UK SAR 2013 privatisation: the new thread
You can really tell by the rugged undercarriage on the 189 that it is a go-anywhere, land-anywhere perfect utility SAR machine................
As long as it doesn't have to land on beaches, rocks, mountainsides, boggy fields or moorland - or pretty much anything other than a helipad it will be fine
As long as it doesn't have to land on beaches, rocks, mountainsides, boggy fields or moorland - or pretty much anything other than a helipad it will be fine
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: U.K.
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab - apart from a couple of pictures what are you basing that on? Unlike you to speculate...
It looks not dissimilar to the British Army Lynx (mk9?) wheeled undercarriage (also from the Westland stable). Im sure some of the pilots that fly that machine operationally may have a different opinion.
Time of course will tell...
It looks not dissimilar to the British Army Lynx (mk9?) wheeled undercarriage (also from the Westland stable). Im sure some of the pilots that fly that machine operationally may have a different opinion.
Time of course will tell...
You can really tell by the rugged undercarriage on the 189 that it is a go-anywhere, land-anywhere perfect utility SAR machine................
Sour grapes and misery as usual
AVAILABILITY
The original DfT spec was 98% availability. That was when the bidders still had the choice of how many aircraft to operate. It is believed that a typical solution at that stage involved 5 operational, 1 training and 1 spare of each type.
On 22nd October 2012, or a few days thereafter, the DfT changed their minds and decided that there should be enough aircraft of each type that in the event of an aircraft type being grounded, the other type could operate from all bases, thus making 20 operational aircraft essential.
Having demonstrated a plan for 98% availability with 14 aircraft they were now to have 22 aircraft of the same types. How easy will it be to maintain availability with over 50% more aircraft than was originally planned?
TEN BASE SOLUTION
As mentioned previously, this is the first entirely planned such service. The links to the relevant documents are still on GOV.UK at https://www.gov.uk/government/public...copter-service under the title 'UK Search and Rescue Helicopters Infrastructure'. Worth a look.
Bristow have published a coverage map and a surge map (engagement event presentation) for their version of the solution. The surge map shows only one area (about 1.5deg x 1.5deg) of the central and southern North Sea in UK SRR where only a single base (Humberside) will be able to cover it inside of 90 minutes flight time. All other areas of the North Sea south of Fair Isle have a surge coverage of 2 to 5 helicopters in the same period. And yes, differences in the way timings are measured is pain (more fudge?) and comparing like with like is difficult.
SH1T, FAN, HITTING
And what happens on a really sh1t day when the holes in the cheese are lining up? Wouldn't it be best to have a helicopter based every 50 miles along the coast and an extra one in Richard Drax's back garden?
On a really sh1t day in the 10 base future, I expect the aircrew and ARCC controllers will do what they have always done really well. They will make it up as they go along.
The original DfT spec was 98% availability. That was when the bidders still had the choice of how many aircraft to operate. It is believed that a typical solution at that stage involved 5 operational, 1 training and 1 spare of each type.
On 22nd October 2012, or a few days thereafter, the DfT changed their minds and decided that there should be enough aircraft of each type that in the event of an aircraft type being grounded, the other type could operate from all bases, thus making 20 operational aircraft essential.
Having demonstrated a plan for 98% availability with 14 aircraft they were now to have 22 aircraft of the same types. How easy will it be to maintain availability with over 50% more aircraft than was originally planned?
TEN BASE SOLUTION
As mentioned previously, this is the first entirely planned such service. The links to the relevant documents are still on GOV.UK at https://www.gov.uk/government/public...copter-service under the title 'UK Search and Rescue Helicopters Infrastructure'. Worth a look.
Bristow have published a coverage map and a surge map (engagement event presentation) for their version of the solution. The surge map shows only one area (about 1.5deg x 1.5deg) of the central and southern North Sea in UK SRR where only a single base (Humberside) will be able to cover it inside of 90 minutes flight time. All other areas of the North Sea south of Fair Isle have a surge coverage of 2 to 5 helicopters in the same period. And yes, differences in the way timings are measured is pain (more fudge?) and comparing like with like is difficult.
SH1T, FAN, HITTING
And what happens on a really sh1t day when the holes in the cheese are lining up? Wouldn't it be best to have a helicopter based every 50 miles along the coast and an extra one in Richard Drax's back garden?
On a really sh1t day in the 10 base future, I expect the aircrew and ARCC controllers will do what they have always done really well. They will make it up as they go along.
Last edited by jimf671; 30th Nov 2014 at 11:37.
Skids are for kids and the Mk9 Lynx was never a SAR helicopter!
All the 189 needed was a double set of wheels to spread the weight or just a fixed undercarriage if retracting wheels were too difficult.
It is what happens when you take a corporate helicopter and try to turn it into a SAR machine - was nothing learned from the 139?????
P3 - just stating the obvious - I don't have to drip, AW and the MCA seem to be scoring own goals - all very avoidable
Heli 1 - I've landed the Wessex and the Sea King in plenty of places that the 139/189 just couldn't have managed - the last thing you need on a SAR job is to be hamstrung by a poorly designed undercarriage.
All the 189 needed was a double set of wheels to spread the weight or just a fixed undercarriage if retracting wheels were too difficult.
It is what happens when you take a corporate helicopter and try to turn it into a SAR machine - was nothing learned from the 139?????
P3 - just stating the obvious - I don't have to drip, AW and the MCA seem to be scoring own goals - all very avoidable
Heli 1 - I've landed the Wessex and the Sea King in plenty of places that the 139/189 just couldn't have managed - the last thing you need on a SAR job is to be hamstrung by a poorly designed undercarriage.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Monde
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jimf671
The trouble with the geographical risk profiling that has been used as the entire basis for the 10 base solution is that every task (excluding false alarms) has been given equal weighting. An ECMO, a hospital transfer, searching for red flares, chasing an inadvertently activated beacon or providing top cover for an RNLI task are statistically at least considered the equal of proper, hardcore winching rescues/medrescues. Additionally, tasks in supposed hot spots are inevitably clustered around a small stretch of coastline where there is scope for the local authorities to repeatedly use a well known local asset because of its proximity - irrespective of whether it was the most appropriate asset for the task or not. Conversely in somewhere like the North Sea, there are roughly an equal number of worthy tasks but they usually involve a much greater flying time and are more widely spatially distributed, giving small individual cells on the risk map the appearance of being lower risk areas.
The upshot is we end up with half the North Sea and its coastline covered by just one flight because the bulk of it is somehow considered a low risk area - which as half the population of Britain knows is boll0cks.
Shocking naivety displayed by those that provided the analysis. It will only be a matter of time before those chickens come home to roost. The papers will have a field day.
The trouble with the geographical risk profiling that has been used as the entire basis for the 10 base solution is that every task (excluding false alarms) has been given equal weighting. An ECMO, a hospital transfer, searching for red flares, chasing an inadvertently activated beacon or providing top cover for an RNLI task are statistically at least considered the equal of proper, hardcore winching rescues/medrescues. Additionally, tasks in supposed hot spots are inevitably clustered around a small stretch of coastline where there is scope for the local authorities to repeatedly use a well known local asset because of its proximity - irrespective of whether it was the most appropriate asset for the task or not. Conversely in somewhere like the North Sea, there are roughly an equal number of worthy tasks but they usually involve a much greater flying time and are more widely spatially distributed, giving small individual cells on the risk map the appearance of being lower risk areas.
The upshot is we end up with half the North Sea and its coastline covered by just one flight because the bulk of it is somehow considered a low risk area - which as half the population of Britain knows is boll0cks.
Shocking naivety displayed by those that provided the analysis. It will only be a matter of time before those chickens come home to roost. The papers will have a field day.
Last edited by Vie sans frontieres; 30th Nov 2014 at 07:30.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Univers
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is what happens when you take a corporate helicopter and try to turn it into a SAR machine - was nothing learned from the 139?????
Heli 1 - I've landed the Wessex and the Sea King in plenty of places that the 139/189 just couldn't have managed - the last thing you need on a SAR job is to be hamstrung by a poorly designed undercarriage.
Some of them fly in the Alps where sites like the highest British mountain is mererly a high ground or small hill. In these places Sea Kings have never been seen.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Essex
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Margins makes a good point - why do we naturally assume that UK Mil SAR :-
a) is the best there is
b) Knows everything and can learn nothing
c) Has always had the best aircraft for the job
It is time for many to wake up and smell the coffee!
SAR is conducted worldwide by Military & Civil Operators with many different aircraft types.
Lets face it the only reason AW189 and S92 were chosen was for range/payload.
a) is the best there is
b) Knows everything and can learn nothing
c) Has always had the best aircraft for the job
It is time for many to wake up and smell the coffee!
SAR is conducted worldwide by Military & Civil Operators with many different aircraft types.
Lets face it the only reason AW189 and S92 were chosen was for range/payload.
- Sloping ground limits,
- Altitude, met and load,
- Side and tail wind,
- Avionics and
- Operations in icing conditions
also narrow it down a bit.
What happens in the alps is nearly all about altitude.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Essex
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What happens in the alps is nearly all about altitude.
- Sloping ground limits,
- Altitude, met and load,
- Side and tail wind,
- Operations in icing conditions
I am sure the AW189 & S92 met the DfT requirements which many other aircraft could have met with the exception of range/payload and OEL at range.
O & W
This thread is all about UK milSAR and its replacement!!!!
However a. It is pretty good at UK SAR and has an enviable history
b. Everyday is a schoolday and we never stop learning
c. Has had to make the best of what the MoD would give us - fortunately constantly evolving techniques and SOPs along with some equipment upgrades have allowed us to develop wide-ranging capabilities.
Few other countries in the world have such varied environments coupled with such changeable and often unpleasant weather. UKSAR crews, civ or mil, have to be able to operate equally well in the mountains at night or miles out to sea over a heaving fishing vessel.
Being an alpine high altitude specialist in UK is irrelevant.
Margins makes a good point - why do we naturally assume that UK Mil SAR :-
a) is the best there is
b) Knows everything and can learn nothing
c) Has always had the best aircraft for the job
a) is the best there is
b) Knows everything and can learn nothing
c) Has always had the best aircraft for the job
However a. It is pretty good at UK SAR and has an enviable history
b. Everyday is a schoolday and we never stop learning
c. Has had to make the best of what the MoD would give us - fortunately constantly evolving techniques and SOPs along with some equipment upgrades have allowed us to develop wide-ranging capabilities.
Few other countries in the world have such varied environments coupled with such changeable and often unpleasant weather. UKSAR crews, civ or mil, have to be able to operate equally well in the mountains at night or miles out to sea over a heaving fishing vessel.
Being an alpine high altitude specialist in UK is irrelevant.
Crab,
Or more correctly, it's about how fantastic UK milSAR is and how sh1t civSAR will be for ever more.
Is that sour grapes I can smell yet again
This thread is all about UK milSAR and its replacement!!!!
Is that sour grapes I can smell yet again
Do you want salt and vinegar on that giant chip sir????
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Essex
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Few other countries in the world have such varied environments coupled with such changeable and often unpleasant weather. UKSAR crews, civ or mil, have to be able to operate equally well in the mountains at night or miles out to sea over a heaving fishing vessel.
Sweden
Finland
USA
Canada
Chile
New Zealand
Iceland
Portugal
Germany
Italy
Spain
France
I am sure there are others.
And in how many of those other countries do the same SAR operators cover all of the country?
Many countries have specialised mountain SAR and many have just maritime SAR, many countries have dedicated Air Ambulance/HEMS for inland work but not dedicated SAR assets who also do everything else.
Strange that the US coastguard liked to send their pilots to us (RN and RAF) on exchange - to a man they went away far better SAR pilots for the experience.
Many countries have specialised mountain SAR and many have just maritime SAR, many countries have dedicated Air Ambulance/HEMS for inland work but not dedicated SAR assets who also do everything else.
Strange that the US coastguard liked to send their pilots to us (RN and RAF) on exchange - to a man they went away far better SAR pilots for the experience.