UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out?? [Archive]

DeltaNg

4th Nov 2005, 17:17

VANCOUVER, Nov. 4 /CNW/ - CHC Helicopter Corporation ("CHC")
(TSX: FLY.SV.A and FLY.MV.B; NYSE: FLI) announced today it has been named by
the United Kingdom Department for Transport ("DfT") as the 'preferred bidder'
to provide commercial Search and Rescue helicopter services from four bases in
the UK for a five-year period commencing July 1, 2007.
DfT and CHC will now negotiate details of the operation with a view to
finalizing a contract for the provision of search and rescue services from
three dedicated civilian-operated bases at Sumburgh, Stornoway and Lee on
Solent on a 24/7 basis, as well as Portland on a day-time only basis. The
awarding of this contract is not assured and remains subject to the
finalization of terms and conditions with the DfT.
CHC currently provides search and rescue and emergency helicopter
services in Ireland, Africa, Australia and Norway. This new contract, if
awarded, would further strengthen CHC's position as world leader in civilian
offshore search and rescue helicopter services and enhance its reputation for
providing expert, cost-effective alternatives to government-run Coast Guard
services.

pitchlink

4th Nov 2005, 19:36

Droopystop

As we all know, 40 year old technology never goes wrong?!!!

Sven Sixtoo

4th Nov 2005, 19:40

Chopperman

I stand ready to be corrected but I think you are wrong.

TUPE stands for Transfer of Undertaking Protection of Employment and IIRC is designed precisely to protect the employees when a company is outbid on contract renewal - otherwise the outside bidders could formulate a bid based on minimum wage for the task while the current contractor would be landed with a huge redundancy bill.

Applies to all sorts of undertakings - commonest demo is when the cleaner turns up in a different uniform one morning - different contractor, different contract, same staff.

Sven

332mistress

4th Nov 2005, 20:11

Sven Sixtoo - and in my experience a smaller wage:(

332M

Geoffersincornwall

5th Nov 2005, 00:20

As one who has appeared in the high court as a result of a failed TUPE action in 1995 ( as UK company manager - we lost the case but won on appeal) I can add that from memory the judges ruling hinged on the fact that helicopters are not brooms and brushes. The fact that we supplied a different product (S76B) compared with the encumbant (S76A) meant that, in the appeal judge's opinion the business entity had not been transferred. It was deemed to be a different contract not the same contract transferred.

The pain and agony caused (unnecessarily) by the previous contractor by deeming that their employees had been transferred meant that:

a. we could not employ them, and
b. they could not get unemployment benefit because the social services maintained that they were still employed.

I shudder every time I hear that dreaded acronym.

G

:ugh:

Sven Sixtoo

5th Nov 2005, 09:18

Geoffers

Thanks

I stand corrected.

Doesn't sound good.

Sven

Decks

5th Nov 2005, 13:17

Need a legal opinion on T.U.P.E. If you google T.U.P.E. you will find the relevenat U.K. /E.U. law regarding T.U.P.E. and my read of it suggets that it would apply.
The laws have changed a bit in recent years... certainly in 2003... and I think they are being looked at again.

L4leather

6th Nov 2005, 09:44

Rumour has it that CHC intend to set up their own SAR training school and that at Valley SARTU QHCIs are dusting off their CVs

mallardpi

6th Nov 2005, 16:12

So the MCA have signed a new contract that will, no doubt, protect their interests/responsibilities in the UK. What happened then, to the big Harmonisation project that was supposed to bring together the military and civil SAR communities to provide a coherant UK-wide organised structure to helicopter SAR? My guess is that the Military Sabre(SAR) project has fallen so far behind that the MCA cannot wait to see what the military are going to do. So, now the Mil SKs battle on and there's even less pressure to get them replaced quickly. Good luck you Mil guys.

pitchlink

6th Nov 2005, 17:00

All the mil bases are up for civil contracts in 2012.

Eurochopper

6th Nov 2005, 17:26

mallardpi

The contract has not been awarded yet- MCA have merely stated that at the moment CHC is the preferred bidder, presumably because they are the cheapest.

Whooper5

6th Nov 2005, 19:34

Mallardpi

SABR(SAR) is gone. It was replaced by SAR(H) some time ago.

SAR(H) is still the joint (harmonised) project aimed at the future of UK SAR. The first implementation of SAR(H) will be in 2012; the size of the project not allowing earlier implementation. This timescale lead to the requirement for an ‘interim’ contract for the MCA locations as the original contract completes in 2007. It is the interim contract which is being discussed here, however some may view the bids as feelers for the 2012 contract.

Whooper5

mallardpi

8th Nov 2005, 13:52

Whooper 5

Thanks for the update. Good to see that the SKs might get replaced soon, 2017 was far too late, but I guess the yellow Sk boys and girls will not be holding their breath.

Harmonisation is the way ahead. The UK needs a good strategic repsonse to SAR (Mil and Civvy). Lets hope those involved are given the tools to do a most important job properly and see it through to a logical conclusion, whatever that happens to be.

[email protected]

9th Nov 2005, 10:54

Dear Mr CHC, when you eventually take over all UK SAR can I have a job at Chivenor please?

Helibelly

9th Nov 2005, 12:45

Never mind Chiv, can I go back to Yorkshire (but based at an airport not a driver training school).

NRDK

13th Nov 2005, 05:33

Shame on BHL management for being so complacent, much like the Pay and conditions of employment. Pathetic and feeble response in the press about the S92 being unproven.

Still with CHC being the 'preferred' choice and the pay BHL talks going so well, a poor pension scheme and apparently some driftwood floating around HQ. Has anyone out there got the email address of the CHC UK HR department?? Best all those wanting to get into UK SAR(Civ) or those already in it start posting their CV's.

Variable Load

13th Nov 2005, 11:30

Bristow's commercial department seem far too focused on rubbishing the S92 and are perhaps losing sight of their real task - that is offering the clients whatever helicopter they want.

C'mon Nick McD et al, it's time to park up the "anti S92" roadshow. You're now hurting the Company.

bondu

13th Nov 2005, 17:32

You mean Bristow actually have one??

bondu :rolleyes:

Cyclic Hotline

10th Dec 2005, 05:55

Coastguard crews get job protection

Hans J Marter

9 December, 2005

THE MARITIME & Coastguard Agency is expected to announce next week who will win the contract to operate the sea search and rescue service in the northern isles.

There was an outcry last month when it emerged that after 22 years Bristow Helicopters is might lose the service to the Canadian company CHC Helicopter which has a base at Aberdeen airport.

If they do lose the contract, northern isles MP Alistair Carmichael received a guarantee from the MCA yesterday (Thursday) that Bristow employees will be able to transfer to CHC under TUPE regulations.

Mr Carmichael held an urgent meeting with the MCA's chief executive Captain Steven Bligh to express his constituents' concern over the implications of the change.

The meeting was originally scheduled for next Tuesday but had to be hastily rearranged after it emerged that the MCA was planning to make its final decision public on that date.

Mr Carmichael said: "I have been assured that anyone currently employed by Bristows at Sumburgh will be able to transfer to the new operator under TUPE regulations, with their terms and conditions guaranteed.

"I hope that this undertaking from the MCA will alleviate some of the very reasonable and understandable concerns that have been expressed about the implications of any change."

He also pressed the case for an independent, professional evaluation of the new Sikorsky S-92, which is the aircraft CHC propose to use.

"The MCA is of the view that although this has not been undertaken there is sufficient evidence from the use of these helicopters in Canada and Norway to make a full scale assessment unnecessary.

"I am no expert on helicopters and shall need to speak again with those in the profession who may be able to advise me," he said.

A spokesman for the MCA made no comment other than that Mr Carmichael has received the assurance he had sought.

The new five year contract will come into force in July next year.

Night Watchman

10th Dec 2005, 12:32

And from the Press and Journal....

JOBS PROMISE FOR HELICOPTER RESCUE CREWS
09:00 - 09 December 2005

Coastguard search-and-rescue helicopter crews at Sumburgh and Stornoway were last night promised they will keep their jobs when a new company takes over running the service.

The pledge to keep on staff was given yesterday by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency's chief captain, Stephen Bligh, at a meeting in the Commons with Orkney and Shetland Lib Dem MP Alistair Carmichael.

An announcement that CHC (Scotia) is to take over the role from Bristow Helicopters for the next five years is expected on Tuesday.

CHC, which plans to replace Bristow's ageing Sikorski 61 N helicopters with newer Sikorski S92s, has already been named the preferred bidder.

It is understood the contract includes search-and-rescue bases in England at Lee-on-Solent and Portland.

Mr Carmichael, accompanied by Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross Lib Dem MP John Thurso, said after the meeting he welcomed Capt Bligh's assurance because it would secure the "professionalism and expertise" of existing staff.

He said: "I hope that this undertaking from the MCA will alleviate some of the very reasonable and understandable concerns that have been expressed about the implications of any change."

Na h-Eileanan an lar SNP MP Angus MacNeil called for a statement on the future of the search-and-rescue service in the Commons and later secured a pledge from the MCA that the undertaking would also apply to staff at Stornoway. He said later: "This is very welcome."

"The MCA is of the view that although this has not been undertaken there is sufficient evidence from the use of these helicopters in Canada and Norway to make a full scale assessment unnecessary.

I thought the S92 was proving to be a bit problematic in Norway and was having major problems? Can anyone confirm deny/this?

SASless

10th Dec 2005, 12:55

Whoa guys,

The current crop of BHL Mandarins are merely trying to copy Big Al's axe job on the Chinook. He was successful.....why can't they be just as capable in the current business climate?

The Missing Piece

10th Dec 2005, 13:16

SASless,

There are concerns with the S92 and I've heard of problems in Norway too. Bearing in mind that this is aircraft going to be used in SAR then why can't these issues be discussed. If anything it may prove that the S92 is all that the glossy Sikorsky brouchure suggests!!

If it is a BHL 'axe job' like you imply then a discussion on here may well prove you right! What do current S92 drivers think of the aircraft?

Actually I think the S92 may not be as problematic as the AB139 which is to be used on the south coast this seems to have major problems with performance.

And I think the oil companies stopped using the Chinook when it fell out of the sky from 3000 ft. You're not seriously suggesting that the old man had something to do with that are you?

Cyclic Hotline

11th Dec 2005, 20:32

CHC is the confirmed winner of the contract.

It will be formally announced as scheduled on Tuesday, but the information is out there already.

Tokunbo

11th Dec 2005, 20:45

Congratulations to CHC. I hope they will do as good a job as Bristow has over the years. I'm sure many of the crews will move over anyway and every one of them will do a thoroughly professional job.
Years ago when Bristow first started flying Coastguard contracts there were concerns as to whether civil crews could do the job that had been the exclusive domain (in UK) of the military for so long. There had also been concerns about the S61 (blade spindles and various other matters), but over the years both Bristow and the S61 proved themselves up to the demanding task. There will surely be some pitfalls along the way, but I'm sure that CHC and the S92 will eventually prove to be, not only up to the job, but show that a new era in SAR is starting. Fortune favours the brave, so good luck to all in a brave new venture :ok:

SASless

11th Dec 2005, 20:48

The PR blitz that was done against the Chinook had nothing to do with the crash at all. The PR blitz did poison a lot of minds about the aircraft prior to the crash. It is interesting to note a couple of people survived that crash and none survived similar catastrophic failures of 61's in Norwegian waters and they still fly today. Key there....no axe job had been done on the 61.

There were good valid reasons the Old Man did not want to invest lots of money in the Chinook and that was part of the motivation for dissing the aircraft.

In the current case....who knows what is going on?

I was always taught the worst sales pitch is demeaning your competition and their product and the better pitch is in selling your services, product, and ability to service your client/customer.

For sure....if your competition is doing the latter and you are not...they will be successful to your detriment.

Free and open competition is the key to a healthy industry....seems the losers have to sharpen up their tools in order to remain competitive.

Snarlie

12th Dec 2005, 15:28

The PR blitz against the Chinook is surely a figment of SASLess` very fertile imagination. Bristow conducted an in depth study of the Chinook as it did with the Super Puma. It was felt that, whilst the range and payload were impressive, it would create problems for oil installations having that number of passengers descend on them at one go and numerous installations would have to upgrade their helidecks to take the beast. In addition, the attractions of so called new technology and improved safety features of the AS 332 scored over the BV 234.

At the end of the day, the deciding factor was cost and Aerospatiale, as they were in those days, offered a huge discount for the 35 machines ordered.

In practice, the decision was justified on many levels. Not only did the BV 234 not live up to its performance specifications through mechanical shortcomings but it proved hugely unpopular with the bears. Anyone who witnessed passengers boarding would compare it to the most undignified rush for Ryanair or Easyjet in order to avoid certain seats. The levels of vibration were unacceptably high for public transport sectors. As part of a trial, some pilots were invited to fly with rectal thermometers in place to assess body core temperature as a result of excess vibration.

The point is that the BV 234 did itself in without any help from anyone else.

As regards the point of the thread, I am at a loss to understand why anyone would think that the S92 would not cut it as an SAR platform or, indeed, the AB 139. What performance problems could the 139 possibly have?

HeliComparator

12th Dec 2005, 17:36

This is how I see it.

The 92 and 139 are probably both going to be good aircraft once some teething problems are ironed out - on the 92 at any rate, the 139 is too new to know what the teething problems will be. I think the point at issue here is the progression from a crew-change type aircraft to a SAR one.

For example, do the 92 and 139 have tried and tested auto-trans down / hover? No doubt its in the sales brochure but does it actually exist in a certified flying state yet? And does it work reliably? Do they have dual hoist installations in service now?

I am not saying the answers to these questions is "no" but it seems likely that if you are the first to fit the high tech options, there are bound to be problems. Therefore it is rightly considered by some to be a fairly high technical risk to go this way.

Especially if you are the one floating about in the water waiting to be rescued in fog etc!

Of course to remain with existing technology ad infinitum is ludditism, but surely the compromise is to ensure that the kit will do what it says on the label before committing to using it in anger. In other words, if I were the MCA I would have commissioned a trial on the kit before going firm on its use (a bit like BP did with Jigsaw). Effective SAR requires the combination of well-sorted kit and well-sorted crews, and that takes time to develop with new kit, new crews and new (to them) procedures.

By the way Snarlie, the performance issue with the 139 is its range / endurance not its OEI lifting capability - the latter being tremendous (Oh dear that's bound to set Nick off on another one of his rants.......)

HC

SASless

12th Dec 2005, 20:26

Snarlie,

I was around during the times the Chinook was coming on line with Brand X, and I recall reading plenty of news articles about them and why they were being considered unsuitable.

I do not disagree with the basic underlying economics of the decision....and the Old Man as usual was proven right. They are very expensive...and by sheer size dictate limited ways of utilization in order to be successful.

This is an article that was done by FI on the 25th Anniversiary of Bristow....and now slightly over 25 years later since the article was written....it makes for an interesting bit of reading. Some of the issues he discusses have come to pass and others he was flat wrong on.

The one thing he was right on....Bristow did not have a fleet of Chinooks to get rid of when the need for them went away...and the competitors did.

As I recall even the Tiger had performance issues....something about pulling too much pitch and wearing out main transmissions at a heck of a rate until the cruise power settings were reduced. That kind of problem is not limited to the Chinook. How long is the Chinook destined to be in service with the RAF and US Army....till 2050 is it? Where are all the Pumas?

Columbia has made a fortune operating them so we cannot say they are unsafe nor economically viable machines.

http://209.196.171.35/article_flight25.htm

arm the floats

13th Dec 2005, 09:19

CHC awarded UK search and rescue contract
VANCOUVER, Dec. 13 /CNW/ - CHC Helicopter Corporation ("CHC")
(TSX: FLY.SV.A and FLY.MV.B; NYSE: FLI) confirmed today it has been awarded a
five-year contract by the United Kingdom Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA)
to provide commercial Search and Rescue helicopter services from four bases in
the UK commencing July 1, 2007.
The aircraft to be deployed on the contract are the Sikorsky S-92 and the
Agusta Bell AB139. CHC's European Operating Division will operate two S-92s at
Stornoway, two S-92s at Sumburgh, two AB139s at Lee-on-Solent and one AB139 at
Portland. The service will operate on a 24/7 basis at Sumburgh, Stornoway and
Lee-on-Solent, and on a day-time basis at Portland, in line with current
cover.
The introduction of new S-92 and AB139 aircraft will increase the
Coastguard's operating range and speed. In addition a new range of
technological equipment will be added to maximise effectiveness in search and
rescue work.
CHC currently provides search and rescue and emergency helicopter
services in Ireland, Africa, Australia and Norway. This new contract will
further strengthen CHC's position as world leader in civilian offshore search
and rescue helicopter services and enhance its reputation for providing
expert, cost-effective alternatives to government-run Coast Guard services.
CHC Helicopter Corporation is the world's largest provider of helicopter
services to the global offshore oil and gas industry, with aircraft operating
in more than 30 countries around the world.

Snarlie

13th Dec 2005, 10:32

SASLess

I was also around at the time the BV 234 was introduced by Brand X and, as I recall, many of the articles to which you refer appeared in that well known bugle of the offshore worker, the Press and Journal, prompted by passenger reaction.

The Tiger did indeed suffer from over-hyped Gallic marketing and the reduction in collective pitch setting did affect the cruise speed by some 10 knots but only after the BV 234 had had a precautionary limit of 120 knots placed on it following a series of gearbox problems. I distinctly remember an official complaint by a Brand X crew that a Tiger had deliberately overtaken them on the outbound leg and lowered the gear as it passed in salute!

SASless obviously feels as protective towards the BV 234 as I did towards the S61N but even he would have to admit that as a lifter and shifter it is beyond comparison but as a passenger transport it was not a success. The fact that the oil companies dumped it so quickly, largely on passenger feedback emphasises the view,

Columbia are using them in their primary role which is lifting and shifting.

HeliComparator need not worry too much about exposure to glitches in new technology in the S92 and AB 139 in the SAR role. As has been the case for some time now, there exists a fully operational tried and tested SAR machine available 24 hours a day in the shape of the EH 101 Merlin. In the unlikely event of the S92 or AB 139 not producing the goods the MCA could just call in the Navy!

rjsquirrel

13th Dec 2005, 16:57

Helicomparitor,

I remember reading those "rants" between you two guys and IIRC, you said that the size of the windows is more important than the crashworthiness of the fuel system, fuselage and seats. Nice logic, except to your passengers! Combined with the opinions in your above post, it is little wonder why you and that grandfathered old 225 lost this contract!

Now you will get to watch those S-92's fly past your Bristow windows, I guess.

SARowl

13th Dec 2005, 17:37

A quote from 'running in' from the Military forum about SAR, the S92 and AB139.

"I agree that the S92 is a contender for harmonization, but not the current S92A.

In 4 years time a civil S92B will be a spin off from the Canadian Cyclone S92. For a good SAR machine the S92 will need some more power, so the CT7-8C not the current -8A. It will need more payload, the basic S92 is very heavy and so a weight increase above the current 26,500 lb will be needed - so perhaps a new gearbox as well?

The proposed fly by wire version will be nice and improve handling qualities. Also a 5 bladed head to reduce the vibration.

So, the S92B will be a contender but it won't be around for a few years yet.

vecvechookattack

When you hang a hoist (or two), a FLIR & Skyshout off the side..fill up the back with SAR kit, the fast and agile AB 139 will be a bit more sluggish. You can't squeeze a quart into a pint pot!

RI"

HeliComparator

13th Dec 2005, 18:07

RJ

Actually the rant I was referring to was the one about the tradeoff between OEI power and cruise fuel consumption, and IIRC Nick and I pretty much agreed on that one - I just didn't really want to hear it all again.

As to your snipe about the 225 (which I don't recall anyone talking about in this thread) as far as I am aware no-one tendered the 225 on this contract. The 92 will not be passing Bristow's windows because they will not be at Bristow bases.

So overall I would say that everything in your post is incorrect. Maybe you should consider sticking to what the USA does best, such as indefinitely detaining without charge and torturing of foreign citizens, refusing to take any interest in trying to limit climate change whilst being the biggest culprit, dumping heavily subsidised cotton onto the global market resulting in starvation in Africa, and most outrageous of all, the blind belief that good-old-USA-home-grown-products are the best (one only has to compare European cars to USA ones to see how laughable that concept is!) which of course stems from a complete lack of appreciation that anything exists outside their country's border

HC

ps - will I get a row for bringing xenophobic politics into it.....?

SASless

13th Dec 2005, 18:39

So overall I would say that everything in your post is incorrect. Maybe you should consider sticking to what the USA does best, such as indefinitely detaining without charge and torturing of foreign citizens, refusing to take any interest in trying to limit climate change whilst being the biggest culprit, dumping heavily subsidised cotton onto the global market resulting in starvation in Africa, and most outrageous of all, the blind belief that good-old-USA-home-grown-products are the best (one only has to compare European cars to USA ones to see how laughable that concept is!) which of course stems from a complete lack of appreciation that anything exists outside their country's border

Just what was said by RJ that promted these comments?

Wife being a bit coy lately or something?

Let's compare British cars to European cars shall we....or to Japanese cars.

rotor-rooter

13th Dec 2005, 19:09

I think HeliComparator's greater problem may be that there is nothing flying by his window.

His contribution to the outcome may be in a very different way to that being discussed, but his participation in this once great company may be directly related to the outcome - hence his bitterness! Can anyone say early retirement?

Mind you, if past experience is anything to be considered, he will probably be working for the competition in short order, the same as some of the other past senior management who have either retired or otherwise gone away.

Then he will be cheerfully extolling the virtues of the selected types. ;)

HeliComparator

13th Dec 2005, 19:10

SAS (who, having spent many years in Europe and Africa, I concede has probably worked out that there is something beyond USA's border)

Just what was said by RJ that promted these comments?

His post was an irrelevant snipe which I treated with the contempt it deserved

Wife being a bit coy lately or something?

Not married

Let's compare British cars to European cars shall we....or to Japanese cars.

Why? I though the comparison was with European and American helis, not British. Anyway, do we make cars? I didn't think so. But if we do, the Brits are not stupid enough to buy them. That's the difference.

HC

rjsquirrel

13th Dec 2005, 22:21

SARowl,

I don't know who "running in" is but he has it pretty wrong. I hear the Canadian Cyclone S-92 helo is an S-92A in its entire drive train, including engines. The fuselage has the tail fold, too.

The FBW will be a significant difference, but not because it makes the aircraft handle "better." I once flew a Commanche simulator at Ft. Rucker, fly by wire makes the aircraft able to be hand hovered in zero zero conditions. This should be available in the civil version, I will bet, once pilots see what it does.

In its ability to perform a SAR mission, the S-92A outperforms the EH-101 and Sea King in every measure of SAR fitness, including hover performance, tail rotor authority, Hoist suitability, payload, range and speed. Wait for the S-92B if you'd like, you can stand next to helicomparitor and look out that window to watch the S-92A's fly by in the mean time.

And helicomparitor, slap Americans around if you want, but I seem to remember some of your lot pissing around a bit, eh?

My Dad was based in England during the War, but maybe next time, we just might hold back and let the bad guys cross the channel and teach you a new language. It might do you some good, look what mean things you say with the old one!

212man

14th Dec 2005, 05:06

Leaving the cotton subsidies and the future harmonisation of Europe to one side, for a moment, I'm puzzled (not difficult!) as to why the two England SAR contracts are not part of this change? I had (obviously erroneously) thought that the status quo would remain until about 2010 when the whole SAR situation would change and the existing Military operations would probably become civilian or part civilian.

Is the MCA going to have two separate contractors providing their SAR cover, what likelyhood would there be of BHL retaining Lee and Portland when those contracts come up and are they due at different times? :confused:

212man

14th Dec 2005, 07:03

I guess this answers my own questions, but probably raises a few more!

https://mcanet.mcga.gov.uk/public/c4/news/MCGA-news-pop.asp?mcga_news_id=3212&month=12&year=2005

JKnife

14th Dec 2005, 08:52

What I'd like to know is how CHC plan to make any money out of this contract? £100million for seven new helicopters plus all the spares support and all the other add-ons? Then there are the start-up costs, salaries, insurance, etc, etc. Surely this must be a lost-lead contract in the hope that they will get more in 2012? A brave move, especially if it goes wrong!

I see that the start date is 1 July 2007, but hasn't Bristow already been told that they will be extended to 2008? Why is that if CHC are to start in 2007?

running in

14th Dec 2005, 09:52

rjsquirrel

Some info for you:
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/superhawk/index.html

Apart from the Statue of Liberty, the brief French occupation of the USA seems to have given you their arrogance gene and a chip off both shoulders.

Did I see you in the film Deliverance?

RI

NickLappos

14th Dec 2005, 11:11

running in,

That article describes the basic S-92 military version, and virtually all the data is also true for the civil S-92A (except for the fold, FBW and avionic equipment). The -8C engine is available for the military version, but the Canadian Cyclone has the 8A, which fills the transmission up to about 8,000 feet. The 8C is for ambients even higher. The article is basically correct, but the Canadian engine is not clearly specified, I do understand your confusion. (It is a marketer's delight, have many brand names for one product, and mix and match them as you wish - Cyclone, S-92A, Super Hawk, etc.)

I have no idea why helicomparitor is turning this into a "hate this country" thread, seems kind of small minded. Squirrel isn't helping, I must admit.

HeliComparator

14th Dec 2005, 12:28

OK I need to correct my vitreolic posting: my remarks only apply to americans whose names include all the following letters:

l e r r i u q s j r

Apologies to any other americans I have offended (even though you did vote for Bush TWICE)

HC

SARowl

14th Dec 2005, 16:41

212man et al,

Call me a cynic, but one of the reasons I believe CHC/Scotia have won the contract is to trial the S92. The contenders for the 2012 harmonisation contract are; S92, EC225, EH101 and NH90.

Bristow/BP have tested the EC225/AS332L2. The military have tested the EH101 and now at great expense to themselves CHC/Scotia are going to trial the S92.

Any bids for the NH90 anybody?

Decks

14th Dec 2005, 17:12

Folks,
I think its much simpler than all of the above. HMCG got new techology at the best price. The loctaions will be the same and the crews will be very similar as CHC are a good outfit to work for. Yes the aircraft is new and yes it will have teething problems but I have NO doubt whatsoever that in time it 'll prove itself just fine now that its being given the chance.....
Just my tuppence....

SASless

14th Dec 2005, 17:36

Are teething problems on par with maintenance problems with ageing airframes?

BHL did lose a 61 a while back....how does that situation stand up against the teething problems?

Please....am not suggesting anything beyond asking a comparison of "new" problems versus "old" problems.

Night Watchman

14th Dec 2005, 19:45

HMCG got new techology at the best price.

I think they did better than that.

They got 7 brand new aircraft for a bargain basement price of £100 million for 5 years. Taking into account the 30 pilots, 30 aircrewmen and 30 engineers required and the maintenance plus running costs I'd say that CHC are now very kindly subsidising the UK Coastguard!!! Good for them!

CHC pay the best rates in the business, are constantly undercutting other companies on contracts and seem to slowly buying up every other operator in the world.

The only thing that would concern me about this is are CHC accepting loss leaders elsewhere on other contracts and where, eventually, is the money going to come from to pay for it all? Alternatively they could be the most efficient company in the world!

The other question I would ask is are ‘teething problems’ acceptable on a 24/7 SAR unit based in a remote part of Scotland? Discuss!

zebedee

14th Dec 2005, 20:35

Apart from a recent rant, I tend to make quite boring responses - and this is likely to be no exception.
Take away the protectionism of previous comments and look at what CHC has done in civil SAR around the world.
Have there been ANY major problems?
Have they DONE THE JOB any worse than their military predecessors in the same environment?
Have they been successful in renewing miltary contracts?
Nick - were CHC (then Lloyd, or maybe BOND) the first users of auto-hover for civil SAR in the S-76 more than fifteen years ago?
Were they one of the first to use NVG in civil SAR missions?
Can anyone else smell the coffee?
Zeb.

Variable Load

15th Dec 2005, 02:23

Night Watchmen

You seem very sure that this is the case, but I'm not convinced. Some quick sums on the back of a fag packet for you, accompanied by a health warning that these are purely my assumptions and I have NO inside knowledge at all:

Purchase price for aircraft 65 mln.
10% per year Return on Investment = 6.5 mln

DOCs assuming 500-600 hrs/yr/aircraft (this figure may be too high?) = 4 mln

Staff costs using your numbers = 7 mln

Adding them all up and multiplying by 5 years gives a total of 87.5 mln.

That leaves a reasonable margin for overheads, insurance, mobilisation, base costs, etc.

It certainly won't be the most profitable contract ever signed, but I doubt it won't generate any profit at all unlike some other contracts in the past e.g. old Bond's BP contract.

HC, thanks for this :

even though you did vote for Bush TWICE

It really made my day :ok:

[email protected]

15th Dec 2005, 07:44

Let's hope this new contract forms the basis for the 2012 one - CHC are at least looking to the future, the prospect of providing total UK SAR cover with the government footing the bill must be very attractive.
Since the RAF SARF is in tatters with serviceability problems, imminent contractorisation of engineering (with no visible contractor so far), an unneccesary move to Valley for the HQs and OCU and patchy and incoherent funding and support from IPTs, the sooner something definite (other than 'it'll be OK, we'll keep the Sea King limping along until 2017') is decided the better.

splodge

15th Dec 2005, 08:19

FROM ROTORHUB....

"
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation has signed a contract to provide four S-92™ helicopters to CHC Helicopter Corporation to perform commercial search-and-rescue (SAR) missions for the United Kingdom Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) beginning July 1, 2007. Sikorsky is part of United Technologies Corporation.

Under the five-year contract with the MCA, CHC will operate its S-92 fleet around-the-clock from coastal bases in Sumburgh, and Stornoway.

This marks the first time that the S-92, the world’s newest medium-lift helicopter, has been selected for a dedicated SAR mission. “The S-92’s modern technology, performance, and industry-leading safety standards make it superbly equipped for SAR,” said Jeffrey Pino, Sikorsky’s senior vice president for corporate strategy, marketing, and commercial programs.

Company founder Igor Sikorsky was inspired to build helicopters because he believed in their life-saving capabilities. Within the past year alone Sikorsky-built helicopters rescued thousands during the aftermaths of the Asian tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, and the earthquake in Pakistan. “Sikorsky helicopters have been saving lives for more than 60 years. We are proud that CHC has selected the S-92 to build upon this legacy,” Pino said.

CHC’s S-92s will be equipped with duals hoists, autopilot, coupled hover capability, and the new Rotor Ice Protection System (RIPS), which meets the Federal Aviation Administration’s latest and most stringent all-weather flight safety standards. RIPS allows the S-92 to launch into known icing conditions that might otherwise delay or cancel flight operations. The RIPS determines the temperature and moisture content of the surrounding environment and applies heat to the main and tail rotor blades to remove any ice buildup.

The S-92 is the first helicopter in the world certified by the European Aviation Safety Agency/ Joint Aviation Authorities (EASA/JAA) to the latest and most rigorous safety standards. The S-92 was also the first helicopter certified by the FAA to FAR Part 29 Transport Rotorcraft, Amendment 47, the latest U.S. safety regulations, which mirror the European standards.

The HH-92, a military variant of the S-92, is Sikorsky’s candidate in the United States Air Force’s Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR-X) replacement program. The HH-92 advanced weapons system offers the best combination of survivability, performance, interoperability, safety and cost for the vital CSAR-X mission.

The Canadian government has contracted for 28 MH-92 helicopters, designated the CH-148 Cyclone, to fulfill a variety of military maritime missions in support of support of North American and international security, including search-and-rescue, surveillance, passenger and cargo transfer, medical evacuations and tactical transport.

Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, based in Stratford, Conn., is a world leader in helicopter design, manufacturing and service. United Technologies Corporation, based in Hartford, Conn., provides a broad range of high-technology products and support services to the aerospace and building systems industries.

CHC Helicopter Corporation is the world's largest provider of helicopter services to the global offshore oil and gas industry, with aircraft operating in more than 30 countries around the world. CHC currently provides search and rescue and emergency helicopter services in Ireland, Africa, Australia and Norway.
"

I bet the BHL SAR crews are looking forward to getting their hands on these...... ;)

SARowl

15th Dec 2005, 10:10

The S92 is only half the problem. Lee on Solent and Portland will be equiped with the smaller AB139. With a reduced load capacity, no place for a second hoist, parasite drag from the hoist/FLIR, is this the correct aircraft?

Yesterday, the crews at Lee did an excellent job rescuing a fisherman from the capsized hull of his vessel, then lifting 5 divers and 800lb of kit. How would the undersized AB139 have coped with that little lot?

GeneralMelchet

15th Dec 2005, 10:48

As simply a keen observer and hopefully a non user of the SAR service can I ask a question?

Will there be an overlap in the Bristows and CHC contracts to allow crews to work up the new equipment while there still being the backup from the S61's in case of unforseen problems?

As I understand it the S-92A has never been used in the SAR role yet and the CHC helicopters will be the first with the SAR equipment fit - so there will be lots of scope for bugs that need ironed out in the early days. ( this is by no means a critisism - all new complex systems have bugs). Will CHC have a chance to iron out the bugs outwith the critical SAR mission?

P.S. Have the RAF/RN evaluated the Merlin for the SAr mission to replace the Seakings?

Night Watchman

15th Dec 2005, 11:41

Variable Load

I don't disagree with your figures up to the 87.5 mln but that only leaves 12.5 mln .

You divide that figure by 5 thats 2.5 mln a year and divide it it by 4 bases thats 625,000 a year per base for overheads, insurance, mobilisation, base costs, etc.

I think you'd be lucky to get the insurance for 2.5mln a year for 7 aircraft operating SAR!

finalchecksplease

15th Dec 2005, 14:18

It does not take a degree in economics to realise CHC Scotia have bid for this contract as a “loss leader” to be well placed to get the whole cake in 2012.
The sums don’t add up to a profitable contract, especially knowing Bristow bid was around £ 60 million with their paid for S61’s for the same period.
The future will tell if it was a worthwhile gamble for CHC and I bet the gloves are off between those two for future contracts.
At least it’s a “good cause” and not a multi billion oil company profiting from this battle over contracts this time.

feet dry

15th Dec 2005, 16:10

Evening all,

Do not forget that the ABs will not be the only SAR helicopters on the south coast. The Belgians and the French are routinely used (as required) by HMCG, also the Seakings still at Wattisham and Culdrose. The S61 is/was a marvellous workhorse though.

feet dry sends.

boomerangben

15th Dec 2005, 16:19

Where have all these numbers come from? £100 million, £60 million? I haven't seen the number quoted in any press release and I doubt either company is banding about what they tendered. And who's to say that CHC was cheaper than Bristow's? Maybe the DfT are happy to pay more for new technology? Maybe they are happy to pay more so that they get experience with another contractor? Maybe CHC have a really nice deal with suppliers for being lead customer for the SAR 92's/139's?

Night Watchman

15th Dec 2005, 16:46

Boomerangben,

The £100 milion came from an MCA press release but I'm not sure where the £60 million came from.

Your point about getting experience of another operator in my humble opinion is very close to the mark particulary in the run up to harmonisation.

JKnife

15th Dec 2005, 16:47

boomerangben

Not sure of the £60m quote for the BHL bid, but the £100m was stated in this news item from the BBC website (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/dorset/4524702.stm):

New £100m coastguard helicopters

The new helicopters will operate from July 2007
A deal worth more than £100m, will see the Coastguard replace its fleet of seven helicopters with faster aircraft.
The Maritime and Coastguard Agency will lease seven aircraft from a Canadian operator to provide coverage for the south coast of England and in Scotland.

The new aircraft will replace the seven helicopters operating from Scotland's Stornoway and Sumburgh Lee-on Solent, Hants, and Portland in Dorset.

The current Search and Rescue (SAR) fleet of S61Ns was designed in 1961.

The MCA said it has signed a five-year interim contract with Canadian helicopter operator CHC Scotia to lease four Sikorsky S92 helicopters and three Agusta Bell AB139s to provide coverage from July 2007 to 2012.

At some point there has to be a departure from existing aircraft otherwise we will end up with machines flying around on search and rescue that will be 60 or 70 years old

John Astbury, chief coastguard

Two S92s will be based at Stornoway, another two at Sumburgh, while two AB139s will be based at Lee-on Solent and one at Portland.

John Astbury, chief coastguard and director of maritime operations, said the deal was worth more than £100m.

He added: "The new aircraft are faster and will have greater endurance and this demonstrates the UK Government's commitment to search and rescue in the UK.

"The S61N, as the name indicates, were born in 1961, so they are approaching more than 40 years old at the moment. Although they are efficient aircraft they are very old machines.

"At some point there has to be a departure from existing aircraft otherwise we will end up with machines flying around on search and rescue that will be 60 or 70 years old and I think that it's entirely unacceptable to members of the public."

Angus MacNeil, Scottish National Party MP for Na h-Eileanan An Iar (The Western Isles), raised concerns about the suitability of the Sikorsky.

He said: "It is a shame that there was no opportunity for parliament to scrutinise the effectiveness and the suitability of the new S92 helicopters as this has a direct effect on safety and wellbeing around our coasts."

NickLappos

15th Dec 2005, 17:39

The economics of this deal do not seem very harsh, to me. I think we are all ingrained with typical military thinking, where everything costs lots and lots:

In order:

7 aircraft use for 5 years each. Typical dry lease arrangements would be less than 1M per year per aircraft to place them on station, buy them, and set up hangar/shop kits. That is $35M for the fleet

Typical need would be 5 pilots per aircraft and 5 mechanics? Plus maybe 3 more admin/shop/schedule per aircraft? Call that 13 people per aircraft, full time. 13 x 7 x 5 = 455 man years. At about $150,000 per manyear ($75 per hour, including all benefits) that is $68 million.

If one assumes 250 hours per year, fuel is at $4 per gallon, that is $900 per hour, plus $1000 per hour for maintenance (atan assumed power by the hour rate) you gat 1900 x 250 x 7 = $3.3 Million
Assume insurance at 4% per hull value per year = $19 million X .04 X 7 x 5 = 26.6 Million

I don't know if the hangar is provided, or is paid for, lets assume each aircraft costs $50 K per year to hangar = 50K x 7 x 5 = $1.75 Million

Totals 35 + 68 + 3.3 + 26.6 + 1.75 = $135 million

Add 20% profit = 1.2 x 135 = $161 million
Convert to British pounds = 161/1.76 = 92 million pounds.

Buy a hedge for the dollar vs pound at 2 Million, and laugh all the way to the bank, with 7 million pounds for incidentals and unplanned expenses.

PS I did not assume the AB-139 was cheaper, but it should be about 70% of the S-92 costs all the way around, making the above calculations conservative, by far.

Rotorbike

15th Dec 2005, 17:51

8 pilots, 8 crewmen and 8 engineers required for a CHC SAR roster.

NickLappos

15th Dec 2005, 17:57

Rotorbike, thanks, I will amend the estimate, what about the pay rates? Can you tell me what the typical annula salary is for the pilots, crewman and engineer?

I assumed everything else on the list, feel free to comment.

Dave_Jackson

15th Dec 2005, 18:07

CHC taking on more debt to finance new aircraft, personnel (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20051215/RCHC15/Business/Idx)

boomerangben

15th Dec 2005, 18:19

Thanks guys - I stand corrected on the £100 million.

ALANBRISTOW

15th Dec 2005, 18:43

To run a full UK SAR base you will require per crew/ shift one qualified experienced SAR captain, one qualified co-pilot (ie two arms, two legs and a head and grunts when asked a question) one qualified experienced SAR senior crewman/winch op, one medically qualified, physically fit, no fear winchman, at least one licensed engineer and you could get away with a non licensed fitter as the second engineer. You then need the support staff such as admin, cleaners, logistics and not forgetting a pool of 'floaters' in case any aircrew or engineers throw a wobbler.

A lot of rear crew recruitment will be required as the majority of the BHL guys are approaching retirement. Military sources are drying up as the RAF is now offering professional pay spine money to rear crew and bonuses for retention. Most Navy guys if willing to leave will not wish to relocate to the outer isles.

cost approx: captain £ 65k-75k PA , co-joe £40k-50k PA , Senior crewman £40-50k PA , Winchman , £32-38k PA , licened engineer £25-£40k PA , non-licensed engineer £20-30k PA

that is for one shift, with european working time directives and flight time limitations the crew and engineers are limited to hours on shift especially the crew a max of 2000 hrs PA therefore to run one base 8 pilots reqd 8 crewmen and 8 engineers

approx cost for each base £1,012,000 per annum on salaries alone that is $2,064,480 Canadian without logistics admin and 'floaters'

these figures do not include remote island allowances, such as cost of living difference, travel to the mainland, heating allowances, housing.....BHL currently provide all of this to the Northern SAR bases

happy budgeting !!

sarmanontheline

15th Dec 2005, 18:56

Whats all this money talk about just accept the fact that CHC Scotia have got the UK SAR contract and are going to be using S92's and AB139's..

Best of Luck to all the CHC guys envolved and well done to the team who won the contract..

And the Bristows lads who will be changing uniform soon!!!

Also the Bristows lads best of luck in the future and a job well done and safe Flying until 2007..

NickLappos

15th Dec 2005, 22:37

ALANBRISTOW - I don't know what is more annoying, that you are in all CAPS or that you stole the name of a great guy.

How many aircraft per base, should I assume the 8x8x8 is for 1 aircraft? I will revise the estimate, but so far, you seem under my budget for salaries, frankly.

Variable Load

16th Dec 2005, 00:45

CHC recently posted their 2nd Quarter results. Within the report is the following

" - a five year contract from the United Kingdom Maritime and
Coastguard Agency (MCA) for the provision of commercial search
and rescue helicopter services from four bases in the U.K.
commencing July 1, 2007. The contract requires the deployment
of four Sikorsky S-92s and three Agusta Bell AB139s and is
valued at approximately $215 million over the five year period;"

So at todays exchange rates that makes about 105mln pounds.

HTH....;)

John Eacott

16th Dec 2005, 01:59

FWIW, Flight International reported

"Although the interim five-year contract is expected to be worth only about GBP50 million ($86 million), the competitors saw it as an important stepping stone to the larger SAR Harmonisation project, which envisages replacing all the UK's existing civil and military SAR helicopter fleet from 2012."

Link and picture, here. (http://www.flightinternational.com/Articles/2005/12/06/Navigation/197/203467/CHC+wins+UK+SAR+contest+with+S-92.html)

FlyingHead

16th Dec 2005, 06:53

It seem the topic go to a battle CHC versus Bristow. Well change has never been easy. I heard pilot complaint about aging A/C for years. Well finally they will have the latest and the greatest. Financially is not the first time CHC had prove wrong to many people, (look at their share- 1996= around 6.00 CDN, now after split= 26.33) and many term of the contract with are not aware of, what you can recharge, taxes, etc... At the end it come to have the job done, so good luck gents.

FH:}

[email protected]

16th Dec 2005, 07:15

ALANBRISTOW - since todays cojoes are tomorrows Captains, I hope they are capable of more than just breathing and grunting - after all, that is the winchman's jobspec :)

Saint Evil

16th Dec 2005, 21:48

Does anyuone have anything sensible to say?

CHC won the contract. Let them get on with it. Let them see how the aircraft develop. Look to the future instead of giving it a kicking before it even happens.
The Mil SARF is in a bit of a state serviceability wise. If CHC can point the way forward - good on them.

Bitching about things like aircraft selection now will not change anything so why waste your keyboards.

Rant over.

The Missing Piece

17th Dec 2005, 09:33

Saint Evil,

Why can't we discuss the suitability of the aircraft about to be used for UK SAR.

If anything it might prove that they are a good choice.

Surely that's what PPRUNE is all about!

SARowl

18th Dec 2005, 18:12

The choice of aircraft is critical for the task. An aircraft that is financially advantageous to the operator is not necessarily the best aircraft for the job.

The good old S61 - bless its cotton socks - had many advantages:-

1. Large cabin - 35 survivors on one job, room for euipment
2. Slow, large diameter rotor (downwash, hover stability etc)
3. Powerful tailrotor
4. Frugal fuel burn - 1050lb/hour
5. Reliabilty
6. Big cockpit
7. Amphibious
8. Twin wheel main undercarriage and tailwheel - maneouverable
9. Big cargo door
10. Good C of G range - weight on winch etc
11. Good operating range

Can any of the contenders match up?

NickLappos

18th Dec 2005, 18:26

SARowl,
You have made an impressive list, and it shows how good the S61 has been, but many of those items are shared with a more modern helo. In addition, the next generation can add value (perhaps at the cost of other virtues) here:

Crashworthy structure and absorbing seats to pretect crew and survivors

Crashworthy fuel system to prevent post-crash fires

Floats for Sea State 5 or 6

Tail rotor aurhority for winds at 45 knots

Excess power to support substantial vertical climb in nil wind at maximum SAR weight

All structures, including rotor heads and blades tolerant of significant flaws without crack initiation

Integral electronic maintenance thru HUMS, maintenance computer, onboard diagnostics and pubs with on-line update

Full flat panel symbolic displays with checklists

Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System integrated into displays

Advanced nav-coupled FMS/autopilot

Protection from turbine bursts

Full Electro Magnetic Interference protection

Full lightening strike protection

30% reduction in maintenance and operating costs

That the original has stood so long is a testament to its great design. Imagine how the 61 looked to those who stepped out of the piston aircraft when it was fielded back in 1961!

SASless

18th Dec 2005, 18:29

SARowl...

The USCG has used the 365 for years...I would suggest the 139 will be far better than that for SAR. Granted the USCG also has JayHawks (Seahawk derivative) for longer range flights.

JKnife

19th Dec 2005, 08:23

The USCG has used the 365 for years

True, but look at the problems they had when they introduced it. It was several years before they got the performance out of it that they were looking for. Didn't help by putting in a different engine instead of the original Aerospatiale spec. That alone caused major problems and, if I recall correctly, several fleet groundings to change the engines to a better spec.

SASless

19th Dec 2005, 11:32

They are doing yet another engine mod or change as we speak as well.

The size/capability of the aircraft itself is relevant only in comparison to the mission tasks being specified by the buyer. Or...it would seem to me.

If the USCG could be happy with the 365....and the machine was capable of performing the mission it was chosen for....then what is the problem?

The better argument is whether the mission spec set forth in the contract is the correct set of specs.....thus the burden is for the CoastGuard to justify the mission specs being used to evaluate the various aircraft.

The decision on aircraft is done by the specs...not by the Peanut Gang passing judgement upon what they would like to see flying the mission.

A proper case in point is the Osprey procurement in the USA....the guys flying the missions prefer big Sikorsky helicopters or Chinooks to Osprey's.....but the powers that be are shoving the Osprey down the throats of the guys in the field doing the flying.

HeliComparator

19th Dec 2005, 20:02

Nick

One issue you do not mention is rotor downwash strength. Compared to the S61 the 92 can have much higher disc loading (ie small disc diameter, high AUW). This becomes very relevant during SAR, for example pushing down/away a floating object, and most importantly the possibility of the crewman, stretcher entering a high-speed rotation when on the wire, which is at best debilitating and at worst, I am told, potentially fatal).

I have to admit I am not sure whether there are SAR S92s actually in service yet, but if there are has anyone had any experiences of the downwash problem?

And Nick, before you say it, of course the 225 is likely to have exactly the same issue!

HC

[email protected]

19th Dec 2005, 20:33

And it won't be as bad as the Merlin.

Special 25

19th Dec 2005, 20:41

Didn't I read in the early days of S92 vs EC225 comparisons, that the S92 is a very power-hungry machine in the hover - Something to do with all the lift being degraded by the huge slap roof of the 6ft square cabin. Is it going to be up to the job of winching at max all up weight on a still wind day.

I'm sure it has been checked out and all the hoops jumped through, but the S-92 is such a new machine, and I don't even think there is a SAR variant yet - How can we possibly be bidding for commercial contracts with it - Let alone the UK Coastguard !!

And in the same regard, don't even mention the AB139 - Is it actually flying yet, let alone ready for this sort of work in 18 months !

Hummingfrog

19th Dec 2005, 20:50

The down wash argument has being going on for years.

The Seaking will have too strong a downwash compared to the Wessex which will have too strong a downwash compared to the Whirlwind was the mantra from my time on SAR

We coped with no real problems - increased the hover height to 50 ft and away you go. I would have always preferred to go on a SAROP in a Seaking than a Whirlwind. Who remembers the slow winch and having to use canvas tapes to increase the winches capability during cliff winching on a Whirlwind.:{

This is progress and I am sure that the S92 will turn into a very capable a/c once the SOPs have been written to best use its abilities.

Anybody for night winching in a Whirlwind rather than a S92;)

Don't think there will be many takers:D

HF

(The Seaking had a boat shaped hull because if you had an engine failure in the hover over water you usually became a boat very quickly;) )

NickLappos

19th Dec 2005, 21:13

If I were to check off SARowl's list for the S-92, I would find most items quite nicely met, including downwash. Recent work by the USAF in evaluations found that the hoist/door was excellent, and litters and people were easily hoisted with the system.

Change is never easy, but when we set concrete, we stifle innovation. The S-92 is a far safer and better helicopter than the lovely, venerable S-61, just as my 2003 car does so many things so much better than my old 1963 Chevy did.

Nostalgia is not a design constraint.

SASless

19th Dec 2005, 21:28

If it was good enough for Wellington,Nick....it was good enough!

When did the 61 evolve into a SAR configuration? Did it evolve over many years....with updates and improvements as techology improved? Would not any other aircraft have to do the same morphing to become a "SAR" bird?

Is there exactly one unique SAR configuration?

212man

20th Dec 2005, 02:29

Special25, I'm not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that the AB139 is not even flying yet!

NickLappos

20th Dec 2005, 04:27

SASless,

There are as many SAR configurations as there are Scotch whiskies.

The most prolific dedicated SAR bird is the USAF HH-60, with about 105 in service, I think. They share nothing in common with the S-61 and SARowl's list except the name on the pedals, but they can penetrate 350 miles of contested airspace, pick up a downed pilot and fly back, all in pitch black conditions. They have rescued crewmen in the middle of the Atlantic, 850 NM from shore, in December, at night, in sleet and iceing conditions.

I'll bet those guys could build a list of the "best" SAR aircraft, too.

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=107

SARowl

20th Dec 2005, 11:10

SASless:

The S61 had been in service for many years before it was considered for the SAR role. Most of the procedures, equipment fit and operating data were based on its near cousin, the Sea King. Therefore, the S61 was not an 'out of the box' SAR machine, some thought and experience had gone into the decision.

Nick Lappos:

Everything you say about the 'venerable S61' is true. It is old, the performance is poor and its avionics fit is antiquated. But, as you will see from my reply to SASless - see above - some thought and experience went into its selection. Some operating data has been gathered about the S92, the EH101 and the EC225, the one that really concerns me is the AB139. Reading some of the flight test histories available on the net - admittedly hearsay - there seems to be a few problems with this airframe. Also, is it big enough, can it carry the kit and the personnel?

NickLappos

20th Dec 2005, 11:32

SARowl,
Thanks for the clarification, I was wondering what your main point is, since the S-92 was designed as a replacement for the S-61, and shares most of the size attributes directly, and some of the others indirectly.

It is interesting to see what happens when a set of requirements does not include some economics. In cars, one ends up with the US dilemma, where millions of ridiculous SUV's clog the highways, most driven by 120 lb moms.

If economics were factored into you SAR list, the choices might show that a smaller cheaper bird in the mix could handle some of the missions.

ShyTorque

20th Dec 2005, 12:11

Horses for courses indeed. The HK GFS used to have a mix of SAR equipped S-76A++ and S-70 Blackhawks.

The CAD didn't like the S-70 being used for offshore work because they were not equipped with floats and had no automatics and amazingly, were put on a "Permit to fly". However, the Blacky had far more power, an NVG compatible cockpit and they were more stable in the hover.

The dual-qualified captains were given the choice of aircraft type for most SAR missions. Given that choice, certainly over land by night, I took the Blackhawk every time.

SARowl

21st Dec 2005, 09:50

I don't think a 'pick 'n mix' approach to SAR aircraft type is the correct answer. I appreciate that on paper it makes economic sense, but there is economy in uniformity. One logistics chain instead of two, one training empire, etc... Also manning can be a problem, an S61 pilot can move from one base to another, whereas an AB139 pilot can't cover an S92 base and vice versa.

NickLappos

21st Dec 2005, 12:12

SARowl,

And what is that symmetry worth in pounds/dollars? Theory of uniformity is nice, but someone has to pay the bills. When a person who has no fiscal skin in the game lists hard, frozen requirements, he is usually standing for the biggest, most expensive solution.

Let me ask it the way it is really played:

Would you rather have 6 superwonderful fun machines, or 9 in a mixed fleet? For a fixed initial/operating dollar, which gives the most area covered, and least response time, and the most lives saved?

When someone starts listing requirements, and doesn't understand that the equation is fewer big ones or more smaller ones, that person is usually not invited to the table for round 2 of the decision making cycle. Don't get me wrong, my alma mater makes the BIG one, so I would perhaps think otherwise.

Jemy

22nd Dec 2005, 13:17

Having operated for both companies in the SAR role, I reckon there's not much to choose between operators.

Regarding choice of aircraft, the S-61 is an old airframe, and surely it is time to move on. Indeed Sikorsky were looking to the Civil SAR market during development. I clearly remember about 10 years ago being handed a questionnaire sent out by Sikorsky asking UK Coastguard crews what they wanted from an SAR cab. So even back then Sikorsky were keen to develop the SAR market. It's a shame for Bristows that they didn't pusrue the S-92 which even 10 years ago looked great.

All the best to the SAR crews for the Christmas and the future.

The Missing Piece

29th Dec 2005, 11:02

Apparently CHC Scotia in Aberdeen are preparing two S61's with the LN501 Auto Hover system in readiness of taking over the Coastguard contract.

What happened to the S92's???

Have they been dropped already????

Special 25

29th Dec 2005, 11:16

I believe, even Scotia are realistic enough to know that they aren't going to have SAR equipped S-92' s ready for the take-over of the contract, and have had agreement to use S-61's for the first year. - So, same bases, same crews (probably), same aircraft in the same colour scheme - Not much change really !

NickLappos

29th Dec 2005, 11:42

The contract starts in July 2007, plenty of time to complete the delivery of the auto approach/hover system. It has completed its company trials months ago, and behaves flawlessly, as the auto-pilot was designed for SAR from the outset.

The only reason why they might not all be ready at that time is that the line is quite sold out for a few years (but CHC has several slots in there, I have no reason to believe that they need not start out with 92's).

Mama Mangrove

29th Dec 2005, 12:08

Well said Nick,
I wish Alan Bristow (as opposed to the guy using the name Alan Bristow - which I presume is a wind-up?!) would also contribute to PPRuNe occasionally - there's a guy wit a fantastic knowledge of the history of this industry.
I worked for both Bristow and CHC during my time and I think you're right. Bristow used to be the really innovative companny, but in the years since the 'Old Man' sold up they have let companies like CHC take over that role. Good luck to CHC with the contract. Whoever does it, one thing that won't change is that the crews from whichever company will do it in a thoroughly professional and dedicated manner.
I also agree with your ideas of having different helicopters for different bases. Back in the very old days where the RN and RAF covered all the SAR in UK, they used a mix of Wessex and Whirlwind at bases depending whether it was expected that rescues would be longer or shorter range. RAF Manson had the Whirlwind (S55 with Gnome gas turbine engine, for our younger readers!!) for many years. Does anyone have any information as to what the useful radius of action with an SAR loiter time is for the S92 and A139?
Mama

Cdn driver

29th Dec 2005, 14:21

What is a empty S92 weighing in at, in offshore config?

SASless

29th Dec 2005, 14:41

Are not the SAR contract submittals public information? If so, why not do a research effort and compare the submittals that were used to make the determination?

NickLappos

29th Dec 2005, 16:11

Cdn Driver,

Here is the tech brochure, with detailed weights and performance. I believe the delivered offshore birds weigh about 450 lbs more than the brochure, due to additional optional equipment and gear. Good idea to add that much tp the SAR to be conservative.

http://www.sikorsky.com/file/popup/0,3038,827,00.pdf

Page 12 has a good SAR radius chart, about 370 NM radius of action.

running in

29th Dec 2005, 16:43

Nick

This brochure has been on the Sikorsky website for a few years now and certainly before production aircraft hit the offshore world.

How does it tie-up with the flight manual? Can you post actual FM data and graphs here and not the sales brochure, we can make up our own mind then?

Do you have the extra weights for the Sea State 6 flotation gear, reinforced cabin floor, de-iced blades, FLIR, hoists etc? Most aircraft weigh more than the sales brochure claim, lets hope the S92 does not.

Thanks in anticipation

RI

SASless

29th Dec 2005, 17:01

Why should the 92 not weigh more in service than planned? Every helicopter ever built has had that problem....everyone!

How much did the APS weight of the 61 increase over the years due to mods....paint....dirt....grease....and the like?

Sounds like a fair question on the surface but I detect a hidden agenda lurkiing there.

running in

29th Dec 2005, 17:38

SASLess

I don't know the weight of the S92, which is why I asked. What is hidden about that?

If Nick can post any FAA approved data that would shut up the detractors. Perhaps Helicomparitor can post actual data about the EC 225 and we can compare facts, not rumours!

RI

NickLappos

29th Dec 2005, 18:15

running in,
I put the 450 lbs as a shot at that correction from brochure to service weight, based on some facts that S92mech posted a few months back. I believe the weight of a good offshore S-92 is about 16,750 lbs ready for pax and fuel. I will search for mech's post to correct that.

This includes most of the goodies you list, at least as one pro offshore outfit spec'd it. the nose to nose between a 225 and an S92 is no contest, the S-92 has about 1300 lbs more payload, or 130 NM more range, depending on how you want to cash in the extra performance. The aircraft look as if they are within 600 lbs if you use the 225 brochure, but they do not add the weight of the crashworthiness they have as a yet uundesigned "option."

The "battle" between the 225 and the S92 has already been waged. Literally across the board, the 92 has won. Only at Bristow (see a pattern?) has there been any concept that there is a horserace, elsewhere, compliance with newest FAR/JAR has been required by the poor sods who must sit in the things, and the 225 was eliminated at the outset, due to its safety shortfalls.

running in

29th Dec 2005, 18:39

Thank Nick,

Some actual hard data from the RFM would be appreciated, especially if your mate Helicomparitor would do the same.

I think CHC are buying the EC 225 as well as Bristow. So far the EC 225 has sold better in the UK than the S92, 8 - nil is the current score, against about 10 - nil to the S92 in Norway.

Perhaps it is a cultural thing.

SASless

29th Dec 2005, 20:00

Perhaps it is easier to convert to the 225 from the Tigers than convert to 92's. That certainly must play a role in the decisions. There must be some value to parts commonality and availability that might offset some performance issues.

Having fleet commonality would make training a lot easier....re-learning which foot to put forward would also be something to consider.

HeliComparator

29th Dec 2005, 20:35

Do we really have to start the 92 vs 225 war again - I thought that had been done to death.

Oh, alright then....

I know that the heavier Bristow EC225 has an empty weight of 14112 lbs (6401 kg). That is including the 3rd generator, the 2 dinghys, floats, the "85dB trim", 4 landing lights, adelt, unusable fuel, documents, wingmirrors etc AND the crashworthy stroking seats and strengthened floor. I'll say that again because Nick has his hearing aid turned down again...IT INCLUDES THE CRASHWORTHY SEATS/FLOOR.

Add 2 pilots and you get 14506 lbs (6580kg). Gross weight is 24250 lbs (11000kg). So disposable is 9744 lbs (4420 kg). Full fuel is about 5050 lbs (2290kg) leaving a full fuel payload of 4694 lbs.

That is of course for the crew change configuration. How it would pan out in the SAR configuration I don't know. I would imagine that the extra weight of FLIR and hoists would be partially offset by taking out the seats, but it would still be heavier. The real extra weight comes from all the cabin equipment - endless medical stuff, throw-out dinghy etc but that is impossible to work out as it would depend on what the operator wishes to carry.

I know that the 92s delivered to Norsk ended up quite a bit heavier than expected. I don't know much about it but I understand that quite a bit of stuff that was expected to be standard turned out to be optional extras. Sea state 6 flotation is one that springs to mind and I think there was something about crashworthy floor which is surprising considering Nick's previous rants on the subject.

Perhaps someone from Norsk or CHC HS can enlighten us with actual figures?

Anyway I understand that, whilst we originally thought that the 92 would have the edge on payload, in fact the 225 crept ahead in the end. But of course both aircraft can take 19 pax, bags and full fuel so its a bit academic.

If you compare the RFMs (the one for the 225 I can confirm as being surprisingly accurate!) the 225 has marginally better specific fuel consumption at the faster cruise speeds, but again there is little in it. Both aircraft do a lot better at high altitude - not much use for SAR!

The story about engine variants for the 92 has changed so often that I have lost track as to what engines might be available in the future, but I know that the OEI OGE hover performance with the current engines is disappointing (though of course a lot better than the S61!). At low temperatures there is not a huge amount in it, but by +30 deg C the 225 is about 1200lbs - 1500lbs ahead (92 limits OEI on TOT from about 0 deg upwards, whereas the 225 doesn't)

But in fact both the aircraft are adequate in all the parameters I have mentioned so far. If one is 5% better or worse than the other, does it really matter for SAR?

Surely the other aspects are more important? The 92 has a clear advantage for the rear crew in terms of cabin height (about the only time its of any use, as in crew change config the pax are hopefully sitting down). But the door arrangement for SAR looks Micky Mouse. And not sure how much the sponsons will get in the way with stretchers etc?

I have tried the auto-hover on the 225. It is great with or without doppler (no more calm sea problems!). When I flew the 92 its autopilot did not seem to have autohover, and its upper modes seemed very poor compared to the 225 - but that was a couple of years ago and it might have improved since then.

Like everything, they will be as good as their weakest element, and until experience is gained in the SAR role, who knows what that will be?

Regarding the contract, as far as I am aware Bristow did not bid the 225. It was only a 5 year fill-in contract until the harmonisation thing, and I guess that didn't seem to justify the switch to new aircraft. Whether that was their mistake, or whether they would have been stymied anyway by CHCs loss-making get-a-foot-in-the-door bid, I don't know.

Anyway, I don't believe Bristow is against the S92 - as soon as an oil company wants them I am sure they be delighted to provide them. In the mean time I think the 225 has the edge in terms of performance (speed, payload etc) and doesn't seem to have the vibration-induced self-destruct feature nor so many design flaws that the 92 has. And up front the 225 has a massive advantage in terms of the grin factor for the pilots.

Bristow seems to agree as they have now ordered 6 firm. CHC Scotia will/have ordered another 2 and as someone said, no-one on this side of the N Sea has ordered a 92 yet - though I am sure they will eventually.

SAS

I don't think there will be a huge difference in terms of hours between converting to the 225 or the 92 from the 332L. Both the new aircraft have major new features such as EFIS, but in many ways the 92 is more conventional. The 225 has fundamental new ideas to grasp such as, when the engine fails you don't touch the collective. And if its in during the takeoff phase after TDP you don't touch the cyclic either - just press the go-around button.

But we were certainly delighted when JAR proposed that the 225 be a variant of the 332L - it saves a lot of hassle on the paperwork front!

However the 92 has a major advantage - its got a simulator, whereas the 225 sim will not be available until 2007! (0/10 to eurocopter on that one)

I don't think the spares have much overlap as the transmission, engines and avionics have virtually no common parts. Maybe the wheels are the same?

HC

Tynecastle

30th Dec 2005, 14:06

Helicomparator,
Good post, pity some of the S92 operators don't come out in the open and tell us the real story, maybe the operator on the E coast of Canada could let us know why they are sitting on the ground, come on guys, let us all know what the real VNE is, what is the fuel burn, vibration level at VNE????
TC

SASless

30th Dec 2005, 14:33

Check yer latest issue (Dec 05-Jan 06) of Vertical Magazine. They have a very good article about the 92 written by Rick Burt, the Cougar General Manager, who is in charge of the S-92 program at Cougar. He flys on the line about 200 hours per year and thus stays in tune with what is really going on in that regard.

www.verticalmag.com is their web site.

running in

30th Dec 2005, 21:13

Nick sez,

"I put the 450 lbs as a shot at that correction from brochure to service weight, based on some facts that S92mech posted a few months back. I believe the weight of a good offshore S-92 is about 16,750 lbs ready for pax and fuel. I will search for mech's post to correct that".

I re-read Nick's post and infer that he used the weight from a sales brochure produced before the first production aircraft hit the offshore market (dodgy) and then added a bit based on mech's post from the GOM. Hardly a definitive post, especially when the silence from actual European S92 operators is defeaning. Has Nick's information become time expired and since when has Nick remained silent for so long?

Thanks for an honest post Helicomparitor.

Come on S92 operators, in the interest of a qualitative comparison please post the real weight of a JAR OPS 3 spec S92.....................the longer you wait the more the doubts will grow!

RI

HeliComparator

30th Dec 2005, 22:44

Sorry guys, can't resist pointing something out....

Nick said that his best guess at the weight of a 92 prepared for N sea service is 16750lbs, gross is 26150lbs so disposable is 9400 (I think Nick's figure includes 2 pilots). I already said, using exact and known figures, that the disposable on Bristow's N Sea 225s is 9744lbs (slightly more on the lighter one). So doesn't that mean the 225 has 344lbs more than the 92?

So much for the Rotorheads guru's statement that the 92 has a 1300lbs more payload than the 225. Hot air is light, but not that light! What else should we not believe?

How about his statement on range?

At 3000' ISA at fast cruise, max gross weight the 225 is doing about 143kts TAS and fuel burn is about 1420 lbs/hr. Looking at the 92 brochure graphs, at the same speed and conditions the 92 is using about 1530 lbs/hr (no temperature on the graphs - I am assuming ISA). If you slow to fuel burn of 1420 lbs/hr (good idea if you don't want too many airframe cracks) you are doing about 137 TAS.

So in the 92 you can either burn 100 lbs/hr more fuel or fly 6 kts slower. They both have the same max fuel within 50 lbs, so I am not sure how he can justify the statement that you get 130nm more range on the 92.

In fact the ranges of the two aircraft are quite similar, with the 225 just nudging ahead by that 100lbs/hr or 6 kts.

Of course it is quite normal for a parent to be irrationally defensive about his baby and blind to its faults, so we shouldn't hold it against him.

HC

SASless

30th Dec 2005, 23:24

The Cougar Helicopters article has a SAR paragraph where the author, GM Rick Burt, says the S-92 has received shining reviews for the BF Goodrich Electric Hoist, the ergonomics for handling hoist loads into the cabin and the abundance of room to bring the load into the cabin and deal with the casualty.

He mentions a gross weight increase to 26,500 pounds (Oct 2005), an 11,000 foot takeoff and landing certification (coming in 2006), Flight into known icing with de-icing capability (Oct 2005),
and improved performance for above spec engines (coming in 2006).

Burt confirms problems but states he still believes in the aircraft and in Sikorsky being committed to improving the product and its support.

Lunar

31st Dec 2005, 11:10

I'd fly the 225 but I think I'll wait for the B model of the 92....

Aside from that when talking SAR the cabin door size and the height of the cabin are a huge advantage to the 92 and the flight deck is built for something more than a munchkin.

I think some of you are looking at load a little too much, surely the important thing for SAR is OEI performance, what is the max weight you can lift in a hover in the 92 and 225 without going swimming if you lose an engine?

Lunar.

NickLappos

31st Dec 2005, 11:51

Let me understand this thread again - exactly how many EC-225's will enter UK SAR service in2007? Oh that's right, none!

You lost Helicomparitor, why not just admit it?

Also, why not now explain how the crashworthy changes in your pet pig were forced on you and your company by the competitive pressure of the safer S-92? I remember how you wrote that the window size was more important than the safety in a crash! It was lame then and its lame now.

The passengers of the Bristow 225's have Sikorsky to thank for the safer design, because the French having have been forced to redesign their helicopter, and add an untested and incertified crashworthy floor and seat system, as well as hundreds of pounds to the aircraft to gain back parity with the S-92. If it were not for competition, helicomparitor's passengers would be forced to have a less safe ride, and only the kind assurances from HC that everything will be all right.

At least, by redesigning your pet pig to close the gap, you admitted how poor it was, and now the game begins anew.

Lunar

31st Dec 2005, 12:01

Nick,

Sorry to stick my nose into your discussion but I think the 92 as a new build aircraft should be much better than its competitor.

When you consider that the Puma is such an old design that has just been stretched and modified for the past 30 years I would have expected Sikorsky to have built a machine that was streets ahead.

In the end of the day the fact that there is a credible competitor to the Eurocopter product is only good for the pilots.

Maybe Eurocopter will get off their arses and design a new machine instead of tweaking the old one. For now the fact that they got the 225 on the same type rating as the 332 is a huge advantage.

Lunar

SASless

31st Dec 2005, 13:27

Now that brings up a good question....in my mind anyway.

The 225 is on the same type certificate as the 332 but HC says there are few parts that are identical.

Does that mean I check out in both if I fly just one of them for pilot license issues?

flyer43

31st Dec 2005, 13:33

SASless

If you were already rated on the 332, at minimum you would have to do the differences course and type rating... and vice versa

SASless

31st Dec 2005, 13:38

Ah...but two different type ratings? Not one type rating with a differences course....odd for an aircraft that is the same "type".

HeliComparator

31st Dec 2005, 14:06

Nick

Great post - completely ignoring mine of course! Anyway, I have to agree with you that Sk can take some credit for raising the safety bar and encouraging EC to do some extra work on their aircraft. I'm sure that will give you a warm feeling!

They did forget to copy some safety features of the 92 - the duplex transmission oil system where one failure takes out both systems because SK forgot the check valves that even the 76 has, the exploding hydraulic system, the self-jettisoning anti-vibration generators, the anti-DVT system (ie the automatic massage given to the pilots when they go above 120kts), the fuel system that flames out the engines on takeoff, something about self-destruct swash plates and probably a few others that are secret!

SAS / F43

The 225 will be on the same type rating group as the 332L and L2, once the beurocratic process is complete. In the mean time the UK CAA have agreed to anticipate that. Anyone with 332L or L2 on their licence can get a new page with 332L / L2 / 225. So its just a differences course to go from L or L2 to 225. The fact that all the spares are different doesn't really affect type rating groups - the piloting philosophy is the same and anyone who has flown the L2 especially, will not feel too confused. I did 5 hrs factory differences course from L2 to 225, after which I was reasonably happy with the beast. Once you get over the gadget factor its easier to fly than the L2 or L

HC

Lunar

31st Dec 2005, 14:11

As far as I am aware it is just a differences course, can't be a new type as on the license it says AS332L/As332L2 and EC225...

SASless

31st Dec 2005, 14:45

Would that identical piloting philosophy apply to other similar situations?

One 206....all 206's/407's/204/205's....all basically the same method of operation...single engine, VFR, single pilot, single hydraulics (except 205A which has two)....same manufacturer?

212 and 412...same types for licencing as well?

Had one input from some folks near the beehive suggest the D model Huey was a different type than the H model Huey.

When they found out the pitot tube location and a bit more horsepower from the engine was the only difference they did mitigate that stance a bit however... but it was not without some resistance.

Lunar

31st Dec 2005, 14:59

Well Hughes/Md tried that logic for years, getting almost all of their aircraft certified as varients of the 369 model.

SASless

31st Dec 2005, 15:13

Well for the 369....as in the 206....is that not a valid proposition?

In the case I mentioned....the 206, 204, 205, 212, 412, 222, 230, 430, 214, 214ST....they are all the same family and all have the same piloting philosophy do they not? You might make a distinction between wheels and skids I guess or even single and twin engine....but they all have collective throttles and very similar systems. They are as much derivatives of the 204 as the 225 is from the 332 it would appear.

Are not all helicopters the same "piloting philosophy" and only require differences training for the specific "model" of aircraft?

Lunar

31st Dec 2005, 15:24

SASless

True enough but if you extend that logic you lead to type ratings for weight catagories, which there are in some countries but the 332L/L2 and 225 have more in common than the 206 does to the 412.

The L2 is just a halfway house between the L and the 225.

Anyone with a (H) license can fly most helicopters but it is getting to know the differences in that type that will stop you making an idiot of your self, or worse. Would you be happy for someone to fly a 212 if they only had experience on the 206?

Lunar

SASless

31st Dec 2005, 15:58

Lunar,

Do you suggest by your question that one must work your way up the totem pole increment by increment?

How many BHL HP pilots did the Bell 47/R22/206 training scheme to step into the cockpit of 61's , Puma's, and other large aircraft? They seemed to fare well. The military does this as a routine.

I would quite happily train an ab-initio student on the 212 disregarding costs as an issue.

I maintain a helicopter is a helicopter...some are bigger...some faster...some carry more...some have fancier avionics...but they are all helicopters. You pull up on the lever in your left hand....and the same thing happens....you push forward on that stick in your right hand and the same thing happens...push the pedals and the same thing happens.

Each machine is different but they are all helicopters. We can make the system complex and costly...or we can go the other way and still achieve the same safety levels.

Look at the difference in the way we handle type ratings between the UK and the USA....that alone should indict the concept of "typing" helicopters. We use weight as the thresh hold for determing "type" ratings. I would suggest to you that a SPIFR EC-135 is far more sophisticated than a VFR only BV-107 used only for underslung work but the 135 does not require a type rating and the 107 does. In the UK...everything has a type rating and related "type technical" exams and checkrides done by the licensing authority. We on the other hand rely upon the operator to give differences training and checkrides except when we require the "type" rating based upon weight.

The conversion to larger more complex machines should not be based upon previous types flown but be based upon ability and other qualifying experience.

I can assure you, a pilot with a broad reach of experience in 206's will be the better risk for 212 flying than a pilot that has thousands of hours doing the same bus run out across the North Sea in a 332/225. The one will have skills the other does not. Each will be better suited for the kind of flying he has been doing as a result of that experience.

The transition to multi-engine flying is not all that complex when compared to learning the skill sets required for your average utility helicopter pilot flying 206's in moutains, deserts, offshore, ag work, and doing underslung work in all those places.

I would think nothing of hiring a well experienced 206 pilot for an offshore flying job...but not the reverse. There is a mystique (more like an Urban Myth) that suggests working for a large North Sea operator qualifies one as a helicopter pilot. I would suggest it well qualifies one for one sector of the industry.

Lord knows we proved flying 212's in hot and humid conditions in Nigeria was more difficult than flying on the North Sea. Ask your mates who did that routine and get them to describe how many aircraft got over torqued or bent while they got the grasp of 212 flying after being on the North Sea for years.

bondu

31st Dec 2005, 16:39

Sorry, I just thought this thread was about UK SAR and BHL's loss of the contract?

bondu :confused:

SARowl

31st Dec 2005, 17:00

Nick Lappos stated:-

"The "battle" between the 225 and the S92 has already been waged. Literally across the board, the 92 has won. Only at Bristow (see a pattern?) has there been any concept that there is a horserace, elsewhere, compliance with newest FAR/JAR has been required by the poor sods who must sit in the things, and the 225 was eliminated at the outset, due to its safety shortfalls."

The S92 didn't initially win. 5 years ago a Coastguard study ruled out the S92 as being unsuitable. Why the change of heart? Can anyone smell something fishy?

Geoffersincornwall

31st Dec 2005, 17:07

We're getting a bit off the thread here but the subject is an interesting one. I must say that it is slightly worrying to hear that pilots that perform OK in the North Sea end up overtorquing etc in Nigeria. Does that say something about the N Sea training or does it (more likely?) say something about the operating standards in Nigeria. Maybe those with Nigerian overtorquing experience can comment.

On the question of type ratings I can say that, having been a freelancer for 20 years or more that I have experienced many different "qualities" of type qualifying processes. In one company I was subjected to 10 days in the simulator on joining - and that was a type I was already qualified on! (Ok - my original TR was in another country) The worst was just a good read of the Flight Manual and off you go.

Whilst all of my TRs were 'legal' if you ask me which one left me feeling 'good to go' I would have to say that the more comprehensive it was the better I felt.

Now, when I became a QHI it was a three month nightmare course and that will quite rightly be seen as being at one extreme of the quals required to impart skills to the newcomers. But - can it be acceptable for those carrying out TRs to be just 'appointed' with no 'competency-based training beforehand? This is what is happening in some jurisdictions I believe.

Would those who live under such regimes please let us have your opinion about such apparent 'laxness' or just tell me I have it all wrong.

G

:ok:

NickLappos

1st Jan 2006, 11:18

SARowl,

I think the reason why the S-92 was not considered 5 years ago is that it was not certified, and therefore was not yet at a reduced risk of demonstration of its promise. Nothing fishy there.

Lunar

1st Jan 2006, 15:08

SASless,

I did all of my basic flying in the US, just less than four years of flying 22/44/206 and 500 and I like the system there. I think you missed the point I was trying to make and has led to a bit of an offshoot discussion.

I was saying that the Puma models are more similar than the different models you mentioned so I don't really see a problem if you are rated on one to be rated on the others as long as your differences course gives you enough time to get used to the change. The change from L2 to 225 is a lot easier than L to L2/225.

I have worked the US system and the European system of type ratings and weight catagories, the European system is very expensive and having to revalidate each year is exhobitantly expensive to freelancers (you also have to find a TRE to fly with you), the US system of biannual flight review is easier as you only need a CFI.

In my view if you took the US system and the European systems and took the best of both you could create a system that wouldn't drive pilots nuts all of the time!

I agree with a lot of what you said in the previous post.

So back to the subject at hand...

Lunar

running in

2nd Jan 2006, 09:07

Still no authorative weight for a European spec S92.................the silence is deafening.

RI

NickLappos

2nd Jan 2006, 12:21

The weights have been posted TWICE, to you personally. What more do you want?

I fly 92`s

2nd Jan 2006, 12:29

With 2 pilots and seastate 5 floats the S92 weight is 17800 lbs, max gross is 26150 lbs, full fuel 5100 lbs, payload 3350 lbs.

When speed is 150 or above the level of vibration is very high. i hope they will have to come up with a new modern rotorsystem like the 225...

The autopilot has to be improved, in alt,vert speed and airspeed mode 3 cue/4axis its inaccurate.
If you adjust collective when coupled in alt mode it will start climb/descend +- 200`, in vertical-speed mode it will never give what you set on the bug, airspeed mode adjustmens are usually very slow.
Reminds me of an old 332L 4axis Puma...
But Sikorsky`s working on it, but i guess they have a lot of improvements to work on...

I belive and hear the "pilot grin factor" is quite higher in the "grandfather" 225

Best wishes and safe flights in the new year.

running in

2nd Jan 2006, 13:03

Thanks I fly 92's

Do you know how much Sea State 6 flotation gear and the anti-icing system adds?

Good luck with your improvements, all new aircraft have problems. Best wishes for the New Year

Nick,

I wanted the weight of a JAR OPS spec S92, which weighs a bit more than your figures.

RI

NickLappos

2nd Jan 2006, 13:19

running in,
I have emailed the 92 bunch, I will see what detail I can provide on that. I think that I fly 92's data is sound, but certainly includes the company gear that is essential, and almost never included in brochure weights. I don't know what the ss 6 floats will add, the deice completion is probably about 100-150 lbs, but might be in I fly's numbers.

I fly, can you break that weight down a bit finer?

SASless

2nd Jan 2006, 13:37

What happened to the 26,500 pound MAUW limit that was approved in Oct '05 as reported in the Cougar Article in Vertical magazine?

HeliComparator

2nd Jan 2006, 13:47

.......................................... (stunned silence!)

I am gobsmacked by the weight quoted by IF92! Surely it can't be right? I posted earlier that the full-fuel payload on the 225 is 4694lbs. If it is as reported by IF92 that makes the full fuel payload on the 92 about 1300lbs less than the 225, (by strange co-incidence, the mirror of what was stated by Nick in an earlier post - which I notice he has not seen fit to edit!) and of course the 225 goes further on full fuel. Is the 92 any better on payload than an L2? (we only have a SAR L2 so I am not sure what the full fuel payload on a crew change one is).

Anyway, thanks IF92 for an honest post on the features of the 92.

I don't think I need to say more....

HC

ps I have some digital video of the 225's screens /autopilot in action. If anyone is interested, and can tell me how to post it, I will do so.

running in

2nd Jan 2006, 14:57

Nick,

So when you add all the SAR gear, sea tray, twin hoist, FLIR, medical kit, winch-op, winchman/diver, stretchers etc and allow for the fact that the S92 drinks a lot more fuel than the S61, especially in the hover, then the two helicopters will have about the same endurance! The S92 is faster but how much faster without bits falling off?

You said in an earlier post:

"The contract starts in July 2007, plenty of time to complete the delivery of the auto approach/hover system. It has completed its company trials months ago, and behaves flawlessly, as the auto-pilot was designed for SAR from the outset".

From I fly 92's post, the autopilot needs a bit of work before I would want it to trans me down on a dark night to the autohover!

Isn't the sales brochure a bit on the optimistic side, should it be revised?

RI

NickLappos

2nd Jan 2006, 16:07

running in,

From your snide "falling off the aircraft" remark, I can surely tell you are not interested in any data, just a few more snowballs to throw. Too bad. One might think after building 2,500 helicopters with automatic approach, Sikorsky might know how to build an automatic approach. There are more Sikorsky helos operating today at sea at night than the entire RAF helicopter fleet, BTW.

Should you need any more data, just stand by, the fleet of successful 92's doing SAR will be flying past your window. I had a great chat yesterday with one of the fellows who will take your job, he was happy to do so, especially since you are so progressive and forward thinking. And yea, I too think the 61 is better, and I think the RAF should scrap their jets and buy Avro Lancasters, a proven design.....

267.4FWD

2nd Jan 2006, 16:42

You all seem to be missing the point,will the end user(the survivor/casualty)be able to depend on an,as yet, unproven SAR platform?
The areas the aircraft is going to be used in have extremes of weather,hurricane force winds,fog ,ice and snow and the very high sea states which requires a good winching platform.
Both bases have notoriously poor service by air/sea which causes problems for spares back up;what spares are required,it takes time and experience in the role to get that sorted,which the 92 does not have.
I am sure,as with all Sikorsky products,that eventually the 92 will become as trusted and admired as the 61;it will be left to the operational staff to do that;we do like a challenge though!

Droopystop

2nd Jan 2006, 17:00

Time please Gentlemen!

Lots of differing views of varying validity. Come July '07, the Coastguard crews are going to get two new aircraft types. I doubt the crews had much say in the choice and will not be able to say "No thanks, we want the 61/Wessex/Whirlwind back" or "can we have a 225 instead?". At the end of the day, the crews will have to make the 92 work. If they expect it work the same as their existing mounts, they are misguided. It would be an interesting and exciting project to work on - I just hope for the sake of the British Public that the team can think out side of the 61 rut. And it is going to take time to work out the best way of skinning the cat with the new cab. Only then can a valid jugement be made on the suitability of the 92 for SAR. Sadly for the 225 lovers, it will be even longer before Eurocopter's offering will be proven (or otherwise), and no, the track record of the L2 doesn't count in my book.

I know I have been very pro 61 in the past and Nick has presented photos of some nice cars that were the dog's knob at the time the 61 was introduced to illustrate how things change. Fair comment (although the 747 is still going strong). The 92 and the 139 are going to oust the 61 from UK SAR in 18 months time. Sad but true but it had to happen. I only hope the 92 can give the same level of serviciability and reliability the 61 has over the years.

running in

2nd Jan 2006, 17:33

Nick,

I have been trying to get to the bottom of the actual weight of the S92, your posts have been inaccurate to say the least! My comments might seem snide, but if you had come clean at the start I would not have needed to keep chipping away. I fly S92 gave a user's view of the S92's AP, do you disagree with the perception of someone who has got to use the kit every day? I am sure the S92 will become an excellent helicopter in time, but it does have a little way to go still and hopefully will get there by July 2007.

Droopystop

I think you will find that the EC 225 is already in SAR service with the FAF under the name of the 725 and has been for the past year. Although I have not seen any reports on how it is going.

RI

Reflex

2nd Jan 2006, 22:03

As a 'part time' 92 driver, I can say that the machine I fly has only one problem with the AP - and that is being fixed on the 3.2 software upgrade. I find the FD spot on and we certainly haven't had these 'wandering' problems that IF92 has been experiencing.

The vibes are OK as well, we're getting 0.05 ips at 145kts if I remember correctly.

As far as the thread is concerned, I am sure that the 92 and the 225 could each do the job as required. I do think that the superior cabin height of the 92 will make for a much better work space for the guys in the back.

What I have noticed is that all the Sikorsky team involved in the 92 are very highly motivated.

212man

3rd Jan 2006, 03:27

IF92s numbers tally with what I've seen; but for an offshore machine. With winch and crew I don't imagine you'll get much change out of 18,500 lb but don't have the spec to hand as I write. His comments about the AP holds also tally exactly with first hand reports I've had though, as reflex says, there is a major software revision out which may address those issues (and others such as power management.)

HC, I'd be interested in seeing those clips as I only had the ground briefing and never got to fly one; can you e-mail them to me? I'll try not to cry into my milk!:{

Hippolite

3rd Jan 2006, 18:10

HC

Have the EC225 Floats been certified to 11 tonnes yet? Previously, EC said that while the MTOW was 11 tones, the floats were only certified to 10.4 tonnes and that a re design might be required (at that time)

What was the outcome?

HH

steve_oc

4th Jan 2006, 12:36

I suppose I have to break the silence!!
IF92's figures are OK. I would work on 17820 lb/8085 kg dry operating weight for an offshore (North Sea) S92, with a max gross shortly to be 26500 lb/12020 kg. Best range speed is around 138 TAS which will give around 1300 lb/590 kg per hour burn at 4000 feet ISA. Sea state 6 floats will add around 75 lb/34 kg I believe.

One point being missed in all this is that the North Sea S92s come with full blade deice (fitted and certified by FAA and Transport Canada but not yet by EASA) and with air conditioning. The EC225 operated by Bristow (and the CHC UK ones will be pretty well the same spec) have neither of these options. Not having air con on the 225 saves 125 kg (the 92 is around the same) and not having blade deice saves 187 kg for the blade deice system itself and a further 73 kg for the multipurpose air intakes, which are a requirement for the full icing clearance. Hence there is a total difference in dry weight of 385 kg/850 lb which would have to be added to the 225 to compare like with like. Of course the S92 has no limited icing clearance (and will probably never have one?) so it is not an option to remove the blade deice system.

Does that help to put some facts back in the debate?

Steve

SASless

4th Jan 2006, 12:57

Oh my! Cats are in amongst the piegons now!

It would appear by adding 385kgs to the 225 to match apples to apples the 225 actually has a lower payload, by adjusting the fuel flow numbers to the latest given....the 92 has a lower fuel burn and with the larger fuel capacity also the greater range. Vibration seems not to be a problem as thought and the 92 actually has the aircon and de-icing. Speeds in the cruise....anyone flying the 225 care to supply us those numbers...speed, fuel burn...

Are we back to the windows again?

Leaky Valve

4th Jan 2006, 14:27

Assuming that the 225/92 de-icing equipment and aircon weigh the same, then based on the figures provided by HC, steve-oc and IF92s, my calculations show that the full-fuel payload of the EC225 would be 3845lbs and that of the S92 would be 3580lbs.

My colleagues tell me that at 4000ft ISA, at 145kts TAS, the fuel consumption of the 225 is about 1350lbs/hour.

Them apples are not looking too bad at all!

HeliComparator

4th Jan 2006, 23:22

Steve OC is correct to point out that we are not quite comparing like with like. If you want to have full de-icing and aircon the difference between the two types narrows somewhat. However if you look at what you actually need for the N North Sea:

Aircon is nice-to-have but by no means essential or even asked for by the oil companies in their tenders.

The 225 functions quite adequately with the limited icing clearance as have the 332L / L2 for many years. OK perhaps there are a couple of days a year when you can't fly due to icing, but is it worth carrying the extra weight all year just for those 2 days? Again, the oil companies don't think so otherwise they would specify it in their contracts. However the 92 does not offer a limited icing clearance. No icing clearance at all puts you at a disadvantage on the N N Sea (unless you are Norwegian) as you are stuck with grovelling around at low level with the associated poor RT, traffic congestion and high fuel consumption. To be fair to Sky, since all blades are de-iced the extra to implement full de-icing (wiring, bigger generators?) is not heavy (around 190 lbs I think) you might as well have it (have to have it?) on the 92.

So what I am saying is that if you must have de-icing, this puts the 92 in a better light, whereas if you want to continue with standard N N Sea practice and use a limited icing clearance when available, the 225 has the advantage.

Regarding the fuel burn, its very difficult to be definitive about this - I spent several hours looking at the 92 and 225 flight manuals yesterday. There are too many variables such as: The speed / fuel burn changes massively with weight, as these aircraft have such a big range of possible weights (because they have such large disposable loads). The FM I have has no data above 26150lbs for the 92. Do you compare the 2 aircraft with the same load, or both starting at gross weight or what? What speed do you want to cruise at - the 225 favours higher speeds than the 92 but at lower speeds you can possibly get marginally better range on the 92.

I think the two are pretty close. I think the 225 is marginally better, and "more better" at higher speeds, but this would not be a deciding factor for me. For me it would be the autopilot, the screen design, the ability to descend at 165 kts at a vibration level much better than an L at 130 kts, and the ability to carry full fuel and 19 pax with bags every time - I have now modified my flight planning procedures. On arrival at flight planning, assuming the flight is more than 140 miles or so I just phone the line office and order full fuel. No need to wait for the load from traffic :D

Steve - you will be in a position to get a handle on operating the 225 in the near future, and perhaps you will also be in a position, or already have, a handle on operating the S92? What has been lacking in these threads is much "evidence" from people who have flown both aircraft -in fact I think its only me ( I mean that has posted, not that has flown both). So I hope to hear more from you in the future!

HC

212man

4th Jan 2006, 23:28

I doubt you will find anyone who has actually operated both types; just had demonstration flights in both and operated one.

SASless

4th Jan 2006, 23:30

Funnything...Cougar article suggested the air con was a blessing for the pax who had to wear immersion suits during the summer time due the cold water they fly over. Also...what advantage is limited icing compared to full de-icing? Seems again a lesser capability is passed off as being the same as a better option.

As to the float weight bearing capacity being just over 10 tons....do you limit the MAUW so as not to exceed that ability of the floats?

If you have only sea state 5 floats...do you restrict the aircraft from flyin if the sea state is 6 or above?

HeliComparator

4th Jan 2006, 23:49

212 - Steve OC will be in the position where his company will be operating both the 92 and the 225 on the N Sea - so he will be best placed to compare the operating issues. As for me, I have only had a demo flight in the 92, but do operate the 225 so of course I am biased! (Though my opinion was already formed after my intial flight on the 92 and the 225)

SAS - as I said the aircon is "nice to have" for the passengers, but we are stuck with what the oil companies want - we are not going to pay for aircon and reduce our payloads unless the oil companies want it. Unlike the airlines, it is the bean counters who decided whether the pax will fly with us or the opposition so there is no benefit in providing comfort stuff that is not required / paid for. Sad but true!

Limited icing - I thought I had already explained that. It just depends on what you need for your location - if you are operating in the Sahara, de-icing would probably not be needed. If you are operating overland at high latitudes, de-icing would be pretty essential. The N Sea is at a latitude where limited icing clearance is adequate to get the job done safely on 99.5% of days (you don't fly on the 0.5% of days) and the extra cost (initial and maintenance) and weight of full de-icing is not justified (in the oil companies' opinion)

Floats: the post from HH was a red herring - the 225 floats are of course certified up to the gross weight of 11 tonnes.

Good question about the sea state - I don't know enough about it to give the correct answer according to Jar-Ops 3 but I do know that the 225 has a better ditching sea state certification than the 332L, L2 or the 92 at the moment, which has to be a good thing. In practice we fly until the oil companies consider that they can't get us out of the sea with their rescue boats and have recurrent training on how to get out if it turns over.

HC

Mikila1A

5th Jan 2006, 00:57

Helicomp,

you are a man of much wisdom!:ok:

267.4FWD

5th Jan 2006, 08:13

The client is the MCA/DfT not an oil company.
The punters dont really care about airconditioners when they have been pulled out of the North Sea/North Atlantic,deicing would be nice to have but not essential,probably cause more grief for the engineers than its actual use would warrant.
Floats,not much use for most of the year in this part of the world with the sea states being quoted.
Has the 92 got a fuel dump facility?
Are the 92 being used for this contract modified passenger a/c or purpose built SAR variants,any one know,or is it just quessing?

JimL

5th Jan 2006, 09:20

Flight over a hostile environment (such as the North Sea) is regulated in JAR-OPS 3 by addressing the two issues: certification for tasks; and consequence in the event of a forced landing. Flight over a hostile environment requires the helicopter to be certificated in Category A (a subject which has been dealt with adequately in another thread) and, performance aside, is the ability to fly for extended periods with the probability that no failure will cause a catastrophic outcome. In addition to this, flight over water requires the fitting of additional safety equipment and, if that water is considered to constitute a hostile environment, certification for ditching (flight for oil support also calls for a number of practical additions to these requirements).

With specific regard to the Sea State, there is no specific boundary but the following is considered to apply:

Judgment is required when applying the definition of safe forced landing to over-water flights (the boundary between hostile and non-hostile) as injury to persons in the aircraft extends beyond the touchdown it also includes capsize and, the subsequent evacuation and access to safety equipment (such as life vests and liferafts) under difficult conditions. When attempting to allocate the boundary between hostile and non-hostile for over water flights, it is best to revert to the two main elements for Risk Assessment: the probability of the event; and the consequence:

The probability of the event will depend upon the Performance Class in which the helicopter is being operated.

The consequence of the event will depend on the Sea State of the sea over which the operation is being performance and the certification of the flotation equipment.

Over water helicopter operations are permitted in the knowledge that emergency situations may arise which may require an immediate and forced landing. Accordingly, (at amendment 9) ICAO Annex 6 Part 3 paragraphs 2.2.11 and 4.5.1, and national operating rules specify those circumstances where approved flotation and safety equipment must be carried; ICAO further states that Sea State shall be an integral part of ditching information.

Requirements for ditching approval are contained in FAR/JAR 27/29.801:

Paragraph (b) requires that measures must be taken to minimise the probability that in an emergency landing on water, the behaviour of the rotorcraft would cause immediate injury to the occupants or would make it impossible for them to escape.

Paragraph (d) requires that flotation and stability must be demonstrated in reasonably probable sea conditions.

Experience suggests that the greatest risk to the occupants in a ditching is drowning due to inability to evacuate the aircraft following capsize and subsequent flooding of the hull. FARs/JARs require the designer to select the reasonably probable wave condition for the area in which the helicopter is expected to operate and to demonstrate that the probability of capsize has been minimised. FAA and JAA have adopted an interpretation (AC29-2A para 337(a)(3)) which states that Sea State 4 is considered to satisfy the reasonably probable requirement. Most helicopters that apply for ditching approval are therefore certificated to Sea State 4.

Sea State 4 represents a wave height of 1.25 m - 2.5 m (4 ft - 8 ft) and wind speed of 17 kts - 21 kts.

The weather conditions up to Sea State 4 provide a pragmatic limit for operations within the non-hostile classification - particularly as it aligns with the standard for Certification for Ditching satisfying reasonably probable conditions. It is therefore suggested that, for operations over open sea areas, the boundary for ‘hostile’ should be set to above Sea State 4.

A recent study (CAA Paper 2005-06) of wave climates along a representative selection of main helicopter routes in the northern North Sea and West of Shetland indicates that Sea State 4 will be exceeded on 26%-36% of occasions over the whole year. During the winter period between December-February, this increases to between 51%-65%. Clearly when considering routine offshore operations in the specified area, they can be (and are) regarded as permanently hostile and any regulation should make sufficient provision to ensure that the probability of ditching is minimised.

Because the probability of flying over a Sea State of 4 is exceeded for a large proportion of the time, it has been a long standing recommendation of the JAA that AC 29 be amended to reflect those conditions (this recommendation can be seen in CAA Paper 2005-06 which can be found at - http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/2005_06.PDF).

Prohibition from flight when the Sea State exceeds the certification standard has never been seriously considered as it would have caused a great deal of disruption to the offshore industry. The Oil Companies have however, been instrumental in ensuring that the certification of floats is raised above the norm of Sea State 4 - hence certification for ditching on the EC225, the S92 and the A139 which is now to Sea State 6.

HeliComparator

5th Jan 2006, 09:32

JimL - thanks for clearing that up and its nice to know I haven't been doing anything illegal all these years (well, as far as flying in high sea states goes anyway :O )

HC

Droopystop

5th Jan 2006, 11:05

Helicomparitor.

Some good interesting stuff, but I am not sure how relevant it is to SAR. Until the operator decides exactly what equipment they are going to carry, the weight and performance issues cannot be quantified. Bear in mind the manufacturers estimates on SAR equiped APS weights are VERY optimistic IME. Seastate 6 - thats not much use for N Atlantic ops is it?

267.4FWD,

Full anti icing a "nice to have"?? I imagine the Stornoway crews would have another opinion.

coalface

5th Jan 2006, 11:32

On the subject of icing clearances, the "limited" icing clearance was obtained in the early eighties because Bristow wasn't prepared to pay the money for the full de-icing kit. The AS332L flight manual icing clearance is very restrictive and doesn't really give any benefit due to the +airtemp requirement at least 500' above MSA requirement. The operators had to produce "get-round-the-rules" procedures to allow a/c to depart IFR overland in icing conditions with escape routes to warmer air at low level offshore. Arriving back at on onshore base in icing conditions still requires +airtemp at least 500' above the surface (if my memory serves me correctly). This is usually ignored.
These "Operational Procedures" would never be allowed if proposed today as they do not fully take into account oei performance degradation due to blade icing.

It is about time we as pilots insist on full icing clearances for North Sea aircraft.

NickLappos

5th Jan 2006, 11:39

Thank you coalface, your words (unlike makila and hc) are the words one expects from folks who want to make our piloting task better as time goes on.

The apology hc made for lack of de-ice is interesting, and fitting the helicomparitor salesman mold. Last time he unveiled this logic, windows were equal to crashworthy seats, until his company designed the modern safety into the heliciopter, then crashworthiness became a feature!

Nice try helicomparitor, but deice of rotors is now an essential piece of kit. Welcome to the 21st century.

For those who need deice in their EC225, I suggest printing and taping the below words on their windshields, as a way to quell their concerns. If written on steel, it should survive the crash:

"(You can).... get the job done safely on 99.5% of days (you don't fly on the 0.5% of days) and the extra cost (initial and maintenance) and weight of full de-icing is not justified (in the oil companies' opinion) - Love, Helicomparitor, EC apologist"

Regarding airconditioning, safety from bird strikes and safety from turbine bursts (all lacking on the EC225, along with hundreds of additional safety features grandfathered out) the customers have chosen, and will continue to chose the modern aircraft over the grandfathered old one. Now I understand hc's need to publish the weights he has, he left out the items that customers want for safety or comfort, and then brags about how light his helo is. Nice trick, works on ppruners, maybe, but makes the oil companies and SAR contractors walk away from the unsigned EC contracts.

Night Watchman

5th Jan 2006, 12:25

I have some questions....

Is there a fuel dump on the S92?

Are the vibration problems affecting the S92 worsened by higher weights or only affected by speed?

Is there anyone winching using a S92 and have they had trouble getting a stretcher in and out of the door (noting the position of the sponson) or the wire rubbing against the sponson in high wind conditions?

Does it offer SE hover performance at MTOW in nil wind conditions (UK temps)?

Is it true you can only use the windscreen wipers below 40kts airspeed? And when is any helicopter manufacturer ever going to produce a decent set of wipers for an aircraft... my car has better wipers for F#%ks sake!!!!

Just questions.... I am not contributing to the 'my helicopter is better than yours' debate although I would say that Nick and Helicomparator are equally biased although in different directions.

I think de-icing is a very good thing for SAR aircraft and I'd rather have it than not, particulary as you get it with the basic model.

The S92 has a more suitable cabin for SAR and even with the great payload debate going on at the moment the weights offered by the 92 for SAR seem suitable and certainly considerably better than the S61.

The S92 is coming anyway, it is better than the S61, it's going to have teething problems, unfortunately those problems will probably only become apparent once it is operating as a SAR aircraft and the crew will have to deal with them on the job. Let's hope we can. Frontline SAR is not a place to be testing an aircraft's suitability for the role.

And the AB139.... well the silence is deafening! Does anyone know anything about this aircraft and its suitability for SAR??

HeliComparator

5th Jan 2006, 19:07

Coalface
Funny how BIH, Scotia and Bond all manage to operate quite happily with only a limited icing clearance. I think what you are forgetting is that any de-iced helicopter has to show that it can cope with a failure of the de-icing system, which is a simplex system, and can continue to fly whilst recovering to positive air temps / flying out of icing conditions.

What you refer to as get-around-the-rules procedures are in fact carefully flight tested time periods that you are allowed to fly in icing conditions without the immediate escape route of descending to warm air - 5 minutes for the 332L I seem to remember. The flight testing was of course done during the full de-icing trials and something similar will/should have been done on the 92 and these periods are specified in the approved flight manual supplement for flight in limited icing.

Of course this only works when you are flying over a relatively warm sea with airfields within 5 mins flying time of the coast, but fortunately that is the environment we fly in, and that is why deicing is not asked for or paid for by the oil companies.

Nick, you do rant on so....You either have a very short memory or you are deliberately lying, because even you finally agreed on a previous thread that the 225 has the same certification standard for bird strikes and for turbine burst protection as the 92. And it was pointed out to you that there were only a very few reversions from the FAR29 version that the 92 is certified to - those were to do with having the fuel under the cabin floor. So when you say "hundreds of safety features grandfathered out" you lose all credibility with those that know anything about it. I would give up on the 92 and stick with the new plank job if I were you....

Night Watchman
I agree that full de-icing is far more relevant to Scottish SAR as you will be flying onshore. Fuel dump, whilst less important than on the 61 due to the much better OEI OGE hover performance, is still a useful asset for a SAR machine - I wonder whether it has been specified?

After an earlier post by me on the inferiority of the L2's cabin size for SAR over the S61, I am now told by that lot down the back that its no problem once you get used to it and the guys coming from the 61 onto the L2 find the other benefits (autohover / AMC that actually works properly from the back) outweighs the size disadvantage. That's after the operation to cut off their legs below the knee of course:D

HC

coalface

5th Jan 2006, 19:51

Coalface
Funny how BIH, Scotia and Bond all manage to operate quite happily with only a limited icing clearance.
We all used to operate quite happily without AVAD until there were a couple of accidents involving aircraft inadvertantly hitting the water. We all used to operate the 332L without intake heating mats until the Bristow double engine failure due to engine icing. We all used to operate quite happily with basic analogue SAS systems with no height hold. Need I go on? It is people like you who hold back equipment improvements because of your "lets just make do" attitude.
As for the "carefully flight tested time periods" - what a load of crap. The Flight manual limitations may have been "carefully flight tested" (or more likely given the minimum flight testing required by the French to get the certification) but the "operational rules" were negotiated with the CAA over the desk between the gang of three Flight Ops managers and the CAA Flight Ops inspectorate. As I said before, there is no way these operational rules would pass JAR or EASA scutiny if being negotiated today.

Stop trying to hold us back in the 1970's.

HeliComparator

5th Jan 2006, 19:59

As I said before, there is no way these operational rules would pass JAR or EASA scutiny if being negotiated today

How strange then that limited icing clearance concept, which until recently featured only on G-registered aircraft, has now been applied to EASA-certified EC225. So yes-way, it just did pass JAR and EASA scrutiny. Methinks you don't really know what you are talking about. Never mind, Nick needs a friend!

HC

coalface

5th Jan 2006, 20:27

HC, Are you saying that the operational rules which allow departure from an onshore location in icing conditions with the zero degree isotherm on the surface (previously only published in Company Operations manuals) have now been incorporated into the EC225 Flight Manual? Would love to see chapter and verse.

HeliComparator

5th Jan 2006, 20:45

CF

Are you saying that the operational rules which allow departure from an onshore location in icing conditions with the zero degree isotherm on the surface (previously only published in Company Operations manuals) have now been incorporated into the EC225 Flight Manual?

Duh No, operational rules are not in flight manuals. Operational rules are in the operational rule book otherwise known as Jar-Ops 3. Only the time allowed to exit icing above the limitation is covered in the FM.

Is that the hooter - must be time to go back down the mine! But in my case, time to go on holiday so no more posts for me for 2 weeks - Nick, the field is yours, make the most of it!

HC

coalface

5th Jan 2006, 21:35

HC

So does the EC225 FM allow departure from an onshore location in icing conditions with the zero degree isotherm on the surface?

Yes or No

CF

HeliComparator

5th Jan 2006, 22:25

I'm definitely going on holiday any moment now...

Coaly - EASA have just certified their first ever aircraft with a limited icing clearance. Its not based on any "grandfathering" because such a certification never existed as far as the rest of Europe was concerned. 332Ls and L2s registered anywhere else in Europe have no limited icing clearance. For them its a new concept and I can assure you they have looked at it vey closely before granting it. Its true that part of the process of assuring them it was a good idea was to point out that it has been common practice on the UK side of the N Sea for 20 years + without (in my company at any rate) any reported incidents and definitely no accidents.

So if grandfathering means it has been done before then yes, it was grandfathered just like the 92 is grandfathered because it copied the idea of having 2 engines, a main rotor and a tail rotor. But use of the term "grandfathered" in my opinion is just your way of having an uninformed dig at it - maybe you are jealous but if not, I suggest you go fly the S92.

Of course Sky could have applied for a limited icing clearance for the S92 but decided not to - perhaps because the concept was not invented in their office. AB could for the 139 but I am not sure if they will.

The Ops Manual procedures are justified against JAR-OPS 3. They do not over-ride the limitations in the FM, but merely create a suitable operational framework to ensure safe ops. In fact JAR-OPS 3 is fairly vague about that at the moment (leaving it mainly up to the NAAs) and I believe there is an amendment in progress to tighten it up, to better reflect the well-tried procedures we use in the UK N Sea, so that there is a level playing field across JAA states.

The bottom line is, like it or not, the concept of limited icing clearance has worked well and safely for many years in the particular circumstances of the N Sea and full de-icing gives only a tiny operational benefit (the ability to fly on those 0.5% of days) which is outweighed by the cost and weight, in the opinion of our paymasters.

HC

HeliComparator

5th Jan 2006, 22:26

CF
Hey that's not fair you totally changed your post whilst I was answering it! Yes to your last Q

coalface

5th Jan 2006, 22:35

HC,

So what has the 225 got that gives it a better clearance than the L/L2?

coalface

5th Jan 2006, 22:38

CF
Hey that's not fair you totally changed your post whilst I was answering it! Yes to your last Q

Sorry about that but i thought that to get a straight answer I had better make it a much simpler question.

HeliComparator

5th Jan 2006, 22:54

CF
So what has the 225 got that gives it a better clearance than the L/L2
Nothing really. The wording of the FM Supp is different but the essence is the same. I would bounce the question back by saying where in the L / L2 supp does it say that you can't? You just have to be within x minutes flying time of the +ve temp band (ie coast) where x is I think 5 minutes? Sorry, I am not so sad as to keep the flight manuals at home so I can't be definitive at 23:53 pm.

HC

Hippolite

5th Jan 2006, 23:43

HC

Enjoy your holiday. The certification of the floats to 11t from 10.4t was a genuine question and not a red herring. I was involved in an evaluation of the EC225 in early 2004 and it was an issue which was brought up by ECF at the time during a technical briefing and meeting in Marignane. Perhaps while you are on holiday, I will see if I can find a reference on the presentation CD purely for interest, if I can still find the CD.

HH

Aser

5th Jan 2006, 23:51

Interesting disscusion...

Could any of you please tell me what is exactly a "limited icing clearance" versus "unlimited icing clearance or full de-icing" ?
What says exactly the FM ?
I've only flown aircrafts without icing clearance, I can imagine what is full de-icing but "limited"... to what?

Thanks

coalface

5th Jan 2006, 23:55

Ref the 332 icing clearance, I too don't have flight manuals at home but the AS332L Flight Manual specifically requires 500' of positive temp air above minimum permisable operating altitude. I think you (HC) are mixing up the Flight manual procedures with the "operational rules" referred to in a previous post which were written to allow alleviations from the very restrictive flight manual limitations. It is the Operational rules which allow the 5 minutes to the coast alleviation;but this is for departures only. For arrivals, there must be 500' positive air temperature above the airfield prior to landing.

I will check the exact text next time I am at work and no doubt HC will discuss this further when he comes back from holiday.

Apologies to those who started this thread; the subject has veered somewhat off course.

Reflex

6th Jan 2006, 00:19

OK guys - the important thing here is that the SAR guys will have a machine that IS certified to fly in anything but freezing rain.
That is an undeniable step forward and exactly what the crews need to do a job that doesn't get any easier.
Having an APU is, in my opinion, another benefit as you get everything excepts the RIPS before you've even got the engines started. This means the FMS etc is pointing you in the right direction even before you get the NR to 105% and better still you're warm enough to think straight - every little helps.
Now a question for Nick. In a conversation I had with Ron Doeppner we discussed the required parameters for the icing trials. He was fairly definate that Sikorsky and/or the FAA had asked the DGAC how they had certified the 332 family. I know what he told me the answer was, but I'm a little nervous about making that public - I'll bet you aren't.
Now let's all enjoy the technology in all our machines and just be glad that the coastguard guys have joined the 21st century, especially when we need them for us!

NickLappos

6th Jan 2006, 04:51

Reflex,

The DGAC has never told anyone what was actually flown or tested on the Super Puma, so nobody knows what was done to certify it. I asked the head of the US FAA Rotorcraft Directorate, and he told me that the DGAC stonewalled him when he asked, in writing, and the CAA Flight Test Group leader told me the same. It is considered very strange conduct, but there is nothing other states can do because the bilateral agreements require the systems to be certified if the host country does so.

That being said, I have spoken to 332L2 pilots who flew regularly in pretty tough icing conditions, and they say the 332's rotor ice system works. I guess the 332 team never read helicomparitor's diatribe on why it is a waste of time to have rotor ice protection.

nightwatchman's questions:

1) Is there a fuel dump on the S92? Not yet, but it is easy to install and certify, and several hundred dump kits have been delivered on Black Hawks, so just ask for it and have a nice check handy, and you have it

2) Are the vibration problems affecting the S92 worsened by higher weights or only affected by speed? Don't you mean to ask, "When did you stop beating your wife?" Read the posts from 92 pilots, and try desparately to avoid helicomparitor's desparate diatribes.

3) Is there anyone winching using a S92 and have they had trouble getting a stretcher in and out of the door (noting the position of the sponson) or the wire rubbing against the sponson in high wind conditions? A stokes litter is an easy load to bring through the wide door, and rotor wash is not a great effect. The USAF recently conducted trials with all sorts of loads and found the tasks quite normal. I have heard of difficulties with the EH-101, and I guess that makes folks gunshy, but the 92 is quite nice for hoist operations.

4) Does it offer SE hover performance at MTOW in nil wind conditions (UK temps)? Not until you get pretty far down in gross weight, about 21000 lbs from memory.

5) Is it true you can only use the windscreen wipers below 40kts airspeed? And when is any helicopter manufacturer ever going to produce a decent set of wipers for an aircraft... my car has better wipers for F#%ks sake!!!! I honestly don't remember the speed limitation, I am searching for my 92 flight manual right now. I don't recall 40 knots! I will ammend this post when I find it!

212man

6th Jan 2006, 05:05

Does this help (copied from lates RFM)?

Maximum airspeed for windshield wiper operations is 40 knots.

I gather there are plans to increase this figure. Currently they would seem to be for ground taxying use only!!

NickLappos

6th Jan 2006, 05:23

Sounds authoritative to me 212man. Rainex, anyone?

212man

6th Jan 2006, 05:49

At least it's a nice round number; I could never fathom out who dreamt up a figure of 141 kts for the 76!;)

NickLappos

6th Jan 2006, 05:57

212man,
I was the genius who set the max wiper speed to 141, it coincided with the Autorotation Vne, so I thought it would be easy to remember.... The wipers didn't have enough poop to swing back to the middle above about 150 knots (the wipers stuck out there and the CB poped), so I knew we had to limit it to 140 or so. The 141 came to me in a moment of inspiration.

I have to believe the 40 knots on the 92 will be lifted soon. Till then, rainex (which always worked better for me, frankly, on every aircraft I flew.)

212man

6th Jan 2006, 08:33

"so I thought it would be easy to remember.... "

Seems to have worked; it's one of several useless numbers floating around my head:ok:

I fly 92`s

6th Jan 2006, 19:58

According to 332L/L1/L2 FM/PMV limitations, listed under prohibited manoeuvres you`ll find "flight in icing conditions".

I am really looking forward to try out the S92 RIPS, i cant understand why HC argues against rotor de-icing equipment!!!
I have flown 332l/L1 with rotor de-icing which workes fine and makes life (flying offshore in wintertime) a whole lot easier.

The S92 wiper speed is 40 kts, Heard about someone switch it on accidentally at cruise speed, the wiper flipped over an made a big scratch in the wind screen...

If you buy a decent car you`ll get proper seats,wipers and a heat/vent system that works and where you can preset temp.
The standard S92 seats are "a pain in the arse" after 2 hours...
The only way you can monitor the temp in the cabin is by the colour in the face of your passengers... (white/blue is cold and red is hot)

But the apu is nice to have, you can use heater or aircond prior to pax boarding the cabin. (it can be hot in Norway during the to short summer..)
In Norway pax have to use same suit summer and winter and appreciate the a/c, and in some of the latest contracts its demanded by the oil company`s.

The vibration level increases with weight and of course speed.
what is strange is that CHC Helikopter service are flying at reduced pwr setting/speed and Norsk aims for 150 kts, they are both experiencing the same problems related to vibrations...

NickLappos

6th Jan 2006, 20:13

Norsk's Third S-92 Enters Revenue Service
Friday January 6, 12:37 pm ET

STRATFORD, Conn., Jan. 6 -- Norsk Helikopter's third S-92 entered into revenue service this week when it departed from Stavanger Airport, in Sola, Norway, on Monday, January 2. The aircraft was made by Sikorsky, a United Technologies Corp. (NYSE: UTX - News) company.

In February 2005, Norsk became the first North Sea oil operator to launch the S-92 into revenue service. Norsk's third S-92 helicopter will be used under contract with BP Norge and Talisman Energy Norge for employee transport missions to and from oil platforms in the North Sea.

Norsk Helikopter's S-92 fleet to date has accumulated 3,206 flight hours and transported 66,100 passengers, 754 tons of baggage and 77 tons of freight.

"Sikorsky's S-92 helicopter has capacity for 19 passengers, and represents substantial improvements as far as comfort, range, and upgraded safety are concerned. BP is pleased to have started up its operations with the S-92, with all the advantages that this helicopter represents; initial passenger feedback following the first flights has been very positive," said Mr. Jan Erik Geirmo, BP Norge AS' Senior Communications Advisor.

Particularly useful to the offshore oil environment is the Rotor Ice Protection System (RIPS) that comes standard on all S-92 helicopters. The system meets the Federal Aviation Administration's latest and most stringent all-weather flight safety standards. RIPS allows the S-92 to launch into known icing conditions that might otherwise delay or cancel flight operations. The RIPS determines the temperature and moisture content of the surrounding environment and applies heat to the main and tail rotor blades to remove any ice buildup.

ShyTorque

6th Jan 2006, 20:48

"Till then, rainex (which always worked better for me, frankly, on every aircraft I flew.)"

Nick, which part of you did you apply the Rainex to? So far we have only tried rubbing it on the windscreens, but "Hey man, each to his own thing....." :ok:

running in

6th Jan 2006, 21:04

This is tending to re-run the old EC 225 V S92 battle. Apart from Nick getting the weight of a UK SAR S92 about a ton out first time around, nothing really new has been said. There are pros and cons of an EASA Limited Icing Clearance and an EASA Full icing Clearance, but those are best dealt with in a different thread - should we start one?
This thread was originally started to talk about the UK Coastgard SAR contract, but the suitability of the AB 139 for the southern bases seems to have slipped under the radar - comments please.
RI

Upland Goose

6th Jan 2006, 21:05

ShyTorque

I'm with you on Rainex - by the way, could you bring another bottle in to work?

UG;)

NickLappos

6th Jan 2006, 21:05

Shy Torque, Rainex on windshields, KY elsewhere.....

And for running in, this thread began with the moans of Bristow people who thought their lock on SAR was unfairly ruined by a userper aircraft, so the discussion of the several aircraft, 61's and 225's is entirely within its scope, IMHO. Regarding the "ton" of weight, it was 1300 lbs that I said, and we have found a very sizable part of that in the stuff the 225 forgot to include in its weight statement.

Running in you are right about one thing, the 139 crowd has been conspicuously silent here.

running in

6th Jan 2006, 21:10

Nick
How about KY on the survivors to fit 10 into an Ab 139?
RI

running in

6th Jan 2006, 21:54

Nick, I have just looked back to pages 1 and 2 and they don't seem to include many Bristow gripes......perhaps it is wishful thinking on your part!
As HC has gone on holiday why don't we stop the EC V Sikorsky war and get back to the issues. There are not many people who would not agree that the S92 does have better potential than the S61 for SAR. As the EC 225 was not involved in the bid lets leave it out of the discussion for now.

However, the AB 139 is unproven for SAR and lacks the range and capacity of the S61 (and S92). Does it have a SAR autopilot, FLIR system and hoist yet? If not when when it arrive and how many pounds of KY will they have to carry to squish in the survivors?
RI

ShyTorque

6th Jan 2006, 23:43

ShyTorque
I'm with you on Rainex - by the way, could you bring another bottle in to work?
UG;)

Now, UG, surely you haven't you drunk the last bottle already? I wondered why the rain bounced off..... :ok:

night dipper

7th Jan 2006, 08:44

This week in Flight International:
Manufacturers scramble as Taiwan opens contest
Taiwan has launched a long-anticipated competition for nine firefighting and three large search and rescue (SAR) helicopters.
Industry sources say National Airborne Services (NASC) issued a request for proposals in early December, and a follow-up request for proposals is expected early this year after NASC is allocated a budget for 2006.
AgustaWestland, Eurocopter, Sikorsky are preparing to offer the EH101, EC225 and S-92, respectively, for NASC’s SAR requirement, which also includes maritime patrol with a minimum range of 650km (350nm).
About $75 million has been set aside for the three-aircraft acquisition, which is expected to be spread out over three to five years.
Russia’s Kamov and Kazan Helicopters are expected to compete for the firefighting requirement, offering the Ka-32 and Mi-172, respectively. Sikorsky is considering offering used S-70 Black Hawks because new S-70A Fire Hawks are too expensive for the roughly $12 million per aircraft budget.
But sources say NASC may revise the programme after receiving initial proposals and open the competition in the second round to more expensive aircraft. Eurocopter is now unable to offer its AS332L2 Super Puma as a firefighting helicopter as it is too expensive for the current budget.
Sikorsky could be in a strong position to win the SAR competition following the Taiwanese air force’s tentative selection of the S-92 to augment its fleet of S-70 SAR helicopters (Flight International, 22-28 November 2005).
Sources say that Euro*copter, which initially did not enter the air force competition, is now trying to convince Taipei to consider the EC225 for both the air force and NASC requirements. But the sources say a rejection of the air force selection, which is still contingent on government approval and funds being allocated, is unlikely. Eurocopter last month beat Sikorsky, offering the S-92, in SAR competitions in mainland China and Japan :ooh: .
No need to argue on PPRUNE which beast is more suitable for SAR. Others have already decided! S92 - EC225: 0-2
Oh, and I think Japan has got a fair amount of icing conditions at the moment.

Mikila1A

7th Jan 2006, 10:35

All differences aside, we operate all three here, and ALL do very very well.

Suprisingly, alot of pax still like the old 61 though.

Wizzard

7th Jan 2006, 14:58

With 2 pilots and seastate 5 floats the S92 weight is 17800 lbs, max gross is 26150 lbs, full fuel 5100 lbs, payload 3350 lbs.

I thought that the '92 could carry full fuel and full pax load. The payload figure quoted above would give a maximum of 15 passengers without baggage using standard N.Sea weights.
Am I missing something here?
Wiz

SARowl

8th Jan 2006, 08:52

Back to the AB139 question.

It does not have an icing clearance of any sort. Hospital transfers in winter will be impossible etc

running in

10th Jan 2006, 08:05

Come on you AB 139 fans (or is it now the A 139?), what can it do?
RI

Night Watchman

10th Jan 2006, 09:18

I had heard that a certain South West UK Operator was having trouble getting the payloads promised from its new AB139 and that a contract it had in Norway for it was currently being covered by an S61!!!

Now that's irony for you!!! :ooh:

running in

10th Jan 2006, 19:02

Come on somebody, is the Ab 139 really that bad?
Won't someone stick up for it, where is an Italian Nick Lappos?
Have the MCA made a bad choice with the 139?
RI

212man

11th Jan 2006, 07:48

Night watchman,
I think you have your facts muddled; the139 is not operated by the South West UK company. The South West UK company is using its 61 to fill in on the contract that will be done by a Norwegian company with its 139!

fuel2noise

12th Jan 2006, 11:00

212man is always correct!

Seems the AB139 op in Norway is showing up the true capability of the 139. From rumours I hear, the 139 has a huge distance to go if it is going to be a capable, reliable and flexible SAR machine. We all know that the S92 will do the biz (OK a few bits and bobs to sort but no show-stoppers) - it is the 139 element of the CHC SAR bid that is worthy of some in-depth PPUNE work!

NickLappos

12th Jan 2006, 11:07

I have a copy of Rick Burt's article on the introduction of the S-92, which seems fair and does take the gloves off a bit, while also pointing out some good stuff. Rick has always been a straight shooter! It is 1 meg pdf, and is posted here:

http://webpages.charter.net/nlappos/rickarticle.pdf

It really would be great to get some word on the AB-139 intro!

Sousa Teuszii

12th Jan 2006, 15:39

Hi all. Ive been an avid fan of this site for a while but had to reply to the cries for info on the AB139. So here goes the first post:

The AB139 I feel will be a very capable aircraft for SAR.

It has a high cruise speed. Cruise limited to Vne of 167Kts because of a plexiglass windscreen which is due to be changed.
The cabin is adequtely large(upto 15 Pax in commuter config) with a very big sliding cabin door.
Rear stowage for SAR equipment is good. Stowage is provided in tail with internal and external accesability.
Single engine hover is very good. SE HIGE @ MTOW
Payload is adequate but due to be expanded to 6400Kg
From a pilots perspective the systems are excellent and the handling also excellent.

Concerns would be as follows:

SAR systems are now only being developed for 6 UAE SAR machines.
The aircraft is designed as a coporate aircraft and I feel is a bit plastic with potential to break with one ill placed boot.
The maintenance TBOs are very very low. Agusta will give contracted TBOs at the projected level of future TBOs but the aircraft badly needs to get some serious hours flown on it to see how this pans out.
No pressure refuel. Seems odd for the wet and windy nights.

Finally in my opinion the biggest problem may be the Italians very laid back attitude to getting things done. With Bell involved I would have felt more secure about time frames and deadlines. Now im not so sure.

It must be remembered though that this machine is about to start earning its money in the North Sea and has 18 months before going on SAR.
Personnally Id like to give it a whirl in the SAR arena and see how it performs.

Hippolite

12th Jan 2006, 16:06

Sousa T

If you have ever seen the 15 pax configuration in the 139, you would realise that only dwarfs or contortionists would manage to get in to it. 12 configuration is ok but more "economy" than "first class" though.

In SAR configuration it will obviously be different. My main concern at the moment is lack of a simulator and no HUMS available until 2008. That, in my view, is a bit of an oversight on the part of BA or AB. I would love to see some empirical fuel flow vs speed/range data from the offshore operators to see what it can really do.

I don't know how much of a difference using the 139 vs the 61 will be but most of the SAR in the south is shorter range and smaller numbers, generally speaking. Bell 212s were used in the NS for SAR for quite a few years and I don't remember cabin size being a huge issue. The speed and new technology will hopefully be an advantage over the 61. I haven't flown it so I can't comment on its stability in the hover.....perhaps someone who has can sare their experience with us all.

Sousa Teuszii

12th Jan 2006, 18:30

Hippolite,
I know what you mean about the 15 seat config. It does however illustrate the large cabin (for ac size) and more importantly the square cabin which leaves more headroom for rear crew.

As for the hover it is very stable, even on one engine at MTOW in 24 degrees. The transition to the hover however is quite nose up leaving forward viz a bit scant. The machine I flew however had fixed seats and I believe adjustable seats are now available but probably not standard.

Consider also that 90% of SAR is spent training. At present with the 61 there are severe limits on what can be accomplished on calm or hot days and remain safe. Safe single engine hover in a machine such as the 139 will be guaranteed as long as it is out of the hanger.

One point I would also make about the 92 is the distance between the pilots seating position and the side of the cockpit. I think it may be a little too far and cause problems with references in the overhead. Nick, maybe you could tell me the distance from the righthand side of the pilots seat to the right window on the 92 and the 61. It might well be the same and just the CB box in the 61 makes it look smaller.

With regards to the completely different choice of aircraft for the different bases I would assume that the customer has different requirements at each. Does anybody know the tender requirements?

running in

12th Jan 2006, 20:16

From the rumours I have heard the payload and range is poor, especially as the fuel burn is very high - about the same as a S61 from what I have heard. Also when will we see a simulator, HUMS and a SAR autopilot?
If you add hoists, SAR kit, extra crew and FLIR, how far will it really go? It doesn't matter if it has lots of power if it won't get beyond the Isle of Wight!
RI

Aser

12th Jan 2006, 21:03

The cells are filled via gravity refuelling or as
a customer option a Closed Circuit refuelling receiver CCRR may be
accommodated.

No pressure refuel. Seems odd for the wet and windy nights.

Sousa Teuszii

13th Jan 2006, 09:48

Running In,
Firstly, do we know if the GC want to go beyond the Isle of Wight. What is their requirement on the south coast?
Secondly, the Agusta website gives a useful load of 2778Kg in the standard aircraft(this is up to MTOW of 6400kg).
The following weights should be in the ballpark:

Hoist: 70Kg
FLIR: 50Kg
SAR Kit Allowance: 200Kg
4* SAR crew at 100Kg each: 400kg
odds and sods allowance: 100kg

This still leaves a payload of 1958KG.

As the Max fuel with Aux tank is 2062L or 1608 Kg the aircraft can take off fully equipped with full fuel at approx 6050 kg. I need to check but I believe the fuel burn at MTOW SL is about 400 kgs / hr. Assume 30 mins reserve and 30 mins on scene that leaves 1.5 hrs each way at approx 160 Kts. I know this is overly simiplfied but thats a range of 250 Nm with b**lls to the wall not to mention Vbr. That doesnt seem to bad to me! Even if the fuel burn is 500kg/hr (which I doubt as a Blachawk burns about 550/600Kg/Hr) thats still about 185nm radius of action!

The Sim is due to be operational in Milan Malpensa (sorry if thats spelt wrong) by years end. As for the HUMS I do not know. As already said the SAR avionics are under development for UAE. When they will arrive Im afraid I dont know.

Aser,
It is my understanding that the CCRR is just a fitting to allow gravity refuelling in afore mentioned conditions and is not pressure refuelling. The catch however is the the bowser must have the same CCRR attachment. It may be possible to fit a pressure refuelling hose to the CCRR and limit the pressure of the fuel uplift but I dont know if bowsers have that capability.
ST

BHPS

13th Jan 2006, 10:38

I cannot comment on the operformance issues here for the AB139, but I have had a look at the new CHC machine in the 12-seat fit (4-abreast seating). That looks pretty cramped so I hate to think what the 15-seat layout (5-abreast) is like. Seat pitch appears to be charter-type aircraft layout as well, i.e. not that much legroom, especially for the tall guys.

I remember well the comments from some crewmen who were used to the S-61 about the AS332L2 cabin size when that came in to service with Bristow for the BP Jigsaw trial. Well, if they thought that was small those on the southern MCA units are in for a big shock when they move from the spacious S-61 to the AB139. I'm not saying it isn't usable, but once you put two crewmen and a stretcher plus seats for them, there wont be a lot of space for manoeuvre, especially trying to get first aid kit from the storage area in the rear. Mind you the AB139 does have a big storage area assuming you can keep to the weight restriction.

I assume that the AB139 is having a twin hoist operation? Again that could be interesting from the door depending on the way the hoist fit is designed (and the hoists used). Is the '139 also going to have some form of crewman hover control as well?

We've all discussed the pilot issues here so far, but I think it is also important to those who are going to work in the back to have input, and I think they are in for a shock when they see what they will have to play with. OK, I have now opened up all the doors for the S-76 and B212/412 SAR crewmen to have their say, but I think their views should be heard as well.

running in

13th Jan 2006, 20:33

S T
Is your information from the Agusta website?
I think the comments we have already seen is that the AB 139 is not living up to the marketing hype (Agusta website) - ie the website is wrong.
Does anybody know the facts? How about the CHC AB 139s in Den Helder what is their weight? Come on speak up AB 139 pilots or be forever damned!
RI

212man

14th Jan 2006, 01:51

ST, yes I think we can safely say that the MCGA will want to go rather further than the Isle of Wight! I'm no authority on the workings of UK SAR, but at the very least I'd have thought they would cover all of the UK territorial waters. The next base going East is RAF Wattisham, so that gives some clue as to how far SE the Lee on Solent machine needs to cover.

Out of interest, what's the deal with the Channel Islands; is that Portland's coverage or the French?

DanglyBob

14th Jan 2006, 15:16

Bit of both really.

Portland can and has covered it though it's well over the french side.
Depends on the type and seriousness of the incident, as well as who is coordinating it and which aircraft is more readily available.
They have got their own fixed wing SAR aircraft as well as their own lifeboats which they task themselves.

Assuming the SAR 139 has doors either side, is there any worth in having a hoist either side?
A laymans thinking would be that it would help balance the aircraft and gain a little flexibility in which side you winch from.

running in

15th Jan 2006, 16:22

DanglyBob
Would you need an AMC on each side then? Also how would you do a winch changeover with someone on the wire?
So, nobody prepared to defend the AB 139...so the rumours about lack of payload and range must be true!
RI

Sandy Toad

15th Jan 2006, 16:39

Or perhaps they can't be bothered to post to someone who from previous posts has obviously made up their mind.;)

Woolf

15th Jan 2006, 21:18

Running in you crack me up!

Come on speak up AB 139 pilots or be forever damned!

So, nobody prepared to defend the AB 139...so the rumours about lack of payload and range must be true!

Some sort of logic that is! What planet are you on? (island might be more appropriate....)

I think most people in this forum with an interest in SAR have long realized that you are not here to have a discussion but to make a statement (or grind an axe as they say). Shame really because you do have some valid points.

running in

16th Jan 2006, 06:44

Sandy Toad and Woolf,
There are a number of rumours (Nightwatchman & Fuel2noise) that the range and payload of the AB 139 is not all that its cracked up to be. If they are true, then the Ab 139 will be worse than the S61, is this progress?
It takes two to have a discussion and so far nobody is prepared to defend the AB 139, so we can't have a discussion.
RI

Dillon the dog

31st Jan 2006, 19:59

:) Well done to all involved in this morning's copybook rescue:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/guernsey/4664564.stm

There have been questions asked on this thread about the AB139 capability as a SAR helicopter, especially its size and payload. Does anyone know if it could have done this job and picked up 12 at that range?:8

Special 25

31st Jan 2006, 20:56

The BBC Report map seems to suggest that the helicopter came from Portland, but it did (as the text suggests) come from Lee on Solent, at the top right of the map, underneath the UK overview. Thats about 100nm's, and I guess answers the question raised above over who's responsibility it is to cover the Channel Islands.

I'm sure the AB139 would make the distance OK, and probably about 15 mins quicker than the S-61, but I can't see it carrying 12 casualties. Can't remember the record for the back of a 61, but I know they got in a hell of a lot once !

The channel is still one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world, with several cargo ships having come together in the past few years. It is also one of the busiest passenger ferry routes (although that may be a pre Channel Tunnel statistic) so hopefully this incident will make HMCG have a quick think about the type of aircraft they want to use on the south coast.

angelonawire

31st Jan 2006, 21:30

I take it that from your post that you are not very good at geography, you obviously thought the Start point indicator arrow was the start position of the rescue....... unfortunatley for you that is a place called start point, not far from Dartmouth in Devon, have a look at a map of the area. It has a namesake in the Orkney islands also start point

Dillon the dog

1st Feb 2006, 06:43

Angel on the wire

I think you win the prize for this weeks most irrelevant post!:*

Special 25, I agree that it is a busy area, is the A139 the right aircraft or would something bigger like the S92 be better?

Teefor Gage

1st Feb 2006, 07:12

Originally posted by Dillon the dog
Angel on the wire
I think you win the prize for this weeks most irrelevant post!

Far from being irrelevant, Angel has given a factual geography lesson to the uninitiated.

Now then, my post has probably taken over the prize for irrelevance!!

JKnife

1st Feb 2006, 08:15

I see that "angelonawire" has decided to raise his head above the parapets again and continues with his extraordinary style of being rude to people. While the point is made, it could have been done in a more polite fashion.

However, back to the point. Rumour has it that the concept of using a smaller helicopter was based on the "fact" that the average number of persons rescued per SAR callout was two, therefore a bigger helicopter was not needed. A strange basis to work on when you have one of the busiest shipping areas in the world. There have been numerous cases of large ships in trouble in the Channel over the years. While there may not be the need to rescue large numbers every callout, surely, for this area, a suitably sized helicopter such as the S-92 should be in place to cover for this eventuality? After all, it is not exactly a rare occurrence.

I understand that MCA Helicopters have a task to move fire crews and equipment to vessels on fire in the Channel. Was this considered by the Government team that looked in to the new SAR contracts? It seems a strange choice of aircraft if that task is to be continued. However, more flying hours for the crews I suppose, one flight out to take the team and then the next to bring out their equipment!

I would really like to understand why the team thought the AB139 was a suitable choice for the South Coast.

Hummingfrog

1st Feb 2006, 08:36

Having flown both the Wessex and Seaking in the SAR role I can see nothing wrong with the decision to have a mixed fleet. During my time I never had a situation where I could not carry all the survivors I was presented with and can only think of one where the Seaking was fully laden and that was off Ireland.

There is a need, however, to make sure that the mix is based evenly around the country and in a way that it is mutually supporting. The recent incident had both the HMCG S61N and Chivenor's Seaking in attendance.

Don't forget is wasn't that long ago when the UK SAR fleet was a mix of Seakings and Whirlwinds and there weren't any cases of lack of lifting capacity for over water rescues that I can recall. The 139 is a quantum leap above the Whirlwind in both carrying and all weather ability:ok:

HF

JKnife

1st Feb 2006, 09:36

The 139 is a quantum leap above the Whirlwind in both carrying and all weather ability

Very true Hummingfrog, but is it a quantum leap over a S-61/Sea King that it is replacing? I don't think so. The larger cabin size has had its advantages in many SAR operation even if only a single stretcher case. There is space for the winchman/doctor/medic to work on the casualty. While the AB139 may have nice toys for the pilots, it does nothing for the guys who have to work in the cabin. They will have to move from a spacious working place to a very cramped one. I believe the 412 crewmen in Cyprus are already having complaints about bad backs and knees due to the cramped conditions they have to work in.

Couple that with twin hoists, a FLIR (and console in an already small cabin area) and possibly a skyshout system, plus the SAR medical and winching kits which are of necessity these days especially with the medical qualifications crewmen have (more so than in your Whirlwind days), then the ZFM of the aircraft will be high. What will that leave as disposable load?

Perhaps we will be back to Whirlwind lifting capabilities at Whirlwind Radius of Action (what was it 90nm and a capability of lifting about 3-4 people at that range? - never flew it so only guessing).

Dillon the dog

1st Feb 2006, 18:07

Hummingfrog,

I agree that the A139 is a step up from the Whirlwind, ie a single engine helicopter with limited range and speed, basically day VFR for SAR. However, I think there were capacity problems, for example during the Fastnet Race disaster where the Sea Kings ran out of capacity to rescue all those that needed help and the Whirlwinds lacked the range to do much. But nostalgia isn't what it used to be!

A mixed fleet might be sensible providing the types are mutually supporting, for example a S61/S92 at Lee on Solent and a daylight only A139 at Portland. To lump all your eggs into one basket by having the only SAR coverage between Wattisham and Culdrose, responsible for one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world, based on small, as yet unproven, helicopters with possibly a limited payload is a surprising:confused: and some might save brave choice. As Jknife points out, with all the kit a modern SAR helicopter has to carry there will not be much space or payload left in the A139.

Special 25

1st Feb 2006, 19:57

Thank you AngelonaWire for your georgraphy lesson - I admit, I was totally caught out on that one, but still can't believe that the BBC would use such an insignificant, unknown location, with so many better known towns in that area. I stand corrected, and thank you for your wisdom. I assume from your title, that you are a winchman, and if so, you have my every respect, and of course, eternal admiration at your geography knowledge - I will fall on my sword in due course !!

Back to the subject .... What are the typical statistics for the Northern Coastguard SAR bases - Surely they typically only lift one or two casualities at a time. Sumburgh, the odd fisherman caught up in some machinery, and the same for Stornoway, with the occasional pair of mountain climbers, yet they will get the benefit of the S92. Is this due to the increased range of operation, or are they deemed to require more lifting capacity ??

I agree with JKnife, you can't base the requirement on a typical useage, you have to look at the maximum expected requirement. Lee covers pretty much the whole of the English Channel including most of the primary ferry routes (I'm not sure of the coverage provided by mainland Europe), so I would hope that the 'Disaster Scenario' planners must have had some input into the descision to downsize the helicopter requirement ?? But then when has common sense played any part ...... 1987 - 190 people die in the Zeebrugge ferry disaster, ........ 1994 - RAF Manston SAR base closed and relocated about 75miles further north !!!

angelonawire

1st Feb 2006, 21:14

Hat off to you for taking my little dig as it was meant...a bit of a laugh, however Jknife doesn't seem to appreciate humour, he must be ex RAF, (OR IS HE)??? I just had a quick look through your previous posts, are you making it up as you go along??? check the dates, they don't quite tie in... QUOTE...
28th March 2003, 17:50
JKnife
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 12
I have read this topic with interest. I am ex-military and work for a large civil company.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16th May 2004, 20:39
JKnife
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 12
As someone still in UK military SAR I would like to ask Mountainman why he says "Ex military pilots are generally very good, but it takes time to get them up to speed".

Sorry if you find me rude, just an ex sailors humour, I shall get back in my box now as pruning gets me into trouble!!!

S92 & AB139 sound great good luck CHC!!

Dillon the dog

2nd Feb 2006, 07:32

Angelonawire said "S92 & AB139 sound great good luck CHC!!"

As an experienced SAR crewmen, could you tell us what you like about the AB139?:ok:

Deux Cent Vingt Cinq

2nd Feb 2006, 07:39

Some interesting times ahead for the new Scotia Chief Pilot:ok:

running in

2nd Feb 2006, 12:12

Are there any commercial operations using A139s in Europe yet? If not whats the delay, as I thought CHC had a couple in Holland?
RI

BHPS

2nd Feb 2006, 13:00

CHC Netherlands (their new trading name) have had one AB139 delivered and another due soon. AFAIK it is not yet in commercial operation but heavily involved in training up crews.

3D CAM

2nd Feb 2006, 16:23

Now that this thread has stopped being a p.....g contest between Sikorsky and Eurocopter, I feel it is time to throw in my two shillings worth.
Dillon, the Whirlwind had long gone by the time of the Fastnet incident, the Wessex was the major SAR asset at that time but your point is still valid. In this game size does matter. However, the argument goes back to the early 70's. Two incidents off Cornwall, the Lovat and the Merc Enterprise made the SAR 'higher ups' realise that the Whirlwind had passed it's sell by date. It was replaced by the Wessex which in time gave way to the Sea King and S61. Sorry for the history lesson but it is important, given that the MCA do not seem to remember it. For the Whirlwind read the AB139 for today.
Special 25, you are 100% correct in saying that this requirement should always use the worst case scenario. The chosen aircraft has to be able to not just lift the "bent diver" and his buddy to "the pot" but also evacuate as many people as possible in one sortie, from a damaged/sinking Ro/Ro ferry, at maximum range. Could the 139 have carried out the job of two days ago in the Channel? Ably performed by the Lee S61 and filmed by Chivenors' Sea King. ( I knew they were there for something! Sorry lads, just jesting.)
The MCA appear to have gone for the "shiny new helicopter" rather than thinking of what is realy needed on the south coast. The S92 should be used at all MCA bases. That would make the crewing so much easier and cut down on the spares supply requirement. But then that may be too logical.
Neither the S92 nor the Ab139 are actually flying in the SAR role yet so 2007 seems a trifle optimistic as a start date for this contract.
There is still no real data about the AB139 on this thread yet so one can only assume that it is not up to much. Or have CHC Netherlands been sworn to secrecy in case the cat gets out of the bag too soon?
One final point.
Portland is not daylight only. It is on call, at 15 minutes readiness the same as all other units, from 0900 until 2100, 365 days a year. It was also one of the busiest units in the UK until our friends in Light Blue at ARCC got involved last year. (But that is another story, Jobs for the boys??)
There, I feel better now that is off my chest.