The future of UK SAR, post SAR-H

[snakepit]

CHC was reported to be 20% more expensive, which doesn't sound much till you do 20% of £3,000,000,000 eek

[jimf671]

CHC was reported to be 20% more expensive, which doesn't sound much till you do 20% of £3,000,000,000 eek

Yes. That 20% you mention is nearly 12 times what CHC will be paid for Lot 2 of the Gap contract. Thought provoking.


(Of course, £3bn is a top-end DfT contract notice estimate. I shall take a wild guess at £1.8bn.)

[snakepit]

I get the feeling you might be a chc fan Jim? One moment they are great because they are more expensive, next moment they are better because because they can do it cheaper? Which solution is the better one? Only one way to find out. FIGHT!

[jimf671]

I am a fan of British helicopter pilots.

[[email protected]]

Jim, both bidders signed up to a 'managed path' for military SAR crews to transfer across to the new service - how many actually get taken on is a another matter but the intent is there.

Unfortunately, those of us on Sea King won't be automatically allowed a civvy IR because it has been deemed that the S61 is not an equivalent to the Sea King and the Sea King is not on the EASA list of aircraft. And people wonder why the CAA is sometimes seen as a money-making organisation:ugh:

[jimf671]

Yes, I've had a conversation about billing regimes with a man in Gatwick. They are going to make so much money out of Bristow in the next 13 years that you would think they could go easy on old Crabs from Chiv.

And yet there it is in the contract documents about how would the contractor make it possible for a SAR pilot at Chivenor to continue flying SAR at (or in the vicinity of) Chivenor.

I heard in some quarters that 50 to 75% of pilots were expected to come from the military so there must be workable pathways out there. Time to have a chat with old friends and colleagues mate.

[Hummingfrog]

Crab

Unfortunately, those of us on Sea King won't be automatically allowed a civvy IR because it has been deemed that the S61 is not an equivalent to the Sea King and the Sea King is not on the EASA list of aircraft.

There may be some advantage in trying the legacy route viz S61/Seaking.

In 1990 when I got my ATPL (H) I did the flight test on the Seaking (with the 202 Sqn QHI) and the Tech paper for the S61 as they were then deemed to be equivalent. I never flew a S61 but there it was on my license!

HF

[Macaco Norte]

Crab, we all had to do civvy IRs on leaving the mob, whether proceduraly trained or not. Difference in your case is that Bristow will probably fund yours.

[212man]

Unfortunately, those of us on Sea King won't be automatically allowed a civvy IR because it has been deemed that the S61 is not an equivalent to the Sea King and the Sea King is not on the EASA list of aircraft. And people wonder why the CAA is sometimes seen as a money-making organisation

SAR falls outside of EASA regulation and is entirely under the CAA's control as described in CAP999. It may be, therefore, that the aircraft can be operated by UK National licence holders (as opposed to EASA Part FCL licences - although obviously those so qualified could also fly the new type as it will be an EASA aircraft) and that more discretion will be available when it comes to QSPs.

[Snarlie]

With the announcement of the contract winners now a mere formality and the transfer of military personnel to the civilian organisation a probability rather than a possibility, has anyone given any thought to the role of BALPA in the new set up? For example, if the organisation is faced with two candidates for a command position, one ex RAF Sea King driver weighed down with medals and cuttings from newspapers, not to mention Pprune posts and the other a fully qualified S92 captain with limited SAR experience but loads of time on the aircraft and seniority in the company plus membership of BALPA - who gets the nod? I think I know the answer but I would be interested to hear other views.

[Hummingfrog]

Snarlie

a fully qualified S92 captain with limited SAR experience but loads of time on the aircraft and seniority in the company plus membership of BALPA - who gets the nod? I think I know the answer but I would be interested to hear other views.

It will all depend on the what is limited SAR experience The company will have a duty of care towards the whole crew within the SAR aircraft so if the SAR experience is very limited then I would expect the very experienced ex Seaking Captain to be given the post. There are many precedents to ignoring the seniority list when when selecting Captains. I was made a Captain within 6 months of joining a NS operator - despite being near the bottom of the seniority list because I was more experienced than those above me for the role of a single pilot offshore based operation.

HF

[[email protected]]

212man - unfortunately, although SAR does technically come under the state provisions, the CAA attitude seems to be that, where possible, states should operate iaw EASA rules. I presume all the police pilots have EASA licences because of that.

There is also a question whether you can fly an aircraft on the EASA list without an EASA licence.

Macaco - yes I would expect to be bonded for the IR and do it whilst on the type conversion course.

HF - it would seem the CAA have switched off the link between S61 and Sea King which seems odd, especially since the differences in engines and FCUs don't really affect the way it flies on instruments!

As for how the manpower pans out - since Portland will close, there will be a whole flights-worth of 139 crews who will just need a differences course to convert to 189 and a change of address to Swansea if they want to stay in the Southern half of the country unless Wattisham is moved to Manston.

There will be 2 full flights-worth of S92 crews at Stornoway and Sumburgh who will probably want to move South (or maybe they do like it up there;))
That leaves 6 flights (in terms of numbers) to fill with some S92 and some 189.

The RN will try and grab all the slots at St Mawgan and Glasgow (if that is where Culdrose and Prestwick move to) leaving 4 flights to fill from other civvy posts in the company or RAF ship-jumpers who don't fancy SH or flying desks.

It will be an interesting few months...

[Anthony Supplebottom]

While I would have preferred for this work to have remained in the hands of the military, I am glad that it went to Bristows who (afaik) were pioneers in privatised SAR in the UK and still have the appearance of being a partly British company.

[jimf671]

It will be interesting to discover whether the resilience aspects of the final outcome result in crews needing to be qualified for all the type on the contract.

[Max Contingency]

For example, if the organisation is faced with two candidates for a command position, one ex RAF Sea King driver weighed down with medals and cuttings from newspapers, not to mention Pprune posts and the other a fully qualified S92 captain with limited SAR experience but loads of time on the aircraft and seniority in the company plus membership of BALPA - who gets the nod? I think I know the answer but I would be interested to hear other views.
18th Mar 2013 10:55


I think the priority will go something like this.
1. Do they meet the minimum contractual requirement for experience levels. This tends to favour the ex military and others may have to serve time waiting for this before Command.
2. Do they have a type rating. This will save you 30k on an S92 or 50K on an AW139. Plus the cost of wages while your pilot is away being type rated. This favours existing civvie pilots.
3. Do they work for a major competitor of yours. This is the icing on the cake if you can get a qualified guy and sting your competitor for retraining costs at the same time!! This one is interesting because it actually discriminates against people already in your Company but is a very valid commercial reason.

[MightyGem]

I presume all the police pilots have EASA licences because of that.
Yes, or they will when they renew/convert their existing licences.

[seaking22]

Just wondering on peoples views regarding the maintenance implications and how this will likely be affected?
Currently i believe there are around 24 Engineers per site, any idea what these figures may drop to per site? What the make up might be ratio wise B1.3/B2/Tech
If maintenance is likely to be carryied out at each site or at a central service location.

Also the likely hood that some guys might get brought over and if this info would be released by Bristows sonner rather than later?
I.e Jump now or hold on to the little ray of light at the end of current SAR :confused:

[Thomas coupling]

That is very naughty of the CAA. The Sea King was always considered 'same type' for licence purposes when " I were a lad". All it required was 30 minutes with staneval / 1179 and you licence got S61 on it!

New sites are complemented for between 6-8 engineers TOTAL. The mil are always top heavy and this is another reason why running civvy SAR will be much much cheaper (and easier). Even with the profit margin built in ;)

It's not called the 'managed path' it's managed route or something else (name escapes me). The bottom line is this and Bristows (oops sorry) ahem the winner will have to be prepared to accept that the RAF are NOT repeat NOT going to release a load of SAR qual'd pilots/aircrepersons onto the market place. They will be looking at their interests initially and then the interests of the individual second. I estimate that out of a total of 25 extra crews needed, the winner will be 50% short of staff :eek:

[jimf671]

SK22. Changes in the approach to the number of a/c may work in your favour. :ok:

[ironchefflay]

there are 8 per site as min of 2 per shift reqd (on 92 bases). 24h on 24h off on the current roster. theres also a labourer and a chief engineer.

139 bases work different hours but would envisage the same as h&s doesnt allow working on your own.

[snakepit]

Jim671
What are you saying? That there more ac than you have been insisting will be the case whilst you were casting doom and gloom with your BFF? I am sure you said if that was the case you would admit you had been wrong! I can find the post if needed

[jimf671]

Yes, snake, it's true. You were right about something. :p

No need to search for the post. You're behind the curve again because in anticipation of a 10 aircraft solution being announced I have already put out feelers for another Agusta Westland mug to replace the one I have promised to smash! :O



The original contract notice and all publicly available DfT documents do not specify the number of aircraft. It was up to the bidders to risk assess and to propose a scheme that achieved the required availability. The world changed on 22nd of October. It hasn't yet changed back. We shall soon see what effect that has had.

[snakepit]

I don't believe I've been wrong about anything yet? Not that I've said much just had a positive mental attitude instead of a we're all doomed attitude

[4thright]

With all this rumour and speculation it would be good to think our over cautious beaurocrats in the DfT will get their bosses to say something "official" very soon.:ugh:

[jimf671]

With all this rumour and speculation it would be good to think our over cautious beaurocrats in the DfT will get their bosses to say something "official" very soon.

Over-cautious bureaucrats in the DfT will re-read all public procurement regulations and directives and take their time to ensure the loser's lawyers cannot catch them out.

[4thright]

Thanks for that insight, and the correct spelling!:cool: I had hoped we would have a choice of contractors to work for but it seems its gonna be Hobson's Choice if the rumours are right.:sad:

[jimf671]

The two-provider solution has a lot going for it and it has served us pretty well for most of the last 60 years. :E

[No Vote Joe]

The main thing against a 2 bidder solution, Jim, is cost. 2 seperate contracts, 2 companies, 2 sets of HQ/mangement/training etc would more than likely cost more than a single bidder solution. This would sound pretty appealing at a time when budgets are being cut again.

Yes, 2 contactors mitigates a certain amount of risk should one company fail to deliver for whatever reason, but I'm lead to believe that there's some sort of mechanism in the contact that allows the Govt to step in and run the service for a short time (using that contactors personnel and aircraft) in that situation, giving a continuity of service and allowing some time to rectify the situation.

[Flounder]

Bristow operated in four locations for 20 years as a sole provider without any issues. Should be no reason they can't do the same again in 10 bases for 13-17 years, particularly now they are a much bigger company with more financial clout.

[jimf671]

The main thing against a 2 bidder solution, Jim, is cost. ...

Yes. However, the DfT is believed to have gone for other options to reduce risk levels that cost at least as much as these differences.


... a time when budgets are being cut again. ...

And when bankers and insurers are nervous and useless and making decisions that stifle enterprise and economic growth, perhaps endangering the efforts of others to advance commerce.


... I'm lead to believe that there's some sort of mechanism in the contact that allows the Govt to step in and run the service for a short time (using that contactors personnel and aircraft) in that situation, giving a continuity of service and allowing some time to rectify the situation.

Yes. Like Sweden.


... Should be no reason they can't do the same again in 10 bases for 13-17 years, ...

Four years of basic services at two bases for £106 million compared to 10/11 years of advanced services including the entire manpower supply issue, base location and construction, fuel depots and many more details costing what? £2bn plus or minus a few hundred million? You don't see this as a significant step up then? Even at a time when getting your ?anker behind you is no easy feat?

[Flounder]

No, you're probably right. It'll all collapse into a colossal heap of mis-management and financial impropriety with the well informed standing on the sidelines of the smoking wreckage of UK-SAR wagging their fingers, tutting and smugly remarking "I told you it would never work".

[4thright]

Flounder and JimF, I think you both raise good points. From within the present civvy provided service I think we recognise that the upscaling is not without its challenges, and it certainly is not just a larger amount of the same.
I think too while the likelihood of Bristow failing is small, thats not how the Government and its civ servants will have been looking at this in its entirety. They are scarred with quite a few other failures. despite the companies being apparently sound at the contract outset.
As for 2 contractors being more costly, thats not neccessarily so either depending on just how a particular bidder may have wanted to run the service, especially if they are going to draw on their wider management services from Aberdeen. I just wanted the possibility of 2 operators sharing the service as it would have given us all more choice as to who to work for, and the likely competitveness that would result. Seems odd that the DfT went for 2 for the GAP contract (which has yet to start - so no experience of how it works yet) and has given up on the idea for the longer term solution. There's now't as strange as civil servants - especially ones without a noodle of aviation experience in any of them!:ugh::ugh::mad::(:E

[[email protected]]

It will work because it has to.

I did wonder last night, as we were training in the top bowl at Snowdon in snow showers just below the cloud base, if the same level of 'train hard fight easy' will be allowed under the new contract or will less risk be accepted unless it is actually lifesaving.

We will just have to wait and see..

[jimf671]

It will work because it has to.

That pretty much sums up what I hear a number of people close to it saying. Possibly even more true with a Lot 3 solution. A Bristow aircraft gets tasked to do a job and if there's a problem then the fallback position is that a Bristow aircraft has to do the job.


I did wonder last night, as we were training in the top bowl at Snowdon in snow showers just below the cloud base, if the same level of 'train hard fight easy' will be allowed under the new contract or will less risk be accepted unless it is actually lifesaving.

This is the crux issue for a lot of MR guys. One of the drivers behind me getting so involved in this is the need to answer their questions about this issue. I have talked about this stuff with mil SAR pilots, civ SAR pilots, mil SAR management, CAA inspectors and SAR pilots from other european countries.

Conclusions?
- All human beings are different. Every pilot is different and every crew is different. Some are very experienced and some are not. Some are better at heaving decks and some are better at snow covered cliffs. 'Honi soit qui mal y pense'.
- There is a deep well of experience of flying Sea Kings in SAR that is at least 35 years deep while for S-92 it is a lot shallower.
- What makes the Sea King a decent mountain flying helicopter is the carbon-based life form in the right front seat. :ok:
- The S-92 may weigh the same as a bus but it has the power of a decent-sized harbour tug or a small oil tanker. It will get you out of there.
- The CAA consistently state that everything necessary to provide a life-saving service will be permitted.
- There will be restrictions in training, just as there are in the military. They will not be exactly the same restrictions.
- Coire Uaine is long way from Gatwick. :=


Let me know if I have got anything wrong. I know I can rely on you. :)

[B1-3]

Hope you don't mind me butting in on the thread but no one seems to have looked at the larger picture or may be I lost it in the 52 pages of this thread?

How does the bidder/s hope to fill the EASA Part 66 posts? LAE's are not growing on trees and C rated ones with S92 type ratings are hard to come by.

My local SAR section (771) engineers seem to think its a P of P to get a 66 License and they will all jump ship just as the RN/RAF stop supporting the task.

May be the CAA will just pull up at the gate of every SAR unit and hand out the little red book with a smile for a large stash of cash from the matlots and crabs???:ok:

Just a thought and one I would like feedback from those in the know.

I have also heard the buzz that the Cornish SAR will ba at Newquay Airport and not the 'local' RNAS.

Anyway must get back to taking something apart, buggered if I know how it goes back though:}

[ericferret]

A lot depends on what you are starting with.
A B1 licensed engineer with a type rating and an existing C licence will only require type training including practical and OJT. Say 8 weeks training max to get the B1 ( with the C being automatic) on type.

A B1 basic holder would take about six months after type training with the C taking a further 3 years.

The C is a nice to have but not a necessity for a line operation.

I have seen various figures including one as low as 8 for the numbers of engineers required..

I would say that is not far out but leaves no flex for leave, training or sickness.
It could be covered with extra staff or a floating pool, either will work.

Would the CAA give out licenses to ex military staff?
No would be my answer to that. The CAA already broke EASA regulations by granting licenses to employees of British Airways who only held American A&P qualifications. That has caused so much trouble that I doubt they will repeat the error.

Every engineer working on SAR has known this was comming so I would imagine that those keen to continue working in this area are already well on their way to getting their civilian qualifications.

Most smaller offshore helicopter operations in the UK Humberside, Norwich, Yarmouth work with close to 100% licensed engineers. Mechs are few and far between. Increacing numbers are dual rated B1 (airframe and engines) and B2 (Avionics).

"Real" B2 engineers are really like hens teeth and that is where the winning operator will struggle.

There is a lot of interest in these positions in the wider helicopter community and I think that the positions will be filled without major grief. In addition these jobs will be open to all EU citizens so a wide pool to fish in.

[Thomas coupling]

I know of atleast 3 mil engineers doing their Pt66 as we speak. Bristows will herd them through to achieve the relevant standards once the starting gun goes. The CAA will most certainly NOT give any mil engineer a 'free ticket'??

There should be NO mil bases as real estate - anyone worth their salt would not rely on the MoD as landlords now would they? [Future closing of MoD estates/sharing airspace/access restrictions etc].

The military exodus (aircrew/engineer) is being 'managed' such that those who wish to go AND have an offer of a job, get their PVR tailored to fit. It makes sense and suits the mil in an attempt to reduce their numbers :E

With a tail wind, this transition to civvy SAR might just work :ok:

[Crab - fancy working from Swansea boyo?]

[B1-3]

Is now the time to bang a CV into Bristows for SAR??

I get the in-post civvy engineers going for the jobs but don't you think they will need a lot more? Two shifts, possible night coverage, hoildays, sick and all those good things. 8 LAE's through the whole UK thats mighty thin on the ground even for a line station and we all know the helicopters don't wait to go U/S until they get back to a base maint org. Unless you have a good MEL the wheels will come off. You still need a type rated guy to sign the defect out of the tech log.

I do agree that SAR(H) will have attractions to us LAE's and it will be interesting to see how Bristows do this. If it does end up split between Bristows and Bond lets say with the S92 and the AW189 thats a lot of pegs to put in the right holes.

[[email protected]]

Swansea or St Mawgan (sorry, Newquay International) the spiritual home of the SAR Force in modern (pre-Valley) times!

The big question is - will the military manage to keep the SAR Force going until SAR H kicks in - manning crises all over the shop and lots of gearbox problems.

I'm not sure deploying the Mk 4s and 7s to Afghan did a lot of good for the spares supply.

[IFR Piglet]

I did wonder last night, as we were training in the top bowl at Snowdon in snow showers just below the cloud base, if the same level of 'train hard fight easy' will be allowed under the new contract or will less risk be accepted unless it is actually lifesaving.

We will just have to wait and see..


Hey Crab,

Perhaps this little ditty I found will help you sleep better tonight. So training is a bit pointless if you don't challenge yourself and this simple concept is even understood by civvie companies and not just an RAF SAR god like your good self; isn't that just amazing!

LiveLeak.com - Ben Nevis tower ridge rescue involving Lochaber MRT and coastguard 100 helicopter

The vid isn't a training sortie but I wonder how they could possibly entertain the idea of conducting the SAR. Just ignorant cowboys or a well trained crew??

Civ SAR has been on the go in it's current guise since 1st Dec 1982. Since then Civ SAR crews have been tested time and again by SAR ops they train to be able to respond to......sound similar?? You needn't allow yourself in future to become distracted by silly ignorant thoughts during critical flight phases in the mountains, but thanks for sharing dude.

Cheers:ok:

Pig

[Flounder]

And that dude in the left seat is flying at some point in the film too. Really scary.

[NRDK]

When you do become that civilian captain and you want to go training, the world is your oyster. If you fancy night mountains then fill your boots. There has never been a restriction on what you can do taking all the calculated safety into consideration. After all even the MOD doesn't accept training incidents/accidents these days.

At the moment the current civ bases have crews with 1000's of hours and on averages a few hundred missions under their belts. Convincing them to participate in worthwhile and essential training has never been a problem.:ok:

[[email protected]]

Oh dear Piglet - you seem determined to make an issue out of everything - I wasn't having a pop at anyone presently delivering SAR but you have taken umbrage anyway.

My point was that challenging training is important and people often get stuck in low cloud and snow in the dark as well - which is what we were training for.:ugh:

And I was watching someone else do the tricky flying as it happens and she was God(ess) like;)

[IFR Piglet]

Oh dear Piglet - you seem determined to make an issue out of everything

Jeez.....that one made me laugh out loud coming from you! :)

Thank you.

[Manchester]

Is it me or has the invective gone out of this thread? No one’s slagging off nasty commercial practices or inadequate equipment any more - just asking polite questions and taking a pop at others in the queue. Is this the sound of dust covers coming off interview suits?

[ericferret]

B1.3

Yep time to get your c.v in, everybody else is!!!!!!

I agree 8 is thin, better would be a B1 and a B2 on an early shift, 2xB1 and a B2 on lates with two back to back shifts total 10 as a minimum.

People should not underestimate reliability on newer aircraft. Talking to a 139 guy he reckons that the aircraft comming out of the factory now from an avionics standpoint are making him redundant from a defects point of view. Scheduled maintenance is much lower than previous generation aircraft. I would expect this to carry on in to the 189.

If they are only doing 400 a year (not sure about that figure) then scheduled maintenance will hardly cause a ripple.

If an aircraft goes u/s how many people can you get on a snag? 2 or 3 max.
If would have to be a main box failure to generate a requirement for more people.
Engine changes are not a big deal anymore with very little in the way of set up procedures.
The joys of modern digital systems. Tracking and balancing done with onboard maintenance computers with little in the way of test flying required.

The biggest problem on the 139 for engineers on a 1000 hour a year aircraft is boredom!!!!!
A big change from when they first came out.
Again after the 189 settles it should be similar. Maintenance on this generation of aircraft is light years on from the Seaking/S61.

Not in a position to comment on the S92 maybe somebody else can give an impression.

Your comments on the MEL are spot on.

In the end it will come down to what the contract says so we should all know soon.

[Al-bert]

What a great vid and what a lovely shiny heclopeter! Took me right back to the good 80's; same place, same weather, same MRT, same Corpach (but fuel in 45 gall drums) and good ole Walter Wessex! Happy days :)

[212man]

Nice video piglett. I'm a bit confused though - why isn't the helicopter yellow and being flown by people in green suits? :confused::confused::confused:

Looks pretty chilly - no doubt some of the crew will be enjoying warmer climes in the not too distant future......:ok::ok:

I should add, that I have no idea who the individuals are (though crab alludes to one person) but was talking in generalities!

[Al-bert]

212man - 'cos they closed Leuchars (B Flt 22 Sqn) years ago, otherwise it would have! :E

[212man]

Albert - I know they did, but that wasn't what I meant.....:E:E

[Adroight]

Yes - I was equally surprised to see civilan types managing to rescue someone up in the mountains without much problem. But it wasn't night, NVG and the 360 degree radar was noticeably absent. ;)

[212man]

Yes - I was equally surprised to see civilan types managing to rescue someone up in the mountains without much problem.

I can only assume they must have trained for that role, amazing - who knew?

[Al-bert]

:rolleyes: 212man.....I did know what you meant!

I 'might' have had a hand in helping training civvie crews once upon a time, prior to joining them, but oil prices dived to 12$ a barrel and jobs outside became scarce for a time. Oh well, SK wasn't too bad an alternative back then but I do like the look of the new kit! :ok:

[Thomas coupling]

In addition to what ericferret was saying: People need to consider the reliability benefits of modern technology.
When I flew the SK, for every hour airborne, it needed approx 10hrs maintenance. When the Merlin came into service every hour airborne required 80....yes 80hrs maintenance. I believe (talking to my neighbour who is a Merlin AEO that this figure is now down to around 45-60hrs.
I am led to believe the S92 is around 4hrs maintenance for every hour airborne.
When I flew the AS355 the ratio was 1 airborne: 2 maint. Then I flew the EC135P1: 1hr airborne to 45 mins maintenance.
The 139 and 189 have the same cockpit (ish)...how logical is that :D Only took 60yrs to work that one out.
So 8 engineers will suffice for 95% of the jobs at site. A floating crew sweeps up the rest.

[Oldlae]

Thomas,

I understand the AS332L1 required 8 hrs maintenance for each hour flown.

[John Eacott]

When I flew the SK, for every hour airborne, it needed approx 10hrs maintenance. When the Merlin came into service every hour airborne required 80....yes 80hrs maintenance. I believe (talking to my neighbour who is a Merlin AEO that this figure is now down to around 45-60hrs.

Apples with apples, TC. To compare front line mil helicopters with all the associated ASW kit back in the day when computers were analogue and trouble shooting had no BITE to come up with a solution in <5 minutes, with modern digital commercial machines might not be fair.

Is the S92 quoted the MH rate for a SAR machine?

[ericferret]

Man hours per hour flown like all statistics can be misleading.

Heavy maintenance hours for instance would be included in the figures but are not relevent if a replacement aircraft is put in place on an operation.

Does this figure include washing, towing, starts, turn rounds. e.t.c.
If you have a duty line crew these hours are "covered".

As an example the 139 goes in for heavy maintenance every 1200 hours off line for about 2 weeks, no effect on the line maintenace man hours for the operational aircraft.
If the figure of 400 hours a year is about right then that is every 3 years.
As the aircraft mature the 1200 hour will probably escalate giving a greater period between checks but with more down time as the aircraft get older.

Is there a spare aircraft available, how the maintenace program is organised, and aircraft reliability are the issues that are more important than a flying hour versus man hour figure.
The size of the windows made available for scheduled maintenance have an effect, smaller the window the better organised you have to be and more people might be needed.
Again you can only get so many people in one hole!!!!!

[Tourist]

Crab

Get over yourself.

It's just hovering. Frankly its amazing that anybody gets excited about it.

[[email protected]]

Tourist - I am hardly bigging myself up here - just highlighting that an international perspective on what we do in UK SAR from those in the world's largest coastguard is that we (not me, but we) do in fact have a very high standard to which others aspire.

If you want to get petty, ask some of the RN exchange pilots we have had what they think of RAF SAR standards of operation;)(ie those who have actually flown with us rather than those sniping from the sidelines)

The serviceability of the Sea King fleet has never been much to crow about and 2 serviceable aircraft per flight is quite unusual nowadays.

[Thomas coupling]

Crab: Are you pointing your digit at me perhaps?

[[email protected]]

TC - no, you were only fit for the Canadian Exchange;););)

[chopper2004]

Latest News - bristowgroup.com (http://bristowgroup.com/bristow-news/latest-news/2020/hm-coastguards-first-unmanned-search-and-rescue-mi/)

A first for the MCGA with the use of Schniebel Camcopter VTUAS In assisting with SAR.

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1836x1224/39dc7182_b14f_44da_8712_eb982e6b334f_9670988e6d3af7f9fc7214f bef2cb242e50b9476.jpeg

Last year, they were trials with Camcopter (made appearance at RIAT ...my photos below).


https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/960x720/c63c91a8_1480_4759_afc6_32d1e487fba6_3912c56e55e8b1e53fb1f8b 7474e199638119b9d.jpeg
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/960x720/6dc69cde_5908_438c_93f6_6e0cea78f516_cbe037bce1e6e207aca7551 6619aa3805af41edf.jpeg

And SAR contract is up for grabs in 4 Years time

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/second-generation-uk-search-and-rescue-aviation-programme-uksar2g

cheers

[OvertHawk]

Latest News - bristowgroup.com (http://bristowgroup.com/bristow-news/latest-news/2020/hm-coastguards-first-unmanned-search-and-rescue-mi/)

A first for the MCGA with the use of Schniebel Camcopter VTUAS In assisting with SAR.

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1836x1224/39dc7182_b14f_44da_8712_eb982e6b334f_9670988e6d3af7f9fc7214f bef2cb242e50b9476.jpeg


cheers

If there was a caption competition for this it would be: 'For Christ's sake watch that bloody thing guys - it's going to try and kill us at the first opportunity! :uhoh:

[dingo9]

#SearchNoRescue

[[email protected]]

Dingo-:ok: - at least they will be able to have HD pictures of people drowning. This capability is better used for Police Mispers searching.

Much as I used to hate the many, many hours of fruitless searching, a crew of 4 or 5 in a helicopter with all the modern sensors plus the Mk 1 eyeball, is always going to be a more effective search platform.

But of course it's all about cost since the drones will be much cheaper and we can pretend the area has been searched effectively because the computer says so.

[Evil Twin]

Dingo-:ok: - at least they will be able to have HD pictures of people drowning. This capability is better used for Police Mispers searching.

Much as I used to hate the many, many hours of fruitless searching, a crew of 4 or 5 in a helicopter with all the modern sensors plus the Mk 1 eyeball, is always going to be a more effective search platform.

But of course it's all about cost since the drones will be much cheaper and we can pretend the area has been searched effectively because the computer says so.

Have to agree with you there Crab. So often it is the human brain connected to the Mk1 eyeball that sees something that looks not quite right or sees a flash of movement that gets the attention and leads to a successful rescue. The machine is never going to be able to make those decisions or get that gut feeling that a human crew can. I reckon I do a missing person search on average once a week. Often times the eyeball finds the person where the camera wouldn't.

[3D CAM]

Dingo-:ok: - at least they will be able to have HD pictures of people drowning. This capability is better used for Police Mispers searching.

Much as I used to hate the many, many hours of fruitless searching, a crew of 4 or 5 in a helicopter with all the modern sensors plus the Mk 1 eyeball, is always going to be a more effective search platform.

But of course it's all about cost since the drones will be much cheaper and we can pretend the area has been searched effectively because the computer says so.

My first post for ages and for once I totally agree with Crab, shock horror:D. More publicity for the MCA press department to push out of their helicopter arriving at the last minute and saving the day. But you won't see the PIW going down for the final time while some anonymous drone pilot sits in his/her/non gender office drinking coffee:mad:.

3D CAM

[peely]

Evil and Crab some time ago I would have agreed with you but alas, times are changing. The ability of the sensors coupled with AI means a given area can be searched much quicker than a manned asset with much greater detection rates. I make these comments from experience and the advancement Rate in EO/IR Change detection technology is mind blowing. The manned unmanned teaming is the future.

[[email protected]]

Peely - the drone seems to have one sensor turret which can only point in one direction at a time despite having autoscan functions - that doesn't compare to a multicrew helicopter with the same turret plus people looking out of the window.

I have done enough sensor driven searches to know they are not a panacea and the human capability, as Evil Twin says, more often than not saves they day.

This belief that technology and AI is the solution to everything is always driven by those marketing the technology.

[Nige321]

Evil and Crab some time ago I would have agreed with you but alas, times are changing. The ability of the sensors coupled with AI means a given area can be searched much quicker than a manned asset with much greater detection rates. I make these comments from experience and the advancement Rate in EO/IR Change detection technology is mind blowing. The manned unmanned teaming is the future.
Peely
You are wasting your breath.
The luddites on here will never accept anything other than 'it's better to do it my way because that's how it's always been done'...

[ericferret]

Peely
You are wasting your breath.
The luddites on here will never accept anything other than 'it's better to do it my way because that's how it's always been done'...

I say bring back the Walrus.

[jeepys]

The MCA did a drone trial a few years ago from St Athan. How did that go?
Does anybody have any information on what the trials consisted of and their success?

[jimf671]

Elbit Systems did trials out of St Athans in 2018.
https://www.flightglobal.com/civil-uavs/elbit-to-fly-hermes-900-for-uk-search-and-rescue-trials/136554.article

So that is Elbit with their big bird and Schiebel with their smaller rotorcraft that are out in the public domain. There has been other techie stuff going on with sensors and planks.

Some might recall that Elbit showed early interest in the SARH contract last time around. They, and other corporate wannabes, soon disappeared once it was whittled down to real helicopter guys and then the usual suspects.

The currently proposed Lot 3 mixes fixed wing and UAV. I dare say we will see more than 3 lots in the contract notice next year when more of the detail is fleshed out.

As other have already stated, Mark One eyeball is the most successful SAR sensor up to this point and sticking techie stuff on a platform that doesn't require as many expensive aircrew isn't a search for persons in distress but a search for cost saving. Where I believe the greatest advances in search tools are waiting to be found are in the use of sensor systems that advance spectral imaging to the point where specific materials (like nylon-faced lifesaving equipment or mountaineering waterproofs) can be automatically located in real-time. At present, it may be that only military users have the deep pockets necessary to make this a practical solution. It cannot be far away as a commercially available civilian solution. If it is done well then it will be a far greater step forward than UAV.

[[email protected]]

Nige321 - or perhaps because there are some realities to searching that have been learned through long experience both on the ground and in the air.

The search is one part of the equation and without the rescue asset nearby becomes pretty pointless if life is at stake.

I'd like to see the drone search in a 200' cloudbase over steep wooded terrain in the dark or in heavy rain at 100' over the sea at night or in blowing snow or 60 kt winds - many SAR boys and girls have done all of these and much more and a model aircraft (no matter how much you polish it and roll it in glitter) just won't cut the mustard.

[Evil Twin]

Peely
You are wasting your breath.
The luddites on here will never accept anything other than 'it's better to do it my way because that's how it's always been done'...

Hahahahahha... OK. I take you have been SAR aircrew and that qualifies you to make such a comment?

[Nige321]

Hahahahahha... OK. I take you have been SAR aircrew and that qualifies you to make such a comment?
No.
But I have worked on DSTL UAV projects and have seen the huge leap in capabilities over the last few years.
It's coming, like it or not...

[Nige321]

Nige321 - or perhaps because there are some realities to searching that have been learned through long experience both on the ground and in the air.

The search is one part of the equation and without the rescue asset nearby becomes pretty pointless if life is at stake.

I'd like to see the drone search in a 200' cloudbase over steep wooded terrain in the dark or in heavy rain at 100' over the sea at night or in blowing snow or 60 kt winds - many SAR boys and girls have done all of these and much more and a model aircraft (no matter how much you polish it and roll it in glitter) just won't cut the mustard.
I'd hardly call the schiebel a 'model aircraft'.
Where has anyone said that's where the schiebel will be used...??
It's not going to replace exisiting SAR, but it will augment it.

What I don't understand is how some here can be so dismissive when they don't know what the course of the trials is going to be, the intended use, nor the outcome...

[jimf671]

I'd hardly call the schiebel a 'model aircraft'.
Where has anyone said that's where the schiebel will be used...??
It's not going to replace exisiting SAR, but it will augment it.
What I don't understand is how some here can be so dismissive when they don't know what the course of the trials is going to be, the intended use, nor the outcome...

The Schiebel has a range of about 100nm (about the same as a Sikorsky R4 :rolleyes:). What are its minima? What are the airspace constraints? (Is it on AVGAS?)

The Ebit has a long range and endurance but cruises at just over half the speed of a Sea King. Just as well it's not an emergency. No wait, it IS an emergency. :ugh:

[[email protected]]

It's not going to replace exisiting SAR, but it will augment it.
Does it actually need augmenting? This is a new(ish) toy that someone needs to invent a job for to recover R and D costs. If it can only go out on nice days it's really not much use at all.

Perhaps you should go out on a real search Nige321 before coming on here and calling us luddites.

I did the first job with the IR/TV turret on the RAF SAR Sea Kings - it was a search at night and we would not have found the guy (badly injured on a beach after a cliff fall) without the FLIR but we couldn't have saved his life by getting him to hospital quickly without the helicopter.

A drone might have found him but then what? Oh yes, call the helicopter which could have been there in the first place.

Each time you think you find something on a search, you have to investigate it closely to determine if it is who or what you are looking for - is that going to be the drone's capability? It usually requires the human eye and brain combination to work out what your sensors have seen.

Your drone is very likely to identify a number of false positives that need further investigation - then you have to drag another asset away from their search area.

Nice idea Nige but learn a bit about searching first.

[John Eacott]

A little OT but the Surf Life Saving NSW has structured their UAV programme around the task at hand, and it is operating quite successfully :ok:

Although I am probably joined by others here in curling my toes when I read the operators termed as 'pilots' :hmm: :eek:

https://www.surflifesaving.com.au/uavs-surf-life-saving

Drones | Surf Life Saving Queensland (http://lifesaving.com.au/drones/)

[finalchecksplease]

Sadly it is clear to me from what i've seen on the UKSAR2G tender it is all about reducing costs and not augmenting capabilities.
Only one aircraft / base for instance is not workable IMHO and these drones would be good to augment SAR in certain cases but not always because the problem with a search part (drone) and a rescue part (heli) is the time lost which we all know is a commodity we don't always have.

As always it looks realy good on a power point presentation especially what the cost factor is concerned .:ugh:

[Evil Twin]

No.
But I have worked on DSTL UAV projects and have seen the huge leap in capabilities over the last few years.
It's coming, like it or not...


Then your frame of reference is skewed. If you have worked on SAR you KNOW what works. Your UAV capabilities may well have made a huge leap at this point however, you still don't know whether it would be as efficient or as capable at finding the missing person. Even if you did, as the point has been made, you will still have to call in a real helicopter and flight crew to get the job finished. I have worked in conjunction with drones and I can see benefits and a great many limitations, still a very long way from replacing a SAR helicopter and crew.

[Nige321]

Then your frame of reference is skewed. If you have worked on SAR you KNOW what works. Your UAV capabilities may well have made a huge leap at this point however, you still don't know whether it would be as efficient or as capable at finding the missing person. Even if you did, as the point has been made, you will still have to call in a real helicopter and flight crew to get the job finished. I have worked in conjunction with drones and I can see benefits and a great many limitations, still a very long way from replacing a SAR helicopter and crew.

Errr... Which is the whole point of having the trial...?

I apologise for calling people Luddites.
However there does tend to be a marked reluctance by posters here to accept that there just might be better ways of doing things...

[jimf671]

Sadly it is clear to me from what i've seen on the UKSAR2G tender it is all about reducing costs and not augmenting capabilities.

Not entirely sure about that yet. Do they want value for money? Yes. Are they more interested in capability or cost saving? Look at the 2011-13 process and I think the answer is both: and capability appeared to be fairly high on the agenda.

We have about six months to go before contract notice. The industry and SAR stakeholder engagement processes are ongoing. There was no time for this in 2011-13 but we still got a world-class service out of it. If you have something to contribute then the email is on the GOV.UK site (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/second-generation-uk-search-and-rescue-aviation-programme-uksar2g) so get stuck in.

If we consider that CAP 999 v2 never appeared until over a year after contract award, NVG regs were still being written as the contract started and then all the 189 stuff, who thinks there will be a regulatory solution for a fully capable and effective remotely piloted SAR by Sept 2024? No, me neither. So the whole UAS thing might just go away for a few years. Enhanced sensors, new winch tech, new PCDS, S-92B, AW189K, perhaps, but fully capable cost-effective UAS, not so likely.

Only one aircraft / base for instance is not workable IMHO ...

Various versions of history are out there for how this happened last time. My understanding is that, in the early stages, more than one bidder was looking at around 14 to 16 aircraft for 2 sets of 5 bases. How much the 22 aircraft was about Super Puma ditchings and how much was about legacy or BHL seems to be a bit muddied????

[dingo9]

First drone footage of a person drowning, that head going under for the last time.. or a cliff sticker becoming unstuck will be a PR SH*t storm for the MCA & Govt.

It seems a clever solution looking for a problem. I probably am a bit of a Luddite but for the most part when I use a bit of ‘ ground breaking latest tech ‘ I’m disappointed, it usually breaks. With age i realise there are no short cuts and humans actually do things very well, we have an instinct that only comes with experience and being actually there.

[[email protected]]

The Australian surf lifesaving stuff is a very different concept to searching it would appear. They will use it to patrol from the air for sharks in a relatively restricted area and use a skyshout facility for swimmers and surfers who can't hear the megaphones from the guys on the beach.

This sounds like a far more realistic and practical use for a drone.

Reluctance to change that which does not need changing is not a bad thing in many areas. Constant change is not progress no matter how much management-speak accompanies it.

[ericferret]

We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we would be reorganised. … I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganising; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation.”

Anon

[Roger Committed]

I have always been of the mind that a successful SAR system is not purely about range or speed but the number of assets. Once tasked, a SAR cab can't be 2 places at once, which is where ARCC will prioritise. In terms of the UAVs most posters with a SAR background are dwelling on the negatives rather than looking at the positives. It could be used as a force enabler if tasked alongside a SAR helicopter for those long overwater searches. A greater area could be covered much quicker with more assets and with a SAR cab close at hand anything spotted by UAV could be quickly checked out. One other aspect of searching is to prove that nothing was found in the area searched, especially on those jobs where there is doubt that someone needs rescuing at all (clothes found on beach etc). Again, Coastguard and ARCC could prioritise and rather than send a SAR crew out in the middle of the night they could deploy the UAV. That said, I agree with all the issues over weather and the like. There are many limitations but used in the right way it could work well.
RC

[[email protected]]

Roger - the problem is that you have to stop the SAR aircaft searching in order to investigate anything the UAV 'sees' which might prevent the helicopter locating the actual target. For every time this happens, you have lost your 'force enabler/multiplier.

Things like clothes found on a beach normally require detective work by the crew along with the CG and police - a UAV can't land on and ask a member of the public if they have seen anything.

You are not going to improve the quality or effectiveness of searches by using UAVs but you might reduce the cost and tick some 'area searched' boxes which could keep the beancounters happy.

Are the UAVs going to rely solely on AI or will there need to be a human operator staring for hours at the downlinked images as well?

[Roger Committed]

Crab, history is littered with doomsayers. There may be an element of cost saving involved but it is also another string to the bow. Don't be like those Whirlwind guys who said the Wessex was too big or the Wessex guys who said the Sea King wouldn't get into places they could in the mountains and the downwash was too severe. Give this a chance and you might be surprised. Many years ago I was involved in a search, at night, for a man and his son, missing in their very small fishing boat out of Sunderland. It was pre-FLIR and we, along with the RNLI, conducted the search and found nothing. The next morning a Nimrod was tasked and they found them 40nm off the coast. We were called from our beds and picked them up, safe and well. Different types of assets can work well together, give it a chance. Don't forget, people are still getting rescued despite the demise of military SAR.
RC

[[email protected]]

Roger - I'm not a doomsayer, simply one who has spent many years carrying out many searches, from Wessex with no sensors but the Mk 1 eyeball to the Sea King with a FLIR/TV turret and an autopilot that could fly the aircraft around a search area (Mk3A).

Inevitably, technology improves the quality of the sensors used but the SAR helos will have the best available anyway with the added benefit of having human beings to interpret and investigate sightings immediately.

There may be one search in a couple of hundred where a drone may be of limited additional use - unless you want to use the drone instead of a helicopter to be able to say you have 'searched' an area and tick it off the list.

Far better to invest the money in improving the search planning programs so they can produce more accurate, smaller and more precise search boxes rather than the blunderbuss approach often used at the moment. I lost count of the number of times the CG computer created massive search areas that were so improbable and easily disproven by assets on scene. Will the UAVs be able to make decisions to amend the search area based on the actual (rather than predicted) conditions on scene, local knowledge of tides and races etc?

I like new technology but UAVs are not new, the sensors they will use are not new and I would far rather have one more helicopter to search with than several UAVs.

Just because it looks new and shiny and AI is the new religion for techno investors, doesn't make this a good or practical idea.

We used to have Sea KIngs with a phenomenal radar that could detect a periscope in the water (or fins of dolphins and whales as I have seen before) - this was replaced with a lesser system because 360 radar was old fashioned and dinosaurs like me had to move on.......

[trim it out]

Will the UAVs be able to make decisions to amend the search area based on the actual (rather than predicted) conditions on scene, local knowledge of tides and races etc?

Just because it looks new and shiny and AI is the new religion for techno investors, doesn't make this a good or practical idea.
The UAVs are operated by humans with downlink. Trained operators, maybe even pilots, perhaps with much SAR experience but sitting in an environment with a bigger capacity seat than a helicopter.

The technology has been used to search for humans for a while now, difference being most of them didn’t want to be found because they ended up getting lifted or waxed.

[[email protected]]

The UAVs are operated by humans with downlink. Trained operators, maybe even pilots, perhaps with much SAR experience but sitting in an environment with a bigger capacity seat than a helicopter.

The technology has been used to search for humans for a while now, difference being most of them didn’t want to be found because they ended up getting lifted or waxed.

I'm not dismissing the operator training, nor the fact that you can detect people with the technology - I mentioned earlier that I did the first RAF SAR job with the FLIR systems turret and have been repeatedly impressed by its capability.

My point is that with one sensor on a UAV (FLIR/TV turret I am surmising), you are only able to search what the camera can see (whether in autoscan or manual) and, just like a helicopter, the height and speed will have to be adjusted (along with the track spacing) to match the conditions to what you are searching for.

The flexibility of a helicopter vs a UAV is the ability to slow down and go down to investigate possible sightings - a regular part of any search - all the technology and operator training won't match that

A well trained person in a comfy chair miles from the scene will never be as effective as the same person in a helicopter cockpit or cabin actually on scene.

But someone will see a shiny toy and potential cost savings, buy it and then leave it in the hangar because it can't do what is promised.

[trim it out]

My point is that with one sensor on a UAV (FLIR/TV turret I am surmising), you are only able to search what the camera can see (whether in autoscan or manual) and, just like a helicopter, the height and speed will have to be adjusted (along with the track spacing) to match the conditions to what you are searching for.
So we agree it can provide the same as a manned RW platform operating IMC with a sensor suite.

The flexibility of a helicopter vs a UAV is the ability to slow down and go down to investigate possible sightings - a regular part of any search - all the technology and operator training won't match that
The Camcopter trialed by Bristows/HMCG is a RW platform.

A well trained person in a comfy chair miles from the scene will never be as effective as the same person in a helicopter cockpit or cabin actually on scene
I have to disagree. People sat in air conditioned boxes in Creech/Bastion have saved the lives of myself and my colleagues in the past. Just because it’s one sensor with multiple overlays, doesn’t mean it’s only one set of eyes. The human factor of one person scanning an area and finding nothing does not mean there is nothing there.

I used to be like you Crab, always believed in boots on the ground. Then I remembered that “tools in the toolbox” quote and integrated it into the plan rather than just having them on station because they were on the ATO (although UAV operators didn’t tend to gob off as much as manned ISTAR when they were left in the wheel at 10k). It complimented the other assets, but if there was something dodgy going on in two places and I only had one pair of jets/helis, then I tasked UAVs, both big ones with bombs and little hand thrown ones with a camera straight off a 2004 Nokia phone to go and check it out and that further developed the plan. Things that would not have been achieved as quickly with only a manned heli on station no matter how many pairs of eyes were looking out the windows.

But, at the end of the day, you can’t argue tactics and we both have our operational experiences to back our leanings so doubt we will ever agree on this one :ok:

[[email protected]]

So we agree it can provide the same as a manned RW platform operating IMC with a sensor suite. You are not going to be searchin for much IMC - you do know FLIR doesn't see through cloud and fog?

If the RW Camcopter is the answer, what is its range, speed and endurance?

Don't conflate the clear success of UAVs in the war-fighting role with the very different conditions (and very varied terrain and weather) of SAR searches.

[trim it out]

You are not going to be searchin for much IMC - you do know FLIR doesn't see through cloud and fog?
So why is it used for flying through low vis conditions?

If the RW Camcopter is the answer, what is its range, speed and endurance?Took me 1 minute to find that out on their website.

Don't conflate the clear success of UAVs in the war-fighting role with the very different conditions (and very varied terrain and weather) of SAR searches.
Varied terrain and weather conditions? Yes, Afghanistan had those too.

Like I said, you have your views, I have mine.

[[email protected]]

So why is it used for flying through low vis conditions? not when that low vis is due to cloud, fog or rain - pretty standard searching conditions for UKSAR. IR sensors need thermal contrast to see differences is radiated energy - if what you are looking for is effectively the same temperature as the background you won't see it. Water vapour massively attenuates thermal contrast. You must have been briefed on thermal crossover in Afghan.

Took me 1 minute to find that out on their website. you miss my point - this is being touted as an asset for searching large areas of Sea - range and endurance become very important.

Varied terrain and weather conditions? Yes, Afghanistan had those too. Remind me just how much sea Afghanistan has again????? Just because the technology works against ground targets in Afghan doesn't make it a must have for UKSAR.

People who want to argue the validity of this system in UKSAR need at least to have tried searching over land and sea, day and night and in poor weather beforehand.

Searching to kill is not the same game as searching to rescue.

[trim it out]

not when that low vis is due to cloud, fog or rain - pretty standard searching conditions for UKSAR. IR sensors need thermal contrast to see differences is radiated energy - if what you are looking for is effectively the same temperature as the background you won't see it. Water vapour massively attenuates thermal contrast. You must have been briefed on thermal crossover in Afghan.
Yes, and as a pilot using sensors in temperate environments. It’s still better (edit: in many situations) than the eyeball in skoshie conditions.
you miss my point - this is being touted as an asset for searching large areas of Sea - range and endurance become very important.There are UAVs with endurance and range that far exceed anything a helicopter can achieve without AAR.

Remind me just how much sea Afghanistan has again????? Just because the technology works against ground targets in Afghan doesn't make it a must have for UKSAR.
Is UK SAR restricted to maritime only? Look how many call outs there have been in the ginners weather the UK has had recently. Tools in the toolbox again.
People who want to argue the validity of this system in UKSAR need at least to have tried searching over land and sea, day and night and in poor weather beforehand.

Searching to kill is not the same game as searching to rescue.
It’s not. But that doesn’t mean capabilities can’t be brought across from other disciplines. As a Find asset, UAVs are a force multiplier and will only get better. Of course there will be bumps and chicanes along the way, that’s the nature of R&D. Acceptance is key as they tell you on SERE.

[[email protected]]

So, back to reality for a moment.

The Schneibel website mentions 6 hours endurance at 55 kts but all of the trials it highlights have been from a shipborne launch and recovery - where is HMCG getting the number of boats required for this?

So the other option is to launch it from the same base as the SAR helicopter using either a ground station or having the operator on the aircraft. Both current SAR aircraft will go to a search or rescue scene at least at 140 Kts - how far behind will the UAV be?

Our UK SAR bases are located specifically to achieve the required response times to cover their area of operation and are often a long transit from the job.

So, if you don't have them on ships (because we don't have any) and basing them at UKSAR helicopter bases is impractical - you are left with either bespoke ground stations/launch and recovery sites around the UK or you shoehorn the operators into the existing but somewhat reduced number of HMCG stations.

I'm not saying you can't find someone with a UAV - it might be more useful to the police for mispers overland - but if you are only going to use it in nice conditions it won't get much use in the UK.

Yes, and as a pilot using sensors in temperate environments. It’s still better (edit: in many situations) than the eyeball in skoshie conditions. Yes, as a pilot using sensors to back up the Mk 1 eyeball I agree but that is augmenting the eyeball not replacing it.

Have you ever conducted a search in UK either overland or at sea, day or night, in good weather or foul? I have to ask because you sound like an Army UAV operator who has had great success on Ops in Afghan, desperate to ply his trade in a home environment.

One reason I am so resistant, apart from the clear practical issues, is that UKSAR doesn't need beancounters finding ways to reduce flying hours or numbers of aircraft and crews - this will inevitably lead to a reduction is the quality of service, the likes of which have been seen in the NPAS fiasco.

You don't seem to understand that we already have the best sensors on the existing aircraft along with NVD and 4 sets of eyes - on a platform that can actually rescue anyone it finds - the UAV just doesn't bring anything new to the party.

[peely]

The name is Schiebel and the S-100 has a VNE of 120 knots and normal cruise of 100 Knots.

Endurance figures are from typical mission profiles using time to target area, time on Scene and return to base. You may be interested to know that over 100,000 hours have now been flown and many of those are land based operations.

[[email protected]]

The name is Schiebel and the S-100 has a VNE of 120 knots and normal cruise of 100 Knots.

Endurance figures are from typical mission profiles using time to target area, time on Scene and return to base. You may be interested to know that over 100,000 hours have now been flown and many of those are land based operations.

The Scheibel website says 120 Kts with a VNE of 130 but also that the max endurance speed is 55 Kts.

I'm sure it is a proven platform for many applications but I come back to the question of how it will be used in the UKSAR role overland or over water. It seems that they are using it at Caernavon as 'overwatch' to provide more info to the CG - sounds a bit 'long-handled screwdriver' to me, SAR crews are more than capable of giving the CG all the info they need - or they could just add a downlink to the helicopters capability.

I would be interested in the crews feedback since having to worry about another air vehicle when you are working hard in poor weather or at night trying to find the casualty just sounds hazardous.

One of the reasons TDAs were established around SAROps was to keep other aircraft away and now the CG wants to put one of its own in there. Hmmm - just let the crews do their job.

There doesn't seem to be an answer to my question about having to take another SAR asset away from its search to investigate anything the UAV finds (or thinks it has found).

I know I am fighting the inevitable - again - but any success of the UAVs will be used to drive down the use of helicopters to save money and create a false illusion of safety for the land and seas of the UK. If that is what you want then crack on.

[sycamore]

Is there any information on the weather limits applicable in terms of IMC,icing especially,as it`s a piston engine,as the UK`s weather can be anywhere from balmy,to barmy....?
I can see it being deployed/based in areas remote from dedicated SAR units as a Search asset until the real troops arrive for the `rescue`.It should also be remembered that 4 pairs of eyes,4 brains,and collective local knowledge of weather,local MRT,lifeboat crews, even intuition `outside the box`,etc play the biggest part of a successful rescue.....

[[email protected]]

From the Director UK SAR “These systems provide us with an option to keep our Sikorsky S92 helicopter crew at Caernarfon on standby for lifesaving events, while the unmanned aircraft are tasked with providing safety overwatch and monitoring which those manned aircraft would otherwise have been sent to carry out.

[trim it out]

I have to ask because you sound like an Army UAV operator who has had great success on Ops in Afghan, desperate to ply his trade in a home environment.
My background is JTAC with Recce units in Afghanistan turned Army RW pilot.

I think we will just end up going round in circles Crab. I have a lot of respect for SAR boys and girls and I do understand your point of view, I’m just trying to put across that UAVs aren’t trying to steal trade off aircrew and are the ginger step kids that actually have something useful to bring to the party and will have more when the tech continues to mature :) It will take time to develop the TTPs and confidence (find me a pilot that is comfortable with UAVs knocking about at the same height/area) but I think it will get there.

[[email protected]]

Trimitout - see my quote above from the Director UKSAR - taking trade from aircrew is exactly what this initiative is about - keep the expensive to run asset on the ground until it is absolutely needed.

I don't doubt the value of UAVs - another tool is always welcome in the toolbox but that isn't how this is being pushed - the vision seems to be of a multitude of drones patrolling the UK shores and perhaps inland hotspots and only launching a helicopter when there is clear need for a rescue. Ambitious senior execs exist in all industries and areas and they are always about empire-building and land-grabbing but it is often wrapped up in vague altruism about improving safety or service.

What the UK actually needs IS more boots on the ground with expert local knowledge, not an operator with a camera pi**ing off beachgoers and hillwalkers with drone surveillance.

If you fly round the coast of UK, you can see how many empty Coastguard lookouts there are - a precious few still manned by volunteers - all victims of cost cutting and efficiencies imposed by management who know the cost of everything but the value of nothing. It's only a few years that full-time CG units were shut.

How long before drones are used to stop frequent MRT call outs, waiting until the casualty is located and then sending help - not good for the casualty who has to wait longer for medical help.

I have the greatest respect for the job you guys did in Afghan and I'm glad it provided a route into RW for you - enjoy.

I note with interest that the Director UKSAR Bristow, who made the quoted comments, is an ex-FJ pilot - perfect for overseeing RW operations!!!!

[jimf671]

We are in a very early stages of the process leading to the new contract and it will be interesting to observe how many of the new ideas will still be there when the Contract Notice is published in about six months time. Even more interesting to observe how many of those ideas are still around six months after that when they have been subjected to some detailed scrutiny.

Small Unmanned Aircraft are now a part of Scottish Mountain Rescue's SAR toolkit. Internationally, ICAR are setting up a dedicated group to examine their use. That technology will not develop sitting on the shelf. We need to get it out there and find out what it will do. However, I share many of Crab's reservations.

No number of found missing persons in benign rural locations 100m from a road in good light will persuade me of the wider SAR value of unmanned systems. For these to be valuable, there needs to be significant progress in developing new working methods and new capabilities that add significant value.

Value? Now, what is the value? Current contract fixed cost: £1 600 497 465. Estimated variable cost (expectation 2015): £282 440 729. So that £282M is a lot of money but if you are still sending out the helicopter to do the 'posh hovering' later on many occasions, and too late on some occasions, then I am not convinced that one could make much of a dent in the £282M with current technology using current working methods.

Looking at the Schiebel Camcopter, it has Sea King speed and a 50kg payload that probably allows for a good FLIR ball and associated electronics. It has the range of a Westland Dragonfly so chasing after it to put fuel in it might be an issue.

The Elbit Hermes 900 has far greater range and payload and is now available with a rescue payload that enables it to drop rafts and other equipment near persons in distress. However, that range and payload is rather dependent on its cruising speed of 60 knots.

Where I believe search capability can be enhanced is in sensor capability. Two areas in particular have been identified as potentially major steps forwards during the next few years to help bring to bear the Mark One Eyeball onto the target.

1. Mobile phone detection.
Several makers across Europe now have mature systems for detecting and interacting with phones. One of those is being deployed by the Norwegians as part of NAWSARH. The Recco SAR underslung sensor also has the capability of detecting phones and other electronic devices in a very basic way.

2. Spectral Imaging
The ability to detect specific substances by their spectral signature is an established system for agricultural crop monitoring across much of the world. Once this is refined in a way that makes it an in-flight real-time process instead of an office-based post-processing method then we will have an awesome SAR tool. Several manufacturers and researchers across the world are aware of this potential or even conducting search experiments and trials.

================================================

I note with interest that the Director UKSAR Bristow, who made the quoted comments, is an ex-FJ pilot - perfect for overseeing RW operations!!!!

And ex-SAR base Station Commander.
To quote an experienced SAR Captain in a conversation at a Bristow SAR Base, "Russ gets it!"

I would really like you to be FAIR to the incumbent SAR contractor Crab. Their SAR crews and chain of command are dominated by highly experienced aircrew of varied provenance who bring a range of relevant tools to the task. Moreover, I commend them for their openness and their constructive approach (not universal amongst helicopter contractors) which has contributed considerably to the quality of the current service. It will be a serious loss if the next contractor does not demonstrate the same communications skills with the wider SAR community.

[OvertHawk]

I think your all staying inside the box This is a Maritime AND Coastguard contract.. SAR is only a small part of the responsibilities
Yes the toy helicopter Bristow is using is disappointing in many aspects but its a start. I envisaged drone use and overwatch on a more wide area
Say 2 machines on 48 hour high altitude patrol . 1 north 1 south doing mundane pollution and fisheries patrol until called for on a vessel in distress for example .
You can have a bun fight over the toy but fisheries ,pollution and the little devils crossing the channel thats Drone work in my mind.

No... It's a Maritime and Coastguard SAR contract. SAR is the entirety of the responsibilities. MCA surveillance is covered by other assets and contracts.

[[email protected]]

Jim, I'm more than happy to be fair to the Director, he seems to have a good standing among colleagues who have worked there - they still don't pay the guys who do the dangerous and difficult stuff on SAR enough though.

Perhaps I have just seen too many senior officers claim to have 'got it' and then sell you down the river when their careers get prioritised.

Low fat - I am with you regarding the best use of the UAVs but there probably should be some crossover so that surveillance of our waters is a full time activity with drones which could then be re-tasked when conditions and the job suits.

Having a UAV assisting with a search from higher altitude while the helicopter is operating to IAMSAR protocols (usually much lower) will be a useful additional capability but UK weather might preclude that much of the time.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

You are not going to improve the quality or effectiveness of searches by using UAVs

How can you claim that without ever trying it? What none of the old guard have admitted is how tired (and bored) human eyes and brains get during a search, especially over large tracts of water. The fatigue on the IR operator in particular is well documented - and while the IR operator is looking at the screen, that's only three sets of eyes out of the window. A drone doesn't suffer in the same way, but it has a variety of limitations of its own. It's sad but entirely predictable that this is being seen in terms of black and white (pun intended) - can we really not have a slightly more nuanced view which accepts that the two assets both have strengths and weaknesses, and in some situations might even complement each other quite nicely?

[[email protected]]

TOTD - you clearly didn't read the last line from my last post then.

I have colleagues who have experience with UAVs using cutting edge technology and the scenario I mentioned is the most likely way to improve search efficiency.

Don't try to replace or replicate the helicopter search protocols with UAVs, use them for what they do best - large area, high altitude scanning with multiple sensors.

You don't have to tell me about search and fatigue - a 4-hour search of Swansea Bay on NVD in a 200' cloudbase and p8ssing rain was one of the most tiring ones I have done - but a UAV would have been of no help in those conditions.

[jimf671]

... ... - they still don't pay the guys who do the dangerous and difficult stuff on SAR enough though.


I think we're on the same page with that.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

TOTD - you clearly didn't read the last line from my last post then.

You don't have to tell me about search and fatigue - a 4-hour search of Swansea Bay on NVD in a 200' cloudbase and p8ssing rain was one of the most tiring ones I have done - but a UAV would have been of no help in those conditions.

I'm not trying to tell you about search fatigue - I'm merely pointing it out seeing as you had forgotten to mention it! As it happens, I did make it to the last line of your previous post, but it was a previous sweeping statement with which I took issue. Obviously!

[[email protected]]

Obviously :)