The point that I'm trying to make, probably rather clumsily, is this: new types/technologies can provide new solutions/procedures to old problems.
For the night ejectee scenario on a flat-calm night, where references will be virtually nil at the necessary high hover height, modern systems allow perfectly acceptable lateral pilot control and accurate height-holding (with no 'top-box' limits) using AFCS modes which can be easily overridden if a faster movement is required. The absence of doppler removes the risk of flat-surface 'unlock', sea movement error etc. That, to my mind, is a far better way of dealing with this scenario than using 'hover trim' in a modern system, whereas HT is doubtless the best procedure in the SK with its more restricted AFCS.
In the scenario of a rapidly- and randomly-moving small (but possibly tall) vessel, especially at night, HT might indeed be the most suitable mode to use on a modern type, but it might be equally appropriate to use a pilot-controlled lateral mode - with accurate automatic heightkeeping without practical restriction - which the pilot is able to easily modify if the vessel's movement requires it. With a lot of cable out, this approach can also minimise the likelihood of a significant swing for the winchman.
As I said, different technologies can provide different 'best ways' of doing business. The trick, of course, is to continue those 'best ways' where appropriate while avoiding the assumption that all of those 'best ways' MUST transfer between types/technologies.
Anyway, Happy New Year to all, and best wishes in particular to all the military SAR operators who will be facing a pretty tough time over the next couple of years. Keep up the good work regardless; your customers will appreciate it.
Last edited by louisnewmark; 31st Dec 2014 at 10:17.
Reason: Bloomin' predictive text...