UK Coastguard SAR future (The NON pissing contest thread)

[SARBallast]

The other thread has turned into such a pissing contest that it now smells like a public toilet after a major sporting event.

SO, how about some discussion here WITHOUT slagging off the companies or Military?

End of the day both civvy and mil crews put their lives on the line for this. It should be a case of "Brothers/Sister in arms", we all do the same job so why beat down on one side just because their cab has such and such, or have such and such experience. Be they civvy or Mil.

How is experience gained? By someone who has it passing on words of wisdom. So could we please have some of those pearls??

Things like:
What the crews using these new machines think?
How would the mods be done to get them up to scratch?
Is the current time frame appropriate to get a new type ready?

Surely there must be people with constructive things to say?

[Dillon the dog]

These questions are aimed at finding out the truth and not starting a p***ing contest.

What will make the AB 139 a good SAR helicopter?

Does anyone have any facts, or will we have to wait and see?

[SARBallast]

OK well just so you know I will keep bumping this up to the top of the list to see if ANYONE else can make a sensible comment. And on that note:

BUMP (Bring Up My Post)

SB

[Geoffersincornwall]

If you've flown SAR then you are sure to have come up against the 'GM-or-bust' type of character. Not so bad, maybe if it's a backseater but potentially lethal if you're the guy who's signed for it. The question is, should there be a point where the lives of the crew are more important than the silly sod with a broken leg bobbing around on a fishing boat on a nasty night. If there is, what criteria do you/should you use to decide 'thats enough - I think we'll call it a day'.

G

:ok:

[JKnife]

What the crews using these new machines think?
How would the mods be done to get them up to scratch?
Is the current time frame appropriate to get a new type ready?


Well, SB, these are tricky questions to answer just at the moment.

Q1. Until information is forthcoming from several sources, it will be difficult to judge what crews think. Accurate performance information is required from the aircraft manufacturers for a start, not the figures that anyone can download from their respective websites. Payload availability, where the hoists will go, what type of hoists, space for kit are all important. No one has those specifics at the moment as I don't expect even the two manufacturers know themselves yet. Your first question will be better placed once crews are able to at least see, if not get their greedy mitts on the machines.

Q2. Again, this would have to be decided between CHC and the aircraft manufacturers. No doubt, certain personnel from the current SAR units will be invited to comment on what they think will be needed (or I hope they will be, as they will be the first ones to fly the machines). Then it will be down to various organisations to come up with a sensible plan that can then be agreed with the CAA (or will it be EASA?).

Q3. I suspect that for the S92 it may very well be on time as Sikorsky have already done a lot of SAR work in the US (or so I believe). However, there appears to be some confusion as to what Agusta have done or will be doing. Only time will tell.

In all honesty, your questions are well posed but I think just a bit early to have any honest answer, only because I suspect those that are fully involved with the future planning are not entirely sure. I have no doubt there is a paper plan, but they rarely come to fruition without seeral changes and delays. I doubt whether any of those in the right position to try and answer your questions will do so on this open forum at such an early juncture.

With regard to your comment about the other topic. I believe that the majority of those involved in SAR will not care who picks them up at the end of the day, so long as someone does. Those in SAR are very committed to their job and despite what you may have interpreted from postings by me and others, the idea is to ensure that people realise that there are differences between civil and military SAR. It doesn't mean that one does the job better or worse than the other, just in a different way to different rules.

[SARBallast]

JKnife, good point well made about the questions being a bit early. I was trying to get a bit of conversation going as the other thread seems to have lost the plot a bit. I would just like to see some people who can answer a post in a constructive way have a good discussion without all the people bashing.

As for being in SAR, I am currently a SAR copilot. :ok:

[SARowl]

The 'gung-ho' type of SAR pilot/crew tends to be young and inexperienced. At 19 you think you're immortal, and so are your fellow crew members. Experience and practice show your limitations and ability - I will draw the line at a job that another crew may have no difficulty with. If you seriously injure a crew member trying to medevac a person with a 'poorly finger', you're in the wrong job.

[Sailor Vee]

If you seriously injure a crew member trying to medevac a person with a 'poorly finger', you're in the wrong job.Here, here. I would hope that all the members of the crew are included in the go/no-go aspects of any rescue. If this isn't the case, then a reminder of CRM should be applied.

[Return to sender]

Having read the post asking for information about the A139 I can tell you what I know about it from a friend in Norway.

Apparently they're having major problems with the C of G of the aircraft. For example if you have full fuel in the aircraft and only to pilots up front then the aircraft is outside its C of G limits and ballast has to be used.

Also with certain passenger, fuel and baggage configurations the aircraft can also be outside its C of G and under these circumstances baggage has to be stowed on the seats to address the problem.

The lateral C of G is also a problem and so if a winch is fitted to the aircraft then prolems may arise there. Perhaps the solution may be a winch either side!! What a man on the winch with a survivor will do that I know not.

The payload has not been as advertised either and a S61 was brought in to cover for it. Not sure if it is still there.

[DanglyBob]

Dual winches, one either side......

Cas on one side and winchman on the other.....

:}

[[email protected]]

I thought I'd just bump this back to the top to keep you serious debaters of UKSAR happy since the number and quality of posts seems to be declining.

[Blue Rotor Ronin]

Ignore the sideways comments. I'm in SAR and facing the current transition towards the 139, assuming they take us. There is much rumour and speculation about this aircraft mainly because I think crews have misgivings about whether it can fulfill the role expected of it. After the recent boink of two container ships in the channel and subsequent successful S61 mission, the subject of an yet another ineviteble cruise/passenger ferry disaster has raised its head with the MCA/DTI. CofG, ground clearance, icing clearance, rotor start up and shutdown, where all the gear's going to go aside. Is it big and ugly enough to do the job. Never send a poodle to do a pit bull's job.:E

[Blue Rotor Ronin]

Ignore the sideways comments. I'm in SAR and facing the current transition towards the 139, assuming they take us. There is much rumour and speculation about this aircraft mainly because I think crews have misgivings about whether it can fulfill the role expected of it. After the recent boink of two container ships in the channel and subsequent successful S61 mission, the subject of an yet another ineviteble cruise/passenger ferry disaster has raised its head with the MCA/DTI. CofG, ground clearance, icing clearance, rotor start up and shutdown, where all the gear's going to go aside. Is it big and ugly enough to do the job? Never send a poodle to do a pit bull's job.:E