Bristow AW189

[jimf671]

All S-92? I don't think so.

OK for an emergency measure if 189 slips but not as credible for mountain work. It's a good a/c but it's still a 12 tonne bus.

The 189 is the only show in town. Size, power, accommodation, safety, avionics: somebody tell me where the alternative is coming from certified before Apr 2015?

[jimf671]

Two stretchers length-wise should still fit and I believe that was part of an AW mock-up at an early stage. Probably difficult with a MacInnes but easy with Tyromont.

[Vie sans frontieres]

How can you be so certain about an aircraft that has yet to be flown in the mountains? What are its handling characteristics like? How stable is it in the hover? How does it respond to turbulence?

Hoping desperately that stretchers can be squeezed in is great until you actually have to try and perform a medical intervention. Have you tried doing an anaesthetist's grip from anywhere other than the head end?

[9Aplus]

Ground clearance

[[email protected]]

I know it must hurt to see it go to an organisation that you feel may not be able to continue to offer the high class service

I don't think that, but I do feel they will be constrained at every turn by the limitations of the aircraft, the poor regard (particularly in financial terms) the rearcrew are held in, the shrinking MCA, the training burden and the lack of real understanding of UKSAR by the CAA/EASA.

There are a lot of top operators who will be working for Bristow in UKSAR, both front and back - I just hope that the joy of doing such a rewarding job isn't mired by financial penny-pinching and out-dated attitudes to cabin crew (especially from some of the pilots). Pop quiz - which mil SAR flts have a separate crewroom for rearcrew and pilots

Jim - the 189 is a modern helicopter and will therefore have a high disc loading (AUM/Disc area) so it will have a fierce downwash regardless of being lighter than the S92. As engines have become more powerful it has allowed designers to reduce the size of the rotors and push air quicker through the fan - that equals faster downwash.

[Margins]

the 189 is a modern helicopter and will therefore have a high disc loading (AUM/Disc area) so it will have a fierce downwash regardless of being lighter than the S92. As engines have become more powerful it has allowed designers to reduce the size of the rotors and push air quicker through the fan - that equals faster downwash.

S92 disc loading = 51.91 kg/m2

AW189 disc loading = 49.58 kg/m2

[tottigol]

9APlus, those pictures show the standard offshore configuration. The SAR configuration has a deeper belly due to the additional fuel tankage.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Agust...dde8c002e04d28

[9Aplus]

Yes, that may be the case. My impression was, that only emerg. floats
are packed with more ground clearance, all in case you compare demo unit from page two#22

[jimf671]

Originally Posted by P3 Bellows

Crab,

Are you saying we need an "old helicopter"?

If the UK Mil was going to carry on SARing what would be your aircraft of choice - the Wessex?

21st century Wessex.

Originally Posted by [email protected]

... ... ...

Jim - the 189 is a modern helicopter and will therefore have a high disc loading (AUM/Disc area) so it will have a fierce downwash regardless of being lighter than the S92. As engines have become more powerful it has allowed designers to reduce the size of the rotors and push air quicker through the fan - that equals faster downwash.

20 minutes ago, I wrote to a MR colleague: "Kintail have done a lot of helicopter training with both Sea King and S-92, pushing the boundaries of regulatory training restrictions, taking the downwash issue on board, and doing lots of Highline in the most extreme circumstances. Our approach to the downwash issue has been along the lines of 'train hard, fight easy' and I would encourage all teams to take that same approach as we near the roll-out of the new service."

Originally Posted by Vie sans frontieres

How can you be so certain about an aircraft that has yet to be flown in the mountains? What are its handling characteristics like? How stable is it in the hover? How does it respond to turbulence?

My level of confidence in those matters is driven principally by the words of highly qualified informants who have comprehensive SAR flying experience and experience of flying the AW189 prototypes. Supporting evidence includes the family history (AW149 & AW139), the spec, and the manner in which aspects of that spec exceed the DfT spec.

Originally Posted by Vie sans frontieres

Hoping desperately that stretchers can be squeezed in is great until you actually have to try and perform a medical intervention. Have you tried doing an anaesthetist's grip from anywhere other than the head end?

It is worth noting that MERT guys talk of Merlin being too small and only a Chinook will do when there is serious work to do. Nothing will ever be big enough in UK SAR.


========================================

Published rear cabin interior dimensions in the AW189.
Cabin max length 3.47m
Cabin max width 2.43m
Cabin max height 1.42m
Cabin volume 11.2m3

(The AW149 cabin is slightly longer due to the absence of a front bulkhead. The volume is 11.6m3. Milanese Pavehawk.)

[[email protected]]

Apart from being a bit on the slow side, the Wessex was an awesome SAR helicopter, especially for mountain work - it had a cabin you could work in standing up, excellent single engine capability and was an incredibly stable winching platform. It saved more lives in its time than the 189 probably ever will

My level of confidence in those matters is driven principally by the words of highly qualified informants who have comprehensive SAR flying experience and experience of flying the AW189 prototypes. Supporting evidence includes the family history (AW149 & AW139), the spec, and the manner in which aspects of that spec exceed the DfT spec.

Jim, any of those guys flown it in the mountains at night or on NVG anywhere yet?

[Vie sans frontieres]

My level of confidence in those matters is driven principally by the words of highly qualified informants who have comprehensive SAR flying experience and experience of flying the AW189 prototypes.

Do you not think that these guys might have an interest in speaking positively about their new baby? Of course they're going to big it up.

None of us have first hand experience of its performance (and more to the point, its quirks) so declaring it, 'the only show in town' is crazy. What's it like when winching? How does the downwash affect what's on the cable? Does the hi-line have a habit of being pushed towards the tail rotor? Can the cable get inadvertently wrapped round the FLIR/nightsun/undercarriage/aeriels etc? What about at night? Is the illumination sufficient 200' below the aircraft? How much height does it lose on a downwind flyaway? And we haven't even started to talk about its overwater performance.

You don't know the answer to any of the above questions so don't declare it the only show in town. It has to prove itself in many, many ways. Trouble is, in theory it's only got six months to do it.

By the way, love the belly fuel tank for SAR variants, thus reducing the ground clearance even further. Stroke of comic genius that one. It justifies virtually every emoticon in the panel! : )

[jimf671]

So who said they worked for Bristow?

As for your questions, the role equipment is same or equivalent to successful S-92 kit and this is a bigger and more capable AW139 as evidenced by the type rating situation.

What effect will the downwash have? You are kidding surely?

Here's a clue. This is not a Westland Whirlwind.

[tottigol]

The Bristol Belvedere, perhaps?

[Vie sans frontieres]

When the original SARH plan fell apart the coalition government panicked rather than taking stock. Had they done the latter, they would have seen that upgrading the Sea King was a manageable proposition with measures to improve performance, increase safety, prolong life and reduce fatigue either already available or being developed - and AW would have done quite nicely out of that too. In the meantime a slow, thoughtful decision-making process could have started that duly considered whether full privatisation was the most sensible path to take and if so, whether existing aircraft were most appropriate or whether we should wait for new, more suitable aircraft to be developed. As it is, 50% of the chosen solution is with an aircraft that was certified in double quick time and still barely exists - and it's supposed to start in April! That's what happens when decisions are rushed. I think the omnishambles label was being pinned on the government at the time for a number of reasons. This is clearly one.


Of course there are features of these new aircraft that are tremendously beneficial to the crews that fly/will fly them, but, and it's a big but, they're almost exclusively in the cockpit. A long time ago on a previous thread I said that whatever was selected for this project, the cockpit will be awesome and the cabin will be a bag of sh1t. Am I being proved wrong?

[jimf671]

These are details. The 92 and the 189 are good modern aircraft. I did wonder whether some bidders would go for the EC225 for Lot 2 bases.

My real concerns are as follows.
1. The attitude of the Coastguard and their lack of Land SAR skills.
2. The rear-crew recruitment and remuneration situation.
3. The importance of mountain flying.

[jimf671]

Phew. Close one.

Nearly went from AW189 thread to S-61T thread.

[Vie sans frontieres]

P3 Bellows

Which do you think bothers me more? Reading your disparagement of my response to your question (when responses to uncomfortable questions are something of a rarity around here) or watching the slow death of UK Search and Rescue?

[shetlander]

1. The attitude of the Coastguard and their lack of Land SAR skills.

Care to expand further? Re. Attitude of the MCA.

[terminus mos]

These are details. The 92 and the 189 are good modern aircraft. I did wonder whether some bidders would go for the EC225 for Lot 2 bases.

I wouldn't pick the EC225, it's unreliable and requires a lot of maintenance. Some of our 2008 EC225s are requiring a lot of replacement parts during zone inspections. Just when you need it, up comes an MARMS warning. S-92 just keeps going.

[cyclic]

TM - I would like to see your availability ratio. In a mixed fleet I don't see a great deal of difference but it would appear that when the S92 does go tech it goes down for longer. Spares from the USA, big cracks that SK have to repair.