SARH to go

[AllyPally]

The flight at Wattisham

[Sven Sixtoo]

Or the Belgians

[Sven Sixtoo]

Actually that might be the Dutch

Only a C in Geography

[[email protected]]

And here we are with two full crews and two serviceable aircraft in the South Atlantic defending penguins:ugh:

[leopold bloom]

Have look at last week's "Private Eye" which has an article about SARH in it. It will keep your mind off the sheep.:ok:

[Max Contingency]

Crab

If a particularly attractive looking sheep should wander up to the Tiger lounge asking for me, would you do me a favour and tell her I was shot down and killed somewhere. Thanks mate:ok:

[IrishSarBoy]

Hey, are my vidoes of Banzi still in the tiger lounge cos they're vintage now and I can't get Banzi on dvd:}

[Cabe LeCutter]

Yes the vids are still there. You still attacking the ping pong ball on a string with your pointed stick?

Head down, look out for the flack

[[email protected]]

Max - I've only been here 2 weeks and all the sheep are looking attractive:)

Cab le Cutter - started the new job yet?

[Tonka Toy]

I understand you might mean the absolutely splendid fellows at Kokside! Who always seem to have a certain little fixed wing watching them in the background. :ok:

[Tonka Toy]

Just going back a bit. I understood from an individual way above the pay grades of those of us on this forum, that Bristows were divested of the SAR contract as at the contract meeting only a single individual came smartly but casually dressed. CHC turned up with the 'suits' and promised the world. At which point the civil service individuals then turned around and said lets have a change for changes sake. Clearly they were bored again that year and without much to do.

An all S92 fleet rapidly changed into a S92 north and 139 south arrangement. I think it was commonly acknowledged that the 139 was a pilots dream and crewmans and by default role disaster waiting to happen. When an Agusta TP turns to you and says over a drink 'its not the aircraft for you' - you know something is up.

I suggest that a very real and insidious problem we face and continue to face is the quality or lack there of of civil servant within the MCA. They are to a very worryingly large extent the very worst the civil service has to offer and without denegrating the efforts of those at the coal face or the minority of good, job not career orientated servants and managers we are now seeing the result of those efforts.

We do a lot of infighting here - well, perhaps more than neccessary, sadly a poor quality of civil servant who we should expect far better of and in the case of CHC an unsound management leave us with a very tarnished reputation. If that is allowed to continue then whether you are civil or military we will end up with nothing at all. If the amount of effort that goes in here name calling went into more constructive effort to make a better working environment for ourselves then we would all, military and civl end up providing a far better service in our vocation of service to others when they need our help.

I would propose a most vociferous voicing of concerns at the highest level, alternatively and sadly perhaps, a root and branch clearance of those civl servants within the MCA who have not and continue not to ably demonstrate an ability to perform their jobs effectively and for the benefit of the role. Or perhaps both. Their reaction to the current problem is to penalise CHC, very clever, another way of saying lets rob ourselves of ourselves.

I would suggest on my blackest days, naming and shaming those individuals responsible for this 'non event' as one of them said to me the other week; and I mean literally naming, civil servant Joe Plumber who decided with his vast experience that the pitch angle in hover on the 139 wouldn't be a problem when getting casualties in the cabin, especially when TP 'X' from Agusta was saying years ago, - 'it will be awkward getting a litter in the cabin in the hover' - Italian accent to suit!

If I was the head of the civil service I would be ashamed of the many responsible to me letting down the few so ably trying to do their best. As it is I fear that before too long we will see the loss of further SAR crew fixed or rotary, military or civil resultant from systemic and personnel failings of the civil service and management failings we see today.
:(

As an aside, might we remember fixed wing CG pilots James Beagley and Sophie Hastings, both killed in the Coventry mid air collision in August. We haven't forgotten them, nor will we.

[Tonka Toy]

Sorry, On a role tonight! - whilst talking of night cover, technically there is night cover in the channel without rotary. Coastguard Echo November, and the Channel Island Rescue Service. Its amazing what you can do with a couple of shaggy old Islanders!!!:)

[Bertie Thruster]

Good wine, Tonka!

[Droopystop]

Tonka,

You point about penalty clauses is a good one.

One the one side, you could argue that the contractor was well aware of the clauses and potential costs and accepted that risk when they signed on the contract. On the other, paying penalties takes money away from more operationally important aspects, potentially reducing performance.

I would imagine that SARH will have similar clauses. Now a 25 year contract could run to some horrendous bills for a poorly performing contractor. So much so I think that SARH may well be a company killer. So where would that leave the government - no SAR contractor and no other contractor able to take over the job?

[Clever Richard]

Lets hope the SAR-H IPT have the sense to award the contract to a company with huge financial clout. Is there one left in the running?:ok:

[heli1]

The comment on the poor managemnet at MCA is well said...I recall the past departed head at a conference making it pretty clear that he thought he was the bees knees when it came to SAR/EMS/Law Enforcement etc...some would call it empire building.
The Coastguard "volunteers" on the ground aren't too happy either,especuially since they have just been told to dispose of all their flares for health and safety reasons and to use mobile phones in future !!!

[sapper]

So the MCA/MOD are supposedly due to open the tender documents this coming Thursday, (13 Nov) but there are only 2 remaining bidders, where a minimum of 3 is required. What happens now????????:hmm:

[Hilife]

Why a minimum of 3?

Was it not the intention of the IPT to down-select to 2 in the coming months anyway, so surely UKAR withdrawing has made the decision process easier.

[Droopystop]

Easier decision?

Let's have a look at the situation:

The current contractor is according to this thread not doing so well.

The other remaining contractor is untried in this specific field.

The only contractor with specific experience has pulled out. (and that alone should be sending alarm bells to both other bidders and the CG).

Who would you like to get your hard earned taxes?

[sapper]

Hilife
My very basic understanding for Government contracts of this size & magnitude is a legal requirment, for ideally 5 with a minimum of 3, for the first leg of the tendering process, then reducing to 2.

Please don't ridicule the messenger if the above is found to be way off track, just trying to help. :rolleyes:

[SARREMF]

Sapper,

I think you will find this is the second submission so less than 3 is OK. Not ideal, but OK.

Tonka. I believe years ago you would have been correct about the pitch angle. However, I thnk you will find the new long nose - with additional "Mr Burns" added blimp - brings the C of G forward - not by much but enough to make a difference. I talked to the chaps in Spain who have this configuration having watched them perform a series of SAR demos. I am pretty certain this is not the configuration of the machines on the South Coast - but icould be wrong. I believe the point they made was that people order different things. Some are good, some are excellent.

[No Vote Joe]

Why a minimum of 3?

Was it not the intention of the IPT to down-select to 2 in the coming months anyway, so surely UKAR withdrawing has made the decision process easier.


The problem is that the IPT hasn't made the decision, it's been made for them, making the process more likely to end up with the best of a bad lot. More like "This is what you're gonna get", rather than "This is what we want". :*

[Max Contingency]

No Vote Joe

Who cares what you want? Sorry mate, you know the rules....;)

[No Vote Joe]

Fair enough, Max, but with the sort of mega bucks being played with you'd want to get your monies worth!

And to be honest, several of the guys studying the bids are quite disillussioned, so maybe the writings on the wall. :uhoh:

[Vie sans frontieres]

So what does the writing say? Or is that classified?

[arandcee]

Step one: Apply forehead to wall.
Step two: Remove forehead from wall.
Step three: Go to step one.

?

[Max Contingency]

No Vote, I was having a cheap joke at your handle, no stick=no vote.

In terms of getting what you/we want, that work should have already been done with the writing of the technical specification. A technically compliant bid should therefore provide an technically acceptable solution.

In terms of value for money, competition is the best way but comparison against a 'should cost' model and scrutiny by the National Audit Office are other safeguards in place.

If guys are studying the bids already then they have some pretty good spies!

[Marty H]

Does anyone have any info on the two SAR H bids?

Aircraft types, locations etc?

Has the 139 been included I wonder?

Marty

[Thomas coupling]

Lockheed/VT with the super puma possibly a Eurocopter heavy.
CHC/Thales with the S92

There was a bidder offering AW139's allegedly.

[Hilife]

So it’s the Nutmeg State verses those with a penchant for bouillabaisse on the platform stakes.

Aside from the merits of each platform, you have a well known Civil Helicopter and SAR operator (Not forgetting Thales) with plenty of experience, verses a Government & Military Support Services Contractor and Systems Integrator with plenty of clout and money, so it will be interesting to see the final outcome as I suspect it’s not as straightforward as one might imagine.

[3D CAM]

a well known Civil Helicopter and SAR operator

Would that be the same operator that is struggling to provide overnight coverage for the South Coast? And the same one which had to send that cover back to Ireland last night??:rolleyes: Very professional, not!!!:ugh:
3D

[sonas]

I've just read on the MCA news pages that the second S92 from Shetland is going South to Lee, providing 24 Hour cover until the 139 is sorted and that the Mil is providing backup for Shetland.

[leopold bloom]

Newsroom - Press Releases (http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcga07-home/newsandpublications/press-releases.htm?id=3A0353ED561D16D0&m=11&y=2008)

[3D CAM]

They, CHC and the MCA just lurch from crisis to another! So what happens if, and I say if, the 139 trials don't solve the night flying issues? Note the plural!!
How long can crews be expected to man two bases?:confused:
3D

[Sven Sixtoo]

Sorry, what 139 trials?

Who's trialling, what's the aim, who's paying?

Sven

[Crabette]

3D

Rumour on the streets has it that they are placing a great deal of time and expense into providing ongoing solutions to restore service. Are you willing to bring a fairly capable aircraft back into play and move things forward, or are you all too militant to attempt limited night ops. You have had crews in a LIMSAR S61 doing your job. Now the S92's up North and their lipstick drivers are on the way to do your job according to the MCA press office. The embarrassment alone should encourage you into going back to the LIMSAR ops that were in place at night, prior to the Portland crews coming on line and throwing their toys out the cot. Do you all have parties around at Mr Kirby’s house to cry about the good ole days with the 61 and how sh1t the new machine is?? He seems to be on TV every other week doing your bidding with you lot hiding under his coat.:D

No one has ever produced a perfect aircraft and systems tailored to a role, it will take some time to improve a new type in its new role. You are being unrealistic and unfair to your employer and the public. By not using you experience to move forward, develop SOP’s and safe procedures, to balance your aircraft crews remit of Risk Vs Task, you are doing all those working hard to make a success of Civilian SAR – Fail! :ugh:

Even the most committed SAR-H team, (and even if was the MOD run by Crab@ himself) will not get it completely right straight away, if fact that will never happen. Too many variables, the last contract provider used 20+ years and nibbled away with on the S61 handing out improvements to keep the client sweet. Yet those aircraft were far from being as great as they could have! The same is true of the MOD Sea Kings. :rolleyes:

Bitch slapping complete!:ouch:
:O

[SARREMF]

And what a slap it was too!

Nice!

[2STROPS]

I concur - a good slapping:ok:

Shows what may/will happen if SAR goes too far down the non-military route - ye gads they will be asking for overtime next;)

2S

[Marty H]

Crabette

I am sorry to have to tell you that your assessment of the situation is entertaining but considerably wide of the mark.

I am told that the crews had no particular attachment to the previous operator or aircraft.
The simple fact was that there was an enormous pride in being able to carry out any task at any time and in virtually any weather and it was widely recognised by the Coastguards, press and public alike.

I sincerely believe that all the crews have found the affair one in which they would have done anything to avoid.

To the present operator’s credit, over the months they encouraged full and open reporting from the crews on the difficulties being experienced in managing to achieve limited SAR.
Again to their credit, the operator eventually sent in some “grown ups” and decided that even though the aircraft was acceptable for Public Transport the aircraft ticked one too many of the unsafe boxes for SAR.

The CAA independently even placed limits on it during the day.

There has indeed recently been a great deal of work by the operator although there are only a few fixes being presently added due to certification timings.
Whether these fixes are enough to tick the right boxes remains to be seen.

I feel you have been grossly unfair to the crews who may have been tempted just to keep quiet, provide a limited service and hope no one suffers in the mean time.

The crews should be congratulated on putting their heads above the parapet so trying to sort this out sooner rather than later especially as the poorer weather approaches.
Remember these are not the usual problems that most of the crews have seen before when changing aircraft types/equipment fit both in civvy and military street.

I am afraid that the “word on the street” as you put it, was that this was all a bit of an experiment in the run up to SARH.

This affair will hopefully result in a much better service and mitigate to some extent the weakness all along which was that the aircraft/fit was clearly selected by those inexperienced in such matters.

I would be very interested to see if it has been presented as an option by any of the bidders on SARH.

Does anyone know?


Regards

Marty

[Vie sans frontieres]

I am told that the crews had no particular great attachment to the previous operator or aircraft.

Yeah, right! It's the way you tell 'em!

[heli1]

Oh Dear...it seems to me that the real culprits here..CHC and MCA are hiding under the duvet covers.The fact is that between them they cocked up the spec for equipping the AW139 or at least were gambling on certification of the AFCS with SAR modes being completed earlier than it has.
Common sense would have made sure external equipment selected would be A) up to the job and B) fitted high enough to be clear of soft ground...after all who hasn't seen an S-61 bog down in muddy field conditions.More critically they must have known Certifiaction of the Primus SAR modes was behind schedule as the nights were drawing in but did nothing until the crews protested.
Let's put the fault where it truly lies ,not with the aircraft which performs well in SAR elsewhere, if the right equipoment is selected by the operator ,and not with the crews who know their job and limitations (thank God......read the US EMS reports for crews who didn't ).

[SARowl]

Crabette,

When you launch upon a diatribe against Pilots, Crewmen and Ops Staff about whom you know very little please ensure your arguments are authoritative and accurate. A sound knowledge of the AW139 and its equipment fit would be a good place to start. Until then, please keep your uneducated comments to yourself.

From your nom de plume, I understand you to be ex/serving RAF? This wouldn't be a surprise as you spout the same b*ll*cks as Crab@.

[Flyndre]

Having read prune for many years this is the first time I have felt so incensed that I have needed to post.

As someone who knows a number of the AW139 SAR crews I feel it is necessary to defend them; despite the fact that I may be rising to the bait.
Crabette's comments are extremely offensive. All the crews are, already, highly embarrassed by this state of affairs. It would appear that the post serves no purpose but to fulfil an incomprehensible desire to release a vitriolic attack on the aircrew involved. Why? (See below).

Perhaps it would assist all those reading this to assess the validity of the aforementioned post, if I were to point out just one example (of the many) as to why these crews are so keen to return to night service.

Almost all of them have been resident within the vicinity of their bases for a period of many years. As a result they are a part of the local community. Their friends and families use the local beaches, cliffs and sea, for recreation and work. By their actions they have directly removed a vital level of safety cover from their nearest & dearest. I doubt very much this would have been done unless there was a valid, carefully considered, reason?

Most of the crews have both military and civvy experience and have been in the business of SAR for tens, if not scores, of years. Many hold some form of 'recognition' in the form of awards; and all are used to providing the SAR service in conditions where normal a/c are grounded.

All are making every effort to work with the employer and get back to providing some sort of night service. The question is not; 'why don't the crews go back to work?'; it is:-

How was this state of affairs allowed to come to being in the first place? What is being done to prevent a re-occurrence for SARH?

Any answers?

I can only surmise that the rumour that Crabette was closely involved with the selection of this airframe in the first place, and is currently involved with the CHC SARH bid, is accurate. :=

[MyTarget]

Are there the spare crews to run a S92 temp at a southern base?

[night dipper]

Crabette,

You talk about how great the Irish were, providing LIMSAR with their S61 to cover for the AW-139. That's all fine and very brave, but remember that Lee went 'Live" as of April. As a reminder, in the summer it gets dark too! This means they have been providing LIMSAR for 6 months and I agree with them that enough is enough!

Especially bearing in mind that they are THE units to be called out first and expected to do the job safe and effective, in all weather. LIMSAR doesn't fit in this equision:=

[3D CAM]

Crab, oops sorry, Crabette.

I hope you feel better for that. Unfortunately all you have done is show just how little you know or understand about the current situation. Or are you hiding behind someones coat??? CHC emblazoned perhaps!!

We are all deeply embarrassed by the way this has panned out. We are more than six months down the road since the 139 was introduced to service, at Lee, and we are only now getting towards making this machine safe for night ops in the U.K. Agreed a lot of work has been done in the last 2 weeks, and is still being done but the question is.. why has it taken so long and why did it take direct action to get things moving??

In a previous post, I said that the previous contractor was complacent in the bid for this interim contract!! CHC are now equally complacent in just assuming that the crews will " just get on with it!" Recognise those words?? You should do, you used them in a previous post when I had the temerity to suggest that the 139 was not up to the job. Who's right now?? And by the way, I have no say in whether this aircraft is fit to fly at night or not!

We are here to provide a service to the public as you so rightly point out, but we need the correct equipment to do that safely! Give us that equipment and we will "get on with it!" And I don't mean a Bristow S61!!!
There is no point in a shiny new 139 whizzing out at warp speed into the middle of the Channel and then not being able to do the job through lack of safety margins/equipment that should have been fitted from new build!! "Crab" would be the first one on the bandwagon saying they could/should have done the job in the first place.

The whole idea of this interim contract was to go forward, well let's do just that!!

3D

P.S.

I missed your post before it was got at by the mods. Hope you enjoyed it.

[Sven Sixtoo]

3D Cam

It's obviously been a difficult time for the crews, and it seems to me from reading this thread that the aircraft as put into service was not appropriately equipped for the task. Three questions occur to me:

Did the aircraft as delivered meet the MCA requirement spec?
Who did the acceptance testing, and who did they report to?
Are you in a position to give details of what the shortcomings actually are?

There are other agencies looking at this aircraft for various tasks, and knowing where the deficiencies are, and what it might take to rectify them, would be useful to many people. But I can see that posting such might be frowned on by CHC or MCA or both.

Sven

[Flyndre]

Having 'broken my duck', so to speak, I can't resist adding that my better half commented, on reading crabette's post; 'Is there going to be a similarly irrational post this time next month'!! :)

[bigglesbutler]

"Bitch slapping" could be right, but from your username I conclude you have it the wrong way round. Its not the bitch that is BEING slapped, more the ....................... well I dont want to get edited by the mods.


NUFF SAID, all the south coast crews have my 100% support even if I don't fly with them anymore. And I know the SUMSAR crews will do a sterling job whilst on detatchement. Just don't have TOO much fun wazzing the beaches boys, I know what you're like when you have an adoring public to wave at :ok:

Si

[putzy]

sorry I cant contribute on a level with your discussions but I need help.
I am very keen to get into SAR. Currently a fixed wing guy with quite alot of experience and a background of air ambulance I have found myself in a very unrewarding job in a Scottish airline. My dream is to convert my licence to atplh but at present I only have a ppl h .
With a young family on the make and a tight budget I am keen to exploit any assistance I can toward my cplH in return for a long term commitment.
Who should I approach?
Thanks and keep up the good work.

[Crabette]

Maybe the red flag to a bull was waved….?
Sorry to 3D for getting ‘personally’ close to home. :oh:

On the ‘professional’ home front however;

With this Interim contract, new equipment was introduced. So, it turns out that not all your bells & whistles were going to be provided on time or indeed necessarily the ones that you would want. So a LIMSAR cab was introduced, I’m sure no party, neither MCA, nor CHC were overly happy, but it was the beginning of an ‘Interim phase’ and a LIMSAR period with the move towards AWSAR the goal. Not going to happen overnight. Perhaps it was felt the HK and Meridian could speed up the process? Only undoes the years of hard work and excellent service by the crews who have always made good of the limited equipment at their disposal-IMHO

Could not agree more that safety is the number one aim in aviation, albeit you SAR crews are required to risk assess yourselves into dangerous territory to do the job. As a LIMSAR cab with proposed improvements to AWSAR level, was the aircraft given a fair chance in the LIMSAR role? Only you and the crews can answer that. You all spent time online in the past with backup LIMSAR S61 cabs and managed a service. If you had spent the last 10 – 20 years on you ‘current AW139’ and then been given a ‘backup LIMSAR’ S61 as you new cab for example, what would you think to that? No a lot I’m sure….well size does matter, couldn’t agree more!:ok:

With new technology, in a short time frame and with limited financial resources, it won’t work to your every wish list! Suffice to say that will always be the case no matter who is running the show, or specifying the fit. Can’t please everyone obviously, I should know as you have to be bloody hard to please me! ;)

New aircraft and ‘old’ crew came on line after a quick honeymoon together. (It was an arranged marriage and you guys don’t want your bride), sorry but Miss S92 was already engaged, a ‘high maintenance’ model and not without her snags either! You know it’s a women thing.:O

The manufacturer and CHC, obviously both under very tight schedules have commenced the LIMSAR service with outstanding deficiencies to be addressed. You knew this, yet it appears to all outside that you have ‘forced’ a show down in public without allowing time for the belated modifications and upgrades needed for the AWSAR ability. This is the reason for the slapping!:=

Not a professional move airing dirty laundry in public. But since you have brought it outside for all to see, I’m not surprised that all the crews want to get back to some sort of normality. SAR is a demanding role, in a demanding environment. Yes you don’t want a demanding aircraft. Is the current 139 too demanding for highly trained crews to provide a safe LIMSAR service?? What are the other SAR 139 operators working with? What are they capable of? What is on their wish lists? Since we don’t hear them complaining in public maybe they are getting on with the job, doing the best they can with the tools they have and quietly adding the improvements and procedures needed to provide a SAR service. They probably want your current cabs on their wish list!:}

ASER: can you help out please???

MOST IMPORTANTLY
To all crews concerned; fly safe and lots of love, you do a fantastic job.

Lastly; the rumour that I'm expecting Crab@'s baby is ~#*^:mad:

[sonas]

Anyone see the program Top Trumps, Rescue Rigs, on five recently?
You could view it through the internet on Five on Demand.
What a machine!:rolleyes:

[Clever Richard]

As a quick reminder, here is what was said in only March this year:

Two AW139s will be based at Lee on the Solent and one at Portland.

Peter Cardy, Chief Executive, Maritime and Coastguard Agency said:

"The MCA are delighted to be able to receive these new AgustaWestland aircraft as part of our strategy of utilising differing aircraft specifically for the varying coastline we enjoy in the United Kingdom.

"These new aircraft will be able to fly more quickly, and will be able to fly farther to people in distress at sea than those currently in use.

"They have been specifically kitted with various items of advanced technical equipment, including an on board automatic identification system (AIS), specifically designed for the challenges of search and rescue in the 21st Century ".

The AW139s are in use on a variety of commercial duties around the world, proving their operational effectiveness and reliability.

The aircraft are also slated to be used in a search and rescue role in Spain, with UAE, Australia, Italian and Japanese authorities also intending to use these aircraft for SAR purposes.

Mr. Cardy continued

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

CHC's UK SAR contract manager Ian McLuskie said

"The introduction of the AW139s represents the latest key phase in our work with the MCA to introduce new technology to civilian helicopter search and rescue work in the UK and provide an effective, efficient service that reflects modern-day needs."

All of the above must be true because it is two highly experienced "SAR to the core" people that have been quoted.

Isn't it just a load of meaningless management b*ll**** ?:ugh:

Regards,

CD

PS. Haven't heard much from the two clowns quoted above since the debacle became public.

[Aser]

ASER: can you help out please???

No way! :E
I've been reading with interest this thread , but I'll never comment about the U.K. actions, it isn't my war.

Is the current 139 too demanding for highly trained crews to provide a safe LIMSAR service?? What are the other SAR 139 operators working with? What are they capable of? What is on their wish lists? Since we don’t hear them complaining in public maybe they are getting on with the job, doing the best they can with the tools they have and quietly adding the improvements and procedures needed to provide a SAR service. They probably want your current cabs on their wish list!

I can only say that I support 100% the U.K. crews
I know we share the wish list ;) .

As I always write on internet with my real name... I hope you all understand.

Regards
Aser

[heli1]

Aser..understand you don't want to enter politics but can you comment on the Primus Epic...and its EASA certification status as this semms to be play a part in the UK situation.
I believe the mods for the SAR mode have yet to be cleared ??

[night dipper]

Crabette,

The point I want to get across is that there are two units on the South Coast, which are responsible for UK Primairy SAR, with a LIMSAR aircraft. For more than 6 months already.......

There is no doubt in my mind that the crews are able to perform their missions safe in the LIMSAR 139, however they will be faced with restrictions operating a Limited SAR aircraft.

The previous operator had a LIMSAR as a back-up aircraft and crews were online with this cab every now and then. But it is a BIG difference knowing that you have an AWSAR aircraft at your disposal soon (when it is repaired) or that management keeps saying that your AWSAR aircraft is expected anytime (for 6 months!!).

Especially with the horrendous autumn/winter weather approaching I could not agree more with the crews for what they did.

Try saving people in distress, floating in the Channel at Night, no horizon, howling winds and rain, without autohover!! Good Luck :sad:

[3D CAM]

Sven.

I have no idea what the original MCA spec. was. I worked for the "enemy", Bristow, when that was brought into being. Perhaps "Crabette" could enlighten us? :E

We have done the range and survivor claims and actuality thing to death so I will not revisit those!

Acceptance testing is what is going on now and has been for the last eight months.

Shortcomings??

Sorry I am not party to those,:ok: and even if I were, would not post them on here. Previous posters have pretty much hit the nail on the head however.

I may not be happy with the way things are going, understatement of the year, but Mrs 3D still needs to be kept in the manner to which she has become accustomed.:)

3D

[Cyclic Hotline]

Outrage in the North. Don't you know who I am???? :eek:

MP fumes over chopper withdrawal (http://www.shetlandmarine.com/2008/08%20Service%20&%20Support/mp_fumes_over_chopper_withdrawal.htm)

[Woolf]

Another interesting question: Why did they use the Sumburgh spare aircraft to help out down south?

Could it have anything to do with the fact that there is another (albeit privately owned) SAR aircraft on the airfield which could be called upon in case of need (for free)?

[MyTarget]

But zee germans from sumburgh will now be invading the south of England:p

[No Vote Joe]

I take it that nothing has been resolved with the night cover on the south coast.

I understand that the Guys from Chivenor went to the aircraft crash off of Cherbourg last night. Shouldn't that have been a job for Lee or Portland?

[500e]

British SAR Chaos (http://bg.firetrench.com/?p=239)

October 27th, 2008 http://bg.firetrench.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/helicopter-lifeboat-5.jpg
Close co-operation between the voluntary, donation-funded, RNLI lifeboats, and the Government-funded RAF and FAA helicopter crews and the Coast Guard have saved many lives every year around the British Isles
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.

[sapper]

Delighted to announce that the loan S92 based at Lee has been given it's first tasking. A sick baby + 2 doctors + nurse + all supporting equipment and additionaly 2 BBC film crew from Regents Park, London to University of Wales Hospital Cardiff. Going on as we speak.

[sapper]

Oops, need for a slight change of fact to above. The S92 went to London, Regents Park, picked up 2 doctors, then flew to Cardiff and dropped the doctors to be met by R-169 from Chivenor who took the sick baby, doctors, nurses & equipment back to Great Ormond Street. The BBC film crew were not taken on any of the legs.

A great joint effort which hopefully saves a childs life.:D

[SirSokky]

What would have precluded the 139 from completing the above tasking? Is it not available for lit helipad (airport?) to lit helipad (airport?)??

Either way hope the outcome is sucessful for the wee one!!

[MyTarget]

How long is the S92 staying down south?

[TwoStep]

I have been told the S-92 is heading back up north at end of this week.

[leopold bloom]

What would have precluded the 139 from completing the above tasking? Is it not available for lit helipad (airport?) to lit helipad (airport?)??
If it was an ECMO job the equipment probably wouldn't fit in the cab? Can any 139 operators confirm/deny?:confused:

[[email protected]]

Not another regular SAR job that the 139 can't do - surely not:)

It will be interesting what the Falklands visit by the SARH team recently will add to the mix since the need for a military helicopter ie one you can put guns on, is a very clear requirement for the future here, especially since the Chinooks won't be coming back. Unfortunately, the geniuses (genii?) in charge forgot to think about that capability. Doh!

[Max Contingency]

The existing S61s are civ aircraft up until a certain point in the Transition to War and then the MOD effectively takes control of them, indemnifying the owner in the process. I suspect a similar arrangement will probably be put in place for SAR-H meaning that the MOD, in a conflict, can then strap guns, rockets or even Royal Marines to the side if they wish.

To be pedantic I don't think any UK SAR helicopter, mil or civ, can legally carry an ECMO team and all its equipment due to the presence of some nasty DAC that they embark with them. Nitric Oxide is a gas used in ECMO which is colourless odourless and if discharged into a confined space in sufficient quantity - fatal.

[Vie sans frontieres]

They'll get a bit bored at Leconfield without any ECMOs to do!:ok:

I very much doubt the people & kit that make up an ECMO team would fit in the back of an AW139 so they probably wouldn't have been tasked had it not been an S-92.

[Sven Sixtoo]

Strongly suspect that's NitrOUS Oxide.

And we've been carrying the stuff for at least 28 years to my knowledge without damaging any crew in any way. It also used to get squirted around in large quantities in dental surgeries without much news of the dentists or their staff falling over.

Lots of things are fatal in sufficient quantities.

Sven

[Adam Nams]

Pedantic on

No - it is Nitric Oxide. Used as a vasodilator in neonates, usually as a last resort before ECMO is considered.

However, in males it is better known as the signalling molecule that gives you an erection. I suppose you could overdose on it - but what a way to go!

Cue the joke about closing the coffin lid. :p

Pedantic off


BTW Anything good to report from the SARF Conference?

[Sven Sixtoo]

That'll teach me to pontificate outside of specialisation!

Quite a lot came out of the Conference. Pick up the phone to discuss.

Sven

[Wiretensioner]

The aircraft is on its way back to Sumburgh today. Presently at Aberdeen.

I would also liked to have said how civilized and gentlemanly this forum had become since a certain went down to visit the penguin colonies of the South Atlantic. Then he chipped in again. Oh dear!

Wiretensioner

[SASless]

MP fumes over chopper withdrawal

That sounds like our very own Barney Frank!

[FiveSevenAlpha]

Having looked after a few LZs for ECMO retrievals over the years, the medical team usually spends an hour or so at the hospital, preparing the baby for the transfer. The team plus (sedated) baby then return to the site and the aircraft departs once the incubator has been hoisted into the cab using Fire Service/Coastguard/RAF crew muscle power (I have pics of one such retrieval if anyone really wants them).

Only a handful of hospitals have ECMO machines (Great Ormond St., Leicester and Glasgow, from memory) - they're not something that can come to the patient, regardless of the size of the helicopter. Over the years, we've worked with crews from Leconfield, Wattisham and even Boulmer on these jobs (I'm in south Wales, before anyone asks). Most tend to occur around 3am.....

57A

[Big Tudor]

What would have precluded the 139 from completing the above tasking?
Because the AW139 & crew was not providing the night cover, the S92 was. No point tasking an aircraft if the crew aren't there to fly it.

[[email protected]]

The nitric oxide combines with oxygen preventing the haemoglobin in the blood from doing the same (similar effect to carbon monoxide) - that is why it can be fatal in a confined are and why the NHS can't use pressurised FW aircraft for ECMO transfers. A Sea King is hardly airtight and as such is a perfectly safe, if noisy and slow, mode of transport for the team and the kit.

Wiretensioner - so Crabbette's posts were civilised and gentlemanly (or ladylike) then?

Max - no, it would appear that it had not even popped above the radar horizon of the IPT, much to the annoyance of the wheels here. And whilst you can fill a civvy aircraft with troops, you are going to need some contingency plans to fit weapons (hard points, mountings, pintles etc) which needs to be thought about before the event not after.

[Granite City Flyer]

and why the NHS can't use pressurised FW aircraft for ECMO transfers


Scottish Air Ambulance King Air's do Nitric Oxide transfers. Sea level cabin at FL170 @ 275 knots. Needs a 760m helipad though.

[TwoStep]

Now that the Royal Bank of Scotland now 58% belongs to the taxpayer, where does this leave the Soteria bid, a government owned - albeit at arms length - organisation in the bidding for a government contract? :}

[Tractor_Driver]

Two Step,

It means that the money can go twice round the cycle: wash, rinse, dry, costing the good old taxpayer an additional 10-20% each time. That should give a good boost to the economy!

TD

[Max Contingency]

Two Step - Wow you are right. I hadn't really thought about it like that. In these uncertain financial times it must really strengthen their bid having their funding underwritten to that degree. Thanks for bringing it to everyones attention. Or were you trying to convey a different message :hmm:

Crab - The Ministry of Magic discussed the issue of employment of SAR-H during TTW in the FI nearly two years ago and subsequently signed off on the documents pack. Sounds like the string joining the bean cans in Whitehall and Stanley may have snapped again?

[TwoStep]

Two Step - Wow you are right. I hadn't really thought about it like that. In these uncertain financial times it must really strengthen their bid having their funding underwritten to that degree. Thanks for bringing it to everyones attention. Or were you trying to convey a different message

No, it just follows on from a previous RBS question a few pages back - Soteria being the only bidder with a bank in the mix...

[HAL9000]

Don't cancel SAR-H, the solution is here:

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/345355-life-old-girl-yet-s61.html

:D

Discuss.

HAL

[Pink Panther]

HAL9000 :ok:I have to agree with you. I was thinking the same thing myself. Is it true that you can have three of these new shiney 61's for the price of a 92. Any ideas why Sikorsky are coming onboard with the refits.

[leopold bloom]

Are you familiar with the introduction to service of the RAF's Mk 3A Sea King? It is not unusual to have teething problems with a new type or variant. I am pretty sure that a re-worked S61/Sea King with new engines/rotors/FCS/avionics/cockpit and all of the integration that would be required would also have its drawbacks. The trouble with that approach is that it would, in the end, be bit like Trigger's broom, so why not just start with a clean sheet/modern design? The NH90 is about Sea King size, bigger than the 139 and smaller than the 101, yet seldom gets a mention. Too expensive or are there other disadvantages?:confused:

[HAL9000]

Mr Bloom,

I know some of the detail of the Mk3A introduction into service and agree that all new aircraft have teething problems. The main attraction of the Carson upgrade would be cost savings; assuming there are significant savings of course when all the details are known.

Does anyone have accurate figures for the cost of the Carson upgrade?

HAL

[Droopystop]

If I am not mistaken the S61/SK/H3 series were designed to hover over the water, which of course makes them an ideal winching platform.

Modern designs seem to be designed to do as much as possible, but with a leaning towards all weather high speed transit, thereby compromising on the hovering bit.

So in that respect the old airframe would seem to be the way to go.

But flying the thing is only a small part of it (unfortunately). Someone has to pay for it, maintain it and find the spare parts for it. Who is going to put money on being able to find S61 spares in 34 years time?

[HAL9000]

Droopystop,

If the figures of just over a 1000 S61/Sea Kings produced, of which 620 are still in service worldwide, are accurate then I think there will be economies of scale in producing spares for some time to come.

A very valid point made about designing an aircraft to hover rather than shoehorn a commuter bus into a winching role (139 again!).

HAL

[Geoffersincornwall]

It would be appropriate to recall the dramas we had in the early days of the S61/Sea King which included shedding rotor blades, dumping gearbox oil and slipping free-wheels to mention just a few. Give the 139 a break, it's a sweet machine and one day the Mk2 will be a real beast.

I have nothing but admiration for the AW team who took helo design in a direction that was much derided by some experts (Nick!!) but has proven to be a world beater and is still selling like hot cakes.

Will the French copycat version be a competitor? Well, if they have learnt the lessons of the 139 Mk 1 then maybe but I suspect that Eurocopter being Eurocopter greatly value the right to make their own design F*****k ups.
Wait for the EC175 Mk 2 if you don't want 4 years of tearing your hair out, who knows, maybe the 139 Mk2 will be out then and you wont have to bother with all that Chablis and Camembert but can sup fine Pinot Grigio from Alto Adige and sprinkle Parmigiano on your Risotto Porcini, mmmmmmmmmmmm.

Big G

:ok:

[leopold bloom]

Talking of the 139 Mk 2, any news on the 149 Geoffers?

[Hilife]

My take on a couple of points raised.

RBS may well be part of a consortia, but financing a bid this large would likely be spread over a multitude of financial institutions - not just one - thereby reducing risk.

I’d also have thought that the majority of the 3-5Bn mentioned will be swallowed up on 25 years of wages, pensions and benefits, not the platforms.

The S-61 has an iconic reputation, so with some 600+ still in service the Carson blade makes sense for many operators, but I suspect that many military and civil customers alike would feel a whole lot better about installing a blade that had the backing and support of the platform OEM.

In my lifetime, UK Mil SAR has always operated on a ‘Hand-Me-Down’ basis (Whirlwind, Wessex and now the Sea King’s (MK3a’aside but still an old design back in 1996). This bid offers UK SAR an opportunity to acquire not only NEW delivery platforms built with the very latest designs and technologies and most importantly for the crews and passengers, safety features, so why in heavens would you consider going forward with a 50-year old design that is becoming increasingly difficult to support now, let alone in 20 years?

Regarding cabin size and in spite of my last comment the S-61 is King, but OEM’s design their platform size on market requirements and if the civil airworthiness authorities mandate restrictions on the number of PAX that an operator can carry before additional cabin crew requirements kick in, then that’s not the fault of the OEM for not building a bigger cabin with costly excess space.

NH90? I think not.

• There are currently some 5 production lines for the NH90 worldwide, yet only 20 to 30 or so have been delivered to date and all these were well behind schedule, so not likely to be ready for a 2012 ISD in any UK SAR role.
• Problems with the naval variant are leaving many to look elsewhere for a maritime solution.
• Unproven in Troop Transportation Role let alone in a UK Civ/Mil SAR role.
• Currently no civil variant
• Simply put, an unproven high risk solution

[Geoffersincornwall]

AW 149 will not be long in coming then we will have not one but two world beaters

Big G

:ok:

[Jackonicko]

Cough: AW101. Cough.

[3D CAM]

Geoffers.

If you are implying that the 139 is a world beater in SAR in its present form, then I think it is time you took off your Rose tinted specs.:confused:

3D

[[email protected]]

Since AW is the Design Authority for the mil Sea Kings and the current service provider of the engineering for mil SKs under SKIOS 2 - they would have a vested interest in a Sea King/Carson upgrade, even though they would probably prefer to fit their own BERP technology blades.

The alternative, given that their SARH bid has been withdrawn and SKIOS would end in 2017 (the OSD for SKs), would be to completely lose any foothold in the future of SAR unless the 139 is chosen for the contract. Seems to me they would be foolish not to at least offer this solution which could act as a stop-gap measure until the clowns in power recover the economy from meltdown.

[Vie sans frontieres]

Cough : Downwash. Cough.

[Geoffersincornwall]

I thought you knew that rose-tinted spectacles are compulsory equipment for anyone in the helicopter industry. If I take them off ..... ah. ah ah..... I quickly put them back on again.

Optimism comes as essential equipment these days and when I think where all the other machines in the game went after their birth I am sure that future tweaking will make the 139 totally acceptable and the 149 an even better option in that role............ back to the box........ has anybody seen my spare pair of specs???????????

Big G.

[heli1]

Cough...S-92 downwash..cough.

[SARREMF]

Cough. No, I have a cold honest! Cough.

[Aser]

Waiting the AW139 report...
:E

Search and Rescue S-92 Helicopter Marks Anniversary of Introduction to U.K. SAR Market
Monday, December 01, 2008 / Sikorsky

In its first year of use by the United Kingdom Maritime and Coastguard Agency and under the operation of CHC Helicopter Corp., Sikorsky Aircraft's Search-and-Rescue (SAR)-configured S-92(R) helicopter logged 279 rescues and is operating at availability levels of more than 98 percent. Sikorsky is a subsidiary of United Technologies Corp. (NYSE: UTX).

CHC operates the SAR S-92 helicopters from two bases covering territory in the North Atlantic and the North Sea. In Stornoway, Western Isles, Scotland, the fleet has conducted 174 rescue missions, while missions flown out of Sumburgh, Shetland Isles, Scotland, have totaled 102 to date. Aircraft technical availability at Stornoway has been 98.35 percent; availability at Sumburgh, 100 percent, said Ian McLuskie, UK SAR Business Unit Leader, CHC Search and Rescue.

"The Maritime and Coastguard Agency has seen a 20 percent increase in rescue missions at its bases, which is attributed to the increase in speed and capability that the S-92 helicopter offers," said McLuskie. "The aircraft's fully coupled automatic flight control system has been invaluable, and the large cabin and tail ramp also have been of great benefit, particularly when airlifting rescue teams."

Sikorsky initially developed the S-92 helicopter for over-water search and rescue in demanding and challenging environments such as the North Sea and North Atlantic, where the MCA is in service.

"Sikorsky has a successful history of search and rescue. The CHC-operated MCA missions are adding to that legacy," said Marc Poland, Sikorsky Vice President, Commercial Programs. "The S-92 helicopter fleet today has logged more than 120,000 flight hours and in doing so, has shown itself to be a safe, extremely reliable and cost-efficient platform."

The SAR aircraft have conducted rescues from mountains, cliffs, and vessels, rescued divers in difficulty, and extracted complete crews from stricken vessels. One such incident in February this year led to the rescue of 14 fishermen from the vessel Spinningdale, which had run aground at St. Kilda. That rescue, conducted amid gusting 70-knot winds as the vessel sat stranded on rocky, cliff-facing terrain, brought the crew recognition for its bravery and professionalism as it was awarded the Great Scot of the Year Award.

The S-92 is the first helicopter in the world certified to the latest U.S. Federal Aviation Administration and European airworthiness safety standards. The S-92 features a Rotor Ice Protection System (RIPS), which allows the aircraft to operate in known icing conditions. RIPS has been certified by both North American and European aviation authorities and is available on S-92 military variants as well as commercial aircraft. EASA certification was issued in April for an IAFS equipped aircraft, which is currently in commercial operation.

Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., based in Stratford, Conn., USA, is a world leader in helicopter design, manufacture and service. The company's mission statement reflects its long commitment to safety and innovation: "We pioneer flight solutions that bring people home everywhere ... every time(TM)." United Technologies Corp., based in Hartford, Conn., USA, provides a broad range of high technology products and support services to the aerospace and building systems industries.

Regards
Aser

[Droopystop]

Geoffers

I think I've found your mislaid rose tinted specs..... both pairs!

You've been lending them out again :=

[[email protected]]

Sikorsky have made a big deal about RIPS but when the S-92 icing clearance was last covered on this thread there was a limit regarding 'no flight in large supercooled droplets' that was mentioned but never clarified.

Now I believe that large supercooled droplets are what you find in fairly warm icing cloud, not just CBs, so it doesn't sound like much of an icing clearance above and beyond any other helicopter, especially since there doesn't seem to be a device for measuring the actual size of the supercooled droplets in flight (apart from possibly an ice accretion meter a la Sea King or Lynx where you can at least see whether it is rime or clear ice by the texture and opacity).

Would any S92 operator care to comment or elaborate on the actual S92 clearance as opposed to the 'press release' clearance (a bit like the range issue possibly)?

[s92fella]

Crab,

Interesting reply, but utter rubbish. The RIPS is a excellent system and 99% of the time gives us a all weather capability.

If you actually flew a modern aircraft like the S92 then you would actually know its capabilities.

And having flown the Lynx the S92 is in a different class............

[[email protected]]

S92 fella - an interesting reply that doesn't answer the question in any way, shape or form - who is therefore posting utter rubbish?

What is your beef - that I am talking rubbish about icing and supercooled droplets or that I dare to question claims that have as yet not been substantiated. Just saying it is a good system that gives you 99% all weather capability is an utterly meaningless statement.

If you want to shut me up then post some detail.

[Vie sans frontieres]

I'm afraid he's right s92fella. History shows that an answer as paltry as that's not going to satisfy him. Give us a bit of detail and then we can all be friends again!:)

[s92fella]

Infact i have just read back through some of your posts........:ugh: Actually i can't be a*****. It will not change your point of view anyway hearing the facts.:(

[[email protected]]

S92fella - then I interpret your 'can't be ars*d' to mean you either don't know or that the S92 icing clearance is a thin veneer buffed to a shine with rhetoric and bluster.

I do respect the facts but not when they are presented like that Sikorsky press release or the MCA's announcements about S92 range and AW 139 night capability.

[HAL9000]

A perfectly reasonable question, yet again, from Crab that draws an unwarranted personal attack whilst not addressing the original issue.

s92 fella, regardless of what you think about Crab, please post the details of the S92's icing clearance so that the wider audience can make their own assessment.

Regards,

HAL

[Nicholas Howard]

Hilife wrote:

but I suspect that many military and civil customers alike would feel a whole lot better about installing a blade that had the backing and support of the platform OEM.


Is the backing of Sikorsky (http://www.sikorsky.com/sik/about_sikorsky/news/2008/20080930_1.asp)good enough for you as an OEM?

NHH

[sapper]

Delighted to inform all that of Sunday 7th Dec the Portland AW139 will be back to normal SAR operations, operating from 0900-2100........hip hip.:D

Please don't ask what the fix consisted of, you need to ask the techies for that. :rolleyes:

[Droopystop]

Crab,

Seeing that S92fella won't answer your question, I will.

The S92 is cleared in icing upto 10,000' and down to -40deg C assuming of course that RIPS is on. Flight is prohibited in freezing rain, freezing drizzle and supercoolded large droplets (SLDs). Of course as with all types the amount of airframe icing would be limited by the standard transmission limits.

I think all of us, regardless of type would avoid SLDs if possible and would attempt to exit such an area ASAP. I would imagine that SLDs will paint really well on the weather radar so can be easily avoided by not flying through the red bits.

Editted to add....

I suppose that other types are not prohibted from flight in SLDs because the concept of SLDs is younger than most of the aircraft fleet.

[Spanish Waltzer]

ok......I'll bite on the TLA..............SLD?????? :confused::confused:

Always meant serious learning difficulty when I was at school...and yes they're best avoided too!


Thanks Droopy - I suppose I could have guessed - just not heard them abbreviated like that before. Regards, SW

[Droopystop]

Sorry Spanish Waltzer

SLD = Supercooled Large Droplet as refered to in Crabs post. I'll edit my other post

[Sven Sixtoo]

Droopystop

Many thanks for that.

Are there any other restrictions? eg max tq rise associated with increase in AUM as ice builds on everywhere except the rotors?

A RIPS will keep you in control (unlike one or two documented cases of Sea Kings of various Mks flying into icing at FL60 or thereabouts), but it does nothing to prevent your AUM going through the roof as ice accumulates on the fuselage, which in the nastier corners of the 10000' / -40 clearance is a virtual certainty. The Sea King clearance, limited as it is, recognises this and imposes limits to give crews a basis for saying no. Is there anything in the S92 clearance that considers the effects of icing other than control / lift loss?

Sven

[[email protected]]

Droopystop - thanks for that - I wasn't ignoring your post, I just didn't see it as it coincided with my return from the Falklands and I wasn't ppruning.

It is still interesting that they have chosen to specify SLDs in addition to freezing rain as it is not something that would be included on a met forecast and impossible to measure from the cockpit. Therefore it becomes completely subjective and almost meaningless. If however, they mean you should vacate icing conditions when you have clear ice accreting, why don't they just say that and, as Sven suggests, put a limit on Tq/vibration.

As I understand it, RIPS is protection purely for the rotors (implied in its name I guess;)) and does not provide any additional anti-icing for the rest of the airframe. Since most of the horror stories I have heard regarding ice accretion have been related to the accumulation of ice on the airframe rather than problems with assymmetric shedding from the rotor, it still doesn't seem that RIPS is such a big step forward in capability.

Yes the icing flight envelope is much better than the Sea King but a. It should be as a 21st century helicopter and b. There was never a requirement to test the SK beyond its current limit since the RN didn't need/want it (same as the 30 deg AoB limit).

[267.4FWD]

In the days of the venerable S61N, to preheat the main transmission before rotor start,the heater was turned up to full ,interior trim lowered and the gearbox plug pulled.
On the S92 we also have a powerful heater,by lowering the trim the heat could go onto the aircraft skin to decrease the build up of clear ice.
Super Heated Interior Trim,or S**T for short,hows that for innovation crab?

[[email protected]]

I'm surprised that Sikorsky or the MCA haven't issued a press release about that one;)

[Sailor Vee]

Or is it that the newer machines have Partial Ice Shedding System? :E

[[email protected]]

Ah - is that PISS using Thermally Amplified Kinetic Energy in the Rotor?

[stan27]

Sorry to butt in here, but could someone inform me of when the announcement is due to be made between the two remaining bidders.

Stan

[Droopystop]

Sven and Crab,

Those are the only limits. As stated you would also be limited by the transmission limits, thereby limiting the level of airframe icing. Maybe severe airframe icing is only caused by SLDs and so that corner is covered. As for forcasting and detection, I would say forecast freezing rain implies SLDs and weather radar could be used to avoid likely areas.

[[email protected]]

I agree but you can still encounter SLDs without any forecast of freezing rain including in stratiform cloud where your weather radar is unlikely to see them. It still seems odd that they issue a limit regarding SLDs without either defining what size they are talking about or giving you a measuring method.

SLDs will cause severe airframe icing since only 1/80th of the drop (per degree below 0) will freeze on contact and the rest will flow over the airframe freezing into clear ice as it does so.

[Trolleys]

A practical example of the advantage of RIPS............

Last night, S-92 from Stornoway picked up casualty on the west coast of Scotland and transferred said casualty to Inverness. Conditions en-route required an IFR transit above safety altitude in icing conditions. The aircraft spent a total of about an hour and a half in cloud and precipitation at about -2 deg, 135kts airspeed with no ill effects. The RIPS ice accretion meter indicated light to moderate icing throughout. Embedded CB's were avoided by use of the very helpful forward facing radar.

Had this been an S-61 the casualty would have had to go the long way round, low level via the north coast at 110 kts.

A similar trip was done earlier in the week, this time to collect a casualty from Elgin and transport to Aberdeen. I would love to say the job was given to Stornoway because of superior capabilities and in a sense it was - Lossiemouth were off state. Again. :D

The icing clearance of the S-92 is not perfect but it's a massive step forward.

[[email protected]]

As it should be - it is a 21st century helicopter after all.

So you used the weather radar for the purpose it was designed then:)

Depending on the density altitude at the cruising level a Sea King may still have been able to do the job but certainly not at 135 kts!

Seriously though it is good to see that the much-vaunted superior capabilities of the S-92 are being used to save lives and I know that Lossie wish they had your serviceability.

[chcoffshore]

I nearly fell off my chair...........A positive post with regards to the S92!:D

[[email protected]]

You know.. Christmas spirit and all that....:)

[chcoffshore]

Well done you and a merry xmas!!!:ok:

[HAL9000]

Isn't it nice when we all get along, happy Christmas everyone!

HAL

[pumaboy]

I must be dreaming ::confused:

Merry Christmas everyone and a safe new year

[pumaboy]

Well it is the season to be jolly :{:{

[zalt]

Cougar http://www.sae.org/events/icing/presentations/2007s16jamieson.pdf
Sikorsky http://www.sae.org/events/icing/presentations/2007s16flemming.pdf

And seasons greeetings!

[Input Chip]

With all the comments about icing here is a Christmas style picture of an S92.

S92 Pics (http://uk.msnusers.com/S92pics)

Wow that was not as easy as I thought!

Happy Christmas:ok:

[Deiceman]

Just to return to the SLD restrictions on the S-92A. The S-92A is certified to the fullest extent of Appendix C in 14 CFR Part 29, taking the allowable 10,000 ft limitation for expediency - the system was clearly designed to be independant of altitude.

Appendix C does not cover SLD - in fact the FAA is hardover in their concern that ANY helicopter not be operated in that environment. The restriction in the RFM is to assuage their concerns about SLD - Roselawn was a very hard lesson for the FAA and the S-92A walked straight into the backlash. :ugh:

The S-92A is certainly no more susceptible to SLD than ANY helicopter out there.

:ok:

[thorpey]

Heard a couple of days ago that the MCA will not be using the helos of the CG for any transits for offshore firefighting crews. I suppose that leaves the military to pick up and deliver for the time being. I hope sense prevails and a bigger a/c will eventually be supplied to Solent and Portland, because one day, it will be needed. Happy New Year to you all, thorpey.

[[email protected]]

So no MIRG cover for the Channel then - this interim contract is going well isn't it:)

And before LostatSea starts - it's probably the Military's fault:ugh:

[thorpey]

We believe there`s MIRG cover but only if mil transport available

[Tonka Toy]

'Well, we could use an RAF Chinook they're the right size for that agency requirement,'
'Running a little tight on availaility aren't they?'
'Really?'
'er yes'
Well those special people the americans have some big rescue helicopters don't they!'
'The PAVELOW's?'
'Is that a CHS3 (sic)'
'Er yes.' (slowly dying)...they're all retired'
'Whens that!!?'
'It's done!'
'Oh *&$%!'
'What about the small ones that did the long range rescue the other month!?'
'The pavehawk?'
'Bit small perhaps - good range'
'Well we'll just have to get a bigger helicopter then, -we could put a probe thing on it like the americans have'

The explosive crash of glass as I threw myself from a fifth floor window was just in my mind! Shame the above ear wig - give or take - wasn't!:ugh:

[3D CAM]

So no MIRG cover for the Channel then

Happy New Year Crab.

The 'plan':rolleyes::rolleyes:, now that would be a novelty, evidently, is for the super swift 139, whichever is nearest, and available, to take out two firefighters, at warp factor 12, to assess the situation. Then the military, if available, would plod along with the rest of the MIRG team to what would probably by then be a smouldering wreck.:mad: Do we like this 'plan'?? :*What do you think??
I am not having a go at the military, they have been dropped in it just the same as we have by the unseen bean counters!!!
3D

Tonka.
Sounds like normal Government thinking to me!!:ugh:Finger on the pulse and all that!!
3D

[Bertie Thruster]

.......how many Wessex 5's in that hangar at Wroughton?...................

[heli1]

Bertie thruster...none i'm afraid..Wroughton now belongs to the Science Museum !
However there are spare Wx and Sea Kings at Sultan.

[[email protected]]

3D - Happy New Year chap. No - the MIRG requirement is just one more thing that those highly paid people who get to control things forgot to think about and another indicator of how unjoined-up the UK's Emergency Services response to anything is.

However, I probably wasn't the only one who was surprised that Lee and Portland didn't get at least 1 S-92 between them - if nothing else it would have saved that embarassing use of the non-auto hover S61's for night-time shifts in the Channel. CHC couldn't even give a guaranteed night wet winching capability after they had screwed up on the 139! I am sure you boys were pulling your hair out in frustration.

[Max Contingency]

Happy New Year to the SAR community

Fot those who follow ths thread but are not from an SAR background: MIRG stands for Maritime Incident Response Group and is a UK offshore firefighting capability, primarily designed to be delivered by SAR helicopter.

Does anyone have the factual reason for the MIRGs no longer wishing to use the 139? Just interested as I know that they were considered in the procurement process and that they saw the layouts of the aircraft interior at a meeting in North Denes before the aircraft came into service. They were informed at that time that, if required, their deployment from the South Coast would be via two AW139 lifts.

My personal opinion is that I have never been a great fan of their capability. They must be very well funded if they can 'stand up' fifteen offshore firefighting teams, each with a cadre of fifty trained firefighters and pay the MOD and MCA for an allocation of training hours. All of this for a capability that in its three years of existance has been to (I believe) three offshore fires. I think that UK plc might have been better served to have that money spent in other more 'acute' areas of the emergency services.

[[email protected]]

Max - so well funded they have publicly declared that the Fire and Rescue Service should have its own helicopters!!! Quite what they think they would do with them is anyones' guess.

It very much sounds like empire building. I agree with you wholeheartedly re; allocation of taxpayers money in the Emergency Services.

Is MIRG a white elephant? Most merchant vessels are well-equipped to help themselves or others when dealing with fire at sea and the RNLI lifeboats have plenty of firefighting capability for smaller vessels. You can't legislate for another Piper Alpha and anyway what use would a MIRG team have been then?

[DanglyBob]

Agree, the kit is usually out there on merchants ships (ignoring grey funnel at this point), but the skills and experience to fight fires at sea are not.

[Geoffersincornwall]

....... we would find that not only are the police helicopters and the air ambulances co-located (security issues having been taken care of of course) but they just happen to be co-located with a combined ambulance station and fire station...... and where feasible the SAR unit can take advantage of the economies of scale.

Surely scope exists within the manning of said multi-tasking units to share pilots, share training, share back seat personnel (paramedics, winch wigglers and dangly people).

Now of course it would help to find one or two types to suit all but that would be one wish too far.

Why is it that the most nanniest of governments that sets out to control the way we do just about anything hasn't got the balls to bang a few heads together ands say "cut the crap - you get this or nothing, now STFU and get on with it".

They wont of course because the Fire Brigades Union is too strong and the Ambulance people think they are a superior breed plus each Chief Constable thinks he is entitled to run his own little empire.

When it comes to equipment we could take a lead from the Italians of course..... they wouldn't dream of using anything other than Italian made equipment - regardless of just about any other consideration. As the AW group is at least part Brit that would leave us with:-

AW109 - for the puddle-jumping jobs
AW 139 - for the channel-hoping jobs, and the
AW101 - for ocean-going adventures
Jaguars/Vauxhall/Ford/Nissan/Honda for the cops
Ford/DAF trucks for the Ambulance Service
Dennis for the Fire service

We can always dream I suppose.

G

:ok:

[500e]

Geoffers
The men in white coats will collect you soon, please be patient.:D:D

[Flaxton Flyer]

and Aston Martins for the pilots.

[Fortyodd2]

Geoffers,

"bang a few heads together and say "cut the crap - you get this or nothing, now STFU and get on with it".

Nice idea but it is the job of most of the idiots in government to invent the "crap" in the first place and they are hardly likely to be doing anything that would put their own jobs on the line ~ sadly! :ugh:

[Clever Richard]

Was it this thread that mentioned some time ago about a reduction in the number of RAF SAR crews? Apologies if this has already been covered but 30+ pages was too much to wade through post by post (I did use the search function).

Was the rumour false or, if true, has it been dropped; could anyone provide an update?

Thanks and HNY

CR

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

reduction in the number of RAF SAR crews


This is apparently going ahead. It remains to be seen how the reductions will affect day-to-day business, but it seems impossible that the current level of cover can be maintained with fewer crews (the problem is that the SAR Force is going back to pre-1982 crewing levels while now also having to provide manpower for the Falklands).

The likely result is that UK SAR coverage will be compromised.

[[email protected]]

And you have to add in the Out Of Area detachments supported by the SARF.

We are very short of rearcrew, so short that we operated 3 shifts over Christmas at Chiv with only 12 hour cover from 0800 to 2000. The shortage is partly due to the pull from civvie St caused by the uncertainty of the future of milSAR, partly from the problems of moving the OCU and its poor serviceability, partly from slow throughput from SARTU and partly due to non-existent career management.

The genius Air-rank officers who foisted the crew reduction on us were quite happy to 'take at risk' the fact that not only 2nd standby capability but 1st standby capability would be affected. It just goes to show how little the contribution of the SARF is aknowledged or valued by our 'Air Power centric' senior management.

[zalt]

It seems their Airships are able to vary service levels in a way a private contractor could not do.

Perhaps the Crown should privitise the whole service and a government department who cares about it, say the coastguard, become the customer?

[[email protected]]

The Govt still has to pay for it whichever way you spin it and the Govt are the ones who have us fighting on 2 fronts whilst cutting defence spending.

Maybe the only answer is SARH and effectively privatisation but the interim contract, seen by many as a trial run for the full event, has hardly been an overwhelming success - we still don't have the required level of cover in the Channel.

The MCA don't really understand helicopters and the variations of performance/capability so any future contractor must demonstrate integrity so that they are not guilty of pulling the wool over the customers eyes just to tick contractual boxes.

The trouble is that the present incumbent has already tripped over that hurdle and the remaining competitor is untried and untested in the field. Oh Dear!

[thorpey]

Afternoon crab, with the CG out of the picture for transporting firefighting crews and St. Mawgan finished, i know it was OCU, but a/c available. What resources are available from the RAF and or Navy to cover the Channel at the present? Just interested to know, timescales etc, regards, thorpey.

[leopold bloom]

Wattisham and Culdrose would be the nearest bases but I hear that they are short on crew numbers?

[Max Contingency]

Thorpey

Sorry mon ami, but as a Channel Islander, I am afraid that for SAR purposes you are effectively French as the Channel Islands sit outside of the UK Search and Rescue Region. The MIRGs may have formally declared a capability to get to the Channel Islands but the UK SAR helicopters, that they rely on for transport, have not.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Wattisham and Culdrose would be the nearest bases


and Chivenor - no further from the middle bit of the Channel than Culdrose. We don't want Crab to feel left out!


short on crew numbers


...but they are borrowing crewmembers from other flts to fill the gaps until new people finish training, so it's very unlikely that they would be unable to respond if need be.

Just out of interest, does anyone have information on how decisive a role the MIRG teams played at the 3 incidents to which they have apparently responded so far? For the record, I'm not having a dig, I'm genuinely interested.

[[email protected]]

Culdrose haven't had a 2nd standby available for months due to crew shortages and we are struggling as well at the moment. However, both 1st standby crews already cover a lot of the Channel (we cover the West of Portland's patch when they are tucked up in bed:))

As far as the MIRG crews go, the only training they do with us is being winched to the ships (ferries usually), I don't know how much specific fire-fighting at sea training they get.

[thorpey]

Unfortunately not a lot of ship based firefighting, as their own Brigade has to pay for that part of the training and ours sees corporate courses for pen pushers as a priority. MIRG pay for the hoist and dunker training, most of what happens is tick in the box training anyway. I was aware of the large section of sea not covered by SAR, especially around the Channel Islands but i`ve never known the military/CG to not respond.

[3D CAM]

Crab

we cover the West of Portland's patch when they are tucked up in bedhttp://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gif

So was that you, 1600ish. checking out Portlands runway? Or just seeing what our patch looks like in daylight?:D
BTW. From my point of view, behind, the #1 engine on that "Yellow Peril" was making a lot of smoke!! Is that normal?
3D

[[email protected]]

It's a Sea King - the only thing that smokes worse than one of those is a USAF Phantom and I don't think they have any of them any more:):)

Yes, we had just done a medtransfer to Dorchester and couldn't resist a quick visit - what a nice place to have a SAR Flt:ok:

[Clever Richard]

Torque and Crab,

Thank you for your responses ref my question about the reduction in RAF SAR crew numbers.

Why is this not a headline news story if it is going to reduce SAR cover? I would like to see a government minister try and spin this one.

CD

[Hilife]

CR - A Sunday Times article from last summer.


RAF sends air rescue crews to Afghanistan
Michael Smith

The Sunday Times - August 3, 2008 - The RAF is being forced to pull a fifth of its helicopter crews out of Britain’s search and rescue service and send them to Afghanistan in an attempt to stop soldiers being killed by roadside bombs.

The move will drastically reduce the number of RAF Sea King helicopters available to rescue people in trouble at sea or caught in disasters such as last year’s floods.

The RAF crews respond to an average of 1,000 emergency calls a year, varying from rescuing holidaymakers in difficulties to the 2004 floods that devastated the Cornish village of Boscastle.

Cutting one of the five crews from each of the six RAF search and rescue stations around Britain will put at risk the current ability to respond to any emergency within an hour.

The cuts, due to come into effect over the next few months, will leave most RAF search and rescue stations with only one helicopter on call instead of two, leaving no back-up for big incidents.

Nick Harvey, the Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, whose North Devon constituency includes the RAF’s Chivenor search and rescue base, said: “There have to be grave concerns they will be left shorthanded.”

It is the first time search and rescue crews have been cut to help frontline forces.

Extra helicopters and crews in Afghanistan are seen as vital if the number of soldiers dying there is to be prevented from escalating. Twenty-seven of the last 33 soldiers killed in Afghanistan died as a result of roadside bombs or landmines. Commanders say unless they get them, more soldiers will die.

Just 16 transport helicopters serve British troops in Helmand, an area five times the size of Northern Ireland. Concern over rising numbers of victims of roadside bombs led to an emergency meeting on Thursday chaired by Des Browne, the defence secretary, to raise helicopter numbers.

Merlin helicopters bought from Denmark and revamped special-forces Chinooks, previously deemed too dangerous to fly, will relieve pressure in the short term. However, budget cuts could mean total helicopter numbers dropping from 525 to 220 within eight years.

The importance of rescue helicopters was highlighted this weekend when an RAF crew saved six children and two fathers. They had become stranded yesterday afternoon while travelling in an inflatable boat down the River Tees at Dalton-on-Tees, North Yorkshire. With the boat trapped on an island in the middle of the rising river, the helicopter was scrambled and winched all six to safety.

The MoD confirmed the cuts in crew numbers but said the RAF’s search and rescue would still have “at least one committed standby helicopter at six bases . . . This will not affect normal capability”. …….

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

...though bear in mind that this article is misleading, in that it suggests that both yellow Sea Kings and their crews are being sent to Afghanistan, whereas neither is true - people are leaving on posting, often to fill personnel shortages in Training Command (or whatever it's called these days), and not being replaced. Some choose to go SH, but it's not true that all, or even many, of those leaving the SAR Force will end up in Afghan.

The number of SAR Sea Kings will stay the same, and the intention is to maintain the same degree of cover as always (ie 1sts and 2nds) if possible. Crab is right that the chances of being able to man both aircraft at once have already been compromised at several places, and this will only get worse - and the MOD have chosen to ignore the risk. It's interesting that, to my knowledge, the 2nd Standby aircraft at the various bases have seen more action in the last two years than for some time previously (Gloucester floods, Sheffield floods, Morpeth floods, Grayrigg train crash etc, as well as 'normal' SAROps). Not for much longer though!

The importance of rescue helicopters was highlighted this weekend when an RAF crew saved six children and two fathers. They had become stranded yesterday afternoon while travelling in an inflatable boat down the River Tees at Dalton-on-Tees, North Yorkshire. With the boat trapped on an island in the middle of the rising river, the helicopter was scrambled and winched all six to safety.

Actually it was all eight that we picked up - good fun winching them up through the trees! Good thing we had a nice big aircraft so we could easily manage 12 POB, even if 6 of them were on the small side!

[[email protected]]

Unfortunately much of that article was bo**ocks - the reduction in manning is not as a result of sending crews to the 'Stan and our yellow helicopters aren't going there either.

The reduction in crews will mean that less people going through training will be sent SAR and in theory that swells the pool of ab initios to go to SH. The flip side is that with fewer SAR posts available, fewer SH pilots will get to come to SAR for a 'rest tour' (something that doesn't happen much anyway).

Fewer crews does mean less availability of 2nd standby (unless you want to cancel leave, courses, AT, liaison visits etc) and because the rearcrew are running at less than 4 radops or winchmen per flight, that has already been an issue.

The MoD didn't understand the rearcrew issues and their statement about not affecting 1st standby is at odds with what we were told - ie that they were happy to accept the risk of impacting 1st standby availability.

The problem is that whilst the MoD might be happy to 'accept' the risk there are Gp Capts, Wg Cdrs and Sqn Ldrs trying to meet KPIs imposed by MoD and end up having to be creative with solutions in order to protect the integrity of UK SAR cover. The inevitable result is a lowering of morale and more people leaving the SARF. This leaves even fewer people to do the job and the OOAs and so morale takes a further downswing. The training system can't replace those leaving quickly enough (especially since many of them are the experienced operators) and so dilution of skills and experience and a reduction in real capability is inevitable.

The RAF bought fast jets instead of helicopters and is run by fast jet pilots and navs who can only see Air Power in terms of pointy aircraft - one of the fundamental reasons we find ourselves in the state we are in.

[heli1]

Crab....Nothing changes . Helicopters have always been the poor cousins.

[Wiretensioner]

Don't know what the problem is. Soon Flt Lt Billy Wales will be there sort you all out! God bless him.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

sort you all out


What, both of us?;)

[Tonka Toy]

Crab, it's not that the MCA don't understand helicoters, they don't understand aviation full stop. At least, there is nobody who understands it in the right place at least. If they need somebody then I'll volunteer, failing that its a case of leading the dog to water with no gaurranttee it will get there!:(

[3D CAM]

Tonka.
Join the queue!:D
But one of the previous "Aviation Managers'" had "SAR" experience,:hmm:, and look what he left us with!!!:mad:
3D

[Clever Richard]

From what has been posted here it looks like Flt Lt Wales will be a very good thing for the RAF SAR world but likely to create something of a headache for the MoD and the government. When he starts asking tricky questions from a position of knowledge on the inside it will be very difficult to fob him off; particularly if he threatens to tell his grandmother!

Interesting times ahead.

CD

[Oldlae]

I am pleased that Prince William has settled on the RAF to further his secondary career, it is a pity that he chose Sandhurst instead of Cranwell for his initial military training. However, his total involvement with helicopters can only raise the importance they have in both war and peace, any rescue he may carry out will no doubt be well publicised, and if the lack of helicopters in our theatres in Iraq and Afghanistan is brought up again he can no doubt bring some sort of pressure to bear on those who hold the purse strings.

[Gandalf the Viking]

There has been all sorts of thread drift and 'my dad's bigger than your dad' to-ing and fro-ing, but getting back to the point:- Crab, what you are now saying (admitting) is that the Royal Air Force can no longer be trusted to run UK SAR. Here's a thought - why don't we just privatise it? It plainly won't make much difference!:}

GtV

[Max Contingency]

Gandalf, a very warm welcome to PPRUNE. Now go away and never darken our door again.

What a pointless and antagonistic post.

[[email protected]]

I think it's Lost at Sea's new Nom de PPrune:)

[SARowl]

When Billy the Prince completes AFT does he get another pair of wings?

[Lost at Sea]

I think it's Lost at Sea's new Nom de PPrune

Crab, Wrong again!!!! :p

[edwardspannerhands]

Any truth in the rumour, that some 'ginger beers' have allegedly been asked if they would come back to SAR if it was to revert to Service manning? Not sure where they would get the manpower from as the (ex) SAR folk were redeployed to other fleets when the eng side was civilianised.

[detgnome]

Almost 8 days and no posts on this thread - must be a record!

Seriously, and trying to drag this thread back to it's main subject, when can we expect more news on the contract award?

Bueller....Bueller....Anyone....

[MyTarget]

You won't get the word until the summer i believe! Why are you waiting to send in your cv?

[detgnome]

Not at this time. I'm just interested as I was involved with SAR for a long time.

[DennisW]

well, well, well with SARH slipping over the horizon, no doubt OSD on Sea King Mk 3 & 3a will slip further to the right. Wastelands and Equipment DAs will be rubbing their hands with glee!!:D

[[email protected]]

I don't think it is slipping over the horizon, the process was accelerated by AW/Bristows pulling out as there are now only 2 bidders to choose from.

There is a rumour on another thread tha Bristows might be buying out BIH which would put them back into the SARH race!

[leopold bloom]

Interesting, but will we still end up with either a Canadian company operating American aircraft or an American company operating French aircraft?:confused:

[[email protected]]

Leopold - whichever it is, it will still be better than using the EH101 for SAR:)

[Wiretensioner]

Expert on the Merlin now are we Crab?

Wiretensioner

[leopold bloom]

You couldn't get them anyway, the order book is full.:)

[[email protected]]

Wiretensioner - no but I listen to what people say about winching with it and those that have say it is horrendous underneath the aircraft in the downwash. Try doing a cliffsticker with that..or a surfer or any small vessel for that matter. Great for going fast and doing big boat rescues but for most of the jobs I get to do - pretty useless. Ask the Canadians about it's downwash and operating into small LSs.

Leopold - as the Danes have shown, there are still those who believe the AW sales patter:)

[leopold bloom]

And the Yanks, India, Saudi, Portugal, Italy, RAF, RN, Canada, Japan,etc. Not enough space to list the 139 customers unfortunately. :)
Quiet day on shift?

[Limpopo]

I listen to what people say about winching with it and those that have say it is horrendous underneath the aircraft in the downwash. Try doing a cliffsticker with that..or a surfer or any small vessel for that matter. Great for going fast and doing big boat rescues but for most of the jobs I get to do - pretty useless.

Crab, before your time, but comments like that were made by the Wessex fraternity when the Sea King was introduced to SAR. We still got the Sea King. At the end of the day you adjust your procedures to suit the machine and task.

[leopold bloom]

So what you really need is a big, fast helicopter for those long-range jobs and a small, powerful helicopter for your normal "Johnny on his Li-Lo/cliff stickers/man overboard"? Mixed fleet anyone?:confused:

[Tonka Toy]

Can I go off on a little tangent though sort of contractual!!?

2 Q's

What are the legal or moral requirements for the equipment of coastguard aircrew when working in the offshore environment, I'm talking personnal safety equipment etc, what is required and what do those of you in the business think is required. - Note; I've said coastguard aircrew, so thats fixed and rotary wing.

Just to get you started I was told the other day that one could legally send people out in shirt and tie if they (you know who I mean) wanted to. I was also told that when it comes to risk assessments there was a limit to the amount of effort that could be expended on reducing risk, ie; 'you have to draw the line somewhere' - Should we?

Answers and thoughts please!

[Cpt_Pugwash]

TT,
I'm no expert in this area, but there are actually 2 lines ...

ALARP - As Low As Reasonably Practicable

ALARA - As Low As Reasonably Acheivable

The diference between them being the amount of time, effort and money needed to reach the latter. I leave it to you to work out which the beancounters prefer to aim for.

[MyTarget]

Just to get you started I was told the other day that one could legally send people out in shirt and tie if they (you know who I mean) wanted to.


Jesus really how unprofessional ...................well i wear a bright orange Immersion suit and obviously under garments and a ruck sack full of survival equipment in the back courteous of the company……:rolleyes:

[Tonka Toy]

MT, could you break that down a bit more, Survival one crewmans immersion or something else? overalls in the summer? LSJ? STASS/ / HEEDs bottle? strap cutters / knife? Woolies? gloves? And your employer will pay for this?!!:ooh:

[[email protected]]

Limpopo - not before my time at all. They used to winch at 20' in the Whirlwind I believe and we used 30' in the Wessex - now we are 50' in the Sea King - how high would you choose to operate in a 101?

If you can't hover over the casualty, how on earth are you going to effect a winch rescue? It's all very well saying adjust your procedures but there are practical limits, as I'm sure you know, to how far away you can be from the casualty and still maintain an accurate hover, especially at night.

Those I know who have been in the water under a Merlin say it is a great deal worse than a Sea King, to the point where the downwash can submerge a person in the water.

There is only so far you can go to mitigate the effects of the downwash and I believe that the EH101 is unsuitable for around 70% of UK SAR jobs for that reason.

Just to give a recent example - we rescued a kayaker with a dislocated hip in S Wales last week, he was at the bottom of a steep, wooded gorge and we winched from about 120' through trees to get him. The downwash with a few knots of wind on the nose was not sufficient to cause a hazard but a 101downwash would very likely have been breaking branches off , putting the ground party at great risk of being injured themselves. We had to be down near tree-top height for references so climbing wasn't an option.

If someone built a high-speed Wessex with up to date avionics and a radar then you would probably have the perfect UK SAR cab:) And if we don't get a mixed fleet in 2012, I will be very surprised indeed.

Leopold - apparently, British Leyland sold a great many cars - it doesn't mean they were any good though:)

[Bertie Thruster]

Just one visit, 2 years ago, by a Merlin to our local hospital pad, (then listed in the RAF HLS Directory and used many times previously by SAR Wessex/ Seaking) ended up with the pad being deleted entirely from the directory!


......something to do with the number of claims due downwash damage, I believe.

[jeepys]

Hi,

just wondering why the Coastguard 139 picked two surfers up in Woolacombe Bay earlier today when Chivenor is only a few miles away? Probs at Chiv I suppose.

J.

[Vie sans frontieres]

Hi,

just wondering how the Coastguard 139 picked two surfers up in Woolacombe Bay earlier today - was there enough room?:)

I bet they didn't go back and pick their boards up as well!

[Clever Richard]

Perhaps Chivenor and the south coast 139s have an agreement whereby the 139s help out with day SAR in Chivenor's patch and the Chivenor Sea King does the night wet jobs on the south coast!:ok:

[[email protected]]

In the words of Jethro 'What 'appened was' - Chiv were down to a 3 man crew yesterday due to the manning shortages we are currently experiencing; there was no winchman on shift so the flight maintained a medevac only capability. No one likes it but it is just the way it is and the blame lies at many doors.

The headline news might have been that we were all going down to 4 crews per flight but the reality is that we have been operating under that, in terms of rearcrew, for a good while now - 4 winchmen and radops per flight would be a godsend.

Thanks to Portland for plugging the gap:ok:

[SARREMF]

Boy oh Boy! I have resisted for so long but now I have to jump in with the amount of dribble Crabb is spilling.

Ok, from another thread - AW forced Bristow out of SAR-H [or words to that effect] because of a mandatory 12 base solution - TOSH!

The 101 downwash is horrendous it would have rained trees down on top of people in a gorge at 120'. So, why would you be at 120'! And dont give me that rubbish about you having to be as low as possible! With your eyesight at your age anything over 70ft is a blur anyway! Or can't you hold theohover in a winch weight check these days at 300ft - so you should be more than capable of holding a hover between 50 and 300ft? You just might have to work a bit harder for a livining!

As Limpopo said, you adapt. If you have to. And lets face it, you are never going to have to...... well, you are going to have to adapt but it will be to a big American or Big french aircraft but not to the 101. So, what a pointless load of dribble - oh, back to my first point!

Oh, here comes his next dribble about Wastelands and who cares about Bristish jobs ......

A 3 man crew! Brilliant! Wy didnt we think of that when we were bidding SAR-h!

I wont respond again! Back to just reading. This thread has become a laughing stock!

Rant over.

[Send'em]

From what I understand Crab has the correct version. At THAT instant the available helo which could get there first was the Portland CG Helo.

Nothing unusual in that. This is why we have a little group of geeks who study the wind, the job, chicken entrails, etc and decide which is the quickest/best one to use.

What is of concern is the discrepancy between what was reported as being available in the morning and what was available "when the bluff was called" later in the day.

I suspect that the pressure that they are under causes a confusion between availability and response. All it takes is for one man to have a dodgy kebab and the system collapses.

Availability is what might fly. Response is what does fly.

(Not Crabs fault -Any abuse should be directed at that c-nut G Brown.)

[Send'em]

The New SAR Helo is....

Back to the original thread subject...

FACT..

After a carefully phrased enquiry the answer is along the lines of ..."We cannot tell you yet but we are asking the parties involved to allow us to divulge the details."

RUMOUR and GOSSIP (which is what this is all about)..

If anyone is taking bets I will want to lay some money on the S92 - a machine which has now been "de-bugged" in the role or the updated version of what I knew in my army days at the Puma (225 ?)

Rumour Control (which is, of course, never accurate) states that the Tippex has been liberally spread over any letters or numbers such as "3W1A9" in the bid documents.



"Watch and Shoot."

[[email protected]]

Boy oh Boy! I have resisted for so long but now I have to jump in with the amount of dribble Crabb is spilling.

Ok, from another thread - AW forced Bristow out of SAR-H [or words to that effect] because of a mandatory 12 base solution - TOSH!

The 101 downwash is horrendous it would have rained trees down on top of people in a gorge at 120'. So, why would you be at 120'! And dont give me that rubbish about you having to be as low as possible! With your eyesight at your age anything over 70ft is a blur anyway! Or can't you hold theohover in a winch weight check these days at 300ft - so you should be more than capable of holding a hover between 50 and 300ft? You just might have to work a bit harder for a livining!

As Limpopo said, you adapt. If you have to. And lets face it, you are never going to have to...... well, you are going to have to adapt but it will be to a big American or Big french aircraft but not to the 101. So, what a pointless load of dribble - oh, back to my first point!

Oh, here comes his next dribble about Wastelands and who cares about Bristish jobs ......

A 3 man crew! Brilliant! Wy didnt we think of that when we were bidding SAR-h!

I wont respond again! Back to just reading. This thread has become a laughing stock!

Rant over.

SARREMF - oh dear, been posting after a glass or two of wine have we - I think the prize for dribbling rant is certainly in your hands now:)

So why did AW decide to pull out of SARH then? The reason given at the time for the withdrawal was that there was no money to be made on the contract in its present state. Is it just coincidence that the decision was made to retain 12 bases shortly before AW/Bristow who were pushing a reduction in bases to suit the speed/legs of the 101 decided to pull out?Hmmmmm


You of all people should know better than to comment on rescues you weren't involved in - we (and I was LHS for that one not captain) we in the only place we could be to effect the rescue. You know as well as I do that the precision required to keep a winchman within a foot of his casualty (steep, rocky ground with trees all around) is not what you can realistically deliver on a 300' winch run out.

If this thread is now a laughing stock then you should gaze introspectively to consider who might have made it so:)

Don't dial drunk......don't pprune pi**ed:ok:

[Artic-Warrior]

"If someone built a high-speed Wessex with up to date avionics and a radar then you would probably have the perfect UK SAR cab And if we don't get a mixed fleet in 2012, I will be very surprised indeed."

Are the military saying that they would like the 225 as it ticks all of the boxes according to the Military's rep on this thread.
Stand by to be suprised.

[XV666]

Arctic Warrior,

So an 11,000kg 225 is the modern equivalent of the 6,123kg Wessex :hmm:

:rolleyes:



Don't mention the downwash, Pike

[CARLOS82]

Hello to all experience pilots in this thread.
I've been reading this thread and realized that are different opinions about EH101.
I'm a PIC of Merlin in SAR operations and let me tell that is a great helicopter.
Great radar and flir and the most important is the autopilot modes including the auto hover and the long range capacity.
Imagine rescue 10 fisherman in a dark night from the water with 15'-20' waves, that resolves the problem of the downwash!!
We do 350 NM whith 30 min in hover and come back again without refuelling.
We operate the EH101 since 2005 and none of the rescue divers had problems whith the downwash maybe in the begining, and we always put the rescue diver outside at 60' for safety reasons, like if we have to cut the cable.:{

The only problem is the maintenance support, short of spares. But thats a factory problem, not the helicopter.
I think a great choice for yours SAR will be the S92 i see some pictures and is very similar with MERLIN and are some civilian companies using them.
And the hoist is behind the PIC seat, this is very good.
We have the hoist to much on the back, behind the cargo door.
Imagine doing the hover on a vessel looking back and up of your right shoulder, nice:\.


I can tell more information about EH101 if needed.
PM are welcome.

Best Regards
FlySafe :ok:
Carlos82

[Cabe LeCutter]

Arctic

The 225 is nothing like the Wessex, the Wessex was built like a brick built S**T house, the 225 does not even meet modern crash worthyness standards, it relies on Grandfather rites.

Head down, look out for the flack!:cool::

[[email protected]]

Carlos - thanks for the information - there is no doubt that the extra speed and range of the EH101 make it a good long-range overwater SAR machine but in UK only a small percentage of our rescues fall into that category.
Much of our work is coastline/cliff work and inland rescues (mountains etc) and this is where the downwash of the 101 would be a problem.

You mention the positioning of the hoist - I know this has been an issue but we make do on the Sea King and the winch is 16 feet behind the pilot - I would prefer a hoist much closer (back to the Wessex again:ok:)

We already have the day/night/all weather capability on the Sea King (FLIR, Radar, auto transition and hover) what we need is a helicopter that does all of that but with speed and without the penalty of horrendous downwash.

Your story of poor spares and support seems to be a common one when mentioning the 101 but I'm sure SARREMF has some excuses about that;)

[Droopystop]

Crab,

I think wanting a fast helicopter with low downwash is like having your cake and eating it.

[Vie sans frontieres]

It must be out there somewhere. This golden opportunity to get it right looks like it's going to be missed sadly.

[CARLOS82]

Good Evening to all the pilots

crab i understand your needs for the future SAR.
I think Super Puma could be a good choice?
There are many operators using them, so a lot of spares.
I see some pictures of BOND Pumas helicopters and there were very nice.
With FLIR and Nitesun, great improvements.
I had flight PUMA in the past as a co-pilot and it was a great school.


And in PUMA you don't have the software,electronic and computers bugs problems like on the EH101:\.


FlySafe

[Cabe LeCutter]

At the end of the day, the operator will provide the service with a helicopter which meets the minimum spec and gives the maximum profit. With the present strength of th Euro and the reducing strength of the dollar, does the S92 look the better bet?
Carlos an interesting comment about the Super Puma being used by lots of operators so there must be lots of spares around, where the heck are they then? I suspect that Eurocopter are no better or worse than anyone else, I have heard about all the poor backup stories from AW and SK.
It will all come down to money, you get what you pay for,if you are lucky. If there is not a decent profit margin in it for the contractor, you will get a crap service.

Head down, look out for the flack!

[Send'em]

There is a real problem with SAR helicopters;

Two conflicting requirements have been identified ; to have high speed (which implies a small diameter rotor) and low downwash (which implies a large diameter flexible rotor).

Except that this dichotomy assumes the use of helicopters flying to the coast or out to sea from an in-land base.

The solution ? Zeppelins.

Stop thinking about helicopter crews; sat around in their "grow-bags" looking at the Readers Wives section of Fiesta to check out the ground crew's partners while waiting for a job; or hoping to take out the crate for a quick sortie then back for tea and medals.

Think Zeppelin.

In all of the common SAR areas we should place airships on patrol. No problems with crewing because they will be on two week patrols with all the crew they need and no one can drop out of their duty unless they have a parachute. (and a lifejacket).

None of the problems with lift capacity - if you have to winch up yet another 10 seamen just chuck the piano or other ballast over the side.

Forget all these problems about a fast helicopter that can get to the scene but can only lift a few or a slow helicopter that can lift more; have a Zeppelin on site patrolling.

Forget arguing about which helicopter would be best ;
the new UK SAR Harmonised response is a Zeppelin, which will be kept on station and patrolling.

[Droopystop]

Zeppelin - great idea. But the idea of cocktails in the sky lounge might prove too tempting!

However, they would be a bit sporting in the mountains!

[3D CAM]

Crab said,

In the words of Jethro 'What 'appened was' - Chiv were down to a 3 man crew yesterday due to the manning shortages we are currently experiencing; there was no winchman on shift so the flight maintained a medevac only capability. No one likes it but it is just the way it is and the blame lies at many doors.


Glad to see you had a winchman yesterday to keep an eye on the TV crew filming the snow up your way!:rolleyes::D
Portland are more than happy to help you out.:ok:
3D

[[email protected]]

3D - yes we get our priorities right:)

I notice on the RCS tote today that there is no night wet winching capability likely for the 139 before March, is it the software issue that is causing the delays or the lights?

[Marty H]

Crab

Both

Lighting has been improved but needs further improvement
Software and Hardware related to full autohover modes to be certified and fitted.
"Progressing" in Italy

Less than 4 years untill EC225 or Next Marque 92

MH

[Vie sans frontieres]

No skinny dipping in the English Channel after the pubs shut then. :{

[[email protected]]

Marty - thanks:ok:

3D - there is a very nice picture of you chaps rescuing the surfers at Woolacombe in the North Devon Journal today - would you like a copy?

[3D CAM]

Crab.
Yes please, a copy would be nice. Your local MRCC should have our address. Or post it on here?
Your question previously...
As "Marty" says, lighting is improved but waiting for more,(rear crew will be issued with ex-pussers right angle torches).:cool:When CHC have had a whip round that is!!
Autohover... don't hold your breath, Wastelands are involved remember.:ugh:
3D

[Aser]

Autohover... don't hold your breath, Wastelands are involved remember.

I've been told by Agusta test pilot to expect SAR modes by March/April.

Regards
Aser

[Clever Richard]

Is anyone out there able to translate SARREMF's last post into English? If so, and having done it, please only re-post if it contains anything of merit.

I get the impression something has wound him up somewhat and he let off steam after a few large glasses of pain killer.

Keep up the good work Crab:ok:

CD

[[email protected]]

3D - here you go:ok:
http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e257/jevans99/AW139.jpg

I'll put the paper in the post.

[HAL9000]

An etract from the BBC website:

"An RAF helicopter from Leconfield was sent along with Humber Lifeboat ready to evacuate the seven crew if required.
"The crew are all unharmed and remained on board the vessel."
The Saline is being towed by a fire tug from the port of Immingham and the Humber Lifeboat remains on standby at the scene.
A team of firefighters from Humberside Fire Service's newly-formed Maritime Incident Response Group (MIRG) were flown out to the vessel to take over the firefighting operation.
It is believed to be the first time the MIRG team has been deployed to a live incident.
Drew Mahood, watch manager at Humber Coastguard, said: "This is a good example of inter-agency working between the coastguard and the fire brigade in an emergency at sea. "Whilst there have been a number of full exercises, it is believed to be the very first time that the Humberside MIRG Team have been mobilised to an offshore incident in their response area."

Nice quote from Mr Mahood, can't help thinking he has failed to mention one organisation vital to the operation. In order to go some way to redress this omission, well done the boys and girls from Leconfield.

Does anyone know if the deployment of these MIRG teams has been included in the SAR-H contract? I believe that a MIRG team consists of 7 firemen and quite a lot of kit which would surely set a limit on how small a helicopter could be used. Would this requirement preclude any of the aircraft that would otherwise have been proposed?

HAL

[sonas]

Just to keep ALL happy the next watch manager at humber submitted the following, extract from MCA news.

The fire in the engine room of the cargo ship SALINE has now been extinguished.
The vessel, carrying Bauxite, sent a Mayday call out at 03.34hrs this morning. Humber Coastguard received the call and co-ordinated the emergency response which involved the Humber Lifeboat and a RAF helicopter from Leconfield, which flew in the MIRG team.
The MIRG team are now being taken ashore to Immingham by the Humber Lifeboat. The vessel SALINE, with its seven crew on-board is now under tow to Albert Dock, Hull by LADY STEPHANIE and tug SWITZER MOIRA.
Mike Puplett Watch Manager at Humber Coastguard said: "The joint response from HM Coastguard, Humberside Fire and Rescue, the RNLI, the RAF and the crew has led to this fire being extinguished without loss of life or injury.
The vessel only has auxiliary power as a result of the fire and is now being towed in to port. Surveyors from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency are being kept up-to-date with its progress." :)

[Max Contingency]

HAL - Deployment of MIRG teams has been considered within the SAR-H project. However, given the very low operational tempo of MIRG Teams in comparison to other SAR helicopter tasks, such as Mountain Rescue. It would not be unreasonable to expect MIRG teams to adapt their SOPs to the delivery platforms made available to them.

3D - Nice photo. Professional question: Is there a 139 specific reason for having the gear down when wet winching? (Keep the C of G low in the event of ditching, or avoid annoying audio warnings maybe)

[3D CAM]

Crab.
Thanks for the piccie.:ok:
Max.

avoid annoying audio warnings maybe

You got it.:)
3D

[SASless]

It's been done before folks!


http://www.fletc.gov/about-fletc/glynco-nas-history/photos/rescue-st-simons.jpg/image

[rottweiler]

Arriving rather late in this discussion, couple of questions.
Why so much anti civilian bias, are not most of the civilians ex military? Do they not therefore by default have more experience? Does not having a mixed background of civilian and military bring in a broader spectrum of experience for the aircrew concerned? All of you go through the same rigorous tests every year I doubt very much if the standards are any different. In fact you could argue that the civilians have it harder as they have to do an IR. By that I mean a proper IR and before I get shouted at by the military, the civilian IR is widely regarded to be much harder than Military IR,s. If this is not the case why don’t the military take it.
Excuse my ignorance on this point and I will accept somebody shouting at me later. Are the RAF crews not exactly the same as the civilian crews in that they can expect to spend the majority if not all of their career at a SAR unit. Therefore they are the same. Some will argue more expensive because of the extra health care pensions etc that are thrown in. I believe the RN and Army move their people to the front line and therefore bring back experience.
Looking from the outside, it appears the civilian basses have significantly less manpower, therefore cheaper. They have new modern aircraft which were introduced in three months, a feat the military could not and would not achieve. No new aircraft civilian or military has ever lived up to expectations on initial introduction to service. The military mostly take years to get it in to service and very over budget. No civilian unit could accept the downtime that military aircraft routinely achieve they would go bust, they have many competitors.
Both the Civilian and the Military provide dedicated crews who are professional and equally capable. Most of the callouts, I believe some 90% , are to civilian incidents paid for by DOT and the MCA why should the Military be interested in them why don’t they concentrate on the main role war fighting and CSAR.
I would like as a tax payer the cheapest option which in my humble opinion is the civilian option or this government would not be going for it. You both achieve the same standards so I have no fear of a drop in service.
Keep up the good work and stop bitching.

[HAL9000]

Sonas,

Fair point, I was a bit too quick to criticise. Can men be pre-menstrual?

Rottweiler,

It would have been worth reading this thread from the start as I fear you have just kicked off a long journey around a very familiar buoy!

Regards,

HAL

[detgnome]

Rottweiler:

Initial issue ME IR(H), as done with the CAA, is no more difficult than a mil IR just different. Most mil guys will agree that the CAA IR is difficult, but that is because:
1. Minimum hours in training beforehand because you are paying for it...
2. ...leading to mininal hours in an unfamiliar aircraft.
3. Working single pilot as opposed to 2 pilot (unless you are 32 Sqn)

Once you have crossed that particular hurdle, company IRs are no more difficult than a mil IR. In fact they lack the stab out, limited panel, SE approach that I used to love so much...!

I refer you to the introduction to service of the 412 in Cyprus - accomplished in 6 months! (although not without its problems, but that's another thread altogether) as a counter to (one of) your points

[[email protected]]

Rottweiler - the short answer to your question is that training costs money so the civilian SAR guys do less of it than we do. They have a lot of experience to draw on but that is only sustainable when there is a constant outflow of ex mil guys into civsar.

SARH will be more expensive than the current civsar contract because all the training burden will fall to the contractor and there will be more training required to cater for the increase in night overland SAROPs requiring NVG capability.

As for aircraft - the 139 still does not have a night autohover capability which, coupled with the contractor's decision to equip both English Channel bases with them, means the nearest aircraft are Chivenor, Wattisham or France to cover one of the busiest waterways in the world. But it's OK it's cheap:ok:

[rottweiler]

Can not argue with the limited capability of the 139. Would suggest that the next contract whoever gets it the 139 will not be in it.
However its introduction to service has been a lot less troublesome than most if not all of the recent military fiascos. Nimrod, EH101,Eurofighter, to name but a few. Also I would suggest their cost over runs are insignificant in comparison. Once again being a tax payer i am not interested in your entrenched views I want as much for my money as i can get.
The Military is doing a fantastic job under difficult circumstances with a government that wants to penny pinch at every turn. Start spending your limited budget where it is meant to be spent. I expect military personnel to be on the front line that’s what you get paid for. How can you justify getting the same wage as somebody who is being shot at, killed and maimed. It appears to me that your overriding priority is for it to remain in military control at all costs regardless of what is best for the country.

[Vie sans frontieres]

Is this a wind up?

Rottweiler - we're all taxpayers. If you want to get stroppy about wastage, go and annoy someone in Whitehall about the civil service, schools, social services or hospitals and in the meantime, stop referring to hard working professionals as, "my military personnel".

If you want "as much for your money as you can get", go for a nice long swim in the sea tonight. It'll do you some good. := If you're lucky, someone will come and get you. If you're really lucky, they'll be well trained.

[SASless]

Crab,

Has civvie Sar failed in a mission yet?

If not.....perhaps their standard meets the necessary requirements.

The absence of Night SAR capability is antoher question altogether as it is about capability and not training.

The question that is begged is what happens down the road...years down the road if the Civvie SAR does finally get that night capability but has not done any or done any training for that mission. Then what problems will have to be confronted?

[rottweiler]

They will be well trained whether they are military or civilian, exactly my point. Its just the civ lot would appear to be cheaper.

[Vie sans frontieres]

They will be well trained whether they are military or civilian, exactly my point

Will they now? You know a lot about it.

[Cyclic Hotline]

Maybe the solution would be to use hot-air dirigibles for SAR? They could be the ultimate SAR tool based upon the incredible volumes of hot air that some of the crew-members here seem to be capable of generating. By simply diverting the hot gases into the envelope rather than being wasted by being vented to atmosphere! Indeed they would certainly require a dump valve to protect them from over-inflating and bursting!:8

Imagine: the ultimate perpetual motion aircraft, with a minute carbon footprint.:ok:

[arandcee]

I expect my military personnel to be on the front line that’s what I pay you for. I can not justify you getting the same wage as somebody who is being shot at, killed and maimed.

Tw@

Cos going out into a night you wouldn't put your cat out into, to fly out over the water or the cliffs or the mountains to pluck an unfortunate person in need to safety and bring them home to their loved ones isn't as worthy of 'your' tax money huh? Ever looked at your tax bill, deducted what you take back out in services/benefits/prescription subsidy etc and then compared it to what stuff like the military, NHS, civil service etc etc cost? I don't care how much you pay it's a drop in the ocean (no pun intended)

Personally I think you owe the people on here (mil and civ) that actually do the job (and I'm not one of them BTW) an apology - if you've got the balls. Then don't let the door hit your ar$e on the way out.

[[email protected]]

Sasless, since the mil and civsar flights are assessed according to completely different criteria and by different checkers, the quality of SAR provision is impossible to compare.

Rottweiler - the capability to operate overland, at night, in poor weather only exists in UK SAR in the military because it is a core military skill. There is an assumption that the CAA will give this same capability to civsar post 2012 but it is not a given - all the experience on NVG comes from the military and, much like instrument flying, it is a perishable skill requiring plenty of training to stay competent.

UKSAR post 2012 won't be cheaper for the taxpayer because maintaining the same capability that exists now will require lots of money and training - the last bidder to withdraw did so because they couldn't see any profit to be made within the required budget.

Like so many others, you have believed the 'it must be cheaper to civilianise' argument just because it seems obvious if you don't know anything about SAR.

[rottweiler]

Try reading it again arandcee, never said it was an easy or safe job just said it’s not what you joined up to do, you join the military to go to war. Or at least that’s what I thought it said on the tin. You lot are so busy trying to protect your jobs, which I can understand, that you have missed the point of what is better for the poor old taxpayer. Find your rant about services/benefits/prescription subsidy etc a bit thoughtless, thought you were entitled to them as well as all your extra benefits of being in the military. If the civilian world is so rosy, you can always give up your extra benefits and join it. My only interest is the level of service and the cost. Despite all the innuendos on here I think you both provide an equal and outstanding level of service. So we are only arguing about the cost!

Please correct me if I am wrong crab@ but I do believe the civ SAR already do overland SAR. Do Stornoway not go in to the mountains at night? As for Bristows pulling out, the game has a long way to go yet, will be very surprised if we don’t see them in some shape or form. Is BIH still in, could somebody buy them out. But yes agree the cost of NVG training will be high, but then it’s going to be the same for whoever gets it military or civ.
As for civilianisation it appears to work as there are many parts of the military that have been civilianised. Although I hear rants about them as well, it’s only ever from serving military personnel, would have thought once again it must be cheaper and working or there is no way this government would go for it.
The CAA will give the exemptions because they will make a lot of money from it and will positively encourage it for that reason. They don’t make any money from the military. "the quality of SAR provision is impossible to compare". Difficult, but not impossible and that is only because of peoples inability to see through their bigotry. As I understand it all the civilian checkers are ex military bringing with them the same standards so not sure where you are going with that.

[arandcee]

Although I don't want to prolong an argument/discussion, and perhaps I was a little 'strident' towards the end there, I feel the need to point out that I am not and never have been in the military. And I don't claim to be an expert in the field but have always lived in a coastal area and have nothing but respect for the 'big yellow helicopters' that have been a recurring part of my local news broadcasts. And indeed, for all of those (mil and civ) that do the same.

[rottweiler]

arandcee. I think all that would change if it is civilianised would be that you will have a new helicopter painted in a different colour with Coastguard written on it. The standard of service will not change regardless of whether the military retain it or it is civilianised. It will on the whole be the same people doing the job but with a different colour flight suit on. If you are lucky enough to get an S92 then you will have IMHO the best SAR aircraft around, yes the range will be an issue. However that problem could be easily sorted and probably will be on the MK2. Its long range tank is not the best in the world as it takes up to much room in the back, it needs to be thought about designed and built with SAR in mind. Forgot about the downwash, its a problem but think they are managing to work through it.

[Bigtop]

CRAB - so which is it then??

Carlos - thanks for the information - there is no doubt that the extra speed and range of the EH101 make it a good long-range overwater SAR machine but in UK only a small percentage of our rescues fall into that category.

I notice on the RCS tote today that there is no night wet winching capability likely for the 139 before March, is it the software issue that is causing the delays or the lights?

Either way you seem miss informed. I assume you have experience of both???? Or is it all based on 'rumour'!! Merlin or EH 101 is a vey good SAR platform compared to the Sea King. Having operated both I know which I'd rather have - and it isn't yellow or red & grey.

[detgnome]

but I do believe the civ SAR already do overland SAR. Do Stornoway not go in to the mountains at night?

No.

I believe (more than happy to be corrected) that the MCA contract does not cater for overland SAR. That said tasks will be considered on merit and may be accepted after discusion between the MCA, RCC and the unit themselves. Stornoway have done mountain jobs before, although I seem to remember that was during the day. Whilst there will be many old Wessex and not so old 819 operators who will tell frankly scary stories of non-NVG mountains, I doubt that the MCA cabs venture in the mountains at night to conduct what mil operators would class as 'night mountains'

[MyTarget]

Hmmmmmmm must have been one of those dark dark days coming out of Ben Nevis then last year! Night mountains eh, how original!