A careful analysis of the jobs done by the Solent and Portland S61s over the last few years revealed that they rarely had to lift more than a few casualties.
This analysis suggested that a smaller helicopter would fit the need. However they only considered jobs within the UK SRR (United Kingdom search and Rescue Region). During the period of the study they ignored those shipwrecks just beyond the UK-France median line where the French authorities had asked for help from the UK MRCCs and UK SAR helicopter fleet because the French helicopters were not available, in the wrong place or constrained by weather.
The study came up with the answer that a small fast platform would be just the thing. What was missed that was that although the helo would only need to lift a small number of persons it;
- would need a large working area within the helo to keep the divers lying down so the bubbles didn’t get into their brains,
- would need a large working area so that the two in the back could easily do “chest thumping” (i.e. CPR) and change over as they got tired;
- would need a large working area so that when it landed outside the doors of A&E the hospital resuscitation team could run aboard and start work.
The requirement was defined as kilogrammes of lift instead of cubic metres of working space.
I must disagree with ‘budget1’ who said “ On this one I am with Crab, the aircraft is a delivery system to get the winchman to a casualty”.
No. The helo is a tool to move the person in danger to a place of safety. And deliver them in the same or better condition than when they were collected.
This implies that the transport system must must have “working space” for the aft crew to maintain or improve the status of the casualty.
The AW139 can carry 15 persons, or more correctly “15 pieces of self loading cargo” when operating in budget airline mode. When the cargo is not self loading it is not possible to stack them so neatly in the available space.
So although the AW139 has the power and capability to carry 15 disciplined passengers it does not have the space to carry 15 wild eyed, upset, casualties who must remain prone.
The error in the plan was that the AW139 has the power to carry casualties in terms of kilogrammes but not the cubic metres. A controlled passenger in a fitted seat takes up 0.25 square metres of floor space. A prone casualty takes up 2 square metres of floor space – plus the space the “carer” needs to attend to the casualty and move around to reach his “tools”.
The error in the plan was that the AW139 has more than enough engine power to lift the typical load but not enough floor space where the typical load is lying down and needs room around them for the “life supporters” to keep them alive.
If you think this argument is nonsense; consider the typical ambulance. An estate car could carry one casualty, a driver and and a medic but yet the NHS still insist on vehicles with six foot of headroom and working space in the back- for the one casualty in the ambulance.
All of the above has really been about the size of the 139. Changing the subject.
Something has gone wrong with the equipment fit. It would appear that there is a disconnect between the AW139 as it appears in the brochure and should be available in 20xx and the AW139 as it is currently available now.Some important bits that were promised are missing. “The software is not yet available.”
Perhaps it is not totally suited to the UK SAR role.
The designers assumed it would always land on tarmac and so they gave it small wheels. Landing in a wet field to un-load a casualty may smash the FLIR and other bits (radio aerials) as it sinks into the mud.
Now just who was it that decide that this was the “bee’s knees” and must be used on the south coast ? What happened to asking the users ? The answer is nothing. The users are never asked and never have been. When the bottom life forms in the fish tank realised what was happening they were horrified, but it was too late by then.
It is probably a very good helicopter but not for the SAR role.