View Full Version : Have I missed the flood thread?
G'day Gentlemen,
have I missed the flood thread?
Really brilliant effort by the helicopters and crews.
Am right in the middle of Gloucestershire so it is nice to see the helicopters put to good use by the emergency services.
Thank you to everyone involved :D:ok:
Cheers
WSPS
Justintime80
24th Jul 2007, 17:04
No this is the first time it's been mentioned on this forum
Have to agree with you it's been good to see ALL the Helo's working for the good of everyone.:D
Justin
Brilliant Stuff
24th Jul 2007, 19:10
Yes those SAR crews must have been working nonstop!:ok::ok::ok:
Fantastic work chaps. Sadly not much on the TV though.
Well i hope you can now rest nicely.
bell222
24th Jul 2007, 19:13
keep up the good work chaps :ok::ok::ok:
206Fan
24th Jul 2007, 20:37
Yea i seen some seaking footage on the news hovering above tricky areas, very well done i must say.
Bravo73
24th Jul 2007, 21:32
Yes those SAR crews must have been working nonstop!
I thought that we hadn't heard from Crab in the last couple of days.... ;)
Keep up the good work, Crab. :D:D:D
PS Any chance of an 'on the scene' reportage when you get the chance, please?
Darren999
25th Jul 2007, 00:32
Haven't heard too much state side, however, have been kept up to speed by family back home.. Well done SAR crews! been flat out.. Keep up the great work :ok:
Not guilty this time. I've just abandoned a camping holiday in Cornwall due to the weather forecast and now it doesn't look as black as it was painted - doh, when will I learn:{
The boys and girls from Chiv, Valley, Wattisham, Lec and Lee do seem to have been very busy with the floods and there may be more to come - I will pass on words of praise to the crews involved - thanks for your support.
forget
25th Jul 2007, 07:49
Question for the SAR helicopter guys. With a situation such as Tewksebury, when you are ‘on site’ for days, what local re-fuelling facilities do you have to arrange? What scheme do you have for ‘immediate’ deployment/response of fuellers? Ta:)
TorqueOfTheDevil
25th Jul 2007, 08:21
forget,
Two likely options for a protracted incident:
If there's an airfield with Jet A1 within easy striking distance, it will be opened for the SAR helos by the ARCC who can generally count on the goodwill of the airfield operator (for instance Barrow/Walney, who turned out at midnight in February when there were four thirsty Sea Kings attending the Grayrigg train crash).
If there's not a suitable airfield, a bowser will be dispatched from the nearest (usually military) airfield and positioned somewhere suitable - this is not uncommon in the more remote parts of the UK, eg the Boulmer bowser at Harbottle during the fire-bucketing at Easter this year, and the Kinloss bowser on the Inverness-Ullapool road, fuelling the Lossie and Stornoway helos, after the Stornoway mail aircraft crash a couple of years back. These are just two incidents I was involved in which I can recall off the top of my head - there must be plenty of others.
TOTD
forget
25th Jul 2007, 08:31
Thanks TOTD :ok: I suppose, in the UK, you're never that far from a friendly bowser. If push did come to shove is the Sea King cleared for any 'commercial' fuels? Tesco's apart.
Bravo73
25th Jul 2007, 09:58
If there's an airfield with Jet A1 within easy striking distance
Well, Staverton and the two Bristol airfields are hardly a long way away.
west lakes
25th Jul 2007, 11:08
For info
Footage of BBC helicopter at Gloucester (Staverton?) showed a SAR machine there yesterday
What Limits
25th Jul 2007, 12:19
I was on scene for most of the weekend with Police 40.
SAR assets - fantastic as usual although comms and tasking procedure always a weakness.
Fuel - Gloucestershire Airport opened for fuel 24/7 for the duration - rotors running - immediate priority - fantastic service, thanks and well done.
News gatherers were well behaved, kept out of our way and got some outstanding footage. Thanks for a good job.
My main gripe was with the airborne rubberneckers - please keep away ! :mad:
The Harrier and the C130 over Tewkesbury yesterday were totally unnecessary. :eek:
west lakes
25th Jul 2007, 12:30
Police asked London Info ATC to discourage sightseers flying over area yesterday owing to amount of emergencyy helicopter activity
What limits - er think that was you
well done
Good to see that the effort is appreciated.
Hopefully the situation will improve at some point...
WSPS
JimBall
25th Jul 2007, 15:09
The TDA that went up Tuesday was due to an "encounter" between a Harrier and a SAR Sea King.......darned rubberneckers!
west lakes
25th Jul 2007, 15:21
Should have said in my original post - this referred to Sunday 22nd
Chutefull - 'tis better to remain silent and have people think you are a fool than to post garbage on pprune and remove all doubt'
With apologies to (I think) Mark Twain
mickjoebill
26th Jul 2007, 12:41
Chutefull,
Had you been able to fly you may have occasionally seen small rescue ribs taking two or three victims at a time to saftey.
But the problems with ribs are;
nasty debris unseen below the flood water.
operating a small boat in fast runing waters as is occasionally the case in these floods is hazardous.
deployment is not as rapid as a helicopter
finally the distances involved to get victims from their island to just the nearest dry land is often half a mile whereas a helicopter can take them directly to a more suitable site for onward transportation.
On Monday a caravan park was evacuated using small boat to ferry victims a short distance to a SAR heli landing site which then ferried them a mile or so to saftey. The heli carried 6 or so at a time and made multiple trips.
This would have taken hours in the rescue rib and one of the victims was a baby.
A team effort.
Mickjoebill
SilsoeSid
28th Jul 2007, 12:12
Just incase the sightseeing guys are around......
Navw: Q)egtt/qrdca/iv/bo/w/000/034/5203n00203w015
From 07/07/27 12:07 To 07/07/29 18:00 J3492/07
E)temporary Danger Area.
Owing To The Emergency At Tewkesbury A Temporary Danger Area To Be
Known As Tda Eg D299p Has Been Established Wi 5208n 00219w, 5206n
00155w, 5153n 00201w, 5148n 00217w, 5155n 00224w, 5208n 00219w. To
Ensure Their Own Safety And To Avoid Interference With Control And
Sar Activities, Pilots Are Urgently Requested Not To Fly In Or Near
The Area Without Permission Of Arcc Kinloss Controlling Authority Tel
01309 678302 Or 01309 678303, All Inbounds And Outbounds On Freq With
Gloucestershire Airport Have Permission To Enter And Exit Tda At
Gloucestershire Airports Discretion. Pilots Are Further Warned That
Action May Be Taken At Any Time To Impose Restrictions Of Flying
Regulations Under Article 96 Of The Air Navigation Order 2005. Atc
Units Close To The Incident Are Requested To Advise Acft On Their
Frequencies Of The Contents Of This Notam.
F)sfc G)3400ft Amsl
semirigid rotor
28th Jul 2007, 13:53
mickjoebill / crab,
It is often the way filming is edited and shown for a 10 second slot on the news that makes chuteless comments seem reasonable. For example I saw an attempt to winch a pregnant woman from a first story window. She refused to be winched, next shot was her climbing down a ladder, and at the bottom was a man, calf high in calm water, then helping her into a rib. The media does not always tell the full story; as I'm sure there must have been more going on here, otherwise why try to winch her out of a window?
One important thing to note here is that, once on the scene of a situation like this, where the tasking is directed by the SARLO (HELO) from Silver control, a SAR helicopter may be tasked to perform 'rescues' of people in difficulty rather than actually in danger.
In the normal course of events, a SAR asset would not be launched just for such a 'rescue' but, once any immediate lifesaving has been completed at a major incident, it is very difficult to say no to helping out the other emergency services, even if the job could be done by other assets (police, fire etc). This is one of the problems associated with not having a joined up rescue organistation, when you give someone a helicopter to use, they will use it for as much as they can if they don't understand SAR because they don't regularly train with us.
A Chivenor aircraft was based at Staverton for a few days with the Flt Cdr in Silver control - this was probably overkill since any immediate lifesaving was conducted in the first 36 hours of the inital call. But, you won't find any of the crews complaining at being able to 'help' people as opposed to 'rescuing ' them. The normal SAR standby was still in place at Chivenor with the other aircraft - something only possible if you have a second standby aircraft and crew......back to SAR H I think:)
Max Contingency
29th Jul 2007, 10:47
Chuteless - The rule of thumb for negotiating fast flowing water is dont go deeper than your knees without a safety line. The forces against the flat side of a building during flooding can often massively exceed their design tolerance and that is often why the helicopters get called in.
Crab - You know that I'm not a fan of military 2nd stanndby, so I have to point out that you say that the Chiv deployment was something only possible if you have a second standby aircraft and crew......back to SAR H I think but 2 lines earlier you say that it was probably overkill
Welcome abooard?;)
Max - the 'overkill' element was keeping them there so long - the value of the second standby is that the aircraft can be deployed in the first place whilst still maintaining the UK SAR coverage.
No matter how you try to bluff it - the military second standby provides a capability that does not exist in civSAR.
Max Contingency
29th Jul 2007, 11:17
Crab - I have never argued that the capability exists in Civ Sar.
Having looked at several years worth of UK data, my argument is that the benefit does not justify the effort. There is no military reason for it and there is insufficient SAR justification for it. So why do we continue? I can only conclude that it is because we have always done it and because we need to prop up the poor serviceability of our eldery aircraft.
SAR-H have concluded that we don't need 2nd standby. Time to A: wake up and smell the coffee or B: just keep going as we are and miss the opportunity to drop 2nd standby and relieve the pressure on our crews today.
Max - I don't think SARH have concluded anything of the sort and whilst we might be struggling to man the second standby at times, it is only because we are not fully manned - especially on the rearcrew side.
The serviceability issue is a different one altogether, that is for SKIOS2 to sort out and is no reason to drop seconds.
The second standby has shown its worth on many occasions and every major incident in recent history has been responded to using it from somewhere. The day to day stuff doesn't need 2nds but the surge capability is essential for major incidents and for concurrent SAROPs.
As I have said before, if we drop seconds, it won't ease the load on the SAR Force - manning will just be reduced further because we can't justify the need and we will be in the same state but with even less flex and more guys will PVR rather than go SH.
Max Contingency
29th Jul 2007, 12:44
Crab - Sorry chum but I disagree with all of that.
I don't think SARH have concluded anything of the sort You were there when they said that they wanted a surge and concurrency capability but would not be mandating a 2nd standby.
whilst we might be struggling to man the second standby at times, it is only because we are not fully manned - especially on the rearcrew side Ever thought that 2nd stanndby might be contributing to the cause (chicken and egg).
The serviceability issue is a different one altogether, that is for SKIOS2 to sort out and is no reason to drop seconds. SKIOS might relieve pressure on aircraft but not crews. Is it a reason to keep 2nds?
The second standby has shown its worth on many occasions and every major incident in recent history has been responded to using it from somewhere. The day to day stuff doesn't need 2nds but the surge capability is essential for major incidents and for concurrent SAROPs. We shall have to agree to differ on that. There is a huge difference between a 2nds aircraft responding and a 2nds aircraft actually being genuinely required. As I said, I have looked at many years worth of data.
As I have said before, if we drop seconds, it won't ease the load on the SAR Force - manning will just be reduced further because we can't justify the need The military manning ratio for a 24hr post is set at 5:1, which is what we have today. Dropping 2nds would not result in manning cuts, it would result in a reduction in our overstretch and we could do it TODAY.
Max - the SARH reply was evasive - they might want the surge capability but I think they want to see what industry is prepared to offer. In their defence they can only mandate what they are told to by MoD and whilst they still state there will be 'no lesser capability' than at present with the new contract, it makes it hard to see how that can be achieved without having second aircraft and crews.
I know it is a chicken and egg situation but using your figures of 5:1 we would still be undermanned since I know that 22 is not up to full strength with rearcrew. I would hesitate to use the term 'overstretch' in this context - the SH world are overstretched, we are not - we are simply working hard and it is not the same. I can guarantee that we would lose people if we dropped seconds, the SH force would snap up any perceived 'spare' rearcrew in a heartbeat.
On my first tour on 72 in the early 80's we flew 1000 hrs plus in 2 years and did 3 weeks on to 1 off and no-one was bleating about overstretch or undermanning. That was just working hard and many seem to have forgotten how to do that and see seconds as time off and then moan about it when they get called in.
The SARFCdr seems to disagree with your analysis of seconds requirements - if you are so sure then get him to fight your corner.
Max Contingency
29th Jul 2007, 15:18
Crab - If 2nd standby can be proven to be over - provision today then there is no need to carry it forward under the banner of no less capable. It was the SARF Cdr's data that I read that makes me believe that. Take away all of the mountain dets, training sorties and other times where a 1st standby aircraft could have responded and you are left with only one or two occassions per year where a military 2nd standby aircraft is brought to RS 15 and then tasked onto SAR. IMHO, not sufficient to justify it.
All fleets are undermanned on their establishments Dropping 2nds cannot change our establishment as it is based on our 1st aircraft commitment and can only be reduced through base closures.
IIRC wasn't there only one Province wide standby aircraft and crew for 12 tasking lines in the 80s?;)
Apologies to others for the thread drift!!
Max - take away mountain dets and training sorties???Just to make a case for no 2nds - you must be working for CHC or Bristows with great plans like that! If you really want to see what our job would become if you remove all our training requirements for the sake of saving money then go and have a close look at what happens outside the military.
I don't know where your figure of 5:1 to provide 1 x 24 hrs standby comes from but I don't reckon you actually need any more than 3:1 - only Euro working time directives might make you need to increase that slightly. Do any of the civilian SAR flts have 5:1 manning?
Not quite sure of the relevance of the 1 aircraft in province standby sentence - there were another 20 plus aircraft available in the case of a major incident - that'll be surge and concurrency then:)
Yes we have drifted off thread but you don't want us to be able to deploy 5 aircraft to flooding, just one or two and let the emergency services cope on their own.
Max Contingency
29th Jul 2007, 17:04
Crab - have another read. I'm not saying stop mountain dets and training sorties by 2nd standby. I'm saying don't include them in the stats to justify 2nds.
I'm not coming to work for you!!! 5:1 is PMA advice. 3:1 = One 8 hour shift, 365 days a year, before leave, courses, OOA etc. Yes and as you point out, illegal under European working time directives.
20 plus aircraft is not surge and concurrency. 20 aircraft with duty crews would have been, but the GOC felt he only needed one.
Of course I want to see the correct level of response to flooding but I can recognise that just because we provided a certain level of response, that does not mean it was the correct one. (You even agreed with me that elements of the response were overkill)
Max - PMA advice will change as soon as you get rid of seconds - if you don't believe that then you are being naive.
If 3:1 equals one 8 hour shift a day every year how do you square that with the fact we do a 24 hour shift? One crew on shift for 24 hours, one crew ready for the next day and one crew on leave/course etc. 3:1 seems to work until you add in FI dets and seconds so bin seconds and 4:1 would be the answer.
Mind you just how many courses are the SH boys and girls getting, not to mention leave - but at least they won't need pointless OOA dets as they are spending so much of their time OOA anyway!
The GOC had the other 12 lines of tasking to choose from if he wanted surge, plus AAC and RN aircraft. If all he had to do was provide SAR cover for NI and its environs, I bet he would have asked for a second standby crew.
The fact is that you interpret the SARF Cdrs data differently to him and I don't think he is about to cancel seconds - why is that do you think?
Max Contingency
29th Jul 2007, 18:07
Crab - must be PMA thats naive as that their manning ration for any 24 hour post, not just SAR.
Even the civ crews have had to abandon 4:1 as too tight.
Yes I interpret the data differently from other people, but then just maybe I'm not trying to use it as a weapon to change decisions that have already been taken and over which I have no control. Maybe I'm trying to trying to take those decisions and the get the best deal that we can from them between now and 2012.
SAR-H has no good news for mil aircrew. However, one thing we can do is follow their lead on 2nds aircraft and drop it today.
SARH has no good news for mil crews because that is what they have been given by MoD - this ridiculous idea that 66 military personnel will be able to keep a. doing the job, b. train crews for SH and c. man the FI is unsustainable unless we completely abandon the very high standards we have now and adopt finance driven training like in the 'real world'.
You need to look further than 2012 because that will only be the start of the transition - more like 2015 before all the milSAR flts are replaced.
Drop seconds and the world will notice a load of aircrew working 8 days a month - I don't care what PMA say now, they will rob manpower, whether for SH or OOA but you cannot justify 5 full crews per flt just to hold 1st standby.
Wiretensioner
29th Jul 2007, 19:40
Someone starts a thread about the latest flooding. Generally everyone is in agreement that the SAR guys, military and civil, did a great job.
Crab arrives on scene from a short lived holiday and within a few posts it's back to a 'my dad's bigger than your dad' competition. Lets get back on thread, there are other threads where SAR-H and all the attendant back biting, good points and bad points are being discussed.
:cool:
Max Contingency
29th Jul 2007, 20:39
Apologies for the thread drift, just making sure that people know that Crab doesn't represent all of us with his views ;)
Back to the flooding. A question to those involved in all the precision winching. What would have made it easier?
Comms has been mentioned (as always)
Would GPS based position hold as found on the EC725, S92 etc and accurate to within a metre and controllable by the winch op if required, have helped?
Infant lift bags perhaps?
What Limits
29th Jul 2007, 22:22
What is the concensus on the lifting cages as used by the US Coast Guard?
Rescue1
29th Jul 2007, 23:00
Re Cage
I watched a program the other day where the free swimmer/ Winch man was placed on a fishing boat the cage was lowered to him and an injured fisherman was placed in it.
The Swimmer /Winch man was recovered to the Helo the Winch op then lowered the empty hook to the deck and one of the crew from the fishing boat attached it to the cage it was winched clear and with the help of the Winch man pulled into the Helo.
I’m just clad we don’t use it
Wonder how many times it’s gone wrong.
R1
Max old chap, you were the one who took the thread off track with your burning and somewhat selfish desire to bin seconds not me:)
As to the rescue basket - talk to guys involved in Katrina and you will see it has its place in terms of speed of rescue. It does require that the casualty is capable of getting in and holding on but if they are uninjured that shouldn't be too much of a problem. The main snag is weight - the speed advantage is offset by the fact that more than 2 adults, especially soaking wet, may exceed the 600lb limit on the winch.
On the down side, lowering it to a group of survivors may result in a free-for-all which would be impossible to control and placing it into confined areas is certainly going to be more difficult than deploying a winchman.
Keys to precision winching - good patter and a decent hover scan - I suspect the quoted accuracy of the GPS based hold will be better than a doppler hover but still not accurate enough (are they using DGPS to get 1m accuracy then?)
We already carry infant lift bags Max, catch up with the program:)
BRASSEMUP
30th Jul 2007, 05:58
I watched a program the other day where the free swimmer/ Winch man was placed on a fishing boat the cage was lowered to him and an injured fisherman was placed in it.
Looked pretty good on the Guardian with Kevin Costner!:ok:
Max Contingency
30th Jul 2007, 07:34
We already carry infant lift bags Max, catch up with the program
Apologies Crab, I wasn't aware that the CG S61 that attended also carries infant lift bags.
Again, a question to those that were there. Would Human Cargo Systems have assisted? Although not yet used in the UK, they look like they were almost designed for this sort of thing.
Rescue1
30th Jul 2007, 09:03
Quote
"Apologies Crab, I wasn't aware that the CG S61 that attended also carries infant lift bags."
Yes they do:)
Cpt_Pugwash
30th Jul 2007, 09:44
Invented in the UK, I think. Lt.Cdr Sproule RN IIRC.
http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0026957&size=M
Edited to correct rank and add link.
leopold bloom
30th Jul 2007, 10:10
Based on my, tragic, experience I would advise you to steer clear of them unless you have a full time rescue swimmer to go into the water. Using them to take people off decks is particularly hazardous. The only time a rescue basket should be used, IMHO, without a rescue swimmer is to take survivors out of contaminated water. Steer clear, a very bad idea.:=
Max - I wonder if your PMA information is as woefully out of date as your operational info.....we have carried the Child Rescue Valise (cracking name Gromit) for many months and, out of interest, it was used during the Gloucester floods to save a man's life. He was spotted by the RadOp being carried along by the floodwater; unfortunately the winchman had just been deployed and was attending to a casualty inside a caravan. The quick-thinking Radop deployed the CRV and pattered the aircraft downstream of the man in the water who managed to grab hold and was winched to safety. Pat on the back for those involved:)
You might also like to know that despite your mean-spirited assertion that once or twice a year isn't sufficient to warrant 2nd standby, they carried out many rescues and much vital assistance during the flood period and were a very welcome sight to both the emergency services and the public.
Max Contingency
30th Jul 2007, 12:29
You might also like to know that despite your mean-spirited assertion that once or twice a year isn't sufficient to warrant 2nd standby, they carried out many rescues and much vital assistance during the flood period and were a very welcome sight to both the emergency services and the public.
Crab - No one is disputing the above comments. If you pause your personal attacks long enough to read my posts, I am trying to point out that the ARCC have 6 X 1st standby aircraft available to go to Gloucester that will get there quicker than a mil 2nd standby. Just because we do something today does not make it the most efficient way of doing it tommorow.
Max - more simplistic, uninformed tosh - the weather at the time was 2 -300' cloudbase in heavy rain so the East Coast aircraft had a devil of a job getting there - Chivenor's second cab was there before them.
Just because the computer draws straight lines and gives non-weather affected theoretical response times, does not make it so in the real event. If it had happened in Winter it would have been worse since only the closest would have been able to respond at all as an IF option wouldn't have been available.
And BTW you are the one who keeps disputing the value of seconds - if you had your way they wouldn't have existed and therefore wouldn't have helped people.