SAR - Recovering large numbers of survivors.

[Geoffersincornwall]

One SAR unit and 15 survivors (Offshore scenario) or Multiple SAR units and 700 Ferry pax present an unacceptable time-scale for rescue in adverse weather if they are the only responders - Discuss!!

Well, one idea could be to fit a 2-door, 2 winch solution to our SAR units - that would have the potential to double the recovery rate although it would be necessary to leave a winchman down below to supervise the loading of 2 survivors on the the end of the winch for each load.

Is that a go-er .............. or a non-starter?

G.
:ok:

[gribbs]

Shurely you're not sherioush? Two wires to tangle, two directions to move the aircraft at the same time, two simultaneous commentaries from two winch operators, and that's just a start. No, it's not a 'go-er'.

[[email protected]]

There are many issues with that suggestion Geoffers, not only would you need two winches but two winch operators (which one is giving the con to the pilot?) The second door would use up valuable cabin seating space so you would need a bigger aircraft as well.

The main problem is that a winching scenario where you could winch from both sides is unlikely as you would be hovering right over the vessel. If it is a large ferry and it is not on its side it is probably quicker to try and land as many have a large flat area on top. With a liferaft the downwash would present a major problem if you were trying to hover over it and you would need 2 winchmen to prepare the casualties for the 2 winchops as they would be on opposite sides of the liferaft.

One way of speeding up the process is to have 4 strops so the winchman on the ground/deck can already be preparing the next 2 evacuees as the winchop is bringing 2 into the cabin - this was used successfully at Boscastle instead of the single strop lifts the RN did.

[TRC]

Geoffers and Crab - check your pms please.

[Lt.Fubar]

Why discuss potential scenario, when history can provide many that already happened ? ;)

For example, from my backyard:

14th January 1993 - 4 o clock in the morning, 6-meter waves, 100kts wind, 2°C water, "MF Hewelius" ferry ship with 64 people on board capsizes. Ship on German waters, helicopter SAR units respond - Dutch, German and Polish, plus German rescue vessel "Arcona". All 3 Polish long range rescue helos ready for take off - can get there faster, but didn't get the green light, soon two becoming damaged on shutdown in high wind. One fly after being apparent that German Seakings can't get there on time. On scene Dutch and German Sea Kings don't have rescue swimmers, can rescue only few people that could be strapped on by other survivors in rafts ('Marine Electric' rings a bell ?). One raft with 3 survivors in immersion suits is capsized by rescue sling from one of the Seakings - all die of suffocation. Arcona vessel on scene can't do much good either. Polish helicopter with rescue swimmer gets on scene to late to pick up anyone alive, is collecting bodies, the process is continued for another two days.

Out off 64, almost all got out of the ship, 9 persons are rescued - those who survived 4 hours in water, 10 others were never found.

From my searches on this types of accidents, the number of people on board is not a major factor, you can't and shouldn't consider preparing a helicopter for picking up 24+ people, it's not efficient. What's the most important, is to have a good decision making system, good coverage with as many types of rescue systems as possible, and their speed is a major factor.

Even if you take a Chinook with 3 winches, you won't be as efficient as having 3 smaller aircrafts, and in high sees you won't be able to use it anyway. And if something that big that have 30+ people on board goes down, it have to be hell of a storm, and it's mostly in remote areas, where you can't pick up that many people anyway because your time on station is limited by your fuel load which goes very fast in those conditions. That's why I don't find AW101 as an efficient SAR machine here - I don't think that in "SHTF" situation it will have enough fuel to fill up its cabin anyway. Cheaper, smaller Pumas, S-92s, NH-90s etc will do the job better.

BTW it is not a job for helicopters to evacuate a 700ppl cruiser - that's why they have so big and elaborate safety systems, so the people can survive on water until other big ship arrives.

Of course there are accidents like the one of "MS Estonia", also on Baltic sea, 28th September 1994, where out of 989 - only 134 survived, simply because there was no time to evacuate the ship, and no rescue aircraft could helped there.

[ShyTorque]

If it is a large ferry and it is not on its side it is probably quicker to try and land as many have a large flat area on top.

Except you might killed in the rush....:eek:

(i.e. Sorry if I just trod on your head Madam...)

[Max Contingency]

Modern thinking is that large ferry ships are made to "be their own lifeboats", with state of the art fire suppression and damage control systems that compartmentalise the ship and keep it afloat.

I agree that multiple winching from the same helicopter is probably not safe except in the most stable and low hover regimes.

The SAR-H programme has also had a brief look at human external cargo systems, which are basically a large sling load cage, certified by the FAA, to carry people. These systems can either be flown to the incident (quite low VMax) or carried on board large vessels. Providing you are near to land or have a suitable vessel to cross-deck to then rescue rates well in excess of normal winching can be achieved.

[SASless]

Like this basket for example.....

Marine Rescue With the Heli-Basket (http://www.precisionliftinc.com/marine.shtml)

[Geoffersincornwall]

Seems that whichever way you cut it having some way of speeding up the winch-up rate would be handy. I don't quite follow the reasoning behind the assertion that small is beautiful in this context but it would be true to say that (back seat) crew exhaustion could be a factor if you have to lift too many and maybe winch overheating could affect things too.

The elephant in the room is the notion that all is well with the status quo. I have had an uneasy feeling for the last 14 years since first realising that we needed a lot of fuel to feed the hover time needed to pick up a full load of survivors and if you had to do this at extreme range in light winds it made for nail biting stuff. Work out the winch-up rates for assisted lifts and you are looking at a serious issue.

Simply watching the ships go by in the busiest sea lane in the world and trusting to 'modern design' doesn't really fill me confidence.

G

[Lt.Fubar]

I'm not telling that small is beautiful. In maritime SAR it isn't, mainly because small helicopters don't take much fuel, which is crucial. I see the 10-11 ton class a sweet spot for those kinds of operations... not really accidental ones, but more of a purpose built machines - for example, take the S-92, throw on it enlarged sponsons with bigger fuel tanks (MH-53E style) trading some speed and power for more time on station, and you may have a nice SAR platform.

How long does it take to winch up a person ? 30 seconds, depends on hover hight and load - that's a minute a cycle. Not a lot time to save from by going faster. In scenario where you have to pick people off the water, there is actually no time to safe on that, as the rescue swimmer (if you have one !) needs some time to go for a casualty, bring it back, prep for lift, and go for another one. And I don't think putting two of them in the water will be a good move either ;) And two winches simply don't work together in weather.

What I think is you just need a helicopter that have the range, and speed to get there fast, and enough fuel till bingo to lift as many people it can hold. In the mean time another should be in the way to continue, where the first left off ;) And that still solves only a case of less than 40 casualty scenarios. Above that you can't go without a boat, it's just impossible.

If anyone would like to lift 700ppl of a ship using only helicopters, even 50nm off the shore, even using 3 Chinooks, each fitted with two winches, picking off the deck, in perfect weather, you still need about 9 hours to complete the evacuation. on the other hand, it would take probably less than two hours with another ship nearby - though passengers would be out of harms way in mater of minutes. Put those people in the water and rafts, throw some weather, and the difference becomes even bigger.

If anything - SAR operators should get big and FAST vessels to cope with that kind of emergency, not messing with helicopters making them heavier and more costly to run by giving them capabilities that will never make the difference anyway.

So my take on this: Want to improve scenario with 15 people ? - Give more fuel for more time on station. Want to improve 700ppl scenario - look for other ships, helicopters wont do much there by themselves.

BTW those big baskets - should work great in good weather when attached on scene and going short distances between casualties and rescue vessel. Throw some weather to the equation, and they become useless - just a giant sea anchor with people banging on the walls inside with every wave... not where I would like to be ;)

[TRC]

Lt. Fubar

I agree with most of what you have to say, but the basket is not such a liability as you suggest.

It would be more like one minute per cycle per person on a winch. A Super Puma type with say, a twenty survivor lift could take 20 - 30 minutes to fill - single lift - somewhere near half that with adouble lift. Even so, a basket rescue - provided that the basket was positioned properly could lift 16 people in a few minutes.

Inshore or oilfields, short-range jobs a basket rescue is the answer.

[Lt.Fubar]

I agree, though the topic started with adverse weather scenario, and this is the place where this basket won't work, and unfortunately most maritime rescue situations are in adverse weather.

I'm all for having those devices stored on board of rescue vessels, to be used when possible, but I believe, adverse weather is not that time, and needs different approach. Unfortunately multiple hoists on one aircraft also won't work in those situations.

I believe that having many aircrafts with enough fuel to stay till full is the right approach to low-medium number of casualties, and having rescue vessels working in cooperation with helicopters (that can take seriously injured on shore fast) is the way to go with the big numbers.

Again: I'm not bashing that idea, I'm always talking about adverse weather operations (a.k.a. high sees, storms and hurricanes).

[unstable load]

Geoffer,

The active SAR guys will confirm or alter this as needed.
Most winches these days are electric/hydarulic powered. An electric motor drives a pump that powers the winch giving you almost unlimited cycles available before you run out of fuel.
Winching speed is controllable up to 250'/minute until the last few feet which is slowed to allow the operator to control it better. It may not seem very fast, but until you have been the dope on the rope and experienced it for yourself you haven't lived.:sad: A 61 looks small on the end of a 250' cable, really small.

[Senior Pilot]

US,

I know that Geoffer has been the tea bag on a Sea King winch more than once: and a Whirlwind, and a Wessex ;) Back when the SK was shiny, new and sequentially numbered :p

[SASless]

The Sea has been taking victims since Man first set foot into it and vessels upon it. It will continue to do so no matter what Man tries to do to mitigate those losses.

The problem with seeking a total coverage for every contingency is that it simply cannot be done.

The North Sea is much better covered now than it has ever been but we shall have those events that claim lives.

Prevention is the best method to minimize the losses.

SAR kicks in when the systems in place have failures.

[Heli-Ice]

SAS

Talking about the sea taking victims.

Last year was the first in history that the it didn't catch any of our Icelandic fishermen. :ok:

I'd like to take my hat off for the crew of the Bond Puma ditching in the middle of the NS drink. The world looks really big seen from that place.

[[email protected]]

TRC - I know the USCG love the basket winching technique but the fundamental problem is that you have no control over how the survivors get in (they have to be pretty fit and well to enter the basket by themselves, especially from the water or a raft) and, in the case of the mass evacuation from a vessel, how many get in - the same stampede situation ShyTorque was alluding to. If too many get in - then what are you going to do?

I am very much with Lt Fubar on this one - I think the baskets are a liability in anything but good weather and you are better off sending more assets so that simultaneous winching can take place at several locations on the vessel (bow, amidships and stern for example). Then you need another boat to tansfer them to.

[TRC]

Crab,


I know the USCG love the basket winching technique


That's not what I'm talking about - the 2 man version. I'm not keen on that either.

I'm referring to the mass rescue - 16 person lift - basket. The one in SASless's post.

[Geoffersincornwall]

We have contemplated a number of scenarios and concluded that any MRCC should have a range of options available and that the key issue is having a plan B that can cater for the 700 pax situation.

In the context of the English Channel are the range of options available to the Duty CG top secret? If not can we know what they are. Do they have access to enough helicopters, boats, baskets and do their sums add up?

Adverse weather can include low wind scenarios - fog for example - I know it wont help aviation assets but neither will it assist other vessels and the liklihood is that you will end up with a scattering of liferafts and lifeboats if they managed to get them away - which they may not. The aftermath of that could be a dog's breakfast.

I am happy to recognise the value of each asset in a particular context but but when push comes to shove the boat with the problem hasn't read the MRCC Handbook so is likely to require adaptability, flexibility, good comms and as many options as possible............ are they currently available I wonder?

G:

ok:

PS. Would you really plan on picking up 15 people in 15 minutes? Not me Chief. I think I would allow 30 mins and be happy if I didn't over-run.

PPS. Did you realise that a bunch of S76s was sold to HKAAF with a hoist on each side!! How did that work I wonder?

[SASless]

Crab,

Please to remember the USCG operates with Rescue Swimmers as a standard part of the crew.

Answer to your question....they send the swimmer down to control loading the basket. He remains aboard until the last.

[unstable load]

Geoffers,
The 76's that went to Honkers had the option of using either hoist for jobs that were difficult to access from one side.

[ShyTorque]

Really? I'm very surprised to hear about this double winch fit. Please check your pms.

[Um... lifting...]

Please to remember the USCG operates with Rescue Swimmers as a standard part of the crew.Indeed we did, SASless (and do... just not me anymore). Not so long ago USCG machines simply didn't have the guts in them to handle much weight, so swimmers were often not carried (even when available, which they weren't always) and creative fuel burning was one of the ways to get sufficient power available. Hovering fairly low and other various pilot techniques a lot of people didn't necessarily enjoy were others, but that's a long and sordid story not germane here.

crab, the USCG has pretty much been out of the basket to the water business for anyone but a trained survivor for a long time, and even then usually a swimmer is sent down these days since there tends to be some degree of injury/hypothermia/confusion/what-have-you.
But in that vein, I completely agree that a large survivor basket is, under most conditions I can think of, a liability. People falling out, crazy overloading, inability to transit any sort of distance with any sort of speed, etc. Maybe in some well-defined smaller sort of body of water with high volumes of shipping such as the Channel it might work, but anywhere with open ocean I can't see it getting much use. Also, I can't see doing any searching with this thing attached. But then, I'm used to operating single-ship with a fixed-wing cap and open ocean, so I admit there are probably other thoughts on the matter. Probably one's thoughts on this will vary with the areas to which one has been exposed.

The genesis of the CG rescue swimmer program was the SS Marine Electric sinking in 1983.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Marine_Electric (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Marine_Electric)

A history of the program is here. As my master's project, I wrote the initial curriculum for (then-called) and was involved with the prototyping of Advanced Rescue Swimmer School which was first delivered to students in the Spring of 1996. My name appears nowhere in the article or indeed hardly anywhere associated with the program. However, I do have the final edited prototype copy of the syllabus. I take a sort of perverse pride in that.
USCG: Page Title (http://www.uscg.mil/history/articles/USCG_Rescue_Swimmer_History.asp)

A thumbnail of advanced helicopter rescue school is here. I've been away from it for years, but I do know that all the U.S. forces have visited and numerous others, if for no other reason than to observe.
USCG Group/Air Station Astoria, OR home (http://www.uscg.mil/d13/gruasAstoria/otherAstUnits/advhelorescueschool.asp)

And finally, because it ultimately comes down to how your doctrine is written, this is the manual. I have no idea if it's current and make no claims it is. Pictures, tools, procedures, etc.
www.uscg.mil/directives/cim/3000-3999/CIM_3710_4B.pdf (http://www.pprune.org/www.uscg.mil/directives/cim/3000-3999/CIM_3710_4B.pdf)

[Geoffersincornwall]

Don't keep me guessing any longer - what was so intriguing about the twin hoist set-up. It's been a while but I seem to remember being told that it was to facilitate the rapid insertion of their SWAT team. ?????

In the days of the dear old S61 I had the fanciful notion that you could organise a quick-fit hoist over the air stair door then when the balloon went up - sorry, for our foreign colleagues - when disaster struck - and the day came to carry out mega-evac you pulled the pip-pins on the air stair, clipped on the No.2 hoist grabbed the second winch wiggler and, Robert's your mothers brother (Bob's your uncle for the non Anglos) you are good to go............... lowish hover over the winching spot and multo rapido pax uplift. At least the CG would be a bit more manageable. The lack of a CT7 retrofit unfortunately meant that you would be unlikely to have the oomph to make it all worthwhile.

Still the twin hoist S76 proves it can be done but on a ship that small it hardly seems worth the effort.

No input from the Channel Guardians I see.

G





G

[Lt.Fubar]

The American rescue basket is actually a neat design, and have very long history - it was designed in the 50's... by the Navy I believe, it replaced a rope "bird cage" like device.

Crab, check out the Russian rescue basket, now that's a wild one. Designed to accommodate 3 victims, but they pretty much have to be held in place, or strapped in. So there is no way to use it without a rescue swimmer, although it supposed to be used by... sweeping victims off the surface. Never seen it used like that, and don't think will ever do.

[leopold bloom]

Government Flying Service (http://www.gfs.gov.hk/eng/gallery/s761.htm)
Don't know where the info about twin hoists on HK GFS 76's came from, check out this link for pics. GFS stopped using the rescue basket after a couple of tragic incidents.

[Geoffersincornwall]

As I said it was a while ago but I believe they were C models and it was during the early 90s - maybe late 80s - when it was called the HK Auxilliary Air Force. I bumped into a C model belonging to BHS in Macae, Brazil 4 years ago which curiously had a second pad for a hoist on the left hand side. I'll check out my phot library and see if I have a piccy. At the time I assumed they had bought it from HK or at least it originated in HK.

G

[TRC]

there seems to be some confusion over the term 'basket' here.

The two-person basket, raised and lowered on a winch looks like this:

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j212/teeo1/tmb_499-b_assm.jpg

The mass rescue, 16 person basket carried on the cargo hook (with a secondary safety) looks like this:

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j212/teeo1/IMG_4182lo.jpg
The large 16 man basket is relatively heavy and stable, and it's only suitable for short range rescues - inshore, within an oilfield or where rescue ships are nearby.
Obviously, some supervision of loading is needed to prevent overloading. It's unlikely that people will fall out as has been suggested. One advantage is that it will transport injured, unconcious and children. it is unlikely to be the liability that it is being described on here. The US Air National Guard are equipping with it, so it can't be that awful.

Think outside the box - but inside the basket.

[TRC]

Another advantage of the 16 man basket is that it will float, so it doesn't need to be held in an accurate height hover + or - a foot or two. As long as it remains attached to the helicopter it can be dumped in the water, loaded and depart again in a fairly short time.

[ShyTorque]

I'm not at all convinced about this HK twin hoist thing. AFAIK twin hoists / winches were never fitted to those aircraft. Are you sure the fittings on the left side of the S-76 airframe weren't for the NightSun? :confused:

[SASless]

Working off what's left of my memory.....The USCG came up with the basket named after its inventor....Billy Pugh.

[unstable load]

Geoffers and Shy Torque,

In the spirit of a rumour network it appears that I was misled by the bloke who told me about the twin hoists. I actually worked on one of those machines after CHC bought it and even have a photo of it to prove me wrong.

So, grovelling, humble apology to all who have been deeply offended and had to reach for sustenance to calm their nerves after this revelation!:O

[[email protected]]

So you put a rescue swimmer/winchman on the deck to try and supervise the orderly loading of 16 (at a time) frightened people into your basket - then what? You still need another vessel to put them on so you can go back for the rest. If you have to fly them back for 50nm over the North Sea they will all have hypothermia by the time you get them to land. Much better in a warm cabin with a paramedic to look after them.

The chances are that in the event of a mass evacuation following a collision or fire, the passengers will be in liferafts/lifeboats and perfectly safe (if a little cold and seasick)- they are very unlikely to want to get into the water so you can put them in your basket, even if it does float.

TRC, I can see why you are pushing this device since you clearly have links with the manufacturers but I don't see UKSAR adopting this cage. I'm not sure if the CG S92s and 139 have USL hooks fitted, we don't for much of the time and someone would have to pay for the modifications to the aircraft.

Geoffers, I don't think there are any secret CG plans - whatever assets that are available will be sent, from both sides of the Channel (like with Zeebrugge), there are always more ships there than you can shake a stick at and they are all bound by law to assist. Can we guarantee no loss of life at sea following a major sinking/collision? No and we never will but providing the number of assets are available we will do the best we can.

Lt Fubar - I have seen video of the USCG trying to sweep casualties into the basket when there has been no rescue swimmer - it is one of the reasons I dislike the concept so much since a winchman would have saved them all - even healthy, fit people struggle in the water trying to get into a dinghy/boat/liferaft, what chance does a cold, injured casualty have?

[Lt.Fubar]

Crab, as SS Marine Electric proved - the chances are pretty slim, so today CG don't do that, rescue swimmer goes to the water every time it is save for him. I read many USCG reports, and ones where rescue swimmer couldn't be deployed are very rare (mostly on Bering sea). Here, where the sea don't get so rough, rescue swimmer is always deployed and assist with pick up, the sweeping is not even practiced. and the victim is lifted with sling, stretcher, or in case of Mi-14PS in that fancy basket:

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/8333/dsc02382resize.th.jpg (http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/8333/dsc02382resize.jpg)
(click to enlarge)

Plus there is option for direct surface pickup, but that will work with calm sea only.

[TRC]

- then what? You still need another vessel to put them on so you can go back for the rest. If you have to fly them back for 50nm over the North Sea they will all have hypothermia by the time you get them to land

Yes crab - I know that.

On the 19th I wrote:
Inshore or oilfields, short-range jobs a basket rescue is the answer
and only last night I wrote:
and it's only suitable for short range rescues - inshore, within an oilfield or where rescue ships are nearby.


they are very unlikely to want to get into the water so you can put them in your basket, even if it does float

So you land it on the deck, don't you.....

I can see why you are pushing this device since you clearly have links with the manufacturers

I am not 'pushing it'. It was mentioned by SASless, then there was an almost undignified race to get to the wrong end of the stick first. I'm just trying to clarify a few misconceptions - and failing with you it seems.

Don't dismiss this out of hand just because it's different to what has always been 'the right way to do it'.

If this is considered advertising - I'll happily remove all references.

[SASless]

Does the RAF SAR Sea Kings deploy with Rescue Swimmers as a standard?

In the past I believe Crabs answer was that only on specified job would a trained diver be assigned.

Can you clarify that for me Crab?

Again I fear there is a perceived insult to the RAF SAR concept that brings about Crabs response to anyone suggesting baskets might have a place in SAR work vice the "Dope on a Rope" method.

Crab please to remember the USCG has been in the helicopter SAR business since day one of Helicopters. They were flying doing convoy escort missions during WWII using helicopters and have done a few rescues since then. They adopted the basket technique early on and thus feel the basket has its place along with other methods. You will notice they now prefer the Rescue Swimmer method over the basket. They have changed with the times.

[Um... lifting...]

In USCG parlance, the basket is a 'device'. That's the term used for anything that is hung from the hoist (or winch if you prefer) hook. While crab may not like hearing it, the rescue hoist in a helicopter is indeed an American invention, and the photo at the end of this post is one Commander Frank Erickson, USCG at the controls with cap mashed firmly on his head... hoisting some fellow named Sikorsky. That's not to say some fellows somewhere else weren't doing the same sort of thing at the same-ish time (I certainly wasn't there), but Erickson is generally accepted as being the first.
Besides the basket, there are other devices, including the quick strop & sling (the quick strop part looks vaguely like the old horse collar, but is more clever and safer and was invented by the USCG), and the collapsible stokes litter. Pretty much all those devices are used in conjunction with the swimmer (what you might call a diver) in various ways for various types of situations.

Putting aside horse collar pickups, in the old days, the basket was the ne plus ultra for recovering a survivor without a swimmer if it weren't possible to do a ramp pickup (yes, the HH-52 (S-62) and HH-3F (S-61) both landed on the water sea state permitting. Keep in mind that diversely trained helicopter rescue swimmers for functions substantially different than picking up military aviators is a comparatively new concept. I am aware that the RN and RAF have had winchmen/divers for 30-odd years, but I stand by the statement in its full context. So have the U.S. Forces.

An unassisted basket pickup presumes the survivor is in some position to help him or herself. An often unwarranted assumption due injury or hypothermia or what-have-you, that at one time the USCG made. There are reasons, but there's no point in going into them. That said, I suspect the films crab has watched on USCG operations are probably 30 years old or more. A good deal has changed since then. I was in the middle of it.

The primary problem I have with the 16-person basket is that I suspect it would seldom (if ever) be used. That isn't to say everyone would agree with me, but some of my questions would be... Where do you store the thing? Offshore on a rig, or ashore in the aircraft hangar? Who inspects and load tests it periodically, to make sure the thing can still support 16? In the USCG, a device that hasn't been maintained by a military command is never hung from an aircraft and this would be just one more piece of gear that needs a care and maintenance procedure to keep it serviceable. What do you do with it if you take off with it on the hook, arrive on scene, and find you don't need it, or indeed it is a liability for your particular situation?
Crab's admonitions about exposure and so forth are also well-considered, and in my experience, accurate.

The nature of SAR is rife with uncertainty. I submit (based upon my dozen or so years of doing the work in some diverse locales) that much of the time when one takes off on a SAR mission, the nature of the notification and the actual nature of the case when one arrives on scene can be so different that it is hard to believe it is the same mission.
As often as not, the potential rescuees don't know where they are (yes, even in the days of GPS) and must be located, hence the 'S'. I for one don't fancy searching with anything hung outside the aircraft, especially in weather. I think the concept of this basket underestimates a great deal the inherent complexity and uncertainty in SAR, especially helicopter SAR.
While there is more than one way to skin a cat, I suspect this basket would virtually never be used. It's too specialized and too limited... and limiting.

Point of interest, SASless... I believe Billy Pugh invented various nets for personnel transport and rescue in the oil field environment. As far as I can determine, he didn't invent the rescue basket, but I gather he was such a humble fellow that even when directly approached about his net inventions he often denied being 'that' Billy Pugh, so one couldn't say with total certainty. The fellow who bought his company some years back has said he believes that the Billy Pugh name was the most important asset that came with the purchase.

http://uscgaviationhistory.aoptero.org/coldfusion/images/erickson_igor.jpg

[TRC]

....I suspect it would seldom (if ever) be used

It has been used for maritime rescue.


Where do you store the thing? Offshore on a rig, or ashore in the aircraft hangar


Either or both, as applicable. A fold-flat version is in development.


Who inspects and load tests it periodically


Who looks after your helicopters?


....to make sure the thing can still support 16


It has a payload of 2 tonnes at a safety factor of 3.75:1. Not as difficult to maintain as the thing that carries it.

What do you do with it if you take off with it on the hook, arrive on scene, and find you don't need it, or indeed it is a liability for your particular situation?

It shouldn't be difficult to drop it somewhere for later retrieval.

Crab's admonitions about exposure and so forth are also well-considered, and in my experience, accurate.

See:


On the 19th I wrote:

Quote:
Inshore or oilfields, short-range jobs a basket rescue is the answer

and only last night I wrote:

Quote:
and it's only suitable for short range rescues - inshore, within an oilfield or where rescue ships are nearby.


It is fully acknowledged that it is a short range solution for mass rescue.

I'm not suggesting that it should be used instead of a winch for rescue. It is a far quicker way of shifting large numbers of people short distances - as mentioned previously. Not to mention floods on 'dry' land.

[Um... lifting...]

My experience and observations lead me to believe that the lads who turn the wrenches on the helicopters, the lads who pack the chutes, check the pyro, load test the hoisting baskets, etc. are already overworked. But, our outlooks apparently differ. It certainly depends upon your organization, where you are located, how the SAR organization is funded and set up, whether it's civil or military, manning structure, what types of airframes are operated, etc. Many variables involved.

A 16-person basket implies a hook and lifting capacity of some 2000kg once you get the people in it. That's a fairly good-sized helicopter, which is great if you have a few. My guess is that a rescue device will seldom, in and of itself, drive other acquisitions. You also need somewhere to set the basket down on both ends of the lift and it needs to be loaded and unloaded.
{Since more than once I've seen a 50' boat off Haiti with over 300 people aboard and about 20cm of freeboard in the Caribbean and have an acquaintance rescue swimmer who disarmed a freighter crewmember of a rather large knife he was using as a means to persuade his fellows that he belonged at the head of the queue, I am a bit leery about trusting frightened rescuees, even trained ones, with managing their own loading in an orderly fashion and staying within the load limits of the device... to my mind that raises the further question of how are you going to get someone on the deck or in the water to supervise loading this thing?}.
As far as putting this basket on a ship deck in a seaway... depends upon the ship, depends upon the seas and other environmental factors. If an oil rig is in such extremis that everybody needs to get off and hasn't already done so via the lifeboats, I can't think of a lot of scenarios where it will be possible to put this basket down on the rig safely to carry out the initial evacuation when it wouldn't also be possible to land aboard. If there's a fire on the rig... can't use it. If the wind is howling at 70 knots... can't use it. Post-hurricane, lifting people off roofs and porches in sketchy weather with telephone lines and trees and the like about... I surely wouldn't enjoy trying it. Those are precisely the times when large numbers of people can find themselves wishing to be evacuated.

It might work in the UK or similar location in a tightly confined waterway, though I still have my doubts, because it is not particularly likely that it will be consistently used on a lovely day.
But, weather, terrain, and other existing conditions differ widely between different locations, and I may be limiting my thought processes. In the U.S., simply because of the transit distances involved on a significant percentage of SAR cases (we considered anything out to 100nm to be short-range) it would be impractical because you'd either need a whole lot of these things in various spots (all of which need to be maintained, which would be a logistical nightmare) or you'd need something to haul it internally so you could get it on scene with some haste. And even then, you still have to rig it to the outside of the machine once on scene.

Perhaps it is a matter of perspective. My last SAR unit had an operating area of approximately 18 million square miles... that is not a typo. I have friends in Alaska who have done SAR cases with 10-hour transit times from Kodiak to Attu via Cold Bay and Adak in the Aleutians just to get to the jumping off point so the case can be prosecuted. Even in someplace considered to be comparatively small, such as Hawaii, it's an hour and a half to Hilo from Oahu and just under an hour to Barking Sands, Kauai at 140 knots.

Someone also has to pay for all this. I suspect if the sums were done and a history of actual cases where it might have made the difference was developed within a given operating area, a cost-benefit analysis wouldn't support it when everything from infrastructure to airframe mods and maintenance were taken into account in most SAR environments. It may seem blasphemous that the saving of lives at sea would ever be reduced to an accounting exercise, but the reality is that it generally does come down to that in the end.

But, maybe this could be made to work and I'm sure it has its place. I just don't happen to think in the environments I'm familiar with it would be particularly useful, so up 'til now, I haven't been sold on it.

That said, I could be wrong, I often am.

[arandcee]

Not to mention floods on 'dry' land.

Would it have been useful at Boscastle Crab? Or Glos? Would it have robbed us of the cool footage of the SKs stacking over Boscastle?

[[email protected]]

ArrandCee - no it would have been useless at both Boscastle and Gloucester - the Boscastle buildings wer all pitched roof so nowhere flat to land the basket and the Gloucester jobs were mianly one or two persons at a time from precarios positions (one being swept away by the river) where the only option was a winchman deployed straight to the casualty.

Sasless - the RAF don't use divers/rescue swimmers because we don't think putting another person free in the water (even if he is a God-like swimmer) is a sensible way to do things. We keep the winchman attached to the wire so he can be extricated quickly if required. In the same vein, we don't leave winchmen in the mountains cling precariously to small ledges, they only come off the wire if it is safe to do so. On decks, we prefer to deliver the winchman to the deck rather than have him swim to it and then climb up the side (lots of fun in a big sea state).
We have what we think is the best option for the variety of rescues we are called upon to perform and I don't think we have been found wanting yet - it is not that we are stuck in our ways but change for change sake is pointless.

I think the RN went the diver route because of the likelihood of needing to rescue a pilot from a ditched and possibly submerged aircraft (carrier ops) and their use of divers is more to do with Military roles than the need on a civilian rescue.

Um Lifting - good posts - put flesh on the bones of some of my thoughts.

TRC - I'm sorry you don't like the criticism - it is just my opinion that you can only make a realistic case for your basket in a very limited set of circumstances. There are lots of specialised bits of kit that would be nice to have on occasions but we start to move towards Thunderbird 2 with mission pods territory. Our role equipment is always being refined and improved but there needs to be a clear need and a demonstrated increase in effectiveness before new stuff pushes out the older (and well proven) gear.

[Geoffersincornwall]

Well I read all that and still think that a two-hoist two-door solution is a good way of speeding up the hoist rate in very particular scenario. Not for all of course but when you carry out a risk analysis of the scenarios around UK the large ship evac (too far for the basket and nowhere to cross-deck) scenario is one that scores high on the probability scale and high on the 'consequences' scale too. I think this idea has some legs. Only to be used in a low hover (less than 25 ft??) and needs to be a quick-fit option.

The basket too has a place in your armoury although I think you would need to 'long-line' it and is probably the only way you could effectively deal with a high-rise mass evac,

Remember the old saying:-

For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

I'm a bit of a petrolhead and have a few tools in my tool-box that I have hardly ever used but when I did use them they were the ONLY tool for the job and I would have been snookered without them.

I would rather see a basket sit in the corner of a helideck or in the back of the hangar and never used than not have one when I needed it.

G

[TRC]

TRC - I'm sorry you don't like the criticism -


I don't have a problem with constructive critcism at all. I welcome it.

[[email protected]]

Geoffers - I would rather see a basket sit in the corner of a helideck or in the back of the hangar and never used than not have one when I needed it.
Not if it meant money could be better spent improving kit that does get used. I keep being told that SAR post 2012 will be lean and efficient - buying baskets that won't get used seems at odds with that.

Mass evacuation of several thousand people (that is what the big cruise liners carry) is just not possible using helicopters, no matter how many winches you put on them.

As others have said - the only sensible location for a basket is on the vessel/rig itself so the owners/operators of the vessel will have to pay for them and then work out how to get the SAR providers to authorise their use when they are not owned or serviced by them.

TRC - I don't have a problem with constructive critcism at all. I welcome it.
A criticism by its very nature is a negative comment on the worth or value of something - constructive criticism is one of those modern management type phrases which tries to dress up telling the truth (that something is sh*te and needs to be rethought) by pretending you are offering advice as to how to improve it.

Would you have preferred - 'what a nice basket - now if you could just make it a little less baskety and find another way of carrying it, it will be exactly what we need?':)

[Geoffersincornwall]

The world of aviation is dotted with examples of the 'forget it, it will never work' response to innovation:-

"Now what have you done Igor? What a heap of scrap that is. It may fly but you will never make it a useful military tool"

"Give the Navy aircraft! You must be joking. You'll never be able to fly off a ship with a decent payload".

"Correct Prime Minister, you don't need aircraft carriers anymore, the Air Marshal chappie told me he can bomb the hell out of anywhere from Port Stanley to Timbuctoo so they will be able to provide the Fleet with all the air cover they need".

"Well Mr Whittle, it certainly makes a lot of noise but I'm afraid we can't afford to fund silly ideas that have no future".

"A silicon what? Don't be silly, pass me that Abacus".

"You say it's called a 'wheel', well, it's a bit too round for my liking. Maybe we can turn it into a table".

G

:}:)

[jbt930]

At the SAR conferences the United States Coast Guard statistics show 90% of all rescues are within 12 miles of shore. In North America SAR crews recovering large numbers are more likely to respond to the aftermath of floods, hurricanes, earthquakes or a terrorist event.

The interesting significant factor with the large baskets is regardless of influences they do not spin. When floating the folding end gates allow people to swim in. These aspects help the SAR crews not hinder them. Operationally the SAR Squadron may not want to fly an empty at 120 knots but the US military determined the envelope safe for all Department of Defense helicopters. 100kts at GW and 120kts EW is a reasonable and useful flight envelope especially considering human carriage is most probably hovering people out of harms way.

There are numerous video clips showing various litters on hoists spinning out of control. This is stressful for all parties but not a reason not to use hoists. The US Air Force Air National Guard determined in their Katrina after action report that when hoisting from large isolated groups families were separated. The assessment went on to say that had they used baskets the operation would have been more productive with less probability of separating those families.

Baskets can be deployed with equipment for longer distances. A jet ski, appropriate inflatable rafts, gear to ward off hypothermia and other considerations could be part of a SAR operational kit.

Given the US 90% scenarios two trained SAR crews the one with a basket is going be more productive during the “Golden Hour” or immediately after the event.

I believe you have to look at a particular region’s most likely large scale recovery event and use the best multiplier.

[Geoffersincornwall]

I take it all back........... the world has NOT been over-run by the brain-dead. There are real people out there capable of thinking outside the box instead of sitting inside their nice fur-lined light blue coloured comfy chair. Good on ya JBT. :D

You know I'm only joshing Crab so don't go all crinkly on me. :uhoh:

G
:O

[Droopystop]

Thinking from a passenger point of view, if I was on a ship/oil rig which was on fire/sinking, I am not going to wait for Crab or anyone else to rock up with a helicopter or Thunderbird 2, winch or basket. Straight for the lifeboats/liferafts. There is no way that helicopters are the answer to quickly evacuating large passenger vessels/oil rigs unless they can land on and there are lots of them.

[TRC]

Crab,


A criticism by its very nature is a negative comment on the worth or value of something - constructive criticism is one of those modern management type phrases which tries to dress up telling the truth (that something is sh*te and needs to be rethought) by pretending you are offering advice as to how to improve it.


Your interpretation of 'constructive criticism' speaks volumes about you. A random on-line dictionary definition is:

"If advice, criticism or actions are constructive, they are useful and intended to help or improve something"

That interpretation is in line with the generally accepted meaning of the phrase - in the real world anyway.

There is no way on earth that I would have preferred:

'what a nice basket - now if you could just make it a little less baskety and find another way of carrying it, it will be exactly what we need?'


Let's leave it at that. But I wish you the best of luck for the day that you become a civilian (perish the thought).

[Um... lifting...]

jbt930-
That's as may be, but another fact that needs to be kept in mind is that 90% of all SAR cases do not occur within 12nm of a SAR unit, regardless of how close to shore they may be. I would guess that 50nm is probably a closer figure to median transit distance from unit to scene, but again, that will be dependent upon environment and operating area. Even so, I think the Golden Hour argument has little merit in support of the basket. You still haven't gotten the rescuees to care of any sort. It also needs to be considered that with an external load hung on the aircraft, routings will need to be changed, which will slow you down more. You can't fly over populated areas with an external load on.

Ah, Katrina. Initial responders to Katrina were limited, the number of casualties essentially was not. Recovery went on for many days.
Coast Guard Air Station New Orleans has 3 or 4 HH-65 helicopters, I forget. There are a few other trained SAR crews in that area with other organizations, but not many. CGAS Houston is to the west, and has, I think, 4 HH-65s. Coast Guard Aviation Training Center Mobile is about a one-hour flight to the east and has its own bevy of aircraft that are usually used for training, both HH-65 and HH-60J. Mobile does not have a dedicated helicopter SAR mission.
Mobile is the home of the standardization branches for both of those aircraft, the Rescue Swimmer standardization branch, and the Polar Operations Division, all of which have crews. Additionally, in any given week, there are a dozen or so pilots coming through from all around the CG for simulator training, which allowed for a prodigious manning level as long as the machines held up.
Katrina was not, by any measure, an ordinary event. More hoisting was done during the Katrina aftermath than had been done in the 50 years previous by Coast Guard helicopters.
The Air Guard, Army Guard, Navy, Marines... TV station 206s, cops, everybody showed up and wanted a piece of the rescue work.

In the U.S., as part of a package for disaster relief to be flown someplace in an airlifter for a catastrophic event of this sort... I can see it, though from a practical standpoint I wouldn't let FEMA touch it except to transfer money to the Air Force to procure, maintain, store, and transport the equipment. I would venture to guess (although I do not know) that this is likely what the Air Guard is doing with it, with perhaps a couple scattered in natural-disaster prone areas.

As I've said before, the UK is different, and I don't pretend to be an expert on that environment.

As a day-to-day piece of SAR equipment, I stand by my assessment that ordinary SAR is too uncertain to hook the basket to the machine and go on a mission because of what you lose in other capabilities. I completely disagree with Geoffers with regard to the basket that you'll be able to find someplace to 'drop it off' enroute unless pickling it into the Channel and creating a hazard to navigation is considered that place. Any other choice you defeat your Golden Hour argument (never mind I think that argument's weak to begin with).

[TRC]

Um... lifting...

No-one, not even the most avid supporter of the 'heavy' basket would suggest that it should replace the conventional and proven method of winching people out of harm way.

All that is being suggested here is that the 'heavy' basket should be used to complement the SAR force - whether off-shore or on-shore - when the need arises. I accept that it is a short range option - in US ops it's probably better described as ultra-short range, 10 miles at most, which would be pushing it for wet, shocked, etc survivors.

The point of it is simply a mass mover of people from jeopardy to a place of safety, quickly. Someone on here might be able to tell us how long it took to evacuate a dozen or more people from a factory roof in Sheffield by winch. If there is a major catastrophe - shipwreck, flood, oilfield event, highrise fire - and lots of people need moving short distances quickly with limited air-assets, it is a viable solution. It's obviously a poor choice if there's a trawler in trouble 400nm off the Lizard. The right tool for the right job - thats all.

[SASless]

Sasless - the RAF don't use divers/rescue swimmers because we don't think putting another person free in the water (even if he is a God-like swimmer) is a sensible way to do things. ......... On decks, we prefer to deliver the winchman to the deck rather than have him swim to it and then climb up the side (lots of fun in a big sea state).

Crab dear fellow.....I know the RAF is a very new service and is working hard at building some traditions and all....but perhaps this "If was good enough for Wellington...." approach to SAR is not the right way to go about that.

The first half of your comment flies in the face of operational experience of many different SAR units in the world. Yet another spanner in the tool kit that could be used as needed but if not carried cannot.

The second part of the comment shows your lack of understanding of how Rescue Swimmers are used. I reckon some of that is from not being involved in that kind of operation but mostly comes from your inability to look outside your own window at the world about you.

As an aside.....our Rescue Swimmers do not consider themselves "God Like" but I will bet you most of the folks they met in the water certainly do.

Has your service ever sent a crewman over to our side of the water on an exchange where the fellow did a Rescue Swimmer course as a method of assessing the technique and actually seeing what is done by the Swimmer?

[Um... lifting...]

As an aside.....our Rescue Swimmers do not consider themselves "God Like" but I will bet you most of the folks they met in the water certainly do.Well... SASless, that's because you've never met ------ ---------... but he's probably the exception!:eek:

That said, the rest of your comment is quite correct. Free swimming is just one tool in the kit for the rescue swimmer, and not used all or even most of the time despite what indications films may have given. A large amount of swimmer training is done free swimming because that is the most demanding regime (for the swimmer) where the on-cable work has a higher workload demand for the hoist operator/pilot team.
The bulk of the personnel hoists I did on actual cases in my last few years of SAR were what were called 'direct delivery with a quick strop', which can be done to a boat, a cliff, a roof, or the water. Basket stays in the cabin.
If our dauntless, yet hapless SASless were bobbing about, the swimmer is lowered in a seat harness, SASless' feebly thrashing left arm (if he has one) is grabbed by the swimmer's right (or vice-versa) and the strop is transferred from the swimmer's shoulder to under the arms of our (now somewhat) fearless SASless and cinched up. Next thing he knows he's at the door in a safe and soggy embrace with the swimmer. Tension has never left the cable... never mind the sensual tension that SASless may or may not be starting to feel... not my concern, I'm checking fuel and sending the swimmer down again if need be.

crab, I do sense you have some misconceptions about what those colonial upstarts in the white and orange helicopters do, and more particularly, about what they don't do. Point of order, we've been at it since 1790... though not the helicopter part...

While I can take no credit for it as I've been away from the school for well over a decade now and had nothing to do with this part of it anyway, it is gratifying to see Air Force PJs, Navy CSAR specialists and Army Special Forces fellows coming to the little Coast Guard schoolhouse on the Oregon/Washington border. I believe some Canadian boys bring some Molson down every now and again as well because the Columbia River Bar area is just about an ideal natural environment for practicing demanding rescues and is enhanced by the presence of an Air Station on the Oregon side and the Coast Guard Motor Lifeboat School on the Washington side of the Columbia.
The story is told (and it is more or less true), that after the inaugural class in 1996 there was a big piece with photos in the local Astoria newspaper on what those crazy Coast Guard boys were doing out there in the mouth of the Columbia and in them caves and hangin' from them helicopters over the cliffs last week. Some retired Army busybody (who apparently knew what he was about) in the area read said piece and made a few phone calls and the next thing there were some Army fellows wanting to do a little training in what seemed to them to be a good thing.
The USCG being the self-effacing and frankly impoverished outfit it is, sort of hemmed and hawed and said, "Well, Sergeant-Major, it's kinda like this... we don't actually have the resources for additional students... we're scraping by as a proof-of-concept now..." "Aw, hell, whaddya need? Desks, jet fuel, trucks, pyro, helicopters, computers, 10,000 gallons of flat olive paint, shelter halves, what? What?" and lo, the DoD checkbooks were opened and there was much rejoicing and cultural cross-pollination, which I am to gather continues to this day.
How precisely the school went from being the: "Advanced Rescue Swimmer School" (I know why that was... budget constraints, and, after all it was a swimmer's grand vision) to "Advanced Aircrew School" in a span of a few short years isn't entirely clear to me, but I would not be surprised if the DoD folks were involved to some degree or other in that part of the evolution. However it came about, the SAR services provided to the public are decidedly enhanced by that evolution.

[Treg]

Whether your rescuers remain attached to a wire or not, surely the main criteria is that the individual is capable to undertake the task in conditions that his/her organisation deems safe to operate in?

But as this safe limit (cut-off-point) is often hard to define due numerous factors surely the key is to prepare rescuers with appropriate training for worst case scenarios. How does this training compare between organisations?

[Um... lifting...]

It often comes down to knowing what you can't do, not what you can. The key to developing an appropriate training program is correctly assessing the needs of the operational environment first, then figuring out training objectives to meet those needs, then developing enabling objectives, procedures, and equipments to suit. Just because the RAF operates one way, the RN another, the USCG a third, and various other organizations in their own ways, doesn't necessarily mean any of them are incorrect.
Many of the organizations (I know the USCG does) send individuals to evaluate other programs and open their programs up for similar visits. You take what works in your environment and apply it. A heavy slathering of CRM and command trust & confidence are helpful as well.
That's how doctrine and manuals develop and evolve. There is no (and in my opinion shouldn't be) overarching goal to make all rescue organizations all over the place work in precisely the same manner. The optimum rescue procedures are a moving target and a compromise between specialization and generalization by necessity. Probably always will be.

[Geoffersincornwall]

"drop it off en route" - where did I say that? As far as I can see I never did.

It may not be appreciated by those that have never worked in a deep-water offshore oil environment that there are many production facilities (extant or planned) situated from 50 to 150 nautical miles from land and are NOT bolted to the sea bed. It is possible for these 'floaters' (semi-subs, tension legs, FPSOs - converted tankers) to be compromised and develop a list. More than 10-15 degrees of list and your helideck is useless for landing but still OK as a winching point. Fire and power failure can rob you of the resources needed to evacuate as per your emergency plan. I know they shouldn't but as I have said before the ship hasn't read the Emergency Plan so doesn't know that unmaintained and uncared for emergency equipment will fail if it's not kept up to scratch.

I am talking about things that have already happened, happening again, not dreaming up mission impossible.

:ok:

[Um... lifting...]

It shouldn't be difficult to drop it somewhere for later retrieval.Quite right, geoffers... 'twasn't you a'tall... 'twas TRC... apologies... sometimes get the players mixed up.

Been working deepwater offshore oil/gas environment for a few years now, so indeed know how 'tis.

The Lord helps those who help themselves, I always say... makes it a sight easier to help them if they do that as well if He decides to stay clear.

[[email protected]]

Strangely enough I am quite aware of how the USCG use their rescue swimmers and Um-lifting's point highlights that for most rescues (90% I think he said)the swimmer is used as a winchman and deployed straight to the casualty - just like we do everytime.

How is that stuck in the past SASless?

The fact remains that there are very few ocassions when it is neccessary to deploy a swimmer/diver in a free drop. In a very, very small percentage of rescues such as casualties trapped under a boat, in a submerged car or in a flooded cave - a swimmer might make a difference but the concept of ops goes against the first rule of first aid, don't make yourself another casualty. Yes they are very fit, brave boys and they go places I never would but then so do our winchmen.

Um lifting - whilst we are on the subject of history, I think the UK military has been saving lives at sea for a lot longer than 219 years:) I also believe the whole concept of using aircraft and boats to rescue those in the water was borne from the Battle of Britain to recover downed pilots from the Channel (this was before the USA joined the party:))
You are right about exchanges though - there has been a USCG exchange with the RAFSARF for many years, sadly the beancounters ended it last year - I think if you talked to those who have come to UK and experienced how we do things you might find that most of them went back to the USCG much richer for the experience and often surprised at our capability.

TRC - sorry your sense of humour has deserted you, most civilians can take a joke :) see that, it's a smilie. Unfortunately you have watered down your argument since you started on mass evacuation from ships a good way offshore and you have downshifted to 12nm from the coast.

Geoffers - has someone offered you a promotion or a pay rise if you get this twin hoist idea up and running?:)

[mtoroshanga]

I may be a bit rusty but I was under the impression that the basket method used by the USCG was primarily to keep the survivor in a horizontal position when being lifted out of freezing water so preventing migration of blood from the chest area to the legs. We carried two strops on the hook to achieve this and it was a right fiddle.
The two winch arrangement is there to give a second lifting capability should the primary winch go u/s or the cable has to be cut. My m emory is a bit suspect but I did the case of the Alexander Kesserling (excuse spelling) in system Failure Analysis and seem to remember that two Sea Kings lost their winch cables during the rescue and had to return to base.
Bristow used to have a rescue net for the cargo hook in the hangar years ago and it looked pretty simple though I have never seen it in action.

[Cpt_Pugwash]

Straying slightly from the two winch theme, and not wanting to start a trans-atlantic pi$$ing contest, but.....

Billy Pugh didn't develop his net until 1955, and that was for crane transfers, the "Sproule Net" had already been trialled at RNAS Ford during 1954. Already previously discussed on Rotorheads, and a nice pic of a Dragonfly with the device appears on John Eacotts website.

Taking cover, awaiting incoming.:)

[Lt.Fubar]

Crab... actually first to use aircraft for sea rescue missions in Europe were the Germans - 1935 "Luftkreis-Kommando VI" was formed operating out of Kiel, first used Krigsmarine planes for search - and surface vessels for rescue ops, but from 1938 they had Heinkels He59 for both. Before marching into Poland, Germany as first in Europe, had operational maritime aviation SAR unit. Although it was for military purposes only, just like early RAF, RN, USN and other navies units.

Across the pond, since 1932 USCG (still under USN jurisdiction) was already using "flying lifeboats" PJ-1 and RD-4 in a true SAR role out off Naval Station Dinner Key rescuing both military, and civilian life.

Many Navies across the world were using seaplanes, and sometimes used them as SAR, or medevac platform (several cases even in Polish Navy between 1920 and 1939) but SAR was never their main role, until after the war, when with the development of helicopters, maritime aviation SAR flourished across the globe.

It doesn't really matters today - past is the past, interesting facts though ;)

[Um... lifting...]

(still under USN jurisdiction)

Lt F.-

Not quite sure where you got that bit, but the rest is pretty much correct so far as I can tell. In general, the USCG only has gone under USN control during time of war and did so in 1941, having been returned to the Treasury Department (its then home) in 1916 after WWI. As far as I am aware, it wasn't done between the wars nor since WWII. They probably would have told me if it had.

The Coast Guard hangar at Dinner Key is still there (was once based in Miami, then (and probably yet) the busiest air-sea rescue unit in the world, but Dinner Key had closed some years prior), and the business that now owns the hangar has been good enough to paint the embossed concrete CG emblem over the doors in CG colors. The seaplane ramp was even there some years back, though it was launching pleasure craft. May still be for all I know.

Since the famous picture of Orville Wright sailing off on his first powered flight was taken by Surfman John T. Daniels from the Kill Devil Hills Life Saving Station, arguably the USCG has been there from the start.

It also isn't entirely clear when CG aviation SAR began, but I think you're in the general timeframe. CG Aviator #1 was Elmer Stone, and he went to the Naval Aviation School in Pensacola in April 1916. There were some abortive starts of air stations in 1916 and 1920.
The first trans-atlantic flight of a heavier-than-air craft was in May, 1919, in the NC-4. LT Elmer F. Stone USCG first pilot, LCDR A. C. Read USN, aircraft captain.

In 1925 LCDR C.G. von Paulsen borrowed a Vought UO-1 from the Navy (things were easier then, apparently) to demonstrate the use of aircraft in enforcing Prohibition. So, law enforcement was the first real USCG aviation mission.

The earliest date I can find for aviation SAR for the USCG is around 1928, flying PJ-1s and Grumman JF-2 Ducks were based aboard ship by the late 1930s. There were some crazy missions capturing German weather stations in Greenland during the war and numerous rescue missions of ferry crews who'd crashed on the ice cap. I don't know how well any of that is documented, as my history book on it is somewhat disorganized and vague (History of U.S. Coast Guard Aviation by Arthur Pearcy... who is a British fellow, so highly credible... also he's one of the few who bothered to write anything at all... though his book is now 20 years old so the contemporary bits are off now).

What little helicopter training was done by the Allies during WWII was all done at Brooklyn, NY, by the USCG (who controlled almost all U.S. Naval helicopters during that time), though the British were indeed there for the start of things with helicopters around February, 1943. In November 1943, shipboard helicopter trials were conducted in Long Island Sound with two YR-4B helicopters, one U.S. Navy, one Royal Navy. On 2 January 1944, the British Helicopter Service Trial Unit embarked aboard the merchant vessel Daghestan at Bridgeport, Connecticut with two helicopters. The ship proceeded to New York where USCG and USN observers boarded. The ship joined a convoy on 6 January for Liverpool, which apparently was eventful for weather and a couple of short flights mid-Atlantic. Apparently there were wartime helicopter rescue missions completed in Burma. While my reference doesn't say who flew those, one would think it was the British.

There were plenty of strange machines along the entire way, including 18 B-17s which were acquired from the USAF in 1945 which had lifeboats fitted to the belly.

The point of this enormous post is that it doesn't really matter who did what first. In many cases the documentation seems to be so poor that no one really knows anyway. The point is that the history of airborne SAR is one of inventiveness, adaptation, and shameless borrowing from one another. Long may it continue.

[Cabe LeCutter]

Well I see that this has become the usual P**ing contest. Sorry late into the fray.

Crab, the RAF winchmen do come off the wire in the water when needed, take the calm morning scenario in Cyprus, done it loads of times, and a couple in UK.

The large rescue basket does have it's advantages in certain circumstances, but there are lots of bits of kit that would be great, once in a blue moon. If we stored all the kit that fit in that bracket we would have hangars full of old kit that most people had forgotten how to use. If it was stored on an oil rig you can bet that it would be the one that had just caught fire.

I am all for thinking outside the box and trying out new kit and techniques, but at the end of the day, value for money and practicalities have to be taken into account. My experience of winches is that unless well planned, using both winches at the same time would put excess drain on whatever was powering them.

Heads down, look out for the flack.

[Winch-control]

Whilst it is frowned upon unless in the right situation, SAR UK winchmen do come off the wire, pretty frequently. Yes only when its safe, but thats their call to do so. Generally most mountain ops in Wales or Scotland, and most boat jobs. In addition, cave jobs (Devon).
Come off the wire and go diving (using the 'stass') will get you a talking to..(Harbour in Wales).
Crab is correct in saying 90% of the time the winchman is deployed direct to the casualty, I might add the other 10% of the time the winchman will adapt the situation to achieve a result and its probably less than 0.1% of the time that it can't be achieved.
I am a firm believer that equipement should not be withheld because it may be only needed Once, and a sixteen man basket should, for all the minimal cost involved probably be kept at each SAR station in the UK.
A conventional basket ala US is really no more than the double strop lift developed to reduce the impact of lifing a person submerged in the water, which arose from the Fastnet race in 1979. The double strop placement does not require the winchmen to come off the hook, and allows the cas to be lifted semi-recumbent.
All in all the present UK system is pretty good, not with standing it needs some decent (sic) pilots to hover the a/c!