UK SAR First S-92 [Archive]

Heliport

3rd Mar 2007, 21:37

The handover took place at HeliExpo.

The helicopters will be used primarily in the Highlands and Islands.

http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/dsc_0087lr.jpg
New Sikorsky S92 Helicopter to HM Coastguard Search and Rescue

The state of the art helicopters will be operated on behalf of the MCA by CHC Scotia who won the interim contract to supply aircraft to the MCA from 2007 to 2012.
The interim contract provides for commercial search and rescue helicopter services from four civilian-operated bases - Sumburgh, Stornoway, Lee-on-Solent and Portland - for a five-year period from July 1, 2007.

The service will provide 24-hour coverage at Sumburgh, Stornoway and Lee-on-Solent, and will operate on a 12 hour day-time basis at Portland, in line with current cover.

Two S92s will be based at Stornoway and two at Sumburgh. In addition, two AB139s based at Lee-on-Solent and one at Portland will be deployed early next year.

Richard Parkes, Director of Technical Services who represented the MCA at the signing ceremony today said

The MCA are delighted to be able to receive these new Sikorsky aircraft today as part of our strategy of utilising differing aircraft specifically for the varying coastline we enjoy in the United Kingdom. These new aircraft will be able to fly more quickly, and will be able to fly farther to people in distress at sea than those currently in use.

These new aircraft have been specifically kitted with various items of advanced technical equipment, including an on board automatic identification system (AIS), specifically designed for the challenges of search and rescue in the 21st Century. The S92s are in use on a variety of commercial duties around the world, proving their operational effectiveness and reliability, although this is a world first in being configured entirely for search and rescue.

We look forward to working with CHC who are fulfilling this key role and taking search and rescue work into a new era, and can bring their wealth of experience of search and rescue and emergency helicopter services in Ireland, Africa, Australia and Norway to the UK.

The aircraft are fitted with two internal auxiliary fuel tanks of 210 gallons each.

Fitted SAR options include:
- an improved AFCS with auto-hover capability,
- Forward looking infra red (FLIR)
- dual rescue hoist,
- full sliding-door
- bubble window,
- cargo hook,
- search-light
- loud hailer.
- The cabin can be arranged for installing triple medical litter kit, one or two aux fuel tanks, folding utility seats and ample storage. The designated operator console provides search data including FLIR and enhancing crew coordination on SAR missions.

MSP Aviation

3rd Mar 2007, 21:43

So, since when does H.M. operate N-regs? ;)

Blackhawk9

3rd Mar 2007, 22:22

MSP, its still under test by Sikorsky !! they are probably pre handover pics all S-92's have N rego for initial test flying, i'd say the G rego for the 4x S-92's is already reserved.

rotorrookie

3rd Mar 2007, 22:27

NICE:ok: :ok: :ok:

pumaboy

4th Mar 2007, 07:49

Very very very nice helicopter I,m sure this will be a classic just like the good old 61.

I think this will turn a few heads:D :ok: ;)

Night Watchman

4th Mar 2007, 09:54

For all you spotters out there...the callsign for that particular aircraft is G-CGMU.

pumaboy

4th Mar 2007, 12:23

I believe that all the S-92 coastguard aircraft will carry the G-CG registration and depending on the aircraft and where they are staioned carry the last 2 letters that the S61's have now for example OC MU WB etc.

Can anyone confirm this?

Just keeping the old traditions.:hmm: :D :D

Night Watchman

4th Mar 2007, 15:06

Yeah, it's true. That's what they're doing.

NickLappos

4th Mar 2007, 15:26

The US reg is experimental and will not be delivered. The aircraft was central to Sikorsky's stand at HeliExpo, I wish I had a digital camera, I would put up the photos here, it is a beauty!

MSP Aviation

4th Mar 2007, 15:43

I know, that's what the little wink at the end was for. I saw the pics of that aircraft at heliexpo with it's G markings. It looks great.

Waag

4th Mar 2007, 16:13

Can anyone tell me the cost for each of the S92, when it's ready for SAR?

cptjim

4th Mar 2007, 16:22

http://www.etribes.com/sites/etribes.com/files/images/4_DSC00046.preview.JPG

http://www.etribes.com/sites/etribes.com/files/images/4_DSC00045.preview.JPG

http://www.etribes.com/sites/etribes.com/files/images/4_DSC00040.preview.JPG

http://www.etribes.com/sites/etribes.com/files/images/1_DSC00039.preview.JPG

http://www.etribes.com/sites/etribes.com/files/images/2_DSC00038.preview.JPG

http://www.etribes.com/sites/etribes.com/files/images/1_DSC00037.preview.JPG

http://www.etribes.com/sites/etribes.com/files/images/5_DSC00036.preview.JPG

http://www.etribes.com/sites/etribes.com/files/images/1_DSC00035.preview.JPG

http://www.etribes.com/sites/etribes.com/files/images/5_DSC00033.preview.JPG

http://www.etribes.com/sites/etribes.com/files/images/8_DSC00032.preview.JPG

http://www.etribes.com/sites/etribes.com/files/images/4_DSC00031.preview.JPG

http://www.etribes.com/sites/etribes.com/files/images/7_DSC00030.preview.JPG

http://www.etribes.com/sites/etribes.com/files/images/5_DSC00025.preview.JPG

I have cropped the photos to a reasonable size for those with dial up, if anyone wishes to have the full size pictures please let me know by pm and I'll email them across.

Regards

CptJim :ok:

BRASSEMUP

4th Mar 2007, 17:52

Thanks Cptjim....................................................:o k:

cptjim

4th Mar 2007, 17:55

My pleasure :ok:

CH274

5th Mar 2007, 07:56

Looking good!:ok: Any pics of main 'sliding' door?

Droopystop

5th Mar 2007, 08:52

Very Smart!

Couple of points:

Emergency exits - it seems as if the pop out windows and the main "over sponson" exit are obstructed by the seats. Nice big windows but only the top two thirds are available judging from the photos - plenty to get caught up on the way out. And how accessable are the handles/tabs?

Litter rack: - It will be interesting to see how these will be used if at all. They would be fine if there were four people to lift the stretcher up there, but only two crew? I suspect the stretcher will stay on the floor.

Floor rails - are those floor rails inside the machine? if so are they going to get in the way?

cptjim

5th Mar 2007, 12:08

I don't personally have any photos of the sliding door but will ask the others who were there with me.

Regards

Jim

heli1

5th Mar 2007, 14:56

According to MCA the aircraft won't be operational until four months after the Bristow contract at Stornoway ends ,the second aircraft won't be operational until Spring 2008 and there will have to be S61Ns leased meantime to plug gap.Also the southern contracts don't end until mid 2008 so the AW139s won't come aboard until then.So are all the Bristow contracts being extended or are CHC providing temporary cover until then ?

3D CAM

5th Mar 2007, 17:37

A good looking machine indeed and actually looks as if it can do the job! S61 drivers should feel at home looking at some of the switches on the overhead panel!
A couple of questions though.
Has the auto-hover been certificated yet?
How much ground clearance under the nightsun?
heli1.
By the second aircraft, do you mean the standby/2nd. machine for Stornoway or the first machine at Sumburgh?
Is there any info. on how the 139 is developing or are the rumours of long delays true?

Helikopter

5th Mar 2007, 19:59

Very good looking has to be admitted. Does anyone know how CHC Scotia have aranged the fuel, I mean what is the max fuel on standard tanks ? What is max fuel on auxillary tanks ? and what is the max range ? and what is the average fuel burn in 2000" ?

Over and out

HK

Aesir

5th Mar 2007, 22:41

Too bad you missed the S-92 presentation my friend :)

what is the max fuel on standard tanks ?
2327 kg

What is max fuel on auxillary tanks
3460 kg

and what is the max range ?
457 Nm - standard fuel, 30 min reserve.
759 Nm - aux fuel, 30 min reserve

241 Nm radius of action on standard fuel, 30 min reserve, 2 survivors.

what is the average fuel burn in 2000´
580 kg/hr

Source (http://www.sikorsky.com/file/popup/0,9604,1698,00.pdf)

SirVivr

6th Mar 2007, 01:38

The SAR crewman, (B*****w), standing by the aircraft said that the rear ramp was possibly the most important feature. It allowed the crew better visibility.
The three days prior to Heli-Expo, Goodrich had/has a Hoist Seminar. This one was well attended by the US Army, US Coast Guard, LA County, San Bernadino County, San Diego, Cougar, Bristow and many others.
The next to last presentation was by Chris Bond, Senior SAR Crewman (Tech) for B*****w. He showed a series of videos of rescues done in the North Sea. Very impressive. One was a night rescue off a 30 ft sailboat in 60 ft seas.
SASless take note.
SirVivr

heli1

6th Mar 2007, 12:46

3D CAM....In answer to your question I was referring to the aircraft at Sumburgh not going operational until the Spring.
No news on the AW139 but if not required until mid 2008 ,current winching trials and other coast guard-type tests should be well finished by then.

[email protected]

6th Mar 2007, 15:28

It looks nice but where is the radar?

Anyone got any comments on the vibration issues which may affect max speeds and RoA?

NorthSeaTiger

6th Mar 2007, 15:52

The radar is in the nose

[email protected]

7th Mar 2007, 08:02

North Sea Tiger - are you sure? I can see no evidence of a radome or any structure protruding from the nose to give a radar a wide field of view.
Is it just that it has been built in from the start and doesn't require bolt-on bits like the S61?

Night Watchman

7th Mar 2007, 08:31

North Sea Tiger - are you sure? I can see no evidence of a radome or any structure protruding from the nose to give a radar a wide field of view.

Crab, it's in the nose, has the same field of view as the current radar on the S61 and the main thing is that it points forwards. So you have a radar which shows what's in front of you rather than whats behind you. Which in my opinion is always an advantage!

NickLappos

7th Mar 2007, 09:05

Like the S76, the S92 nose fairing is both aerodynamic and a radome.

Not rocket science, crab!

cyclic

7th Mar 2007, 09:20

What are the hover characteristics like Nick? Is it as stable as the 61 which is really one of the defining features of the S61? If it has speed and a good, stable hover then the big S have it licked. I hope the 225 is more stable than the L2.

[email protected]

7th Mar 2007, 10:48

You have to remember I am used to steam driven military aircraft where everything has to be bolted on the outside because capability is always an afterthought - that's why I asked the question.

I presume it is a weather radar - is it cleared for IMC operations below safety alt over the water?

Night Watchman - the problem with having a radar that only looks forward is that you can only do night/IMC letdowns to cliffs/boats etc that are ahead of you. Try doing a letdown into a bay with a 40kt onshore wind and you will find that having an (almost) 360 degree radar is an awful lot more useful. Equally the ability to see all around you in a congested environment (lots of vessels, buoys, rigs etc) at night or in IMC at low level gives you much more SA and flexibility.

cyclic

7th Mar 2007, 10:56

I hate to agree with Crab but he's right. With a nose mounted radar as soon as you turn away from the contact to fly a let down pattern you have lost the contact. You then have to hope that you regain the target when it is back in the sector. If the pitch attitude has changed i.e. slowing down, then there has to be some subtle scanner tilt changing to regain the contact.

Decks

7th Mar 2007, 13:23

Crab,

On SAR S61's we routinely go below MSA using a combo of GPS (Rnav) and the weather radar which works really well for coastal mapping.
You can buy moving map now for about 1000 euro which are incredibly accurate and will give you all the SA you need 360 degrees. I know they can be integrated into the S92 displays or bolted onto the glareshield for us who still operate the old stuff.

Decks.

3D CAM

7th Mar 2007, 13:54

Crab.
Give it up, you are not going to get your 360 degree radar! Well, not yet anyway???
Nick.
As my previous question, is the autohover certificated yet?

NickLappos

7th Mar 2007, 14:04

3D CAM,

The chief pilot of Sikorsky assured me that the SAR autopilot is fully certified (I confirmed that the testing was finished about 6 months ago - Oct, 06).

It includes full FLIR and radar integration, so targets from either can be automatically inserted into the FMS and coupled SAR approaches can be shot from them directly. In other words, if the FLIR shows a target, the grids of that target are automatically inserted into the approach coupler. Thus you don't have top worry about losing the radar/FLIR target when you turn on the approach, I would imagine.

Hilife

7th Mar 2007, 15:59

I was led to believe that the SAR S-92 has a Mark on Target Approach so the SAR AFCS should bring you into a 50 ft hover 150 ft downwind and to the left of your target.

Although you will lose the target in the turn, the FLIR can be locked on to the target and should I believe display on any of the MFD’s and cabin consul operators station.

Out of interest, I am also told that the hoist operator’s pendant will also have the ability to slew the aircraft on a dual lat/long axis 3 feet at a time, giving those in the cockpit a chance to brush up on there uckers.:}

3D CAM

7th Mar 2007, 16:09

Nick & Hilife.
Thanks for your replies.
3D.

mustfly1

7th Mar 2007, 17:01

"the problem with having a radar that only looks forward is that you can only do night/IMC letdowns to cliffs/boats etc that are ahead of you. Try doing a letdown into a bay with a 40kt onshore wind"
Crab, we do all of the above with a forward looking radar and have been doing so for many years without any problem. Just because the rest of the world doesn't have the Military 360 radar (ARI 5955?) doesn't mean there is only one way to skin a cat.
Kind regards
mustfly1

[email protected]

7th Mar 2007, 17:40

Mustfly - so you let down and end up in the hover into the 40kt wind but not visual with the coast - how do you safely manoeuvre to the cliffs? In our old Sea King we can close to minimum radar range (75 yards) in any direction except 15 degrees either side of the nose thus maintaining an escape heading away from land.
Decks - your 1000 euro moving map display won't show radar targets even if it is linked to the radar, unless they are in front of you. Maouevering at low level (200') in congested shipping lanes IMC/night needs 360 information or you might just turn and bump into a container carrier or tanker that has superstructure above 200'amsl. Surely GPS isn't certified for IMC use as the only navaid which is why we still have VOR DME etc for overland stuff.
In the military we have a clear mandate to operate IMC below safety altitude because we have exemptions from the ANO and a specific clearance in our JSP to do so - where is the similar mandate for doing it in an S61?

It's all well and good having an auto letdown to a FLIR target facility but it doesn't work very well in cloud and rain.

NickLappos

7th Mar 2007, 17:57

Hilife,
The 92 SAR controls do have a Mark on Top mode, as well as the FMS lat long, FLIR and radar modes of setting the hover point prior to the approach.

Here is a press release that discusses it:

http://www.sikorsky.com/news_archive/1,9591,CLI1_DIV69_ETI436_PID7409,00.html

Regarding Crab's concerns about the need for 360 radar, I would have imagined this would be in the requirements if it was an operational necessity. There is no reason why such a radar couldn't be fitted onto the 92, or any other likely SAR candidate (except that the 360 naval radar costs about as much as the entire crew's yearly salaries.)

pitchlink

7th Mar 2007, 18:36

I didn't realise that they were getting paid that much!!!!!!:oh:

Night Watchman

7th Mar 2007, 21:05

Poor old crab, he's desperately tring to find something wrong with the nice shinny new SAR helicopter which is going to be operated by the civilian SAR pilots he hates so much. :sad:

Never mind crab, keep trying.... It keeps me amused!!

NW

Oh and by the way, the coupled SAR S61 can operate to 40' in IMC - CAA approved. ;)

[email protected]

8th Mar 2007, 08:18

Night Watchman - either you don't understand the difference between flying below MSA IMC and using the autopilot to let you down or you are being deliberately obtuse. It's not coupled until you engage the Trans Down mode, until that point you are simply using the ASE element of the autopilot for stabilisation and heading hold - that is like normal cruising flight - do the CAA allow that below MSA IMC?

Nick - SAR(H) are supposedly running the award of contracts and will be instrumental in deciding the numbers of military/civilian crews after 2012; right at the beginning of the project it was stated that there would be no loss of capability when the new contract is awarded. The present interim contract complies with this since the S61s didn't have NVG or a 360 (ish) radar but...in 2012, if those nice civilian crews are going to take over military SAR then the aircraft will have to have a different spec. Unless of course some bean counter who doesn't understand SAR decides that 'less capability means less money and anyway it's people's own fault if they get themselves into trouble in bad weather or at night' and reneges on the deal.

I would love to have a shiny new S92 to fly but only if it lets me do my job properly.

3D CAM

8th Mar 2007, 13:18

Crab.
You really must get it into your head that "beancounters" are exactly the people who are going to decide who gets the harmonisation contract! Nothing you or I say will hold any sway with them whatsoever. Money, or the lack of it, wins every time.
The tender for the interim contract, ably put together by "Crabette"?? and others who know far more about SAR than any of the people in civvy street doing it, asked for lots of things that the S61 does not have, 360 degree radar being one of them! As you rightly point out, neither the S92 nor the AW139 has it????? That tells a story in itself!
When the time comes, are you going to be coming to fly with us nasty civvies or are you going to transfer to Support Helicopters and go on their travels, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.??
Do not look with too much contempt at us. We, well most of us, came down the same road as you!

[email protected]

8th Mar 2007, 13:57

3D - I certainly do not look with contempt at civvy SAR, only with concern that a hard-won capability will be squandered because those that make the decisions don't understand the issues involved. We used to manage quite well with the Whirlwind and the Wessex but I don't think we should go back to them because they were cheap to run.

At my age, caught in the boarding school trap, I guess I will have to keep taking the Queen's shilling and do what I'm told until pension time (only 9 years to go) so whatever happens to SAR is unlikely to involve me.

However, if I do change sides can I be on Seaside Rescue?:)

NickLappos

8th Mar 2007, 16:45

3D and Crab,

The radar is only an issue to the customer, not the manufacturers, since Sikorsky has installed only about 600 of them, and the technical leap is not an impressive one to do it on a 92 sized machine, especially one with a flat belly and retractable gear.

The issue is one of how requirements are let, and how economics and mission effectiveness is a part of the process. I contend that this might (like OEI hover and perhaps 100 other things) be a case of where the requirer has no skin in the cost game, so that hard requirements are set based on the 99th %ile mission and not where it is economically driven. That being said, the customer sets the equipment and the mfgr responds!

Sailor Vee

8th Mar 2007, 16:59

It's not coupled until you engage the Trans Down mode, until that point you are simply using the ASE element of the autopilot for stabilisation and heading hold - that is like normal cruising flight - do the CAA allow that below MSA IMC?Sorry, Crab, the SN 501 ;(on the S61n); is a Flight Path Controller, and as such is way above what the Mil Sea King has, we have an overfly function which fully controls the circuit from the overhead to a point about 200 yds downwind of the target in 'drift-forward' mode. Even the Wezzy 3 had a better ASE/Auto Pilot than the 'mighty yellow'!:E

3D CAM

8th Mar 2007, 17:30

Crab.
At last we agree on something! Nobody wants a degradation in the service currently provided. We all want to see a new machine but it must be the right one for the job. Hence my comments about the AW139. Equipment aside, it could be a step backwards to the days of the Wessex or even the Whirlwind. The aircraft may be able to get there faster, find the casualties easier, but then only be able to pick up at most six or seven. ( Rumour has it that it will have 4 seats in the back, 2 of them for the backseaters!!) Now from my point of view that is not an improvement or even an equalling of the current standard. 30 plus survivors in the Sumburgh machine on one occasion and I should imagine your old buses can cram them in if needed.
Seaside Rescue..... sorry only Equity members allowed on the south coast?
Nick.
I am not complaining about the lack of 360 degree radar. Merely pointing out that something that was part of the original tender requirement has not been fitted. As you say, the customer gets what he asks and pays for.

[email protected]

9th Mar 2007, 07:59

SailorVee - the Mk3A Sea King (of which we have 6) has the SN500 fitted and can only engage overfly from 749' and below - probably the same as yours. I have been campaigning to get the Mk 3 fleet upgraded to the same (relatively modern) standard - your comments are true of the Mk 3, it is a steam driven heap of **** by comparison - but no-one will listen because it costs money.

You still have to get to a point (IMC) where you can engage trans down or overfly (I suspect that like ours, the overfly still means you have to fly the height manually down to 200' before it starts the TD element or you will miss the target) so you still need to be able to clear the area you are turning into (especially as for overfly the SN500 calculates it's own wind and may turn left or right from the overhead). Hence the need for a 360 radar and hence my question how you are allowed to fly below MSA IMC without specific CAA exemption?

cyclic

9th Mar 2007, 08:10

Modern systems should be capable of letting down from an on-top from greater than 800'. I have tried our system from 3000' and it has worked. Why you would want to do this I don't know as the accuracy of the fix is certainly degraded from this height. If I remember rightly, it did take us 5 miles downwind in the pattern but we did end up about 100 yds from the radar target!

TorqueOfTheDevil

9th Mar 2007, 17:30

However, if I do change sides can I be on Seaside Rescue?:)

Surey those of us in the rescue world (whether our aircraft are red and grey, red and white, or yellow) are on the same side...?

We need to stick together to fight off the real 'other side' ie the cowboys from air ambulances various who insist on muscling in on rescue situations to keep their stats up to keep the money trickling in...

bondu

9th Mar 2007, 19:21

Quote
We need to stick together to fight off the real 'other side' ie the cowboys from air ambulances various who insist on muscling in on rescue situations to keep their stats up to keep the money trickling in...

Air Ambulance pilots are NOT cowboys!! :mad: :mad:

The two jobs are completely different: EMS aircraft do not have winches and do not want winches. The two services are complimentary: why waste the valuable resource of a fully equipped SAR machine to pick Mrs Jones who has sprained her ankle on a hillside?? Would an EMS machine be sent out to 'rescue' a sailor out at sea?? Of course not!!!

Stop making moronic comments like the one in your post and start supporting EMS as well as SAR!! We should ALL be working together against the BEANCOUNTERS who are trying to destroy two vital services. :ugh:

bondu :* :* :*

Bertie Thruster

9th Mar 2007, 19:35

"Would an EMS machine be sent out to 'rescue' a sailor?"...................

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i97/nmhsu/GRIMSBYDOCKS4.jpg

:\

bondu

9th Mar 2007, 19:37

Nice one Bertie!! But was this at sea or at quayside??

bondu

[email protected]

9th Mar 2007, 20:52

Bondu - I can't believe you bit at Torques poorly baited hook:)

Bertie - so you are deck landing current again?

Night Watchman

9th Mar 2007, 21:09

I certainly do not look with contempt at civvy SAR, only with concern that a hard-won capability will be squandered because those that make the decisions don't understand the issues involved.

Crab, every single posting you make on SAR threads aim to knock civvy SAR so who are you trying to kid!

You talk about hard won SAR capability but your battle to get a FLIR camera took you 20 years!! So by that reckoning if we civvy's were to ask for a 330 degree radar like yours (not 360 as you like to spin) then by your standards it'll be perfectly acceptable for SAR-H to bring them in by 2032!

You know one day you may leave the RAF and have to work with guys like us. You'll fit in better if you are able to embrace new ideas and different solutions to problems. Someone can come up with good idea without having been in the RAF first you know. I know this must be difficult for you to understand but leave it for a few days and it may sink in gradually! :ok:

Bertie Thruster

9th Mar 2007, 21:22

Crab, not deck current, just a deceptive photo at Grimsby docks. I offered the job to the Leconfield SAR cab that was doing IF circuits nearby at Humberside at the time, but they declined.

[email protected]

10th Mar 2007, 06:26

Ah, as usual Night Watchman, when you haven't got any facts to bring to a discussion, you start calling names.....yawn.....

Particularly penetrating logic about the FLIR and radar:ugh:

212man

10th Mar 2007, 07:38

Looking one fundamental aspect of the S-92 design: will the CHC machines still have the cooling air for the avionics racks and centre console drawn from the outside? I would have thought the best place for the source was the cabin. If not, I'm looking forward to seeing how the avionics like being cooled with salt spray! :uhoh:

It would be a simple fix to use the cabin as the air source, I'm sure.

JKnife

10th Mar 2007, 09:55

Crab

May I suggest that you contact some of your old colleagues that have flown the Bond Jigsaw Super Pumas and ask them what they can do with their kit? I think you will be very surprised at how flexible their kit is, and it is much better than the SN500/501 equipment fitted to the S61/Sea King 3A.

I would also suggest that you pay them a visit and just see what is available to a commercial SAR operator these days and what will no doubt be on the SAR S-92. I agree with Night Watchman with your apparent contempt for civvy SAR. You do appear to have a large chip on your shoulder about it, no matter how many times you try to say you don't.

By the way, the fact that there isn't a 360deg radar doesn't mean that you cannot get the job done. At least the S92 and the Bond Jigsaw aircraft can see straight ahead without having to do 30deg turns to clear the blind arc every few miles! That to my view is much safer and better.

zebedee

10th Mar 2007, 23:45

I can just see a whole room full of designers going WHAAAAT! Or whatever the French is for that.
Designer: What we will do is suck outside air from this huge scoop to cool our electrics. It will be an efficient way of meeting the energy needs of the design brief.
Boss: Good
Salesman: We've sold this GREAT aircraft to the world - It will have to hover very close to the water and suck up all the moisture into its electrics, but we will make lots of MONEY
Boss: Good
Designer: Actually, that's not a good idea
Boss: Shut up
Salesman: But we've sold it
Boss: Good
Designer: But
Boss: Shut up
Customer: This is a great aircraft
Boss: Good
Cutomer: But, Splash
Boss: Don't worry, you sue us, we'll sue the f@cking designer, and then we'll all be OK

212-is-D-Man!
But make some money from it!
Zeb

212man

11th Mar 2007, 00:17

Well, I wasn't banking on that response; more a simple answer! But I take the point.

[email protected]

11th Mar 2007, 07:56

Jknife - if there wasn't better kit out there than the stuff we use in the military I would be very surprised and the S92 has , I am assured, a very capable autopilot/FPC/FCS/FMS.

My only chip is when people state, without correct up to date information, what current military SAR capability is and then in the same sentence claim the same capability for civvy SAR.

Your comment about radar is typical - unless you have operated with our 330 degree radar and seen it's advantages (yes it would be nice to see ahead as well but clearing turns are simple and quick) and tried IMC letdowns to cliffs with awkward winds, you will not understand the argument.

I still haven't seen a reply reference CAA clearance to operate IMC below MSA.

zebedee

11th Mar 2007, 08:34

212Man
Probably the most qualified people to comment on this are HKGFS - they have been doing "real SAR" - day, night, little boats in cr@p conditions etc., with the L2 for at least 5 years, and maybe more. Normally they are good at getting public support, but I note they have been very quiet on this forum - any comments guys?
Zeb

cyclic

11th Mar 2007, 09:35

Crab

You are operating IMC below MSA when conducting a rig radar approach. It happens everyday on the North Sea by commercial aircraft flown by two pilots with a forward looking radar. OK, the mimima is .75nm for obvious reasons and the MDA is deck height plus 50' but this is a CAA approved approach both flown as a pattern or alternatively straight-in. Letting down to radar contacts IMC below MSA by civilian SAR operators is also approved by the CAA. When a company applies for its approvals a CAA ops inspector flies with the operator, inspects the Ops Manuals and makes sure that the correct training is in place before an EXEMPTION is granted. This exemption will also state that the operator is exempt the 500' rule etc. whilst conducting training. It will also state the exemptions involved for training power requirements. For example, the S61 rules are significantly different to the L2 due to the power available and the way the system deals with power loss.

I hope this answers your question. In terms of operating in congested parts of our seas and waterways, a 360 radar would be handy. However, there are parts of the North Sea that are still very congested and we manage to let down to rigs and vessels with the radar we have. Please remember that civilian operators are letting down to dive vessels etc. everyday to carry out public transport ops - it isn't just rigs and the sole domain of the military. If you saw what goes on in the North Sea during the winter it would open your eyes a little - it did mine:rolleyes:

JKnife

11th Mar 2007, 10:12

Your comment about radar is typical - unless you have operated with our 330 degree radar and seen it's advantages (yes it would be nice to see ahead as well but clearing turns are simple and quick) and tried IMC letdowns to cliffs with awkward winds, you will not understand the argument.

Well, I have many hours in the Sea King and also using radars that aren't 360degs and don't have a blind arc. You are talking really only about a small proportion of the letdowns where a 360deg would be useful. It is so much easier to see your target or area all the time during a letdown. I can think of at least one occasion at night in the Sea King carrying out blind arc turns, and we still flew over a rock on the approach to the cliffs that the radar operator hadn't picked up in the blind arc clearance turn (and he was a very experienced operator). He saw it on the radar after we had passed it! Fortunately we saw it from the front in our landing lights and were able to avoid it, plus we were at 200ft and not lower. It wasn't foggy but it was very windy with lots of sea spray. Anyway, don't you use NVGs these days for letdowns at night so that you can see ahead?

Cyclic has really made the comment that I would have made. I would also say that the MCA S61s appear to do IMC letdowns to cliffs quite safely as will the S92. You just adapt your procedure accordingly.

leopold bloom

11th Mar 2007, 10:27

We are quiet because we're very busy! Take a look at our website for the lates info on rescues. The L2 isn't the best SAR machine in the world and the hoist design in particular is a load of s**t but it still gets the job done. We are currently looking at a replacement: S92, EC225 and AB139 have all been investigated but as mainland China is getting 225's I expect that may influence the final decision. My vote goes to the S92 but I am merely a worker bee.

TorqueOfTheDevil

11th Mar 2007, 19:14

Stop making moronic comments like the one in your post and start supporting EMS as well as SAR!! We should ALL be working together against the BEANCOUNTERS who are trying to destroy two vital services. :ugh:

bondu :* :* :*

Permission to reel him in now Sir?

Torques poorly baited hook:)

Harrumph!

[email protected]

12th Mar 2007, 06:59

Cyclic, thankyou for answering the question, I assumed it would all be pukka but without access to the relevant documents I couldn't be sure. The prospect of North Sea operating has never attracted me or I would have done it years ago - all that nasty icing and no NVG for the night approaches - you can keep it!

Jknife - frankly in the days you are talking about, I am surprised anyone saw anything on the radar screen, that old round display with the acetate overlays was just awful. The modern CRT screen with digital mapping is much better (I'm not saying a target can't be missed but it is far less likely).

It may be a small proportion of rescues that need the capability but, like so many other things, it is better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. The next time the hooter goes it could be for a yacht with a family aboard being smashed onto rocks with an onshore wind and big cliffs in warm sector weather conditions.

Do the MCA have an SOP for IMC cliff letdowns?

We don't use our FLIR/TV turret for a lot of rescues but it increases our operational capability enormously.

Yes NVG are used at night but they don't help IMC:)

JimL

12th Mar 2007, 07:48

Crab,

I have been waiting (in vain) for someone to answer your question about flight below MSA (LSALT); with regard to JAR-OPS 3 (which provides the underlying rules - even for coatguard operations), the relevent text is contained in JAR-OPS 3.365:JAR-OPS 3.365 Minimum flight altitudes
(See IEM OPS 3.250)
The pilot flying shall not descend below specified minimum altitudes except when necessary for take-off or landing, or when descending in accordance with procedures approved by the Authority.no more than this is required because, without knowing the circumstances, prescription would be difficult; operation manual (OM) procedures have to be submitted to the Authority for Approval.

All North Seas operators have such a procedure in their OM; it would be a surprise if the coastguard operator(s) did not have suitably risk assessed set of procedures in theirs.

Jim

viking25

29th Mar 2007, 16:09

Anyone spotted the MCA news podcast on their website with footage of the S92.
Looks good to me.

212man

15th Oct 2007, 20:31

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/highlands_and_islands/7044615.stm

PS. I'm still curious as to whether the avionics cooling intakes have been modified!

Night Watchman

16th Oct 2007, 10:26

I'm still curious as to whether the avionics cooling intakes have been modified!

No they haven't and the down draught in nil wind, hovering over the sea is spectacular! I think we all know were this is heading.... :ooh:

212man

16th Oct 2007, 11:11

Seems like a fairly obvious outcome to me.

Hastily found photo below, seems to show what I expected: (Black) cooling air full of sea spray (and it's a calm day!) disappears into belly, and is liberally distributed all round the avionics racks and centre pedestal, before being ejected out the side (red). Genius! :ok:

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa50/S92ctc/92.jpg

rgnewboy

16th Oct 2007, 22:34

the intakes for the two avionic racks are in the cabin, one each side at head level as you step into the cockpit.

The console intakes however, are in the nose area, and the little flap valves need stronger springs

S92mech

17th Oct 2007, 01:52

Unless the aircraft being used for SAR are modified, the avionics cooling inlets for the left and right are on the lower exterior of the aircraft and center console inlet is in the nose wheel well. With A/C power applied to the aircraft, pass your hand over the inlets just behind the forward floats and you will see that there is air being drawn into these ports.
The vent in the interior on the left avionics bay is the air conditioning cockpit return air duct, it's insulated and has a temp probe in it. The flaps in the nose wheel well are the center cooling exhaust ports, the inlet is an oval shaped port with a mesh screen.

212man

17th Oct 2007, 06:40

S92mech, that's what I'd have said. So, RGnewboy are you confusing the two or do you know something Nightwatchman doesn't?:E

Night Watchman

17th Oct 2007, 14:02

The vents are where everyone, expect rgnewboy, thinks they are! The air conditioning on the SAR aircraft has been removed due to lack of warm air to cool!! :)

[email protected]

17th Oct 2007, 14:10

The RCS doesn't have a ROA for the new S - 92 - any reason why?

NRDK

17th Oct 2007, 17:55

CRAB

Probably because it exceeds the normal 250nm radius of action requirement; thereby fulfilling the SAR criteria nicely:)
R U Still stirring per chance:=

Providing the avionics don't rust away sucking in all that salt laden air!:}

[email protected]

18th Oct 2007, 08:26

Well why not put it on the RCS then? Not stirring just asking what its declared ROA is.

rgnewboy

18th Oct 2007, 08:53

i was confused, I'll get my coat :\

SARCO

18th Oct 2007, 10:40

Hi Crab

Declared range for the S92 from Sumburgh and Stornoway both 289nm. The range for the AW139 will be 229nm

Hope this helps

SARCO

23rd Oct 2007, 12:18

Piddle packs as standard! :ok:

Gaspode the Dog

27th Oct 2007, 18:32

Crab

This thread seem to have developed into a S92 bashing session.

As far as I know no company makes a SAR only aircraft, they look at the market and produce an aircraft that will make them money (most S92 are pax aircraft), other varients are then developed. This is exactly the same in the military, most helicopters are utility aircraft (AH64 excepted of course) and they are used for various roles. The S92 is not the perfect option at the moment but the civilian modification process is far quicker than the military one which took 20+ years to precure a winchmans radio following a fatal accident!!! Therefore, it is up to those involved in the project to develop the aircraft into a very capable replacement for the S61/Sea King. The S92 is a new aircraft with all the support this brings, just like a car you want the new model because then you get spare parts and support.

There is a huge amount of experience in the S61/Sea King world that helps them do a very good job with old aircraft, just think what can be done with a new aircraft over the next 10 years!