionic etc. 8 years down the line and the 'certain Sqn' is just trying to work with the hand it was dealt!!

Pearls of wisdom were asked for--and would, indeed, be much appreciated.:)

Kind regards,

[xenolith]

Evades the question and jumps at the chance to slag SH off. Priceless:ugh:

You SAHH types take the biscuit:D:D:D:D

[Sun Who]

Tramps said:

Surely you cannot have both a large cabin, and expect the pilot not to be sat somewhere approaching 15' forward of the winch? If the winch was in the middle of the doorway to make stretcher entry easy, the cockpit is always going to be that far forward.

http://uconnwelcomemat.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/dsc_0087lr-helicopter.jpg

How about this?
I know it has other issues, but the idea that you can't have a large cab and a forward mounted hoist is wrong.

Sun.

[Thud_and_Blunder]

Someone remind me where the (external) hoist is on a Chinook? - oh, yes, now I remember...

[Tallsar]

...and how about the venerable S61....and its updated S61T version ..another winch just behind the pilot.

Tramps... You clearly needed to get something off your chest..well done. My rather glib comment re the cabin size should have been better stated as " a bigger cabin size that meets the essential needs of the requirement is always better". Sorry.

I was actually in situ when the first double stretcher lift was tried, so need no education over the exact issues with the Griffin Mk2... Or any other of the similar sized aircraft types that were offered at the time. Indeed the whole procurement was badly handled from that perspective. The last 15 years has seen quite a few examples of such as the tried and tested procurement staffing and assessment methods were thrown away fro the sake of " quicker" alternatives... DHFS, FSTA, King Airs at Cranwell, and 84... All had their significant issues.
I personally fully apprciate the retrieval work that was done by 3 Gp, the new aircrew and others, including myself, to get the Griffin into service with 84 Sqn...it showed up a real vacuum in command responsibility created by the formation of the JHC and the budget responsibility vested through AHQ Cyprus and PJHQ. As someone who had always advocated that 84 should be part of SAR Wg... I need no lectures. As the SO1 in MoD who made several constructive proposals to sort 84 in the late 90s with a coherent plan but was told to wind my neck in...mmmm. As the SO1 too, who first proposed the detachment of 203 to fill the gap resulting from the badly planned introduction to service of the Griffin Mk2 .... Well there you are. Chickens coming home to roost etc etc..:ugh:
On the other hand, my main point in my last post is still the most pertinent.
By the early 2000s, there was insufficient cash to deliver the size of aircraft needed to fully meet all the requirements with the budget that had been allocated - that said a bit more of an open minded approach by the correct staff chain in a timely fashion may have resulted in a very different solution....with a large cabin and fully night capable platfrom too...it doesn't
take much thinking to imagine what that might have been.... (And the carriage of more troops and a bigger firebucket too, along with a more efficient aircrew training and management process) :ugh::)
Whats for sure, given the original question in this thread, is that getting the essential requirements agreed and approved and then funded is key to a successful start to providing a good capability. Ignoring history and experience is not neccessarily criminal but certainly a dereliction of duty. Forget not too, the SK Mk3a was always about buying more of the same ( the differnet bits coming from the old ones being out of production!). The SAR-H requirement
was the first time a fully detailed UK SAR helo spec to meet modern demands and building on experience was to be procured.. But then sadly....:(

So..Could Be The Last...... Please don't ignore the lessons of history :ok:

[Vie sans frontieres]

The main lesson being don't forget to ask the rearcrew.

It would seem that the voices of those who actually risked their lives over the last 40 years were ignored or were never properly consulted about such issues

Well said tramps. :ok:Who keeps putting pilots in charge?

[Rigga]

Having read all the unhelpful drivel posted on this thread the answer appears to be "no!"

And CBTL may not even be military - my last job involved the training of non-military helicopter winch operators in the UK. But I'm sure they were allowed to hover over water, day or night.

[Could be the last?]

In an ideal world this requirement shouldn't be needed, and as identified the 'gap' or requirement would have been mitigated if the correct ac/avionics/capability was procured or stated in URD in the first place!

Looking at my original wording, the need to rescue or recover maybe misconstrued. If I have upwards of 30+ people in the water, then the ability to rescue them all immediately is not possible. Considering the global location of the Flt, the ability to coordinate other assets will be time consuming. Therefore, it is an issue of survival and sustainment for those in the water.

Reverse engineering a deployment method for an extant piece of kit, although not ideal, may be the only acceptable solution. The ability to generate a bespoke solution, whether an ac mod or SE, is highly unlikely at this current time. Does the RAF or RN have a method of deploying MS rafts from their ac, without deploying a winch man?

[[email protected]]

Yes, you kick them out of the door and hope the guys in the water can inflate them!

Your best option is to ensure that those in the water are correctly dressed to survive (immersion suits, bunny suits, lifejackets etc). You will not find an extraction device so the only thing they can do is float around and wait to be rescued by a boat. If you can deploy a large dinghy (MS 10 for example) then you at least afford them enhanced protection from the environment but that begs the question as to why they didn't have one with them in the first place.

Far better to say NO it can't be done than to cobble together a non-credible alternative that will cost lives just to satisfy some senior commander's aspirations.

[switch_on_lofty]

In the maritime (grey) Lynx we drop the liferaft into the water and using the inflation cord, pull it in to inflate the raft (only a 5-man so pretty small) before severing the cord and flying off.

This is a day only procedure due to the lack of a night hover over water capability.

This could be because we don't have space to recover everyone in the water or have a liferaft but no hoist fitted at the time.

[Spanish Waltzer]

Your best option is to ensure that those in the water are correctly dressed to survive (immersion suits, bunny suits, lifejackets etc).

begs the question as to why they didn't have one with them in the first place.

I guess the scenario being examined is for when those in the water are not the properly dressed crew of a mil aircraft. For example an airliner/mil transport aircraft going into the water at night just after take off or on short finals where survivors manage to vacate but will not be wearing immersion & bunny suits & perhaps not even life jackets. Similarly ships crews may find themselves unexpectedly in the water following collision etc without the time to dress appropriately or launch liferafts. For these scenarios I can understand why could be the last may be trying to mitigate the risk of not being able to hover over the water but still be able to provide life saving assistance?

As many have already suggested airborne launched life rafts appear to be the obvious first step. Effecting the subsequent rescue is clearly more challenging without surface craft to assist.

SW

[Tallsar]

VSF - while the "recent" 84 procurement was no model for properly assessing the cabin requirements during that competition, partly because of the reasons stated in my previous post, appropriate non-pilot expertise played a major role in trying to resolve the issues. It is simply wrong to state or assume that appropriate winch operator or paramedic/winchman expertise was not fundamental in generating the requirement, and then driving detailed responses by competitors to the major game in town.... SAR-H. That all said, cabin and rear crew role related issues are not the only things that drive a complete solution in a fully effective SAR competition.
There is nothing stopping appropriate experienced "rear crew" personnel playing the leading expertise role in a procurement team... Be it for SAR or any other requirement... And there are some recent examples of just that. Sadly, whingeing from the SAR flt outstations based on misinformation, rather than appreciating this and getting stuck in constructively can become too much of a hobby...

[[email protected]]

SW - in anything but Caribbean air and sea temps, survival time without appropriate dress and equipment will make anything other than immediate extraction from the water an un-survivable scenario. If (and its a big if) the survivors can get into an air-dropped dinghy whilst suffering the effects of cold-water immersion (and injury from their unplanned crash into the water) they might stand a slight chance of fending off hypothermia until a water based rescue platform arrives but I wouldn't bet on it.

Switch on lofty - how long is the cord on your liferaft? More than 5M? How low do you have to get? How much risk is there that the dinghy inflates and lifts with your downwash? The grey Lynx fleet doesn't have a particularly sparkling record regarding SAR, does it?

[Spanish Waltzer]

Crab - I dont disagree, although there are plenty of areas of water - both open & inland around the world where temperatures might give a reasonable chance of surviving and as could be the last is not overly forthcoming as to where he wishes to implement this new spangled idea I was simply offering a different scenario to the one you provided.

To be honest I have started taking slightly more interest in where my life jacket is stowed on commercial flights having seen that aircraft go into the hudson river following a birdstrike and everyone vacate safely. Anything is possible :)

[Could be the last?]

Spanish,

The scenario you described is spot on.

[St Johns Wort]

Can't help thinking that you wished you'd never asked the question!

FWIW, in the mid 80's I was on one of a pair of Puma's that did a NATO exchange to Palma where ths Spanish Air Force had a SAR Flt using Puma's. They didn't use winchmen instead they lowered a shallow basket to the survivors to sort themselves out. I think that it held 2 people comfortably.

If you have a copy of Apollo 13 (the Tom Hanks version) on DVD you will see something similar used at the end of the film to lift the guys from the capsule.

Not sure if that helps. :)

[Could be the last?]

St Johns' Wort,

Thank you for your input, yours was the last piece of the 'Jig Saw' :ok:

[xenolith]

Have you cleared this through Crab@I'm-brilliant. You may incure some displeasure; dont say that you wern't warned!:E

[jamesdevice]

like this???
Heli-Basket® Human External Load Transport System (http://www.precisionliftinc.com/index-1.html)
Guard tests world?s first multi-person rescue basket (http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123016794)

[Norfolk Inchance]

Crab
Switch on lofty - how long is the cord on your liferaft? More than 5M? How low do you have to get? How much risk is there that the dinghy inflates and lifts with your downwash? The grey Lynx fleet doesn't have a particularly sparkling record regarding SAR, does it?
A recognised method for a helicopter to deploy a liferaft is to attach the operating painter(100m) to a strong point on the aircraft, establish the aircraft in a low hover(20-30 ft), kick the liferaft upwind/tide of survivors, climb the a/c until the liferaft inflates and then cut or detach the painter. Each liferaft differs, but some have a floating line that can be 'flown' to the survivors, whilst others have to be guided by either rotorwash or wind and tide.

[chopabeefer]

I was heavily involved with 84 sqn and I can state cetegorically that the Bell 412 did NOT win the competition - it was not the aircraft selected after the run-off by the HICIPT. They concluded that the best aircraft for the job was the Dauphin - I know - I was there. CBF Cyprus then said, effectively - 'but I want the Griffin'. The decision of the IPT which had taken over a year to reach was then instantly discarded in favour of what the Boss wanted. I went to the meetings - this is fact. There's an ex OC84 knocking around the RAF who can confirm this.

We had a full night overwater rescue ability with the Wessex. True, it was difficult without the height hold and the Radop half way down the stairs, calling radalt heights as he looked at it from under his seat, but we did it. That was why only experienced pilots could go to 84 - it was challenging stuff - poor weather (yes I know, but when it's bad in cyprus, it's bad), and single pilot, and not much of an autopilot.

The Griffin is no Wessex - too small - unmanoeuvreable, and delicate. Wrong aircraft for the job. So was the Dauphin, by the way.

Just don't want people to think the Griffin was the chosen frame - it wasn't.

Do we ever get procurement right? How bloody hard can it be???

[Tallsar]

Well done for highlighting the detail behind the choice of the Griffin, Chopabeefer. It continues to remind us of 2 things... Not enough cash set aside.... You never get near to what the task really needs... And finally, any procurement is liable to be messed around by one or several high-ups.. Be they military or political.... Its the main reason procurements go wrong or certainly arrive late and overbudget. These 2 things are the 2 large elephants in the room during any noteable procurement.

As for the 84 Wessex night capability.. Yes thats true too. Frankly, many of us thought it risky at the time, certainly in a peacetime context, and frankly it would not likely withstand the relevant risk and safety tests now applicable. It was after all a valiant effort to produce a capability on the cheap again. The CAA's view on such a thing these days would be to ask if an alternative is readily available... Short answer.. Coupled AFCS and radar et al as with SK and similar cabs. I have confidence the new MAA would take a similar perpsective.

[tyto]

if you cant hover then you are only good for reporting position!
all you can do is throw some raft or lifejackets to the conscious casualities and call in some proper SAR helicopter to do the rest

[Charlie Time]

And the basis for the dig at the grey Lynx fleet on SAR ops is?

[Bigtop]

CT - don't rise to the ill informed drivel that Crab is once again spewing out. I'm sure the crew of the Dubai Moon were pleased to see the grey Lynx loom over the horizon who did a bloody good job considering the limitations of the kit and crew - no 4 axis AFCS, normally only 2 up etc, etc, but at least they had plenty of intiative and crew duty hrs!!!

BBC News - Devon-based ship praised for rescuing crew in cyclone (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/8698606.stm)

:ok::ok:

[Vie sans frontieres]

It would help if they used aircrew as their winchmen rather than maintainers.

[committed]

I have to agree with Tallsar and Crab about the question of needing proper SAR helos and fully qualified SAR crews. It is soooo easy for things to go badly wrong especially at night even when the crew know what they are doing! Anyone for the hi-roof version of the NH90? - It seems to be a possibility but have not heard much feedback from the Fins and Swedes who have taken delivery.
Its worth a thought that having dropped Lindholme gear from a fixed wing to a crew in the water a LONG way north, it still required a Danish Lynx to recover the survivors (those who had not succumbed to hypothermia). ...and why did we ever forget about flying boats after such a great history in the RAF of using these useful beasties. The Japanese haven't and are successfully flying the boats onto Sea 6/7.
Forbid it that the politicians should ever ask the professionals about their job! Such wild thinking...........:=

[sycamore]

There used to be 1153 MCU in Cyprus ;equipped with Sea Griffon engines; it might be more practical to borrow the one at the RAFM Hendon; much more fun to cruise around the Med. in..

[[email protected]]

Bigtop - just think how much easier it would have been if they had actually practised some SAR and had a trained winchop and winchman. Yes they did succeed in rescuing the sailors but they came very close to losing the aircraft and their own crew. And before you start, we had the full story from the 'horses mouth' in a presentation at the SARF conference - they were very lucky to get away with it unscathed.

The attitude that anyone can do SAR and SAR is just a secondary duty is dangerous and may well have caused the loss of the Lynx in the Channel. If you use a helicopter for something it wasn't designed or equipped for flown by a crew who aren't all appropriately trained and qualified in that role then you will have incidents/accidents.

I'm not saying the Dubai Moon rescue shouldn't have been attempted, just that with a properly constituted crew on a grey Lynx, SAR would be safer and more effective. What would have been said had they clipped the boat and lost the aircraft or killed the 'winchman' as they smashed him into the deck. The fact that that didn't happen is mostly down to luck and bravery, not skill and training.

[Spanish Waltzer]

...is mostly down to luck and bravery, not skill and training.

http://www.gapan.org/file/458/award-winners-2011.pdf

...either way congrats to the crew on their award :D :D

....and of course to all the other worthy winners:ok:

[switch_on_lofty]

In the Lynx world we are often the only asset available due to where we operate in the world, N/S. Atlantic, Counter-Piracy Ops on the Horn of Africa etc. This means that the choice as you show in your post is:

"Do I attempt a SAR with the equipment, personnel and training I have, or do I standby and do nothing?".

Just because SAR is not the primary role of an aircraft it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be conducted by that aircraft. All RN pilots and observers are trained to winch. The observer is the "trained winchop" and the AET the "trained winchman". Yes it would be lovely to have a 4-man crew, 4-axis autopilot, space for a TV cameraman from Highland Emergency and all that good stuff that SK3/6 has but we don't so we crack on with what we've got.
My point about it being a secondary role is that for the Lynx (primary roles Surface Search and Attack, Sub-Surface Attack and Force Protection), is that it is an official secondary role for us. When we train we call it "secondary roles training". Not that it isn't important. Everyone who flies the Lynx realises that flying events like SAR and loadlifting are always "real" compared to more synthetic training such as CASEXs etc.

As regards the tragic HMS Portland crash, the cause was never defined by the AAIB. I remember something along the lines of "crew reacting to an unknown real or perceived emergency" causing them to conduct the "crash checks" (which involves cutting the engines) during a phase of flight when successful autorotation was impossible. As this happened before I joing the Lynx fleet I don't know what the SOP was at the time but I can assure you that we would not now consider winching someone from the sea at night. I would definitely consider launching as a Search asset though as flying around LL over the sea is our bread and butter.

I don't mean to appear arrogant but for me it boils down to the choice I outlined at the top of post. It is up to the Lynx Flight Commander to ensure that his crew is as ready as they can be for all of the roles that we are required to achieve, including SAR.

[cornish-stormrider]

And before all of your hard worked efforts at rescuing anyone it up to them to make sure they don't need rescuing.

As was mentioned earlier about Cap'n Big Balls (I jest) and his landing in the Hudson he did Everything he could - when they interviewed the passengers after they mentioned a lot of them did not know what to do - despite being shown less than an hour earlier. Point being every passenger has a responsibility to watch, learn and remember. Same on a boat, when sailing I have very strict criteria about a lifejacket, most people don't even bother to find where they are kept.

If everyone takes more care and more personal responsibilty then SAR crews can get fat on donuts rather than pullin people off mountains odd out of the oggin.

As to comments made about training and primary or secondary duties - if the choice is a non SAR cab doing it's best with limited resource, some training and a reasonable level of skill or bu**er all - which would you prefer.

I know I'd sleep better if we had the flying Pie oven all the way out to 30 west (IIRC) but we don't.

SAR is not something you do on the cheap, sadly like everything else british at the moment it is cost of everything and value of nothing.

Procurement - a total joke from the get go. Name one project that has come in on time, on budget that did not need a herculean amount of rework by someone fairly low down the chain who actually knew what to do to get the damn piece of kit onto the unit.


Fly, Sail, Walk, or whatever safe this weekend - A busy crew is a bad thing.

Keep up the good work those on SAR - it's nice to know you are there.

[jamesdevice]

I'm confused by all this.
From back in the days when Lynxes were blue, not grey, and were based at Portland, I can distinctly remember a number of dedicated SAR Lynx painted pale grey / dayglo pink. I can even remember seeing them on SAR exercise (e.g. lifting from the lifeboat, winching off the top of Durdle Dor)..
What happened? Was a skill set lost / diminshed when Portland closed?

[airborne_artist]

I can distinctly remember a number of dedicated SAR Lynx painted pale grey / dayglo pink.

Is it possible that they were HMS Endurance flight Lynx?

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/upload/img_400/helo_20061121162155.jpg

Link (http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/surface-fleet/hydrographic-ships/hms-endurance/hms-endurance-lynx-helicopter-deploying-bas/)

[jamesdevice]

no - Endurance still had the red Wasps back then
And the colour was pink - not red

[airborne_artist]

FAA has never deployed Lynx in a SAR primary role. SK and Wessex are the only types used for FAA SAR the last forty years, and Whirlwind before that.

Possible that you saw a foreign navy's Lynx?

[jamesdevice]

these were RN Lynx from Portland. Saw them on many occasions - thy used to fly along the sea front at Weymouth on a regular basis.
Any chance the powers-that-be at Portland adapted a few locally ? Not part of the "official" SAR scheme. but trained as such nevertheless?

[airborne_artist]

Any chance the powers-that-be at Portland adapted a few locally ? Not part of the "official" SAR scheme. but trained as such nevertheless?

No chance.