The future of UK SAR, post SAR-H
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Newcastle Uk
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if the S92 was going to be the answer for the whole of UK SAR I might agree that, overall, the proposed solution might be acceptable but primarily due to the increased availability of a modern helicopter (although one S92 flight was offstate for poor weather ops thanks to a rad alt failure the other night).
be very careful people in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones.
But then again that is the game you play.......will you be a civvie team player? Who knows, but you may find a few less than impressed colleagues up there in Sumburgh btw the only place you'll get.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: The Sty
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Crab
Do you mean ALARP as in “as low as reasonably practicable” defined in the UK health and Safety at work act. If so; how is operating over water with a 120 degree radar not complying with reasonably practicable?? Obviously there’s scope for interpretation and I’m open minded and willing to hear what you have to say.
Regarding the planned capability; it’s your blossom blue brethren that have been advising the DofT on the technical aspects of SAR, so why hasn’t the 360 degree radar capability been specified in the contract? Perhaps upon reflection your fellow Crab fats don’t think its value for money? What percentage of missions actually require its capability versus FLIRs? Civvies operated with them for years before the crabs finally fitted them......not enough wonga at the MOD? Given you feel so strongly and know so much about SAR why where you not asked to advise the Dof T personally, why didn’t you insist? Have you let the nation down Crab; I certainly hope not.
Like I said before, the taxpayer deserves the best value for money. Civvie companies will have to provide a capability or be held accountable as they have done so for many years. What use is your beloved 330 degree radar when it’s bolted to a polished turd operated with 65% availability? (DofT stat) How do you achieve the hypothetical rescues when you’re off state so much and who is accountable for your overall poor performance compared to the civilian operators? Our availability rates must be a little embarrassing for you. If the tables were turned ref availability it would make front page news I’m sure. The public deserve more.
Bottom line - providing the capability exists - the DofT will receive the capability they desire for the price they’re willing to pay; hardly a concept difficult to grasp and it will be heaps better than what your yellow paper weights currently provide.
You should keep banging on about the 360 degree radar though; you never know someone important might take notice and I might have an extra luxury in my swanky civvie cab thanks to you.........not that I’ve ever needed one....yet. I won’t hold my breath; besides out with your little scenario, day to day it would probably just get in the way i.e. reduced ground clearance.....breathe crab breathe.
Nothing wrong with rocking the boat –the big wigs should be able to take it – the trick, is knowing when to stop; which is where I fear you’ve royally f’up should you want to be a civvie SAR God, and only you could.....oh dear. Might as well keep going now though..eh? In fact maybe we should have two 360 radars, I’m sure there’s room; and special glasses to make the picture 3-d.
Do you mean ALARP as in “as low as reasonably practicable” defined in the UK health and Safety at work act. If so; how is operating over water with a 120 degree radar not complying with reasonably practicable?? Obviously there’s scope for interpretation and I’m open minded and willing to hear what you have to say.
Regarding the planned capability; it’s your blossom blue brethren that have been advising the DofT on the technical aspects of SAR, so why hasn’t the 360 degree radar capability been specified in the contract? Perhaps upon reflection your fellow Crab fats don’t think its value for money? What percentage of missions actually require its capability versus FLIRs? Civvies operated with them for years before the crabs finally fitted them......not enough wonga at the MOD? Given you feel so strongly and know so much about SAR why where you not asked to advise the Dof T personally, why didn’t you insist? Have you let the nation down Crab; I certainly hope not.
Like I said before, the taxpayer deserves the best value for money. Civvie companies will have to provide a capability or be held accountable as they have done so for many years. What use is your beloved 330 degree radar when it’s bolted to a polished turd operated with 65% availability? (DofT stat) How do you achieve the hypothetical rescues when you’re off state so much and who is accountable for your overall poor performance compared to the civilian operators? Our availability rates must be a little embarrassing for you. If the tables were turned ref availability it would make front page news I’m sure. The public deserve more.
Bottom line - providing the capability exists - the DofT will receive the capability they desire for the price they’re willing to pay; hardly a concept difficult to grasp and it will be heaps better than what your yellow paper weights currently provide.
You should keep banging on about the 360 degree radar though; you never know someone important might take notice and I might have an extra luxury in my swanky civvie cab thanks to you.........not that I’ve ever needed one....yet. I won’t hold my breath; besides out with your little scenario, day to day it would probably just get in the way i.e. reduced ground clearance.....breathe crab breathe.
Nothing wrong with rocking the boat –the big wigs should be able to take it – the trick, is knowing when to stop; which is where I fear you’ve royally f’up should you want to be a civvie SAR God, and only you could.....oh dear. Might as well keep going now though..eh? In fact maybe we should have two 360 radars, I’m sure there’s room; and special glasses to make the picture 3-d.
Crab,
COMO fleets only tend to be an option where the capability offered is a military one (pilot training, AAR, AT etc.) I'm afraid the provision of SAR doesn't fall into this bracket. The MOD want rid of SAR because, lets be honest, it has evolved into such a highly specialised and very much civilian-orientated entity that it offers very little militarily (aside from recovery of ejectees, something which I am sure civvy crews are more than capable of). In my opinion the SAR force has become a victim of it's own success in that it is very good at what it does but little else. This is more applicable to the RAF than the Navy as they tend to bounce crews back to other Operational fleets more often.
I think you have to take a more pragmatic and less cynical view of the two fleet option. It makes sense on a lot of levels and offers flexibility as well as an element of economy (an inescapable fact of life these days). How often is the Sea King utilised to it's full capability? Also, there have been numerous fleet groundings in recent years, surely it's a good thing for the public to have greater odds of not being compromised by one in the future?
COMO fleets only tend to be an option where the capability offered is a military one (pilot training, AAR, AT etc.) I'm afraid the provision of SAR doesn't fall into this bracket. The MOD want rid of SAR because, lets be honest, it has evolved into such a highly specialised and very much civilian-orientated entity that it offers very little militarily (aside from recovery of ejectees, something which I am sure civvy crews are more than capable of). In my opinion the SAR force has become a victim of it's own success in that it is very good at what it does but little else. This is more applicable to the RAF than the Navy as they tend to bounce crews back to other Operational fleets more often.
I think you have to take a more pragmatic and less cynical view of the two fleet option. It makes sense on a lot of levels and offers flexibility as well as an element of economy (an inescapable fact of life these days). How often is the Sea King utilised to it's full capability? Also, there have been numerous fleet groundings in recent years, surely it's a good thing for the public to have greater odds of not being compromised by one in the future?
Last edited by llamaman; 5th Dec 2012 at 14:46.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Omnipresent
Posts: 401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No S92 flight went off state. One declared RADALT issue was not a show stopper. Certainly that flight remained capable of far more than the neighbouring Sea King flight who had no winchman/paramedic. Now what's that about never running out of crews? Plus it's been a regular occurence across the Sea King flights over the last few years including Chivenor.
Let down's requiring manoeuvering with 120 degree radar just require turns to be conducted carefully in stages clearing the arc to be turned into. I have yet to read a report about a job where lack of 330 degree radar stopped play. It may have happened once or twice but certainly a rare occurence. Icing is much more of an issue and modern aircraft with appropriate equipment are proving much more reliable at service provision. As for servicability mentioned, current rates with the S92 average 98-99% throughout the year with 2 cabs per base and only 2 engineers per shift. I think the radar issue has been done to death, if only because it is one of the few points those who feel they want can use to get one up....
Let down's requiring manoeuvering with 120 degree radar just require turns to be conducted carefully in stages clearing the arc to be turned into. I have yet to read a report about a job where lack of 330 degree radar stopped play. It may have happened once or twice but certainly a rare occurence. Icing is much more of an issue and modern aircraft with appropriate equipment are proving much more reliable at service provision. As for servicability mentioned, current rates with the S92 average 98-99% throughout the year with 2 cabs per base and only 2 engineers per shift. I think the radar issue has been done to death, if only because it is one of the few points those who feel they want can use to get one up....
The lim on the S92 as far as the RCS was concerned was quite clear that over water ops in poor weather were a non-starter - the rest is window dressing.
I don't think I have ever defended our poor availability - we are the ones sat on our hands wishing we we on state after all.
Now, back to the radar and, since this is a rumour network, is it true that the 189 is being offered with a 180 radar? This is at least a step in the right direction and a tacit acknowledgement that a 120 radar is not fit for purpose in the SAR environment.
I think the battle over radar capability on SARH is far from over - how good is a weather radar at searching into wind in a big sea state for a smallish target?
Now, out of interest, perhaps one of the anti-milsar brigade would tell me if the civvy SAR GPS is using the P codes with the military crypto or is it the normal GPS coarse positioning service? I only ask since cross referring position using a graphics overlay and a weather radar return might not be as accurate as a military spec GPS driven overlay and a milspec radar - just a thought.
As for my future employment in civSAR - maybe you should be more worried that I can undercut you on price since I will be in receipt of a very healthy mil pension by then - I could work for £50K and still be better off
but then you all believe in market forces and value for money
I don't think I have ever defended our poor availability - we are the ones sat on our hands wishing we we on state after all.
Now, back to the radar and, since this is a rumour network, is it true that the 189 is being offered with a 180 radar? This is at least a step in the right direction and a tacit acknowledgement that a 120 radar is not fit for purpose in the SAR environment.
I think the battle over radar capability on SARH is far from over - how good is a weather radar at searching into wind in a big sea state for a smallish target?
Now, out of interest, perhaps one of the anti-milsar brigade would tell me if the civvy SAR GPS is using the P codes with the military crypto or is it the normal GPS coarse positioning service? I only ask since cross referring position using a graphics overlay and a weather radar return might not be as accurate as a military spec GPS driven overlay and a milspec radar - just a thought.
As for my future employment in civSAR - maybe you should be more worried that I can undercut you on price since I will be in receipt of a very healthy mil pension by then - I could work for £50K and still be better off
but then you all believe in market forces and value for money
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Omnipresent
Posts: 401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What was written on the RCS then? What are you considering window dressing? Positions are cross referenced via several sources but not using any 'graphics overlay'. Wildly inaccurate assumption. Those who have balanced views aren't anti-milsar necessarily. Very few on here that haven't seen mil service. Primus701A when used in GMAP1/2 modes is not a weather radar, different band, PRF etc. As for ANP on the GPS' used, what is considered accurate enough?
It'll be ok though, service agreements will prevent anybody from queue jumping if they lack certain credentials. At the very least they require good CRM for starters.
Those who have balanced views aren't anti-milsar necessarily. Very few on here that haven't seen mil service. Primus701A when used in GMAP1/2 modes is not a weather radar, different band, PRF etc. As for ANP on the GPS' used, what is considered accurate enough?It'll be ok though, service agreements will prevent anybody from queue jumping if they lack certain credentials. At the very least they require good CRM for starters.
Last edited by Hedski; 5th Dec 2012 at 19:00.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Back in the sandbox ... again!
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab,
As you will remember from your service in any of the main conflict areas over the past 10 years the GPS signal used by all, civilian and military is the same and has been for many years ...
As you will remember from your service in any of the main conflict areas over the past 10 years the GPS signal used by all, civilian and military is the same and has been for many years ...
Positions are cross referenced via several sources but not using any 'graphics overlay'
The RCS highlighted cloud and vis limits below which the aircraft would not do overwater Ops because of the rad alt - if you want to pretend that is not a serious limitation then carry on. Pointing the finger at Lossie not having a paramedic doesn't make the CG aircraft any more capable - they are both LIM SAR and not on full operational state.
Primus701A when used in GMAP1/2 modes is not a weather radar, different band, PRF etc
The not running out of crews would be the case if milSAR was allowed to be fully manned and MoD saw it as any sort of priority - which it would if SAR was to stay in the mil. I can't defend the state we are in now with rearcrew manning - it was forecast but no-one did anything about it
It'll be ok though, service agreements will prevent anybody from queue jumping if they lack certain credentials
It's good to see that this new and progressive service will ensure that time in the company counts for more than experience or ability - that must be value for money. As for CRM, you might be surprised to know that most people think I am quite good at that as well
What amuses me most is that the lowest paid and least experienced guy on the crew (ie the co-jo) will be the one letting you down IMC on the radar - all those R22 and 206 hours will be dead useful then
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Co jo letdown?
Most IMC let downs are conducted with the Co pilot PF. The captain PNF usually provides the guidance aiming to take over the last minute visual stage with the winching area his side. That said both pilots practise the skill on a regular basis and as such are more than capable. Not many R22 drivers have walked in off the street, a few ex RAF though. They have managed it and any civvie North Sea driver would tell you it is quite a normally thing not a black art.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: The Sty
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab,
An answer you are looking for is closer than you might think. Re-read your last post in particular the bits were you quoted a couple of modes the P701A has available for use.....GMAP1 and GMAP2. Why don’t you have a wild stab in the dark and guess what GMAP stands for?? I’ll give you a clue; it’s not a weather detection mode; for that the P701A uses WX mode......that’s the P701A Radar,known as the “P701A radar” not “P701A weather radar” do you understand?
Should we ever be able to afford you or your crab fat friends, my advice would be to get absolutely everything in writing. Far too many of the ex-mil types have been chewed up and spat out by false promises. Exploitation can be an ugly part of the civie game.....so be careful and remember Mrs Crab still needs her Louis Vuitton accessories, don’t sell yourself short or risk a kick in the boll£cks! Or are you in fact banging a RADOP, which would help explain your obsession…..hope he’s good to you!
I would be interested to hear how the DofT managed to answer the recent questions raised by the Transport Select Committee.....any news?
Found this little ditty that I’ve not seen (soz if it’s a repost) regarding Boulmers MPs struggle to keep the base open. It has a couple of links; one that demonstrates how to dazzle with bull in order to support an argument that conveniently allows the government to spend less money.....very nice! Good luck Sir Alan Beith.
When they close Boulmer; will that mean Leconfield can move north - to cover the gap - to somewhere like ......Boulmer? Is that still “in the vicinity”? Must be a terrible headache for someone.
http://berwicklibdems.org.uk/en/article/2012/576972/beith-battles-on-for-boulmer-s-search-and-rescue-heroes
Shame the EC-175 got down selected; its belly mounted life ring could have come in handy.
An answer you are looking for is closer than you might think. Re-read your last post in particular the bits were you quoted a couple of modes the P701A has available for use.....GMAP1 and GMAP2. Why don’t you have a wild stab in the dark and guess what GMAP stands for?? I’ll give you a clue; it’s not a weather detection mode; for that the P701A uses WX mode......that’s the P701A Radar,known as the “P701A radar” not “P701A weather radar” do you understand?
Should we ever be able to afford you or your crab fat friends, my advice would be to get absolutely everything in writing. Far too many of the ex-mil types have been chewed up and spat out by false promises. Exploitation can be an ugly part of the civie game.....so be careful and remember Mrs Crab still needs her Louis Vuitton accessories, don’t sell yourself short or risk a kick in the boll£cks! Or are you in fact banging a RADOP, which would help explain your obsession…..hope he’s good to you!
I would be interested to hear how the DofT managed to answer the recent questions raised by the Transport Select Committee.....any news?
Found this little ditty that I’ve not seen (soz if it’s a repost) regarding Boulmers MPs struggle to keep the base open. It has a couple of links; one that demonstrates how to dazzle with bull in order to support an argument that conveniently allows the government to spend less money.....very nice! Good luck Sir Alan Beith.
When they close Boulmer; will that mean Leconfield can move north - to cover the gap - to somewhere like ......Boulmer? Is that still “in the vicinity”? Must be a terrible headache for someone.
http://berwicklibdems.org.uk/en/article/2012/576972/beith-battles-on-for-boulmer-s-search-and-rescue-heroes
Shame the EC-175 got down selected; its belly mounted life ring could have come in handy.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Omnipresent
Posts: 401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RCS highlighted cloud and vis limits below which the aircraft would not do overwater Ops because of the rad alt - if you want to pretend that is not a serious limitation then carry on. Pointing the finger at Lossie not having a paramedic doesn't make the CG aircraft any more capable - they are both LIM SAR and not on full operational state.
As for the Primus701A, are you seriously suggesting by reading the manufacturers web page you know more about the system than those who work with it?
What amuses me most is that the lowest paid and least experienced guy on the crew (ie the co-jo) will be the one letting you down IMC on the radar - all those R22 and 206 hours will be dead useful then
such as current UK SAR experience, NVG etc
Last edited by Hedski; 6th Dec 2012 at 11:31.
There once was a pilot called Crab,
Who thought his CRM was fab.
He kept on moaning
About radar homings
But the MOD scrapped his old cab.
Sorry, I'm fully booked over the festive period but am available most evenings/weekends in the New Year
Who thought his CRM was fab.
He kept on moaning
About radar homings
But the MOD scrapped his old cab.
Sorry, I'm fully booked over the festive period but am available most evenings/weekends in the New Year
Last edited by TorqueOfTheDevil; 6th Dec 2012 at 13:56.
Hedski and piglet - no, I do not think I know more about the Primus but does your handbook say it is a ground mapping radar or does it say it is a weather radar with the ability to see land in its GMAP (yes I do realise what that stands for) modes.
Just because it has a Gmap mode (which is only the manufacturer's name for a mode with a certain optimisation using processing) it does not make it a ground mapping radar - it's just extra shop-dressing to make you buy this 'weather radar' rather than any others on the market - add the terms search, rescue and military operations and it makes it more attractive, not more capable.
Just how exactly do you close to land with any accuracy if you are not comparing a GPS derived position-driven graphic coupled with the raw/processed radar picture?
The level of your least experienced co at the moment is not where the Dft has set the bar is it? The contractors need to fill another 6 flts with SAR crews - that is a lot of real SAR experience to find from nowhere and their proposed minima for copilots means the contractors can go for the cheapest option.
So, do you really turn down experienced and current UK mil SAR operators with many years of SAR and NVG flying, instruction and examining just because they dare to challenge your operating ideas and concepts?
and this is a recommendation for civilianising SAR???
The Dft will probably be exploited by AW promising to produce the 189 SAR variant in UK (a relatively small production run I suspect) to be seen to protect UK jobs and then be surprised when the rest of the 189 production reverts to Milan for the many more they will sell as a result of the UKSAR contract.
Junglie beefer - although the selective availability and anti spoofing was turned off by the yanks a few years ago, the mil encrypted GPS signal is still more accurate and less affected by jamming.
TOTD - very good
Just because it has a Gmap mode (which is only the manufacturer's name for a mode with a certain optimisation using processing) it does not make it a ground mapping radar - it's just extra shop-dressing to make you buy this 'weather radar' rather than any others on the market - add the terms search, rescue and military operations and it makes it more attractive, not more capable.
Just how exactly do you close to land with any accuracy if you are not comparing a GPS derived position-driven graphic coupled with the raw/processed radar picture?
The level of your least experienced co at the moment is not where the Dft has set the bar is it? The contractors need to fill another 6 flts with SAR crews - that is a lot of real SAR experience to find from nowhere and their proposed minima for copilots means the contractors can go for the cheapest option.
So, do you really turn down experienced and current UK mil SAR operators with many years of SAR and NVG flying, instruction and examining just because they dare to challenge your operating ideas and concepts?
Exploitation can be an ugly part of the civie game.
The Dft will probably be exploited by AW promising to produce the 189 SAR variant in UK (a relatively small production run I suspect) to be seen to protect UK jobs and then be surprised when the rest of the 189 production reverts to Milan for the many more they will sell as a result of the UKSAR contract.
Junglie beefer - although the selective availability and anti spoofing was turned off by the yanks a few years ago, the mil encrypted GPS signal is still more accurate and less affected by jamming.
TOTD - very good
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab - have you ever genuinely conceded a point?
If CHC/Bristow/Bond apply the DfT min requirement set for co-pilots then that doesn't imply those companies are going to hire the lowest time pilots who just reach the minimum requirement.
A new co-pilot is starting on the same pay at the same point on the pay scale whether they have 10 years and 5000hrs experience (from wherever doing whatever) or an R22 type rating and 300hrs. Given that the cost to the company is set at the year 1 level do you think that CHC/Bristow/Bond will go for the low hour example or the highly experienced example?
If CHC/Bristow/Bond apply the DfT min requirement set for co-pilots then that doesn't imply those companies are going to hire the lowest time pilots who just reach the minimum requirement.
A new co-pilot is starting on the same pay at the same point on the pay scale whether they have 10 years and 5000hrs experience (from wherever doing whatever) or an R22 type rating and 300hrs. Given that the cost to the company is set at the year 1 level do you think that CHC/Bristow/Bond will go for the low hour example or the highly experienced example?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Omnipresent
Posts: 401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nobody suggested turning people down, but clearly challenging your operating ideas and concepts is something you think unacceptable. Hypocrisy per chance?
The DfT have accepted the same minima for P1 and P2 on Interim SAR and Gap SAR contracts, lower minima for P2 were used years before by BHL when S61's were in use. There has not been an issue of lesser standards or capability at any time.
Manuals say GMAP 1 is designed for short range mapping of small targets in water, less than 50 miles, using a short pulse width at a high PRF for maximum resolution to allow good definition between adjacent targets. With GMAP 2 selected the radar operates in ground mapping mode, longer pulse width and lower PRF for ground mapping / littoral use. GPS derived positions come from the several sources including OS moving map display, AIS position as well as FMS GPS EGPWS comparison with GMAP overlays. Extra GPS sources available if required. Then FLIR can enter the equation.
And yes, I agree the 189 is a bad idea and drop in capability, but a certain government minister was heard to say as long as it's a 189 for the smaller bases then the bidder has a chance.....
The DfT have accepted the same minima for P1 and P2 on Interim SAR and Gap SAR contracts, lower minima for P2 were used years before by BHL when S61's were in use. There has not been an issue of lesser standards or capability at any time.
Manuals say GMAP 1 is designed for short range mapping of small targets in water, less than 50 miles, using a short pulse width at a high PRF for maximum resolution to allow good definition between adjacent targets. With GMAP 2 selected the radar operates in ground mapping mode, longer pulse width and lower PRF for ground mapping / littoral use. GPS derived positions come from the several sources including OS moving map display, AIS position as well as FMS GPS EGPWS comparison with GMAP overlays. Extra GPS sources available if required. Then FLIR can enter the equation.
And yes, I agree the 189 is a bad idea and drop in capability, but a certain government minister was heard to say as long as it's a 189 for the smaller bases then the bidder has a chance.....
Nobody suggested turning people down, but clearly challenging your operating ideas and concepts is something you think unacceptable. Hypocrisy per chance?
So GMAP 1 isn't in fact a ground mapping mode, its a search mode. If they use different different pulse width and a lower PRF in GMAp2 they are just gaining range, not resolution.
The position is still derived from GPS as that is what tells your moving map display where you are (the graphic overlay if you like). AIS is too slow to update to be used and is most definitely an area weapon. GPWS uses your same GPS position.
So, in essence, you can only close to small distances from land if you have an accurate GPS position and a radar return - then you compare what the GPS tells you (via the graphics overlay which clearly needs to be very accurate) with what the real-time radar returns are telling you.
Different sea states and tide level all affect what land returns the radar sees whereas your coastline graphic (OS map display) will probably only indicate mean high water springs rather than the Lowest Astronomical Tide so there may be a massive difference when the tide is out - hence the need for a good quality, correctly processed radar picture.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: The Sty
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Crab,
Your wrong (again),GMAP1 is a mode on a “search radar” optimised for ground mapping.....actually. Not that you were to know, as quite simply you don’t need to, because you neither operate a civil SAR aircraft nor govern one.
Have you decided that someone said the P701A is a ground mapping radar and are now arguing it’s not, is that your point?? Given that we conduct Search and Rescue what other type of radar would you suggest we use? I presume the Thales defence ARI5955/2 is a search radar too? How does it optimise itself for ground mapping......no wait.... I don’t need to know!
I’m glad you told us all how to operate safely in the DVE.....cheers...really helpful....I did wonder.
Now getting back to the thread.......Where do you see yourself in the future of UK SAR? Our new glorious leader? You could re-educate us all, and teach us ship oriented axis decks. Or perhaps continue to be a tireless campaigner for the 360 degree radar as you don’t do the “big picture” even though 360 degrees dose sound like a big picture.
Your wrong (again),GMAP1 is a mode on a “search radar” optimised for ground mapping.....actually. Not that you were to know, as quite simply you don’t need to, because you neither operate a civil SAR aircraft nor govern one.
Have you decided that someone said the P701A is a ground mapping radar and are now arguing it’s not, is that your point?? Given that we conduct Search and Rescue what other type of radar would you suggest we use? I presume the Thales defence ARI5955/2 is a search radar too? How does it optimise itself for ground mapping......no wait.... I don’t need to know!
I’m glad you told us all how to operate safely in the DVE.....cheers...really helpful....I did wonder.
Now getting back to the thread.......Where do you see yourself in the future of UK SAR? Our new glorious leader? You could re-educate us all, and teach us ship oriented axis decks. Or perhaps continue to be a tireless campaigner for the 360 degree radar as you don’t do the “big picture” even though 360 degrees dose sound like a big picture.
Piglet - So you and Hedski aren't singing off the same songsheet then - you say GMAP 1 is a mode on a search radar optimised for ground mapping and he says GMAP1
Which is it? Ideally a ground mapping mode has a high data rate so it would suggest that a high PRF would be the best option.
Out of interest, what is your SOP for letting down IMC over the water? Do you have to make a number of runs with your 120 radar to clear a box to let down into? Surely turning in the descent isn't an option since you can't actually see where you are going. How long does this take?
I don't think I ever said ours was a ground mapping radar. What ours does have is a vastly superior sweep so searches and let downs are easier and more efficient and the even bigger benefit of a very well trained radop who regularly practices getting down to minimum radar range (75m) day and night against vessels and land targets.
A little bird told me that sometimes on civsar the cojo just calls targets using the weather radar and the winchop does the actual directing of the let down using the moving map display in the back - surely that can't be true
As to the future - who knows, that will depend on who gets the contract, how much they pay, what slots are available and a host of other variables. I have never wanted to be anyones glorious leader but if you don't think you need some education regarding low level night ops on SAR the you might be in for a rude awakening when you have to go inland on a dark and shi88y night
It's only the Navy who can't deal with boat axis decks isn't it?
Flounder - yes. However, this new contract is going to need to fill another 6 flights with SAR captains and co-pilots (the winchops and winchmen is a whole other ball game of qualified personnel shortages altogether). Given that this is a competition and that costs will be be a big consideration in the modern economic climate, what incentive (given the DfT's low minimas for co jos) is there for the winning contractor to pay more than they need to in order to fulfil the terms of the contract? And if you were the 5000 hours 10 years experience co pilot, would you accept the same as someone with the minimum qualifications?
is designed for short range mapping of small targets in water, less than 50 miles, using a short pulse width at a high PRF for maximum resolution to allow good definition between adjacent targets
Out of interest, what is your SOP for letting down IMC over the water? Do you have to make a number of runs with your 120 radar to clear a box to let down into? Surely turning in the descent isn't an option since you can't actually see where you are going. How long does this take?
I don't think I ever said ours was a ground mapping radar. What ours does have is a vastly superior sweep so searches and let downs are easier and more efficient and the even bigger benefit of a very well trained radop who regularly practices getting down to minimum radar range (75m) day and night against vessels and land targets.
A little bird told me that sometimes on civsar the cojo just calls targets using the weather radar and the winchop does the actual directing of the let down using the moving map display in the back - surely that can't be true
As to the future - who knows, that will depend on who gets the contract, how much they pay, what slots are available and a host of other variables. I have never wanted to be anyones glorious leader but if you don't think you need some education regarding low level night ops on SAR the you might be in for a rude awakening when you have to go inland on a dark and shi88y night
It's only the Navy who can't deal with boat axis decks isn't it?
Flounder - yes. However, this new contract is going to need to fill another 6 flights with SAR captains and co-pilots (the winchops and winchmen is a whole other ball game of qualified personnel shortages altogether). Given that this is a competition and that costs will be be a big consideration in the modern economic climate, what incentive (given the DfT's low minimas for co jos) is there for the winning contractor to pay more than they need to in order to fulfil the terms of the contract? And if you were the 5000 hours 10 years experience co pilot, would you accept the same as someone with the minimum qualifications?
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Zarg
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, manning of 6 flts then Crab?
Call that 30 Captains. Do you honestly think that there are less than 30 recent ex-RAF and ex-RN Captains out there? All familiar with NVG and the UK environment. They're not sat on their arses either - they're out there working, flying, broadening their CVs, getting experience on newer aircraft and gaining new skills. I'd start getting some time in the rad-shack if I were you!
That's before you bring the perfectly capable civvies into the mix.
Doesn't have to be Brits either....
Non-mil aviation is an entirely different world to your cosy little nest.
Call that 30 Captains. Do you honestly think that there are less than 30 recent ex-RAF and ex-RN Captains out there? All familiar with NVG and the UK environment. They're not sat on their arses either - they're out there working, flying, broadening their CVs, getting experience on newer aircraft and gaining new skills. I'd start getting some time in the rad-shack if I were you!
That's before you bring the perfectly capable civvies into the mix.
Doesn't have to be Brits either....
Non-mil aviation is an entirely different world to your cosy little nest.