View Full Version : SARH to go
SASless
7th Aug 2008, 23:32
Bootie,
Why is it me thinks crowbars and other mechanical devices will be required to shift some of the SAR folks to (Heaven forbid....) mere combat operational duties in the 'Stan?
There will be some real need for extra strenght chin straps should all that come to pass.
It is noble work the SAR folks do....but it is not like the billets were ever meant to be for homesteaders as it is only part of the RAF.
so maybe my qualities of being loyal to my employer, a team player, proud of my job and not too shabby a SAR pilot
Crab, you just hit the nail on the head. Remove RAF, RN, CIV from SAR and you have it in one.
If not Chinook rated ,might the SeaKing crews not be rostered to the SeaKing 4s in 'Stan...cross cutting services and all that..Experience flying the Carson Blades might come in handy !
Bootneck
8th Aug 2008, 14:28
The SAR King has been offered two overseas trips. One to a hot and dusty clime, requiring lots of spare undies, or G'zunders as our Glaswegian brethren would say.
The second is a trip up north to the dreaded civilian types.
Both options holds terrible consequences for Crab. (Or quincequonces as the late Spike Milligan was fond of saying). In both cases his eyes would be opened, in the former his eyes would be co-ordinated with a darker orifice.
The book is open. I bet he doesn't avail himself of either offer; preferring to remain behind with his trusty dog, and labrador. ;):E:E:E:E:E
IrishSarBoy
8th Aug 2008, 16:05
shouldn't laugh, then again :}:}
Bootneck and others - it is particularly amusing that you stereotype all SARboys as stayathome chickensh8ts who would rather stick pencils up their noses than go to a war zone. There are plenty who have done their bit and plenty more who would jump at the chance to go.
It's strange that only those who are not eligible to go to war are the ones bravely suggesting that we do :ugh:
Sven Sixtoo
8th Aug 2008, 18:53
Quoting "Irish SAR Boy" from another thread:
As for being shot at, um, no thanks.
Shouldn't laugh ...
Bootneck
8th Aug 2008, 19:05
It's strange that only those who are not eligible to go to war are the ones bravely suggesting that we do
Ah. The old eligibility ploy. Very good. I must remember that when they recruit for the Home Guard.
Crab, 'tis only a few mild japes at your expense. If you can't deal with our incoming how the hell will you deal with Mohammed's?
Crab arrives at Camp Bastion and is directed to his Yurt.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v77/Robiz/Cartoons/Crusaders.jpg
2STROPS
8th Aug 2008, 21:43
I have been reading this thread for some time and what seems to come across is that those who support the civil side of SAR and who are always having a go at Crab seem to be a mean spirited bunch who take great delight in inferring that Crab and his fellow RAF SAR crews would shirk the responsibility of going sandy side.
The comments about slippers and pipes seem to come up often, mainly from people who don't know what they are talking about. Many SAR crews have done their bit in the SH force and are rightly getting a spell away from the constant deployments.
The rumours are that the civil SAR bases are not particularly fun places to be with infighting, politics and resentment that CHC took over the contract from Bristow’s. Crab may well do well to stay away from such places!
While rivalry and good humoured banter has its place I think some are taking things too far. As has been said al SAR crews are there for one purpose and that is to save life.
2strops
Fareastdriver
9th Aug 2008, 01:04
When the Falklands war broke out I can still remember the wide-eyed panic in the Bristow crew room when all the recently resigned from the RN pilots were discussing whether they would be called up.
Being ex Royal Air Force and English I have had a fair amount of 'japes at my expense'. I have noticed that in Scotland, Australia and inter-service gatherings that any 'japes at their expense' are returned with the threat of a bunch of fives.
I see that Bootneck recently posted a series of pictures of 332s being unloaded at Hong Kong in 1984. I would suggest that he knows damned all about the sandy side, the same as me.
SASless
9th Aug 2008, 02:04
Or as in one of my crew rooms....The Retired Army pilot who got recalled to active duty....while his four serving Territorial Army (Army National Guard ) mates stayed at home guarding the Homefront.:uhoh:
SASLess...they won't be doing that for much longer now Gordon's decided he doesn't need the TA squadron any more !
Bootneck
9th Aug 2008, 13:57
Crab, 'tis only a few mild japes at your expense
The primary requisite for any service is a sense of humour. No, FED, you are correct, I know nada about Afghanistan or Iraq, apart from what I'm told by returning service personnel. I'm the lucky one. The fighting troops are experiencing more in a week than I, and my contempories experienced in years. That is of course another discussion.
My contention is that Crab does himself no favours by extolling his own virtues while denigrating those who were service personnel, but now work for a civilian contractor or those who have never taken the shilling. There's that grubby pair of words, 'civilian contractor.' If we can forget that the crews wear slightly different kit and receive their take home pay via differing routes, then perhaps Crab could accept that all the crews do a magnificent job, in conditions where most of us during our flying careers would rather remain chained to a coffee machine. There is no situation where one deserves more praise or kudos than the other, even if there's a disparity about that ancient nugget NVG.
It has been stated previously that the yacht crew or mountain walker don't care if you wear green, blue or even grey, they are happy to see your winch op descending to them. I contend that the civilian structure stands on an equal foot with their service team members. :ok:
Bertie Thruster
9th Aug 2008, 15:48
...............the job might get done professionally by whoever does it but there is only one reason why any civilian contractor pilot has a job..............
Bootneck
9th Aug 2008, 19:19
Agreed Bertie.
A divide should not exist, yet it appears to be there. All parties are paid by the Govt, be they civilian or military. There is nothing inherently wrong in providing a service if none would exist without that service provider.
Would there be a military SAR unit on Sumburgh or Stornoway if BHL had not taken the opportunity to man the contract? I don't think so. Surely the question that must be answered is, "Do the civilian contractors adhere to and fulfil their contract?" I believe they do, and many people have cause to thank them for doing so.
Second question. "Could the services supply and crew the same stations"? I think not, purely due to overstretch and equipment limitations i.e. lack of aircraft.
spamalot
9th Aug 2008, 20:23
Well done bootneck
At last an outbreak of telling it as it is, the survivor does not give a cats whiskers if you blue, green, pink, yellow, red and white etc
all they care about is staying alive!
Having been on both sides of this argument for 25 years, all i have is the upmost respect for any crew that do this job
regards
spam
Fareastdriver
10th Aug 2008, 09:31
Having a jape at your expense.
This thread as degenerated in to a mocking, slanging match over a little thing that the RAF may require to borrow SAR pilots to meet its commitments in the Near East. Most of the bile has been directed at one person and the standard of the comments are infantile.
I don’t know Crabb but he has taken an unreasonable amount of stick over something that he has no control over. He is a member of a group of services that are responsible for the defence of the United Kingdom and the teeth behind the British Government’s foreign policy. As such he will, and will expect to be, sent to any part of the world where his services are required, AND HE WILL DO SO WITHOUT HESITATION.
Crab arrives at Camp Bastion and is directed to his Yurt.
Even if he has to go to Mongolia.
I did it when I was in the services. Now, as a civilian pilot, I can tell them to get knotted.
Take another hypothetical scenario.
CHC have been awarded a sudden contract in the Sudan for four S92s. The contractual requirement is that the captains must have a minimum of 500 hours on type. To meet this requirement CHC is going to have to pull twelve captains off their SAR contract and replace them with newly recruited direct entry captains. You would hear the wailing all around the coast of the UK.
I wonder what their reaction would be if they received the same stick as they give Crabb.
Bootneck - I don't believe a divide does exist - those that have taken my comments on the future of SAR as a criticism of the professional competence of civilian crews are often not in SAR themselves or have wrongly interpreted my viewpoint.
Your comment about fulfilling the contract is exactly my concern over SARH - if the contract is poorly written or monitored then the contractors lawyers can have a field day saving money but fulfilling the contract. I had to endure this at Middle Wallop with appalling Lynx serviceability and Bristows management arguing the toss over what was and what wasn't a serviceable aircraft, failing to deliver what the Army were expecting but incredibly meeting (theoretically) the terms of the contract. Everyone suffered, including the Bristows engineers, except the management who hid behind contractual definitions as an excuse for not delivering.
This sort of thing is made worse when there are 2 or more contractors and sub-contractors - they can each blame the others for failing to meet KPIs while the customer gets screwed.
Tallsar explained quite clearly why the MCA got the bases it did but if they were not there and the need for them was established, then of course the military could provide - we would just spread ourselves even more thinly on the ground without recourse to EU employment law, CAA maximum flying hours or the H&SE to defend ourselves with.
If you don't think the RAF has the best all-round SAR capability (max range, NVG, FLIR turret and almost 360 radar) then you don't know SAR at all. It is that capability that must not be degraded in any future contract but has still to be matched by civilian service providers (and the RN in terms of FLIR).
If the promises of future capability by contractors were always reliable we would have a fantastic Nimrod MR4, Mk 3 Chinooks, a Bowman radio that worked and an S92 that could do 300nm RoA.
Whilst the casualty won't care who comes to rescue him, he might care if he doesn't get rescued because the required capability was 'taken at risk' or subject to contractual negotiations or planned to be implemented at a future date.
Is that clear enough?
MyTarget
10th Aug 2008, 10:42
CHC have been awarded a sudden contract in the Sudan for four S92s. The contractual requirement is that the captains must have a minimum of 500 hours on type. To meet this requirement CHC is going to have to pull twelve captains off their SAR contract and replace them with newly recruited direct entry captains. You would hear the wailing all around the coast of the UK.
If this happened and its a big if, then CHC have more S92 drivers then just the SAR pilots.
And yes i know its just a senario! But unlike the military we can say NO!
Because we are civvies who didn't sign up for queen and country.
Sven Sixtoo
10th Aug 2008, 10:44
Quote Crab:
This sort of thing is made worse when there are 2 or more contractors and sub-contractors - they can each blame the others for failing to meet KPIs while the customer gets screwed.
I woud suggest that the problem isn't the customer getting screwed. It's the classic situation when the military, and I suspect government departments generally, enter contracts: that the customer and the end-user are two separate groups. The customer can be perfectly happy - he goes home at 5pm with a clear desk. The end-user knows that he is being shafted and the country ripped off. Given that the end-user has no means of telling the bloke with the cheque book not to sign, and commits a military offence by whistleblowing, this sort of thing is almost a gift to contractors. Some are entirely honourable; a significant minority are not.
And in SAR the real end-user just sinks out of sight beneath the waves.
Bootneck
10th Aug 2008, 16:32
FED, most of my 'bile' was directed at the underdog with my tongue firmly wedged in my cheek. I'm delighted that the good old system of fair play and support for the above mentioned member still exists. My memories of fearless chaps, devoted to the cause, willing to hurl themselves at anything that is sent their way extends way back, but somehow didn't include Cranwell's finest, having greater faith in a junglie getting me where I expected to be dropped off, rather than 'Hoskins' depositing me and mine across a border.
The last sentence in your paragraph had me chuckling again. Be honest. If you were warmly and firmly ensconced at Chivenor, wouldn't you perhaps raise just one eyebrow if the drafting nerd forwarded an offer of a posting to Afghanistan. In theory no. In practice I reckon a few teddy bears would meet Mr Steiff's repair team. :)
A quick response to Crab.
The military was always covered by civilian law including these days employment law, the CAA will allow pilots to fly and work longer days than I ever had to in service with the exception of NI, and H&S can work to your advantage, safety, no accidents either with aircraft or ground operations.
we would just spread ourselves even more thinly on the ground without recourse to EU employment law, CAA maximum flying hours or the H&SE to defend ourselves with.
I don’t know Crabb but he has taken an unreasonable amount of stick over something that he has no control over. He is a member of a group of services that are responsible for the defence of the United Kingdom and the teeth behind the British Government’s foreign policy. As such he will, and will expect to be, sent to any part of the world where his services are required, AND HE WILL DO SO WITHOUT HESITATION.
Crab, are you going to accept 267.4's very kind offer? Post number 246.
your inside lane seems to be ahead of the rest of us on the SARH situation,maybe you would like to enlighten the readership on your source of information.
On the S92 SAR variant you have no idea of the aircrafts capability and more to the point seem to want to remain ignorant despte fellow SAR crews invitation to enlighten you by a welcome visit to an operational base.
We up north will even fund your visit,the glove is down.
Followed by.
267.4 I am not at liberty to reveal my sources, I sometimes receive information from various people that I cannot repeat and only allude to on this forum but trust me when I say that I don't make it up. Send me the tickets and I'll be there
Flights to Glasgow and Edinburgh depart from Exeter. :ok:
Fareastdriver
10th Aug 2008, 23:26
rather than 'Hoskins' depositing me and mine across a border.
In the mid-sixties less than five miles from where from I am now the Navy managed to deposit an entire Commando in the Peoples Republic of China when they missed Hong Kong.
From time immemorial all three services have been guilty of dropping off, bombing or shelling the wrong place and no doubt they will continue to do so.
It's unfortunate but the tone of your last post suggests that even after twenty-five years or more out of the service you are still carrying a chip on your shoulder about the crabs.
I thought that we had all grown out of that.
As a final appendum, because I am backing out of this now because I have better things to do, it is obvious that I have been in the wrong job. There is no way that I as an offshore pilot I could find the time to compose the great tomes on this thread.
Now you are sounding desperate Bootneck - you have resorted to Lost's infantile 'cut and paste with comments'.
As you show, I replied the very next post that I would go when they sent me the tickets (shift plot, SAROps and Falklands plot permitting). I will have to take leave to do this (which I am happy to do) so it is not without some sacrifice on my part.
Your chip about crabs is so large I am surprised you can get in a cockpit with it on your shoulder:)
Bootneck
11th Aug 2008, 10:50
you have resorted to Lost's infantile 'cut and paste with comments'
Not desperate, just trying to get a response to points raised, a standard forum method of referring to discussions previously posted, thereby retaining them for all to see what we are wittering about. .
Anyway, take a day off, travel north and meet the guys on the islands. Their hospitality and zeal should allay any fears you may harbour about their abilities. Then let us know what you think about civilian SAR. :ok:
As for disliking Crab, nah, it's wonderful with a hint of garlic and lemon. ;)
Keep on going Bootneck, you are making yourself look almost as clever as you did on the 'something we can all agree on' thread:ugh:
soarer123
15th Aug 2008, 19:10
Just to put the record straight, the Stornoway S92 did land at Glasgow airport following a fire alarm activation on one of the engines, however, it did not land until it had completed its task on ONE ENGINE, this task being out of area once again covering for the lack of MOD SAR Helicopter coverage, they all break down folks:=
On the training side, I have heard that those colleagues at Valley have fallen behind drastically with their ongoing training due to the lack of available aircraft,surely this cannot be good for either UKSAR or indeed the individuals concerned.
To put those people in the know (in this case not in the know) it was not just a lowly Sqn Ldr who provided expert advice and guidance from the MOD to the MCA for the interim contract, there were four "experts" from the RAF, from differing disciplines giving advice.
The 66 military that will be left in SAR-H post 2012 was predicated by senior RAF/RN personnel, your own kind have sold you out, not faceless civil servants or those employed in Civ SAR. Why were you sold down the river, not because of your skills/work ethics or personal hygiene, purely and simply because the majority of your workload is assisting civilians and the fact that your skills are needed on the front line.
Can I also just point out that the majority of the moaning from the military side comes from the RAF, the RN are obviously quite content in the main with the way things are progressing. I would suggest that the RN probably has more to moan about as those in SAR-H will now have to have detachments away in the FI where they did not before.
The last I heard, it costs between 250 and 300 million a year for the MOD to provide the service they currently provide, multiply by 25 or 30 and strangely enough the cost is smack bang in the middle of the projected cost (as stated in the OJEU) for SAR-H, funny thing that:confused: so I'm thinking no change for the taxpayer then, same or better service (time will tell) for no extra cost, bargain!!!!!
Look forward to meeting you Crab when you come begging for work post 2012, unless of course you enjoy the weather too much in the sunnier places of the world you are likely to visit as a front liner.
I see the main reason for all the bitching is because some (not all) who have done 6 or 7 tours in SAR concurrently with the SARF will now have to actually do what they are paid to do, as I did, and have to fight for queen and country.......
Lost at Sea
15th Aug 2008, 22:43
Now you are sounding desperate Bootneck - you have resorted to Lost's infantile 'cut and paste with comments'.
Ahhh Crab are you trying to wind me up??? :ooh: The only reason you dislike me cutting and pasting your remarks is because it shows that you can't hold an argument together for more than a few months without contridicting yourself in your sad and vindictive attempts to destroy civy SAR. :)
I also note that when Faffner Shim cut and pasted my quotes with comments you didn't find that infantile but maybe that was because he's one of your boys and was insulting me so that's all very acceptable to you the contradiction king of Rotorheads!!!
And let's face it nobody really believes your arguments are because you want to improve SAR for the future because because only about a month ago you were suggesting putting new blades on old sea kings!!!:ugh:
Your arguments are all about you keeping your cosy little position in your cosy little SAR unit in your cosy little world and nothing to do with anything other than that! I don't mind that but at least have the balls to admit it. :)
Keep on spinning... it must be time for the RAF to have another celebration you've had 90 years old, the spitfire, what's next the catering department number of cakes baked? How come the Senior Service and the Army just get on with the job without all the fanfare? I bet you don't answer that one! ;)
SARREMF
16th Aug 2008, 22:32
Oh Dear.
This is all getting very tedious. Can we stop with the moaning at each other now please?
Fareastdriver
17th Aug 2008, 06:07
keeping your cosy little position in your cosy little SAR unit in your cosy little world
Purely as a matter of interest. How many Bristow pilots resigned from Bristow and joined CHC when the contracts changed over. Could they not have gone to another of Bristow's operations?
Not that I am knocking them. I did a similar sort of thing myself.
Decks
17th Aug 2008, 08:38
Is it not true that in general the military provide what they happen to have available where as the civvies provide what the contract tells them to provide....? In ten years time there'll be some chap aptly named FAB@SAAAVN who will be telling us why the Merlin is the only way to go in terms of SAR and why the S98 is a load of ****e!!! I would not like to see the military back in SAR in Ireland but only because I want to keep my job and not coz they wouldnt do an excellent job. They did so in the past.
The service we provide in Ireland is the one requested by the Dept as deemed required by the Dept and its band of advisors. We'll give them what they want provided they're willing to pay for it. The constraints put on us by the authorities.. IAA, EASA PHECC etc are done so in the public interest and so our response is measured correctly. IMHO our manuals are very sensibly written and in reality forgiveness is far easier to get than permission.
As far as servicability goes, rates are extremely high but we'll not rest on our laurels.... That servicability record is down to many factors including a great aircraft and excellent engineers....and those servicability rates are transparent.
Crab you're drawing continuous fire not because of the merits or otherwise of the RAF service but because of the arrogant tone of your posts. I would love to do a year stint at an RAF or RN or USCG base...I'm sure I would learn tons and be a more rounded pilot as a result. There have been lots of ex service personell who have come thru the civvie SAR bases in Ireland...some were (and still are) excellent pilots and crew.But the best ones were always the ones who came with the right attitude, confident of their abilities and an open mind that they might learn something new!!!
Safe flying to all and if I need picking up you can fly whatever colour or type of aircraft your taxpayer has provided...!!! :)
SARREMF
19th Aug 2008, 13:02
Well said
Now thats more like it!
Crabb, Bootneck, play nice!
Senior Pilot
20th Aug 2008, 23:15
Last I looked, the thread title is SARH to go???????
Not "let's attack each other and get personal" :=
thorpey
21st Aug 2008, 08:28
Thank god for that SP, this thread has got very tiresome, seems to be the same everytime SAR is mentioned!
MyTarget
17th Sep 2008, 13:05
Just heard via the smoke signals..............one of the big players has pulled out of the bid!:eek:
leopold bloom
17th Sep 2008, 13:11
Congratulations, 5 minutes from official announcement and it's on Prune.:ok:
Pink Panther
17th Sep 2008, 13:28
So, who is it ?:}
leopold bloom
17th Sep 2008, 13:45
UK Air Rescue:{
Pink Panther
17th Sep 2008, 14:26
Really :eek:
SARREMF
17th Sep 2008, 14:49
Yep, withdrawn from SAR-H competition.
So was this because the Merlin was too expensive once the 12 base option was selected?
How much has this bid actually cost the companies?
Spanish Waltzer
17th Sep 2008, 15:37
Could someone just remind those of us not quite so in the know who this now leaves in the running (including the companies and/or proposed aircraft involved in any consortia)? Thank you
SW
leopold bloom
17th Sep 2008, 15:51
Could someone just remind those of us not quite so in the know who this now leaves in the running (including the companies and/or proposed aircraft involved in any consortia)? Thank
CHC with the S92/AW139 combo and LM/VT with EC225/AW139 as far as I know. :ok:
detgnome
17th Sep 2008, 20:22
Anybody (SARREMF perhaps) care to shed some light on the reasons behind Bristows/AW withdrawl from the SARH bid?
Bets on CHC getting it now? Will it turn out to be a poison chalice of a contract?
leopold bloom
17th Sep 2008, 20:41
Anybody (SARREMF perhaps) care to shed some light on the reasons behind Bristows/AW withdrawl from the SARH bid?
Bets on CHC getting it now? Will it turn out to be a poison chalice of a contract?
A straightforward commercial decision according to what I heard, it's not an earner. I wouldn't discount LM/VT too quickly, they are big organisations with considerable financial resources and some novel ideas.
Pink Panther
17th Sep 2008, 21:37
Has there been a press release by UK air rescue in relation to them pulling out of the SARH bid.:confused:
SARREMF
18th Sep 2008, 02:05
Yes.
Why would I shed light on why Bristow, SERCO, FBH and AW decided to pull out? But If I were to speculate, I think Leopard Bloom has it about right.
leopold bloom
18th Sep 2008, 07:17
Leopard Bloom
You've changed my spots!:=
So that leaves aircraft which don't have the range/capacity to match the Sea King. So much for 'no lesser capability'!
What else will be compromised and fudged as this competition for a contract, which still has to prove itself value for money, pushes on to its rather protracted conclusion?
Whilst the casualty doesn't care what colour helicopter comes to the rescue, they might be concerned that contractual shortcomings and compromises might mean that no-one comes at all because a reduction in capability was accepted at risk.
Spanish Waltzer
18th Sep 2008, 08:08
Whilst the casualty doesn't care what colour helicopter comes to the rescue, they might be concerned that... no-one comes at all because a reduction in capability was accepted at risk.
...and the difference between this and using ageing Sea Kings with increasingly poor unserviceability rates is what exactly?
Oh and before you say it... Carson blades and a new gearbox are not the gold plated solution to the causes of all unserviceabilities - ask the Navy.
turningnburning
18th Sep 2008, 11:31
yes the worst fears are proved right - UK Air Rescue have pulled out of SAR-H - just months before deselection to 2 final bids it has been 'realised' by the UK AR team that the contract will not turn a profit.
formal announcement due today/ tomorrow am.
this now leaves the real fear that CHC/ Thales will become he front runner - argggghhh! IPT - you have been warned. :mad:
tnb
SARSUM
18th Sep 2008, 11:42
Crab said:
"So that leaves aircraft which don't have the range/capacity to match the Sea King. So much for 'no lesser capability'!"
Last time I looked the RAF Sea King needs to loose around 600 lbs of role equipment to allow you to put full fuel in it and get the 252 milse ROA claimed.
With the Aux tanks fitted as standard to the S92 you can fly a ROA of 252 nm with a genuine 30 mins on scene without removing any role equipment; ie no strip lists and no delay in take off to strip out seats rad shack and so on.
Sea King or S92:ok: you pick!!!
HAL9000
18th Sep 2008, 15:19
SARSUM,
Does fitting the aux tanks have any detrimental operational effect on the S-92.
As for ever decreasing Sea King serviceability, can anyone provide the stats to prove this or otherwise?
At least the SAR-H pantomime horse only has two people inside it now so at least they can have an end each.
HAL
TorqueOfTheDevil
18th Sep 2008, 15:41
HAL,
Accurate figures for Sea King serviceability trends would presumably be available via a Freedom of Information request.
Although Sea King serviceability is far from perfect, the problems are to a large degree offset by having 2 aircraft at each base - so it's still very rare that neither aircraft is able to respond, and even now, after 30 years of service, both are frequently available at once (as in the Morpeth floods, attended by both Boulmer Sea Kings only 12 days ago). I would strongly suspect that having one new aircraft instead of 2 old ones would not improve availability of the 1st Standby aircraft - we've already seen the problems experienced by the S-92 in the last couple of months (and this isn't a dig at CHC/MCA/anyone else - just a statement of fact).
There has been a dip in availability this year while the new SKIOS engineers bed in - the problems have apparently been worst at Valley, due it seems to a lack of personnel. The same problem beset BRAMA when Hawk engineering was first contractorised, but the situation improved as time went on, and one hopes the same will occur with the Sea King contract.
TOTD
SARsum - nice idea but the S92 doesn't actually have a long range fuel tank fit that is cleared for use. Not only that but if it is in permanently you lose cabin seating capacity and if you have to put it in for a job, it takes so long you will never make your response time.
By comparison, the role equipment on a Sea King that is not needed for the job is easily removed (generally the Jock's Box and superfluous medical kit) and you still get 250 nm RoA, the seating capacity for 17 survivors, a minimum of 30 mins on scene and a comfortable fuel margin (usually about 45 mins extra flight time) to boot because of the way we are required to do our fuel planning.
The reason the Carson bladed Navy cabs are having problems is because they should be fitted with the non-folding head and the bi-filar vibration absorbers which would improve the track and balance issues presently being experienced. However, someone must have baulked at the cost and the Navy got half the job (nothing new there in Military procurement terms).
Spanish Waltzer - the Sea Kings may be old (although the 3As are only 12 )but they are still very capable and fly far more hours than the equivalent civilian aircraft in the same role. Our serviceability might not be perfect but nor is anyones and, as has been mentioned, we do have a second aircraft at each of the 6 flights plus 3 at the OCU - not to mention the ones presently stuck in the congestion of Fleetlands and those undergoing HUMS fitting.
One thing I must correct is my use of the phrase 'no lesser capability' which should read 'at least as good as the current service' as per the IPT statement.
On present form the phrase 'fat f888ing chance' is how I would rate the chances of SARH actually complying with the statement.
267.4FWD
18th Sep 2008, 19:53
Crab obviously has all the answers,his 50,s design is technicaly ahead of Skorskys latest kit,the S92 cannot be improved on,therefore should not be considered as a serious contender for SARH.
The offer of a fact finding visit is still on ,pm me to arrange suitable dates,i think you wil be impressed,certain memebers of your establishment past and present seem to think so.
Bristow out of the bid,coincidence ,with the present USA financial situation,i think so.OLOG(BRISTOW)/LEHMAN too closely tied,so much for corporate governance and all that stuff,tough times ahead?
If it has taken a year to work out the contract is not worth the investment,says it all,how much did that excercise cost.
BHL was a good company,all it is now is an extension of the GOM mindset using the past safe name of a pioneering aviation,led by a bunch of non aviation suits,feeding off an excellent brand name-shame!
calli
18th Sep 2008, 20:31
The S92 does have long range fuel tanks that are cleared for use...
steve_oc
18th Sep 2008, 20:52
Calli you beat me to it, I was about to say that.
Steve OC and Calli - what has changed in the last couple of months then? The last information posted here by S92 operators was that the tanks were not cleared for use in UK - if this is not now the case then please post the details of how long they take to fit, how much seating capacity is lost and whether or not they are NOW fitted as standard on the Stornoway and Sumburgh cabs.
267.4 fwd - I know the S92 is a good aircraft and should be 50 years better than the Sea King(despite being based on the Blackhawk which is hardly a spring chicken) but it is not without its problems. New aircraft for SAR is everyones wish but it has to be the right aircraft so that capability is not lost.
Just because it is new and shiny doesn't make it better. The Sea King still demonstrates the best all-round capability for a SAR aircraft - your new toys should be exceeding that capability in all areas but they don't.
Hilife
19th Sep 2008, 05:53
Hansard Report - 6 Nov 2006:
Nick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of (a) the overall military helicopter fleet and (b) the helicopter fleet deployed in (i) Iraq and (ii) Afghanistan are considered (A) fit for service and (B) battle-worthy, broken down by helicopter type. [98556]
Mr. Ingram: The MOD does not use the terms fit for service and battle-worthy in describing helicopters. We use the term “fit for purpose”, which means those that are available, reliable, airworthy and capable of carrying out their planned missions on a given date.
Helicopter type Fit for purpose (Percentage)
Sea King MK 3/3A - 53%
Although this figure does not denote ‘On-State’, it does suggest - for whatever reason - that 47% (12 Platforms) of the MK3/MK3A fleet are either unserviceable, undergoing maintenance or used as Xmas tree’s to support current OPS.
Will not the winner be expected to deliver 98% ‘On-State’ readiness with about the same number of airframes as the RAF currently operates, but for all 12 bases not just the current 6 operated by the RAF.
Although the ‘Queen of the Skies’ (after the Chinook that is), the venerable Sea King is clearly not the way forward - with or without an X-Box 360 cockpit and composite planks and neither is any other old bird likely to fall over in the wind.
Tractor_Driver
19th Sep 2008, 06:29
Interesting that, since they announced that they were pulling out, Bristow shares have risen by nearly 10%.
TD
chcoffshore
19th Sep 2008, 06:37
Crab!:eek:
The last information posted here by S92 operators was that the tanks were not cleared for use in UK - if this is not now the case then please post the details of how long they take to fit, how much seating capacity is lost and whether or not they are NOW fitted as standard on the Stornoway and Sumburgh cabs.
Didn't you know? You must be out of the loop! Oh yes, you were never in it...........:ooh:
Special 25
19th Sep 2008, 08:30
Heard today that Bristow have pulled out of the bidding process for SAR Harmonisation. No details, simply that.
Jumped onto PPrune to find out whether it was a commercial, financial, strategical or political decision, but nothing here. Anyone know why they would do this and presumably leave the contract open to CHC ??
Chcoffshore - and the purpose of your last post was.........?????
It certainly didn't answer the question and as an offshore operator you are exactly where in the SAR loop?
Hilife - as your info suggests the 53% figure is a snapshot and not representative of the 1st standby availability which is still running at circa 96%.
The winner will be required to maintain 98% availability of 1st standby at all 12 flights (depending on how the 66 mil pers are distributed) not just the 4 presently operated under civilian contract - but how many aircraft it needs to achieve that is up to the winning bidder.
It doesn't take a genius to see that only having one aircraft at each flight will mean instant non-availability if it goes u/s and that will attract penalties as well as affect the provision of service.
Most of those championing new aircraft for SAR seem to be saying that it is OK to compromise the quality of the service because the aircraft are newer.
TorqueOfTheDevil
19th Sep 2008, 15:12
Helicopter type Fit for purpose (Percentage)
Sea King MK 3/3A - 53%
Given that the RAF has 25 Sea Kings and 6 SAR Flts, even 25% "Fit for purpose" would mean 1sts available at each UK base. We only need 17 (or 68% fit for purpose) to have 1sts and 2nds at each base and 3 for the OCU and 2 in the Falklands, so 53% isn't too bad. In fact 53% (13 aircraft) would mean one each for OCU and Falklands and both aircraft serviceable at 5 of the 6 UK flights - not bad at all.
What the more partisan posters from mil and civ camps on this thread have yet to acknowledge is that neither 2 old aircraft nor 1 new one per base is an ideal solution - the gold standard surely would be to have 2 new and modern aircraft. Anyone holding their breath?
leopold bloom
19th Sep 2008, 16:51
Heard today that Bristow have pulled out of the bidding process for SAR Harmonisation. No details, simply that.
Jumped onto PPrune to find out whether it was a commercial, financial, strategical or political decision, but nothing here. Anyone know why they would do this and presumably leave the contract open to CHC ??
Wake up at the back!;)
Artifical Horizon
19th Sep 2008, 17:08
You know what is really needed on Pprune is a genuine unbiased view of both sides of the argument. Then we could all draw a valid conclusion about the best way forward with the best possible aircraft. It is of course more likely that the sky will be filled with flying pigs!!!! I wonder what sort of radius of action they can make. There would be of course concerns as to where to attach the hoist!!
Torque - you are quite right but that gold standard isn't affordable within the present budget. The main reason AW seem to have pulled out is that to provide all the aircraft, SAR cover, training et al would have left no money as profit and therefore not commercially viable.
The ridiculous comedy/tragedy whereby the number of mil personnel became fixed at 66 is symptomatic of the problems - more mil personnel would mean less cost but the process has gone so far that any further slippage will start to impinge on the end of the MCA interim contract, opening a whole new can of worms. Thus, even though a possible solution is available and the errors made have been recognised by those in power, we will continue on the same path because no-one is brave enough to say no - possibly because it opens the doors to possible litigation since bidders could have submitted different bids had they actually been free to suggest numbers for the mil/civ balance.
Strangely there doesn't ever seem to have been a 'do nothing option' case put forward in order to show the cost of what we presently have and therefore the value for money that the SARH contract would provide to the taxpayer;)
check
19th Sep 2008, 17:18
Don't be surprised if the other bidders don't pull out. Fixed price for 30 years, no escalation built in. Industry cannot plan 3 years ahead let alone 30!
Don't take this as gospel, but it's doing the rounds.
JKnife
19th Sep 2008, 18:23
Link to item in today's Aberdeen Press & Journal:
Bristow out of the running for rescue contract - Press & Journal (http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/846891)
Rumours heard yesterday were that the contract had too many penalty clauses in it and that it was financially unviable and totally restrictive. UKAR apparently came to the decision to pull out after two days of talks with MOD and MCA. "Financial suicide for the operator that takes it on" was also another rumour doing the rounds.
Wonder how the RAF would work it if they had to comply with the contract terms if that is the case?
Staticdroop
20th Sep 2008, 16:19
No profit to be made, to tight on time to get all in place, penalty clauses to big, revealing of proprietary info, no escalation of costs for the term of the contract, what savvy company would want it? It's a company breaker.
Sounds as if the mil want to keep it and are making it as unattractive as possible.
Spanish Waltzer
20th Sep 2008, 17:29
So lets take this one stage further. Theoretically there is nothing stopping the other 2 consortia from reaching the same conclusions and pulling the plug themselves.
Should this occur then as I see it there are 2 options.
1. Mil retain their present commitment to UK SAR and the CHC 'interim' contract is extended ad infinitum. Crab @ gets his way & says told you so but significant mil money would need to be found at a time when every penny is heading to the sandpits.
2. SARH gets delayed by another 'few' years, maintain the staus quo and restart the bidding process from scratch if any company would look seriously at it??
Are either viable??
Max Contingency
20th Sep 2008, 17:40
Whatever your politics on this one we need to remember that Crab is not an RAF spokesperson. THE MOD DO NOT WANT SAR. There has been no support for retaining SAR above that of gp capt.
The mil have not made this "as unatractive as possible". The contract has been put together by a joint MOD and MCA procurement team, heavily relying on legal and financial advisors. Just because they may have put together a contract that does not allow industry to hook itself up to the Government 'cash cow' should be seen a positive thing by any tax payer who has witnessed the previous PFI disasters.
In a situation where too many or all bidders pull the plug, they can usually be persuaded to re-enter the bidding (to ensure a healthy competition) through an agreement to meet their bid costs.
In a situation where too many or all bidders pull the plug, they can usually be persuaded to re-enter the bidding (to ensure a healthy competition) through an agreement to meet their bid costs.
What good is that if you happen to win the contract (you'd already pulled out of) and then lose money over the next 30 years ?!?
Max Contingency
20th Sep 2008, 22:23
The point is that if your bid costs are being met by the Government then it gives you the opportunity to stay in the competition at no cost to you and to submit a final bid priced at a level where you feel that you can meet the contract and still make a worthwhile profit. So if there are unreasonable penalty clauses, you just price these back to the customer (UK Government). It becomes your commercial risk as to where you draw that line.
It is also worth remembering (from open source) that over 50% of the evaluation of SAR-H bids will be against the technical solution and not the price. In other words this contract is not guaranteed to go to 'cheapest compliant bidder'. There is scope to reward innovation and capability beyond the basic requirement.
Speculation: Bids of this size need to be underwritten by invest banks. I think I read something the other week about a bit of a hiccup in the banking world recently? Could there be reasons other than the ones quoted for UK Air Rescue to have pulled their bid?
Max con is right, the MOD don't want SAR because it is not 'core business' ie non warfighting and non-deployable; but then neither are the Red Arrows;)
Sadly those senior officers would rather sacrifice all that Military SAR stands for (and all the PR it brings) just to comply with some management consultant-speak to streamline our business.
He is also right about the Govt 'cash cow' that so many businesses like to suckle - no-one feels bad about ripping off the taxpayer, it's like a 'victimless crime'. If none of the bidders can make a profit out of UKSAR then maybe it is a hint that, just like the other emergency services, SAR should remain as a non-commercial public service far removed from contracts, sub contracts, KPIs and penalty clauses.
Let us not forget that the whole SARH process was born out of an MCA ambition to try and become the UK equivalent of the USCG and control all maritime assets - the same MCA who are still paying peanuts to many of their staff and still experiencing industrial action as a result.
Jungly AeO - I just pass on what I am told by people who are as close to the Mk4 plus's as it is possible to be - I won't name names.
I also know people who were directly involved with the Qinetic trials and testing of the Carson blades fit and using a non-folding head with bifilar absorbers makes a significant difference. Take the folding head off and you will see a significant reduction in drag but the speed issue is all about vibration not drag. You don't get an increase in speed from the Carson blades fit because the Release to Service won't let you go above 127kts - (again vibration issues and fatigue) what you get is that same speed at MAUM and at high altitudes. With fixed head and bifilar absorbers you would be at 140 kts plus in a smooth aircraft.
The fact that the RN elected to continue with the folding head says much about their dogmatic approach 'it is a Navy aircraft therefore it must have a folding head for shipborne work' even if the whole aim was to produce hot and high capability for land based ops.
tonyosborne
22nd Sep 2008, 13:24
Official Press Release
SAR-H Competition statement
The consortium companies of UK Air Rescue have unanimously taken the decision to withdraw from the SAR-H competition.
Allan Blake, Bid Director for the UK Air Rescue consortium, stated: “There is a wide range of commercial factors to consider in a programme as complex as this being delivered over 32 years. Having considered all of these factors the sponsor companies have agreed unanimously that UK Air Rescue should withdraw from the competition.”
Given that the SAR-H competition is ongoing, and for reasons of our commercial confidentiality, it would be inappropriate for us to comment further.
Ends
Role1a
22nd Sep 2008, 19:06
Just to get back on thread.
Here's a plan!
All the bidders pull out of SARH due to no profit.
AW step in and include civilian aircrew as part of the SKIOS2 package and paint Coast Guard on the side of the cabs.
MOD Happy - SARH complete(ish), more money for the reds.
CG Happy - Phase one of world domination complete.
AW Happy - Winners of SARH bid via back door.
Crab Happy - Antiquated clapped out piece of junk that is the Mk3 in
Service for another 30 years.
Just a thought!!!!
Role1a
jungly, so why the pseudonym? Presumably you are easily identifiable by those who know you and I guess that means your employer and contractor/s know who you are on this forum - would it not be better to do a "Nick Lappos" and be up-front all the way through the process?
I don't remember why, but once I read a piece of paper that said it was the Official Secrets Act and then I signed a piece of paper and a Big Man smiled at me. It was not a nice smile.
Jungly - in your vitriolic outrage you have chosen to interpret some of my post incorrectly.
I know the Vd for the Sea King is 157 kts and with a reduction of a factor of 1.1 becomes a VNE of around 145kts. Then the RTS process adds in additional safety and fatigue factors resulting in the Service FE limit (not a VMax) of 127 kts.
My point about no greater speed with Carson blades is that 127 FE limit is available at MAUM (not normally the case) AND at higher DAs - so my statement that you get no increase in speed is entirely correct.
As for the trials - you will know then that with the full Carson fit, 145 kts is easily available without excessive vibration or T & B problems - the SUR for the Mk4s as with most SURs was a quick fix to give best bang for bucks which it has done but not without problems - you say there is no T&B issue, I have heard otherwise.
As for twaddle - you were the one authoritatively spouting about drag on the MRH limiting the performance - utter sh8te so don't throw stones:)
I am normally available on the phone on the SAR flt at Chivenor.
DanglyBob
23rd Sep 2008, 07:50
Anything to stop Bristows or any of the other parties of UK Air Rescue forming up another consortium with someone else to play with?
Or are we too far past deadlines?
Sandy Toad
23rd Sep 2008, 11:30
Yawn! Anyone else remember the Crabs saying the Whirlwind was the only proper SAR cab when the RN was using Wessex Mk1s. Or that suddenly their Wessex Mk2s were much better when RN started changing from Wessex Mk5s to Sea Kings. Deja vu, deja vu..... :rolleyes:
Doc Brown
6th Oct 2008, 17:29
Its very quiet regarding SARH and the interim contract.
Is everything now running smoothly with no more problems?
Are all the crews happy with the S92 and the AW139?
Any thoughts on the future?
Doc
leopold bloom
6th Oct 2008, 18:40
If Bristows can't see how to make money out of the contract it must make the other two consortiums think twice. I wonder if the recession will also make the government think twice about awarding such a big contract? How about a radical Sea King overhaul along the lines of the Carson/Sikorsky plans for the S61 and then leave SAR as it is?
edwardspannerhands
6th Oct 2008, 19:05
I heard a while back that the Navy had put a load of SeaKings into storage with vastly fewer hours than the current SAR Fleet cabs. Allegedly Wastelands had offered to refurbish them to SAR standard for £1m a throw but the offer was not taken up. Never having worked rotary, I was wondering if this offer, if tied into the Carson blades / glass cockpit / re-engine upgrade would be a goer? The airframe is proven and able to withstand plenty of abuse. If SARH H was to be abolished, surely this would be money better spent than patching up the current SAR fleet. (just engineering curiosity - nothing more).
ralphmalph
6th Oct 2008, 22:40
Crab,
Very long back in the thread you mentioned kit being removed from the aircraft. Are you really suggesting that the Jock's box was ever removed for long range tasking??..
Surely its part of the fit of the aircraft?
Like all the "ancillary medical equipment"
Ralph
TorqueOfTheDevil
7th Oct 2008, 08:38
Ralph
Crab will no doubt get back to you shortly, but in the meantime, equipment such as the Jock's Box, seats etc (even a beam seat, not just the troop seats) can be, and has been, removed on occasion. None of the above is structural - it's just part of the role equipment, much like the rest - and can be taken out reasonably quickly and easily if required.
TOTD
Pink Panther
7th Oct 2008, 12:23
Looks like one of CHC's patners in SARH the Royal Bank of Scotland might be in a spot on bother ( according to Sky news).:eek:
Ralph - more often only some of the kit in the Jock's Box is removed but the whole thing can be taken out as well if max range is absolutely crucial. As SAR Sea Kings have got better equipped (including the FLIR turret) there are more compromises that need to be made and the crew have to decide what they will and won't take.
I do know of one occasion when everything was taken out and then only those items deemed essential for the job were put back on - unfortunately someone forgot that flying to Eire for refuel might require the IRISH map-pack......OOOps.
However, even without removing anything, the RAF Sea Kings can still far exceed the RoA of the S-92:)
Doc Brown - I believe the crews are very happy with the S-92 apart from the lack of MRGB ELS but I am told the 139 has been melting driveshaft covers as it was never designed to spend a long time in the hover. The small cabin is not popular either but it does go fast.
Another thread on the forum states that the ex-Bristows S 61s have been bought up and shipped off to Carson and that many Sea King and S61 operators are planning to keep using them way into the 2020s - a Carson refit of our Sea Kings plus some modern avionics would keep Mil SAR going for long enough for the Govt to save up to replace them instead of borrowing even MORE money (prudence, what prudence?) for a new MCA Empire.
There are rumours that there is to be a parlimentary debate over the future of SAR and I think some pointed questions will be asked by the shadow cabinet about the SARH process.
I suspect the credit crunch will end up putting the mockers on the whole thing since all public finances will come under the microscope as lending becomes far more selective.
Rumour has it that Bristow were heavily involved with Lehman Bank, perhaps they pulled out because the future is a little uncertain.
Cabe LeCutter
7th Oct 2008, 15:38
I know that the Mil guys cannot strike, therefore we should not have a problem maintaining SAR cover in UK (assuming the aircraft and crews are available). What would happen if an operation was conducted mainly by a civilian operator, would the government/ company be held to ransom by the threat of industrial action? or am I looking on the dark side of things.
Before you bite guys, this is not a repeat of the Mil versus Civy slanging match.
Heads down, look out for the flack.
3D CAM
7th Oct 2008, 15:57
Crab.
"Melting drive shaft covers." Now that is a bit dramatic!:( Delaminating maybe, melting, no. I wonder where you got that little pearl from???:) Your other points are valid!:hmm:
Not all the Bristow 61s have gone west. The Louis Newmark machines and one or two non coupled ones are still around.
3D
3D - Melting or delaminating, whatever you call it the designers clearly need to modify something on the aircraft to make it fit for purpose. Or maybe add another limit 'no hovering for more than 2 minutes at a time' or something equally useful for a SAR helicopter:)
I believe the nose-up hover attitude is not that popular with the rearcrew either - they have to work in a small cabin that slopes as well!!
I have also heard that vibration in the hover is causing avionics issues.
As to my sources...well I know people that know people that know...:ok:
What is the truth in the rumour that CHC will have to find more crews in order to comply with EU working time directives that now state you have to count half your overnight standby time if you are not called out and all of it if you are?
Great timing, just as we are going down to 4 crews per flight!
I've just noticed that Jungly AEO has deleted his posts about Carson blades and all the nasty things he said about me....I claim the moral high ground on that one then:ok:
branahuie
7th Oct 2008, 21:10
http://www.western-isles.info/page2109.html
A temporary deal has been reached which will allow the Coastguard rescue helicopter to keep flying.
The Stornoway service is facing a dispute over working hours similar to the row which resulted in a walkout at Shetland.
The Shetland coastguard rescue helicopter was grounded after crew members refused to fly as some are very near to the limit of their maximum working hours.
The Stornoway aircraft responded to an emergency airlift today though crews at the CHC operator awaited clarification over working hours.
However, the Shetland helicopter did not handle potential emergencies this afternoon and cover had to be provided by the RAF Rescue 137 helicopter at Lossiemouth.
As civilians the crews of the coastguard aircraft are not expected to be on-duty for more than around 200 hours monthly while the working time directive places a maximum limit of 2000 hours per year.
However crews spend a lot of time on standby which apparently is being counted towards their total hours resulting in a potential breach of the allowable limit and inviting possible censure from the Civil Aviation Authority.
Private Canadian company CHC operates the helicopter service under contract to the UK government.
A spokesman confirmed that Shetland crew members ceased active flying duties today.
A CHC spokesperson added: "CHC has recently been in discussions with regulatory agencies regarding the application of the Working Time Directive to the Search and Rescue operation in the UK.
"The operation at Sumburgh was suspended for a short period today
pending clarification of specific legislative points. Following discussions with
key parties concerned, full operational services have now been resumed.
"We remain totally committed to providing a robust, safe and efficient
service to the customer."
How long can the MCA and CHC keep this up? Bristows flew here for years without this never ending list of foul-ups!
Maxallup-Master
7th Oct 2008, 22:09
The reason why Bristows were never seen to have these kind of 'foul ups' is that they paid lip service to issues like WTDs, readiness states etc (RS15 with a gearbox on the hanger floor?)
The issue is, with a recent change from ninteen to twenty-four hour duty period, most crews are over their 2000 hour limit. The question is are they legal to fly and in the event of an accident, would they be covered or hung out to dry?
branahuie
8th Oct 2008, 08:24
I take your point on Bristows operating 'methods', but CHC management and pilots must have seen the clock ticking towards 2000 hours- why not get some sort of solution in place that didn't involve grounding a SAR machine for 5(?) hours.
At least one crew in Stornoway have the right attitude, a pat on the back for them, lets hope it doesn't turn into a knife in the back from pencilpushers!
HeliComparator
8th Oct 2008, 08:33
According to the Aberdeen Press and Journal this morning, the poor CHC SAR crews are exceeding 2000 flying hours per year. No wonder they are tired and strike-happy!
HC
onevan
8th Oct 2008, 08:42
This has been waiting in the wings for the past 18 months. HMG again brought in legislation without thinking how it would affect all the safety services. The 2000hr limit applies to Doctors, nurses, fire services, police and of course SAR. The DfT are looking at legislation which allows essential services to continue as before - ie count standby time as half, but as with everything the wheel turns slowly. More crews then and less time at work:E
Oh dear, this really couldn't have come at a worse time for the SARH process but it does highlight another limitation of civilian SAR compared to military:)
Max and Branhuie - it is strange that when I mentioned dodgy Bristows operating practices in other SAR threads I was immediately flamed by all and sundry and told I was making it up - not so it would seem, ne c'est pas?
Maybe not so much has changed - the RCS tote showed Sumburgh off state yesterday due to 'crew sickness' - not quite the transparency expected from a new and better contractor!
What will happen post 2012 when you have to do lots more night flying to keep current NVG overland? 6 crews per flight???
budget1
8th Oct 2008, 16:20
Crab I love the way you twist everything I guess it is fortunate most readers of this forum understand your play with words, even so it must be great to be so clever. The 2000 hours is duty time not a limitation of how long you can fly within those duty hours so yes please bring on the NVG training most of the crews will welcome that and remember many of them are your old pals. How long do you give them before they become amateurs incapable of SAR after leaving the RAF? My experience is they are good and just continue to get better in the role even as a civvy.
Ref: 2000 hours it has been in situ since 2004 and Bristows did stick to the rules with a lot of moving people around the country to catch up with the problem. It was difficult initially but was achieved. More difficult now with two aircraft types especially being new types and not an abundance of crews type rated, but it will be sorted.
Ref: the 139 I understand like you, with many contacts carrying out the role it is probably not suitable for UK SAR, but please remember who selected it, there was only one MCA member on that SAR H Team no matter how much you try to blame it all on the MCA.
Crab,
With reference to your comment that the Sea King has a far greater range than the S92, even without removing extra kit:
The S92 has a still air radius of action of 250 nm with 30 minutes on scene, 10% contingency and IFR minimum landing fuel. And that is without removing any extra kit. We can also remove kit as quickly as you can to give an even better range.
What is the Sea King RoA with equivalent time on scene?
Regards,
Calli
Calli - the RAF Sea King RoA is 250nm with 30 mins on scene and a 10% reserve - that is what is declared on the ARCCK RCS every day of the year.
If your claim for the S92 is true then why is it not declared as such? It is toted as 205 nm. Do remember we are talking about the S92 as in use at Sumburgh and Stornoway.
Oh by the way, what is IFR min landing fuel? Do you mean min landing fuel, diversion fuel or some other random figure?
Budget 1 - hardly twisting words...the SARH bids are affected by this legislation and so is the CHC Operation at the MCA flights. The Military is not.
SARH had nothing to do with the interim contract and CHC are big enough players to know what is and isn't a suitable aircraft.
Budget1 - you also misunderstand my comments re NVG; at the moment the MCA crews do a certain amount of night flying training for currency which probably doesn't affect the 2000 WTD since when it gets dark early and you are deemed to be inside your 'daytime' duty period. But as the nights get shorter and more night flying training (for NVG) is required, some of this training burden will start to impinge on the 'night duty period' and therefore count the same as being called out at night ie the whole period goes towards the 2000 hr WTD figure.
Post SAR H - if a service 'no less capable than at present' is to be maintained then the training hours of civ SAR crews will have to ramp up, whether they are ex-mil or not since the CAA, who have resisted legalising civvy NVG ops for so long, are likely to impose strict training and currency requirements when they finally capitulate to the overwhelming pressure.
Crab,
The whole 24 hr duty counts to the WTD regardless of whether the crew are called out at night or not, so any increased night flying would have no effect on their duty hours.
I have no idea what is portrayed on the RCS or why, since I have no access to it.
IFR minima was a bit misleading, I didn't mean diversion fuel - min landing fuel plus some for holding/positioning for IFR approach.
So the S92 is in the same ball park as the Sea King for RoA, but it will get there much quicker.....
Regards,
Calli
budget1
9th Oct 2008, 08:26
Perhaps I am wrong it is not a play with words it is downright misrepresentation. SAR H had nothing to do with the interim contract indeed. As for the duty hours it is likely that all the hours will count in a 24 hour shift and if that is the case you are right more crews will be required but not to the levels you portrayed and additional training for NVG’s will be no problem within the 2000 hours.
If you say on one hand that CHC are big enough players to know which aircraft types are right for SAR then why is it you never miss an opportunity to highlight the S92 problems and you have already mentioned a few of the 139 problems gained from your many contacts some of those used to be your pals but do not agree with your views.
My view is the S92 will go on to prove a good SAR aircraft and the 139 should never have been selected in the first place, but to say SAR H had nothing to do with that choice is wrong, they were advising the MCA, even on the interim contract.
When the WTD 2004 was implemented, Bristow increased the number of crews at each of its SAR bases, passing on the cost to MCA. Certainly before the implementation date, some Bristow SAR crews were above 2000 hrs duty: that included the night standby time, which was counted at half rate (with full approval from the CAA). Stornoway had the greatest problem with hours, as they were called out at night more than the other bases, and when called out, all the night hours have to counted in full.
I take exception to Maxallup-Master's insinuations that Bristow paid lip service to the WTD limits. After the problem was pointed out to the management by the BALPA company council, the extra crews were found and NO-ONE exceeded the limits. At NO time was the SAR service compromised, as it has been this week by CHC. If CHC claim that tis problem has 'just crept up on them', then they are lying. The plain and simple truth of the matter is that CHC knew all about the 2000 hours limit under the WTD when they made their bid for UK SAR some years ago.
And before anyone asks, I was not a SAR driver with Bristow! But why let the truth get in the way of a baseless rumour! :ugh:
bondu :ugh::ugh::ugh:
Calli - the RCS displays the availability of all SAR assets to the ARCCK and helps them decide who to send on a job. Therefore whatever RoA is declared by the operator should be accurate. I know that the MCA flt don't have access to it so your local MRCC must be responsible for it.
For many months the S 92 RoA has been toted at 205 nm although today Stornoway are toting 250 and Sumburg 205 - which is the correct figure or is one just a typo. You could always post the max fuel, fuel burn and Vmax figures and I could work it out myself:) You are the only one who has contested the 205 nm RoA, do you know somethingthe others don't?
Budget - as much as you might want to blame the RAF for your woes you can't do it. The MCA and CHC are responsible for the level of service provision and the choice of aircraft not us. It may be the 139 was the best of a bad bunch available but it doesn't seem well suited to the job. Would you want to do a long range sea job in an aircraft (S92) that has no run-dry capability or ELS system on the MRGB?
So according to bondu, CHC are the new bad boys in SAR, not being entirely truthful about the WTD - could this be due to worries over profit perhaps? More crews = less profit, so reduce availibility to keep the costs down - is this really the way forward for the whole of UK SAR?
Crab,
So I'm the only one that has contested the 205nm, except of course, your RCS which also says RoA of 250nm!!!
Nobody is lying or making things up. What you have written on your RCS for Stornoway and Sumburgh is the truth in both cases.
Kindest regards,
Calli
exairman
9th Oct 2008, 18:21
Did some work looking at the WTD for engineers and being on call or standby (for example sat in a crewroom watching TV) did not count as working time. Granted may be different for aircrew but food for thought?
HAL9000
9th Oct 2008, 20:59
So what is the ROA of a UK based MCA contracted S92?
If the ROA is being declared as 250 when it is really 205, and the tasking authority is using that info to make life and death decisions, isn't whoever is declaring inaccurate info being negligent?
Also a quick calculation of hours in a year divided by 2000 shows you need 5 crews to maintain full cover.
HAL
Gaspode the Dog
9th Oct 2008, 21:19
There is a difference between the ROA's for Stornoway and Sumburgh. Stornoway have the Aux tanks fitted so have increased fuel capacity so can fly achieve the same ROA as a RAF Sea King but without the need to remove role equipment. If you use a strip list then the S92 can go further.
At Sumburgh the tanks are not fitted because it is surrounded by rigs with fuel so just like Wattisham, there is less operational requirement to fly 250nm out into the Atlantic for a job.
So the answer is that the aux tank fit has now been cleared for use and is permanently fitted on the Stornoway aircraft - why didn't you just say that in the first place Calli?
The MCA said that the aux tank fit would give a 300nm RoA so I guess from what has been said that you now come up aginst an AuM limit and can't get full fuel in with full SAR role kit. So the new shiny machine has exactly the same problem as the old ****ty one:) So much for progress!
But I believe the aux tank fit reduces the cabin space available - anyone care to state how many seats there are available for survivors with the aux tanks in?
5 full crews to maintain one aircraft on full cover........that's 25% more expensive than the military (going down to 4 crews) who have 2 aircraft - of course civilianisation is cheaper than the military....not!:)
HAL9000
10th Oct 2008, 06:24
This link might help the debate.
http://www.sikorsky.com/sik/Attachments/MISSION%20DOWNLOADS/S-92_SAR_MissionBrief.pdf
Looks like one stretcher and not many seats with the aux tanks fitted. Obviously I can't be a true Ppruner as this is verifiable information supplied by the manufacturer. I promise to make things up in future!
HAL
budget1
10th Oct 2008, 08:07
There you go again crab 5 crews and one aircraft when you know Stornoway and Sumburgh have two aircraft per base and you have mentioned over and over again about your standby capabilities. No matter how you dress that up it will never be achieved the way you always portray it with only 4 crews. Lets face it you are going backwards less crews and your aircraft becoming unserviceable on a regular basis. Now I accept that as being a play with words my version is truthful but only picking out the negatives.
HAL9000
10th Oct 2008, 09:37
Could someone clarify the following for me:
1. How many crews at each mil and civ SAR base?
2. How many ac stationed at each mil and civ base?
3. How many ac(with crew) declared available for SAR at each base?
Sorry for all these questions but it does get confusing.
Thanks,
HAL
Flag Track
10th Oct 2008, 09:43
Sorry for thread drift, but has an RAF Seaking ever landed on water/water taxied/done a SEWTO (sp?) and does the S-92 have that capability? Not knocking the S-92, more knowledgeable peeps on here for that. Just idly wondered.
onevan
10th Oct 2008, 09:44
Under SAR-H the WTD limit applies to all crews mil or civvie.
Budget - yes you have 2 aircraft but the second one is not declared as a standby aircraft, that is the difference. You have 2 to provide one, we have 2 to provide 2 (serviceability permitting). We have been round the buoy several times regarding how many more flying hours we do than you because of our training requirements - more flying means more servicing means more snags.
Hal - 2 aircraft at each base whether civ or mil.
both aircraft declared at mil, only one at civ
5 crews at each becoming 4 at Mil
2 crews declared at mil, 1 crew at civ
Sea King can do 240nm RoA with 17 seats available (ie no restrictions on cabin space) S92 (at Stornoway) can now do 250 nm RoA but with restricted cabin space.
Sea King has Emergency Lube system for MRGB in case of massive oil loss and can rtb from almost max range (albeit at 70 kts) - S92 has no ELS or run-dry capability on MRGB.
I keep being told that the new helicopters are the future of UK SAR but they struggle to meet the Sea Kings present (and very old) capability, let alone set the new standard for the next 20-30 years. They have glass cockpits and go a bit faster but that is it.
You guys are the UK taxpayers - do you see any overwhelming reasons to fork out £3-5Bn for SARH?
I don't think any of that is twisting words:)
Flag track - some of the RN/RAF pilots have been to the Waterbirds course run by the Canadians where you get to water land, taxy and takeoff/SEWTO in their Sea Kings.
I have only been on Sea King since 2001 and we haven't landed one on the water since then, nor have the RN to my knowledge but I am fairly certain it has happened in the past.
I'm sure an S92 driver will tell us if it has the designed water lamding capability (but I don't think it has)
budget1
10th Oct 2008, 10:36
Crab
Going to declare 2 crews out of a total of 4 how can that possibly be seen as safe.
Lost at Sea
10th Oct 2008, 11:00
I see Crab and his cronies are up to full spin and talking nonsense as usual so here we go....
Sea King can do 240nm RoA with 17 seats available (ie no restrictions on cabin space)
A recent rescue proformed by Lossie to go 200 miles west of Benbecula airport reported in the paper.
Outstanding rescue award for Scottish crew - Press & Journal (http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/871193)
Flt Sgt Hutt said: “We don’t often do long-range jobs like this so it took a lot of planning. “It involved the engineers from the start stripping the aircraft and getting rid of any extra weight."
So they were stripping out the aircraft to go 200nm and yet Crab spin says you don't need to!!! A bit of a contridiction Crab n'est pas??
I keep being told that the new helicopters are the future of UK SAR but they struggle to meet the Sea Kings present (and very old) capability, let alone set the new standard for the next 20-30 years. They have glass cockpits and go a bit faster but that is it.
Oh yes and Crab spin conveniently forgets to add that the S92 have better performance, are a lot faster, are fully de iced so can fly in all weathers, have a twin hoist, navigation benefits such as moving map, FLIR in the cabin/cockpit, EGPWS, TCAS, AIS (Crab if you don't know what the last 3 are - just ask!) plus sat phone for long distance comms, have a radar that points in the direction you are flying, have a proper IFR nav kit, fully coupled IFR and SAR modes vastly superior to what the old sea kings have and it is constantly in development. Oh but the Sea King has a kettle... mind you then need it cos it takes them so long to get there!
It's only a shame that Bristow pulled out they were by far the best SAR operator - maybe why thats what Crab and his croonies didn't like about them it showed them up. Oh and repeating the old modern myth about the gearbox on the floor - please get it right that particular lie always refers to an engine not a gearbox!
As for the military being cheaper than civy SAR what tosh! The military have no repect for taxpayers money, they treat it as there own personal fund with no hestitation to waste it such as the £2.5 billion wasted on nimrods and chinnoks! Face facts with the credit crunch coming in your unefficient, over indulgent wasteful days are over... you might even lose the school fees the tax payer is funding too!!
Still, nice to see Crab at his bullSh*tting best! :)
Hilife
10th Oct 2008, 11:16
Crab – Although if I might say so a little blinkered at times, I take my hat off to your defence of both Mil SAR and the S-61 on this thread, but you would do well to give a little more consideration to what – hopefully – the future could hold for UK SAR.
Both platforms operated by CHC are certified to the latest FAR/JAR Part 29, Amendment 47 requirements and a point that is often overlooked, is that both are at the beginning of their service lives, so we can expect to see a great deal of investment and improvements to both types over the coming years.
Upon entering service, I cannot think of any aircraft that hasn’t had it’s problems and I suspect that a great deal of pressure is on both OEM’s to step up to the plate and iron out the in-service issues that both ships currently have.
No one doubts the excellent reputation the S-61 has received over the years as a SAR platform, but even with new blades and an avionics suite she’s still an old bird, built using older technologies and requiring higher maintenance per flight hour than her more modern counterparts and dare I say it, is likely less reliable as well.
As we are talking about a 25-year contract, does it make sense to be flying around in 2037 in a ship designed and certified way back in the 1950’s and also do you think that any OEM would relish the thought of supporting such an old platform some 25+ years from now?
HAL9000
10th Oct 2008, 13:11
Onevan,
Ref the WTD applying to both mil and civ crews under SAR-H, are you sure?
Crab,
Thanks for the gen. So you get twice as much SAR from a mil flt as from a civvy.
HAL
HAL9000
10th Oct 2008, 13:19
Lost at Sea,
Wasn't an S-92 unit first tasked with this rescue?
HAL
Lost - OK I'll rise...I suspect that if you looked at the weather conditions at the time of that rescue, the RoA of any helicopter would have been reduced and they may have had to hold IFR div fuel as well. The fact is that the S92 couldn't have got there at that time since the aux tanks weren't fitted.
The Sea King 3/3a does have an RoA of 240nm, sometimes better, but as we have seen sometimes some of the role euipment has to come off to get full fuel in. To get more than 205nm, the S92 has to have aux fuel tanks fitted at the cost of greatly reduced cabin space - might not matter for 1 fisherman but a whole boatload would be a different matter (sinking trawler perhaps).
THe Sea King also has quite an acceptable icing clearance (down to -7 deg at 3000 DA) what is the S92s?
We have an emergency hoist (that has never been used in anger) and although moving maps are nice they are hardly essential items for SAR. FLIR repeater in the cockpit would be nice but you just load up the co-pilot with stuff which we give to the Radop when the co should be monitoring what the captain is doing (instrument cross checks, safety calls etc). We have a rad alt with audio and visual warnings instead of EGPWS, don't have TCAS and can't see a practical use for AIS (you have it because it is an MCA toy).
The radar has been dicussed at length and you don't understand the arguments.
We have full IFR kit and fully coupled IFR and SAR modes on the 3A and what is more we actually train to use them.
How did Bristows show us up? They didn't even have paramedic trained winchmen until the RAF set the standard.
When you are operating overland at night in poor weather on multi agency ops across the whole country you can claim to have reached parity with MilSAR but until then you are not ready to slag us off for lack of capability.
Hilife - I am genuinely concerned about the future for UK SAR which is why I
p8ss so many people off rather than just roll over and let the desire for profit erode the very high standards which exist at the moment.
I don't think the modified Sea King would be anything but a short term fix but at the moment we are being rushed headlong into a very expensive contract when all other avenues (COMO for instance) haven't been fully explored or costed.
Budget1 - how is declaring 2 crews out of 4 unsafe? Do you think the Chinook and Apache crews in the 'stan are compying with EUWTD? Nor do we.
steve_oc
10th Oct 2008, 15:08
S92 icing clearance is 10,000 feet PA, -40°C, no freezing rain or supercooled large droplets, and, er, that's it.
budget1
10th Oct 2008, 16:22
Crab
Come on the crews in 'stan do not stay out there indefinitely. If two crews out of four are declared 24 hours every day how do you get leave weekends etc. You will always have backup and I am quite sure when and if you really go down to four crews you will not be carrying out the standby role in the way you do today.
267.4FWD
10th Oct 2008, 16:22
You have been invited to visit an S92 operation to gather first hand experience of how we operate,the equipment we use and the aircraft its capabilities,the limitations,but still you denigrate your civvy SAR pals.
Suggest you give your mates at Lossie a call,they were very receptive making the most of our visit,they seemed to be very impressed with the new entrant to the SAR world.
You are a good windup merchant,think you are misplaced in this business,try the real world!
TorqueOfTheDevil
10th Oct 2008, 17:05
If two crews out of four are declared 24 hours every day how do you get leave weekends etcThat's not the case and never has been - 2nd crew only available 8am till dusk (though never finishing before 6pm in winter and never later than 10pm in summer). That said, when large incidents have cropped up at night, we have never failed to find a crew for the 2nd aircraft even though there was no crew on standby.
when and if you really go down to four crews you will not be carrying out the standby role in the way you do today.
Really? Certainly the intention of the powers that be is to preserve existing levels of standby. It will certainly make it harder to book leave and courses with a smaller pool of people, but 1st and 2nd Standby is likely to continue unchanged except in exceptional circumstances - as has always been the case.
budget1
10th Oct 2008, 18:33
TOTD
Thanks for that it is all starting to make sense now and I accept that you will try to achieve it with the 4 crews, as you say it will not be easy and I feel will require some backup. Not quite the way crab portrays it at times. Just for info at present we operate with 4.5 crews that may change soon.
I also can't recall a time when in an emergency a second crew has not been found either when in the military or as a civvy. That is what we do.
running in
10th Oct 2008, 21:18
Crab,
What is the icing clearance of the Sea King above 3000 ft?
RI
Lost at Sea
10th Oct 2008, 22:11
Crab,
So Sea King ranger isn't as you stated - it's less unless you strip it out then you can achieve the 'Crab spin' range.
The S92 beats the pants of the old Sea King in icing. Very clear on that one and it's faster and has better performance.
The equipment in the aircraft is far superior to the old Sea King.
If you can't see a practical use for the AIS then you really don't know what you're talking about. Especially when they will shortly be putting AIS transponders in to liferafts and life jackets which will give a GPS position for casualties in the water displayed in the aircraft with a geographical picture of all transponding traffic relative to that aircraft overlaid on a moving map. So it not only tells you exactly where the casualty is but you can use it to co-ordinate other vessels and SAR assets. But because you don't have that piece of equipment you dam it as of no practical use and a 'toy'. It's a lifesaver but the great Crab SAR expert can't see it because he doesn’t have it. It really makes you laugh at the amount of rubbish you speak!
You say you have a radalt with audio warnings instead of the EGPWS as if that is the equivalent of a EGPWS. So you clearly don't understand what a EGPWS is.
You'd like to have a FLIR repeater in the aircraft but it would overload the co. Well, perhaps if you hadn't such an antiquated aircraft the co wouldn't be so overloaded and could make use of that and all the other pieces of equipment that are available in the modern SAR world but not your flying museum piece.
How did Bristows show us up? They didn't even have paramedic trained winchmen until the RAF set the standard.
And the RAF didn't have FLIR for 20 years after Civy SAR set the standard and you still don't have twin hoist! :eek::eek::eek::eek:
onevan
11th Oct 2008, 12:12
Hal
thats what the IPT clarification states. Mil and Civvie become all of '1 company'. Would be slightly divisive otherwise:= although pay and conditions will do that anyway:E
Spanish Waltzer
11th Oct 2008, 18:16
Am hearing on the grapevine that all is not well (again) in the SAR world at the moment. Is there truth in the rumour that the AW139s have stopped doing any night SAR?? and that the S61s have been recalled?
Crab - before you jump on the train - I have also heard that a large number of the RAF Sea Kings are u/s at the moment too....
Is the Navy looking after the UK again??
wrecking ball
11th Oct 2008, 19:21
Spanish,
What you have heard is correct, the teething problems with the 139 continue. The old girl is back to cover the night while the problems are sorted.
267.4fwd - oh yes, your generous offer, which was never made in writing, email or by phone was essentially that I travel at my own expense and in my own time from one end of the country to another just to see your shiny new toy.
I know it has all the bells and whistles and is a capable SAR machine, whether or not it is the best SAR machine will possibly be decided by the winning SARH bidder - it certainly looks like the 139 will be passed over come 2012.
I am not denigrating my civvy SAR pals by defending our present military capability but what you do now is not what you will have to do after 2012.
Lost - I am sure having the EGPWS alerting for terrain, obstacles, bank angle and all the other stuff it can do is wonderful but frankly I suspect at low level you would have to keep muting it or turning it off which rather defeats the object. The good old rad alt has served us very well, we seem to have managed not to crash into things even in very poor weather. The same for TCAS - nice to have but hardly essential in our environment and possibly an unwanted distraction - TDAs and good lookout seem to work for most SAROps.
As for AIS, when all the shipping (of all sizes) and all the liferafts, lifeboats and lifejackets have transponders fitted (although 406 beacons seem just as good)- then it might be a lifesaver. At the moment it is a tool to track ship movements and seems to have spawned some ship-spotters websites. You have it because the MCA like it, not because it is a major tool for SAROPs (except possibly in the MRCC for command and control).
The Sea King range is exactly as I stated and role kit can be removed very quickly. And more importantly the old girl can still get to 240 nm and have enough room for 17 seated survivors.
Who actually controls the FLIR on a FLIR search? I'm betting it's not the co-pilot.
The Sea King is old and has variable serviceability, no-one has ever denied that and the S92 is new and shiny and it should be (and mostly is) streets ahead in terms of performance and safety, otherwise what the hell have Sikorsky and others been doing for the last 50 years. Would I like to have one to do my job? Yes once the lack of ELS is addressed.
Steve oc - define large supercooled droplets - does that mean the sort you get in warmish icing cloud - if so it's not much of an icing clearance and how are you supposed to know how big the droplets that you are hitting are?
Running in - it has not been tested above 3000' DA so there isn't one - I don't think the navy ever saw a reason for an ASW helicopter to operate up there. It doesn't seem to have stopped us getting on with the job though, you just have to go round rather than over.
As for future manning post 2012, the only sensible plan is to blob up all the 66 mil pers in 2 flights from which the Falklands are supported. Mixing crews would be such a management nightmare with all the divisions in working practices, pay, pensions, leave entitlement, OOA dets, extra duties, access to mil support for claims, career progression etc etc not to mention which rules to fly to and who is captain of the aircraft.
Spanish - the RN have aircraft but no crews to fly them. The Sea King 3 fleet has its peaks and troughs of serviceability, the 3A's are much better generally (newer airframes and modernish avionics). What exectly is the problem with the 139 for night jobs?
leopold bloom
12th Oct 2008, 10:47
What you have heard is correct, the teething problems with the 139 continue. The old girl is back to cover the night while the problems are sorted.
Can you tell us in more detail what the problems are?:confused:
leopold bloom
12th Oct 2008, 10:52
Certainly the intention of the powers that be is to preserve existing levels of standby. It will certainly make it harder to book leave and courses with a smaller pool of people, but 1st and 2nd Standby is likely to continue unchanged except in exceptional circumstances - as has always been the case.
TOTD. It always used to take 5 crews per flight to man first, seconds, the FI, leave, courses, etc. If the maths were corrrect before how is this sustainable now with fewer crews?:confused:
Pink Panther
12th Oct 2008, 10:53
The old girl is back to cover the night while the problems are sorted.
Where was that sourced from?
FiveSevenAlpha
12th Oct 2008, 11:00
Couldn't possibly be the Irish S-61 that flew past Swansea yesterday at around 1730, could it?
57A
Send'em
12th Oct 2008, 12:38
"Couldn't possibly be the Irish S-61 that flew past Swansea yesterday at around 1730, could it?"
Very likely.
The 139 is not being flown on night rescues and an S61 from Ireland arrived 11Oct to do the night duty.
Doc Brown
12th Oct 2008, 13:51
If an S61 from Ireland has been bought in to cover the night standby, then it must be obvious that the crews who have been flying the AW139 operationally since April consider it not to be safe for night flying.
It will be interesting to see how long the Irish S61 EI-CZN remains at Lee on Solent and indeed what the short term fix will be.
The operators of this aircraft in the SAR mode are not happy, including the Spanish.
Agusta Westland, be prepared for a complete pull out of ALL AW139 SAR aircraft, it really is NOT FIT FOR SERVICE.
After a job on Saturday, the Coastguard seem to be turning a blind eye to whats happening with THEIR aircraft, and insist on typical "Spin"
Solent Coastguard Watch Manager said
In such incidents, speed is of the essence and our new Coastguard helicopter, an AgustaWestland AW139, can provide such a brisk response to these kinds of incidents. Were very grateful to the crew for providing such a rapid response to these sometimes life threatening situations.
:ugh:
The crews manning these aircraft really have had enough of been given the wrong tool to do a job that they love doing.
Will the powers that be take note, give the crews a break from trying their best to "Make It Work" before someone is killed.
Doc
And you wonder why I worry about what might happen under SARH. At the moment the problem is confined to just 2 SAR flights but this attitude of sweeping problems under the carpet might affect the whole UK SAR force in the future.
Pretty embarrassing for CHC and the MCA - isn't it an indication of their political stance that instead of going to the ARCCK and asking for mil support (Chiv 2nds cab for instance) they went through CHC and borrowed an asset from a foreign government.
Leopold - it's easy, no courses and an acceptance of the fact that 2nd standby availability might be compromised sometimes:)
Spanish Waltzer
12th Oct 2008, 16:05
sounds like a good job - day VMC SAR - where do I sign up?? :ok:
Get in the queue Spanish:ok:
Doc - from what I have heard the 139 is fit for purpose but only if you fit it with all the right kit - oh dear.
TorqueOfTheDevil
13th Oct 2008, 02:08
how is this sustainable now with fewer crews?
Leopold,
You're quite right - it won't be easy! The funny thing is that it's a long time since all the flts had 5 full crews, and in fact 4 full crews would be an improvement for at least one flight - so it clearly is possible to manage with 4, even if 5 makes things much easier. I understand that the SAR Force hierarchy is attempting to redress the downsizing (and I hope they succeed), but the reality is that the downsizing is a theoretical move as we've been coping with 4 crews for quite some time.
Doc Brown
13th Oct 2008, 06:33
Crab,
any idea exactly what kit is required in the 139's.
Doc
Doc - I believe it is all the stuff that was promised to be on the aircraft when they arrived - if you make a list of essential kit for night over-water ops then quite a few shortfalls will be on it.
So who is to blame? Manufacturer, Contractor, Sub-contractors, operating authority? Whoever is responsible for putting the aircraft into service in an unfit condition - at least the crews did the right thing by saying enough is enough:ok: It's just a shame they had to be put in that position in the first place.
Will SAR post 2012 be this badly managed? You need the proper kit, properly tested and fitted to do SAR, not the future promise of some ill-defined capability that looks good on paper and keeps the accountants happy.
Doc Brown
13th Oct 2008, 15:40
Crab,
having just got off the phone, it would appear that lighting fit and lack of any height bugs are major issues.
This, coupled with the shortfalls you mention i think play a large part in the decision to stop night flying.
I agree also, that well done to the crews for saying enough is enough.
Lets just hope that those in position have learnt from this and DO NOT make the same mistake come 2012
Sante
Doc
pumaboy
13th Oct 2008, 18:11
Have just seen that Royal bank of scotland share's have fallen further today.
How does this affect the future for SAR-H as RBS are partly investing in the CHC bid.
Intresting times ahead due to the financial crisis.:(:(
willantis
13th Oct 2008, 22:01
Crab,
Might I add my congratulations on you running a provocative debate.
The point about SAR-H being a costly alternative to the present military SAR organisation might be more effectively made if the MoD truly understood the cost of operating this vital service. I would expect this calculation to include any remaining financing on these elderly machines, the cost of spares, maintenance outside the SAR bases, air & ground crew (including all overheads of employment including the very special pension arrangements), insurance, fuel, real estate costs etc etc.
Over the very lengthy contract envisaged by SAR-H, the initial cost of modern helicopters, will not be the most significant cost driver. Through life support costs, and personnel costs will be more important. Through life support does tend to be less expensive for more modern helicopters. I haven't done the sums but it might be cheaper to introduce modern helicopters rather than soldier on with old ones.
Whilst you might poo poo the benefit offered by the latest FLIR camera's, video distribution, EGPWS, TCAS, and even AIS, surely no one can really dismiss these modern devices as not assisting the modern aviator operating at the limits of capability. Otherwise I could hear you wishing for the return of the Whirlwind and disconnection of the computer (now called FADEC) when coasting out to rescue a maximum of 3 folk!
If the new helicopters are not properly equipped, and meeting availability requirements, it is entirely the fault of the customer's contract and contract enforcement. Sadly often the case with the public services.
An advantage conferred by the most modern helicopter is safety which doesn't seem to have been mentioned so far. I imagine the Gnome is not quite so unreliable as it was when I worked with it in the '70's, but I doubt it has the reliability of modern engines. JAR/FAR 27/29 designed helicopters are much safer than earlier models, particularly in protecting occupants in the event of an accident. As another example I understand that the S61 (and presumably also the SK) are vertically challenged in the event of a single engine failure in the hover at much above empty weight. So the flattering press reviews, following flood rescues in 2007, might have had an entirely different spin had a Gnome packed up with a rescuee on the end of a winch cable over down-town Carlisle.
On the other hand I gathered during a merry evening in a pub with an RNLI crew, that they much regret the passing of the S61 for the AW139. I seem to recall, but it might have been a distortion in the alcoholic haze at the time, that they found civilian pilots in S61's to be more capable than military pilots in Sea Kings.
If I have to press my DSS button for real, I will be delighted to see any of you arrive.
I look forward to an aggressive reaction to some of these points.
Willantis (an ex-crab)
Willatlantis - no need for an agressive reaction - you make some valid points.
The big problem with trying to prove that SARH is cost effective is that no-one has actually done the sums determine the cost of Military SAR. This should have been the starting point for the process because how else can you show that the new contract is value for money.
All the arguments for privatisation seem sensible but they are mostly an application of apparent common sense and are not based on hard facts.
At present the remaining bidders are trying hard to pare costs to get in under the £5bn mark which is not small potatoes when it comes to public finances especially at the moment.
As for the Gnome - we have one failure (OTG trip in the hover) in the last God knows how many 1000's of flying hours and we wouldn't do what we do without faith in the engines.
If your lifeboat crews have gone from S61 to 139 then they will be South coast guys who won't have seen a yellow SAR cab for many years and are hardly in a position to compare:)
Hilife
14th Oct 2008, 07:43
Looks to me as though one of the OEM’s is trying their hardest to get themselves voted out of this competition.
leopold bloom
14th Oct 2008, 11:41
CHC are saying that the main points are that:
there is no issue with regard to the service as there is a contingency aircraft in place
the crew have not refused to fly at night - and it is completely inaccurate to suggest that
CHC instigated the technical and operational review, listened to its crew and pro-actively made the decision to withdraw the AW139 from night time service
A spokesperson for CHC said: "Safety is absolutely paramount to CHC. Following routine technical and operational reviews, our crew raised the issue that a restriction of certain sepcialist search and rescue technical equipment on the AW139 could pose difficulties during night time operations. CHC is working with the manufacturer to address, as a matter of urgency, these issues and, as a contingency measure, is deploying another search and rescue aircraft from its wider fleet to cover night time operations until the issue with the AW139s is fully remedied."
AS part of its contract witht the MCA, CHC operates three AW139 search and rescue helicopters from MCA bases at Lee-on-Solent and Portland. The two aircraft at Lee-on-Solent operate on a 24 hour basis while the aircraft at Portland operates on a 12 hour (9am until 9pm) basis only.
The MCA are saying...
"The MCA contractor responsible for providing coastguard SAR helicopters has restricted night time flying of the AW139 aircraft at Lee on Solent and Portland due to issues around the operation of some of the specialist equipment which are awaiting resolution by the manufacturer.
"Arrangements are being made for additional helicopters with a full night time capability to be stationed at Lee on Solent while these problems are being resolved.
"The AW139s are entirely safe to operate for all daytime and non-specialist nighttime activities. The issues relate to specialist search and rescue activity, such as night time search and rescue. Daytime flying is unaffected. Search and Rescue missions will continue to be effectively undertaken by the AW139s during daylight hours."
The MCA have also issued the following answers to actual and expected questions raised:-
1. How long have you known about this technical difficulty?
The MCA were informed of the full extent of the issues on the morning of 10th October following a series safety meetings between the aircrew and CHC flight safety manager
2. Why has nothing been done about this before?
Action was taken as soon as the full extent of the issues were known
3. When did this technical breakdown happen?
The aircraft were not delivered to the MCA as contracted. The MCA has been working hard with the service provider to rectify the issues
4. How long before it's sorted out?
We expect the modifications to the aircraft to be in place in December, with the crews fully trained by March 2009
5. How are the coastguard going to perform night-time search and rescue without these helicopters?
The transition aircraft are being brought in to cover the night shift from Lee-on-the-Solent
6. Why don't you use S92s for all your SAR cover?
The AW139s are used on the south coast in line with the operational requirement where the majority of jobs are close to the coast and are to rescue a small number of people.
7. What penalties are you going to impose on CHC?
An incentivisation scheme is in place with CHC which allows for deductions to be made for non-performance, which will be used in this respect [avoid the use of penalisation as this is against DfT/Treasury guidance]
8. Are you going to end the contract with CHC?
CHC are contracted to provide the service until 2012. We have no plans to end the contract before this. Should the problems escalate and progress is not forthcoming we will be seeking measures under the force majure conditions which allow, as a last resort, the termination of the contract.
9. Are lives at risk?
The service will continue to be provided in a professional, safe way without compromising the life saving capability of the UK SAR service.
Bertie Thruster
14th Oct 2008, 14:15
the crew have not refused to fly at night - and it is completely inaccurate to suggest that CHC instigated the technical and operational review
Leopold...not certain this is what you meant to say...
Spanish Waltzer
14th Oct 2008, 15:03
Bertie,
Thats how I read it the first time but I believe CHC instigated the technical and operational review is actually a new sentence.
...of course you knew that really and were just winding Leopold up... and I fell for it :ok:
leopold bloom
14th Oct 2008, 15:18
Bertie
A straightforward cut and paste from another site, not my words.:ok:
leopold bloom
14th Oct 2008, 15:22
There are a couple of bullet points missing which is why it reads incorrectly, the full version on Rotorhub.
So then CHC and the MCA are the way forward for UK SAR - and neither of them thought having no lights under the aircraft might be a safety issue for night rescues:ugh:
Nice to see both parties trying to put their positive spin on what is frankly a disaster:
- brand new contract with brand new aircraft which should be the blueprint for the future of UKSAR
- aircraft delivered not up to full spec but pushed into service anyway because they thought they could get away with it during the short nights of Summer.
- Winter draws in and the crews realise the management and manufacturers are not really trying to rectify the situation.
- crews cry foul since it is their asses on the line and force an embarrassing climbdown by management
- everyone shouts at everyone else, especially the A part of AW.
What a fantastic advertisement for SARH - not!
sonas
14th Oct 2008, 16:32
Both Organisations spell the following!!
C - Calamity
H - Helicopter
C - Company
M - Major
C - Careless
A - A***holes
:E
detgnome
14th Oct 2008, 18:07
Reminds me of the 412 coming into service in Cyprus with insufficient lighting and a host of other contractual issues. Of course that was provided by FBH, which is Bristows spelt differently...
Lost at Sea
14th Oct 2008, 19:45
The interesting fact here is that the previous operator who ran Civil SAR successfully for 20 years told the MCA that these aircraft weren't ready for SAR.
Good to see Crab and his cronies in full rightous mode but then you should remember they form part of an organisation which wasted £2.5 billion of taxpayers money on failed projects and a organisation who Crab himself has described as suffering from "systemic incompetence " and "Our serviceability problems are the stuff of legend"!!! So don't have any faith in their ability to provide in the future.
Crab has also admitted that "MoD were asked for guidance and expertise in examining the interim contract".
And finally Crab posted on 2 July.....
the RAF was asked by the MCA to provide technical assistance regarding the interim bid - to my knowledge this involved confirming that certain aircraft were suitable for the job
So who's to blame......perhaps Crab you need to look a little closer to home! :eek::eek::eek:
The interesting fact here is actually that the 139 would have been fit for purpose had it been equipped as promised - it wasn't!
But between CHC, AW and the MCA (most definitely nothing at all to do with the MoD) it was delivered without the promised kit and then pressed into service hoping the upgrades wouldn't be too long.
I believe SARTU will get properly equipped 139s so it will be interesting to compare.
Lost - no matter which way you try and spin it, this c*ckup has nothing to do with the RAF or MoD - you need to look closer to home I think.
BTW your re-running of my past comments looks even more desperate this time round - you have even less to bring to the discussion than before.
If you don't like the way the MoD budget is spent the write to your MP instead of dripping here but since much of defence procurement keeps AW and BAE in business I don't suppose you will get much support.
ScotiaQ
15th Oct 2008, 06:21
UK: Maritime and Coastguard Agency issue statement regarding AW139 in night operations
The Maritime and Coastguard Agency has issued the following statement to Rotorhub.com following press reports late yesterday (such as this one on BBC News) which stated that the AW139 was being temporarily withdrawn from night operations. Their statement clears a number of questions which have been asked on online chat forums etc, and the MCA advised us that the safety issues concern the auto-hover and Nightsun equipment in particular and that the safety review stated that the AW139s should only fly at night "from lit airfield to lit airfield", obviously no help for offshore SAR work. The statement reads as below:-
Rotorhub.com Editorial Team
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHC are saying that the main points are that:
there is no issue with regard to the service as there is a contingency aircraft in place
the crew have not refused to fly at night - and it is completely inaccurate to suggest that
CHC instigated the technical and operational review, listened to its crew and pro-actively made the decision to withdraw the AW139 from night time service
A spokesperson for CHC said: "Safety is absolutely paramount to CHC. Following routine technical and operational reviews, our crew raised the issue that a restriction of certain sepcialist search and rescue technical equipment on the AW139 could pose difficulties during night time operations. CHC is working with the manufacturer to address, as a matter of urgency, these issues and, as a contingency measure, is deploying another search and rescue aircraft from its wider fleet to cover night time operations until the issue with the AW139s is fully remedied."
AS part of its contract witht the MCA, CHC operates three AW139 search and rescue helicopters from MCA bases at Lee-on-Solent and Portland. The two aircraft at Lee-on-Solent operate on a 24 hour basis while the aircraft at Portland operates on a 12 hour (9am until 9pm) basis only.
The MCA are saying...
"The MCA contractor responsible for providing coastguard SAR helicopters has restricted night time flying of the AW139 aircraft at Lee on Solent and Portland due to issues around the operation of some of the specialist equipment which are awaiting resolution by the manufacturer.
"Arrangements are being made for additional helicopters with a full night time capability to be stationed at Lee on Solent while these problems are being resolved.
"The AW139s are entirely safe to operate for all daytime and non-specialist nighttime activities. The issues relate to specialist search and rescue activity, such as night time search and rescue. Daytime flying is unaffected. Search and Rescue missions will continue to be effectively undertaken by the AW139s during daylight hours."
The MCA have also issued the following answers to actual and expected questions raised:-
1. How long have you known about this technical difficulty?
The MCA were informed of the full extent of the issues on the morning of 10th October following a series safety meetings between the aircrew and CHC flight safety manager
2. Why has nothing been done about this before?
Action was taken as soon as the full extent of the issues were known
3. When did this technical breakdown happen?
The aircraft were not delivered to the MCA as contracted. The MCA has been working hard with the service provider to rectify the issues
4. How long before it's sorted out?
We expect the modifications to the aircraft to be in place in December, with the crews fully trained by March 2009
5. How are the coastguard going to perform night-time search and rescue without these helicopters?
The transition aircraft are being brought in to cover the night shift from Lee-on-the-Solent
6. Why don't you use S92s for all your SAR cover?
The AW139s are used on the south coast in line with the operational requirement where the majority of jobs are close to the coast and are to rescue a small number of people.
7. What penalties are you going to impose on CHC?
An incentivisation scheme is in place with CHC which allows for deductions to be made for non-performance, which will be used in this respect [avoid the use of penalisation as this is against DfT/Treasury guidance]
8. Are you going to end the contract with CHC?
CHC are contracted to provide the service until 2012. We have no plans to end the contract before this. Should the problems escalate and progress is not forthcoming we will be seeking measures under the force majure conditions which allow, as a last resort, the termination of the contract.
9. Are lives at risk?
The service will continue to be provided in a professional, safe way without compromising the life saving capability of the UK SAR service.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scotia - that is the same info that Leopold Bloom posted earlier - it's just a denial of responsibility by CHC and MCA.
Out of interest, does anyone know what the interim contract cost the taxpayer?
Tractor_Driver
15th Oct 2008, 08:23
Lost at Sea,
I think that it is rather impertinent to suggest that RAF advice has any part to play in this saga. As Crab says, if they had been specced as promised, they would have been fit for purpose.
And we all know that the clout of the military ensures that aircraft are always delivered on time, on budget and fully functioning. Just look at the smooth introduction to service of the Nimrod, Typhoon, latest Chinook and many others that I am sure that he will be happy to crow about on this forum.
TD
Lost at Sea
15th Oct 2008, 12:43
Crab,
I know you hate it when I bring up your past comments particularly when it shows how your arguments constantly change and how you continually contridict yourself, which is generally why I do it. You see if you are going to take the moral high ground on these issues you have to be consistent in your train of thought which you continually fail to do.
It was after all you that said things would be better this time round thanks to the involvement of the RAF!
It's also rather hypocritical to keep going on about the cost of the interim contract to the taxpayer when the RAF wastes billions of pounds of taxpayers money on failed RAF projects.
If you don't like the way the MoD budget is spent the write to your MP instead of dripping here
If you don't like the way the MCA budget is spent then write to your MP instead of dripping on here!! := You can't have it both ways! :p
Anyway, no doubt you'll just insult me now.
Hilife
15th Oct 2008, 14:54
Interim SAR costs.....
I believe the 5-year interim contract was valued at around £100 million.
Tallsar
15th Oct 2008, 16:53
Try - £105M to be precise. Public domain stuff - MCA website a while ago.
Cheers
Lost - I don't have to insult you - your inability to move on from my alleged contradictions says far more about you than I could ever wish to.
I will again reiterate that although the RAF provided technical advice to the MCA on the interim contract it had (to my knowledge) no part in the letting and management of the contract and any recommendations made would have been on the assumption that goods and services were provided to the correct specification by the manufacturer and contractor. The blame for the failure to provide a suitably equipped 139 lies firmly at the feet of a whole load of civilians not the MoD.
For every failed RAF project (presumably you mean MR4 and Chinook 3) there will be many good ones. I am not going to defend the procurement process as it has its flaws but if you pay someone to produce a piece of kit and it takes 4 years to build, it is not rocket science to see that you might want to modify the specification upwards to take account of new technology. That brings in delays and costs money.
However, in most cases where a project fails it is because the contractor (civilians remember not military) claims to be able to produce a level of performance or capability and then can't - a bit like the present 139 fiasco!
How many computer systems have you seen come in on time, on budget and on spec?
How exactly would you go about defending what has gone on at Lee and Portland? Blame the RAF and Navy for leaving the stations vacant in the past perhaps?
oscardog177
16th Oct 2008, 15:15
I watched Highland Emergency a couple of nights ago and noticed the navy crew had to pick up the Air Ambu paramedics for a job as they didn't have a qualified medic onboard??
I thought the reason they stopped carrying Navy medics was because the crewmen were now trained in emergency care.
Confused
Rob
sapper
16th Oct 2008, 15:18
Not a rumour true fact
THERE WILL BE NO S61N COVER OVERNIGHT TONIGHT FOR PORTLAND AND SOLENT FROM 1900 LOCAL DUE TO A SHORTAGE OF AIRCREW.
THE AW139 WILL BE GOING OFF DUTY AT 1900 AND WILL BE AVAILABLE AT 45 MINS NOTICE FOR AIRPORT TO AIRPORT/WELL LIT AREA TRANSFERS ONLY, DUE TO ITS CURRENT FLIGHT RESTRICTION. ANY AIRCRAFT REQUIREMENT FOR NIGHT TIME SEARCHES/CLIFF INCIDENTS OR ANY REQUIRMENT FOR NIGHT TIME WINCHING OPERATIONS WILL REQUIRE THE ASSISTANCE OF ARCCK KINLOSS.
Oh dear :ugh:
Well Chivenor's patch just got a whole load bigger then!
I did wonder how long this ad-hoc arrangement could last in the South - even if extra S61s and crews were available it would cost a fortune in overtime.
So as ever, the default back-up plan is to rely on the Military - what will you all do when we are gone?
Hilife
16th Oct 2008, 17:55
Pull up a sandbag and talk about the good old days.:ok:
Lost at Sea
16th Oct 2008, 18:11
Crab,
You forget all the times when military aircraft are unavailable and the cover is provided by Civy SAR. It works both ways but keep on with the Crab spin!!!
Good to see you admit to the RAF involvement in the Interim SAR bid and of the failure of many RAF projects at taxpayers expense! :)
Spanish Waltzer
16th Oct 2008, 18:24
if we could just focus on the important issues for a minute rather than the lost v crab soap opera....
sapper...or anyone else with access to fact....is the lack of S61 overnight cover along the south coast a temporary thing or gonna be a regular (permanent?) feature until the 139s are back on line?
I have my own views on SARH v mil SAR etc but from an interested party, a lack of local helo SAR (accepting the valiant efforts of mil SAR cover from wattisham, culdrose and or chiv) along one of the busiest shipping areas of the UK at night is a worry that, apart from these pages, doesn't seem to be that common knowledge....
arandcee
16th Oct 2008, 19:15
"Well Chivenor's patch just got a whole load bigger then!"
As a N Devon taxpayer I don't mind lending you south coasters OUR helicopters but please bring it back clean and tidy! Of course, it is OURS, it doesn't belong to some company's off-shore bank's hedge fund manager.
arandcee: 'looking up when crab flies over' :D
Lost - would you care to specify an occasion when that has happened - I think the whole of the busiest shipping channel being without overnight SAR cover for an indefinite period is in a completely different league from one flight being off-state for 24 hours. It is becoming tedious highlighting the inadequacies of you posts so do Spanish a favour and find a new tune.
Lost at Sea
16th Oct 2008, 21:55
Crab,
How about the several occasions when Lossie and Prestwick have been off line and the whole of Scotland was covered by the CG flights. You are constantly telling us how wonderful mil SAR is but you really don't like it when someone points out the problems with it. You say that my posts are tedious but how many times do we have to hear about the range of the sea king and your backwards radar from you. That's your problem, you're happy to continually repeat the same argument but if someone adopts the same tactic you get all high and mighty. It's just so transparent and I'll give you a piece of advice it makes you look silly.
The south coast issue is bad, but there was a company that said it wouldn't work, one that you hate and openly rejoiced in the fact they lost the contract. That company was right. It's also the company that has now said SAR H won't work. The problem with RAF advice is that it has no idea of what happens in the real world. If you are looking at a civy contract the worse person you can get advice from is from the RAF. In the real world companies are not honest, they will bullsh*t. Maybe that's why the mil constantly get screwed by defense contractors is because you believe what they say. The world isn't fair and the sooner you realise it then the better you'll be. That's why you need someone more street wise when dealing with civy contracts. As you've proved by your lack of understanding of EGPWS and AIS, mil SAR is well behind the drag curve on modern equipment you don't understand it so you reject it. These are not the sort of people you want deciding a modern contract. I would also add that your constant ranting and luddite ideas are actually damaging mil SAR.
So I'll going to help you and say why not take some of the posters up on their offer, go to a civy SAR base and have a look. Try to embrace a different way of doing things. Think out of the box even if it is just for a minute and just see, if just maybe there could be a different way of doing things which works as well as your way. Take my word you'll be a better more rounded person for it. :)
And I'll make a deal with you - I'll change the tune if you will! :ok:
willantis
16th Oct 2008, 21:58
I agree it is shocking that the UK offers no SAR cover for the Channel tonight, and I suppose many nights until the 139 issues are overcome. However, we should remember that there is a pretty advanced nation to the south of La Manche who I believe is quite good with helicopters.
By the way, I think that an experienced SAR officer wearing a light blue uniform was involved in the selection of the AW139 (and S92) for this interim contract. BUT few new aircraft enter service without teething problems, which are usually overcome. I would be surprised if both types do not, in due course, gain enviable reputations for SAR. I would criticize those who chose both for this most challenging role, when neither type had previously gained much operational experience in any role. As a certain senior politician has remarked recently "this is no time for novices".
If proper contract administration by the customer had been in place this sad situation would have been most unlikely. But had it happened, penalties would have bought an alternative at no cost to the customer - MCA.
sapper
17th Oct 2008, 06:35
Spanish.
The loss of cover we sincerely hope is temporary, but we know there is some severe ar** twiching going on within the higher echelons of the MCA, CHC & AW.
All, please be assured that the 139s at Solent & Portland are now on line and ready for what the South Coast produces.
Crab.
Thanks for looking after us.
Hilife
17th Oct 2008, 07:45
With so many unknowns, SAR-H either with the Mil, CHC or Bristow’s in the past, was, and never will be straightforward.
I always thought Bristow’s were going to be the front-runner in this bid followed by CHC as they are both huge offshore helicopter service providers and both have lots of SAR experience behind them, so I’m surprised not to see Bristow’s pop up under another banner - assuming they think there's money to be made.;)
Good to hear the South is up and running again
SARowl
17th Oct 2008, 11:27
The interesting fact here is actually that the 139 would have been fit for purpose had it been equipped as promised - it wasn't!
Crab you are right and also wrong. Firstly you were right about CHC/MCA being badly let down by AW/Honeywell's promises and their inability to deliver the correct kit on time. However, the illumination and AVAD systems which are two of the main problems with the aircraft, were supplied as per the contract. Any SAR pilot/crewman could have told the MOD/MCA that this equipment was unfit for purpose at the very beginning! Is this MOD incompetence or oversight?
3D CAM
17th Oct 2008, 11:51
I would like to echo Sappers post. How we have come to this situation is down to people all the way from the top, CHC, MCA, whoever, just not listening or reacting to what they are being told.
I have been involved with SAR, Mil and Civ for more years than I care to remember but rest assured, I have never been more embarressed by a situation than the one we have been forced into now.
Blame who you like, Crab, Crabbette, CHC, MCA, me, but the fact is simple, the 139 is not fit for purpose! At the moment!! That person, in my opinion, needs hanging from the nearest yardarm.:D
Afterall, you get what you pay for and if you don't ask then you don't get! This situation would have been avoided if some form of trial had been carried out prior to entry into service but there was an indecent rush to get this contract up and running so now it is down to the crews, who btw are still trying to make this thing work, to sort it out!! We did what Crabbette suggested in a previous post, "just got on with it.":ugh: Well as they say, you reap what you sow! Or something like that.
We are promised fixes but AW do not seem to able to respond to a request for mods. that involve purely a software change let alone semi-major mods like extra lights. Don't hold your breath.
3D:sad::sad:
Send'em
18th Oct 2008, 00:05
A careful analysis of the jobs done by the Solent and Portland S61s over the last few years revealed that they rarely had to lift more than a few casualties.
This analysis suggested that a smaller helicopter would fit the need. However they only considered jobs within the UK SRR (United Kingdom search and Rescue Region). During the period of the study they ignored those shipwrecks just beyond the UK-France median line where the French authorities had asked for help from the UK MRCCs and UK SAR helicopter fleet because the French helicopters were not available, in the wrong place or constrained by weather.
The study came up with the answer that a small fast platform would be just the thing. What was missed that was that although the helo would only need to lift a small number of persons it;
- would need a large working area within the helo to keep the divers lying down so the bubbles didn’t get into their brains,
- would need a large working area so that the two in the back could easily do “chest thumping” (i.e. CPR) and change over as they got tired;
- would need a large working area so that when it landed outside the doors of A&E the hospital resuscitation team could run aboard and start work.
The requirement was defined as kilogrammes of lift instead of cubic metres of working space.
I must disagree with ‘budget1’ who said “ On this one I am with Crab, the aircraft is a delivery system to get the winchman to a casualty”.
No. The helo is a tool to move the person in danger to a place of safety. And deliver them in the same or better condition than when they were collected.
This implies that the transport system must must have “working space” for the aft crew to maintain or improve the status of the casualty.
The AW139 can carry 15 persons, or more correctly “15 pieces of self loading cargo” when operating in budget airline mode. When the cargo is not self loading it is not possible to stack them so neatly in the available space.
So although the AW139 has the power and capability to carry 15 disciplined passengers it does not have the space to carry 15 wild eyed, upset, casualties who must remain prone.
The error in the plan was that the AW139 has the power to carry casualties in terms of kilogrammes but not the cubic metres. A controlled passenger in a fitted seat takes up 0.25 square metres of floor space. A prone casualty takes up 2 square metres of floor space – plus the space the “carer” needs to attend to the casualty and move around to reach his “tools”.
The error in the plan was that the AW139 has more than enough engine power to lift the typical load but not enough floor space where the typical load is lying down and needs room around them for the “life supporters” to keep them alive.
If you think this argument is nonsense; consider the typical ambulance. An estate car could carry one casualty, a driver and and a medic but yet the NHS still insist on vehicles with six foot of headroom and working space in the back- for the one casualty in the ambulance.
All of the above has really been about the size of the 139. Changing the subject.
Something has gone wrong with the equipment fit. It would appear that there is a disconnect between the AW139 as it appears in the brochure and should be available in 20xx and the AW139 as it is currently available now.Some important bits that were promised are missing. “The software is not yet available.”
Perhaps it is not totally suited to the UK SAR role.
The designers assumed it would always land on tarmac and so they gave it small wheels. Landing in a wet field to un-load a casualty may smash the FLIR and other bits (radio aerials) as it sinks into the mud.
Now just who was it that decide that this was the “bee’s knees” and must be used on the south coast ? What happened to asking the users ? The answer is nothing. The users are never asked and never have been. When the bottom life forms in the fish tank realised what was happening they were horrified, but it was too late by then.
It is probably a very good helicopter but not for the SAR role.
As much as some would seem to want it, the RAF/MOD are not culpable or blameworthy in any way in this fiasco. Even if one RAF Officer said it was an accpetable SAR aircraft (which it would be if properly euipped) that doesn't remove the responsibility for AW to provide the kit as specified, CHC to accept the aircraft as fit for purpose (or reject it) or the MCA to ensure that what they were promised is what is delivered.
Fortunately the rot stopped with the CHC crews who did exactly the right thing - it's a shame none of them were asked about the aircraft and what they wanted from a SAR cab before the machine was ordered (or maybe they were and were ignored).
WE come back to my fundamental worry about the whole SARH concept - the integrity of the contractors (management) involved.
This episode highlights how badly this can go wrong when profit is the driving factor behind providing a service - when profit is threatened the service suffers if someone thinks they can get away with it without someone else noticing.
In many ways it is good that this has happened now because it can be rectified - if we were stuck into a 30 year contract covering all the SAR flights and this situation occurred the whole of UK SAR would be compromised.
I know the bidders aren't happy with the SARH contract terms - a lot of it to do with the profitability element - we come back to the fact that to replace everything that the military SAR machine does now (and that includes all the training system) costs a lot of money - those bidders have realised how much when they prepared their bids.
Lost - if Bristows (and I'm talking about the management not the crews) were so chuffing good, why did they lose the contract in the first place?
Put the blame for this cockup firmly where it belongs - CHC - they are the contractors and as such are responsible for the safe and effective provision of service.
budget1
18th Oct 2008, 08:21
Send’em
I agree with what you say entirely including the quote as to the role of the aircraft ‘The helo is a tool to move the person in danger to a place of safety. And deliver them in the same or better condition than when they were collected’ a much more eloquent way than the one I once agreed with crab on. I guess at the time I was trying to highlight the point that the cabin is not big enough for a winchman to carry out his role.
Bottom line is the cabin is too small to carry out our role, we should have room to work around a casualty relatively easily when in our medical role. We should also be prepared for removing casualties from that dangerous situation such as a vessel sinking in the middle of the channel.
The Channel is one of the busiest shipping routes in the world and accidents happen. Loads shift putting vessels at risk of capsizing, collisions in fog, fires onboard etc. We should also have the capability to take a full fire fighting team to a large vessel with a fire onboard and we should feel confident with the tool we use to carry out the role.
Sven Sixtoo
18th Oct 2008, 09:52
Is anyone able (remembering that this is a public forum) to spell out, in detail and in evaluator-speak, just what it is that is wrong with the AW139?
And remember, every aircraft is a gross compromise. Performance, payload, flight envelope, cost, safety. Change one and the others have to change. So what needs doing and what else is going to give to get it done?
Sven
3D CAM
18th Oct 2008, 13:03
Crab.
if Bristows (and I'm talking about the management not the crews) were so chuffing good, why did they lose the contract in the first place?
We all know the answer to that! Complacency on the part of BHL management, and input/advice from "Military" advisor/s!
Strange that we are in this dire situation after all the advice from this "expert". The first time I believe the MCA have asked for advice because they always had their own, ex- RAF SAR Pilot, to give his opinion. Sadly he left/was pushed to be replaced by some one with minimal SAR experience and without the B$%%$"*s to stand up to the Military presence. Yes, advice is just that. To be listened to and acted on or ignored which ever case suits. But when you are totally out of your depth then you grasp at anything! Hence this mess we are now in!! Any SAR pilot/crewman could have told the MOD/MCA that this equipment was unfit for purpose at the very beginning! SARowl's quote, thank you.
Bristow built up , much to your dislike, a very good reputation in civ. SAR over a period of 25 years. It has taken CHC just over a year to set it back nearly as much! At least on the South coast! This is not blind loyalty to Bristow but basic facts.(We all, well some of us, put on new hats in April.):hmm:
What I said in my last post still holds good. If you don't ask, you don't get. You get what you pay for.!!
What on earth makes you think the 139 is an acceptable SAR aircraft for UK SAR, or even will be? As Send'em quite rightly points out, there is no space in the back to work, it hasn't got the legs, can't pick up multiple casualties, I mean there aren't many people transitting the Channel in Lee and Portlands patch's are there? Sinks up to its axles on soft ground in the summer, if you can call it that, so what winter will bring is anyones guess. The only advantage over anything else is the speed! Plus all the gizmos up front to stop the drivers falling asleep.:D:D
3D
Spanish Waltzer
18th Oct 2008, 18:27
sorry to keep harping on but the lights have gone off again outside. Does the south coast have full overnight SAR cover yet?
The way I read sappers post at 0735 yesterday...
All, please be assured that the 139s at Solent & Portland are now on line and ready for what the South Coast produces.
was that the 139s were only back on line cos the big light in the sky was back on line.
Hilife's
Good to hear the South is up and running again
implies it may be more permanent???
whilst those in the know...and maybe those (crab:ok: ) that aren't... can argue til the cows come home whether the 139 is or isn't an all singing all dancing SAR angel of mercy and apportion blame to any TLA they can think of, my main concern is that a significant & busy shipping and maritime leisure area is devoid of nearby helo cover. Am I the only one who has these concerns??? why aren't the local or national media having a field day???
Spanish Waltzer
18th Oct 2008, 18:36
that will teach me for slagging off the local media. I must apologise to the Portsmouth Evening News....
New coastguard rescue helicopters have been grounded at night because of safety fears.
Two new search-and-rescue aircraft used by the coastguard at Lee-on-the-Solent are not flying after dark.
The move, just two months after the state-of-the-art AW139 helicopters were introduced, comes after a crisis meeting between coastguard crews and the firm which supplied the aircraft.
Air crews told Canadian company CHC Helicopter Corporation, which has a contract with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, that the helicopters were missing vital safety equipment.
The main problem is missing specialist equipment for late-night landings and winching, which has not been delivered by the helicopters' manufacturer, Agusta-
Westland.
Air crews say it is too risky to carry out night-time operations without the kit.
They will resume when the equipment arrives. In the meantime, CHC has supplied older S92 aircraft for night-time rescues.
Compared with the AW139s, the S92s are large, slower, and can not fly as far without re-fuelling.
Zoe Corsi, spokeswoman for CHC, said: 'We realise that a restriction of certain specialist search-and-rescue technical equipment on the AW139 could pose difficulties during night-time operations so we're working with the manufacturer to address these issues as a matter of urgency.
'As a contingency measure, CHC is deploying other search-and-rescue aircraft from its wider fleet to cover operations until the issue is fully remedied.'
Mark Clark, spokesman for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, said he was satisfied that CHC would fulfil its contract while the problem is being resolved.
He said: 'It will be at cost to CHC because they have to bring in the additional aircraft. What they are contracted to is providing a full 24-hour service and we do not think they're going to let us down.
'I'm in talks with our advisors but I don't think that we will look to make any financial penalties on CHC because they are still providing aircraft for night-time and day time use.'
I'm glad to hear the older & slower S92 is providing the cover...is that all the way from up north??? :ok::ok::ok:
hey but at least CHC are contracted not to let us down:D:D
DanglyBob
18th Oct 2008, 19:43
gotta love local media.....
t'was a 61 from Ireland.
sapper
18th Oct 2008, 22:32
Spanish
Dont worry about harping far more interesting when you do.
To clarify the 139s will only fly SAR operation between sunrise & sunset and even this is under constant review, this also includes training.
Your concern re the busy shipping lanes, is correctly justified, as our AIS is currently showing over 80 merchant targets covering every concevable type of merchant vessel including cruise liners and super tankers. This total does not include those vessels of less than 300gt or pleasure vessels on passage accross the channel.
We have cover tonight in the form of an S61 & crew from S Ireland whether the same applies tomorrow evening, who knows.
Please be assured that the crews, engineers, support staff DO NOT enjoy for one minute this form of action, nor do those who work in SAR operations at the sharp end
As has been said many times, regardless where blame lies, the 139 is not fit for purpose. The south coast should in my opinion have the S92 .
Oh just to add spice CGWB (Portlands 139) went of line at 1230 with Several Pitch & Trim Warnings.Unfortunatly the spare 139 CGRD was being used as Solents main a/c, as their prime 139 CGIJ was also off line with avionic problems. IJ came back on line at 1600 so for 3.5 hrs there was only one a/c covering the south coast on a lovely sunny day.:ugh::ugh:
3D - is the 'expert' you are referring to the MCA's self-employed aviation advisor? He may have once been in the RAF but he never did even vaguely modern SAR in UK. Just because he once worked in light blue does not make any of his advice our fault - if the MCA chose to listen to someone with no credibility or knowledge that is their problem. I believe he was made to look rather inadequate during the SARH process and certainly didn't have a clue about what the rear crew did or wanted.
I do know why Bristows lost the contract but Lost doesn't seem to - the reputation of BHL was created and kept up by its crews not its management.
The 139 might be an 'acceptable' SAR aircraft if properly equipped, I didn't say it was an ideal one - the concerns over the limited cabin space have been voiced by many, the full details of its shortcomings are only known by operators like yourself. Surely those who swapped companies like yourself voiced concerns over the choice of aircraft right at the beginning since it was so obviously unsuitable?
It may be that the choice of the 139 was the best of a bad bunch since no-one actually designs SAR-specific helicopters, they bodge SAR bits on to executive transport aircraft.
Spanish, that press release shows how far CHC and the MCA will spin the story to try and hide their incompetence - the MCAs rather pathetic stance not to apply contract penalties shows the weakness of this system. I do share your concerns about the Channel and the CHC operators like 3D must be very frustrated at what has gone on. It will be interesting to see what the longer term solution is to this problem since some of the 139 issues don't seem to a quick-fixable.
Lost at Sea
19th Oct 2008, 11:23
Crab, as you know and have admitted the technical advice for the 139 came from a then current serving RAF officer. The technical and operational advice for SAR H has come from a succession of current serving RAF officers.
Do I detect the sign of a little bit of a u turn on your position on the 139?:cool:
3D CAM
19th Oct 2008, 12:14
Crab.
No is the answer to your question! Two completely differant people. One, very experienced ex RAF SAR driver, left the MCA before this debacle started. He actually knew what he was talking about. The other, who didn't, also ex MCA but RN rear crew, is now employed by CHC on their SARH team. Now that really gives us confidence for the future.:mad: And there was a serving RAF officer advising!!! But I am not blaming the advisors. As I said previously, advice is given! It doesn't have to be taken!!
When the first visits to the then still BHL units, after the interim contract was announced, took place, the suitability of the 139 was brought up. Quite forcibly! The answer from the above person, then employed as MCA Aviation chappie, now employed by CHC, said, "Well the RNLI are going to be busy." How right he was!!
3D
soarer123
19th Oct 2008, 18:27
All,
Lets lay the blame for the AW139 shortcomings at the right door shall we, it is not the fault of the MCA or CHC that the AW139 is not currently fitted with the appropriate "kit" to allow it to fully function. AW as always promised it would be on delivery but it aint, nobodies fault but the OEM, you mil types should know all about the promises this company make and dont deliver, SKIOS being the latest.
CHC and the MCA could stop all this bad press and lay the blame where it should lay.
Lost - nice try but you will have to open your eyes at some point and see the truth of this matter.
Oh! Oh! it's the nasty RAF's fault we got the wrongly specced heliocopter for the job. Please Sir, tell them off and draft a press release saying that nothing is wrong - then everyone will see we are the right company to be responsible for UK SAR.:ugh:
I believe another ex RAF Officer spotted the aircraft in the hangar before delivery and commented on the lack of lights but was completely ignored - 'there's none as blind as them as doesn't want to see'.
3D CAM
20th Oct 2008, 08:37
Crab.
'there's none as blind as them as doesn't want to see'.
Nor those who can't cos they aint got no :mad: lights!!:rolleyes::E
3D
Lost at Sea
20th Oct 2008, 09:54
Crab,
Sarcasm is usually the sign of a weak argument and it’s difficult to know what the truth is from you because of your constantly changing position.
So as long as you continue to gloat over the current situation I will continue to point out the RAF’s involvement in the interim bid and the SAR H bid.
You also have to accept the fact that sometimes people will give an opposing argument to your own, this forum isn’t your own personal transmission you know!
Vie sans frontieres
20th Oct 2008, 10:43
Lost at Sea
For God's sake, change the record. You'd probably blame all the ills of the world on the RAF if you could.
Lost at Sea
20th Oct 2008, 11:33
Vie sans frontieres,
Crab is constantly repeating the same argument about civy SAR being inadequate. He continually blames the MCA and all I am doing is pointing out the RAF involvement in the process which has lead us to this situation. He blames the MCA and I say fine but what about the RAF's role in this? Why shouldn't we discuss this?
You will also note that I am replying to yet another attack on civy SAR by Crab.
So I'll stop if he does but I will not allow Crab to continue to get away with posting inaccurate and damaging posts about Civy SAR. He has to be made accountable for what he is saying.
Otherwise we may as rename 'Rotorheads' as 'Crab's Spin Forum'!
LAS.:)
Senior Pilot
20th Oct 2008, 11:44
Lost, Crab, et al: this is all getting very tedious :hmm:
I have no wish to moderate what is essentially a very valuable thread: but I will if this "he said/she said/I said" circular argument keeps going any longer :rolleyes:
Vie sans frontieres
20th Oct 2008, 14:55
Well that's shut everyone up! The only remaining question is, what did Lost at Sea edit from his last post 4 minutes after Senior Pilot told him to go and stand in the corner?:confused:
Lost at Sea
20th Oct 2008, 15:35
Vie sans frontieres,
(Sorry Mr Moderator just a quick reply). :ok:
I was already editing my post when Mr Moderator posted his. Simple as that - sorry no scandal! :)
LAS
airborne_artist
20th Oct 2008, 18:12
BBC NEWS | England | Dorset | Winch fails in helicopter rescue (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/7680535.stm) (last updated at 15:14 GMT, Monday, 20 October 2008)
"An inquiry has begun after a winch failed on Portland Coastguard's new rescue helicopter during an emergency call-out in which a man later died.
The new AgustaWestland AW139 helicopter was scrambled on Sunday when a diver surfaced unconscious off Weymouth.
The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) said the primary winch got stuck while the victim and a winchman were being hoisted up...
...The MCA said he continued to receive resuscitation treatment from the winchman throughout the rescue, and that the winch failure did not contribute to his death. "
Send'em
20th Oct 2008, 21:00
BBC NEWS | England | Dorset | Winch fails in helicopter rescue (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/7680535.stm)
BBC report is slightly misleading. As I understand it - but I am happy to be corrected;
Helo (AW139) goes to dive job, as it has in the past and as it will in the future.
Helo lifts cas and winchman from the dive boat. Winch jams with the two of them still some feet from helo. Helo flies short distance to flat land, with cas and winchman dangling. Helo lets down and they then take the crewman and cas on-board. Continue flight to hospital.
One must applaud the crewman who continued resuscitation action in "dangling mode".
Normally this would be a non-event, a minor glitch with a winch, but given the current situation with the AW139 it will given more attention than it might deserve. It has happened before on a training lift.
Or you could say that it was a critical failure of an essential system during a rescue.
Your choice according to the point you are trying to prove.
Sven Sixtoo
20th Oct 2008, 21:30
Well, **** happens and I would not try to defend the record of the military winch - specially as we don't seem to have enough to fit them in all required machines in Afg.
Sven
Send'em
20th Oct 2008, 23:01
Sven;
"Well, **** happens and I would not try to defend the record of the military winch - specially as we don't seem to have enough to fit them in all required machines in Afg."
I wish you hadn't said that. We were trying to move this thread back to hard fact and not the "Vicky Pollard" style of debate. (This is not an attack on you but a comment that in your innocence you have have re-opened a wound with your remark; a remark that I think is considered and unprovocative. However I fear someone might "bite".)
Someone is now going to say;
"The military winch is perfect because it was designed by a pilot with 120 years experience of military SAR flying."
"The military winch is flawed because the SAR pilot had no knowledge of SAR winching because he had been flying up front and had not operated a winch for 120 years."
"The military winch was chosen for the helicopter by a civilian engineer who had only 120 years experience of civilian winching and had no grasp of winching military casualties."
"The casualties had only been winched regularly for 120 years by civilian crews and had no understanding of the requirements of military winching."
"Advice given by military winchers should not be applied to winching in a civilian context unless they have been offered lucrative employment with the civilian winch manufacturer."
"Advice given by military winchers should be or not be applied to winching in any context despite them having been offered lucrative employment with the civilian winch manufacturer."
"Although the military advisers were not actually winchers their advice should have been taken except where it should not."
"While civilian winchers were alleged to be advised by military winchers the military winchers gave their advice on the understanding that it did not specicifically apply except where it was specified in retrospect to apply."
"The civilian winch adviser should not be listened to in case he is right and other parties are proved wrong."
I hope he doesn't pick his line from the above, but I fear he will.
Now back to the point of this little interlude in the thread.
There was a winch glitch. Normally no one would notice or care but it comes on top of a number of other minor problems which accumulate to destroy a reputation. That is the point.
he1iaviator
21st Oct 2008, 04:25
Is the 139 not equipped with the dual winch that was fitted to the Bristow aircraft to cover just this sort of event?
Vie sans frontieres
21st Oct 2008, 07:39
As someone said earlier, if they're within spitting distance of land, why bother? K-I-S-S
cordy2016v
21st Oct 2008, 08:49
sorry if this has been asked loads of time before. but who are the companys still in the running for the contract? sorry of being off topic:rolleyes:
sonas
21st Oct 2008, 09:18
Hmmm! I think i've missed something here, Isn't that what the 'Dual Hoist' thing is all about or is Crab right again?:uhoh:
Vie sans frontieres
21st Oct 2008, 09:32
To the seasoned observer, the most entertaining thing about Rotorheads is that Crab usually is right! And oh, how the others don't like it. He doesn't get much back-up from his RAF buddies because he doesn't need it. :ok:
JKnife
21st Oct 2008, 10:05
Ooh no he's not! (well, it is the panto season coming soon) :D
sapper
21st Oct 2008, 12:07
Whether to Use Reserve Winch or Otherwise
The Captain used his very proffesional and expert judgement and deceided against using the reserve winch as indicated below.
On arrival at vessel CPR being carried out by crew on boat. Lowered winchman to RIB and he elected for immediate Double Lift of casualty. As winchman and casualty were winched clear of vessel we haad a hoist failure on the aft hoist. (hoist will winch out but not in) Recycled hoist switch and winched in a further 5ft and hoist failed again. Due to winchman and unconcious casualty being 10ft below the aircraft and winchman having difficulty keeping casualty in the two strops, we elected to transit 1/2mile to an outcrop of land on Portland Island where we winched out the casualty and winchman to the deck. We landed on 10ft to the right of casualty and winchman. Winch op got out the a/c and winchman and winch op recovered casualty into the back of the a/c. We were then able to recover the winch cable as per normal as there was no weight on the wire. Flown direct to Dorchester A&E Hospital LS
The above operation took 3 minutes far less than trying to employ the reserve winch,. a decision the Captain & crew need commending for. :D
Agreed Sapper - exactly the right thing to do.
Sounds like a nightmare with an unconscious casualty in a double strop lift with a winch failure - even our SAR standards wouldn't pull that on someone!!
Seriously - a good job by all the crew:ok:
SARREMF
21st Oct 2008, 14:32
Good gutsy call. Just 'cause its there doesn't mean it over rules common sense, and this was practical common sense, crew co-operation and Captaincy in spades. Well done.
sonas
21st Oct 2008, 16:12
Oops! Didn't know all the facts before posting! Common sense is still around then
Lost at Sea
21st Oct 2008, 18:07
I agree.
Good job, well done. :ok:
running in
23rd Oct 2008, 12:48
This thread has gone quiet, is Crab on holiday?
sarboy99
23rd Oct 2008, 18:29
A working holiday down south. I hear that the present RAF SAR commander is leaving to join SARH. Time for us all to bale out?:*
pumaboy
23rd Oct 2008, 21:55
SAR99
Thats a good April fool in October :D
sapper
24th Oct 2008, 15:16
A Brief extract from this evenings Dorset Echo
Safety fears on new rescue helicopter
8:50amFriday 24th October 2008
South Dorset MP Jim Knight said: “I have been encouraging Transport Minister Jim Fitzpatrick to ensure the MCA and its contractors are urgently dealing with this so the new aircraft are working to their full potential.”
A spokesman for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency said night cover was being provided by other aircraft supplied by the contractor ‘until such time issues with the new aircraft are resolved’.
He added the contract with the company providing the helicopter service ends in 2012 and there were no plans to end it, but he stressed: “There is a scheme in place which allows deductions to be made for non-performance which will be used in this respect. Should the problems escalate and progress is not forthcoming we will be seeking measures which allows a last resort of termination of the contract.”
Gulp!! Where may we get aircraft, crews, engineers should such a thing happen?:rolleyes:
victor papa
24th Oct 2008, 16:12
I have asked before and got no response to the suggestion/question. The 92 has issues, the 139 has issues. Where is the EC225 in all this and even maybe still not build but a future prospect the EC175????
leopold bloom
24th Oct 2008, 17:53
I have asked before and got no response to the suggestion/question. The 92 has issues, the 139 has issues. Where is the EC225 in all this and even maybe still not build but a future prospect the EC175????
In service speak it's a "Legacy Platform", or to you and me:"new wine in old bottle" to mangle a metaphor. It's a good aircraft and the ASE/AFCS is very impressive but still, at heart, an old design. The cabin is quite low and it's not as good a winching platform as the Sea King but overall a pretty capable cab. Not a step forward in in terms of technology though and you will find that Sikorsky fans (Nick Lappos and pals) have some pretty pointed criticisms regarding crash-worthiness and window size. The 175 is a response to the overwhelming success of the 139 but is late to the market :ok:
victor papa
24th Oct 2008, 19:11
OK, I might buy the crashworthiness bit with the "old" design to a point. Let us look at it from a different point of view. The 225 has done a extroadinary number of hours since it's introduction-how many problems/rejected missions/emergency landings? The range and especially payload is extremely impressive. In offshore they battle to use the full payload so fitting a ferry in the rear or 2 should be no problem on payload for SAR. Yes, the cabin is lower, but where I operate and the average hoist operator is 6 ft the 92 has no specific advantage. I could not stand in the S61 doing hoisting so may just as well do it in a modern ability exceeds payload aircraft. Cabin is big other than height. Why is the 225 not considered? If I look at the problems with the 92 and 139, the 225 will be a compromise in cabn height and crashworthiness under extreme conditions only, but I will take my chances in this ultra reliable and comfortable product. Just my 2 cents I do not have
leopold bloom
24th Oct 2008, 19:25
Yes it is a very capable helo and I think that you may find that the 225 is in the mix for SARH. Time will tell.
victor papa
24th Oct 2008, 20:31
Well done then! With the ec175 coming 3 - 5 years they will be a formidable team. Being EC a lot of parts will be compatible and the maintenance schedule a breeze!
MyTarget
25th Oct 2008, 07:40
225 ultra reliable really!:\
Furia
25th Oct 2008, 17:48
Can somebody tell me what is the "kind of missing kit or equipment" is preventing the AW139 perform SAR missions by night?
I am quite interestings since we are flying that type of helo by night doing such mission.
Thx
sapper
26th Oct 2008, 19:32
SARH to go??????
Was started by Faffner shim on the 16 Jun O8, the link below from todays Mail on Sunday takes us back to where the link started.
hhttp://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1080611/2bn-search-rescue-sell-plan-threat-UK-led-contender-withdraws-bid.htmlttp:// Basically the "UK Air Rescue" bid have withdrawn from the bidding process.:bored:
What do you honorable PPRuners think of this? Where does the process go from here?
sapper
26th Oct 2008, 19:40
Yuk got the link wrong.........sorry
£2bn search-and-rescue sell-off plan under threat after UK-led contender withdraws its bid | Mail Online (http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1080611/2bn-search-rescue-sell-plan-threat-UK-led-contender-withdraws-bid.html)
leopold bloom
26th Oct 2008, 19:45
Go back to Post number 285 in September and you will see what we think.:ok:
sapper
26th Oct 2008, 21:31
leopold
Your quite right, I should read the whole thread before posting, will try harder next time.:hmm:
Hilife
27th Oct 2008, 20:36
Blackmail and intrigue eh! Nothing like a good bit of scandal in a bid.:ok:
BroadlyGuns News (http://bg.firetrench.com/)
British SAR Chaos
October 27th, 2008
Cash strapped Blair Brown Regime has been trying to privatize British helicopter SAR coverage, including cover in the Falklands Islands, to avoid having to fund 40 new helicopters to replace the aging Sea Kings flown by RAF, FAA and MSA crews.
The British consortium, including Bristow and Agusta Westland, have withdrawn from bidding and stories are circulating that the two foreign bidders are considering withdrawal unless the value of the PFI contract is significantly increased.
The story also circulating is that Regime is attempting to blackmail the British consortium into re-entering the bidding by threatening that the companies making up the consortium will be blackballed from bidding for any other British Government contracts in the future unless they re-enter the bidding for this contentious PFI contract.
Vie sans frontieres
28th Oct 2008, 10:35
Victor Papa
As any Puma crewman will tell you (or, I imagine, any AW139 crewman will tell you after couple of years on type), trying to operate in an aircraft with a low cabin will, in time, completely wreck your knees and back. There's more than just hoist operating to be done by the rearcrew so it's over-simplistic to state that you, "could not stand in the S61 doing hoisting", therefore the EC225 will be ok. Whether squatting or kneeling, a degenerative musculo-skeletal price will inevitably be paid by the individual who has to move around on his haunches and manhandle people and heavy kit without being able to straighten his legs or spine. A SAR aircraft has to please more than just the driver you know!
heli1
28th Oct 2008, 11:36
Furia asked what is missing on the AW139......Phase 5 of the Primus Epic ??
Wiretensioner
28th Oct 2008, 11:56
Could'nt agree more VSF. Having done time on the Puma I had both back and knee trouble and that was just in the basic crewman role. As you say a good SAR helicopter has to cater for everyone on the crew not just the bells and whistles for the drivers.
victor papa
28th Oct 2008, 13:45
I did not mean to upset anyone. I am not just interested in the bells and whistles-quite the contrary. The main argument I have heard against the 332 and/or 225 is the cabin height. My only point was that myself and quite a few other crewman have the knee and backs to show years of ship service and SAR even in the good old 61.
From what I see on these forums there are problems with the 139's, 92's and even the ageing Sea Kings. The discussions mostly go around these types and their problems as well as the aircraft reliability, cost and maintainability and then of course it's operational capability impacting on this tender. I have actually just been wondering, as posted, why the 225 is not mentioned because the forums are rather quiet about it's performance/problems etc.
leopold bloom
28th Oct 2008, 17:17
It is mentioned but accurate information from those involved in the bidding is commercially sensitive so they are not going to comment here. I wouldn't be surprised to see that it is part of the solution from one of the two remaining bidders. From a crewmans point of view the cabin is very low, however, it does have many other good qualities, chiefly the AFCS and the performance. Unfortunately crewmen, or ex-crewmen, don't get to choose.
I did not mean to upset anyone
You haven't upset anyone, you would have to try a lot harder than that on this forum.:ok:
Furia - as I understand it the main problem was inadequate lighting under the aircraft so the winch op can see the casualty and winchman. There is also an issue, I gather, with the UK CAA certification of the SAR modes of the 4 axis autopilot so it can't be used in anger.
sunnywa
29th Oct 2008, 10:28
As an interested observer from a long way away, what do you mean that the UK CAA won't authorise the 4 axis a/pilot. Isn't it JAA or EASA (or whatever Europe is called these days) approved/authorised/ticked-in-the-box the a/pilot so how come the UK CAA can overule this? I'm just comparing beaucracies so not having a go at anyone.:bored:
heli1
29th Oct 2008, 14:33
The basic 4 axis aoutopilot was certificated by the FAA in March but there are "add-ons "for the SAR mode.I think that is what phase 5 is all about and this is not certified yet .Am I right those who know the AW139 intimately ?
Taken from EDP 24
Over-stretched RAF search and rescue helicopter crews have been unable to respond to some emergency calls in Norfolk and Suffolk because of a lack of manpower, it has emerged.
The two Sea King helicopters based at Wattisham airfield in Suffolk are crewed by members of B Flight 22 Squadron but many of the servicemen have recently been posted overseas to Iraq and Afghanistan, making it difficult to keep a full crew on stand-by.
At its worst, this means that the helicopters cannot go out to rescue people people who are stuck on boats or trapped in water and in the last week, search and rescue cover for the area was maintained by a unit from east Yorkshire.
The two helicopters perform search and rescue operations covering a huge area from the south coast and Dover into London and across East Anglia to the Wash.
Flt Lt Jean-Marc David of 22 Squadron said: “Crews are working very hard at the moment and doing more shifts than comfortable and sometimes we do not have enough full crew on stand-by so we are limited on what jobs we can do.
“Obviously we have got a few detachments in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have got a lack of manpower. Nobody wants the standby to be affected and that is our job.
“We are there to rescue people and people are doing more shifts than they really should do. It is not ideal but everybody is working extremely hard to make sure that we can provide a service that the public expect of us.”
They average more than 10 emergency call-outs a month which can include people being helped, rescued and transferred to hospital.
A Ministry of Defence spokesperson said: “A current shortage of rear winch men at Wattisham was exacerbated by sickness last week and so for two short periods on October 22 and 24 B Flight 22 Squadron search and rescue were restricted to medical evacuation sorties only.
“During both these periods search and rescue cover for the area was maintained by adjacent search and rescue units at Leconfield as is standard practice when a unit is airborne on a rescue or temporarily unable to deploy.
“We are working hard to ensure that there are sufficiently trained search and rescue aircrew coming through the Sea King operational conversion unit to ensure that this temporary rear crew shortage can be alleviated as soon as possible.”
The search and rescue squadrons provide 24-hour cover. They maintain a 15-minute readiness state during daylight hours and a 45-minutes readiness state during the hours of darkness.
detgnome
4th Nov 2008, 15:56
Will that be JM 'I learnt about speaking about to the media from that! David from now on?!!!
Out of the mouths of babes....
Vie sans frontieres
4th Nov 2008, 20:48
Jean-Marc, go to the Flt Cdr's office, do not pass go, do not pick up the fluids or a set of goggles!:ooh:
It's hardly headline news for the RAF SAR Force to be struggling for personnel. It's just every now and again someone informs the media and it gets blown out of proportion. Imagine how moist the media would get if they were informed every time a flight was off-state.
Who covers the East when Leconfield and Boulmer are off together?